All of President Red's Comments + Replies

(Video) You (Probably) Shouldn't Go To College

I encourage you to concede that going to college is actually a benefit for most people.

But you literally provided no evidence of such a claim.

2nathan980009mo
https://youtu.be/xECUrlnXCqk
(Video) You (Probably) Shouldn't Go To College

Your argument is that you don't have to go to college to be a successful. Therefore, you probably shouldn't go to college.
 

Actually, my argument was that people in general shouldn't go to college because they'll major in useless crap. I don't really think anyone should major in art stuff frankly (and other things).

You COULD be successful, but in this day and age college is a waste of time for arts (as I said, you do better by doing things you like and going at your own pace rather than doing something some pretentious jackoff assigned to you. Also sho... (read more)

1nathan980009mo
You three days ago: You yesterday: I think it's fair for me to characterize your argument as: I agree that this discussion is unlikely to lead to anything productive. I encourage you to concede that going to college is actually a benefit for most people.
(Video) You (Probably) Shouldn't Go To College

You explicitly say at the start of your video that you recommend people go into psychology...

Right but I also said in my response to you:

"Social sciences" and a lot of psychology 

 

You also use images of art supplies in your video whenever you say the word "art".

It was a type of shorthand. I actually wanted to use other pictures for "studies" degrees but Pixabay is fairly limited.

It seems goal-post shifting to now claim you were actually referring to liberal arts in general. 

I thought it was implied when I said art degree and when I didn't me... (read more)

1nathan980009mo
You're missing the analogy. Your argument is that you don't have to go to college to be successful. Therefore, you probably shouldn't go to college. My argument is that you don't have to use your right hand to be successful. Therefore, you probably shouldn't use your right hand. Both of these are bad arguments. A better argument would be: The benefit gained from getting an art degree is not worth the cost of college. But 1) this would require actually looking at the numbers, and 2) the numbers would probably suggest that college is a good investment (even for art majors).
(Video) You (Probably) Shouldn't Go To College

It is misleading. The title is "You (Probably) Shouldn't Go To College." But you complain specifically about arts, language, and literature majors at private universities. This is not most people who go to college.

It's actually for most art degrees in general, which includes nonsense degrees like "Gender Studies" and most sociology. Since these things are soft sciences they're counted as art degrees instead of proper STEM.

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37

Most of these are not STEM or Med-School.

"Social sciences" and a lot of psychology are so... (read more)

1nathan980009mo
You explicitly say at the start of your video that you recommend people go into psychology... You also use images of art supplies in your video whenever you say the word "art". You also talk about getting paints from Michael's as a substitute for an arts education. It seems goal-post shifting to now claim you were actually referring to liberal arts in general. It also doesn't at all address the fact that most college students don't go to private universities. I don't have to use my right hand to be successful. But it would be silly to make a video called "You (Probably) Shouldn't Use Your Right Hand".
(Video) You (Probably) Shouldn't Go To College

First, the video seems contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. For example, the title of the video is "You (Probably) Shouldn't Go To College" even though you seem to limit your criticisms to art, language, and literature majors at private universities. In other words, you clickbaited the title so people would go in looking for an angry disagreement. 

Of course it's clickbait, and I don't see anything wrong with using clickbait titles as long as they aren't misleading. I didn't intend for people to go in angry just looking at the title, and I don'... (read more)

3nathan980009mo
It is misleading. The title is "You (Probably) Shouldn't Go To College." But you complain specifically about arts, language, and literature majors at private universities. This is not most people who go to college. Asserting that humanities professors are pretentious jackoffs with dumbass interpretations is more easily interpreted as angry venting than as reasonable argument. Think of it like this: People care if you graduated top of your class with a music degree from Julliard. Is it stupid? Maybe, but that's how it is. I didn't make the rules.
(Video) How to be a less crappy person

My best attempt to interpret your view was something like "non-controversial content can work, but controversial content is almost always better". 

Right, that's what I was saying.

My response was to point out that the most successful communicators of EA have typically been "non-controversial" in their delivery, even if some of EA's core ideas are inherently radical. 

EA as a movement isn't a particularly mainstream thing (unlike Veganism, which is moreso). I think it'd be interesting to see how a less diplomatic figure in the community spreads the ... (read more)

(Video) How to be a less crappy person

My experience talking to people within animal advocacy is that PETA tends to be seen as more embarrassing than effective — a mishmash of campaigns that end up making the animal movement seem gimmicky, without much in the way of clear impact.

But how many people see the articles? Say about a million people saw their silly article, and only 1% of people actually stuck around their website and learn more about veganism with the rest brushing it off as ridiculous. That's ten thousand people who just might reduce their consumption of animal products and will con... (read more)

4Aaron Gertler9mo
I was responding literally to your question: "Can a person going with a nice-guy approach really have the same impact as someone being controversial?" My best attempt to interpret your view was something like "non-controversial content can work, but controversial content is almost always better". My response was to point out that the most successful communicators of EA have typically been "non-controversial" in their delivery, even if some of EA's core ideas are inherently radical. I hope that I spoke to your intended point, and I'm sorry if I didn't. A few possible responses to this: * If the goal is to eventually have almost everyone go meatless, there's some value in pushing a message that more people respond to in the long term. Having 10% of the population go meatless for 20 years < having 50% go meatless for 5 years. * This model is clearly oversimplified, as a set of initial supporters might help to convert others — but on the other hand, if you can get a lot of people to spread a message in their "local" setting, shouldn't that message be the one that works on the highest percentage of people, because total reach isn't as much of a concern? * The math here is complicated and entirely hypothetical, which means that the more convincing point (to me) is: * Whichever supporters respond to your messaging are the supporters you end up with. * If your brand is controversy, drama, and snark, you get a lot of people who enjoy controversy, drama, and snark. * If your brand is positive, welcoming, and low-key, you get some smaller number of people who will tend to be more positive, welcoming, and low-key. * Some movements might prefer the former, others the latter. Based on my extremely limited knowledge of the history of social movements, long-term success seems like it usually comes from the latter, since movements built on the former tend to fracture and fragment a
(Video) How to be a less crappy person

(I'm not sure if you'd get a notification for my reply to Koen so I'll send a direct reply just in case) 

Thanks for the compliment, though I think the editing style is a bit simplistic right now, mainly because I'm focusing on getting videos out as quickly as possible at the moment. Later down the line I'm hoping to have the budget for more produced videos.

(Video) How to be a less crappy person

Hey thanks for the comment. I explained to @Harrison D my mindset behind why I was being less than polite in my video if you're curious to it.

I actually think the video is missing a few things, but thanks for the encouragement, I don't have that many resources available to me right now so this is basically the best I can do! :P

(Video) How to be a less crappy person

Hey, thanks for the comment, I was starting to think no one was going to respond.

I totally understand your concerns, and if this were a few years ago I'd probably completely agree with you, but I think there's something to be said about the effectiveness of being controversial and not very politically correct. Lemme explain my mindset behind my behavior if you will.

Think about it this way: The problem with altruism (and I would add veganism to that) in general is that so many people are uninformed/misinformed about it, that reaching them at all is hard eno... (read more)

2Quinn McHugh (he/him)9mo
While I think there's some merit to the argument you put forth here, I think it discounts how much of a negative impact content that errs on the side of controversial can have on people's inclinations towards an organization/idea/thing. Yes, controversial (i.e. polarizing) content tends to reach farther in certain circles, thereby increasing the likelihood of capturing people who were already inclined to join a given movement, but it can just as easily build opposition to a movement, which can become a serious hindrance to a movement's community health and growth in the long-term. If you haven't come across it, I'd recommend checking out Owen Cotton-Barrat's "How valuable is movement growth?" [http://globalprioritiesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/MovementGrowth.pdf] for more on this idea.

My experience talking to people within animal advocacy is that PETA tends to be seen as more embarrassing than effective — a mishmash of campaigns that end up making the animal movement seem gimmicky, without much in the way of clear impact.

Can a person going with a nice-guy approach really have the same impact as someone being controversial?

Yes, easily!

There are lots of human feelings you can successfully reach aside from "anger" or "(eats popcorn)". Controversial content sometimes sells, but so does other content! 

  • An Inconvenient Truth is a movie ab
... (read more)
2Khorton9mo
I agree with Harrison that free attention isn't always a blessing!
Open Thread: July 2021

Thanks! I think so far that's my best video.

I don't really have any inspiration, I'm just kinda going along with it. I use a Blue Raspberry Microphone and clean it up in Audacity.

Open Thread: July 2021

Hey, I learned about effective altruism from Singer's Ted Talk, and also reading MacAskill's book.

I'm primarily focused on animal ethics, as I think it's an issue that's often forgotten about. I also have concerns with climate change, but for me it's secondary to animal issues (either way focusing on animal issues helps with climate change, which is why I believe it to be more important).

That being said, I also make a point in discussing the importance of individual action, and how an unwillingness to accept responsibility is the cause of so many of our is... (read more)

1Madhav Malhotra10mo
I like your quick cuts and funny style :D I watched the video about how individuals have personal responsibility for climate change. What is the inspiration behind your style? How do you have such clean audio? :O