Pseudonym101
Posts 2
Comments18
I did not know Kathy well, but I did meet and talk with her at length on a number of occasions in EA/aligned spaces. We talked about cultural issues in the movement and for what it is worth, she came across as someone of good character, good judgement and measured takes.
I am not across the particulars of her accusations and I feel matters like this have a place, actual courts and not forums. I don't think cherry picked criticisms of her claims are appropriate.
I think EA will continue to stumble on this issue, and our downfall as a movement will continue to be handling deontologicaly or virtuously abhorrent behaviour.
I think the author of this forum post has been points of great importance. In particular, their critique of the style of writing required to be taken seriously and understood in the manner intended, is novel.
This is an exceptional write-up. Thank you. I have learned a lot from it I'll be able to apply right away!
Yes I implore readers to defer to common sense here. The face validity of there results is poor and I would suggest further work is done to improve the survey methodology, understanding people's understanding of the question and how they'd change their response in relation to a political campaign where there would be a saturation of information from very powerful commercial agricultural interests. I'm sick of seeing EA making political blunders.
The communication norms of the movement either have created the movement's impotence relative to its potential or have been powerless to change that. I think we should be prepared to challenge EAs cultish mistakes even if we'll get downvoted for it
SBF could have liquiditated and redistributed earlier rather than continuing to build risky leverage. This is true of any billionaire that may claim they're trying to hoard more because they can in the long run then donate more
Redistribution - I think the tacit endorsement of extreme inequality of means by the movement could be net negative long run