Effective Altruists Use Threats and Harassment to Silence Their Critics(www.realtimetechpocalypse.com)
20 pointsby konmok9 hours ago3 comments
  • Arnt8 hours ago
    Didn't that book suggest that a single building used 20% of the water in South America? Amazingly sloppy.

    I really do think that people should be careful about what they say in public and measure their words. And further, I think that the author of that book ought to be silent on that particular subject.

    • konmok6 hours ago
      Your comment kinda proves the article's point, don't you think? I mean, obviously your comment doesn't constitute a threat or harassment, but it does demonstrate the weird double standard and unbalanced scrutiny that the article describes.
    • rendx7 hours ago
      Interesting how you seem to see nothing inherently wrong in the provided quotes that call for violence against people of different opinion, but decided to only critique the person that admitted a mistake without aggression against anyone else, and demand they be (forever?) silent about a topic they seem interested in.

      Why would you ever want to demand that someone "stay silent" about anything. Taking away somebody's voice is the lowest of the low. You do not have to read it or interact with it if you don't like it. And how would you want to be treated when you make a mistake? Can't you see how that leads straight to a world of zero progress, where people are afraid to do anything because it could turn out to be a mistake and they will be shunned for it by those that happen to have the most power? Are you not aware of the research into how bad punishment is for learning and advancement of society?

      Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2022). Ostracism and social exclusion: Implications for separation, social isolation, and loss. Current opinion in psychology, 47, 101353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101353

      Knapton, H. M. (2014). The Recruitment and Radicalisation of Western Citizens: Does Ostracism Have a Role in Homegrown Terrorism?. Journal of European Psychology Students, 5(1), 38-48. https://doi.org/10.5334/jeps.bo

  • Trasmatta8 hours ago
    Turns out you can justify all sorts of reprehensible behavior when you convince yourself it's for "the greater good"

    They learned the wrong lesson from Death Note

  • konmok8 hours ago
    I find this really frustrating because I like the idea of "make a lot of money, then give most of it away to make the world better for everyone". But it seems like most of the people who proudly call themselves "effective altruists" are just heartless tech bros that toss their money into useless AGI cults.
    • themafia5 hours ago
      How about just "build a good company and give most of the profits to the workers."

      I just saved you several steps and opportunities for graft and corruption. Let's call it "immediate altruism."

      • konmok5 hours ago
        Well, that doesn't really align with my interests, education, personality, or skills[1]. I do appreciate that criticism, but I'm looking for ways to give back that don't require abandoning my chosen career. I think there's a middle ground, basically.

        [1]: What I mean is, I don't want to build my own company, and if I did, it would be in a very niche area that wouldn't directly benefit the people that most need help.

      • dfe2 hours ago
        This is a time-tested winning strategy that too few corporate owners embrace.

        When you look at some of the most well-known industrial companies, their founders basically did this.

        Difficulty: give away too much of the company trying to raise capital and most investors won't let you do this. Of course, you aren't really the owner then anymore, are you?

        I think that's the allure of effective altruism. You founded a company or were early enough in a company to have enough shares to sell to investors. Those investors want big returns. The company is now at their mercy, but hey, they gave you a pile of cash so you can spend it on feeling good.

      • listenallyall4 hours ago
        Why the workers and not the customers, let's say? Workers have little risk, they get paid a salary regardless of the company's fortunes (unless the company is so awful it goes out of business). The customers who believed in the company enough to give them money, that seems more worthy of future compensation (via profit-sharing, as per your example).
    • plastic-enjoyer7 hours ago
      EA is a neat philosophy to make greed and fraud seem principled.