One reason to think we might not find anything morally valuable that distinct from what we already know about is that our concept of morality is made to fit with the stuff we already know about. 

I have a much more positive feelings about EAs than rationalists, and I think this is quite normal for people who came to EA from outside rationalism. I mean, I actually liked the vast majority of rationalists I've met a lot-when I worked in a rationalist office in Prague it had a lovely culture-but I think only about .5 of rationalists like EA as an idea, and my suspicion is that "dislikes EA" amongst rationalists correlates fairly heavily with "has political views that make me uncomfortable". 

One thing it might be useful for people to look at here when reflecting on the causes of the failure was how much experience the HR team had of working outside of EA organizations. If the answer is "very little" then maybe bringing in more experienced non-EA pros would help, but if the answer is "a decent amount" it's less likely that will prevent future errors on its own. 

Might they just be lying about the numbers? 

I'm not sure democracy arguments work that well for military stuff. The people who military actions are going to be deployed against are extremely obvious stakeholders, but they get no input into any feasible "democratic" process that determines what the US military does, and procedural democracy is compatible with the US doing literally anything to non-citizens to advance US interests. Given that, attempting to restrain the US military in ways that are legal and non-deceptive doesn't seem that procedurally dubious to me. 

There is absolutely no necessity for anyone to be "monsters" in order for the picture painted in Frances post to be accurate and her anger justified though. 

All your contributions in this thread seem to be marked by the idea that people would have to be unusually bad in some way to fail to deal well with sexual harassment. But I don't see why we should be particularly confident that the base rate of orgs dealing  badly with sexual misconduct, in ways that-*correctly*-look really bad to outsiders when the facts come out is all that low. There have been numerous cases where schools, universities, religious institutions etc. have covered up far worse conduct than Riley's: i.e. sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic church as one example among many. Now, of course, we typically don't hear about the cases where sexual harassment or abuse was promptly identified and the perpetrator fired/imprisoned, unless the perpetrator was independently famous. And there are a lot of people and institutions in the world, so maybe those cases are way more common. But I don't see any particular reason to be confident of that. 

More importantly. this isn't even EA's first scandal where a major org themselves admitted they dealt badly with sexual misconduct: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/4CBoJ5jgmGfdMFnAE/ev-investigation-into-owen-and-community-health In the face of that, I don't see why we should find it particularly implausible that in another case, an EA org dealt badly with sexual misconduct. 

But also, people are generally very good at avoiding believing things that are extremely inconvenient for them, without really noticing they are doing it, and without conscious malice. Most of us are much better at doing this in my view than we think we are. When HR originally received Riley's doc, they had a choice between 1) trying to start sexual harassment proceedings against him, and 2) overlooking the fact that what he had written about Frances was wholly inappropriate, and possibly malicious, and concentrating on his own complaints. Doing 2) was no doubt made easier by the fact that the doc was apparently not "about" Frances specifically. Now, if they took choice 1), that was a lot of hassle and unpleasantness for them:

A) Potentially having to directly punish Riley. People don't generally like significantly deliberately harming people they know,  and have no personal beef with, and will avoid it if they can. This is maybe especially true of the kind of friendly people personish person who wants to work in HR, although that is only a guess on my part. 

B) Having to deal with Riley potentially portraying any investigation of him as retaliatory for his complaints. Even a completely baseless accusation of that is likely to be a huge stress for the people on the receiving end of it. This is likely to have been particularly unpleasant with the kind of person who writes a massive doc giving his detailed personal opinions on multiple colleagues, including for at least one person their mental health, sexual victimization and his own romantic feelings for them, because anyone who does something that inappropriate and obsessive can't be trust to act normally during a complaints process. This is true even if Riley is in fact a vulnerable, naive person with no malicious intentions, let alone if he is actually vengeful. 

C) Having to either upset Frances by informing her about the doc, and having an excruciatingly awkward conversation with her about it, or alternatively NOT inform her even while disciplining Riley, and admit to themselves that they are concealing from Frances that one of her colleagues has sexually harassed her. 

On the other hand, if they take choice 2) and just fail to recognize how inappropriate the stuff Riley said about Frances was, then they can realistically hope that Frances never finds out, and they don't have to upset Riley or Frances, or having any awkward conversations about rape and sexualization of rape victims with anyone or face the  consequences of being accused or retaliating against a complainant. They could just hope that Frances never found out about the doc, something that may well have happened if Riley himself had not shown it beyond HR. (Unless the person who informed Frances was themselves in HR anyway). Then they could avoid any stress or hurt feelings. Once the CEO and the COO found out, they also had the same incentives to get this wrong, but with the additional incentive that they could decide to defer to HR's judgments, since they are the orgs experts on well, HR issues. 

I say all this not to excuse anyone at CEA. If this is the psychological dynamics of what happened-which I obviously don't know-that's not all that exculpatory. Not dealing with sexual harassment properly because you want to avoid awkwardness/fuss/punishment and you're in HR or management, is like not running into a burning building as a firefighter because you don't want to get burnt: it's your job to get past this stuff! But claims that Frances' account requires an implausible level of malice or incompetence on the part of multiple people seem wrong to me.. 

It's implausible if this is what happened that Riley would have provided a long detailed description of the rape rather than just mentioning it's occurrence. If Frances was mischaracterizing the document so badly it didn't contain such a description then Zachary could have said that and he hasn't. 

Anthropic aren't objecting to killbots as a matter of principle though, they are just saying the tech isn't reliable yet. The stand on surveillance seems principled and I absolutely admire Amodei for risking his business to do the right thing, but let's avoid deceiving ourselves about what his stance actually is.

Less clearly, sure. I'm mostly warning about complacency about liberals being safe from error just because you can use liberal ideas to criticize bad things liberals have done, rather than defending communism. Certainly lots of communists have, for example, attacked Stalinism in communist terms.

I don't really understand why liberalism is getting the prefix "classical" here though. The distinction between "classical" and other forms of liberalism, like social liberalism, is more about levels of government support for the poor through the welfare state and just how strong a presumption we should have in favour of market solutions vs government ones, with agreement on secularism, individual human rights, free speech, pluralism, a non-zero sum conception of markets and trade etc. I also think that insofar as "liberals" have an unusually good record, this doesn't distinguish "liberals" in the narrow sense from other pro-democratic traditions that accept pluralism: i.e. European social democracy on the left, and European Christian democracy, and Anglosphere mainstream conservatism 1965-2015 on the right. If anything classical liberals might have a worse record than many of these groups, because I think classical liberal ideas were used in the 19th century by the British Empire to justify not doing anything about major famines.  Of course there is a broad sense of liberal in which all these people are "liberals" too, and they may well have been influenced by classical liberalism. But they aren't necessarily on the same side as classical liberals in typical policy debates.

I think there is something to this, but the US didn't just "prop up" Suharto in the sense of had normal relations of trade and mutual favours even though he did bad things. (That indeed may well be the right attitude to many bad governments, and ones that many lefitsts might demand the US to take to bad left-wing governments, yes.) They helped install him, a process which was incredibly bloody and violent, even apart from the long-term effects of his rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366

Remember also that the same people are not necessarily making all of these arguments. Relatively few radical leftists saying the first two things are also making a huge moral deal about the US failing to help Ukraine, I think. Even if they are strongly against the Russian invasion. It's mostly liberals who are saying the 3rd one.