Thank you for your reply and questions. As stated at the beginning my post - it was bit of a rant, but still I probably used too much of hyperboles and you point out them well.
So please let me clarify / answer your last paragraph:
If you believe that writing and posting on the EA forum equates to considering a topic one's focus, then I genuinely ask: what moral calculus justifies your own response? I personally don't hold the view that writing a forum post is equivalent to prioritizing its topic over any other.
If it was just a forum post I wouldn't have reacted like that. I consider "working on a statement for the past few weeks" (as quoted from the beginning of the OP), making a public pledge and gathering a group of signatories to sign it as something notably bigger, than just a forum post. Something that shouldn't be used like that. Especially for applause lights (vide Duncan's answer).
Your post on the other hand, if it follows its own logic as I understand it, indicates that you think it should be a top cause area for yourself to argue against anti-racism and anti-sexism work.
Not a top cause area (again, forum post < pledge with signatories), but something I think is somewhat important. Because IMO -isms are not going to erode this community - I would bet almost everyone here is against them, a lot of us actively. But losing EA values - good epistemic, avoiding virtue signalling and poseuring, avoiding group-think, etc. might.
This response was meant to be a separate post on the forum, but seeing as the original pledge post is getting (semi-)downvoted, I've decided to just leave it as a comment to not boost its visibility.
Anti-Racism and Anti-Sexism in EA shouldn't be top cause areas for 99% of people
Epistemic status: semi-rant after seeing who signed the "Anti-sexism and Anti-racism pledge" , but I mean all that is written here.
Tl;dr : "Sexism and racism in EA" are bad, if they are present, but even if they are, malaria and AI risks are worse. So 99% of EAs should not bother with the former at all.
Part I- Anti-Racism and Anti-Sexism in EA, shouldn't be the top cause area for almost anyone
The list of world most pressing problems on the 80,000 Hours webpage does not include "sexism and racism in EA", nor even "sexism and racism" in the world at large. And I think that is not a mistake.
How does using one's time on an e-mail from 20 years ago or on an even very inappropriate and abhorrent sexual comment score on the Importance / Tractability / Neglectedness framework? Do those go out the window the moment someone acts (or acted 20 years ago) in a way that is fashionable in today's mainstream to get outraged about?
Some people should be taking care of possible -isms in EA. But this should be limited in my opinion to the: people involved in the situation, people closest to them (for support), Community Health team and maybe authorities if the act in question is of certain magnitude. If sexism / racism / etc. happens to someone in the EA community they should be able to report it to the Community Health team or other appropriate body or authorities and those people should take appropriate actions. But for the community as whole my actual Fermi estimate is that 99.8% of people shouldn't bother with "-isms in EA" at all.
The signatories of the pledge include a lot of directors/members of groups outside of that 0.2%. Do Atlanta, Deloitte or MIT have no more important cause areas than this and should really focus on this?
Part II - Virtue signalling about Anti-racism and Anti-sexism shouldn't be the top cause area for absolutely anyone
While 0.2% of people in EA should be taking care of possible instances of -isms in EA, I think no-one should be bothering themselves with fuzzy, imprecise pledges that do nothing except virtue signal (and take out space for actual actions).
Duncan's comment already pointed that out better than I ever would be able to, so I'm just going to leave this link to Jonathan Pie's video (not endorsing racism is as impressive as not endorsing paedophilia, you don't get a medal for it).
Part III - Parable: The shallow pond and the sexist comment thought experiment
Imagine you are on your way to a party in a very fancy and expensive suit. On your way you pass a shallow pond in which you notice a child drowning. At the exact same moment you notice that on the other side of the road someone is making a very inappropriate and abhorrent comment about masturbating before meeting them to an adolescent half their age (but not a child). Ask yourself an honest question - truly no judging here - which of those situations gets you more outraged? It is okay to have different moral systems, and it is okay to be more outraged or terrified by mediocre sexism/racism than by people dying of malaria, or by AI risks. But if one does so, I don't think one should call themselves an EA.
Thank you for your reply and questions. As stated at the beginning my post - it was bit of a rant, but still I probably used too much of hyperboles and you point out them well.
So please let me clarify / answer your last paragraph:
If it was just a forum post I wouldn't have reacted like that. I consider "working on a statement for the past few weeks" (as quoted from the beginning of the OP), making a public pledge and gathering a group of signatories to sign it as something notably bigger, than just a forum post. Something that shouldn't be used like that. Especially for applause lights (vide Duncan's answer).
Not a top cause area (again, forum post < pledge with signatories), but something I think is somewhat important. Because IMO -isms are not going to erode this community - I would bet almost everyone here is against them, a lot of us actively. But losing EA values - good epistemic, avoiding virtue signalling and poseuring, avoiding group-think, etc. might.
To paraphrase Does Sam make me want to renounce the actions of the EA community? No. Does your reaction? Absolutely.:
Does sexism in EA make me want to renounce the actions of the EA community? No.[1] Does this pledge? A bit.
Because it is unanimously condemned.
This response was meant to be a separate post on the forum, but seeing as the original pledge post is getting (semi-)downvoted, I've decided to just leave it as a comment to not boost its visibility.
Anti-Racism and Anti-Sexism in EA shouldn't be top cause areas for 99% of people
Epistemic status: semi-rant after seeing who signed the "Anti-sexism and Anti-racism pledge" , but I mean all that is written here.
Tl;dr : "Sexism and racism in EA" are bad, if they are present, but even if they are, malaria and AI risks are worse. So 99% of EAs should not bother with the former at all.
Part I- Anti-Racism and Anti-Sexism in EA, shouldn't be the top cause area for almost anyone
The list of world most pressing problems on the 80,000 Hours webpage does not include "sexism and racism in EA", nor even "sexism and racism" in the world at large. And I think that is not a mistake.
How does using one's time on an e-mail from 20 years ago or on an even very inappropriate and abhorrent sexual comment score on the Importance / Tractability / Neglectedness framework?
Do those go out the window the moment someone acts (or acted 20 years ago) in a way that is fashionable in today's mainstream to get outraged about?
Some people should be taking care of possible -isms in EA. But this should be limited in my opinion to the: people involved in the situation, people closest to them (for support), Community Health team and maybe authorities if the act in question is of certain magnitude.
If sexism / racism / etc. happens to someone in the EA community they should be able to report it to the Community Health team or other appropriate body or authorities and those people should take appropriate actions.
But for the community as whole my actual Fermi estimate is that 99.8% of people shouldn't bother with "-isms in EA" at all.
The signatories of the pledge include a lot of directors/members of groups outside of that 0.2%. Do Atlanta, Deloitte or MIT have no more important cause areas than this and should really focus on this?
Part II - Virtue signalling about Anti-racism and Anti-sexism shouldn't be the top cause area for absolutely anyone
While 0.2% of people in EA should be taking care of possible instances of -isms in EA, I think no-one should be bothering themselves with fuzzy, imprecise pledges that do nothing except virtue signal (and take out space for actual actions).
Duncan's comment already pointed that out better than I ever would be able to, so I'm just going to leave this link to Jonathan Pie's video (not endorsing racism is as impressive as not endorsing paedophilia, you don't get a medal for it).
Part III - Parable: The shallow pond and the sexist comment thought experiment
Imagine you are on your way to a party in a very fancy and expensive suit. On your way you pass a shallow pond in which you notice a child drowning. At the exact same moment you notice that on the other side of the road someone is making a very inappropriate and abhorrent comment about masturbating before meeting them to an adolescent half their age (but not a child). Ask yourself an honest question - truly no judging here - which of those situations gets you more outraged?
It is okay to have different moral systems, and it is okay to be more outraged or terrified by mediocre sexism/racism than by people dying of malaria, or by AI risks. But if one does so, I don't think one should call themselves an EA.