I think the issue here is attempting to unilaterally disarm in a culture war. If your attitude is "let's through different elements of the situation and see it through the eyes of the people" , and their attitude is "let's use the most effective memetic superweapons we have access to to destroy everyone we disagree with", then you're going to lose and they are going to win.
There's a number of things. Some are things that cannot be mentioned, others are just part of the "new normal" of social justice infiltrating everything.
I think this is badly wrong, and touches on the central delusions of our society.
Humanity without eugenics or genetic enhancement of some kind will disintegrate. You may not like this, but it's just a fact; there's an accumulation of mutations per generation, plus there are various dysgenic effects. It doesn't entail coercion, though in the past (unfortunately) that has been associated with eugenics.
Britain, Germany, Sweden or America without white people will cease to exist. A mixture of people from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia living on the British Isles doesn't constitute Britain, any more than the Beaker People did. This doesn't entail violence (though in the past it certainly has), and you may not like it, but nonetheless it is true.
I don't really expect anyone to agree with this; these delusions are extremely powerful, but it's worth pointing out that the very first thing you said is not only wrong, it's catastrophically wrong. The barriers to making the world a better place are in our minds, not out in the world.
If it's only a tiny nudge, why are we talking about it?
Why is it important for a teacher to give a harsh detention to the first student who challenges their authority, or for countries to defend their borders strictly rather than let it slide if someone encroaches just a few kilometres?
An expectation is being set here. Worse, an expectation has been set that threats of protest are a legitimate way to influence decision-making in our community. You have ceded authority to Slate by obeying their smear-piece on Hanson. Hanson is one of our people, you left him hanging in favour of what Slate thought.
talk of blackmail suggests an appeal to clear-cut principles like "blackmail is (almost) always bad"
One ought to invite a speaker who has seriously considered the possibility that blackmail might be good in certain circumstances, written blog posts about it etc.
The more time someone spends talking to a variety of community members (and potential future members), the more likely they are to have an accurate view of which norms will best encourage the community’s health and flourishing.
Correctness is not a popularity contest, it feels like this is an intellectual laundering of groupthink. Also, if you promote a particular view, that *changes* who is going to be a member of the community in the future, as well as who is excluded.
For example, the EA community has decided to exclude Robin Hanson and be more inclusive towards Slate journalists and people who like the opinions of Slate; this defines a future direction for the movement, rather than causing a fixed movement to either flourish or not.
Do you think EA can avoid sharing the same eventual fate?
No, not even a chance. It is obviously so far gone now that there's no point in objecting and we should work on building a new movement that avoids this failure mode, from scratch.
I think the issue here is attempting to unilaterally disarm in a culture war. If your attitude is "let's through different elements of the situation and see it through the eyes of the people" , and their attitude is "let's use the most effective memetic superweapons we have access to to destroy everyone we disagree with", then you're going to lose and they are going to win.
What made you update?
One example:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EffectiveAltruism/comments/ijp16r/decolonizing_effective_altruism/
There's a number of things. Some are things that cannot be mentioned, others are just part of the "new normal" of social justice infiltrating everything.
I think this is badly wrong, and touches on the central delusions of our society.
Humanity without eugenics or genetic enhancement of some kind will disintegrate. You may not like this, but it's just a fact; there's an accumulation of mutations per generation, plus there are various dysgenic effects. It doesn't entail coercion, though in the past (unfortunately) that has been associated with eugenics.
Britain, Germany, Sweden or America without white people will cease to exist. A mixture of people from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia living on the British Isles doesn't constitute Britain, any more than the Beaker People did. This doesn't entail violence (though in the past it certainly has), and you may not like it, but nonetheless it is true.
I don't really expect anyone to agree with this; these delusions are extremely powerful, but it's worth pointing out that the very first thing you said is not only wrong, it's catastrophically wrong. The barriers to making the world a better place are in our minds, not out in the world.
If it's only a tiny nudge, why are we talking about it?
Why is it important for a teacher to give a harsh detention to the first student who challenges their authority, or for countries to defend their borders strictly rather than let it slide if someone encroaches just a few kilometres?
An expectation is being set here. Worse, an expectation has been set that threats of protest are a legitimate way to influence decision-making in our community. You have ceded authority to Slate by obeying their smear-piece on Hanson. Hanson is one of our people, you left him hanging in favour of what Slate thought.
EA people are, IMO, being naïve.
How often does sexual assault and/or rape happen at EA events, in your opinion? Are we talking 1 in 10 events, 1 in 100, 1 in 1000?
One ought to invite a speaker who has seriously considered the possibility that blackmail might be good in certain circumstances, written blog posts about it etc.
https://www.overcomingbias.com/2019/02/checkmate-on-blackmail.html
Correctness is not a popularity contest, it feels like this is an intellectual laundering of groupthink. Also, if you promote a particular view, that *changes* who is going to be a member of the community in the future, as well as who is excluded.
For example, the EA community has decided to exclude Robin Hanson and be more inclusive towards Slate journalists and people who like the opinions of Slate; this defines a future direction for the movement, rather than causing a fixed movement to either flourish or not.
No, not even a chance. It is obviously so far gone now that there's no point in objecting and we should work on building a new movement that avoids this failure mode, from scratch.