4 ms·

Altruism being effective seems like a good thing in the abstract, much like being anti-fascist. If you have a bone to pick with the "effective altruism" moveme

by vba616 4y ago

Altruism being effective seems like a good thing in the abstract, much like being anti-fascist. If you have a bone to pick with the "effective altruism" movement, it would be better to critique what they actually have done than make philosophical or mind-reading declarations. Many people on HN don't know any more about it than antifa.

imtringued 4y ago
I have a bone to pick with the idea that we should break things and then fix the damage we caused in the process by doing altruism. Even if SBF could have gotten away with it, now I am skeptical that his altruism would have done more positive things than if he had never earned the money to begin with.
- vba616 4y ago
  So, he was evil and/or a hypocrite and shouldn't have had a lot of money to begin with. Sure, fine. Nobody was questioning that. I first heard of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy on HN, by the way.
Planktonne 4y ago
> If you have a bone to pick with the "effective altruism" movement, it would be better to critique what they actually have done It's in the comment above: > they stole customer funds SBF isn't some random crook who happens to be vaguely associated with Effective Altruism; he's a relatively central figure to the movement. Currently, one of the most significant fruits of EA is massive fraud.
- vba616 4y ago
  "It's in the comment above:" Your comments here, as well thought out as they may be, are not part of "the comment above". "they stole customer funds" = FTX stole customer funds. "SBF isn't some random crook who happens to be vaguely associated with Effective Altruism; he's a relatively central figure to the movement." If you say so, why should I doubt it? Perhaps everyone associated with the movement is a monster. Let's assume that is the case. That doesn't defend the pseudo-philosophical/psychological pronouncements on what the essence of the idea is. With or without your addition it looks to me like an equivocal attack on being effective in doing good, rather than on "Effective Altruism" as a movement. Psychobabble is not aimed at people who are deeply familiar with the history and the nature of the movement, but at people like me who know nothing much about it. It's schematically the same as a lot of rhetoric that see-saws on a foundation of equivocation but careless people fall off. If someone is going to traffic in this nasty, illogical rhetoric, I object to them sliding by doing it in a completely careless and sloppy way.

by vba616 4y ago

imtringued 4y ago

I have a bone to pick with the idea that we should break things and then fix the damage we caused in the process by doing altruism. Even if SBF could have gotten away with it, now I am skeptical that his altruism would have done more positive things than if he had never earned the money to begin with.

vba616 4y ago
So, he was evil and/or a hypocrite and shouldn't have had a lot of money to begin with. Sure, fine. Nobody was questioning that. I first heard of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy on HN, by the way.

Planktonne 4y ago

> If you have a bone to pick with the "effective altruism" movement, it would be better to critique what they actually have done It's in the comment above: > they stole customer funds SBF isn't some random crook who happens to be vaguely associated with Effective Altruism; he's a relatively central figure to the movement. Currently, one of the most significant fruits of EA is massive fraud.

vba616 4y ago
"It's in the comment above:" Your comments here, as well thought out as they may be, are not part of "the comment above". "they stole customer funds" = FTX stole customer funds. "SBF isn't some random crook who happens to be vaguely associated with Effective Altruism; he's a relatively central figure to the movement." If you say so, why should I doubt it? Perhaps everyone associated with the movement is a monster. Let's assume that is the case. That doesn't defend the pseudo-philosophical/psychological pronouncements on what the essence of the idea is. With or without your addition it looks to me like an equivocal attack on being effective in doing good, rather than on "Effective Altruism" as a movement. Psychobabble is not aimed at people who are deeply familiar with the history and the nature of the movement, but at people like me who know nothing much about it. It's schematically the same as a lot of rhetoric that see-saws on a foundation of equivocation but careless people fall off. If someone is going to traffic in this nasty, illogical rhetoric, I object to them sliding by doing it in a completely careless and sloppy way.