9 ms·

I had a quick skim through this one from your list: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/8xNSiwj5gjoDTRquQ/announcing-the-publication-of-animal-liberation-

by alvah 3y ago

I had a quick skim through this one from your list: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/8xNSiwj5gjoDTRquQ/announcing-the-publication-of-animal-liberation-now https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/8xNSiwj5gjoDTRquQ/... I note this post by the high priest of the cult makes no mention of his recent moral relativist defence of bestiality - surely an oversight?: https://twitter.com/PeterSinger/status/1723269850930491707 https://twitter.com/PeterSinger/status/1723269850930491707

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
The post is from May. The tweet is from November. I'm not sure why you'd expect the post to mention the tweet, because (a) the tweet was 6 months in the future, relative to the time of the post, and (b) the tweet doesn't appear very relevant to the topic of the post. Peter Singer is more of an EA popularizer than an EA leader. The post you linked is the only post he has made in the past ~9 years: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/users/peter_singer https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/users/peter_singer The tweet you linked is related to his Journal of Controversial Ideas, not EA. It's certainly not the case that Singer should be taken as representative of the average EA, you'd have to look at surveys for that: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/FxFwhFG227F6FgnKk https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/FxFwhFG227F6FgnKk However EA tends to be friendly to contrarian thought experiments (not usually taking it to Peter Singer levels). And EAs usually prefer to focus on getting facts right over condemning each other in an inflammatory way.
- alvah 3y ago
  So the high priest / philosophical originator (guardian.com) of the cult should not "be taken as a representative of the average EA," and nobody saw fit to mention his...unusual views (due to his naive utilitarian philosophy) later on in that EA forum thread, the first thread he's posted in 9 years, the thread who's topic is closely related to the topic of the Twitter thread I linked? Is EA distancing itself from Singer (who's views are, by all accounts, extremely influential in the EA community), as they did with SBF (whose hedge fund's initial $170m seed capital was raised from EA devotees)? When multiple high-profile people associated with EA are proven to be....problematic, should we pretend the common factor linking them is insignificant? Inflammatory? I thought I was quite restrained compared to some of the commenters on that Twitter thread.

by alvah 3y ago

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago

The post is from May. The tweet is from November. I'm not sure why you'd expect the post to mention the tweet, because (a) the tweet was 6 months in the future, relative to the time of the post, and (b) the tweet doesn't appear very relevant to the topic of the post. Peter Singer is more of an EA popularizer than an EA leader. The post you linked is the only post he has made in the past ~9 years: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/users/peter_singer https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/users/peter_singer The tweet you linked is related to his Journal of Controversial Ideas, not EA. It's certainly not the case that Singer should be taken as representative of the average EA, you'd have to look at surveys for that: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/FxFwhFG227F6FgnKk https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/FxFwhFG227F6FgnKk However EA tends to be friendly to contrarian thought experiments (not usually taking it to Peter Singer levels). And EAs usually prefer to focus on getting facts right over condemning each other in an inflammatory way.

alvah 3y ago
So the high priest / philosophical originator (guardian.com) of the cult should not "be taken as a representative of the average EA," and nobody saw fit to mention his...unusual views (due to his naive utilitarian philosophy) later on in that EA forum thread, the first thread he's posted in 9 years, the thread who's topic is closely related to the topic of the Twitter thread I linked? Is EA distancing itself from Singer (who's views are, by all accounts, extremely influential in the EA community), as they did with SBF (whose hedge fund's initial $170m seed capital was raised from EA devotees)? When multiple high-profile people associated with EA are proven to be....problematic, should we pretend the common factor linking them is insignificant? Inflammatory? I thought I was quite restrained compared to some of the commenters on that Twitter thread.