When the left and right don't talk it sets the center on fire. That is what they do. Create a myth with politics (emotional engineering) and then lets the scientists bust it. oldest trick in the book.
When I think of PETA, I think of all the bad things they’ve done. That’s what most people think of. If that were good, then EAs should advocate for their charities to generate bad PR.
Interesting in theory. The specifics of PETA or any other case will depend on the numbers (they’re probably incurring _some_ opportunity costs), and that sort of thing can’t be determined from the armchair.
> But it also doesn’t mean that activists who pride themselves on being effective should ignore, disparage, or look down upon the members of their coalition who apparently fail to optimize at every turn.
I don’t know a single EA that does? It’s simply a personal choice to try and make your money go as far as it can (and the EA thought process is usually applied only to money - the worlds most effective charities don’t exist in my city, but I still volunteer with them). I think it’s possible that it’s you who is disparaging how people choose to perform charity, and not the EA movement as a whole.
I don’t think PETA is a great example given that there is a good chance that they are a net negative for the movement.
I disagree. I think there’s a lot to be said for radical flank theory, and at this point PETA has generally learned how far is too far.
When the left and right don't talk it sets the center on fire. That is what they do. Create a myth with politics (emotional engineering) and then lets the scientists bust it. oldest trick in the book.
When I think of PETA, I think of all the bad things they’ve done. That’s what most people think of. If that were good, then EAs should advocate for their charities to generate bad PR.
You don't know anything about PETA.
Interesting in theory. The specifics of PETA or any other case will depend on the numbers (they’re probably incurring _some_ opportunity costs), and that sort of thing can’t be determined from the armchair.
> But it also doesn’t mean that activists who pride themselves on being effective should ignore, disparage, or look down upon the members of their coalition who apparently fail to optimize at every turn.
I don’t know a single EA that does? It’s simply a personal choice to try and make your money go as far as it can (and the EA thought process is usually applied only to money - the worlds most effective charities don’t exist in my city, but I still volunteer with them). I think it’s possible that it’s you who is disparaging how people choose to perform charity, and not the EA movement as a whole.
Yeah, that's mostly me reflecting on what was until recently my instinctive dismissal of PETA style activism as ridiculous and unfocused
Fair play, thanks for the clarification!
hey, he isn't criticising EA. He's reflecting on the other side of it.