I’d love to hear some of your disagreements with radical feminism. Please share!
This post felt more like it argued why radical feminism would benefit from EA
Points 3 through 7 show how feminist tools can be used by EA to further EA’s aims. The post is showing both that cooperation would be mutually beneficial. I’m curious to see why you thought that it shows that radical feminism would benefit from EA?
I’m not super sure what you mean by comprehensive donor education, but I predict I would disagree with it
I’m neither convinced that these orgs effect complex political change, nor that their political goals would be good for the world. For example, as I understand it, degrowth is a popular political view in such circles and I think this would be extremely bad
I’m not familiar with the techniques outlined here, but would guess that the goals and worldview behind such tricky conversations differ a fair bit from mine
This one seems vaguely plausible, but is premised on radical feminism having techniques for getting donors to exert useful non monetary influence, and that these techniques would work for the goals I care about, neither of which is obvious to me
3. I really encourage you to read The Divide—it might change your mind
4. I really encourage you to read the linked resources, given that you are not yet familiar with the idea
5. Could you say a little more about your views on degrowth? And what do you think about the anti-apartheid movement and LGBT rights movement? Would you agree that these have been successful? How about the overthrowing of various dictators around the world? Most of these movements had small anarchist funders that enabled their growth.
6. I really encourage you to understand the concept before disagreeing with it
7. I agree that these conclusions are not obvious from the simple overview I gave. Maybe you would be open to investigating them further? The Guerrilla Foundation’s website have outlines of their relationship-based approach to funding and bringing funders into a movement.
It seems in a lot of cases you have disagreed with concepts before understanding them fully. Would you agree? And if so, why do you think this happened here, where I’m sure that you are great at making evidence-based judgements in other areas?
It seems like your goal with this post was to persuade EAs like me. I was trying to explain why I didn’t feel like there was much here that I found persuasive. I generally only go and read linked resources if there’s enough to make me curious, so a post that asserts something and links resources but doesn’t summarise the ideas or arguments is not persuasive to me. I’ve tried to be fairly clear about which parts of what you’re saying I think I understand well enough to confidently disagree with, and what parts I predict I would disagree with based on prior experience with other concepts and discourse from this ideological space but have not engaged enough to be confident in—I consider this perfectly consistent with evidence-based judgement. Life is far too short to go and read a bunch of things about every idea that I’m not confident is wrong
It seems in a lot of cases you have disagreed with concepts before understanding them fully. Would you agree? And if so, why do you think this happened here, where I’m sure that you are great at making evidence-based judgements in other areas?
This comes across as passive-aggressive. Neel’s patient response below is right on the money.
If I recommend a book to someone on the EA Forum (or any forum), there’s a slim chance they’re going to read that book. The only way there’s going to be a realistic chance they’ll read it is either if I said something so interesting about it that it got them curious or if they were already curious about that topic area and decided the book is up their alley.
The same idea applies, to varying extents, to any other kind of media — blog posts, papers, videos, podcasts, etc.
A few of your other comments also contain stuff that comes across as passive-aggressive. (Particularly the ones that have zero or negative karma.)
I can empathize with your position in that I can understand what it’s like to try to engage with people who have really different perspectives on a topic that is important to me, and that this often feels frustrating.
All I can say is that if your goal is persuasion or to have some kind of meeting of the minds, then saying stuff like this just pushes people further away.
And realistically, there are tons of different altruistic or altruism-adjacent social movements, and there may be many of the size or significance of radical feminism. Expecting one’s reader to do a lot of research on one specific movement is a rather heavy ask.
I’d love to hear some of your disagreements with radical feminism. Please share!
Points 3 through 7 show how feminist tools can be used by EA to further EA’s aims. The post is showing both that cooperation would be mutually beneficial. I’m curious to see why you thought that it shows that radical feminism would benefit from EA?
I disagree that wealth accumulation causes damage
I’m not super sure what you mean by comprehensive donor education, but I predict I would disagree with it
I’m neither convinced that these orgs effect complex political change, nor that their political goals would be good for the world. For example, as I understand it, degrowth is a popular political view in such circles and I think this would be extremely bad
I’m not familiar with the techniques outlined here, but would guess that the goals and worldview behind such tricky conversations differ a fair bit from mine
This one seems vaguely plausible, but is premised on radical feminism having techniques for getting donors to exert useful non monetary influence, and that these techniques would work for the goals I care about, neither of which is obvious to me
3. I really encourage you to read The Divide—it might change your mind
4. I really encourage you to read the linked resources, given that you are not yet familiar with the idea
5. Could you say a little more about your views on degrowth? And what do you think about the anti-apartheid movement and LGBT rights movement? Would you agree that these have been successful? How about the overthrowing of various dictators around the world? Most of these movements had small anarchist funders that enabled their growth.
6. I really encourage you to understand the concept before disagreeing with it
7. I agree that these conclusions are not obvious from the simple overview I gave. Maybe you would be open to investigating them further? The Guerrilla Foundation’s website have outlines of their relationship-based approach to funding and bringing funders into a movement.
It seems in a lot of cases you have disagreed with concepts before understanding them fully. Would you agree? And if so, why do you think this happened here, where I’m sure that you are great at making evidence-based judgements in other areas?
It seems like your goal with this post was to persuade EAs like me. I was trying to explain why I didn’t feel like there was much here that I found persuasive. I generally only go and read linked resources if there’s enough to make me curious, so a post that asserts something and links resources but doesn’t summarise the ideas or arguments is not persuasive to me. I’ve tried to be fairly clear about which parts of what you’re saying I think I understand well enough to confidently disagree with, and what parts I predict I would disagree with based on prior experience with other concepts and discourse from this ideological space but have not engaged enough to be confident in—I consider this perfectly consistent with evidence-based judgement. Life is far too short to go and read a bunch of things about every idea that I’m not confident is wrong
This comes across as passive-aggressive. Neel’s patient response below is right on the money.
If I recommend a book to someone on the EA Forum (or any forum), there’s a slim chance they’re going to read that book. The only way there’s going to be a realistic chance they’ll read it is either if I said something so interesting about it that it got them curious or if they were already curious about that topic area and decided the book is up their alley.
The same idea applies, to varying extents, to any other kind of media — blog posts, papers, videos, podcasts, etc.
A few of your other comments also contain stuff that comes across as passive-aggressive. (Particularly the ones that have zero or negative karma.)
I can empathize with your position in that I can understand what it’s like to try to engage with people who have really different perspectives on a topic that is important to me, and that this often feels frustrating.
All I can say is that if your goal is persuasion or to have some kind of meeting of the minds, then saying stuff like this just pushes people further away.
And realistically, there are tons of different altruistic or altruism-adjacent social movements, and there may be many of the size or significance of radical feminism. Expecting one’s reader to do a lot of research on one specific movement is a rather heavy ask.