I agree there are beliefs and belief systems that EA is incompatible with, although my post wasn’t coming from a place of anti-capitalism: even with my leftist hat on, all I would want is to regulate global market failures.
It’s a pretty big leap to hear “global markets make the rich richer and the poor poorer” and assume communism :)
Right, I wasn’t assuming communism on your part. I was just sharing thoughts of my own that I thought better represented the frustration kbog was trying to express. I did this because I thought he was making a valid point with his comment you downvoted about how the kind of question you’re asking would lead EA to prioritize a route for public dialogue that it doesn’t actually make sense to prioritize, since it is one you made from a leftist viewpoint as a thought exercise, even though you clarified you yourself are a centrist, and as a criticism of EA it is unsound.
My above comment was also addressing the premise you thought the historical origins of wealth as seen from an anti-capitalist perspective is a very relevant criticism of EA. I of course assumed by ‘leftist’ you meant ‘anti-capitalist’, which you did not. So, my last comment doesn’t apply. I was aware that you yourself were just wearing a leftist hat for the sake of argument, and I did not assume communism on your part.
Of course, regarding your point about questions of reform of contemporary global markets, I agree with you, and disagree with kbog, that that is a legitimate criticism of EA the community should think more about.
Nothing that I’ve said here is about whether or not we should reform global markets, nor about whether or not we should adopt communism as Khorton inexplicably assumed. The issue here is not about policy, it’s about discourse, viz. the idea that we ought to emphatically and preemptively notify people and atone for the causes of our own and the general Western prosperity, with the implicit assumption that such causes make it morally disagreeable.
khorton said she is a centrist, who for the sake of argument, was putting on her ‘leftist’ hat.
By “leftist”, I thought she meant she was being the devil’s advocate for anti-capitalism, when she was actually being an advocate for progressive/left-liberal reform.
She assumed that you assumed, like me, she was playing the role of devil’s advocate for anti-capitalism, when you did not, i.e., not anti-capitalist.
While khorton’s original comment didn’t mention reform and regulation of global markets, she made clear in her next response to me that is what she intended as the subject of her comment even though she didn’t make it explicit.
I got mixed up, and as the subject changed, I forgot market reform was never even implied by khorton’s original comment.
While I disagreed with how rude your original response to her was, I did agree with your point. Now that you’ve edited it, and this comment is sorted, I’ve now upvoted your comment, as I agree with you.
I agree there are beliefs and belief systems that EA is incompatible with, although my post wasn’t coming from a place of anti-capitalism: even with my leftist hat on, all I would want is to regulate global market failures.
It’s a pretty big leap to hear “global markets make the rich richer and the poor poorer” and assume communism :)
Right, I wasn’t assuming communism on your part. I was just sharing thoughts of my own that I thought better represented the frustration kbog was trying to express. I did this because I thought he was making a valid point with his comment you downvoted about how the kind of question you’re asking would lead EA to prioritize a route for public dialogue that it doesn’t actually make sense to prioritize, since it is one you made from a leftist viewpoint as a thought exercise, even though you clarified you yourself are a centrist, and as a criticism of EA it is unsound.
My above comment was also addressing the premise you thought the historical origins of wealth as seen from an anti-capitalist perspective is a very relevant criticism of EA. I of course assumed by ‘leftist’ you meant ‘anti-capitalist’, which you did not. So, my last comment doesn’t apply. I was aware that you yourself were just wearing a leftist hat for the sake of argument, and I did not assume communism on your part.
Of course, regarding your point about questions of reform of contemporary global markets, I agree with you, and disagree with kbog, that that is a legitimate criticism of EA the community should think more about.
Nothing that I’ve said here is about whether or not we should reform global markets, nor about whether or not we should adopt communism as Khorton inexplicably assumed. The issue here is not about policy, it’s about discourse, viz. the idea that we ought to emphatically and preemptively notify people and atone for the causes of our own and the general Western prosperity, with the implicit assumption that such causes make it morally disagreeable.
Okay, so, what has has happened is:
khorton said she is a centrist, who for the sake of argument, was putting on her ‘leftist’ hat.
By “leftist”, I thought she meant she was being the devil’s advocate for anti-capitalism, when she was actually being an advocate for progressive/left-liberal reform.
She assumed that you assumed, like me, she was playing the role of devil’s advocate for anti-capitalism, when you did not, i.e., not anti-capitalist.
While khorton’s original comment didn’t mention reform and regulation of global markets, she made clear in her next response to me that is what she intended as the subject of her comment even though she didn’t make it explicit.
I got mixed up, and as the subject changed, I forgot market reform was never even implied by khorton’s original comment.
While I disagreed with how rude your original response to her was, I did agree with your point. Now that you’ve edited it, and this comment is sorted, I’ve now upvoted your comment, as I agree with you.