While I didn’t upvote kbog’s comment for being rude, and I agree with you he didn’t need to be that rude, I didn’t downvote it either because I think he is reaching for a valid point. While I express it differently, I share kbog’s frustration with how sometimes effective altruists say we should extend so much charity to anti-capitalist critics of EA, while it may not be a majority of them, there are lots of kinds of anti-capitalism it seems EA should not actually want to reconcile with. I expressed that point without the rudeness of kbog’s comment in another comment reply I’ll excerpt here:
All variety of leftist ideologies from history are on the upswing today, as politics becomes more polarized, and more people are shifting leftward (and, of course, rightward as well) away from the centre. This has impelled some radical anti-capitalists to spread in the last few years as a propaganda the meme “liberals get the bullet too”.
If this was inspired by they ideology of, say, Leninism, then while even if EA shouldn’t moralize in asserting ourselves as “better”, this would be sufficient grounds for EA to deny a positive association with them, even if the line is meant only rhetorically or symbolically. This would be justified even if we would at the same time build bridges to other leftist movements that have shown themselves more conducive to cooperation with EA, such as those Marxists who would be willing to seek common ground with EA. Of course, as there are many ideologies on the Left, including whole families of ideologies totally incompatible with EA, I believe we must be clear about how we’re going to tow this line. Like you yourself said, this isn’t unique to leftists. With regards to the Right, EA could build bridges to conservatism, while nonetheless totally rejecting a notion we might ally ourselves with the family of rightist ideologies we could call “supremacism”.
[...]
If EA is to become part of humanity’s fabric of moral common sense, we must recognize there are ideologies that don’t operate under that fabric in the perpetuation of their goals, and go against the grain of both EA and the fabric of common sense. For EA to be worth anything, we must on principle be willing to engage against those ideologies. Of course, EA can and should be willing to ally itself with those leftists who’d seek to expand the circle of moral concern against those who would seek to shrink it to get ahead, no matter what their original ideals were.
This is with regards to political ideologies where either the disagreement over fundamental values, or at least basic facts that inform our moral judgements, are irreconcilable. Yet there will also be political movements with which EA can reconcile, as we would share the same fundamental values, but EA will nonetheless be responsible to criticize or challenge, on the grounds those movements are, in practice, using means or pursuing ends that put them in opposition to those of EA.
[...]
I believe our willingness to live up to that responsibility is one of the few things that distinguishes EA at all from any other community predicated on doing good.
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.
While I didn’t upvote kbog’s comment for being rude, and I agree with you he didn’t need to be that rude, I didn’t downvote it either because I think he is reaching for a valid point. While I express it differently, I share kbog’s frustration with how sometimes effective altruists say we should extend so much charity to anti-capitalist critics of EA, while it may not be a majority of them, there are lots of kinds of anti-capitalism it seems EA should not actually want to reconcile with. I expressed that point without the rudeness of kbog’s comment in another comment reply I’ll excerpt here:
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.