It’s really shocking and sickening to see Nazi stuff on the EA Forum. I don’t use the term “Nazi” hyperbolically. The author cites Nazi sources and parrots their arguments.
I hope moderators will ban this user and delete his posts. There is nothing redeeming or defensible about this.
I am advocating for the voluntary use of reprogentic technology to improve the welfare of humanity (all ethnicities and races).
These are not Nazi arguments and I am not citing Nazi sources. I think you are actually using that term hyperbolically/incorrectly.
“I hope moderators will ban this user and delete his posts. There is nothing redeeming or defensible about this.”
That is quite extreme. I don’t think I am violating forum rules. I just have different beliefs about what we can do to help humanity. I don’t think I should be censored for that reason.
I think she provided excellent evidence that at least some of your sources are in fact accurately characterized as “Nazi”. Did you actually read the article she linked?
I still defend that I am not parroting Nazi arguments or citing Nazi sources. I think that’s an inaccurate thing to say, and it is quite an accusation. MQ is not a Nazi journal and from what I read in the article not even that guy is a Nazi if we are being technical. The logic here seems to be that he is basically a Nazi, so MQ is basically a Nazi journal, so I’m basically parroting Nazi arguments and citing Nazi sources. This is like calling EA a “crypto-scam-funded organization.” I especially take issue with it being said that I’m parroting Nazi arguments. Do you think that is a fair assessment after reading my article?
I think the purpose of saying such a thing is to throw mud over the whole article because some citations are a journal connected to a racist. But this is the worst way to argue—the person who ran a journal that published the article says bad things and associates with bad people—is very far from the central point of the argument. Critiques should strike at the heart of the argument instead of introduce moral disgust about some non-central aspect.
If you had a good critique of the empirical or moral claims, you should forward that. The moral arguments are wholly-EA—we should help the world through charitable actions to improve the world’s welfare (nothing wrong here!). So, then this is just a claim some of the citations are questionable in terms of their empirical quality. Fine, throw out all the MQ citations. I could rewrite my article without them. I am considering doing this. I still maintain (1) national measures of cognitive ability are associated with good outcomes, and (2) we can use genetic enhancement to boost them.
My overall argument still holds IMO, and so this feels like nitpicking used to distort people’s intuitions about my article through introducing a lot of moral disgust and then trying to get me banned. This seems like the opposite of what EAs should do.
It’s really shocking and sickening to see Nazi stuff on the EA Forum. I don’t use the term “Nazi” hyperbolically. The author cites Nazi sources and parrots their arguments.
I hope moderators will ban this user and delete his posts. There is nothing redeeming or defensible about this.
I am advocating for the voluntary use of reprogentic technology to improve the welfare of humanity (all ethnicities and races).
These are not Nazi arguments and I am not citing Nazi sources. I think you are actually using that term hyperbolically/incorrectly.
“I hope moderators will ban this user and delete his posts. There is nothing redeeming or defensible about this.”
That is quite extreme. I don’t think I am violating forum rules. I just have different beliefs about what we can do to help humanity. I don’t think I should be censored for that reason.
I think she provided excellent evidence that at least some of your sources are in fact accurately characterized as “Nazi”. Did you actually read the article she linked?
I still defend that I am not parroting Nazi arguments or citing Nazi sources. I think that’s an inaccurate thing to say, and it is quite an accusation. MQ is not a Nazi journal and from what I read in the article not even that guy is a Nazi if we are being technical. The logic here seems to be that he is basically a Nazi, so MQ is basically a Nazi journal, so I’m basically parroting Nazi arguments and citing Nazi sources. This is like calling EA a “crypto-scam-funded organization.” I especially take issue with it being said that I’m parroting Nazi arguments. Do you think that is a fair assessment after reading my article?
I think the purpose of saying such a thing is to throw mud over the whole article because some citations are a journal connected to a racist. But this is the worst way to argue—the person who ran a journal that published the article says bad things and associates with bad people—is very far from the central point of the argument. Critiques should strike at the heart of the argument instead of introduce moral disgust about some non-central aspect.
If you had a good critique of the empirical or moral claims, you should forward that. The moral arguments are wholly-EA—we should help the world through charitable actions to improve the world’s welfare (nothing wrong here!). So, then this is just a claim some of the citations are questionable in terms of their empirical quality. Fine, throw out all the MQ citations. I could rewrite my article without them. I am considering doing this. I still maintain (1) national measures of cognitive ability are associated with good outcomes, and (2) we can use genetic enhancement to boost them.
My overall argument still holds IMO, and so this feels like nitpicking used to distort people’s intuitions about my article through introducing a lot of moral disgust and then trying to get me banned. This seems like the opposite of what EAs should do.