I think other than the meat one, your along the lines of how some people are thinking, albeit described in a very polemical and pejorative way, that probably isnât particularly fair. But also, a lot of these people see any obviously and transparently âeliteâ group* as dodgy, not to mention that EAs tend to think like economists and donât want to abolish capitalism which to makes them âneoliberalâ to a lot of leftists (not unfairly I donât think, though whether âneoliberalismâ in this weak sense is obviously bad and evil is another matter). And as Titotal as already mentioned there are people kicking around the general EA scene with views on race that are to the right of what is acceptable even in some mainstream conservative contexts.
More generally, if you see the left/âright division as about whether we want to keep or get rid of current hierarchies, EAs are associated with things the top of current hierarchies-like big tech firms and Oxford University-and donât seem very ashamed about it. And then when we actually think about improving the world âhow do we get rid of current hierarchiesâ isnât usually our starting question. Also, for the sort of leftists who try and explain disagreement with leftism in terms of false consciousness, there seems to be a constant temptation to see anything that isnât explicitly about getting rid of current unjust hierarchies as a ploy to distract people from current unjust hierarchies, especially if it has billionaire backing. (Of course, many things other than EA receive money from >3 billionaires, but are not perceived as âbillionaireâ backed to the same degree.)
*that isnât humanities profs, but I would argue they arenât really âeliteâ in the same way as some EA leaders-Holden Karnofsky is married to the President of Anthropic after all, which is a hell of a lot more elite than âwent to a fancy grad school, but now teaches history at mid-ranking state uni
I think other than the meat one, your along the lines of how some people are thinking, albeit described in a very polemical and pejorative way, that probably isnât particularly fair. But also, a lot of these people see any obviously and transparently âeliteâ group* as dodgy, not to mention that EAs tend to think like economists and donât want to abolish capitalism which to makes them âneoliberalâ to a lot of leftists (not unfairly I donât think, though whether âneoliberalismâ in this weak sense is obviously bad and evil is another matter). And as Titotal as already mentioned there are people kicking around the general EA scene with views on race that are to the right of what is acceptable even in some mainstream conservative contexts.
More generally, if you see the left/âright division as about whether we want to keep or get rid of current hierarchies, EAs are associated with things the top of current hierarchies-like big tech firms and Oxford University-and donât seem very ashamed about it. And then when we actually think about improving the world âhow do we get rid of current hierarchiesâ isnât usually our starting question. Also, for the sort of leftists who try and explain disagreement with leftism in terms of false consciousness, there seems to be a constant temptation to see anything that isnât explicitly about getting rid of current unjust hierarchies as a ploy to distract people from current unjust hierarchies, especially if it has billionaire backing. (Of course, many things other than EA receive money from >3 billionaires, but are not perceived as âbillionaireâ backed to the same degree.)
*that isnât humanities profs, but I would argue they arenât really âeliteâ in the same way as some EA leaders-Holden Karnofsky is married to the President of Anthropic after all, which is a hell of a lot more elite than âwent to a fancy grad school, but now teaches history at mid-ranking state uni