These are anonymous quotes from two people I know and vouch for about the TIME piece on gender-based harassment in the EA community:
Anon 1: I think it’s unfortunate that the women weren’t comfortable with the names of the responsible parties being shared in the article. My understanding is that they were not people strongly associated with EA, some of them had spoken out against EA and had never identified as an EA or had any role in EA, and an article with their names would have given people a very different impression of what happened. I guess I think someone should just spell out who the accused parties are (available from public evidence).
Anon 2: I want EAs to not be fucking stupid 😭
“Oh geez this Times reporter says we’re doing really bad things, we must be doing really bad things A LOT, that’s so upsetting!”
yet somehow “This New York Times reporter says Scott Alexander is racist and bad, but he’s actually not, ugh I hate how the press is awful and lies & spins stuff in this way just to get clicks”
And yes, this included reports of people, but like I’ve met the first person interviewed in the article and she is hella scary and not someone I would trust to report accurately on this. And I know one of the people being talked about is [redacted] & some of the circumstance beyond that, which is like a known thing that people have considered and taken action on, and like.......… why the fuck are EAs just like “damn this is so sad, we really fucked up guys” without being AT ALL skeptical about the reporting or sources??????
Claiming that someone is “hella scary” is needlessly inflammatory. If the quoted comment was posted directly on the forum, it would have gotten a warning. Quoting a message should not be a way to get around that.
Let’s also keep in mind that this is a particularly sensitive topic, so we should be even more careful about living up to our very high discussion standards.
I feel uncomfortable with this kind of public character judgement of an alleged victim. Especially when it’s presented without a source or evidence backing up the claim she’s ‘hella scary’
“And yes, this included reports of people, but like I’ve met the first person interviewed in the article and she is hella scary and not someone I would trust to report accurately on this.”
Not that it matters but the person you are describing as “hella scary” and unreliable is a very decorated robotics researcher whose career has made incredible intellectual contributions in her field. I would like to counter and ask what makes you so keen to exclude her narrative?
EDIT: To anyone who is good faith skeptical of the above claim of deflection, let me point out how absurd it would be to counter any other claim (ie, “The sky is blue” or “Capitalism is the best form of economic organization ever”) with “well I can’t engage with the argument because this person is hella scary”
Not that it matters but the person you are describing as “hella scary” and unreliable is a very decorated robotics researcher whose career has made incredible intellectual contributions in her field.
I really don’t know how to handle sharing takes like this in-public, especially from an anonymous source, but I do feel like “very decorated robotics researcher” does not feel super related to how much I would trust someone to accurately report things in an article here.
For the record, I know approximately nothing about the person in-question, I just felt like this argument felt weird and kind of like a non-sequitur.
(Edit: I guess you do say “not that it matters”, so I might just be misreading the tone here, so feel free to ignore this)
I think the second comment here almost crosses the line into outright conspiracism. For example, the article on Scott alexander may have been framed in a negative way, but you can read through the article yourself: nothing in there is a lie. Similarly, Time may have a skewed perspective and negative framing, but they still have journalistic standards and were reporting on real allegations.
It also falls on the trap of debating whether EA is as bad as “average” or not, rather than whether there is room for improvement, which there very clearly and obviously is.
I am terrified that you were so thoroughly downvoted… “EA only wants to hear shallow critiques, not deep ones” seems to be happening vigorously, still.
These are anonymous quotes from two people I know and vouch for about the TIME piece on gender-based harassment in the EA community:
Anon 1: I think it’s unfortunate that the women weren’t comfortable with the names of the responsible parties being shared in the article. My understanding is that they were not people strongly associated with EA, some of them had spoken out against EA and had never identified as an EA or had any role in EA, and an article with their names would have given people a very different impression of what happened. I guess I think someone should just spell out who the accused parties are (available from public evidence).
Anon 2: I want EAs to not be fucking stupid 😭
“Oh geez this Times reporter says we’re doing really bad things, we must be doing really bad things A LOT, that’s so upsetting!”
yet somehow “This New York Times reporter says Scott Alexander is racist and bad, but he’s actually not, ugh I hate how the press is awful and lies & spins stuff in this way just to get clicks”
And yes, this included reports of people, but like I’ve met the first person interviewed in the article and she is hella scary and not someone I would trust to report accurately on this. And I know one of the people being talked about is [redacted] & some of the circumstance beyond that, which is like a known thing that people have considered and taken action on, and like.......… why the fuck are EAs just like “damn this is so sad, we really fucked up guys” without being AT ALL skeptical about the reporting or sources??????
A section of this comment was reported as unnecessarily rude and offensive, and on a second read, I agree.
Claiming that someone is “hella scary” is needlessly inflammatory. If the quoted comment was posted directly on the forum, it would have gotten a warning. Quoting a message should not be a way to get around that.
Let’s also keep in mind that this is a particularly sensitive topic, so we should be even more careful about living up to our very high discussion standards.
Please don’t do this again
Why did you remove both quotes then?
I don’t understand, what did I remove?
I meant to only temporarily redact a name from your comment. Did I accidentally make more changes? I absent-mindedly didn’t make a copy, sorry
Edit: community health and mod teams have replied here https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/JCyX29F77Jak5gbwq/ea-sexual-harassment-and-abuse?commentId=7vGd37wuAA4wo9t2P feel free to add the name back after reading those comments
I feel uncomfortable with this kind of public character judgement of an alleged victim. Especially when it’s presented without a source or evidence backing up the claim she’s ‘hella scary’
“And yes, this included reports of people, but like I’ve met the first person interviewed in the article and she is hella scary and not someone I would trust to report accurately on this.”
Adorable attempt at character assassination. See rhetorical technique here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
Not that it matters but the person you are describing as “hella scary” and unreliable is a very decorated robotics researcher whose career has made incredible intellectual contributions in her field. I would like to counter and ask what makes you so keen to exclude her narrative?
EDIT: To anyone who is good faith skeptical of the above claim of deflection, let me point out how absurd it would be to counter any other claim (ie, “The sky is blue” or “Capitalism is the best form of economic organization ever”) with “well I can’t engage with the argument because this person is hella scary”
I really don’t know how to handle sharing takes like this in-public, especially from an anonymous source, but I do feel like “very decorated robotics researcher” does not feel super related to how much I would trust someone to accurately report things in an article here.
For the record, I know approximately nothing about the person in-question, I just felt like this argument felt weird and kind of like a non-sequitur.
(Edit: I guess you do say “not that it matters”, so I might just be misreading the tone here, so feel free to ignore this)
I’m vouching for this anonymous person’s judgment although I can’t personally verify their assessment of that person’s character.
I think the second comment here almost crosses the line into outright conspiracism. For example, the article on Scott alexander may have been framed in a negative way, but you can read through the article yourself: nothing in there is a lie. Similarly, Time may have a skewed perspective and negative framing, but they still have journalistic standards and were reporting on real allegations.
It also falls on the trap of debating whether EA is as bad as “average” or not, rather than whether there is room for improvement, which there very clearly and obviously is.
I am terrified that you were so thoroughly downvoted… “EA only wants to hear shallow critiques, not deep ones” seems to be happening vigorously, still.
I have redacted from this comment the name of a person accused, based on https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/JCyX29F77Jak5gbwq/ea-sexual-harassment-and-abuse?commentId=9hdQzfxNZ9K4cBCGG
Edit: community health and mod teams have replied here https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/JCyX29F77Jak5gbwq/ea-sexual-harassment-and-abuse?commentId=7vGd37wuAA4wo9t2P feel free to add it back after reading those recommendations