Hi, I read the piece a while back. I liked some bits and disliked others. Mainly I wanted to give some context for my piece.
I don’t think my piece is deeply engaging with yours, nor is it intending to.
On harms versus intent, I agree harms matter more.
But I disagree on the last point. I think harm probably is sometimes the result of people with different norms/ preferences/ boundaries interacting. And I think EA takes particular sides in these cases.
thanks for updating! I realise I’m becoming overwhelmed since it’s very obvious to me who wrote this post, so I’m just going to bow out and delete my comment (so as to prevent me thinking about this post any further).
Hi, I read the piece a while back. I liked some bits and disliked others. Mainly I wanted to give some context for my piece.
I don’t think my piece is deeply engaging with yours, nor is it intending to.
On harms versus intent, I agree harms matter more.
But I disagree on the last point. I think harm probably is sometimes the result of people with different norms/ preferences/ boundaries interacting. And I think EA takes particular sides in these cases.
The way you’ve formatted this post makes it seem like my article and the time article are examples of the thesis, you might want to clarify that.
thanks for updating! I realise I’m becoming overwhelmed since it’s very obvious to me who wrote this post, so I’m just going to bow out and delete my comment (so as to prevent me thinking about this post any further).