The EA Forum should ban any discussion of race science, “human biodiversity”, or racial differences in IQ
Can you link to concrete examples of things on the EA Forum that would be deleted under the proposed new EA Forum rules?
I tried searching for “human biodiversity” but few of these posts seem like the kind of post where I would guess that you want them deleted.
Things that are found were mostly about the Manifest or Bostrom controversy. I am guessing you do not want to delete these. Or this post.
In the wake of the Bostrom controversy there was also this heavily downvoted post that complained about “wokism”. I am guessing this is the type of post that you want to see deleted.
There is also this upvoted comment that argues against “human biodiversity”, which, if I interpret your proposed rule change correctly, should also be deleted. (A rule that says “you are allowed to argue against HBD, but not for it” would be naive IMO, and I do not get the impression that you would endorse such a rule).
Overall, I do not remember seeing people discussing “human biodiversity” on the object level. It indeed seems off-topic for EA. And explicitly searching for it does not bring up a lot, and only in relation to EA controversies.
My hope is that in practice it would be pretty rare for this rule to be invoked, although I think it does depend a bit on how the final rule is worded. The comment you linked arguing against human biodiversity is a tough edge case. On the one hand, I am a lot more concerned about people arguing for human biodiversity than against it, but one the other hand it doesn’t seem like the end of the world if a prohibition on discussing the topic also took down comments like that.
IMO the forum rule I proposed is in my view the least important of the reforms/policies I suggested. The value comes more from signalling an opposition to racism/race science than it does from actually taking down a couple of comments here and there. Given how controversial the rule is, it would clearly be a pretty costly signal. That seems good by the lights of “making it more likely people of color engage with the EA movement.”
Can you link to concrete examples of things on the EA Forum that would be deleted under the proposed new EA Forum rules?
I tried searching for “human biodiversity” but few of these posts seem like the kind of post where I would guess that you want them deleted.
Things that are found were mostly about the Manifest or Bostrom controversy. I am guessing you do not want to delete these. Or this post. In the wake of the Bostrom controversy there was also this heavily downvoted post that complained about “wokism”. I am guessing this is the type of post that you want to see deleted. There is also this upvoted comment that argues against “human biodiversity”, which, if I interpret your proposed rule change correctly, should also be deleted. (A rule that says “you are allowed to argue against HBD, but not for it” would be naive IMO, and I do not get the impression that you would endorse such a rule).
Overall, I do not remember seeing people discussing “human biodiversity” on the object level. It indeed seems off-topic for EA. And explicitly searching for it does not bring up a lot, and only in relation to EA controversies.
A clear example of a post that would be banned under the rules: why-ea-will-be-anti-woke-or-die.
My hope is that in practice it would be pretty rare for this rule to be invoked, although I think it does depend a bit on how the final rule is worded. The comment you linked arguing against human biodiversity is a tough edge case. On the one hand, I am a lot more concerned about people arguing for human biodiversity than against it, but one the other hand it doesn’t seem like the end of the world if a prohibition on discussing the topic also took down comments like that.
IMO the forum rule I proposed is in my view the least important of the reforms/policies I suggested. The value comes more from signalling an opposition to racism/race science than it does from actually taking down a couple of comments here and there. Given how controversial the rule is, it would clearly be a pretty costly signal. That seems good by the lights of “making it more likely people of color engage with the EA movement.”