You’ve misleadingly quoted me here. I said I was delighted to see The Guardian pick up my reporting on Brian Chau, not that I was delighted with the piece overall. I’m surprised that someone committed to truth-seeking would mislead forum users like this.
In the follow-up tweet you say: “Glad to see the press picking [this story] up (though wish they made the rationalist/EA distinction clearer!)”
So far as I’ve found, you’ve made no comments indicating that you disagree with the problematic methodology of the piece, and two comments saying you were “delighted” and “glad” with parts of it. I think my quote is representative. I’ve updated my comment for clarity.
Nonetheless: how would you prefer to be quoted?
EDIT: Shakeel posted a comment pointing to a tweet of his “mistakes” in the post, and I was wrong to claim there were no comments.
Ah! I was wrong to claim you made “no” such comments. I’ve edited my above comment.
Now, I of course notice how you only mention “lots of mistakes” after Jeffrey objects, and after it’s become clear that there is a big outpouring of hit piece criticism, and only little support.
Why were you glad about it before then?
Did you:
...not think it was a hit piece? (I think you’re a smart guy, and even a journalist yourself, so I’m kind of incredulous about you not picking up on the patterns here)
...or were you okay with the-amount-of-hit-piece-you-thought-it-was? (this is of course what I’m worried about, and why I am pursuing this so vigorously. I think this article crossed several very important epistemic red lines, and I will fight for those lines to remain intact, and will be very vocal about confronting journalists close to the community who don’t seem to respect them)
...or something else? (reality might of course be more complicated than my neatly packaged options above, so do feel free to explain)
To sort of steelman a defence here, shouldn’t we be glad that Shakeel is publicly expressing the views he actually holds. To my understanding, he doesn’t like how rationalists behave in this area and so has said so, both on twitter and on the forum.
Perhaps you might have preferred he did it differently, but it seems like he could have done it much worse and given it’s a thing he actually believes, it seems better that he said it than that he didn’t.
(I’m not sure I fully endorse this, nor do I endorse shakeel’s position in general, but like I’m glad he’s said it on the forum)
It’s indeed helpful that Shakeel expressed those views, because now it’s clear where he’s at, and it will make it easier to relate to him as a journalist in future.
You’ve misleadingly quoted me here. I said I was delighted to see The Guardian pick up my reporting on Brian Chau, not that I was delighted with the piece overall. I’m surprised that someone committed to truth-seeking would mislead forum users like this.
In the follow-up tweet you say: “Glad to see the press picking [this story] up (though wish they made the rationalist/EA distinction clearer!)”
So far as I’ve found, you’ve made no comments indicating that you disagree with the problematic methodology of the piece, and two comments saying you were “delighted” and “glad” with parts of it. I think my quote is representative. I’ve updated my comment for clarity.
Nonetheless: how would you prefer to be quoted?
EDIT: Shakeel posted a comment pointing to a tweet of his “mistakes” in the post, and I was wrong to claim there were no comments.
It seems you didn’t look very hard! https://x.com/shakeelhashim/status/1802493753841594711?s=46
Ah! I was wrong to claim you made “no” such comments. I’ve edited my above comment.
Now, I of course notice how you only mention “lots of mistakes” after Jeffrey objects, and after it’s become clear that there is a big outpouring of hit piece criticism, and only little support.
Why were you glad about it before then?
Did you:
...not think it was a hit piece? (I think you’re a smart guy, and even a journalist yourself, so I’m kind of incredulous about you not picking up on the patterns here)
...or were you okay with the-amount-of-hit-piece-you-thought-it-was? (this is of course what I’m worried about, and why I am pursuing this so vigorously. I think this article crossed several very important epistemic red lines, and I will fight for those lines to remain intact, and will be very vocal about confronting journalists close to the community who don’t seem to respect them)
...or something else? (reality might of course be more complicated than my neatly packaged options above, so do feel free to explain)
To sort of steelman a defence here, shouldn’t we be glad that Shakeel is publicly expressing the views he actually holds. To my understanding, he doesn’t like how rationalists behave in this area and so has said so, both on twitter and on the forum.
Perhaps you might have preferred he did it differently, but it seems like he could have done it much worse and given it’s a thing he actually believes, it seems better that he said it than that he didn’t.
(I’m not sure I fully endorse this, nor do I endorse shakeel’s position in general, but like I’m glad he’s said it on the forum)
It’s indeed helpful that Shakeel expressed those views, because now it’s clear where he’s at, and it will make it easier to relate to him as a journalist in future.