The comment is condescending and devalues the opinions of a group of talented people who have almost universally expressed value in animal welfare.
An underlying reason for people who disagree with you here is that they feel some views are imposed unfairly and dogmatically, without regard to impact. Yet, they are still engaged and communicating honestly.
Instead of taking this chance to listen and weigh their perspective (because, I don’t know, they are brilliant EAs who built up longtermist infrastructure in the Bay Area and influence generations of future EAs) a sneering, negative attitude would be inexplicably counterproductive, pretty much snatching defeat from this opportunity.
Leave it to EAs to spend endless words rationalizing something they want / rationalizing away something that is “inconvenient.”
Which side is the inconvenient side here?
This is pretty amusing Matt, unsure why you’ve been down-voted here. More seriously, rationalization of one’s preferences is a real trap!
The comment is condescending and devalues the opinions of a group of talented people who have almost universally expressed value in animal welfare.
An underlying reason for people who disagree with you here is that they feel some views are imposed unfairly and dogmatically, without regard to impact. Yet, they are still engaged and communicating honestly.
Instead of taking this chance to listen and weigh their perspective (because, I don’t know, they are brilliant EAs who built up longtermist infrastructure in the Bay Area and influence generations of future EAs) a sneering, negative attitude would be inexplicably counterproductive, pretty much snatching defeat from this opportunity.