You call “whiteness in EA” an “issue.” You say that being asked to get to the EA part of your point “by men and white folks is widespread in EA. And it makes [your] blood boil.” You consider my post on the EA forum to be a bad experience, saying you are disappointed in “posts like this by white people on eugenics in poor, non-white countries.”
The entire purpose of my post was to provide a plan to uplift the poor of the world, something every EA advocates for. I did so in a respectful manner, and I did not attack any race or say anything hateful whatsoever. Did you read it? I tried to argue my case in an extremely non-inflammatory manner citing a huge number of studies. Now it’s at −26 karma. You criticize me explicitly for my race. You make it a salient aspect of my argument when it is not relevant whatsoever and I’m being penalized for it. You also just assumed I’m white. Based on what? My picture? My name? Would you find me more reasonable or moral if I was a different race? If not, then why does it matter. If so, then how is this not racist/biased?
You on the other hand are especially disgusted bothered by things that white people do by your own admission. You are especially concerned when white folks do something or post something. Also, you consider whiteness a problem.
This is a disappointing trend in EA that will drive out interesting thinking. Do you want more data analysis or anecdotes and appeals to emotion? Do we want to be trying to find the most effective ways to maximize human welfare (for all races) or do we want to be engaging in identity politics where non-white opinions and welfare are less important?
I appreciate your comment, you are right. I should have dropped the “white” word in the example of your post. I think you are correct, it does not matter, I would have been upset regardless. And I do apologize if you are not in fact white—like I said I make mistakes on a daily basis. I know this is perhaps a cop-out but… I seek draft amnesty? Still, I feel worse if such posts are made by white people. Like I said I am explaining how I feel, and this cannot be argued about. I made this post due to popular demand and I meant it mostly so that people interested in why some people disengage, or perhaps never engage, with EA knows at least one mechanism through which alienation from EA works.
That said, your post contributes quite a lot to me feeling embarrassed to be an EA, and of my feeling of not being at home here. I think more so because it is tolerated and implicitly endorsed by CEA by virtue of not being removed or something like that.
And some of the language in your comment is unnecessarily inflammatory, like the use of “identity politics” as if there is some sort of politics that does not pertain to people’s identity. White, het cis or abelist politics is still identity politics. And the upvotes on your comment does not help either.
Note that I am only engaging with your comment in terms of how I feel, that is all I am interested in talking about here. The sole goal of my post was to let people know the mechanism by which someone could get alienated from the EA movement. I (and I think others too) thought this was important to get out there as I felt, and I think people who wanted me to write this post felt that too, that we might not understand well what drives PoC, or even white people away from the movement. I am sure there are many other ways people can feel alienated too, so this is just an anecdote but I hope it is helpful for those that might want to increase diversity and grow the movement. In my case it is one of the strongest aversions I have to EA.
I think it’s reasonable to focus on expressing an experienced sentiment, but I think it’s also fair for people to push back on the sentiment. There are after all people who have felt alienated from and pushed out of EA as a result of the active shaping of forum content to be more agreeable.
implicitly endorsed by CEA by virtue of not being removed or something like that
I think it would be quite bad if forum mods began to remove posts on the basis that something existing on the forum constitutes an endorsement by CEA. I’m not even sure it’s a coherent implication—there are many topics on which posts have been written that disagree with each other, including where someone says a stance is actively harmful. Which position should CEA be taken to endorse?
the use of “identity politics” as if there is some sort of politics that does not pertain to people’s identity
This seems straightforwardly false. Maybe you have are using a very specific definition of politics, but surely many areas cut across most identity categories? For instance it seems quite coherent to possess a stance on climate, and coordinate a movement around it, in a way that is agnostic to identity.
White, het cis or abelist politics is still identity politics
I’m not sure what this means, could you give an example of an area of white, het cis or abelist politics?
Hi Rebecca and thanks for taking the time to patiently engage with this topic—I think that is important.
I agree 100% that people should push back if they feel like it. And I absolutely see the perspective of those that feel like they have to censor themselves in EA settings and that this also causes alienation. I kind of feel EA has 3 choices here:
Continue trying to find a middle ground, alienating people on “both sides”, leadership/prominent figures awkwardly silent on the topics
Embrace the “all discussion is good” and do little in the way of DEI, alienating people who feels discomfort from certain topics like eugenics
Go all in on “Deloitte NYC” and strongly discourage certain discussions, do lots of DEI interventions, have leadership speak loudly about DEI
I am, as is probably obvious from now, pushing hard for option number 3 and also think this is more likely to lead to us achieving our goals. I kind of feel like the frist, currently pursued option is the worst—there is a reason few organizations/companies do this. Take Nike, X, Deloitte etc. they all have taken a strong stance.
I apologize for going part way down the rabbit hole of identity politics. I only meant to say how I feel about the term, to emphasize the points made in the OP. I respectfully decline to go further down that rabbit hole. And I know this can come off as a bit arrogant but I am sure others have written on this topic.
You call “whiteness in EA” an “issue.” You say that being asked to get to the EA part of your point “by men and white folks is widespread in EA. And it makes [your] blood boil.” You consider my post on the EA forum to be a bad experience, saying you are disappointed in “posts like this by white people on eugenics in poor, non-white countries.”
The entire purpose of my post was to provide a plan to uplift the poor of the world, something every EA advocates for. I did so in a respectful manner, and I did not attack any race or say anything hateful whatsoever. Did you read it? I tried to argue my case in an extremely non-inflammatory manner citing a huge number of studies. Now it’s at −26 karma. You criticize me explicitly for my race. You make it a salient aspect of my argument when it is not relevant whatsoever and I’m being penalized for it. You also just assumed I’m white. Based on what? My picture? My name? Would you find me more reasonable or moral if I was a different race? If not, then why does it matter. If so, then how is this not racist/biased?
You on the other hand are especially
disgustedbothered by things that white people do by your own admission. You are especially concerned when white folks do something or post something. Also, you consider whiteness a problem.This is a disappointing trend in EA that will drive out interesting thinking. Do you want more data analysis or anecdotes and appeals to emotion? Do we want to be trying to find the most effective ways to maximize human welfare (for all races) or do we want to be engaging in identity politics where non-white opinions and welfare are less important?
I appreciate your comment, you are right. I should have dropped the “white” word in the example of your post. I think you are correct, it does not matter, I would have been upset regardless. And I do apologize if you are not in fact white—like I said I make mistakes on a daily basis. I know this is perhaps a cop-out but… I seek draft amnesty? Still, I feel worse if such posts are made by white people. Like I said I am explaining how I feel, and this cannot be argued about. I made this post due to popular demand and I meant it mostly so that people interested in why some people disengage, or perhaps never engage, with EA knows at least one mechanism through which alienation from EA works.
That said, your post contributes quite a lot to me feeling embarrassed to be an EA, and of my feeling of not being at home here. I think more so because it is tolerated and implicitly endorsed by CEA by virtue of not being removed or something like that.
And some of the language in your comment is unnecessarily inflammatory, like the use of “identity politics” as if there is some sort of politics that does not pertain to people’s identity. White, het cis or abelist politics is still identity politics. And the upvotes on your comment does not help either.
Note that I am only engaging with your comment in terms of how I feel, that is all I am interested in talking about here. The sole goal of my post was to let people know the mechanism by which someone could get alienated from the EA movement. I (and I think others too) thought this was important to get out there as I felt, and I think people who wanted me to write this post felt that too, that we might not understand well what drives PoC, or even white people away from the movement. I am sure there are many other ways people can feel alienated too, so this is just an anecdote but I hope it is helpful for those that might want to increase diversity and grow the movement. In my case it is one of the strongest aversions I have to EA.
I think it’s reasonable to focus on expressing an experienced sentiment, but I think it’s also fair for people to push back on the sentiment. There are after all people who have felt alienated from and pushed out of EA as a result of the active shaping of forum content to be more agreeable.
I think it would be quite bad if forum mods began to remove posts on the basis that something existing on the forum constitutes an endorsement by CEA. I’m not even sure it’s a coherent implication—there are many topics on which posts have been written that disagree with each other, including where someone says a stance is actively harmful. Which position should CEA be taken to endorse?
This seems straightforwardly false. Maybe you have are using a very specific definition of politics, but surely many areas cut across most identity categories? For instance it seems quite coherent to possess a stance on climate, and coordinate a movement around it, in a way that is agnostic to identity.
I’m not sure what this means, could you give an example of an area of white, het cis or abelist politics?
Hi Rebecca and thanks for taking the time to patiently engage with this topic—I think that is important.
I agree 100% that people should push back if they feel like it. And I absolutely see the perspective of those that feel like they have to censor themselves in EA settings and that this also causes alienation. I kind of feel EA has 3 choices here:
Continue trying to find a middle ground, alienating people on “both sides”, leadership/prominent figures awkwardly silent on the topics
Embrace the “all discussion is good” and do little in the way of DEI, alienating people who feels discomfort from certain topics like eugenics
Go all in on “Deloitte NYC” and strongly discourage certain discussions, do lots of DEI interventions, have leadership speak loudly about DEI
I am, as is probably obvious from now, pushing hard for option number 3 and also think this is more likely to lead to us achieving our goals. I kind of feel like the frist, currently pursued option is the worst—there is a reason few organizations/companies do this. Take Nike, X, Deloitte etc. they all have taken a strong stance.
I apologize for going part way down the rabbit hole of identity politics. I only meant to say how I feel about the term, to emphasize the points made in the OP. I respectfully decline to go further down that rabbit hole. And I know this can come off as a bit arrogant but I am sure others have written on this topic.