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.
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.