Rather, the more common sentiment, and the one I think is mostly attracting upvotes, seems to me to be like “who are we to tell other people who to talk to?”
I don’t know much about him, but from what I do know I think the guy sounds like a jerk and I’d be meaningfully less interested in going to events he was at; I can’t really imagine inviting him to speak at anything
But it also seems to me that it’s important to respect people’s autonomy and ability to choose differently
Criticizing someone’s decisions is not denying them autonomy or ability to choose.
To use a legal metaphor, one way of thinking about this is personal jurisdiction—what has Manifest done that gives the EA community a right to criticize? After all, it would be uncool to start criticizing random people on the Forum with no link to EA, and it would generally be uncool to start criticizing random EAs for their private non-EA/EA-adjacent actions.
I have two answers to that:
The first is purposeful availment. If an actor purposefully takes advantage of community resources in connection with an action, they cannot reasonably complain about their choices being the subject of community scrutiny. The Manifest organizers promoted their event on the Forum. A significant portion of Manifold’s funding has come from an EA-linked source (FTXFF) and IIRC they have sought grants from OP as well.
The second is adverse effect / distancing. It’s reasonable for members of a community that has been adversely affected by an action, or to whom the action is being imputed (or to whom it might reasonably be expected to be imputed) to criticize—especially if the criticism helps set the record straight that the community doesn’t support the action. It is not reasonable for the speakers to expect community members not mitigate the reputational harm that their actions have caused. This is why, for instance, it was appropriate for CEA to issue a statement on the Bostrom e-mail even though there was no personal availment.
I don’t think it matters if the imputation of others is reasonable. It is the experience of harm to the community that gives it standing to criticize. That community may have been involuntarily and unreasonably dragged into the controversy, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is there. In contrast, I think standing based on possible future imputation would be triggered only where some meaningful degree of imputation would be reasonable to some class of outside observers.
From my “side,” some of the comments by third parties have made the adverse effect / need to distance more acute. People are advocating scientific racism on the merits, which is not a position that the Manifest organizers actually took. While it’s important to distinguish between the organizers’ stance and that of the third-party commenters, I think it’s unavoidable that the third-party comments are raising the temperature here.
So if the Manifest organizers don’t want to give the EA community a right to criticize, they can avoid or at least limit purposeful availment, and can at least try to take steps to avoid any negative secondary effects on the EA community.
Criticizing someone’s decisions is not denying them autonomy or ability to choose.
To use a legal metaphor, one way of thinking about this is personal jurisdiction—what has Manifest done that gives the EA community a right to criticize? After all, it would be uncool to start criticizing random people on the Forum with no link to EA, and it would generally be uncool to start criticizing random EAs for their private non-EA/EA-adjacent actions.
I have two answers to that:
The first is purposeful availment. If an actor purposefully takes advantage of community resources in connection with an action, they cannot reasonably complain about their choices being the subject of community scrutiny. The Manifest organizers promoted their event on the Forum. A significant portion of Manifold’s funding has come from an EA-linked source (FTXFF) and IIRC they have sought grants from OP as well.
The second is adverse effect / distancing. It’s reasonable for members of a community that has been adversely affected by an action, or to whom the action is being imputed (or to whom it might reasonably be expected to be imputed) to criticize—especially if the criticism helps set the record straight that the community doesn’t support the action. It is not reasonable for the speakers to expect community members not mitigate the reputational harm that their actions have caused. This is why, for instance, it was appropriate for CEA to issue a statement on the Bostrom e-mail even though there was no personal availment.
I don’t think it matters if the imputation of others is reasonable. It is the experience of harm to the community that gives it standing to criticize. That community may have been involuntarily and unreasonably dragged into the controversy, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is there. In contrast, I think standing based on possible future imputation would be triggered only where some meaningful degree of imputation would be reasonable to some class of outside observers.
From my “side,” some of the comments by third parties have made the adverse effect / need to distance more acute. People are advocating scientific racism on the merits, which is not a position that the Manifest organizers actually took. While it’s important to distinguish between the organizers’ stance and that of the third-party commenters, I think it’s unavoidable that the third-party comments are raising the temperature here.
So if the Manifest organizers don’t want to give the EA community a right to criticize, they can avoid or at least limit purposeful availment, and can at least try to take steps to avoid any negative secondary effects on the EA community.