This is a disappointingly supportive message towards CEA’s handling of the situation.
There will be some people who do not want to associate with CEA knowing that this is how they handle actions by employees, and how they address failures by the leadership team.
Surely you don’t speak on behalf of all of GWWC?
And surely some will reconsider their support of GWWC as well?
-The Dub-meister
EDIT: It’s easy to ‘disagree’ and spread negative karma with just a tap, isn’t it?
It’s harder to explain why.
Maybe eventually we’ll agree that once people have made mistakes, doubled down on them, been independently assessed to have made avoidable mistakes, make ineffective changes to prevent the preventable mistakes, that those people are not suited to those roles...
...the “E” in EA stands for ‘Effective’. If the HR function of an organization can’t be effective, how can the altruism be?
Hi Amit, I think people might be downvoting you because they don’t see James’ comment as indicating support for CEA or a similarity in this area between GWWC and CEA.
I’m actually also not sure what part of his comment gave you that indication, but maybe you have some context you can share? I’m not able to weigh in.
Despite the leaf showing your profile is new, I get a hunch from your post history that you have some longer engagement with EA, not that you’re an opp who has come from afar to criticize as much as possible about the movement. If something in your experience with EA has jaded you, I would value hearing your story.
I think at this time, we both come across as passive aggressive towards EA in general. If you’re able to, I would recommend getting someone to review your posts/comments before you post them, so that they come across in a way that’s more aligned with the tone of the forum. I would get feedback on my posts myself, but if I were to share my posts with the people in my life, I would not be able to answer their questions about why I am posting or what I am trying to change. So I am just trying to keep things as positive and indirect as I can. Judging from the karma on my comment a few days ago, I think I’m not really hitting the mark.
My view on @James Steijger 🔸 ’s GWWC response to the CEH response to Frances is that either they should have condemned it wholeheartedly, or said nothing, but not that they should make some flacid statement about “thank you…sorry…we need to be extra mindful…”.
Frances went through something horrible, then CEA amplified and prolonged it. Rather than being a group of people who would help her with what she needed, they gaslit her. Then James comes along, “on behalf of GWWC” and says “our missions make paying attention to these inequalities more important, not less”
I’m definitely not here to criticize as much as possible. As you know from your own post, the downvoting has more to do with other people’s feelingsabout a comment than the literal text or even the sentiment behind it.
Getting pre-publication review of comments would be a good idea...if my objective was to only say things that other people agree with. That’s not my objective.
Your comment was not taken “in the spirit that it was intended” for two reasons.
One is that it followed mine, which was critical of James’ comment. There are a lot of people here who want to maintain a positive atmosphere, even at the risk of not being honest. Perhaps that’s because they believe that CEA is on thin ice with this very public misstep. And perhaps people are sensitive after the whole Sam Bankman-Fried situation too.
The second reason is that while you started your comment positively, overall it reads sarcastically and critically. I suspect you did not intend this, but that is the communication style—literal and inquisitive.
Saying that GWWC policies are newly absent from their website will not be taken as you intend it because it will be taken as them hiding their policies (which may very well be true). Those kinds of policies would ordinarily be for internal availability only, and asking for them now after CEA’s fumble is less likely because there will be more scrutiny on them.
I don’t know enough about the cultural factors, but both CEA and GWWC originate in the UK, so their response to a situation like this may be different than what I would expect. Probably the attitude is “Keep Calm and EA on”
And your detailed question will be taken as inappropriate in a comment where GWWC is just trying to say something appropriate “because they should” about a poorly handled situation. Nobody wants to actually have a public discussion about the factors underlying the situation, let alone under a post that demonstrates that the people you are asking the question to are not capable of answering the question!
Thank you, you have responded very thoughtfully! Re “either they should have condemned it wholeheartedly, or said nothing,” good on you to call out the implicature of non-statements. I think the dehumanizing nature of boilerplate-like speech goes generally unacknowledged.
It is calamitous that while candid critical questioning can be considered calm and composed, working within a parameter of imperative public positivity ends up sounding sarcastic if the scrutinizer isn’t skilled at “the spin.” The passive voice is not liked by anyone, and least of all by me.
James,
This is a disappointingly supportive message towards CEA’s handling of the situation.
There will be some people who do not want to associate with CEA knowing that this is how they handle actions by employees, and how they address failures by the leadership team.
Surely you don’t speak on behalf of all of GWWC?
And surely some will reconsider their support of GWWC as well?
-The Dub-meister
EDIT: It’s easy to ‘disagree’ and spread negative karma with just a tap, isn’t it?
It’s harder to explain why.
Maybe eventually we’ll agree that once people have made mistakes, doubled down on them, been independently assessed to have made avoidable mistakes, make ineffective changes to prevent the preventable mistakes, that those people are not suited to those roles...
...the “E” in EA stands for ‘Effective’. If the HR function of an organization can’t be effective, how can the altruism be?
Hi Amit, I think people might be downvoting you because they don’t see James’ comment as indicating support for CEA or a similarity in this area between GWWC and CEA.
I’m actually also not sure what part of his comment gave you that indication, but maybe you have some context you can share? I’m not able to weigh in.
Despite the leaf showing your profile is new, I get a hunch from your post history that you have some longer engagement with EA, not that you’re an opp who has come from afar to criticize as much as possible about the movement. If something in your experience with EA has jaded you, I would value hearing your story.
I think at this time, we both come across as passive aggressive towards EA in general. If you’re able to, I would recommend getting someone to review your posts/comments before you post them, so that they come across in a way that’s more aligned with the tone of the forum. I would get feedback on my posts myself, but if I were to share my posts with the people in my life, I would not be able to answer their questions about why I am posting or what I am trying to change. So I am just trying to keep things as positive and indirect as I can. Judging from the karma on my comment a few days ago, I think I’m not really hitting the mark.
Hi @Spencer R. Ericson ,
My view on @James Steijger 🔸 ’s GWWC response to the CEH response to Frances is that either they should have condemned it wholeheartedly, or said nothing, but not that they should make some flacid statement about “thank you…sorry…we need to be extra mindful…”.
Frances went through something horrible, then CEA amplified and prolonged it. Rather than being a group of people who would help her with what she needed, they gaslit her. Then James comes along, “on behalf of GWWC” and says “our missions make paying attention to these inequalities more important, not less”
I’m definitely not here to criticize as much as possible. As you know from your own post, the downvoting has more to do with other people’s feelings about a comment than the literal text or even the sentiment behind it.
Getting pre-publication review of comments would be a good idea...if my objective was to only say things that other people agree with. That’s not my objective.
Your comment was not taken “in the spirit that it was intended” for two reasons.
One is that it followed mine, which was critical of James’ comment. There are a lot of people here who want to maintain a positive atmosphere, even at the risk of not being honest. Perhaps that’s because they believe that CEA is on thin ice with this very public misstep. And perhaps people are sensitive after the whole Sam Bankman-Fried situation too.
The second reason is that while you started your comment positively, overall it reads sarcastically and critically. I suspect you did not intend this, but that is the communication style—literal and inquisitive.
Saying that GWWC policies are newly absent from their website will not be taken as you intend it because it will be taken as them hiding their policies (which may very well be true). Those kinds of policies would ordinarily be for internal availability only, and asking for them now after CEA’s fumble is less likely because there will be more scrutiny on them.
I don’t know enough about the cultural factors, but both CEA and GWWC originate in the UK, so their response to a situation like this may be different than what I would expect. Probably the attitude is “Keep Calm and EA on”
And your detailed question will be taken as inappropriate in a comment where GWWC is just trying to say something appropriate “because they should” about a poorly handled situation. Nobody wants to actually have a public discussion about the factors underlying the situation, let alone under a post that demonstrates that the people you are asking the question to are not capable of answering the question!
-The Dub-meister
Thank you, you have responded very thoughtfully! Re “either they should have condemned it wholeheartedly, or said nothing,” good on you to call out the implicature of non-statements. I think the dehumanizing nature of boilerplate-like speech goes generally unacknowledged.
It is calamitous that while candid critical questioning can be considered calm and composed, working within a parameter of imperative public positivity ends up sounding sarcastic if the scrutinizer isn’t skilled at “the spin.” The passive voice is not liked by anyone, and least of all by me.