I don’t see how it is either mean-spirited or incorrect. Which part is incorrect?
The context is crucial here because it illustrates that he is not arguing in good faith, which is quite clear to anyone who knows the background to this.
On your last paragraph
you said: “no-one is really providing this specific bit of outside feedback [that they risk racism] to most of those groups”.
I said this wasn’t true because people eg say that global health is colonialist all the time.
You then characterise me as “saying that global development is also attacked, as if that means longtermists couldn’t be similarly guilty”.
Obviously, this was not what I was doing. I was arguing against the initial thing that you said (which you have now conceded). This is now the second time this has happened in this conversation, so I think we should probably draw this to a close.
You said he “clearly doesn’t believe what he is saying.” That was the place that seems obviously over the line, mean spirited, and incorrect. It was, of course, imputing motives, which is generally considered unacceptable. But more than that, you’re confused about what he’s saying, or you’re assuming that because he opposes some views longtermists hold, he must disagree with all of them. You need to very, very careful about reading what is said closely when you’re making such bold and insulting claims. He does not say anywhere in the linked article that engineered pandemics and AGI are not challenges, nor, in other forums, has he changed his mind about them as risks—but he does say that X-risk folks ignoring climate change is worrying, and that in his view, it is critical. And that’s a view that many others in EA share—just not the longtermists who are almost exclusively focused on X-risks. And his concerns about fanaticism are not exactly coming out of nowhere. The concern of fanaticism in longtermist thinking was brought up a half dozen times at the GPI conference earlier this week, and his concern about it seems far more strident, but is clearly understandable—even if you think, as I have said publicly and told him privately, that he’s misreading the most extreme philosophical arguments which have been proposed about longtermism as personal viewpoints held by people, rather than speculation.
to clarify, when I said he had applied for jobs at the organisations he criticises, I didn’t mean to be criticising him for that (I have also applied at jobs at many of those orgs and been rejected). My point was that it is a bit improbable that he has had such a genuine intellectual volte-face given this fact
In the second half of your comment, your analysis of the conversation, you claim that I’ve been doing something repeatedly. I think you are taking an excerpt and accidentally engaged in a motte-and-bailey—and given that the conversation took place over weeks, I assume that was because you didn’t go back and trace the entire thread. But I want to make this clearer, because I think my claims were misread.
Initially, you said of the criticism, “that also applies to people working on global development as well, and to pretty much all philanthropy.” I then agreed that “each [area] should be interested in outside feedback about whether it seems racist, or fail on other counts.” You replied that my criticism was “specific to longtermism… [but it] also applies to all social movements” I responded that “no-one is really providing this specific bit of outside feedback to most of those groups.” (And I will note that your claims until here are about “all philanthropy” and “all social movements,” no longer referring to just global development.) You said “there are also attacks on all global development charity for being colonialist.” (I disagree—there were, especially decades ago, but,) I responded, “global development has spent a huge amount of time and effort addressing the reasonable criticisms of colonialism… saying that global development is also attacked, as if that means longtermists couldn’t be similarly guilty, seems like a very, very strange defense.”
So I said everyone receiving the criticism should take it seriously. You said everyone (motte) in philanthropy is criticised in this was. I said *most of those groups* are not. You replied that global development (bailey) was criticised. I agreed—but again, pointed out that that was quite a while ago, and they have addressed the issues, i.e. did what I said EA should do. So I admitted that your bailey was correct—that an example which is not “all social movements” or “most groups” was criticised, and did the thing I said EA should do. And I’ll point out that you never went back and addressed the motte you first claimed, that it is a universal fact. Finally, “[I] then characterise [you] as “saying that global development is also attacked, as if that means longtermists couldn’t be similarly guilty.” And yes, that seems to encapsulate my point exactly.
I don’t see how it is either mean-spirited or incorrect. Which part is incorrect?
The context is crucial here because it illustrates that he is not arguing in good faith, which is quite clear to anyone who knows the background to this.
On your last paragraph
you said: “no-one is really providing this specific bit of outside feedback [that they risk racism] to most of those groups”.
I said this wasn’t true because people eg say that global health is colonialist all the time.
You then characterise me as “saying that global development is also attacked, as if that means longtermists couldn’t be similarly guilty”.
Obviously, this was not what I was doing. I was arguing against the initial thing that you said (which you have now conceded). This is now the second time this has happened in this conversation, so I think we should probably draw this to a close.
You said he “clearly doesn’t believe what he is saying.” That was the place that seems obviously over the line, mean spirited, and incorrect. It was, of course, imputing motives, which is generally considered unacceptable. But more than that, you’re confused about what he’s saying, or you’re assuming that because he opposes some views longtermists hold, he must disagree with all of them. You need to very, very careful about reading what is said closely when you’re making such bold and insulting claims. He does not say anywhere in the linked article that engineered pandemics and AGI are not challenges, nor, in other forums, has he changed his mind about them as risks—but he does say that X-risk folks ignoring climate change is worrying, and that in his view, it is critical. And that’s a view that many others in EA share—just not the longtermists who are almost exclusively focused on X-risks.
And his concerns about fanaticism are not exactly coming out of nowhere. The concern of fanaticism in longtermist thinking was brought up a half dozen times at the GPI conference earlier this week, and his concern about it seems far more strident, but is clearly understandable—even if you think, as I have said publicly and told him privately, that he’s misreading the most extreme philosophical arguments which have been proposed about longtermism as personal viewpoints held by people, rather than speculation.
to clarify, when I said he had applied for jobs at the organisations he criticises, I didn’t mean to be criticising him for that (I have also applied at jobs at many of those orgs and been rejected). My point was that it is a bit improbable that he has had such a genuine intellectual volte-face given this fact
In the second half of your comment, your analysis of the conversation, you claim that I’ve been doing something repeatedly. I think you are taking an excerpt and accidentally engaged in a motte-and-bailey—and given that the conversation took place over weeks, I assume that was because you didn’t go back and trace the entire thread. But I want to make this clearer, because I think my claims were misread.
Initially, you said of the criticism, “that also applies to people working on global development as well, and to pretty much all philanthropy.”
I then agreed that “each [area] should be interested in outside feedback about whether it seems racist, or fail on other counts.”
You replied that my criticism was “specific to longtermism… [but it] also applies to all social movements”
I responded that “no-one is really providing this specific bit of outside feedback to most of those groups.” (And I will note that your claims until here are about “all philanthropy” and “all social movements,” no longer referring to just global development.)
You said “there are also attacks on all global development charity for being colonialist.” (I disagree—there were, especially decades ago, but,)
I responded, “global development has spent a huge amount of time and effort addressing the reasonable criticisms of colonialism… saying that global development is also attacked, as if that means longtermists couldn’t be similarly guilty, seems like a very, very strange defense.”
So I said everyone receiving the criticism should take it seriously. You said everyone (motte) in philanthropy is criticised in this was. I said *most of those groups* are not. You replied that global development (bailey) was criticised. I agreed—but again, pointed out that that was quite a while ago, and they have addressed the issues, i.e. did what I said EA should do. So I admitted that your bailey was correct—that an example which is not “all social movements” or “most groups” was criticised, and did the thing I said EA should do. And I’ll point out that you never went back and addressed the motte you first claimed, that it is a universal fact. Finally, “[I] then characterise [you] as “saying that global development is also attacked, as if that means longtermists couldn’t be similarly guilty.” And yes, that seems to encapsulate my point exactly.