Yes, I’m leaving the comment and edit in place as evidence for your point.
With that said, there is (i) some time pressure here, and (ii) the consequences of a mistake on my part were minimal if I was wrong, so I don’t regret my initial comments, I’m willing to eat the consequences for having guessed wrong. The tone of this NYT article makes it clear that there are powerful organizations and people still defending him as we speak. In the event there ever is clear evidence that he is STILL an “unlawful oathbreaker”, as opposed to being willing to walk the long road to redemption, no, I do not think “exiled from community” is too harsh a penalty for continued unnecessary association with him.
And I will stand by it, due to the magnitude of the problem and the visible power of his defenders.
Now, I’ve really only been EA-adjacent so far, I’ve never attended any EA-affiliated events beyond a solstice and a house gathering. But I do have some common sense about how trust works. I do not see an alternative path for the EA community to regain trust in the event he is proven to still be an unlawful oathbreaker.
Again, this does not apply if he was an oathbreaker but is now unusually accepting of the consequences.
Yes, I’m leaving the comment and edit in place as evidence for your point.
With that said, there is (i) some time pressure here, and (ii) the consequences of a mistake on my part were minimal if I was wrong, so I don’t regret my initial comments, I’m willing to eat the consequences for having guessed wrong. The tone of this NYT article makes it clear that there are powerful organizations and people still defending him as we speak. In the event there ever is clear evidence that he is STILL an “unlawful oathbreaker”, as opposed to being willing to walk the long road to redemption, no, I do not think “exiled from community” is too harsh a penalty for continued unnecessary association with him.
I will still push back on “exiled from community”—it almost makes it seem like EA is a cult, which I hope it’s not.
And I will stand by it, due to the magnitude of the problem and the visible power of his defenders.
Now, I’ve really only been EA-adjacent so far, I’ve never attended any EA-affiliated events beyond a solstice and a house gathering. But I do have some common sense about how trust works. I do not see an alternative path for the EA community to regain trust in the event he is proven to still be an unlawful oathbreaker.
Again, this does not apply if he was an oathbreaker but is now unusually accepting of the consequences.