I suppose what you’re saying makes sense from where you stand. I guess I’m trying to show you another way of seeing the world, even though I know it won’t make sense from your perspective. I’d encourage you to imagine briefly what it would mean for this to be true, to explore what the world looks like through this lens, and its internal logic. I suspect that this exercise could be valuable even if you don’t end up agreeing with this perspective.
When did you edit your response? You were saying something else, originally...
Yes, I can imagine the world where I respond to the misrepresentations with politeness—I did that for twenty years, and the misrepresentations continued, along with so many other forms of bullying. I have seen the world from that lens, and I learned that it’s better for me to stand-up to misrepresentations, even if that means the bully doesn’t like me.
Maybe I should have been clearer. I’m asking you to imagine the world where everyone isn’t intrinsically against you, they’ve tried to help and they’ve been pushed away. I know that’s a difficult ask, but I suspect it would be worthwhile.
Strong downvote for extreme and inappropriate condescension in the guise of helping someone. There is no adequate reason for you to assume that Anthony is living in a world where everyone is intrinsically against him, and that he cannot even imagine not living in a different world. This is an extremely strong statement to make about someone you know through a few online comments. Why do you think you’re right?
Even if you were right, helping him would not take the form of trying to point this out publicly in such a tactless way.
I can see why you might think it’s a guise, but it really isn’t the case. I think you’re correct that it does come off as slightly condescending, but this isn’t intentional. I’m trying to expand the range of what I can say without coming off as condescending, but for there are some things where I find it challenging; where it feels to me like trying to thread a needle. In any case, your comment contains useful feedback.
I just want to make it clear that it’s a genuine attempt to say the most helpful thing that I can, even if I think it only has a small chance of making a difference, but I agree that a private message might have been better. As for why I think this what I think, it’s mostly based on my experience of dealing with people. I could produce some explicit reasons if I really wanted to, but I’m not sure if it’s worthwhile given that they are more the sideshow than anything.
Thanks, this is a good followup. I’m glad my comment contained useful feedback for you.
I think your attempt to help Anthony went awry when he asked you why his tone was the bigger issue than whether he had been misrepresented, and you did not even seem to consider that he could be right in your reply. Perhaps he is right? Perhaps not? But it’s important to at least genuinely consider that he could be.
Thank you for recognizing that my concern was not addressed. I should mention, I am also not operating from an assumption of ‘intrinsically against me’ - it’s an unusually specific reaction that I’ve received on this forum, in particular. So, I’m glad that you have spoken-up in favor of due consideration. My stomach knots thank you :)
I don’t feel good about this situation, but I think your judgement is really different than most reads of what happened:
It’s clear to me that there’s someone who isn’t communicating or creating beliefs in a way that would be workable. Chris Leong’s comments seem objectively correct (if not likely to be useful).
(While committing this sin with this comment itself) It’s clearly better to walk away and leave them alone than risk stirring up another round of issues.
My comment very well may not be useful. I think there’s value in experimenting with different ways of engaging with people. I think it is possible to have these kind of conversations but I don’t think that I’ve quite managed to figure out how to do that yet.
I think the person involved is either having a specific negative personal incident, or revealing latent personality traits that suggest the situation is much less promising and below a reasonable bar for skilled intervention in a conversation.
With an willingness to be wrong and ignore norms, I think I could elaborate or make informative comments (maybe relevant of trust, scaling and dilution that seem to be major topics right now?). But it feels distasteful and inhumane to do this to one individual who is not an EA.
(I think EAs can and should endure much more, directly and publicly, and this seems like it would address would be problems with trust and scaling).
It seems someone is deleting my posts, when I have not said anything in those posts except my own self-defense and what has been done to me. Here it is, again:
I am waiting for an apology from them—I don’t know why I should be pleasant after repeatedly being disrespected. That sounds like you’re asking me to “be a good little girl, and let them be mean to you, because if you’re good enough, then they’ll start to be nice.” It’s not a fault upon me that I should ‘be nice until they like me’ - they misrepresented me, which is the issue, NOT “lack of engagement”.
Thank you for the clarification. It’s still worrisome that a subset, by downvoting, can ensure that my correction of their misrepresentation goes un-noticed, while their misrepresentation of me stands in full view. There was another post on the Forum, recently, talking about how outsiders worry that EA is a cult or a clique—I hope you can see where that concern is coming from, when my self-defense is downvoted to obscurity, while the misrepresentations stand.
I suppose what you’re saying makes sense from where you stand. I guess I’m trying to show you another way of seeing the world, even though I know it won’t make sense from your perspective. I’d encourage you to imagine briefly what it would mean for this to be true, to explore what the world looks like through this lens, and its internal logic. I suspect that this exercise could be valuable even if you don’t end up agreeing with this perspective.
When did you edit your response? You were saying something else, originally...
Yes, I can imagine the world where I respond to the misrepresentations with politeness—I did that for twenty years, and the misrepresentations continued, along with so many other forms of bullying. I have seen the world from that lens, and I learned that it’s better for me to stand-up to misrepresentations, even if that means the bully doesn’t like me.
I have no idea if I edited it or not. I tried checking to see if they had a history feature, but apparently not.
Maybe I should have been clearer. I’m asking you to imagine the world where everyone isn’t intrinsically against you, they’ve tried to help and they’ve been pushed away. I know that’s a difficult ask, but I suspect it would be worthwhile.
Strong downvote for extreme and inappropriate condescension in the guise of helping someone. There is no adequate reason for you to assume that Anthony is living in a world where everyone is intrinsically against him, and that he cannot even imagine not living in a different world. This is an extremely strong statement to make about someone you know through a few online comments. Why do you think you’re right?
Even if you were right, helping him would not take the form of trying to point this out publicly in such a tactless way.
I can see why you might think it’s a guise, but it really isn’t the case. I think you’re correct that it does come off as slightly condescending, but this isn’t intentional. I’m trying to expand the range of what I can say without coming off as condescending, but for there are some things where I find it challenging; where it feels to me like trying to thread a needle. In any case, your comment contains useful feedback.
I just want to make it clear that it’s a genuine attempt to say the most helpful thing that I can, even if I think it only has a small chance of making a difference, but I agree that a private message might have been better. As for why I think this what I think, it’s mostly based on my experience of dealing with people. I could produce some explicit reasons if I really wanted to, but I’m not sure if it’s worthwhile given that they are more the sideshow than anything.
Thanks, this is a good followup. I’m glad my comment contained useful feedback for you.
I think your attempt to help Anthony went awry when he asked you why his tone was the bigger issue than whether he had been misrepresented, and you did not even seem to consider that he could be right in your reply. Perhaps he is right? Perhaps not? But it’s important to at least genuinely consider that he could be.
Thank you for recognizing that my concern was not addressed. I should mention, I am also not operating from an assumption of ‘intrinsically against me’ - it’s an unusually specific reaction that I’ve received on this forum, in particular. So, I’m glad that you have spoken-up in favor of due consideration. My stomach knots thank you :)
I don’t feel good about this situation, but I think your judgement is really different than most reads of what happened:
It’s clear to me that there’s someone who isn’t communicating or creating beliefs in a way that would be workable. Chris Leong’s comments seem objectively correct (if not likely to be useful).
(While committing this sin with this comment itself) It’s clearly better to walk away and leave them alone than risk stirring up another round of issues.
My comment very well may not be useful. I think there’s value in experimenting with different ways of engaging with people. I think it is possible to have these kind of conversations but I don’t think that I’ve quite managed to figure out how to do that yet.
I think the person involved is either having a specific negative personal incident, or revealing latent personality traits that suggest the situation is much less promising and below a reasonable bar for skilled intervention in a conversation.
With an willingness to be wrong and ignore norms, I think I could elaborate or make informative comments (maybe relevant of trust, scaling and dilution that seem to be major topics right now?). But it feels distasteful and inhumane to do this to one individual who is not an EA.
(I think EAs can and should endure much more, directly and publicly, and this seems like it would address would be problems with trust and scaling).
That’s useful feedback. I agree that it would have been better for me to engage with that more.
Glad to have been helpful :)
It seems someone is deleting my posts, when I have not said anything in those posts except my own self-defense and what has been done to me. Here it is, again:
I am waiting for an apology from them—I don’t know why I should be pleasant after repeatedly being disrespected. That sounds like you’re asking me to “be a good little girl, and let them be mean to you, because if you’re good enough, then they’ll start to be nice.” It’s not a fault upon me that I should ‘be nice until they like me’ - they misrepresented me, which is the issue, NOT “lack of engagement”.
I still see that comment at https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/cfdnJ3sDbCSkShiSZ/ea-and-the-current-funding-situation?commentId=6NRE6vxA5rhAC8cQP
I think it’s showing up as collapsed by default because it has been heavily downvoted?
Thank you for letting me know.
Thank you for the clarification. It’s still worrisome that a subset, by downvoting, can ensure that my correction of their misrepresentation goes un-noticed, while their misrepresentation of me stands in full view. There was another post on the Forum, recently, talking about how outsiders worry that EA is a cult or a clique—I hope you can see where that concern is coming from, when my self-defense is downvoted to obscurity, while the misrepresentations stand.