Kbog, I think your general mistake on this thread as a whole is assuming a binary between “either we act charitably to people or we ostracise people whenever members of the community feel like outgrouping them”. Thus your straw-man characterisation of an
exclusionary, witch hunt, no-due-diligence point of view which some people are advocating in the comments here
Which was exactly what I disavowed at the bottom of my long comment here.
Examples of why your dichotomy is false: we could have very explicit and contained rules, such as “If you do X, Y or Z then you’re out” and this would be different from the generic approach of “if anyone tries to outgrip them then support that effort”. Or if we feel that it is too hard to put into a clear list, perhaps we could outsource our decision-making to a small group of trusted ‘community moderators’ who were asked to make decisions about this sort of thing. In an case, these are two I just came up with, the landscape is more nuanced than you’r accounting for.
To be more clear, I’m against both (a) witch hunts and (b) formal procedures of evicting people. The fact that one of these things can happen without the other does not eliminate the fact that both of them are still stupid on their own.
we could have very explicit and contained rules, such as “If you do X, Y or Z then you’re out” and this would be different from the generic approach of “if anyone tries to outgrip them then support that effort”.
As a counterexample to the dichotomy, sure. As something to be implemented… haha no. The more rules you make up the more argument there will be over what does or doesn’t fall under those rules, what to do with bad actions outside the rules, etc.
Or if we feel that it is too hard to put into a clear list, perhaps we could outsource our decision-making to a small group of trusted ‘community moderators’
Maybe you shouldn’t outsource my decision about who is kosher to “trusted community moderators”. Why are people not smart enough to figure it out on their own?
And is this supposed to save time, the hundreds of hours that people are bemoaning here? A formal group with formal procedures processing random complaints and documenting them every week takes up at least as much time.
The system of everyone keeping track of everything works ok in small communities, but we’re so far above Dunbar’s number that I don’t think it’s viable anymore for us. As you point out, a more formal process wouldn’t have time for “processing random complaints and documenting them every week”, so they’d need a process for screening out everything but the most serious problems.
The system of everyone keeping track of everything works ok in small communities, but we’re so far above Dunbar’s number that I don’t think it’s viable anymore for us.
Everyone doesn’t have to keep track of everything. Everyone just needs to do what they can with their contacts and resources. Political parties are vastly larger than Dunbar’s Number and they (usually) don’t have formal committees designed to purge them of unwanted people. Same goes for just about every social movement that I can think of. Except for churches excommunicating people, of course.
This is the only time that there’s been a problem like this where people started calling for a formal process. You have no idea if it actually represents a frequent phenomenon.
so they’d need a process for screening out everything but the most serious problems.
Make bureaucracy more efficient by adding more bureaucracy...
In the US, and elsewhere, they use incentives to keep people in line, such as withholding endorsements or party funds, which can lead to people losing their seat, this effectively kicking them out of the party. See whips) for what this looks like in practice.
Also, in parliamentary systems, often times you can also kick people out of the party directly, or at the very least take away their power and position.
Yes, if you’re in charge of an organization or resources, you can allocate them and withhold them how you wish. Nothing I said is against that.
In parties and parliaments you can remove people from power. You can’t remove people from associating with your movement.
The question here is whether a social movement and philosophy can have a bunch of representatives whose job it is to tell other people’s organizations and other people’s communities to exclude certain people.
In parties and parliaments you can remove people from power. You can’t remove people from associating with your movement.
Your party leadership can publicly denounce a person and disinvite them from your party’s convention. That amounts to about the same thing.
The question here is whether a social movement and philosophy can have a bunch of representatives whose job it is to tell other people’s organizations and other people’s communities to exclude certain people.
I don’t (currently) think it would be a good idea for an official body to make this kind of request. Actually, I think an official committee would be a good idea even if it technically had no authority at all. Just formalizing a role for respected EAs whose job it is to look in to these things seems to me like it could go a long way.
Good question—not really sure, I just meant to directly answer that one question. That being said, Social movements have, to varying degrees of success, managed to distance evenhanded from fringe subsets and problematic actors. How, exactly, one goes about doing this is unknown to me, but I’m sure that it’s something that we could (and should) learn from leaders of other movements.
Of the top of my head, the example that is most similar to our situation is the expulsion of Ralph Nader from the various movements and groups he was a part of after the Bush election.
Maybe you shouldn’t outsource my decision about who is kosher to “trusted community moderators”. Why are people not smart enough to figure it out on their own?
The issue in this case is not that he’s in the EA community, but that he’s trying to act as the EA community’s representative to people outside the community who are not well placed to make that judgment themselves.
That’s an important distinction, and acting against that (trying to act as the EA community’s representative) doesn’t automatically mean banning from the movement.
Kbog, I think your general mistake on this thread as a whole is assuming a binary between “either we act charitably to people or we ostracise people whenever members of the community feel like outgrouping them”. Thus your straw-man characterisation of an
Which was exactly what I disavowed at the bottom of my long comment here.
Examples of why your dichotomy is false: we could have very explicit and contained rules, such as “If you do X, Y or Z then you’re out” and this would be different from the generic approach of “if anyone tries to outgrip them then support that effort”. Or if we feel that it is too hard to put into a clear list, perhaps we could outsource our decision-making to a small group of trusted ‘community moderators’ who were asked to make decisions about this sort of thing. In an case, these are two I just came up with, the landscape is more nuanced than you’r accounting for.
To be more clear, I’m against both (a) witch hunts and (b) formal procedures of evicting people. The fact that one of these things can happen without the other does not eliminate the fact that both of them are still stupid on their own.
As a counterexample to the dichotomy, sure. As something to be implemented… haha no. The more rules you make up the more argument there will be over what does or doesn’t fall under those rules, what to do with bad actions outside the rules, etc.
Maybe you shouldn’t outsource my decision about who is kosher to “trusted community moderators”. Why are people not smart enough to figure it out on their own?
And is this supposed to save time, the hundreds of hours that people are bemoaning here? A formal group with formal procedures processing random complaints and documenting them every week takes up at least as much time.
The system of everyone keeping track of everything works ok in small communities, but we’re so far above Dunbar’s number that I don’t think it’s viable anymore for us. As you point out, a more formal process wouldn’t have time for “processing random complaints and documenting them every week”, so they’d need a process for screening out everything but the most serious problems.
Everyone doesn’t have to keep track of everything. Everyone just needs to do what they can with their contacts and resources. Political parties are vastly larger than Dunbar’s Number and they (usually) don’t have formal committees designed to purge them of unwanted people. Same goes for just about every social movement that I can think of. Except for churches excommunicating people, of course.
This is the only time that there’s been a problem like this where people started calling for a formal process. You have no idea if it actually represents a frequent phenomenon.
Make bureaucracy more efficient by adding more bureaucracy...
The Democrats have the Democratic National Committee, and the Republicans have the Republican National Committee.
Do they kick people out of the party?
More specifically, do they kick people out of ‘conservatism’ and ‘liberalism’?
In the US, and elsewhere, they use incentives to keep people in line, such as withholding endorsements or party funds, which can lead to people losing their seat, this effectively kicking them out of the party. See whips) for what this looks like in practice. Also, in parliamentary systems, often times you can also kick people out of the party directly, or at the very least take away their power and position.
Yes, if you’re in charge of an organization or resources, you can allocate them and withhold them how you wish. Nothing I said is against that.
In parties and parliaments you can remove people from power. You can’t remove people from associating with your movement.
The question here is whether a social movement and philosophy can have a bunch of representatives whose job it is to tell other people’s organizations and other people’s communities to exclude certain people.
Your party leadership can publicly denounce a person and disinvite them from your party’s convention. That amounts to about the same thing.
Quoting myself:
Good question—not really sure, I just meant to directly answer that one question. That being said, Social movements have, to varying degrees of success, managed to distance evenhanded from fringe subsets and problematic actors. How, exactly, one goes about doing this is unknown to me, but I’m sure that it’s something that we could (and should) learn from leaders of other movements. Of the top of my head, the example that is most similar to our situation is the expulsion of Ralph Nader from the various movements and groups he was a part of after the Bush election.
The issue in this case is not that he’s in the EA community, but that he’s trying to act as the EA community’s representative to people outside the community who are not well placed to make that judgment themselves.
That’s an important distinction, and acting against that (trying to act as the EA community’s representative) doesn’t automatically mean banning from the movement.