A better name for socialism? Ineffective Altruism.
Nowhere does this post explain which elements of socialism are intrinsically more efficient at delivering a better outcome for more people than Effective Altruism. And any that are proven to do so would then become elements of both EA and Socialism.
Either way, Socialism remains focused on economic equity, community ownership of industrial hubs, and general egalitarianism. Ideological priorities, of which, none have been proven to lead to better outcomes for more people, in fact, which, so far, have had major negative effects on the nations which attempt to implement them.
The reverse of this post could be written, explaining that training the entire population to be effective capitalist agents would be one of the highest RoI policies that EAs could push for, and it would almost certainly be correct.
All in all, bad ideas, advocated by the intellectually weak, appealing mostly to the genetically subpar.
The closing sentence of this comment, “All in all, bad ideas, advocated by the intellectually weak, appealing mostly to the genetically subpar,” breaks our Forum norm against unnecessary rudeness or offensiveness.
The “genetically subpar” part is especially problematic. At best, it would appear that the commenter, John, is claiming that the post mainly appeals to the less intelligent—an unnecessarily rude and most likely false claim. A worse interpretation is that John is making a racist remark, which we view as strongly unacceptable.
Overall, we see this as an unpromising start to John’s Forum engagement—this is their first comment—and we have issued a one-month ban. If they return to the Forum then we’ll expect to see a higher standard of discourse.
As a reminder, bans affect the user, not the account.
If anyone has questions or concerns, feel free to reach out: if you think we made a mistake here, you can appeal the decision.
A better name for socialism? Ineffective Altruism.
Nowhere does this post explain which elements of socialism are intrinsically more efficient at delivering a better outcome for more people than Effective Altruism. And any that are proven to do so would then become elements of both EA and Socialism.
Either way, Socialism remains focused on economic equity, community ownership of industrial hubs, and general egalitarianism. Ideological priorities, of which, none have been proven to lead to better outcomes for more people, in fact, which, so far, have had major negative effects on the nations which attempt to implement them.
The reverse of this post could be written, explaining that training the entire population to be effective capitalist agents would be one of the highest RoI policies that EAs could push for, and it would almost certainly be correct.
All in all, bad ideas, advocated by the intellectually weak, appealing mostly to the genetically subpar.
The closing sentence of this comment, “All in all, bad ideas, advocated by the intellectually weak, appealing mostly to the genetically subpar,” breaks our Forum norm against unnecessary rudeness or offensiveness.
The “genetically subpar” part is especially problematic. At best, it would appear that the commenter, John, is claiming that the post mainly appeals to the less intelligent—an unnecessarily rude and most likely false claim. A worse interpretation is that John is making a racist remark, which we view as strongly unacceptable.
Overall, we see this as an unpromising start to John’s Forum engagement—this is their first comment—and we have issued a one-month ban. If they return to the Forum then we’ll expect to see a higher standard of discourse.
As a reminder, bans affect the user, not the account.
If anyone has questions or concerns, feel free to reach out: if you think we made a mistake here, you can appeal the decision.