I think that being open to changing your mind is an important norm. I think you could read this sentence as a very reasonable request to keep this discussion on topic, but I worry that it is a more general stance.
OP seems very open to change their mind, as evidenced by having donated to help animals and humans, to direct interventions and systemic change, as well as a recent rethink of their approach. Within their cause, they seem open to change their mind about the most effective interventions (like many other posts on the EA forum that are not very cause neutral).
Some of the other phrases (e.g. “conviction” “deeply sick” “all other problems are just derivatives”) make me worry about whether this person will change their mind, make me worry that they’re overconfident, and make me worry that they’ll use heated discourse in arguments rather than collaboratively truth seeking. All of these also make me a bit less excited about welcoming them to the community.
Emotionally laden language is sometimes apt. If we stereotype against this sort of language in EA, then people who are justifiably upset about issues such as inequality, especially those personally affected (in contrast to many in the EA community), might feel unwelcome.
Thanks! Those are both good points. I think you’re right that they’re open to changing their minds about some important aspects of their worldview (though I do think that “Please, if you disagree with me, carry your precious opinion elsewhere. ” is some evidence that there are aspects that they’re not very open to changing their mind about).
I also think that I reacted too strongly to the emotionally laden language—I agree this can be justified and appropriate, though I think it can also make collaborative truth-seeking harder. This makes me think that it’s good to acknowledge, feel, and empathize with anger/sadness, whilst still being careful about the potential impact it might have when we’re trying to work together to figure out what to do to help others. I do still feel worried about some sort of oversimplification/overconfidence wrt “all other problems are just derivatives”.
To be clear, I always thought it was good to engage in discussion here rather than downvote, but I’m now a bit more optimistic about the dialogue going well.
OP seems very open to change their mind, as evidenced by having donated to help animals and humans, to direct interventions and systemic change, as well as a recent rethink of their approach. Within their cause, they seem open to change their mind about the most effective interventions (like many other posts on the EA forum that are not very cause neutral).
Emotionally laden language is sometimes apt. If we stereotype against this sort of language in EA, then people who are justifiably upset about issues such as inequality, especially those personally affected (in contrast to many in the EA community), might feel unwelcome.
Thanks! Those are both good points. I think you’re right that they’re open to changing their minds about some important aspects of their worldview (though I do think that “Please, if you disagree with me, carry your precious opinion elsewhere. ” is some evidence that there are aspects that they’re not very open to changing their mind about).
I also think that I reacted too strongly to the emotionally laden language—I agree this can be justified and appropriate, though I think it can also make collaborative truth-seeking harder. This makes me think that it’s good to acknowledge, feel, and empathize with anger/sadness, whilst still being careful about the potential impact it might have when we’re trying to work together to figure out what to do to help others. I do still feel worried about some sort of oversimplification/overconfidence wrt “all other problems are just derivatives”.
To be clear, I always thought it was good to engage in discussion here rather than downvote, but I’m now a bit more optimistic about the dialogue going well.