I thought I would surface some of the points from the post and allow people to express opinions on them. I know this can seem off, but I think cheaply allowing us to see what the community thinks about stuff is useful.
I have heard 2+ accounts of this (heck, as I’ve apologised for before, I’ve done it), so I think it’s pretty common.
My stance is that EAGs should have a high penalty for making people feel they aren’t valued for their work. People can take the risk if they want to but there should be a high penalty if people are bad at it. Social gatherings and afterparties are, in my opinion, the place to flirt without a risk of some kind of community sanction.
I read this blog post and the comments and controversy it generated. The amount of invalidation and general nastiness in the comments (that have since been deleted so I won’t link to them) shocked and saddened me.
Agreevote if you think the nasty comments were from people in the EA community, disagreevote if you think they weren’t.
I read about Kathy Forth, a woman who was heavily involved in the Effective Altruism and Rationalist communities. She committed suicide in 2018, attributing large portions of her suffering to her experiences of sexual harassment and sexual assault in these communities. She accuses several people of harassment, at least one of whom is an incredibly prominent figure in the EA community. It is unclear to me what, if any, actions were taken in response to (some) of her claims and her suicide. What is clear is the pages and pages of tumblr posts and Reddit threats, some from prominent members of the EA and Rationalist communities, disparaging Kathy and denying her accusations.
Agreevote if you think the actions here are, on balance bad, disagreevote if you disagree.
I thought I would surface some of the points from the post and allow people to express opinions on them. I know this can seem off, but I think cheaply allowing us to see what the community thinks about stuff is useful.
Agrevote if you think this is good/fine, disagreevote if you think it’s bad.
Imagine the opposite situation—a group of women talking about in detail about which men they would want to hook up with.
Agreevote if you think that would be good/fine, disagreevote if you think that’s bad.
Agrevote if you think this is good/fine, disagreevote if you think it’s bad.
I have heard 2+ accounts of this (heck, as I’ve apologised for before, I’ve done it), so I think it’s pretty common.
My stance is that EAGs should have a high penalty for making people feel they aren’t valued for their work. People can take the risk if they want to but there should be a high penalty if people are bad at it. Social gatherings and afterparties are, in my opinion, the place to flirt without a risk of some kind of community sanction.
Agreevote if you think the nasty comments were from people in the EA community, disagreevote if you think they weren’t.
Agreevote if you think the actions here are, on balance bad, disagreevote if you disagree.