No I didn’t discuss it with them previously. I don’t trust them so I won’t interact with them.
Can you answer this question: If someone has co-authored a paper with someone who tweets every day saying “David Manheim endorses white supremacy” and writes articles in online outlets saying that, what would you think?
I would ask the same question to Cremer and Kemp. If someone tweets every day and writes articles in web outlets saying “Zoe Cremer and Luke Kemp endorse white supremacy, are racist, endorse eugenics” while misquoting and misrepresenting you, would you still be happy to work with them? It seems like they are happy to work with Torres because he flatters their ideology and so will overlook grotesque abuse, which they wouldn’t do if it were aimed at them.
Also, using the same argumentative techniques as Torres, it would be quite easy to make this case. Cremer and Kemp think Sam Bankman-Fried’s money should be decided democratically, which will foreseeably lead to the deaths of huge numbers of black people, in expectation.
I personally would consider working with someone who has acted inappropriately, if I thought they had something very useful to add to my specific research project.
I wouldn’t work with them if I thought association with them would lead to poor reception of my work or if their actions made me doubt their ability/knowledge.
EDIT: I simply feel trying to do the most good has to mean working with people who can best contribute to making that happen.
I agree this is clearly a terrible argument and I’d hope my proposition for distributed decision making would never be dragged into such an argumentative mess. Throwaway151, I’m happy to have a call to discuss the many doubts and questions you have?
Please answer this question: if Torres had spent the last several years calling you a white supremacist, a eugenicist, a racist, and a plagiarist in articles in popular media and on twitter, and misquoted and misrepresented things you had said to make you look as bad as possible, would you still work with him?
It sounds as though he did this to you, and you’re still upset about it—which is entirely reasonable, but it doesn’t relate to what you’re asking. Obviously, no-one expects you to work with Emile, but I think it’s not acceptable to attack other people for doing so—or worse, for not doing so, assuming the worst, and not bothering to investigate.
In “I don’t trust them”, I think Throwaway151 is referring to Kremer and Kemp, not Torres—as you said you didn’t think he had reached out to Kremer and Kemp.
Throwaway151 should have asked Kemp and Cremer about the claim regardless though, and included their response in the post—even if just to disagree with it.
I assumed it was referring to whoever told the anonymized author of the post about the fact that Emile was originally a co-author. (Which, as has now been clarified, isn’t really true.)
But the fact that someone can post like this on the forum, admittedly without trying to verify the claims he doesn’t trust, seems bad, and I’m glad Lizka said they would be investigating - I just hope that the moderator’s investigation includes the anonymized poster of the original, now refuted claims.
No I didn’t discuss it with them previously. I don’t trust them so I won’t interact with them.
Can you answer this question: If someone has co-authored a paper with someone who tweets every day saying “David Manheim endorses white supremacy” and writes articles in online outlets saying that, what would you think?
I would ask the same question to Cremer and Kemp. If someone tweets every day and writes articles in web outlets saying “Zoe Cremer and Luke Kemp endorse white supremacy, are racist, endorse eugenics” while misquoting and misrepresenting you, would you still be happy to work with them? It seems like they are happy to work with Torres because he flatters their ideology and so will overlook grotesque abuse, which they wouldn’t do if it were aimed at them.
Also, using the same argumentative techniques as Torres, it would be quite easy to make this case. Cremer and Kemp think Sam Bankman-Fried’s money should be decided democratically, which will foreseeably lead to the deaths of huge numbers of black people, in expectation.
I personally would consider working with someone who has acted inappropriately, if I thought they had something very useful to add to my specific research project.
I wouldn’t work with them if I thought association with them would lead to poor reception of my work or if their actions made me doubt their ability/knowledge.
EDIT: I simply feel trying to do the most good has to mean working with people who can best contribute to making that happen.
I agree this is clearly a terrible argument and I’d hope my proposition for distributed decision making would never be dragged into such an argumentative mess. Throwaway151, I’m happy to have a call to discuss the many doubts and questions you have?
Please answer this question: if Torres had spent the last several years calling you a white supremacist, a eugenicist, a racist, and a plagiarist in articles in popular media and on twitter, and misquoted and misrepresented things you had said to make you look as bad as possible, would you still work with him?
It sounds as though he did this to you, and you’re still upset about it—which is entirely reasonable, but it doesn’t relate to what you’re asking. Obviously, no-one expects you to work with Emile, but I think it’s not acceptable to attack other people for doing so—or worse, for not doing so, assuming the worst, and not bothering to investigate.
You are saying you didn’t trust the source that made the claim, but you’re attacking Kemp and Cremer on that basis?
In “I don’t trust them”, I think Throwaway151 is referring to Kremer and Kemp, not Torres—as you said you didn’t think he had reached out to Kremer and Kemp.
Throwaway151 should have asked Kemp and Cremer about the claim regardless though, and included their response in the post—even if just to disagree with it.
I assumed it was referring to whoever told the anonymized author of the post about the fact that Emile was originally a co-author. (Which, as has now been clarified, isn’t really true.)
But the fact that someone can post like this on the forum, admittedly without trying to verify the claims he doesn’t trust, seems bad, and I’m glad Lizka said they would be investigating - I just hope that the moderator’s investigation includes the anonymized poster of the original, now refuted claims.
I think that you need to be reminded of the forum rules.