Iâm a bit confused by this post. You start off by relating your frustration with âvapidâ rhetoric (and its epistemic costs in âdull[ing] our analytical thinkingâ), but then seem to advocate that EA pivot towards embracing vapid social justice rhetoric? Maybe Iâve misunderstood what youâre suggesting.
I also worry that the post assumes that SJWs (rather than, say, policy-makers who read The Economist) constitute âthe beating heart of changemakingâ. But (insofar as I have a grasp on what that even means) that doesnât seem accurate to me.
The world of social justice is not so easily swayed as Silicon Valley, we do not iterate, and we certainly do not âfail fastâ. Such concessions cost lives.
Doesnât stubborn failure to iterate or swiftly identify & learn from mistakes risk costing even more lives? I think this point illustrates the risks of leading with rhetoric. Itâs really important to first work out whatâs true, not just what sounds good.
Iâm a bit confused by this post. You start off by relating your frustration with âvapidâ rhetoric (and its epistemic costs in âdull[ing] our analytical thinkingâ), but then seem to advocate that EA pivot towards embracing vapid social justice rhetoric? Maybe Iâve misunderstood what youâre suggesting.
I also worry that the post assumes that SJWs (rather than, say, policy-makers who read The Economist) constitute âthe beating heart of changemakingâ. But (insofar as I have a grasp on what that even means) that doesnât seem accurate to me.
Doesnât stubborn failure to iterate or swiftly identify & learn from mistakes risk costing even more lives? I think this point illustrates the risks of leading with rhetoric. Itâs really important to first work out whatâs true, not just what sounds good.