I’m a bit confused by this post. You start off by relating your frustration with “vapid” rhetoric (and its epistemic costs in “dull[ing] our analytical thinking”), but then seem to advocate that EA pivot towards embracing vapid social justice rhetoric? Maybe I’ve misunderstood what you’re suggesting.
I also worry that the post assumes that SJWs (rather than, say, policy-makers who read The Economist) constitute “the beating heart of changemaking”. But (insofar as I have a grasp on what that even means) that doesn’t 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 ‘fail fast’. Such concessions cost lives.
Doesn’t 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. It’s really important to first work out what’s true, not just what sounds good.
I’m a bit confused by this post. You start off by relating your frustration with “vapid” rhetoric (and its epistemic costs in “dull[ing] our analytical thinking”), but then seem to advocate that EA pivot towards embracing vapid social justice rhetoric? Maybe I’ve misunderstood what you’re suggesting.
I also worry that the post assumes that SJWs (rather than, say, policy-makers who read The Economist) constitute “the beating heart of changemaking”. But (insofar as I have a grasp on what that even means) that doesn’t seem accurate to me.
Doesn’t 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. It’s really important to first work out what’s true, not just what sounds good.