Certainly, no one should be expected to promote things they don’t believe. Which is why if you’re like many in the community, using EA to promote your pre-existing atheist agenda, you should not do outreach, nor call your meetup an “effective altruism” group.
It is your EA community that considers the public stupid, Michael. I completely disagree! Perhaps if your group respected the public more, they might listen to you.
My second point was that the public, being smart, recognizes that the EA community has no moral authority and therefore doesn’t care what their favourite causes are. EAs should thus use logic, not authority, to influence, the public.
I didn’t follow your point about atheism. I don’t think EA is for or against religion in any way.
I didn’t follow your second point either. I’m suggesting the EA outreach organisations should not treat the public as marks and that we should respect the public. You were the one who suggested “Outreach should be based on what is likely to attract the masses to practice EA”
Perhaps I got it wrong, but I thought that the premise of your position that EA outreach should proportionally represent what people who identify as EAs consider their favourite cause is that EAs (however “effective altruist” is defined) are morally and intellectually superior to the public. I know for a fact that this is the prevailing attitude EAs have. I would really like to know why it is not enough to educate the public on EA-related issues. Why should the public care what is the favourite cause of an upper class 25 year old who donates $500 a year to the same charity since before he learned about effective altruism, discusses computer science concepts with his friends, and denies the reality that people in poor countries are themselves best positioned to solve their problems? How is that person special?
It’s hard for me to imagine a more prejudiced group of people than EAs. You literally hate everyone different from you, ie. people who love God or have a different background or social class. Above all, EAs are extremely racist, denying that people in low income countries themselves have the power to solve their problems and perpetuating the colonial myth that improving the world is the sole realm of privileged white people. Most people in the movement have little empathy for others and are just using it to validate their feelings of superiority and further the dominance of their social class/race. (I am referring to EAs’ attitudes. I don’t mean to suggest that helping others is itself condescending/bad in any way.)
It is the public that should be teaching morals to “EAs”, not the other way around. God bless.
Certainly, no one should be expected to promote things they don’t believe. Which is why if you’re like many in the community, using EA to promote your pre-existing atheist agenda, you should not do outreach, nor call your meetup an “effective altruism” group.
It is your EA community that considers the public stupid, Michael. I completely disagree! Perhaps if your group respected the public more, they might listen to you.
My second point was that the public, being smart, recognizes that the EA community has no moral authority and therefore doesn’t care what their favourite causes are. EAs should thus use logic, not authority, to influence, the public.
I didn’t follow your point about atheism. I don’t think EA is for or against religion in any way.
I didn’t follow your second point either. I’m suggesting the EA outreach organisations should not treat the public as marks and that we should respect the public. You were the one who suggested “Outreach should be based on what is likely to attract the masses to practice EA”
Perhaps I got it wrong, but I thought that the premise of your position that EA outreach should proportionally represent what people who identify as EAs consider their favourite cause is that EAs (however “effective altruist” is defined) are morally and intellectually superior to the public. I know for a fact that this is the prevailing attitude EAs have. I would really like to know why it is not enough to educate the public on EA-related issues. Why should the public care what is the favourite cause of an upper class 25 year old who donates $500 a year to the same charity since before he learned about effective altruism, discusses computer science concepts with his friends, and denies the reality that people in poor countries are themselves best positioned to solve their problems? How is that person special?
It’s hard for me to imagine a more prejudiced group of people than EAs. You literally hate everyone different from you, ie. people who love God or have a different background or social class. Above all, EAs are extremely racist, denying that people in low income countries themselves have the power to solve their problems and perpetuating the colonial myth that improving the world is the sole realm of privileged white people. Most people in the movement have little empathy for others and are just using it to validate their feelings of superiority and further the dominance of their social class/race. (I am referring to EAs’ attitudes. I don’t mean to suggest that helping others is itself condescending/bad in any way.)
It is the public that should be teaching morals to “EAs”, not the other way around. God bless.