I cannot find any section of this article that sounds like this hypothesis, so I am pretty confident the answer is that no, that is not what the article says. The article responds relatively directly to this:
Of course, being a prolific producer of premium prioritisation posts doesn’t mean we should give someone a free pass for behaving immorally. For all that EAs are consequentialists, I don’t think we should ignore wrongdoing ‘for the greater good’. We can, I hope, defend the good without giving carte blanche to the bad, even when both exist within the same person.
Thanks Oli. So I guess this article is arguing that EA Munich was either mistaken about Robin Hanson’s character or they were prioritizing reputation over character?
I find this discussion very uncomfortable because I really don’t like publicly saying “I have concerns about the impact an individual has on this community”—I prefer that individual groups like EA Munich make the decision on their own and as discreetly as possible—but it seems the only way they could defend themselves is to publicly state everything they dislike about Robin Hanson. I know they’ve said a couple things already but I don’t love that we’re encouraging a continued public prosecution and defense of Robin Hanson’s character.
I read this piece as proposing a stance towards a social dynamic (“how EA should orient to cancel culture”), rather than continuing litigation of anyone’s character.
I cannot find any section of this article that sounds like this hypothesis, so I am pretty confident the answer is that no, that is not what the article says. The article responds relatively directly to this:
Thanks Oli. So I guess this article is arguing that EA Munich was either mistaken about Robin Hanson’s character or they were prioritizing reputation over character?
I find this discussion very uncomfortable because I really don’t like publicly saying “I have concerns about the impact an individual has on this community”—I prefer that individual groups like EA Munich make the decision on their own and as discreetly as possible—but it seems the only way they could defend themselves is to publicly state everything they dislike about Robin Hanson. I know they’ve said a couple things already but I don’t love that we’re encouraging a continued public prosecution and defense of Robin Hanson’s character.
I read this piece as proposing a stance towards a social dynamic (“how EA should orient to cancel culture”), rather than continuing litigation of anyone’s character.