I actually don’t know if the game format really works at all—as designed it emphasizes all the opposite values we honor in Petrov. Perhaps a different model all together would be best. My suggestion on the other post ( https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Wsid3pHisYtutJzjw/clarifying-the-petrov-day-exercise?commentId=xJ7eC2YverjpPtWDp)included:
write an Opinion piece for a major paper about him (the Washington Post one is over 20 years old! could use an update)
organize a Giving Day
create a coordinated social media campaign (there was one viral tweet yesterday about Petrov which was cool)
Research other people who’ve had similar impact, but are still unknown to the world (h/t to Kirsten who mentioned this on Twitter a while back)
I’m not on LW, so this was the first time I’d heard of this ritual. As designed, it appears to emphasize the precise opposite values that we honor in Petrov:
Petrov famously did not retaliate (according to the information he had). In this game, a co-lead of an EA org publicly pledges to retaliate.
Petrov chose to distrust the systems around him. This game emphasizes a forced choice of trust .
Petrov defied his in-group and suffered professional and social costs, which we honor. Here, defying the in-group would also mean professional and social costs, but are wielded as a threat.
Petrov’s choices had enormous positive externalities. Here, the game emphasizes the insular desires of one community.
Additionally, I do believe that these two websites have value to a few thousand people. But it needs to be said that being offline for several hours is not nearly comparable to the lives of millions of people. Yet that comparison was made often. Stating that they are symbolically the same risks devaluing the reputation of the community here.
I’ll add this to Nathan’s other post, but other ways to celebrate Petrov might be:
write an Opinion piece for a major paper about him (the Washington Post one is over 20 years old! could use an update);
organize a Giving Day;
I appreciate the work of those who organized the game yesterday, and the willingness to listen to this feedback.
Just want to uplift Julia’s role writ large in setting a standard for generosity, whether it’s direct giving, in building community, or in generosity of spirit.
Always grateful to see your words here.
In terms of practical advice, Aaron has it covered. (As a fundraiser myself, please do let the charity know if you plan to bundle several years’ giving into one).
But I have a more fundamental question: why don’t you want to just pay your taxes?
Thanks for this, Kathy. I feel like you’ve taken multiple academic fields and worked them into one blog post, so I appreciate the length and detail. Also looking forward to shorter posts that tease out more concrete info and next steps.
To that end: would it be worth pulling apart the term “sexual violence” into a broader spectrum? Possibly:
sexual assault (unwanted touching, but not meeting above criminal standard)
sexual harassment (i.e. sexualized/objectifying conversation, but not touching)
gender-based implicit bias
For example, the EA who read pickup literature and then groped another person committed sexual assault. But EAs who espouse pickup culture in an EA forum/workplace would be committing sexual harassment.
I liked your thoughts on how sexual violence in EA networks has a cost of driving women out of the area, which thereby reduces impact on the field. Here, including harassment and bias could provide a more robust picture. Women who may not have been physically touched may experience a range of other gender-based aggressions that let them to abandon the movement: being interrupted, ignored, getting more online abuse, having a man repeat a comment and gain credit for it, etc.