I am confused about what exactly you are trying to communicate with this post and its partner (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/FDczXfT4xetcRRWtm/an-effective-altruist-plan-for-socialism). My sense is that you are saying something like:
1) Look, socialist-leaning and capitalist-leaning EAs, the policies you probably want are essentially the same, work together and make something happen, and
2) Look, EAs, I can write nearly identical posts with titles that will make you assume the posts are at odds—challenge your assumptions. Realize the power language has over you.
Or maybe you primarily want engagement with the policies you are most excited about, but want comments from both socialists and capitalists, and you felt this was the best way to achieve that?
I seek clarity.
(I feel stupid, not being able to interpret you well, albeit only after one quick read-through. But, I think folks should typically make comments when confused, so here I am.)
elle
I like your encouragement to create more art. However, I noticed cringing at some of your ideas in the appendix. I worry that they would end up being “poorly executed cultural artefacts [that] may put EA into disrepute” as you put it.
I do not feel capable of explaining exactly where the cringe reaction is coming from, but a few examples:
I do not like the idea in Beautopia of equating physical appearance with moral goodness, given that a) it is already an issue that people assume positive personality traits when they see physically attractive people and b) it assumes there is some objective and real “good” that can be calculated. And the final plot line implying that it is good to kill people we think are evil seems like a bad meme to spread.
Dead baby currency seems overly simplistic and insensitive, although I am having a hard time putting words to why. It also triggers scrupulosity concerns (for example, see http://www.givinggladly.com/2012/03/tradeoffs.html ).
Finally, I am wary of how you refer to “Africa” monolithically. For more, see https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/confusing-country-continent-how-we-talk-about-africa/311621/.
Does this mean you no longer endorse the original statement you made (“there is little evidence of benefit from schooling”)?
I’m feeling confused… I basically agreed with Khorton’s skepticism about that original claim, and now it sounds like you agree with Khorton too. It seems like you, in fact, believe something quite different from the original claim; your actual belief is something more like: “for some children, the benefits of schooling will not outweigh the torturous experience of attending school.” But it doesn’t seem like there has been any admission that the original claim was too strong (or, at the very least, that it was worded in a confusing way). So I’m wondering if I’m misinterpreting.