Thanks for writing this. I think you do an excellent job on the rhetoric issues like language and framing. These seem like good methods for building coalitions around some specific policy issue, or deflecting criticism.
But Iâm not sure theyâre good for actually bringing people into the movement, because at times they seem a little disingenuous. EA opposition to factory farming has nothing to do with indigenous valuesâEAs are opposed to it taking place in any country, regardless of how nicely or otherwise people historically treated animals there. Similarly EA aid to Africa is because we think it is a good way of helping people, not because we think any particular group was a net winner or loser from the slave trade. If weâre going to try to recruit someone, I feel like we should make it clear that EA is not just a flavour of woke, and explicitly contradicts it at times.
As well as seeming a bit dishonest, I think it could have negative consequences to recruit people in this way. We generally donât just want people who have been lead to agree on some specific policy conclusions, but rather those who are on board with the whole way of thinking. There has been a lot of press written about the damages to workplace cohesion, productivity and mission focus from hiring SJWs, and if even the Bernie Sanders campaign is trying to âStop hiring activistsâ it could probably be significantly worse if your employees had been hired expecting a very woke environment and were then disappointed.
As I understand it, posts are frontpage by default unless you or a mod decide otherwise.