posted on November 14, 2022 02:23 PM by
u/Citrakayah
25
u/Citrakayah18 pointsat 1668460355.000000
I would like to say that I have a hard time buying MacAskill’s cereal
story, because as someone who’s done the “agonizing over knowledge of my
harmful impacts on the world” thing, my response wasn’t to become a
billionaire and get involved in cryptocurrency.
It was to get really into degrowth, go into a field that made a
positive difference, and want to burn capitalism to the ground. It’s
hard to imagine wanting to get involved in the industries making the
world worse as a response instead.
Maybe if I knew more about him I’d think differently.
“Earning to give” is one of the most fraudulent things to come out of EA and it’s no surprise that it’s kind of their most favorite “unconventional” tenet
Edit: very good episode that digs deep into EA’s origins and why the
movement is intellectually bankrupt. Also, you can hear one of the
co-hosts cleaning a freshly-salvaged mosin-nagant in the background,
which is nice.
Surely, unless those things are mutually divisible, this is only blinkering yourself with regard to a person's legitimacy.
If someone is mistaken on twitter and they make a living making podcasts and their opinions on eahc are based on similar input, their own research around a subject on which they are not qualified, why would you trust one over the other?
I don't know if this relates to this guy or not, not interested in the podcast, but are the two outputs separate enough to assume one is any more trustworthy than the other?
Usually when people talk about someone's Twitter persona they're talking about whether or not they're a dick. I try to judge someone's output independently of whether or not I think I'd like them; I try not to get involved in parasocial relationships.
People also just tend to put less thought into Twitter posts.
r/AskHistorians thinks he's *mostly* reliable (though he does have a bias), he hasn't made any glaring errors I'm aware of, and he's a published journalist. All in all that's good enough for me.
Sounds reasonable.
>Usually when people talk about someone's Twitter persona they're talking about whether or not they're a dick.
I don't use twitter but whenever I come across a thread on this subreddit it's usually some rationalist posting long form on some topic or other so I'm conditioned to think of posts like that when I see a referral on this sub. I sometimes forget that that is not it's primary function.
I would like to say that I have a hard time buying MacAskill’s cereal story, because as someone who’s done the “agonizing over knowledge of my harmful impacts on the world” thing, my response wasn’t to become a billionaire and get involved in cryptocurrency.
It was to get really into degrowth, go into a field that made a positive difference, and want to burn capitalism to the ground. It’s hard to imagine wanting to get involved in the industries making the world worse as a response instead.
Maybe if I knew more about him I’d think differently.
Whooooo’s rokoing my basiliiiiiiisks?!
Edit: very good episode that digs deep into EA’s origins and why the movement is intellectually bankrupt. Also, you can hear one of the co-hosts cleaning a freshly-salvaged mosin-nagant in the background, which is nice.
Man I liked this series but Robert’s twitter persona was a huge turn off. I’ll listen to this but didn’t know if I was alone in that opinion.