I mostly agree with you but I think it’s interesting that you make an additional assumption that I think is incorrect: You say "You’re beholden to the good judgement of each side to not move themselves further left or right.” Which misses another possibility: that the overton window can shift when one side moves further to the center.
The democrats’ economic stances are a good example of this: they've moved towards neoliberal economic policy since the 80s, to the point where the democrats and republicans have a materially indistinguishable stance on unions, workers rights, public benefits, Wall Street, etc.
This may seem like nit-picking but I think it’s important to clarify that some policies that lie outside the overton window are “extreme” because those in power want them to seem extreme, not because they are actually unpopular or unrealistic.
This may be wrong, but when I think of centrists I think of people who decide where they stand on each policy on a spectrum that extends from what the Dems deem acceptable to what the Republicans deem acceptable. If you’re someone who decides where they stand on an issue regardless of these arbitrary endpoints I think “independent” or “non-partisan” fits better.
Are you referencing something specific? I watched that whole clip you linked, and there’s nothing in it that would “pervert” a child’s mind.
It’s a clip explaining what protesting is, and what racism is. Both seem like valid things to explain on a kids show. Is your issue that it’s lightly in support of the BLM protests?
(not the person you were replying to) I think there are ways in which you can teach children ages 3 to 8 about these kinds of real issues, but that clip is seriously ham-fisted and not engaging. Whether they intended it or not, to me it leans more in the direction of indoctrination than what I'd like to show kids if I had any.
Children have no innate concept of racial discrimination or victimhood. It’s not a natural concept. It only exists because it’s drilled into their minds by good intentioned but poorly thought out ideas. Telling half the class that they’re a victim and the other half that they’re an oppressor is a recipe for disaster.
The way to end racism isn’t to brainwash children that world around them is full of racists. It’s to completely ignore the concept so they grow up with no concept of racism whatsoever. Then when they’re older and first learn about it, it’s such a laughable concept that they’ll understand that only a complete idiot would be a part in it.
My Instagram ads seem to be laser-focused on my insecurities. I don’t buy the shit they’re selling by they definitely make me feel bad about myself, so mission half accomplished!
The stalking is the problem, but the ads are too. Ads have been a problem well before tracking was a thing.
Since at least the 1920s (I’m thinking of Edward Bernays but there are probably earlier examples) the goal of advertising is to manipulate consumers into making irrational decisions. The majority of ads make us feel inadequate to get us to buy something, like the only the thing that will make us whole is a new instant pot or whatever.
> The majority of ads make us feel inadequate to get us to buy something
I know it's hard to disprove but I don't think adverts have that effect on me, partially it's because I don't see many adverts and partly because that kind of blatant manipulation is so hilariously blatant.
I acknowledge that someone might be running a really effective advertising campaign on me but since I basically don't buy anything I don't actually need I can't imagine what that would be.
I’m going to conflate packaging with advertising here but I think it’s the same idea and a little easier to visualize:
Our cogniitive biases act as shortcuts to save energy when making decisions, and advertisers exploit those shortcuts. If you’re on high alert while shopping, catching and recalibrating for your biases at every step of the way then yeah you can probably escape most marketing but for most people that doesn’t come naturally.
If you’re not careful I bet you too slip up sometimes. I know I’ve caught myself at the grocery store reaching for one product over another just because it’s in unbleached cardboard packaging (signaling to me that it’s somehow more local or organic or whatever).
These tricks become obvious when you consciously work through them (ex: obviously some megacorp can package their items in cardboard the same way mom and pop small businesses can) but most of the time we aren’t processing consciously, and that’s how marketing works.
Fair points, as I mentioned elsewhere I have a pathological loathing of been manipulated so I do pay attention to everything u buy - the missus however likes brands and does most of the food ordering.
Exactly. For the most part I'm also immune to the ads, but not because of the ads. It takes a huge mental effort to constantly stay aware of all the bullshit that these scum are trying to manipulate me into buying. And it's even more infuriating that all these 'people' who have no morals and ethics whatsoever try to convince everyone that we actually want to see ads!
If people were interested in seeing ads, a business of selling pure ad catalogues would actually be a successful venture! As it stands now, you can't even give such material away for free without generating hate. Because people don't want to see ads! It doesn't matter if they're tracked or not. The ad is the problem!
Do you have a new $gadget/$smartphone/$tablet/$whatever? What about your SO/father/niece? (You might not, but I bet a lot of people reading this and agreeing do buy a bunch of stuff they don't need without realizing it).
Nope, mobile is three years old, desktop is nearly three, ThinkPad is nearly four.
Haven't bought anything techie for about 18mths and when I do mostly shop on specs, reviews from sources I trust.
I viscerally loathe advertising, I don't like been manipulated in any context so I run a background process mentally watching for it :).
I'm an advertisers nightmare, I'll not only ignore your advertising I'll go to significant technical lengths to block it for myself and everyone in my family.
Sure, but it doesn't fit into the traditional framework of "effective altruism". Collective efforts-based altruism is just very different in so many ways.
Why not? A collective, efforts-based, altruistic organization needs funding. If such a organization could demonstrate that their efforts lead to good outcomes (improve happiness, save lives), then effective altruists would donate to them.
A legitimate argument is that not everyone can make tons of money and donate because someone has to do the work. But there are plenty of "effective" organizations that are not yet overfunded.
The thing is that money without involvement is poison to collective movements, besides a certain point. Money and involvement is much better.
If all you want is to distribute, then sure. Collective movements aren't even the best at straight distribution, so someone trying to maximize the marginal utility of their dollar probably won't even donate. But collective action is generally not just about distribution, and moreso about fixing the structure of society to make distribution from rich donors unnecessary.
I agree that both money and involvement is necessary. But in our current world, nonprofits have a lack of money, not lack of involvement. Nonprofits talk all the time about how difficult it is to fundraise. And all the charities GiveWell recommends still have a lack of capital.
I think EA's would 100% want to fix the structure of society, if that method was resource efficient. If you believe that changing the structure of society is more resource efficient (in terms of time or money) than donating to AMF, GiveDirectly, or Deworm the World, please publish your analysis.
How much {money, time, etc.} would it take to convince a government or people to adopt a certain policy? What would the benefits of that policy be? How much pushback would you get from opponents? What are the risks? If you can successfully make an argument that changing a policy would be more resource efficient than current efficient charities, that would convince EAs to direct more resources to politics.
Any time humans get together to solve a problem, band together to form a charity, coordinate over a social network to send out PPE, etc, they are not simply allocating optimally at the margins, they are aggregating resources and spending them toward a directed goal more efficiently. These are all examples of altruism. If you narrowly scope altruism to "marginal donation optimization", then yes, effective altruism is indeed a fairly trivially optimal way to allocate these resources.
> As with Dada, altruism doesn't survive intellectual evaluation.
Sure and I'm not as interested in discussing the philosophical ideal of altruism. My interest in charitable work, as I suspect many interested in EA feel, stems from trying to do the greatest good with my limited allocation of resources, be that money, time, knowledge, manual labor, or otherwise. In that regard I'm unconcerned about the usual moral philosophical questions about motive and goodness.
Neither of these requirements make sense. First, with activism, being known pretty often costs you. And with second, you are not altruistic if you dont die?
(Plus, people who helped the right cause and did not died have done more good then those who died for bad cause. Ultimate sacrifice for something bad does not make you better.)
> Anything less is open to the usual questions of motive.
But then the focus is on "if someone theoretically learned about me existing, do I leave a space for that person to attribute to me some intentions?" And the answer to that should be "who cares".
Long commutes are something most bike-enthusiasts want to fix too! That means more affordable housing, usually.
But I agree, weather and disability issues definitely require some kind of supplemental modes of transportation. Even then I’d rather we invested in public transportation instead of cars.
Market forces do make for optimal software over the long-term, but it’s only optimal as an engine for generating capital. If what you want out of software isn’t aligned with what generates capital you’re not going to be happy.
I’m guessing most our our personal metrics for what makes software “good” are only somewhat aligned with capital.
Can we stop using verbiage like “better” men? Attractiveness isn’t a linear scale from 1-10, and it’s harmful to perpetuate that myth. It’s multi dimensional and unique to each person.
I mostly agree, but that’s not always been the case, and it’s something we can change! The US has become more atomized in the last 40 or so years (by design). We need more public spaces, community organizations, and general in-person connection (post-pandemic obv) to solve it.
The democrats’ economic stances are a good example of this: they've moved towards neoliberal economic policy since the 80s, to the point where the democrats and republicans have a materially indistinguishable stance on unions, workers rights, public benefits, Wall Street, etc.
This may seem like nit-picking but I think it’s important to clarify that some policies that lie outside the overton window are “extreme” because those in power want them to seem extreme, not because they are actually unpopular or unrealistic.
This may be wrong, but when I think of centrists I think of people who decide where they stand on each policy on a spectrum that extends from what the Dems deem acceptable to what the Republicans deem acceptable. If you’re someone who decides where they stand on an issue regardless of these arbitrary endpoints I think “independent” or “non-partisan” fits better.