corbin

That sounds like a great way to get assaulted, perhaps battered too. I guess it’s cold comfort to know “hah, got 'em, they’re so easily triggered” while sitting in a hospital bed recovering from a head injury, but it just sounds stupid to me.

At risk of going NSFW, it’s obvious that none of these folks have read Singer 1971, which is the paper that kickstarted the EA movement. This paper’s argument has a massive fucking hole right in the middle.

Without cracking open the paper, I seem to recall that it is specifically about Oxfam and famine in Africa. The central claim of the paper is that everybody should donate to Oxfam. However, if one is an employee of Oxfam, then suddenly the utilitarian arithmetic fails; his argument only allows for money going from non-Oxfam taxpayers to Oxfam employees.

Can’t help but notice how the main problem with EA charities is the fucking nepotism. Almost as if the EA movement rests on a philosophical foundation of ignoring when charities employ friends of donors.

Nah, they’re okay with it because it reinforces their belief that a person is either high-empathy or low-empathy, with higher EQ being better. In general, conservatives love standardized tests and grades, because it grants the appearance of merit, which is essential for meritocracy.

Unlucky 10000: There is an EQ, or emotional quotient, and I was given an EQ test in high school (like age 17-18, don’t remember exactly). Fortunately, it was just done for fun by a lone teacher, but I could see it becoming popular in a future school system.