Not picking on Dave (long twitter thread), really, but just because many people in your personal wider politics circle are on one side or the other of the Effective Altruism con does not mean you need to grapple with the nuances of the argument.
The argument is, basically, I, a 28-year-old crypto scammer, believe I am the only one who can fight the Robot Apocalypse of 4265, and this existential threat is more important than anything else, so my efforts to personally amass all the wealth of the world are unconstrained by any other considerations, moral or otherwise.
This isn't a serious philosophical argument, this is just your typical cult leader shit. That it's cult leader shit that snared a bunch of Very Rational People (by their own belief) doesn't change that.
Like all cult leader shit, there are people on both sides of the con. Some just want the money and the rapey sex, some are being conned, but just because some of your friends are involved doesn't mean you have to see it any differently!
Oxford profs and people who went to school near Boston can also be bad people! Arguably they are more likely to be! This isn't complicated.
The name is part of the con, an inbuilt defense against all criticism. What do you have against EFFECTIVE altruism? Do you think charity should be INEFFECTIVE???
Same as "popularism." You think politicians can get elected by doing UNPOPULAR things?
Same con artists, same con. The last couple of years make a lot more sense now.
I'm a bit grumpy about this because the liberal impulse to take transparently absurd and evil ideas - and the people who promote them - seriously, instead of pointing and laughing at them (or jailing them), is one of my pet peeves.
SBF sprinkled lots of money around Democratic political/media circles over the past couple of years, and some of your faves are very implicated!!!
