precisely my point.

nah, i'm not going back where i'm clearly not wanted; the mods can take care of this themselves.

adderall is an amphetamine (or a mix of its salts), but it is not the metamphetamine, and it's not what makes the eas racist, cultish or even overly verbose debating club dropouts. (and neither would speed, fwiw.)

(and i certainly hope that there's no need to explain basic organic chemistry here, so please do not use the “the difference is just a methyl group” argument)

also: what in “don't medicalise gobshittery” is unclear?

whoever it was, i clicked the arrow down too, so that person didn't feel so alone.

that was noticed by the gobshites and they're not happy about it, i think the tracingwoodgrains person really dislikes you:

I respect that and agree that those comments cross a line that should not be crossed. I'm sympathetic to the value of red lines and taboos, and I regularly put active effort into defending the sentiment that racism is bad and should be condemned (though I am extremely cautious about tabooing people as a whole based on specific bad sentiments).

It's more complicated for me here because as mentioned above, I find Hanania's commentary on other topics unusually valuable and think I have had valuable, worthwhile interactions with him such that I am glad for opportunities to do so.

More than that, I am conscious that many who most eagerly pursue the taboo, including the writers of the Guardian article and people like David Gerard who provided background for it openly despise you, me, and others in these spheres, and given taboo-crafting power would craft a set of norms emphatically disagreeable to me. I think parts of the EA community have themselves shown some susceptibility to similar impulses, throwing people like Nick Bostrom under the bus to do so. That post in particular actively made me more wary of EA spaces and left me wondering who else would be skewered.

The individual who wrote that post no longer works at CEA but openly demands that EA cut ties with the entire rationalist community. I like you and broadly trust your own instincts here, even where we might disagree about where to draw specific lines, but I am extremely wary of yielding norm-setting power to people who treat my approach (engaging seriously with anyone) as worthy of suspicion and condemnation, and I think when they succeed in setting the frame, it works against a lot of the rationalist and rationalist-adjacent community norms I value.

(i find it symptomatic, but not at all surprising that the person who criticised bostrom is not with the movement anymore, but scientific racists and hbd-curious fuckers like tracing… are.)

well, they are fascists, being obnoxiously racist is par for the course.

ack – thanks, it's good to have a proper reality check.

if one were paranoid one would think they joined the community only to write that bloody post.

😞

it's not for the first time this whole ea movement sounds like they're scientologist wannabees either.

yeah, she's like a bloody walking negation sign for any statement

i mostly keep noting that he's not a serious person and should not be treated as such.