The whole SBF "effective altruism" is just a variation on solipsism, the belief not being the only one to exist but the only moral actor to exist. That being itself an incredibly selfish or non-altruistic position.
The whole SBF "effective altruism" is just a variation on solipsism, the belief not being the only one to exist but the only moral actor to exist. That being itself an incredibly selfish or non-altruistic position.
If you have a bone to pick with the "effective altruism" movement, it would be better to critique what they actually have done than make philosophical or mind-reading declarations. Many people on HN don't know any more about it than antifa.
Even if SBF could have gotten away with it, now I am skeptical that his altruism would have done more positive things than if he had never earned the money to begin with.
I first heard of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy on HN, by the way.
It's in the comment above:
> they stole customer funds
SBF isn't some random crook who happens to be vaguely associated with Effective Altruism; he's a relatively central figure to the movement. Currently, one of the most significant fruits of EA is massive fraud.
Your comments here, as well thought out as they may be, are not part of "the comment above".
"they stole customer funds" = FTX stole customer funds.
"SBF isn't some random crook who happens to be vaguely associated with Effective Altruism; he's a relatively central figure to the movement."
If you say so, why should I doubt it? Perhaps everyone associated with the movement is a monster. Let's assume that is the case.
That doesn't defend the pseudo-philosophical/psychological pronouncements on what the essence of the idea is.
With or without your addition it looks to me like an equivocal attack on being effective in doing good, rather than on "Effective Altruism" as a movement.
Psychobabble is not aimed at people who are deeply familiar with the history and the nature of the movement, but at people like me who know nothing much about it.
It's schematically the same as a lot of rhetoric that see-saws on a foundation of equivocation but careless people fall off.
If someone is going to traffic in this nasty, illogical rhetoric, I object to them sliding by doing it in a completely careless and sloppy way.
It’s like a con artist taking advantage of folks by convincing them to do a get-rich-quick scheme. It’s hard to not consider everyone as shitty in the scenario.
Very few people thought they were legitimately doing something that created actual value, just getting on the train to getting rich without having to do anything.