How noble—stealing people’s life savings to increase African birth rates, navel-gaze about AI risk, make cows happier, and all the other nonsense.
Mostly a bunch of lost, hideous people with terrible moral intuitions proclaiming themselves the most holy tribe in existence.
Not a single worthwhile cause in there.
From MR commentator Ineffective Grifterism.
I would say if the FTX debacle first leads you to increase your condemnation of EA, utilitarianism, philosophy, crypto, and so on that is a kind of red flag for your thought processes. They probably could stand some improvement, even if your particular conclusion might be correct. As I’ve argued lately, it is easier to carry and amplify damning sympathies when you can channel your negative emotions through the symbolism of a particular individual. Especially when others are doing the same — do not forget Girard!
It is better to simply file the data point away and add it to your mental regressions, but not right now to get too emotional or condemnatory about it.
If you would like, here are a few better questions for occupying your time:
2. If you had to flee the Bahamas, and sought out a locale with no extradition treaty, which one would you choose? (Indonesia, for me, not Dubai.)
3. What kind of love story exactly is that of Sam and Caroline? I mean this query seriously and I am not looking for a hostile or sarcastic answer.
4. Which parts of the SBF worldview remain correct and will end up undervalued?
5. What does the scenario look like where this is good for crypto as a whole?
6. How should remaining EA philanthropists rethink their giving and also their PR?
7. How will this affect economic development in the Bahamas?
You can work yourself on completing this list. My claim is that, over time, you will end up much smarter if you focus on questions like these rather than “reliving” collective condemnations like those of Ineffective Grifterism. Nominative determinism occasionally does hold!
From MR commentator Ineffective Grifterism.
I would say if the FTX debacle first leads you to increase your condemnation of EA, utilitarianism, philosophy, crypto, and so on that is a kind of red flag for your thought processes. They probably could stand some improvement, even if your particular conclusion might be correct. As I’ve argued lately, it is easier to carry and amplify damning sympathies when you can channel your negative emotions through the symbolism of a particular individual. Especially when others are doing the same — do not forget Girard!
It is better to simply file the data point away and add it to your mental regressions, but not right now to get too emotional or condemnatory about it.
If you would like, here are a few better questions for occupying your time:
1. Which 19th century novel does this story most resemble?
2. If you had to flee the Bahamas, and sought out a locale with no extradition treaty, which one would you choose? (Indonesia, for me, not Dubai.)
3. What kind of love story exactly is that of Sam and Caroline? I mean this query seriously and I am not looking for a hostile or sarcastic answer.
4. Which parts of the SBF worldview remain correct and will end up undervalued?
5. What does the scenario look like where this is good for crypto as a whole?
6. How should remaining EA philanthropists rethink their giving and also their PR?
7. How will this affect economic development in the Bahamas?
You can work yourself on completing this list. My claim is that, over time, you will end up much smarter if you focus on questions like these rather than “reliving” collective condemnations like those of Ineffective Grifterism. Nominative determinism occasionally does hold!