Yup, agreed that it may well be not wise for those who have racist beliefs to be open about them. The same applies to the global warming stuff.
This is why I say this is a project informed by EA values—it comes from the perspective that voting is like donating thousands of dollars to charity and that voters care about the public good. It’s not meant to target those who don’t care about the public good—just those mistaken about what is the best way to achieve the public good. For instance, plenty of voters are mistaken about the state of reality, and some of those folks would genuinely want the most good. The project is not meant to reach all, in other words—just that select slice.
In particular, you’re not interested in reaching the voters who don’t want say Muslim migrants raping and occasionally murdering girls in their neighborhoods. Good to know.
Well, there is a more serious flaw than that particular issue: if you reach out to a very small slice of humans in our world and persuade them that they should be more rational in politics, politics will not get more rational. You have to appeal to everyone or almost everyone.
So, for example, people who read Breitbart have to be on board, as well as people who read the guardian and the daily kos.
Yup, agreed that it may well be not wise for those who have racist beliefs to be open about them … This is why I say this is a project informed by EA values … not meant to target those who don’t care about the public good
explicitly non-partisan effort
that wise decision-making by the citizenry is beneficial to all but a few interest groups devoted to deceiving the public… much more amenable to solution than partisan issues that only affect one side of the political spectrum.
I feel like these requirements are kind of contradictory. What if a lot of people are selfish, racist (in a broad sense) and want to procrastinate global warming? Are we saying that “rational” political debate benefits them, or that it doesn’t? If it doesn’t benefit them then why should they be on board?
Are we saying that you have to be a globalist effective altruist who puts the needs of distant strangers above those of their own families to benefit from rational politics? Very few people have values like that! IIRC even Peter Singer struggled with that!
who don’t care about the public good
Do you have to care about the public good of the whole world, or is it OK if you only care about the public good of your tribe/country/race?
I’m talking about prioritizing the good of the country as a whole, not necessarily distant strangers—although in my personal value stance, that would be nice. Like I said, it’s an EA project :-)
A political group composed only of people who prioritize the good of the country over their own subtribe or self will lack the support needed to flourish.
It’s not that people disagree or don’t know about the object level facts. It’s that people are actively fighting to gain relative advantage over others. And that is a cultural problem, not a political one.
Yup, agreed that it may well be not wise for those who have racist beliefs to be open about them. The same applies to the global warming stuff.
This is why I say this is a project informed by EA values—it comes from the perspective that voting is like donating thousands of dollars to charity and that voters care about the public good. It’s not meant to target those who don’t care about the public good—just those mistaken about what is the best way to achieve the public good. For instance, plenty of voters are mistaken about the state of reality, and some of those folks would genuinely want the most good. The project is not meant to reach all, in other words—just that select slice.
In particular, you’re not interested in reaching the voters who don’t want say Muslim migrants raping and occasionally murdering girls in their neighborhoods. Good to know.
Well, there is a more serious flaw than that particular issue: if you reach out to a very small slice of humans in our world and persuade them that they should be more rational in politics, politics will not get more rational. You have to appeal to everyone or almost everyone.
So, for example, people who read Breitbart have to be on board, as well as people who read the guardian and the daily kos.
I feel like these requirements are kind of contradictory. What if a lot of people are selfish, racist (in a broad sense) and want to procrastinate global warming? Are we saying that “rational” political debate benefits them, or that it doesn’t? If it doesn’t benefit them then why should they be on board?
Are we saying that you have to be a globalist effective altruist who puts the needs of distant strangers above those of their own families to benefit from rational politics? Very few people have values like that! IIRC even Peter Singer struggled with that!
Do you have to care about the public good of the whole world, or is it OK if you only care about the public good of your tribe/country/race?
I’m talking about prioritizing the good of the country as a whole, not necessarily distant strangers—although in my personal value stance, that would be nice. Like I said, it’s an EA project :-)
A political group composed only of people who prioritize the good of the country over their own subtribe or self will lack the support needed to flourish.
It’s not that people disagree or don’t know about the object level facts. It’s that people are actively fighting to gain relative advantage over others. And that is a cultural problem, not a political one.