Using the term marketing scum is a bit pejorative, I hope we can agree on that :-) Let’s avoid emotionally-loaded terms when having rational discourse—I suggest tabooing that term.
Regardless of the term used, yes, I am a dedicated consequentialist, and my goal is to get people to care about effective giving, to avoid leaving huge sums on the table.
Wait. Is your goal to get people to care about effective giving, or is your goal to get people to give effectively? “to avoid leaving huge sums on the table” implies the latter.
This question seems to be the crux of the discussion. Whether EA as a movement has an important identity and mission that’s not just “improve the measured state of being of many people on a relatively short timeframe”.
My goal is to get people to care about effective giving. This will then lead to people giving effectively. However, the first is the goal I am pursuing most directly.
Using the term marketing scum is a bit pejorative, I hope we can agree on that :-) Let’s avoid emotionally-loaded terms when having rational discourse—I suggest tabooing that term.
Regardless of the term used, yes, I am a dedicated consequentialist, and my goal is to get people to care about effective giving, to avoid leaving huge sums on the table.
Wait. Is your goal to get people to care about effective giving, or is your goal to get people to give effectively? “to avoid leaving huge sums on the table” implies the latter.
This question seems to be the crux of the discussion. Whether EA as a movement has an important identity and mission that’s not just “improve the measured state of being of many people on a relatively short timeframe”.
My goal is to get people to care about effective giving. This will then lead to people giving effectively. However, the first is the goal I am pursuing most directly.
But… but… but… what about “appealing to the heart”? :-P
I’d be happy to taboo that as well, if you’d like ;-)