This seems reasonable, but the interpretations of the quotations seem to be in some cases, extremely uncharitable.
Ben’s statement could easily be construed to mean: run your criticism by us first, and we’ll point you to where it’s been discussed—because otherwise we’d probably not bother responding independently to all the various public criticisms, as it wastes our time with a repetitive task.
The Robert Wiblin quote is taken out of context, and the comparison to marriage makes it clear that he’s not advocating “you can quit any time you feel like it”.
The Reese issue is more complex, and potentially worse, and I won;t address it.
And Gleb’s missteps are mostly indefensible, but this article seems to question his motives unfairly. He seems to be trying (not always well) to go down a path that he may still think is ultimately helpful. (I’d advise him to reread how to actually change your mind, and hope he can make a major change.) Will and others have done enough to disavow him, this isn’t helpful. So I’m not defending him, but the attack here seems simply mean spirited, and ultimately is exactly the type of time-wasting circular firing squad that the Ben’s earlier quotes were trying to get people to avoid.
Edit: All that said, the post pointed out an important issue, and at the very least, the critique of using the number of GWWC pledges as a metric which is distorting behavior is something I’m fully in agreement with Sarah on.
This seems reasonable, but the interpretations of the quotations seem to be in some cases, extremely uncharitable.
Ben’s statement could easily be construed to mean: run your criticism by us first, and we’ll point you to where it’s been discussed—because otherwise we’d probably not bother responding independently to all the various public criticisms, as it wastes our time with a repetitive task.
The Robert Wiblin quote is taken out of context, and the comparison to marriage makes it clear that he’s not advocating “you can quit any time you feel like it”.
The Reese issue is more complex, and potentially worse, and I won;t address it.
And Gleb’s missteps are mostly indefensible, but this article seems to question his motives unfairly. He seems to be trying (not always well) to go down a path that he may still think is ultimately helpful. (I’d advise him to reread how to actually change your mind, and hope he can make a major change.) Will and others have done enough to disavow him, this isn’t helpful. So I’m not defending him, but the attack here seems simply mean spirited, and ultimately is exactly the type of time-wasting circular firing squad that the Ben’s earlier quotes were trying to get people to avoid.
Edit: All that said, the post pointed out an important issue, and at the very least, the critique of using the number of GWWC pledges as a metric which is distorting behavior is something I’m fully in agreement with Sarah on.