= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Desrtopa comments on Open Thread, September 15-30, 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (206)
Reposting a comment I made on Yvain's livejournal:
There's a standard argument about "efficient charity" that says you should concentrate all your donations on one charity, because presumably you have preferences over the total amounts of money donated to each charity (not just your own donations), so choosing something like a 50/50 split would be too sensitive to other people's donations.
I just realized that the argument applies in equal force to politics. If you're not using "beliefs as attire" but actually care about politics, your participation in politics should be 100% extremist. That's troubling.
Impact of charitable donations is, at least within the domains that most people can give, directly proportional to the size of the donations. It's not at all clear, however, that extremist participation in politics produces a greater impact in the desired direction than casual participation.
I think that in some cases, it probably does, whereas in others it does not.