Secure feels like the wrong word here.

Which line(s) are you referring to? This word isn’t central in the post so I’m confused.

But it’s right in the tweet? The one that your post opens with? It’s in there twice in the space of two sentences.

See the end of this comment. (If you are still confused about my stance on this after reading that bit, then I will explain in greater detail.)

You were still making a statement about Ben’s assessment of Zack, which is still kind of weird to disagree-react to

I was disagreeing with Ben’s assessment of Zack. There’s nothing weird about that. Rather odd to claim otherwise, frankly.

you are still very obviously mistaken as almost everyone who has interacted with Zack, at least within the past few years, would be very likely to attest

Sure, they can attest all they like, that’s their right. Nevertheless, I disagree. (I don’t put much stock in majoritarianism.) That’s what the react is for, right? Disagreeing? You have an assessment of Zack’s behavior; I have a different assessment of Zack’s behavior. (I don’t even know if Zack agrees with my assessment of Zack’s behavior. I certainly haven’t asked him about it. The react was an expression of my assessment, not anyone else’s.)

I like Zack, but it’s very obvious that in conversations he has lots and lots of feelings barely contained (and indeed, he says so frequently)

That’s as may be. The claim was “barely able to contain strongly emotional and hostile outbursts”. I’ve seen no evidence of any “hostile outbursts” or “barely contained” “hostile outbursts” or any such thing.

Replying to @habryka’s recent comment here, because I am currently rate-limited to 1 comment per day and can’t reply in situ:

I think you have never interacted with either Ben or Zack in person!

You are mistaken.

(Why would I disagree-react with a statement about how someone behaves in person if I’d never met them in person? Have you ever known me to make factual claims based on no evidence whatsoever…? Really, now!)

Yes, of course. I both remember and agree wholeheartedly. (And @habryka’s reply in a sibling comment seems to me to be almost completely non-responsive to this point.)

If you’d like good evidence, I suggest trying the same? It’s not super complex to learn and test.

But this would provide me with very nearly no evidence at all that NVC is useful for averting and dissolving the sort of conflict for which it has been touted, and which is usually cited in connection with NVC’s rapid growth into “a world-spanning movement”. (After all, I don’t interact with violent criminals, or refugees in war zones, or even high-level corporate executives, etc. Do you?)

The comparisons invite themselves, frankly. “Careerism without moral evaluation of the consequences of one’s work” is a perfect encapsulation of the attitudes of many of the people who work in frontier AI labs, and I decline to pretend otherwise.

(And I must also say that I find the “Jewish people must not be compared to Nazis” stance to be rather absurd, especially in this sort of case. I’m Jewish myself, and I think that refusing to learn, from that particular historical example, any lessons whatsoever that could possibly ever apply to our own behavior, is morally irresponsible in the extreme.)

EDIT: Although the primary motivation of my comment about Eichmann was indeed to correct the perception of the historians’ consensus, so if you prefer, I can remove the comparison to a separate comment; the rest of the comment stands without that part.

It’s influenced by beliefs about the thing, but also by unrelated things like how you’re feeling about the person you’re talking to (RE what I’ve demonstrated with Said).

I want to note that I dispute that you demonstrated this.