As I mentioned in my post, I am good friends with Zoe and I sent her my comment here right after I posted it. She approved.
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here - call on Zoe as an authority to disapprove of me? Would it update you at all if the answer was what you doubted?
First, I’m annoyed at the timing of this. The community still seems in the middle of sensemaking around Leverage, and figuring out what to do about it, and this post feels like it pulls the spotlight away.
Yeesh. I don't think we should police victims' timing. That seems really evil to me. We should be super skeptical of any attempts to tell people to shut up about their allegations, and "your timing is very insensitive to the real victims" really does not pass the smell test for me.
Some context, please. Imagine the following scenario:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, whether it happens the same day, the next day, or week later. Maybe victim B was encouraged by (reactions to) victim A's message, maybe it was just a coincidence. Nothing wrong with that either.
Another scenario:
This is a good thing to happen; more evidence, encouragement for further victims to come out.
B...
I don't think "don't police victims' timing" is an absolute rule; not policing the timing is a pretty good idea in most cases. I think this is an exception.
And if I wasn't clear, I'll explicitly state my position here: I think it's good to pay close attention to negative effects communities have on its members, and I am very pro people talking about this, and if people feel hurt by an organization it seems really good to have this publicly discussed.
But I believe the above post did not simply do that. It also did other things, which is frame th...
its a thumbsup emoji on mac OS. 👍
If you think this guy raped people (with 80% credence or whatever) then you should probably warn people about him (in a public googleable way).
In most legal enviroment like the US publically accusing someone of being a rapist comes with huge legal risks especially if the relevant evidence only allows 80% credence.
Calling for something like this seems to be in ignorance of the complexity of the relevant dynamics.
Allowing somebody to continue to be an organizer for something after they confess to rape
To fill in some details (I asked Robert, he's fine with it):
Robert had not confessed to rape, at least not the way I would use the word. He had told me of an incident where (as he told it to me) [edit: the following text is rot13'd, because it contains explicit descriptions of sexual acts] ur naq Wnl unq obgu chg ba pbaqbzf, Wnl unq chg ure zbhgu ba Eboreg’f cravf, naq yngre Eboreg unq chg uvf zbhgu ba Wnl’f cravf jvgubhg nfxvat, naq pbagvahrq sbe nobhg unys n zvahgr o...
"It has been alleged" strikes me as not meeting the bar that LW should strive to clear, when dealing with such high stakes, with this much uncertainty.
Allegations come with an alleger attached. If that alleger is someone else (i.e. if you don't want to tie your own credibility to their account) then it's good to just ... link straight to the source.
If that alleger is you (including if you're repeating someone else's allegations because you found them credible enough that you're adopting them, and repeating them on your own authority), you should be a...
Thanks for this articulate and vulnerable writeup. I do think we might all agree that the experience you are describing seems like a very good description of what somebody in a cult would go through while facing information that would trigger disillusionment.
I am not asserting you are in a cult, maybe I should use more delicate language, but in context I would like to point out this (to me) obvious parallel.
I have thought about this UOC post and it has grown on me.
The fact is that I believe Zoe and I believe her experience is not some sort of anomaly. But I am happy to advocate for her just on principle.
Geoff has much more resources and much at stake. Zoe just has (IMO) the truth and bravery and little to gain but peace. Justice for Geoff just doesn't need my assistance, but justice for Zoe might.
So I am happy to blindly ally with Zoe and any other victims. And yes I would like others to do the same, and broadcast that we will fight for them. Otherwise ...
I will be happy to contribute financially to Zoe's legal defense, if Geoff decides to take revenge.
In the meanwhile, I am curious about what actually happened. The more people talk, the better.
Suppose, pulling these numbers out of a hat, the total damage done to Leverage employees (as estimated by them) was $1M and the total value of Geoff's tokens are $10M; the presumption that the tokens should all go to the victims (i.e. that the value of his tokens is equal to the amount of damage done) seems about as detached from reality to me as the assumption that the correct amount of restitution is 0.
The counter argument would be:
Suppose we do not think it should be profitable to start a cult and get rich. If we enforce the norm "if we find out you sta...
I am sad that you have deleted your original comment because it was my favorite comment in this whole page! Your updated version, by comparison, is much worse (no offense).
Look, I think once you are trying to express the idea "I think you should pay millions of dollars to the people you have very badly harmed", you should not be so concerned about whether you are doing so in a "hostile" way. I hope we can all appreciate the comedy in this even if you think neutrality is ultimately better.
I agree that your new version is more norm-conformant, but I am...
while the actual representatives of EA/rationalist community probably don't even notice that this happens
I think it matters a lot whether this is true, and there is widely known evidence that it isn't true. For example Brent Dill and (if you are willing to believe victims) Robert Lecnik.
Your post is well said and I am also very worried about EA/rat spaces as a fruitful space for predatory actors.
Which thing are you claiming here? I am a bit confused by the double negative (you're saying there's "widely known evidence that it isn't true that representatives don't even notice when abuse happens", I think; might you rephrase?).
I've made stupid and harmful errors at various time, and e.g. should've been much quicker on the uptake about Brent, and asked more questions when Robert brought me info about his having been "bad at consent" as he put it. I don't wish to be and don't think I should be one of the main people trying to safeguard victims' right...
You can start seeking truth, and pivot to advocate, as UOC says.
The entire thesis of the post is that you want a mixture of advocacy and mediation in the community. So if your proposal is that we all mediate, and then pivot to advocacy, I think that is not at all what UOC says.
Not that I super endorse the prescription / dichotomy that the post makes to begin with.
Thanks. Your comments and mayleaf's do mean a lot to me. Also, I was surprised by negative reaction to that comment and didn't really expect it to come off as admonishment or pressure. Love 2 cheerlead \o/
I might suggest creating another post (so as to not interfere too much with this one) detailing what you believe to be the case so that we can discuss and figure out any systematic issues.
Look uhhh I believe at the very least the most basic claims about how Anna handled Robert Lecnik.
I would be quite surprised if the people I would call leaders knew of things that were as severe as Zoe's account and "did nothing". I care a lot whether that's true.
👍 (non sarcastic)
The information in Zoe's Medium post was significant news to me and others I've spoken to.
That's a good thing to assert.
It seems preeeetty likely that some leaders in the community knew more or less what was up. I want people to care about whether that is true or not.
To do that investigation and postmortem, we can't skip to sentencing
I get this sentiment, but at the same time I think it's good to be clear about what is at stake. It's easy for me to interpret comments like "Reminder that Leverage 1.0 is defunct and it seems very unlikely that th...
It's easy for me to interpret comments like "Reminder that Leverage 1.0 is defunct and it seems very unlikely that the same things are going on with Leverage 2.0" as essentially claiming that, while post-mortems are useful, the situation is behind us.
Given my high priors on "the past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior", I would assume that the greatest difference will be better OPSEC and PR. Also, more resouces to silence critics.
It seems preeeetty likely that some leaders in the community knew more or less what was up. I want people to care about whether that is true or not.
I would be quite surprised if the people I would call leaders knew of things that were as severe as Zoe's account and "did nothing". I care a lot whether that's true.
...It's easy for me to interpret comments like "Reminder that Leverage 1.0 is defunct and it seems very unlikely that the same things are going on with Leverage 2.0" as essentially claiming that, while post-mortems are useful, the situation is behind
I have no private information to share. I think there is an obvious difference between asking powerful people in the community to stand up for the truth, and asking some rando commentator to de-anonymize.
That's my context. However I agree that my contributions haven't been very high EV in that I'm very far on the outside of a delicate situation and throwing my weight around. So I won't keep trying to intervene / subtextually post.
Re: @Ruby on my brusqueness
LW/EA has more "world saving" orgs than just Leverage. Implicit to "world saving" orgs, IMO, is that we should tolerate some impropriety for the greater good. Or that we should handle things quietly in order to not damage the greater mission.
I think that our "world saving" orgs ask a lot of trust from the broader community -- MIRI is a very clear example. I'm not really trying to condemn secrecy I am just pointing out that trust is asked of us.
I recognize that this is inflammatory but I don't see a reason to beat around the...
IMO, is that we should tolerate some impropriety for the greater good.
I agree!
I am just pointing out that trust is asked of us.
I agree!
Leverage really seems like a cult. It seems like an unsafe institution doing harmful things.
Reminder that Leverage 1.0 is defunct and it seems very unlikely that the same things are going on with Leverage 2.0 (remote team, focus on science history rather than psychology, 4 people).
I am not sure how much this stuff about Leverage is really news to people involved in our other "world saving" orgs.
The information in Zoe's Medi...
Let's stand up for the truth regardless of threats from Geoff/Leverage, and let's stand up for the truth regardless of the mob.
I feel like it's going to be really hard to say anything without people pigeonholing me into belonging to some group that is trying to rewrite the rationality social and political landscape some way.
Let's stand up for the truth! Maintaining some aura of neutrality or impartiality at the expense of the truth would be IMO quite obviously bad.
...I myself have access to some sensitive and somewhat confidential information, and
I also sort of don’t expect that much goal divergence on the accountability steps that very-optimistically come after those steps, either, basically because integrity and visible trustworthiness serve most good goals in the long run, and vengeance or temporarily-overextended-trust serves little.
To clarify: goal divergence between whom? Geoff and Zoe? Zoe and me? Me and you?
I would like it if we showed the world how accountability is done, and given your position, I find it disturbing that you have omitted this objective. That is, if I wanted to deflect the conversation away from accountability, I think I would write a post similar to yours.
I would like it if we showed the world how accountability is done
So would I. But to do accountability (as distinguished from scapegoating, less-epistemic blame), we need to know what happened, and we need to accurately trust each other (or at least most of each other) to be able to figure out what happened, and to care what actually happened.
The “figure out what happened” and “get in a position where we can have a non-fucked conversation” steps come first, IMO.
I also sort of don’t expect that much goal divergence on the accountability steps that very-o...
Strong downvote for choosing to entirely ignore the points/claims/arguments that Aella laid out, in favor of reiterating your frame with no new detail, as if that were a rebuttal.
Seems like a cheap rhetorical trick designed to say "I'm on the side of the good, and if you disagree with me, well ..."
(Or, more precisely, I predict that if we polled one hundred humans on their takeaway from reading the thread, more than sixty of them would tick "yes" next to "to the best of your ability to judge, was this person being snide/passive-aggressive/trying to imply t... (read more)