42
'It’s a common misconception that we recommend all EAs “marry to give,” or marry a high-net-worth individual with the intent of redirecting much of their wealth to effective causes' (web.archive.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/sneerclub@awful.systems
66 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

An old post from Caroline Ellison's tumblr, since deleted.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

This starts out 100% indistinguishable from an April Fools post to the point where I had to check the archive date.

Actually looking back is maybe is satire in that annoying half-serious way (check out the nonsense hyperlinks destinations where the "humor" is a bit more obvious)

Also was I just shamed by someone who was in the environmentally horrifying bitcoin industry for keeping dry milk in my cupboard? No thank you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Come on, this is obvious satire, it is basically page from EA talking about 10.000 hours shit and find replacing a few words. Even the notes call it out as satire.

    Of course satire is dumb, as it always is a signal towards the incrowd and a lot of the times backfires spectacularly (see starship troopers the movie (the book does the other thing, it is intended as serious, but the arguments are so bad that you can read it as 'this is the story of a dumb failson who gets more and more taken in by propaganda, as he fails to see (or intentionally fails to see, which is part of the book re the whole hitting Zim in the face thing, which only 'occurs' after the guy admits he did it, and not when Zim is walking around with a huge black eye) how he is being manipulated and the system is being used to get rid of people smarter than him by moving them into more dangerous warzones). Anyway back to the movie, intended as a satire of fascist militarism, but now constantly smugly repeated by actual fascists/far right bs mongers). It always amazes me a bit that the Rationalists don't talk about how dumb it is to use satire more. (vs all their other meta level stuff about how people disagree and discuss things and who should and should not be allowed to speak) I think it is probably because satire can be so fun, and it is intellectually rewarding to get it while people you dislike don't get it. Sorry, this rant was sponsored by Helldiverse (im leaving that typo in)! Democracy!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I mean maybe if their serious beliefs weren't all so absurd I'd have an easier time distinguishing those from satire absurd beliefs 🤷‍♀️

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What you don't think the rokos basilisk or becoming a billionaire to steal from the common people to give to the underpants gnomes is a good idea?

    (I was wondering randomly, SBF tried to pull a 'but im so ethical, I meant so well' in his trial, did he actually give money to good causes, or was that still the step after 2:??? of his master plan?)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    ponzi-money-spending.docx:

    1. A $35 million Bahamas penthouse office including private chef and pharmacist
    2. Celebrity TV ads and the FTX arena
    3. Private jets, real estate, luxury cars, and a yacht
    4. $100 million between both US political parties, other political donations (this story looks wild, haven't read it yet)
    5. VIP parties to rub shoulders with the rich, famous, and politically connected.
    6. Donations to various EA groups, as well as some guy writing questions for prediction markets
    7. Donations to museums, universities
    8. Unfortunately the $200k donation to Rajalakshmi Children Foundation never went through before FTX had a teensie liquidity issue.
    9. Gifts for his own family (how sweet :)

    Overall the reporting on this is pretty scattered. I didn't find any one article that covered every knowable donation.

    He certainly wasn't truly invested in criming for the good of the world (as long as you don't count ponzi victims as part of the world); because if he was he'd have run a much tighter ship.

    He cultivated an image of scruffy philanthropist uninterested in worldly things, and for some reason the media ate this up. Meanwhile he was making conscious decisions to keep his criminal enterprise going as long as possible so he could keep living a life of nerdy luxury before it all came crashing down.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 years ago*

    If Caroline Ellison hadn't been in an actual relationship with a "high net-worth individual" I would have said it was just straightforward satire, but given the context I think she's using mask of irony to pretend she isn't revealing her true self.

    Her words may be satirical, but her actions were more like "this but unironically".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent