Considering Sam Bankman-Fried claimed to practice #effectiveAltruism, and the fact that he makes substantial political donations, I thought we can validate to some extent whether his effective altruism is bogus or genuine. I thought this would be easily settled. If he favors democrats, he’s putting humanity above wealth & tyranny. If republicans, the altruistic claim can be easily dismissed.
It turns out #SamBankmanFried donated to democrats and republicans both. It’s unclear if the donations were equally effective for both parties, but interesting that he donated to dems in-the-clear while hiding donations to republicans. One of the notable donations went to a congressman who was most critical of cryptocurrency. So naturally he had to bribe that politician.
Dems were surprised to find that he also donated to republicans (and by his own admission!). Had he donated to both parties in transparency, recipients could see their opponent is also being fed and disregard the donation (i.e. give no preferential treatment). Seeing all the recipients would reveal if there were at least a consistent ideology or philosophy in play.
I have to conclude the political donations were likely all just to promote his own success. It does not completely nix the claim of effective altruism because he would argue it was purely a wealth accumulation endeavor as a precursor to effective altruism. But I have to say someone who is fully engaged in the idea of effective altruism would be irresistibly selective in who receives political contributions even at the cost of reduced wealth. A humanitarian would not be able to stomach the idea of financing a republican war chest.
You also have to figure that since he chose to make dem financing transparent and repub financing in the dark, he inherently gave republican recipients full view of it. That’s only viable if he donates much more to republicans who would see that he donates mere peanuts to the opponent for optics.
1- If a man robs ypu, and then give it back to you indirectly without your consent, in the form of supporting a democratic party. Does that justify his actions ?
2- You know I have come across democrats who hated biden, and sought to vote for someone else for democracy.
Everyone knows a thing or two about biden’s corruption; how he protects his son, instead of allowing individuals to take accountability and responsibility for their selves.
3- It does not matter what bankman did with the money, in terms of trying to change the fact that he stole money from people and lied to the people.
4- Infact the parties that received the donations have to comply and cooperate, if such proofs exist that they were complicit. And there is.
So I’m not sure how this is going to even flourish in terms of supporting republicans or democrats.
What goes around comes around.
I guess you may call me a realist lol.
If he favors democrats, he’s putting humanity above wealth & tyranny. If republicans, the altruistic claim can be easily dismissed.
Your claims are from the start erroneous because they are based on a one-dimesnsional criterion which ignores the democrats’ perpetrations.
How the Democrats Traded the New Deal for Neoliberalism (Jacobin)
Obama’s Drone War (The Diplomat)
Biden Said He Would Stop Drilling. Then Reality Hit. (New York Times)
Biden’s Backing of Israeli War Crimes Carries on a Sordid US Tradition (truthout)
I agree that some of those transgressions contradict humanitarianism. You can always cherry-pick dirt on all individual politicians of course. That’s not interesting.
My comment draws from the broader principles of the party platform. One party fights public healthcare, fights public education, promotes xenophobia, islamaphobia, fights welfare, fights gun control, fights environmental protection & pushes #climateDenial propaganda, fights income equality, champions #citizensUnited, #ALEC, #NRA, etc. It’s clear from the values of the party platforms which parties are humanitarian and which are not.
First, let me clarify that I am not an American, so my perspective is quite different. Second, my argument is that this binary is misconceived since both parties are not humanistic (albeit to different degrees).
Anyhow, we are talking about administrations here, these are presidents and not simple individuals. Past decisions clearly show that the party in question, if it has any humanistic values, they are at the very least selectively or discrepantly implemented.
If it would have fought for environmental protection, the past administrations would have stopped appeasing oil shells.
And how could racial equity or gender equality have any impact if they do not liberate the working class from the capitalists’ oppression?
At least now that the US army is progressive it will at last employ queers to carry out drone attacks in places that Americans ignore their whereabouts.
The two parties complete each other’s policies more than you think they don’t, at least when seen from a non-American point of view. Just like Clinton progressed Nixon and Reagan’s neoliberal policies, the Biden administration is resuming the construction of Trump’s border wall..
Logically, we (or you, actually) cannot invoke the list of values enumerated above as “core values” to the Party if it cannot consistently abide by them.
P.S. exposing several administrations’ compliance in neoliberalism and imperialism is quite evidently not “cherry picking”. So please, I beg you to argue with good will.
You’ve returned to describing POTUS administrations. The government is so much bigger than one person. W.r.t. to policy continuity, I agree that it’s shocking when dems continue anti-humanitarian policies. Obama indeed renewed the Patriot Act and failed to close Guantanamo. And Biden’s resumption of the border wall is notable. To some extent they expect the fallout to be pinned on those who initiated the policy. They also reverse some policies. E.g. Obama required ISPs to obtain consent from customers before collecting and sharing personal data. Trump reversed that so ISPs can collect data on people without consent.
You can spend days non-stop exposing dirt on any administration. But the party values are clear and they impact at every level nationwide. The core values of the republican party:
- fights public healthcare
- fights public education
- fights welfare
- fights income equality, affirmative action, worker’s rights & unions
- promotes xenophobia & Islamaphobia
- fights gun control
- fights voting rights
- fights environmental protection & pushes #climateDenial propaganda
- privatize everything (e.g. prisons)
- #citizensUnited (elevates corporate power to that of humans)
#ALEC is the republican bill mill and lobbyist who is supported by the biggest lobby in the nation: the #NRA. All of the above values culminate into ALEC and propagate into law from there.
Logically, we (or you, actually) cannot invoke the list of values enumerated above as “core values” to the Party if it cannot consistently abide by them.
Republicans consistently fight the above battles in the fed and state levels. They fought Obamacare and were even more opposed to Bernie’s plan. They want full privatization. They consistently fight against public education in every state, trying to defund public education & redirect public money into private education. Republicans oppose welfare and push for policies that exclude people from welfare (e.g. pee in a cup in Florida to prove you’re drug-free as a welfare precondition). The wall is a physical manifestation of xenophobia, but calling Mexicans “rapists & criminals” and their long history of scape-goating immigrants is historical. You can actually predict which party a state will favor based on demographics that xenophobia follows from. E.g. Ohio used to be a swing state, but the demographics changed so the state became whiter & less educated, which generated predictions that the population was more xenophobic and feared immigrants taking jobs, thus the state was expected to become solid red. And that’s exactly what happened. Of course republicans oppose gun control. The NRA is no longer a gun safety advocate, but pushes the extreme of no controls. The republican party is nothing without NRA support. All those bulleted positions above are held by ALEC, which the NRA backs along with republican politicians. Voting rights: there are countless shenanigans by the republicans to thwart voting. In some states they finance billboards by the road that say “Voting fraud is a crime” showing hand-cuffs, despite lack of notable voter fraud anywhere in the country. This is a voter intimidation move to make people in edge cases like who just moved into the state fearful enough to not register. They manipulate jurisdictional lines to get more electoral votes. They opposed Sunday voting because of “souls to the polls”. Blacks have a low voter turnout but they attend church in high numbers. So we can get more black votes by sending buses to churches on Sunday and giving them a ride to the voting poll. Of course a majority of blacks vote for dems. Hence why republicans fight Sunday voting.
If it would have fought for environmental protection, the past administrations would have stopped appeasing oil shells.
It’s bizarre to claim dems don’t oppose oil companies. Follow the money. Oil companies feed republican war chests. Greg Abbott in Texas is the most notable. When you fuel your car, you support republicans. Chevron in particular, as Chevron is also an ALEC member. Perhaps you are confused because a lot of jobs depend on the car industry. Obama bailed out the car makers because of the jobs, not out of love for oil or what they do to the environment. The EPA was neutered by Trump (a climate denier). ALEC & the republican party is the biggest barrier to environmental protection. If you simply visit the parking lot of a conservative fortune 500 company, the parking lot is packed with SUVs and pickup trucks.
If you oppose the positions I’ve put in bullets, then you basically oppose what the republicans are about. In which case you would vote democrat because it’s a 2-party system. Binary indeed.
See, you’ve written this long reply (and I appreciate your commitment) to attack republicans, yet you still could not credibly defend the Democratic Party. To be against the Republican Party does not automatically make you a Democrat, truly such a one-dimensional spectrum is only conceivable in the land of incoherences of yours. For instance, communists staunchly attack republicans, yet they equally attack the democrats, arguing (rightfully, in my opinion) that both are two sides of the same coin which is capitalism/liberalism.
I want to go back to the roots of our debate in order to recalibrate, and that is the fact that you’ve created quite the frail and unnecessarily complicated moral compass which, ironically, adds no philosophical value. Instead of basing your evaluation of SBF on a shallow criterion of political funding (which leads to many problematic conclusions due to the ideological indeterminacy which plagues American political parties), you can directly employ, like any sane person would, a humanist compass (granted that humanism has its caveats). You should then be asking whether EA conforms to the conceptions of humanism, on the short but also long term, and should future generations be prioritised over present beings?
To be against the Republican Party does not automatically make you a Democrat,
It does. You’re not accepting the reality of a 2-party system. Democrats encompass the green party voters as well, in effect, because it’s a 2 party system. Democrats broadly have extensive variation united in opposition to the republican platform. Democrats do not have a single org or two that sums up the whole party. The closest notable org that embodies the values of democrats would be the ACLU. But the ACLU is much more narrow to dem’s values than ALEC & NRA are to the republicans. But since you’re complexity averse, I suggest just looking at ACLU’s campaigns and missions compared to ALEC to understand the differences you’re trying to grasp between the parties.
yet you still could not credibly defend the Democratic Party.
Altruism in not compatible with the basic core agenda of the republican platform. Opposing the positions I listed is a sufficient defense for the party of any republican opposition with respect to campaign financing in a two party system. If you’re Sam Bankman-Fried claiming to spend money on altruism, the republican party is a clear antithesis of that endeavor, thus not a credible recipient. As unfavorable as it is to be trapped in a 2-party system, you’re lost on the simplicity of this.
For instance, communists staunchly attack republicans, yet they equally attack the democrats, arguing (rightfully, in my opinion) that both are two sides of the same coin which is capitalism/liberalism.
You’re not grasping the basic political framework of the US. You can finance communists in the US but the results are no different than setting your money on fire. They are not a viable party (assuming they even exist - they may be operating under a different name). Furthermore, bringing communists up only muddies the waters because SBF did not contribute to them. He only contributed to Ds and Rs.
I want to go back to the roots of our debate in order to recalibrate, and that is the fact that you’ve created quite the frail and unnecessarily complicated moral compass which, ironically, adds no philosophical value.
The 2-party system is not complicated. It’s the contrary. It’s simple to a detrimental fault. And because the republican values are what they are, it’s actually trivially simple to work out which party an altruistic philanthropist would favor. They have no choice.
Instead of basing your evaluation of SBF on a shallow criterion of political funding (which leads to many problematic conclusions due to the ideological indeterminacy which plagues American political parties), you can directly employ, like any sane person would, a humanist compass (granted that humanism has its caveats). You should then be asking whether EA conforms to the conceptions of humanism, on the short but also long term, and should future generations be prioritised over present beings?
You’ve misunderstood the thesis. It was not an overall appraisal of Sam Bankman-Fried. There are a lot topics we can discuss and countless approaches to solving the world’s social problems. The topic is specifically about Sam Bankman-Fried’s claim to adhere to effective altruism. If that does not interest you, you should not have entered the thread. You can create threads about whatever you find more interesting than SBF EA.