From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Wed May 01 2002 - 18:33:14 MDT
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>
> > (Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>):
> > I thing going after organic food as a supposedly "luddite"
> > category from end to end is a gross mistake. There are much
> > less ambiguous targets. If you pick one for your first campaign
> > that is as ambigous as this one you run considerable danger of
> > having your fledgling organization seen as a bunch of cranks.
>
> In a way, though, that's kind of the goal. I think we need
> an "Earth First" / "ACT UP" / "PETA" kind of extremist presence
> to complement the more moderate, reasonable ones like ExI and
> WTO. Having such a radical wing actually increases the
> credibility of the moderates with the unconverted, and helps
> stimulate discussion among the insiders. The credibility of the
> radicals isn't that important, only their _visibility_. First
> you get the headline, then you get the reporters used to calling
> ExI to comment more rationally.
That can't possibly work in the real world. Or am I the only person who
thinks this?
The organizations that have "extremist" wings and "normalcy" wings are the
ones who are, justly or unjustly, already socially popular, or popular with
the media. Palestinians and environmentalists are two examples of this. If
the group already has an unpopular or neutral reputation, the extremists
will simply be taken as representative.
On the whole, I agree with Samantha. There is no point in picking a fight
you can't win. Emotionally satisfying to the fighters, I suppose, but
damaging to those of us who are actually trying to accomplish something.
-- -- -- -- --
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:45 MST