The first person was Larissa, the second person was Kerry.The "anonymity thing" does not fall under the first category. I'd just prefer, as I stated before, not to be targeted "in real life" for my views on this thread.The "bullying" that I'm referring to happened/happens outside of this thread, and is in no way limited to instances of people being accused of being "in a cult".
(edit: moved to the correct reply area)
Yes, but imagine for a second that you worked at Leverage, and you're reading this thread (noting that I'd be surprised if several people from both 1.0 and 2.0 were not). Do you think that, whether they had a negative experience or a positive experience, they would feel comfortable commenting on that here?(This is the relevant impact of the things mentioned in my previous comment.)No. Of course not. Because the overpowering narrative in this thread, regardless of the goals or intentions of the OP, is "Leverage was/is a cult".No one accused of being in a cult is going to come into the community of their accusers and say a word. Of course, with the exception of two people in 2.0 who have posted here, one of which is a representative who has been accused of plotting to coerce and manipulate victims, and the other of which has been falsely accused of trying to hide their identity in the thread. And this is despite Leverage's efforts to become more legible and transparent.If someone who worked there had negative experiences as a result, then, of course, they may not want to post publicly in an environment where the initiative that they once put their time, energy, and effort into is being so highly criticized, and in some cases, again, blatantly accused of being a literal cult or what I would call a "strawman's term" for a cult. They also may not want to air their concerns with their ex-employers in this public setting.And on the other hand, if someone who worked there had positive experiences, they are left to watch as, once again, the discourse of this group disallows them from giving input without figuratively burning them at the stake for supporting something that they personally experienced and had no issue with.And these are just the first few things that came to mind for me when considering why they may not be present in this conversation.My main concern here is that this space doesn't allow them to speak AT ALL without serious repercussions, and that is caused by the pattern I mentioned in my comment above. Because of this, the discourse around Leverage Research on this thread (while there has still been new information exchanged, and I do not want to discount that) is doomed to be an echo chamber between people who are degrees (plural) away from whatever the truth may be.This is my takeaway from this entire thread, and it's a shame.(Sorry for using the words "of course" "accused"/"accusers" etc so frequently - I am tired.)
I'd rather not say, for the sake of my anonymity - something which is important to me because this:
However, I would also like to note that Leverage 1.0 has historically been on the receiving end of substantial levels of bullying, harassment, needless cruelty, public ridicule, and more by people who were not engaged in any legitimate epistemic activity. I do not think this is OK. I intend to call out this behavior directly when I see it. I would ask that others do so as well.
is a real concern. I've seen it firsthand - people associated with Leverage being ostracized, bullied, and made to feel very unwelcome and uncomfortable at social events and in online spaces by people in nearby communities, including this one.It seems like a real risk to me that any amount of personal information I give will be used to discover my identity, and I'll be subject to the same.
Which, by the way, is despicable, and I find it alarming that only one person (besides Kerry) in this thread has acknowledged this behavior pattern.I said in another comment that I didn't make an alt to come here and "defend Leverage" - this instance is the exception to that. These people are human beings.(quote from Kerry's comment: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kz9zMgWB5C27Pmdkh/common-knowledge-facts-about-leverage-research-1-0-1?commentId=hqDXAtk6cnqDStkGC)(I'm aware that this comment is intense; @gjm that intensity is not intended to be directed at you, but at the situation as a whole.)
If questioning the "rationality" of the discourse is defending them, then what do you suppose you're doing?I just don't see the goals or values of this community reflected here and it confuses me. That's why I made this account - to get clarity on what seems to me to be a total anomaly case in how the rationalist community members (at least as far as signaling goes, I guess) conduct themselves.Because I've only seen what is classifiable as a hysteric response to this topic, the Leverage topic.
Why is this getting downvotes? It's a constructive comment containing a good idea (mediation to address concerns) and pointing at a source of transparency, which everyone here has been asking for.I'm not a rationalist, and I'm new to actually saying anything on LW (despite lurking for 4ish years now - and yes, I made this alt today), but it seems like this would be the type of community to be more open-minded about a topic than what I'm seeing. By "what I'm seeing" I mean people are just throwing rocks and being unwilling to find any way to work with someone who's trying to address the concerns of the OP and commenters.
You missed the part where this person was pointing out that there is Deliberately Vague Language used by the OP. Imo, this language doesn't create enough of a structure for commenters to construct an adequate dialogue about several sub-topics in this thread.Also, what's "flagrantly indifferent" about Larissa wanting to hear out people who feel wronged?You seem to be quite upset by all of this, why not reach out and let her know?