If Holden were a major contributor, your argument that the LW editors demonstrated their tolerance for dissent by encouraging the criticisms he made would be bogus. Suppressing the comments of a major donor would be suicidal, and claiming not doing so demonstrates any motive but avoiding suicide would be disingenuous at the least.
If he’s not a donor, my apologies. In any event, you obviously don’t know that he’s a donor if he is, so my conclusion is wrong. I thought Yudkowsky said he was.
I’m confused. Holden doesn’t believe SI is a good organisation to recommend giving money to, he’s listed all those objections to SI in his post, and you somehow assumed he’s been donating money to it?
If Holden were a major contributor, your argument that the LW editors demonstrated their tolerance for dissent by encouraging the criticisms he made would be bogus. Suppressing the comments of a major donor would be suicidal, and claiming not doing so demonstrates any motive but avoiding suicide would be disingenuous at the least.
If he’s not a donor, my apologies. In any event, you obviously don’t know that he’s a donor if he is, so my conclusion is wrong. I thought Yudkowsky said he was.
I’m confused. Holden doesn’t believe SI is a good organisation to recommend giving money to, he’s listed all those objections to SI in his post, and you somehow assumed he’s been donating money to it?
That don’t make sense.