I like the suggestion that "E"-focused critics of effective altruism should prove their shared commitment to "A"(ltruism) by donating 10% to whatever (e.g. political) causes they think would be better for the world, and encourage their readers to do likewise. But I'm not sure that the proposal avoids being "really personal and aggressive"!

> "Walk outside and ask anyone why they think people (other people, of course) don’t give a percent of their income to the Against Malaria Foundation. They’ll tell you that people like having and spending money. It’s the equivalent of saying “but bacon” to a vegan. The difference is that vegans are perfectly aware that they’re dealing with ad hoc rationalizations and motivated reasoning."

Of course, EAs are equally well aware of this. It's just not clear how *helpful* it is to explicitly call out our interlocutors' selfishness. This is something I openly grapple with in "The Moral Gadfly's Double-Bind": goodthoughts.blog/p/the…