> It is hard to have an intelligent discussion about charity with someone who's main point is that someone else is a jerk. ... Try again, Sebastian. Is "Try ag

> It is hard to have an intelligent discussion about charity with someone who's main point is that someone else is a jerk. ... Try again, Sebastian. Is "Try again, Sebastian" really the best tone to try to settle down a conversation and have an intelligent discussion? But okay - the main point isn't that he's a jerk - there's 3-4 points about mudslinging at people who are doing good things, conflict of interests with the old guard in philanthropy, the ineffectiveness of the old models of charity, and entrenched worldviews being defended. We can discuss those, if you like? I do think his behavior is uncool and that that's worth pointing out - but there's plenty of other points worth discussing too. Maybe the discussion could start with the conflict of interest here, how a philanthropy director is throwing mud at people involved in philanthropy that stands to make him less personally prestigious and important?