"It's in the comment above:" Your comments here, as well thought out as they may be, are not part of "the comment above". "they stole customer funds" = FTX st

"It's in the comment above:" Your comments here, as well thought out as they may be, are not part of "the comment above". "they stole customer funds" = FTX stole customer funds. "SBF isn't some random crook who happens to be vaguely associated with Effective Altruism; he's a relatively central figure to the movement." If you say so, why should I doubt it? Perhaps everyone associated with the movement is a monster. Let's assume that is the case. That doesn't defend the pseudo-philosophical/psychological pronouncements on what the essence of the idea is. With or without your addition it looks to me like an equivocal attack on being effective in doing good, rather than on "Effective Altruism" as a movement. Psychobabble is not aimed at people who are deeply familiar with the history and the nature of the movement, but at people like me who know nothing much about it. It's schematically the same as a lot of rhetoric that see-saws on a foundation of equivocation but careless people fall off. If someone is going to traffic in this nasty, illogical rhetoric, I object to them sliding by doing it in a completely careless and sloppy way.