The article is focused almost entirely on personal drama and no attempt is really made to refute the central tenets of EA. I think a lot of people find the con

The article is focused almost entirely on personal drama and no attempt is really made to refute the central tenets of EA. I think a lot of people find the concept of EA morally threatening. Their natural reaction is to want to "take those people down a peg" because they perceive EA as an incursion on the moral high ground. I think this tendency is more pronounced among the left. Rather than discuss "how can we do good and get the best bang for buck and is this movement doing that?" they'll focus on people they think have illegitimately gained status and pillory them. I think the EA "brand" should be more careful to avoid this very natural "crab bucket" type of moral backlash. IMHO a good start would be to de-emphasise "high flyers" and direct focus towards the many unpretentious people who do their best to do "a little good".