So the high priest / philosophical originator (guardian.com) of the cult should not "be taken as a representative of the average EA," and nobody saw fit to ment

So the high priest / philosophical originator (guardian.com) of the cult should not "be taken as a representative of the average EA," and nobody saw fit to mention his...unusual views (due to his naive utilitarian philosophy) later on in that EA forum thread, the first thread he's posted in 9 years, the thread who's topic is closely related to the topic of the Twitter thread I linked? Is EA distancing itself from Singer (who's views are, by all accounts, extremely influential in the EA community), as they did with SBF (whose hedge fund's initial $170m seed capital was raised from EA devotees)? When multiple high-profile people associated with EA are proven to be....problematic, should we pretend the common factor linking them is insignificant? Inflammatory? I thought I was quite restrained compared to some of the commenters on that Twitter thread.