Almost none of this seems like secret info or hard to find. It seems like EAs could have been informed about the potential collision of the seat value to the relevant Hispanic movement. It seems healthier to discuss this during the campaign (and still proceed relentlessly). By the way, I suspect some of the absence of discussion and problematic norms around the past campaign is the ultimate result of defective discourse—where criticism of low quality is normalized. EAs are aware of this defect and as a result, when it matters, EAs don’t trust discourse on actual things that matter. Even if this suspicion was partly true, that would be really bad once you stop to think about it.
You support many candidates because you point out idiosyncrasies specific to each contest are large, which makes sense. So, isn’t there about 3 other EA candidates running? Should we talk about those?
Thoughts:
Your writing is really good! Wow!
Almost none of this seems like secret info or hard to find. It seems like EAs could have been informed about the potential collision of the seat value to the relevant Hispanic movement. It seems healthier to discuss this during the campaign (and still proceed relentlessly). By the way, I suspect some of the absence of discussion and problematic norms around the past campaign is the ultimate result of defective discourse—where criticism of low quality is normalized. EAs are aware of this defect and as a result, when it matters, EAs don’t trust discourse on actual things that matter. Even if this suspicion was partly true, that would be really bad once you stop to think about it.
You support many candidates because you point out idiosyncrasies specific to each contest are large, which makes sense. So, isn’t there about 3 other EA candidates running? Should we talk about those?
My comment has some underlying ideas that are good, but is really badly written, and I retract it.