I agree that what you describe could have been a decent new post. However, I disagree it characterizes what was actually shared here. Consider for the first example (I have editted the formatting):
It has been the most emotionally draining paper we have ever written. We lost sleep, time, friends, collaborators, and mentors because we disagreed on: whether this work should be published, whether potential EA funders would decide against funding us and the institutions we’re affiliated with, and whether the authors whose work we critique would be upset.
While many in the community responded constructively, others reportedly sought to suppress the paper — not on academic grounds, but out of fear that it might alienate funders. The clear implication here is that critique is encouraged, as long as it doesn’t threaten the financial or ideological foundations of the movement.
Somehow the omitted is the idea that… maybe the feedback was negative because the paper wasn’t very good. Which would explain everything else… bad work typically shouldn’t be published, bad work is evidence that future work will also be low quality which is an argument against funding in the future, and it is reasonable for people subject to low-quality criticism to be annoyed. Yet Bob’s post here doesn’t even mention this explanation, despite the 161 upvotes, and simply presents hostility and anti-democraticness as the only explanation.
and there are a significant number of new people each year
Eternal September is meant to be descriptive, not a normative ideal!
I agree that what you describe could have been a decent new post. However, I disagree it characterizes what was actually shared here. Consider for the first example (I have editted the formatting):
Somehow the omitted is the idea that… maybe the feedback was negative because the paper wasn’t very good. Which would explain everything else… bad work typically shouldn’t be published, bad work is evidence that future work will also be low quality which is an argument against funding in the future, and it is reasonable for people subject to low-quality criticism to be annoyed. Yet Bob’s post here doesn’t even mention this explanation, despite the 161 upvotes, and simply presents hostility and anti-democraticness as the only explanation.
Eternal September is meant to be descriptive, not a normative ideal!