@mods—it doesn’t seem like tagging this as a community post is appropriate, and would lead to fewer people (who’d probably want to see it) from seeing it.
It was tagged community by the author and, after a quick read, I agree with keeping the tag.
I agree that if the post was only about criticism of Karnofsky’s Most Important Century series, it definitely shouldn’t be tagged community. But the post seems to me to be in large part about the “intellectual and critical standards within the EA/LW/AF ecosystem”, especially (but not exclusively) in the concluding remarks.
I think that a post that’s not entirely about biorisk, but significantly touches on biorisk, should be tagged biorisk, and that the same applies in this case about “community”.
I agree about your biorisk point. However, tagging community has the additional effect of greatly reducing visibility which is fine when the content is primarily about the community but not here where the community aspect is a collary to the main point critiquing a fundamental text in EA thinking.
It was tagged community by the author and, after a quick read, I agree with keeping the tag.
I agree that if the post was only about criticism of Karnofsky’s Most Important Century series, it definitely shouldn’t be tagged community. But the post seems to me to be in large part about the “intellectual and critical standards within the EA/LW/AF ecosystem”, especially (but not exclusively) in the concluding remarks.
I think that a post that’s not entirely about biorisk, but significantly touches on biorisk, should be tagged biorisk, and that the same applies in this case about “community”.
I agree about your biorisk point. However, tagging community has the additional effect of greatly reducing visibility which is fine when the content is primarily about the community but not here where the community aspect is a collary to the main point critiquing a fundamental text in EA thinking.