That seems like a very charitable reading of the comment
“who EAs are fucking is none of EA’s business. There are very limited exceptions to this rule like … none of which are being suggested here.”
I’d suggest that given the high stakes of the situation at the moment it is especially important not to inadvertently give the impression that EA leadership think they have privileged insight into financial risk management that they actually don’t. If EY has merely mangled his argument (as you suggest) it would be very sensible for him to edit his comment to reflect that, and apologise for implying that vote rigging was the only reason he could have been down voted.
That seems like a very charitable reading of the comment
I was commenting on his overall stance from his comments throughout the threads here, not only on that particular first comment. I agree that the part you cite doesn’t sound defensible. I considered his further comments to be admissions of “Okay, you all have a point, but …” (If I’m right with my interpretation, he could’ve been more clear about the part of “sorry, you all have a point and the initial comment was too crude.”)
Edit: FWIW, I thought the info/arguments you gave about why it’s common practice in finance to carefully monitor romantic or sexual conflicts of interests were compelling, and your point about how EAs maybe shouldn’t think they can do better based on first-principles reasoning also seems wise.
That seems like a very charitable reading of the comment
“who EAs are fucking is none of EA’s business. There are very limited exceptions to this rule like … none of which are being suggested here.”
I’d suggest that given the high stakes of the situation at the moment it is especially important not to inadvertently give the impression that EA leadership think they have privileged insight into financial risk management that they actually don’t. If EY has merely mangled his argument (as you suggest) it would be very sensible for him to edit his comment to reflect that, and apologise for implying that vote rigging was the only reason he could have been down voted.
I was commenting on his overall stance from his comments throughout the threads here, not only on that particular first comment. I agree that the part you cite doesn’t sound defensible. I considered his further comments to be admissions of “Okay, you all have a point, but …” (If I’m right with my interpretation, he could’ve been more clear about the part of “sorry, you all have a point and the initial comment was too crude.”)
Edit: FWIW, I thought the info/arguments you gave about why it’s common practice in finance to carefully monitor romantic or sexual conflicts of interests were compelling, and your point about how EAs maybe shouldn’t think they can do better based on first-principles reasoning also seems wise.