What is an extremist w.r.t. an ethical system? An ethical philosophy is not some scripture you can interpret and misinterpret.

The existence of extremists implies the existence of moderates. What are they? When their moral code says "Fraud, in this particular circumstances, is good", are they the ones that can't shake off the vice of honesty?

Or are they the ones who use motivated reasoning to bring their moral philosophy to conformance with their instinctual moral feelings?

Institutionally, EA was defending SBF up until he was arrested, not up until the point he started saying stupid shit. He was doing that for a long time before he was arrested.

https://time.com/6262810/sam-bankman-fried-effective-altruis...

I disagree with this because I was vocally against SBF in the EA forums prior to him being arrested, as were many others.

Who are you?

Someone who used to be vocal on EA Forums & was around for a couple years. I got less involved for other reasons after the whole SBF stuff.

So I got "guy who posted on forum" on one side and William MacAskill and Nick Beckstead (and, well, SBF himself - he left CEA voluntarily right?) on the other - which of these would you say has the institutional support?

Will was slow to come out against SBF sure, but the majority of people were asking why he was being silent WAY before the arrest. Are you involved in anyway, out of interest? As in, were you there or are you going off of media reports? I don't know many people involved in EA who'd say it was institutionally pro SBF, just that a couple people were silent too long. Interesting if there are some.

I have no connection to CEA or SBF, I'm just someone who's desperate to recover moral philosophy from financialization by wannabe tech bros.

Edit for reply:

> around October/November 2022

i.e. after the run and it's clear he's going to be arrested... Usual EA bullshit.

Okay, then you probably don't really know what EA's stance generally was. You can look at EA Forum's posts around October/November 2022 to see what the overwhelming opinion was, and shortly after you can see Will coming out saying he shouldn't be seen as the face of EA, etc... At the absolute most, the supporting stance could be seen as silence while they tried to work out what was happening with funding at the Future Fund etc, but only if the "Institutional Opinion" is simply that of MacAskill. The overwhelming opinion was that what SBF did was awful, and questions about if it'd be possible to return funds were the primary discussion.

Really?

> Institutionally, EA was defending SBF up until he was arrested,

Nope, here's why & evidence

> i.e. after the run and it's clear he's going to be arrested... Usual EA bullshit.

Nice moving goal posts :)