Scott Alexander explains his defensiveness as a response to unfair critiques that risk pushing groups into irredeemable disrepute, and grapples with how to address this issue. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses his recent defensiveness towards critiques of rationalism and effective altruism. He explains that his defensiveness stems from a fear of groups being unfairly portrayed and pushed into an 'event horizon' of irredeemable toxicity. The post outlines how this process works, using Christianity as a hypothetical example, and how it can lead to the degradation of reasonable discourse. Scott struggles with the dilemma of either constantly defending against unfair critiques (and appearing defensive) or risking his preferred groups sliding into disrepute. He expresses a desire for a third option that avoids both these outcomes. Shorter summary