EA should not have any reputational issues. It is just people trying to figure out the best way to improve the world. What could be controversial about that?
Even before the whole FTX thing, EAs were being vilified on social media and even in academia. Is there some kind of psychological angle I am missing? Like a cognitive dissonance the critics are experiencing that they are not doing more, or some other kind of resentment?
Should we even care, or just try to ignore it and go about our business?
I think it is more important than ever that EA causes attract new mega donors, and it is going to be tougher to do that if EA has a negative public image, justified or not.
I am even embarrassed to use the words effective altruism anymore in conversation with friends and family. I would rather avoid the controversy unless it’s really necessary.
If these questions have already been addressed somewhere, I would appreciate any references.
It's possible I've flipped the sign on what you're saying, but if I haven't, I'm pretty sure most EAs are not moral realists, so I don't know where you got the impression that it's an underlying assumption of any serious EA efforts.
If I did flip the sign, then I don't think it's true that moral realism is "too unquestioned". At this point it might be more fair to say that too much time & ink has been spilled on what's frankly a pretty trivial question that only sees as much engagement as it does because people get caught up in arguing about definitions of words (and, of course, because some other people are deeply confused).