(Also also, it isn't only the poster who has to worry about the truth of what they say? It's everyone? Comments also receive criticism all the time. I don't think this poster/commenter divide cuts reality at the joints.)

(Also, I understand the comment was not phrased helpfully to you, but for my part I felt that it communicated the errors clearly enough that I could understand them easily, and appreciate having the false dichotomy especially pointed out without having to discover it myself).

Thank you for sharing, but I've read your post and am not convinced (either in this instance or in general). I think it was a fine comment to which you reacted with unwarranted negativity. Or, in short: no, you're wrong.

I think if your arguments are locally invalid, that is something important about your post. High standards of accuracy and quality are something I value about Less Wrong and EA, and to me part of having high standards is trying to avoid even small mistakes.

Dunno if it's still helpful, but https://www.highimpactprofessionals.org/talent-directory is a directory of EAs looking for work and contained several each of lawyers and accountants on a quick search.

I think speculating about what exactly constitutes the most good is perfectly on-topic. While 'murdering meat-eaters' is perhaps an overly direct phrasing (and of course under most ethical frameworks murder raises additional issues as compared to mere inaction or deprioritization), the question of whether the negative utility produced by one marginal person's worth of factory farming outweighs the positive utility that person experiences—colloquially referred to as the meat-eater problem—is one that has been discussed here a number of times, and that I feel is quite relevant to the question of which interventions should be prioritized.

My main observation is that he and his people really do think the election was stolen from them.

That sounds to me like a reason not to elect him? Self-deceiving for personal gain (endemic though it is 😔) is not a positive trait for a president to have.

I don't think illusionism is an accurate view, so I'd be opposed to adopting it.

If you don't think their arguments are convincing, I consider it misleading to attempt to convince other people with those same arguments.

The claim that they can't be moral patients doesn't seem to me to be well-supported by the fact that their statements aren't informative about their feelings. Can you explain how you think the latter implies the former?