[estearum]

Here's another version:

"A lot of people think that EA is some hifalutin, condescending endeavor and billionaire utilitarians hijack its ideology to justify extreme greed (and sometimes fraud!), but in reality, EA is simply the imperative (accessible to anyone) to direct their altruistic efforts toward what will actually do the most good for the causes they care about. This is in contrast to the most people's default mode of relying on marketing, locality, vibes, or personal emotional satisfaction to guide their generosity."

See? Fair and accurate, and without propagating things I know or suspect to be untrue!

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

This is perfectly fine definition, if you change the "but in reality" to "and". Like it or not, EA means both of these things simultaneously. So its not that if someone uses one definition that they are wrong, only that they are using that definition. Language is like that. There is no official definition, its whatever people on mass decide to use and sometimes there is a split vote.

[estearum]

“My perception is that red headed people have vulgar and un-funny humor”

Why so?

“Well Kathy Griffin and Carrot Top fit the bill”

Do you think that is a fair characterization of red headed people in general?

“Not really, but I’m allowed to say so anyway.”

…

Sure I guess?

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

I see your point, but if the only red-headed people ever saw was Kathy Griffin and Carrot Top and they were unfunny to them, and also Kathy and Carrot Top were loudly and sincerely proclaiming that they were funny, and that they were funnier than any other comedians, and that it was because they were red headed. How irrational is that perception?

[estearum]

I have yet to meet someone who has this perception of EA who won't themselves admit to knowing it's not true/accurate, including you.

They'll insist on propagating it anyway, but they will actually say they don't actually believe it themselves!