You can't have it both ways. If it's nonsense, then the importance is that someone took it seriously (like a donor), not anyone's reaction to that someone taking it seriously (like Eliezer). If it's not nonsense, then someone taking it seriously is not the issue, but someone's reaction to taking it seriously (the censorship). Make up your mind.

If it is dangerous nonsense then it is important that there is rebuttal (ideally one that works on people whom would fall for the nonsense in first place). Haven't seen one.

If it is not nonsense, then it outlines that certain decision theories should not be built into FAI.

I don't believe at any point in my comment did I claim the dropping out of school represented precisely 0 Bayesian evidence...

you really didn't like me pointing it out, though.