51
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by dgerard@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] swlabr@awful.systems 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Is it just me or does the author just… not really spend any time trying to defend forced birth? Like, other than quoting counterarguments to abortion defences. It’s like he’s sort of assuming everyone already has ideas about why abortion itself is bad, but find it permissible for whatever reason. Is this a correct characterisation of the EA community? That they all harbour anti-abortion sentiment but for whatever reason permit abortion?

Overall it reads like a business proposal. Is this how you’re supposed to talk to an EA person? Instead of saying “here is why you should care about x”, you have to pitch them on the potential ROI of caring about something? If so, that’s a fucking frustrating way to think about the world, and this was a fucking awful article to read, just like every other treacles-y long form logorrhoea you get from these people.

[-] maol@awful.systems 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

He says like "well actually having access to abortion doesn't make women happier" , as if abortion isn't pretty essential to the happiness of SOME women. But he thinks if women are forced to have babies they'll realize that they really like it actually, because he's a wretched dog.

[-] swlabr@awful.systems 12 points 1 year ago

Bonus points for the part where he rails against contraception and sex education in the appendix, because we all know what this is really about.

[-] maol@awful.systems 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ah just like the prolife campaigner I argued with recently who said that in his* ideal world, abortion, contraception, and the morning-after pill would all be illegal. Apparently having an abortion is "irresponsible" because you're acting as if it's "someone else's problem". That really threw me for a loop. I mean, it's not like you can get someone else to have the abortion for you! He justified a contraception ban along the same lines - that people needed to accept the consequences of having sex, or something. I suggested to him that contraception was actually very effective at preventing abortions, and he frowned as if he couldn't understand what I was saying.

*Yes, he was a cis man who has never been pregnant or made anyone else pregnant. Sure, what else would you expect?

[-] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

EA is a movement for rich philanthropists to justify whatever they want to do, with data* and studies**. It's literally ends justifying the means.

*data it's heavily cherry picked for whatever you, the powerful and so smart philanthropist, want to accomplish

**studies are funded to guarantee results that you want

[-] maol@awful.systems 9 points 1 year ago

Yeah the studies he cites are all over the place. One about how single motherhood isn't fun, which would seem like an argument for abortion, not against? It's just the aul "contraception causes pregnancy" argument catholic pro-lifers used to lose.

[-] blakestacey@awful.systems 8 points 1 year ago

source: trust my dick, bro

[-] 200fifty@awful.systems 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Is this a correct characterisation of the EA community? That they all harbour anti-abortion sentiment but for whatever reason permit abortion?

I actually wouldn't be surprised if this were the case -- the whole schtick of a lot of these people is "worrying about increasing the number of future possibly-existing humans, even at the cost of the suffering of actually-existing humans", so being anti-abortion honestly seems not too far out of their wheelhouse?

Like I think in the EAverse you can just kinda go "well this makes people have less kids which means less QALYs therefore we all know it's obviously bad and I don't really need to justify it." (with bonus internet contrarian points if you are justifying some terrible thing using your abstract math, because that means you're Highly Decoupled and Very Smart.) See also the quote elsewhere in this thread about the guy defending child marriage for similar reasons.

[-] swlabr@awful.systems 6 points 11 months ago

I actually wouldn’t be surprised if this were the case – the whole schtick of a lot of these people is “worrying about increasing the number of future possibly-existing humans, even at the cost of the suffering of actually-existing humans”, so being anti-abortion honestly seems not too far out of their wheelhouse?

Same energy as those score-maximising Tetris AIs that taught themselves to stack blocks to the kill line and pause.

Like I think in the EAverse you can just kinda go “well this makes people have less kids which means less QALYs therefore we all know it’s obviously bad and I don’t really need to justify it.” (with bonus internet contrarian points if you are justifying some terrible thing using your abstract math, because that means you’re Highly Decoupled and Very Smart.) See the quote elsewhere in this thread about the guy defending child marriage for similar reasons.

Ughhh yeah that sounds about right.

[-] earthquake@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

being anti-abortion honestly seems not too far out of their wheelhouse?

Yep: https://awful.systems/archives/thread/zqyv6x

this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
51 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

983 readers
16 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS