There appear to be two major strains of response to this post:
There is no PR disadvantage to having an OKCupid profile like this
To the extent that there is such a tradeoff, the freedom to broadcast sexual weirdness is a deontological good (“can’t we just let him date in peace?”) and weighing it against institutional effectiveness is a taboo tradeoff.
The first response seems a case of wishful thinking—as though by believing really hardthat others share our local values, and outgroupping those who disagree with us, we could make it a PR positive.
The second is exactly analogous to an anti-abortion activist who opposes teaching birth control. It’s not incoherent, really, but it does demonstrate that we place a higher value on loud sexual weirdness than our nominal goals, at this margin.
So far, the evidence that this profile is a PR problem seems limited to a handful of negative comments on one Internet comment thread. Most of those comments are limited to the idea that the post is too boastful or too open, and thus unlikely to be successful in attracting women. And the same thread includes people with neutral or positive responses at roughly the same frequency (maybe a little lower, but the same order of magnitude). This evidence falls well below what I would consider sufficient to trot this issue out in public, much less to demand that Eliezer take down the profile.
Should we treat “the freedom to broadcast sexual weirdness” as a deontological good that simply cannot be balanced against PR concerns? No, probably not. But does it make sense to protect that freedom as a strong institutional value that can only be overcome for extremely important reasons? Yes, and I’m confident this profile doesn’t rise to that level.
Also, this sentence--
The second is exactly analogous to an anti-abortion activist who opposes teaching birth control.
The second is exactly analogous to an anti-abortion activist who opposes teaching birth control.
--makes very little sense to me.
My understanding is that contraceptive use significantly decreases abortion rates, while outlawing abortion does not, yet anti-abortion activists often oppose the former and support the latter, revealing unjustifiable ignorance or ulterior motives.
No, it just means they oppose BOTH THINGS. Anti-abortion activists are extremely rarely (almost never) actually JUST against abortion, and it’s ridiculous to talk about them as if they are. A christian anti-abortion activist would never encourage atheism even if someone showed that atheists have fewer abortions, because Christianity is her actual value system, not “anti-abortion”
it makes perfect sense to oppose both birth control and abortion, even if you could trade off some of one for less of the other, if you think they’re both evil.
it makes perfect sense to oppose both birth control and abortion, even if you could trade off some of one for less of the other, if you think they’re both evil.
Unless I’m mistaken, most denominations of Christianity that are pro-life do not actually oppose birth control; but most pro-lifers do oppose birth control. I feel like the above may have been a reaction to this article.
There appear to be two major strains of response to this post:
There is no PR disadvantage to having an OKCupid profile like this
To the extent that there is such a tradeoff, the freedom to broadcast sexual weirdness is a deontological good (“can’t we just let him date in peace?”) and weighing it against institutional effectiveness is a taboo tradeoff.
The first response seems a case of wishful thinking—as though by believing really hardthat others share our local values, and outgroupping those who disagree with us, we could make it a PR positive.
The second is exactly analogous to an anti-abortion activist who opposes teaching birth control. It’s not incoherent, really, but it does demonstrate that we place a higher value on loud sexual weirdness than our nominal goals, at this margin.
So far, the evidence that this profile is a PR problem seems limited to a handful of negative comments on one Internet comment thread. Most of those comments are limited to the idea that the post is too boastful or too open, and thus unlikely to be successful in attracting women. And the same thread includes people with neutral or positive responses at roughly the same frequency (maybe a little lower, but the same order of magnitude). This evidence falls well below what I would consider sufficient to trot this issue out in public, much less to demand that Eliezer take down the profile.
Should we treat “the freedom to broadcast sexual weirdness” as a deontological good that simply cannot be balanced against PR concerns? No, probably not. But does it make sense to protect that freedom as a strong institutional value that can only be overcome for extremely important reasons? Yes, and I’m confident this profile doesn’t rise to that level.
Also, this sentence--
--makes very little sense to me.
My understanding is that contraceptive use significantly decreases abortion rates, while outlawing abortion does not, yet anti-abortion activists often oppose the former and support the latter, revealing unjustifiable ignorance or ulterior motives.
No, it just means they oppose BOTH THINGS. Anti-abortion activists are extremely rarely (almost never) actually JUST against abortion, and it’s ridiculous to talk about them as if they are. A christian anti-abortion activist would never encourage atheism even if someone showed that atheists have fewer abortions, because Christianity is her actual value system, not “anti-abortion”
it makes perfect sense to oppose both birth control and abortion, even if you could trade off some of one for less of the other, if you think they’re both evil.
Unless I’m mistaken, most denominations of Christianity that are pro-life do not actually oppose birth control; but most pro-lifers do oppose birth control. I feel like the above may have been a reaction to this article.