I see your point. The article is meant to engage a broad audience, so it’s targeted at creating cognitive ease through telling stories. It’s possible it went a little overboard, and we’ll keep that in mind for the future.
On a tangent, I’m pretty familiar with agitprop, I research Soviet agitprop as one of my primary scholarly activities. Believe me, actual agitprop is quite quite different from what we’re doing. However, again, your point is well taken for future reference.
Well the basic “rational” argument for polyamory is very similar to the standard “rational” argument for communism from a century ago.
Argument for communism:
Why do we insist on treating objects and land like they have some metaphysical and exclusive “belongs to so-ans-so” property? Such metaphysical properties don’t have any connection to reality and they cause lots of suffering and restrict people’s freedom. And, oh yes, look at this successful collective-propery community. [Conveniently ignore all the collective-property communities that failed or blew up.]
Argument for polyamory:
Why do we insist on treating people like they have some metaphysical and exclusive “married to so-and-so” or “so-and-so’s SO” property? Such metaphysical properties don’t have any connection to reality and they cause lots of suffering and restrict people’s freedom. And, oh yes, look at this successful polyamorous community. [Conveniently ignore all the polyamorous communities that failed or blew up.]
I’m curious whether you believe there are any significant differences between rational arguments for communism and polyamory?
After all, communist governments, as my research shows, used coercion extensively to get their citizens to comply with the official ideology. I see this as a major difference between polyamory and communism—“rational” arguments for communism called for the use of force against others to take away their property, and “rational” arguments for polyamory simply call for tolerance, as in the blog post I wrote.
But we might be misunderstanding each other here, so I’d be glad to learn more about your viewpoint :-)
I’m curious whether you believe there are any significant differences between rational arguments for communism and polyamory?
I’m not sure how far I can push this but the more I think about the topic, the more analogies I see.
After all, communist governments, as my research shows, used coercion extensively to get their citizens to comply with the official ideology.
There were no communist governments a century ago. Do I think polyamourists will seize power in some country? Probably not, but then again the chain of events leading to Lenin seizing power in Russia involved a number of unlike events.
I see this as a major difference between polyamory and communism—“rational” arguments for communism called for the use of force against others to take away their property, and “rational” arguments for polyamory simply call for tolerance
No, you’re arguing people are irrational for preferring monogamy. True, you’re not arguing for using force against the “irrational” but then again moderate socialists argued for a peaceful transition.
The problem is that neither polyamory or collective property works on a large scale (they also work on small scales to approximately the same extent). In both cases they break down in a way that’s easy to attribute to “undesirable traits”, namely jealousy or greed respectively. Thus, when faced with a system that’s breaking down due to “selfish behavior” there is a great temptation to prop it up with violence against the practitioners of said behavior.
Note: being propped up with violence is not in itself necessarily a problem, after all the systems being replaced also require violence to prop them up. Private property requires violence against theives and to a lesser extend monogamy requires violence against adulterers (the recent refusal of the state to supply the latter is part of the reason monogamy is breaking down).
To clarify, I’m not arguing that “people are irrational for preferring monogamy.” The article I wrote advocates for “openness and acceptance of poly relationships as one among many mainstream relationship styles.” So the crux of the matter is about tolerance of polyamory as one among many mainstream relationship styles, not about transitioning to polyamory as the normative style. In fact, I do not consider myself polyamorous, if you are curious—I am in a monogamous relationship myself, and am not open to other relationships. I do believe strongly in acceptance of polyamory as a mainstream relationship style, due to my desire to decrease social stigma around polyamory
To clarify, I’m not arguing that “people are irrational for preferring monogamy.” The article I wrote advocates for “openness and acceptance of poly relationships as one among many mainstream relationship styles.”
No it doesn’t. The bulk of the article focuses on encouraging people to pursue poly relationships, not on encouraging them to “tolerate” others perusing those relationships.
In fact, I do not consider myself polyamorous, if you are curious—I am in a monogamous relationship myself, and am not open to other relationships.
So if you were in Mary’s situation what would you do? If the answer doesn’t fit one of your two scenarios, why wasn’t it listed as an additional scenario?
I think we have a difference in our interpretation of the article I wrote. My point was to promote openness to polyamory as “one among many mainstream relationship styles”. Because of the current social stigma against polyamory in mainstream society, the article was defending the validity of polyamory as one among many relationship styles, and discouraging cached thought patterns. The article thus may “feel” like it encourages people to pursue poly relationships, but in actuality, due to the current mainstream anchoring, its effect is to promote tolerance of others pursuing those relationships.
My own sentiments don’t apply here, as Mary is in a different situation than I am. In both cases, Mary was open to the relationship with John. Since I am not open to other relationships personally, it’s a non-issue for me.
My point was to promote openness to polyamory as “one among many mainstream relationship styles”.
What do you mean by that, should we also promote openness to shared-property communes as “one among many lifestyle” options. How about astrology as “one of many options for predicting the future”? In a sense the answer is yes, i.e., we shouldn’t burn people who do these things at the stake. On the other hand we probably shouldn’t be encouraging people to do those things either.
Your article certainly looks much more like its written in with the latter rather then the former meaning of “promote openness” in mind. After all, no one is burning polyamourists at the stake.
Actually, there is quite a high social stigma against poly relationships, and I believe it is worthwhile to use rational thinking to re-assesses cached thoughts about relationships as well as many other life domains. What are your thoughts on the benefits of using rational thinking to re-assess our cached patterns?
I see that you have a strong opinion against polyamory, and I accept that this is what you believe. I think there are otherposts on LW better suited for that debate, so I will avoid engaging with you further on this topic.
I think there are other posts on LW better suited for that debate,
Both of which are rather short on actual arguments beyond the ones I described here. In fact, my summary there almost looks like a Steelman of their argument.
so I will avoid engaging with you further on this topic.
So you’re willing to post a pro-polyamory article with questionable logic on a site supposedly dedicated to raising the sanity waterline, but aren’t willing to discuss the topic.
should we also promote openness to shared-property communes as “one among many lifestyle” options.
I don’t know why not. Kibbutzim are a valid lifestyle choice in Israel, for example, and I don’t see any horrors coming out of that. Shared-property communes with the right of exit and very different from “shared-”property governments.
I see your point. The article is meant to engage a broad audience, so it’s targeted at creating cognitive ease through telling stories. It’s possible it went a little overboard, and we’ll keep that in mind for the future.
On a tangent, I’m pretty familiar with agitprop, I research Soviet agitprop as one of my primary scholarly activities. Believe me, actual agitprop is quite quite different from what we’re doing. However, again, your point is well taken for future reference.
Well the basic “rational” argument for polyamory is very similar to the standard “rational” argument for communism from a century ago.
Argument for communism:
Argument for polyamory:
I’m curious whether you believe there are any significant differences between rational arguments for communism and polyamory?
After all, communist governments, as my research shows, used coercion extensively to get their citizens to comply with the official ideology. I see this as a major difference between polyamory and communism—“rational” arguments for communism called for the use of force against others to take away their property, and “rational” arguments for polyamory simply call for tolerance, as in the blog post I wrote.
But we might be misunderstanding each other here, so I’d be glad to learn more about your viewpoint :-)
I’m not sure how far I can push this but the more I think about the topic, the more analogies I see.
There were no communist governments a century ago. Do I think polyamourists will seize power in some country? Probably not, but then again the chain of events leading to Lenin seizing power in Russia involved a number of unlike events.
No, you’re arguing people are irrational for preferring monogamy. True, you’re not arguing for using force against the “irrational” but then again moderate socialists argued for a peaceful transition.
The problem is that neither polyamory or collective property works on a large scale (they also work on small scales to approximately the same extent). In both cases they break down in a way that’s easy to attribute to “undesirable traits”, namely jealousy or greed respectively. Thus, when faced with a system that’s breaking down due to “selfish behavior” there is a great temptation to prop it up with violence against the practitioners of said behavior.
Note: being propped up with violence is not in itself necessarily a problem, after all the systems being replaced also require violence to prop them up. Private property requires violence against theives and to a lesser extend monogamy requires violence against adulterers (the recent refusal of the state to supply the latter is part of the reason monogamy is breaking down).
To clarify, I’m not arguing that “people are irrational for preferring monogamy.” The article I wrote advocates for “openness and acceptance of poly relationships as one among many mainstream relationship styles.” So the crux of the matter is about tolerance of polyamory as one among many mainstream relationship styles, not about transitioning to polyamory as the normative style. In fact, I do not consider myself polyamorous, if you are curious—I am in a monogamous relationship myself, and am not open to other relationships. I do believe strongly in acceptance of polyamory as a mainstream relationship style, due to my desire to decrease social stigma around polyamory
No it doesn’t. The bulk of the article focuses on encouraging people to pursue poly relationships, not on encouraging them to “tolerate” others perusing those relationships.
So if you were in Mary’s situation what would you do? If the answer doesn’t fit one of your two scenarios, why wasn’t it listed as an additional scenario?
I think we have a difference in our interpretation of the article I wrote. My point was to promote openness to polyamory as “one among many mainstream relationship styles”. Because of the current social stigma against polyamory in mainstream society, the article was defending the validity of polyamory as one among many relationship styles, and discouraging cached thought patterns. The article thus may “feel” like it encourages people to pursue poly relationships, but in actuality, due to the current mainstream anchoring, its effect is to promote tolerance of others pursuing those relationships.
My own sentiments don’t apply here, as Mary is in a different situation than I am. In both cases, Mary was open to the relationship with John. Since I am not open to other relationships personally, it’s a non-issue for me.
What do you mean by that, should we also promote openness to shared-property communes as “one among many lifestyle” options. How about astrology as “one of many options for predicting the future”? In a sense the answer is yes, i.e., we shouldn’t burn people who do these things at the stake. On the other hand we probably shouldn’t be encouraging people to do those things either.
Your article certainly looks much more like its written in with the latter rather then the former meaning of “promote openness” in mind. After all, no one is burning polyamourists at the stake.
Actually, there is quite a high social stigma against poly relationships, and I believe it is worthwhile to use rational thinking to re-assesses cached thoughts about relationships as well as many other life domains. What are your thoughts on the benefits of using rational thinking to re-assess our cached patterns?
social stigma =/= burring at the stake
I think such social stigma is still a harmful thing for our society, and would like to oppose it :-)
Why? I think bad decisions should be stigmatized. And that’s before we get into the issue of how polyamory is supposed to raise children.
I see that you have a strong opinion against polyamory, and I accept that this is what you believe. I think there are other posts on LW better suited for that debate, so I will avoid engaging with you further on this topic.
Both of which are rather short on actual arguments beyond the ones I described here. In fact, my summary there almost looks like a Steelman of their argument.
So you’re willing to post a pro-polyamory article with questionable logic on a site supposedly dedicated to raising the sanity waterline, but aren’t willing to discuss the topic.
I don’t know why not. Kibbutzim are a valid lifestyle choice in Israel, for example, and I don’t see any horrors coming out of that. Shared-property communes with the right of exit and very different from “shared-”property governments.
My understanding is that most communes collapse for pretty much the reasons you’d expect.
Oh, sure, they are not the success their founders expected. Still, as an institution they are a century old and are still around.
Diversity is good.
That doesn’t mean we should refrain from applying social pressure to people doing stupid things.
Your idea of what’s stupid may be quite different from my idea of what’s stupid. To what do you want to apply “social pressure”?
Examples?
It pattern-matches to advertising and heavy-handed propaganda.
I know, that’s why I mentioned it.