Ive almost always seen this acronym in reference to tech billionaires, who tend to have a marked right-wing bent, and as such have generally found that it doesn't really make a lot of sense. The fundamental premise of conservative politics is preserving, reinforcing, or even restoring existing or recently damaged hierarchy. As wealthy capitalists, it makes sense, in a selfish way, for them to want that- they are on top of those hierarchies.
The issue is, few if any of the ideological positions listed there are terribly compatible with that goal if they were to actually come to success. They tend to involve alterations to the structure of society in unpredictable ways that almost certainly would shake up traditional structures of power in one manner or another.
For example, take the first thing on that list, transhumanism. The currently existing people most closely resembling the goal of being able to modify one's own body at a substantial level into something considered more desirable to that person, are probably trans people, who the right wing, to include big tech billionaires like Elon Musk, infamously hate. Now, trans people are not the same thing as transhumanists, obviously there is a difference between modifying onself to have traits of an already existing subset of humans, and wishing to have traits outside that of the human species- but if a group of people is violently against such a comparatively small alteration, just because its a bit threatening to their hierarchical idea of gender, I submit to you that there is not a snowball's chance in hell that group would actually accept a person who underwent a significantly more dramatic alteration.
For another example, the last of these, longtermism, definitionally should stand opposed to economic activities that are conducted in an unsustainable manner, given that, well, unsustainable literally means that they cannot be continued over the long term. The capitalist bedrock of the hierarchy these tech people rule over is built upon mountains of unsustainable activity, and rather than attempt to rework it into something more sustainable, they instead have been pushing forward with such things as data centers powered by more carbon-intensive locally installed gas turbines, just because those power sources let them build it a bit faster and easier.
As such, I see two possibilities: either these ideologies simply are misattributed to the people they are being used to criticize, which would make the acronym useless, or, and I think this latter one more likely- the people in question are borrowing the language of these concepts to sound important, make the technology they sell sound more impressive, or to try to sway followers of those positions to their side, without actually having thought the ideas through or behaving in a manner that remotely advances them. In which case, again, the acronym is useless, because it'd be taking a bunch of disparate positions together and associating them with people who demonstrate with their actions that they either do not actually understand or simply do not care about those things.
For an analogy, if someone were to gather a bunch of terms about democracy or republicanism (not the political party) or similar rule-by-the-people ideas, and then were to make an acronym with them for use to describe autocrats, on account of how so many of those autocrats use those words in the name of their regime or in their (claimed) ideals, in order to legitimize their rule and more easily do what they actually wanted to do, would you consider that acronym to be useful?
Longtermism is only prioritizing long term concerns at the expense of present day suffering. It is a pathological devaluing of the present. I say this as an environmental scientist and paleobiologist who advocates taking a long term perspective whenever possible.
Also, calling trans people transhumanist is imo pretty offensive
Part of that paragraph was me literally saying that they are not transhumanist, I said that they represent something closer to the goal of transhumanism than anyone else that actually exists- because I cant think of any real world example that better fits the notion of using technology to modify ones body to better fit one's ideal self than the transition process that many (I'm aware not all) trans people go through. If you have a more fitting example I'd love to hear it, but everything else I can think of are either designed to somewhat restore lost features (like prosthetics), or are extremely mild modifications, or are vaporwear that does not actually exist and therefore does not count as a contemporary comparison.
If that has offended you or somebody else that sees this, then I apologize for causing it- that wasn't the intention, but as I don't see why it should be offensive and still think the point that I was trying to make with that is valid, I stand by what I was saying with that for now, though am open to a different way of demonstrating it if you have one that seems better.
rationalism in this context is just the name of the former group and not the older philosophical concept of the same name I think. I disagree with the association for most of the rest of these (I talked about that in another comment), but that one might be a bit more justified.
I understand what you mean, and I'd agree that its presence in the acronym might be apt, but I think I take issue mostly with the characterisation of it as a toxic ideology by the post title.
The self-described "rationalist community" I'd certainly agree is mostly toxic, as is the "skeptic community". Unfortunately, they both came to be defined by the worst people in them. (The doomsday cultists and the bigots, respectively, mostly.) But I don't think that makes rationalism and skepticism toxic ideologies, just as I don't think the existence of TERFs and "girl boss feminists" makes feminism a toxic ideology.
9 Comments
CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social · 3 pts · 3d
Ive almost always seen this acronym in reference to tech billionaires, who tend to have a marked right-wing bent, and as such have generally found that it doesn't really make a lot of sense. The fundamental premise of conservative politics is preserving, reinforcing, or even restoring existing or recently damaged hierarchy. As wealthy capitalists, it makes sense, in a selfish way, for them to want that- they are on top of those hierarchies.
The issue is, few if any of the ideological positions listed there are terribly compatible with that goal if they were to actually come to success. They tend to involve alterations to the structure of society in unpredictable ways that almost certainly would shake up traditional structures of power in one manner or another.
For example, take the first thing on that list, transhumanism. The currently existing people most closely resembling the goal of being able to modify one's own body at a substantial level into something considered more desirable to that person, are probably trans people, who the right wing, to include big tech billionaires like Elon Musk, infamously hate. Now, trans people are not the same thing as transhumanists, obviously there is a difference between modifying onself to have traits of an already existing subset of humans, and wishing to have traits outside that of the human species- but if a group of people is violently against such a comparatively small alteration, just because its a bit threatening to their hierarchical idea of gender, I submit to you that there is not a snowball's chance in hell that group would actually accept a person who underwent a significantly more dramatic alteration.
For another example, the last of these, longtermism, definitionally should stand opposed to economic activities that are conducted in an unsustainable manner, given that, well, unsustainable literally means that they cannot be continued over the long term. The capitalist bedrock of the hierarchy these tech people rule over is built upon mountains of unsustainable activity, and rather than attempt to rework it into something more sustainable, they instead have been pushing forward with such things as data centers powered by more carbon-intensive locally installed gas turbines, just because those power sources let them build it a bit faster and easier.
As such, I see two possibilities: either these ideologies simply are misattributed to the people they are being used to criticize, which would make the acronym useless, or, and I think this latter one more likely- the people in question are borrowing the language of these concepts to sound important, make the technology they sell sound more impressive, or to try to sway followers of those positions to their side, without actually having thought the ideas through or behaving in a manner that remotely advances them. In which case, again, the acronym is useless, because it'd be taking a bunch of disparate positions together and associating them with people who demonstrate with their actions that they either do not actually understand or simply do not care about those things.
For an analogy, if someone were to gather a bunch of terms about democracy or republicanism (not the political party) or similar rule-by-the-people ideas, and then were to make an acronym with them for use to describe autocrats, on account of how so many of those autocrats use those words in the name of their regime or in their (claimed) ideals, in order to legitimize their rule and more easily do what they actually wanted to do, would you consider that acronym to be useful?
dantheclamman@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 3d
Longtermism is only prioritizing long term concerns at the expense of present day suffering. It is a pathological devaluing of the present. I say this as an environmental scientist and paleobiologist who advocates taking a long term perspective whenever possible.
Also, calling trans people transhumanist is imo pretty offensive
CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social · 0 pts · 3d
Part of that paragraph was me literally saying that they are not transhumanist, I said that they represent something closer to the goal of transhumanism than anyone else that actually exists- because I cant think of any real world example that better fits the notion of using technology to modify ones body to better fit one's ideal self than the transition process that many (I'm aware not all) trans people go through. If you have a more fitting example I'd love to hear it, but everything else I can think of are either designed to somewhat restore lost features (like prosthetics), or are extremely mild modifications, or are vaporwear that does not actually exist and therefore does not count as a contemporary comparison.
If that has offended you or somebody else that sees this, then I apologize for causing it- that wasn't the intention, but as I don't see why it should be offensive and still think the point that I was trying to make with that is valid, I stand by what I was saying with that for now, though am open to a different way of demonstrating it if you have one that seems better.
svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 3d
What's wrong with rationalism? Just because LessWrong is full of tossers doesn't mean that rationalism and empiricism aren't good, actually.
CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social · 1 pts · 3d
rationalism in this context is just the name of the former group and not the older philosophical concept of the same name I think. I disagree with the association for most of the rest of these (I talked about that in another comment), but that one might be a bit more justified.
svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 2d
I understand what you mean, and I'd agree that its presence in the acronym might be apt, but I think I take issue mostly with the characterisation of it as a toxic ideology by the post title.
The self-described "rationalist community" I'd certainly agree is mostly toxic, as is the "skeptic community". Unfortunately, they both came to be defined by the worst people in them. (The doomsday cultists and the bigots, respectively, mostly.) But I don't think that makes rationalism and skepticism toxic ideologies, just as I don't think the existence of TERFs and "girl boss feminists" makes feminism a toxic ideology.
jdr@lemmy.ml · -2 pts · 3d
Boo politics!
felixwhynot@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
I’m sorry you had to learn something and think critically today ❤️
/s
Are you good?
jdr@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 2d
Pretty good, thanks
You?