By the time Farhad Manjoo’s article (obnoxiously titled “You have no friends”: lots of dark arts going on there) was published, Facebook was already winning; it was somewhat credible to suggest that non-Facebooking holdouts were isolating themselves from the Great Comforting Majority. And most of its force came, I think, from an argument that boils down to “Everyone else is doing this, and if you don’t you’ll be at a disadvantage as well as being a weirdo”.
Transhumanism isn’t like that. Most people are not transhumanists in the stronger senses of the word. You’re right that many people are transhumanists in the weak sense that they would prefer their child to be made superhuman by weird technological means than to die in agony, but it seems to me that “you would prefer that, therefore you are really already a transhumanist” is a bit like “you have friends you talk to, therefore you are really already on Facebook”.
Effective Altruism is also not like that. Smartphone ownership is already like that, at least among techy people in affluent Western countries.
I think “playing offence” can be effective in cases where the thing you’re fighting for is already winning. Perhaps Farhad Manjoo’s article gained Facebook a lot of new users (I have no idea). Perhaps an article saying “You are a Luddite” and making a similar argument for smartphone ownership would create a lot of new smartphone users (though actually I think smartphones are further along the path to near-universal use than Facebook was in 2009). But I very much doubt that similar articles for transhumanism or EA could be effective in the same way. The preconditions just aren’t there.
I think “playing offence” can be effective in cases where the thing you’re fighting for is already winning.
By “playing offence” the OP essentially means taking control of the language of the discussion so that you get to specify the definitions and the terms. If you can do that, you have almost won. The usual problem is that the opposition is not entirely stupid and will not allow you to do that without a major fight.
Should one try to define the terms of the debate? Of course, a political argument is often about nothing else.
By the time Farhad Manjoo’s article (obnoxiously titled “You have no friends”: lots of dark arts going on there) was published, Facebook was already winning; it was somewhat credible to suggest that non-Facebooking holdouts were isolating themselves from the Great Comforting Majority. And most of its force came, I think, from an argument that boils down to “Everyone else is doing this, and if you don’t you’ll be at a disadvantage as well as being a weirdo”.
Transhumanism isn’t like that. Most people are not transhumanists in the stronger senses of the word. You’re right that many people are transhumanists in the weak sense that they would prefer their child to be made superhuman by weird technological means than to die in agony, but it seems to me that “you would prefer that, therefore you are really already a transhumanist” is a bit like “you have friends you talk to, therefore you are really already on Facebook”.
Effective Altruism is also not like that. Smartphone ownership is already like that, at least among techy people in affluent Western countries.
I think “playing offence” can be effective in cases where the thing you’re fighting for is already winning. Perhaps Farhad Manjoo’s article gained Facebook a lot of new users (I have no idea). Perhaps an article saying “You are a Luddite” and making a similar argument for smartphone ownership would create a lot of new smartphone users (though actually I think smartphones are further along the path to near-universal use than Facebook was in 2009). But I very much doubt that similar articles for transhumanism or EA could be effective in the same way. The preconditions just aren’t there.
By “playing offence” the OP essentially means taking control of the language of the discussion so that you get to specify the definitions and the terms. If you can do that, you have almost won. The usual problem is that the opposition is not entirely stupid and will not allow you to do that without a major fight.
Should one try to define the terms of the debate? Of course, a political argument is often about nothing else.