Ironically (as you were probably unaware of this), Oligopsony had already made a more or less serious steelman of this argument about a year ago. Attempting to summarize, grand ideological narratives and seeming political extremism might have high expected utility if you care about boosting or suppressing a self-reinforcing trend along some axis.
Therefore, to be more TDT-agenty in this regard, you’ll have to commit to defending the undesirable/unpopular consequences of a desirable trend or attacking the desirable/popular consequences of an undesirable one—if you correctly measure how inevitable the causation is and how likely they would’ve been to arise without the trend’s progress. So you end up e.g. defending the Jacobin terror when you’re merely against slavery, or opposing intervention in domestic abuse when you’re merely in favour of traditional marriage.
And then everyone reasonable calls you a far-Blue nutjob and laughs at your slippery-slope nonsense.
Ironically (as you were probably unaware of this), Oligopsony had already made a more or less serious steelman of this argument about a year ago. Attempting to summarize, grand ideological narratives and seeming political extremism might have high expected utility if you care about boosting or suppressing a self-reinforcing trend along some axis.
Therefore, to be more TDT-agenty in this regard, you’ll have to commit to defending the undesirable/unpopular consequences of a desirable trend or attacking the desirable/popular consequences of an undesirable one—if you correctly measure how inevitable the causation is and how likely they would’ve been to arise without the trend’s progress. So you end up e.g. defending the Jacobin terror when you’re merely against slavery, or opposing intervention in domestic abuse when you’re merely in favour of traditional marriage.
And then everyone reasonable calls you a far-Blue nutjob and laughs at your slippery-slope nonsense.