I am a Catholic—though I would not call myself a traditionalist—and I believe what the Church teaches, including on matters of sexuality. Bringing my religion up in this way feels like a character attack that ought to be below the standards of the EA Forum though, and I’m grieved to see it.
My posts here are not saying “Polyamory is a sin, convert to Catholicism.” They are not saying “you should be pressured into monogamy.” Those things seem much more contentious than what I’m going for here. Instead, I am saying that there has long been in fact the exact opposite pressure in at least parts of the EA community, with people being pressured away from monogamy and towards polyamory, and this has had negative consequences.
I don’t think this is an issue that requires people to accept Catholic teaching on sexual morality to see as an issue—and indeed the TIME article critical of EA norms here certainly does not seem to have been written from a traditionalist Catholic perspective!
My posts here are not saying “Polyamory is a sin, convert to Catholicism.”
No, but if you say “polyamory has been a problem in the EA (and rationalist) communities for a long time” and people know that you do in fact believe polyamory to be immoral, it’s completely reasonable for them to respond as Kelsey did?
If you want people only to respond to the more limited “people should not be pressured into polyamory” perhaps you should say that explicitly?
No, but if you say “polyamory has been a problem in the EA (and rationalist) communities for a long time” and people know that you do in fact believe polyamory to be immoral, it’s completely reasonable for them to respond as Kelsey did?
Most people don’t know that and I wasn’t asserting it here—that would be much more controversial and much more of a debate than I wanted to have, and further one that I don’t think is very appropriate for the EA Forum! My hope is (was?) that even people who quite disagree with me—including many polyamorous people—would have common cause in opposing the pressure to be polyamorous that has been prevalent.
I think veganism has been a problem in the EA community for a long time and has led to some bad dynamics where people have been pressured to go without food that meets their nutritional needs, including residential multi-day events where only vegan food was served.
If someone, knowing my views on animals that are probably about as well known as your views on sexual morality, responded as if I was saying animal welfare doesn’t matter, I think that would be pretty reasonable. And if I didn’t want that interpretation I’d need to drop the “veganism has been a problem” bit and just talk about the particular bad dynamics I was opposed to.
It’s also worth noting that I am an adult convert to Catholicism and was involved with the Bay Area rationalist and EA community (and uncomfortable with the “polyamory pressure” in that community) for years before joining the Church, including some time when I didn’t take religion seriously much at all. Claiming or implying that I hold my views (or faced backlash against them) just because I’m Catholic does me a disservice.
I note also that others in the community who are not (as far as I know) Catholic have faced backlash for their views against polyamory or the related pressure, that as I understand it there are several who are afraid to speak up publicly even now, and so on.
As such, ozymandias’s comment feels like a really unfair way to summarize the situation.
I also think it’s quite reasonable for a religious person to give secular arguments for worldviews which also happen to be held in their religion.
For example, if Davis was making a humanistic argument for why people should take Giving What We Can’s 10% pledge, then accusing him of disingenuously trying to sneak in the “Catholic agenda” of giving a tithe to the poor doesn’t seem fair.
Or imagine if a Jain was giving a humanistic argument for why people should be vegetarian, and they were accused of disingenuously trying to sneak in the “Jain agenda” of animal welfare.
Clarifying for forum archeologists: “traditionalist” in Catholicism refers to people who consider the theological claims and organizational changes in Vatican II to be illegitimate, or at minimum taken too far. Catholics who consider the Church to have divinely guided authority over religious and moral truths will sometimes call themselves “orthodox” (lowercase) Catholics, to distinguish themselves from those who don’t accept this & from traditionalists who accept everything up to Vatican II.
So, ozymandias intended to indicate “Davis accepts the Vatican’s teaching on sin, hell, sexual mores, etc”. Davis objected to an adjective that implied he rejects Vatican II.
I am a Catholic—though I would not call myself a traditionalist—and I believe what the Church teaches, including on matters of sexuality. Bringing my religion up in this way feels like a character attack that ought to be below the standards of the EA Forum though, and I’m grieved to see it.
My posts here are not saying “Polyamory is a sin, convert to Catholicism.” They are not saying “you should be pressured into monogamy.” Those things seem much more contentious than what I’m going for here. Instead, I am saying that there has long been in fact the exact opposite pressure in at least parts of the EA community, with people being pressured away from monogamy and towards polyamory, and this has had negative consequences.
I don’t think this is an issue that requires people to accept Catholic teaching on sexual morality to see as an issue—and indeed the TIME article critical of EA norms here certainly does not seem to have been written from a traditionalist Catholic perspective!
No, but if you say “polyamory has been a problem in the EA (and rationalist) communities for a long time” and people know that you do in fact believe polyamory to be immoral, it’s completely reasonable for them to respond as Kelsey did?
If you want people only to respond to the more limited “people should not be pressured into polyamory” perhaps you should say that explicitly?
Most people don’t know that and I wasn’t asserting it here—that would be much more controversial and much more of a debate than I wanted to have, and further one that I don’t think is very appropriate for the EA Forum! My hope is (was?) that even people who quite disagree with me—including many polyamorous people—would have common cause in opposing the pressure to be polyamorous that has been prevalent.
Imagine I wrote:
If someone, knowing my views on animals that are probably about as well known as your views on sexual morality, responded as if I was saying animal welfare doesn’t matter, I think that would be pretty reasonable. And if I didn’t want that interpretation I’d need to drop the “veganism has been a problem” bit and just talk about the particular bad dynamics I was opposed to.
It’s also worth noting that I am an adult convert to Catholicism and was involved with the Bay Area rationalist and EA community (and uncomfortable with the “polyamory pressure” in that community) for years before joining the Church, including some time when I didn’t take religion seriously much at all. Claiming or implying that I hold my views (or faced backlash against them) just because I’m Catholic does me a disservice.
I note also that others in the community who are not (as far as I know) Catholic have faced backlash for their views against polyamory or the related pressure, that as I understand it there are several who are afraid to speak up publicly even now, and so on.
As such, ozymandias’s comment feels like a really unfair way to summarize the situation.
I also think it’s quite reasonable for a religious person to give secular arguments for worldviews which also happen to be held in their religion.
For example, if Davis was making a humanistic argument for why people should take Giving What We Can’s 10% pledge, then accusing him of disingenuously trying to sneak in the “Catholic agenda” of giving a tithe to the poor doesn’t seem fair.
Or imagine if a Jain was giving a humanistic argument for why people should be vegetarian, and they were accused of disingenuously trying to sneak in the “Jain agenda” of animal welfare.
Clarifying for forum archeologists: “traditionalist” in Catholicism refers to people who consider the theological claims and organizational changes in Vatican II to be illegitimate, or at minimum taken too far. Catholics who consider the Church to have divinely guided authority over religious and moral truths will sometimes call themselves “orthodox” (lowercase) Catholics, to distinguish themselves from those who don’t accept this & from traditionalists who accept everything up to Vatican II.
So, ozymandias intended to indicate “Davis accepts the Vatican’s teaching on sin, hell, sexual mores, etc”. Davis objected to an adjective that implied he rejects Vatican II.