I confess I’m not entirely sure how you got there after reading the link post. Not that I disagree (I’m personally fine w/ being called a neartermist, I think it sounds good, but open to p much anything)
“It seems to me a generally bad practice to take the positive part of the phrase a movement or philosophy uses to describe itself, and then negate that to describe people outside the movement” seems to imply that we shouldn’t be “not longtermist”s
I see what you mean. I guess my point is “neartermist” sounds like it’s a coherent ideology in opposition to longtermism. “Not longtermist” is not a banner to march behind or a team, it’s just a factual description (in lower case).
On the other hand, this would exclude people whose main issue with longtermism is epistemic in nature. But maybe it’s too hard to come up with an acceptable catch-all term.
Doesn’t capture all neartermists, but for me, person-affecting EA
“Not longtermist” … this was my take
Maybe suggest it as an option.
I confess I’m not entirely sure how you got there after reading the link post. Not that I disagree (I’m personally fine w/ being called a neartermist, I think it sounds good, but open to p much anything)
“It seems to me a generally bad practice to take the positive part of the phrase a movement or philosophy uses to describe itself, and then negate that to describe people outside the movement” seems to imply that we shouldn’t be “not longtermist”s
I see what you mean. I guess my point is “neartermist” sounds like it’s a coherent ideology in opposition to longtermism. “Not longtermist” is not a banner to march behind or a team, it’s just a factual description (in lower case).
How well does this represent your views to people unfamiliar with it as a term in population ethics?
It might sound as if you’re an EA only concerned about affecting persons (as in humans, or animals with personhood).
Very badly, probably, but I was assuming that most EAs will be familiar with the term.
On the other hand, this would exclude people whose main issue with longtermism is epistemic in nature. But maybe it’s too hard to come up with an acceptable catch-all term.