It looks like a strawman to me. It conflates (A) a question about evaluation (is Suboptimal Earth axiologically better than current Earth?) with (B) a question about decision/action (would it be right to kill everyone for the sake of Suboptimal Earth), and it omits:
(A) a utilitarian doesn’t classify scenarios categorically (“this is good, that is bad”), but through an ordering over possible worlds, such as: (1) current population + everyone alive in Suboptimal Earth is better than (2) Suboptimal Earth scenario minus current population is better than (3) current Earth...
(B) a utilitarian decides according to ex ante expected utility, so it’d have to ask “what’s the odds that Suboptimal Earth will occur given my decision?”
Of course, there are huge problems for such reasoning—a more realistic Suboptimal Earth would get close to a Pascal Muggering: imagine that a Super AGI asked you to press this red button, freeing it to turn the whole galaxy into an eternal utopian hedonist simulation, for example.
As someone who has been “fighting” utilitarianism for a long time, I can say that the best objections against it have been produced by utilitarians themselves.
True, some common abreviations are standard. But my remarks, and probably Dobroslawa’s, concern mostly oral conversations—that’s the context where non-native speakers are in a huge disadvantage, even if they are proficient.
I kind of enjoy reading unusual expressions or slang, because it gives me new data and time enough to update on—so if someone uses it in a conversation later on, I may have a better chance of understanding it. Perhaps that’s precisely the problem for skilled non-native speakers: we’re usually much better “trained” in the written language than in the spoken one, so that we’re often ignorant about some of their differences. Thus, writing “slang, abbreviations, unusual collocations” may actually have a net positive effect.