The asymmetry between pro-c and anti-c

[Learning to undeny]

I've been posting here about certain issues tangentially related to the pro-c view, without directly addressing its core claims. I plan on learning more about the reality of AMSC and perhaps be able to give more serious arguments in the future. Right now I just want to talk about why, right now, the pro-c arguments seem more compelling at first sight than the anti-c ones, and why one should exercise a lot of prudence with this topic.

The dominant narrative in society is strongly anti-c in such a way that no reason is needed to justify this stance. When someone suggests AMSC is not (necessarily) so bad, they are met with strong emotional reactions and their arguments are not taken into account.

We must realise that this is a natural conservative reaction from society. Consider the following analogy. Someone tells you that racial segregation is not so bad. You tell them politely to go fuck themselves. They begin quoting some studies that show supposed advantages of apartheid, but you don't engage with these arguments. You insult them and run away.

Your reaction in this case is appropriate. It is fine to dismiss their arguments purely from emotion, because you just don't want apartheid to exist. It's the same with AMSC, people at this point just don't want it to exist (although one difference is that AMSC exists anyway, and perhaps in more abusive forms than it would in a society that distinguished between several types of contact).

Now we get to MAPs. There are pro-c and anti-c views among MAPs, but only the former ones feel the need to sustain their views using reasoned arguments. Anti-c MAPs don't feel the need to justify their position, they just inherit it from society with the same emotional arguments. And basically only MAPs care about this topic, so the pro-c arguments naturally seem more reasoned.

So that's the asymmetry between the two contact stances. And it should matter to all the pro-cs here because you will sooner or later face new anti-c arguments. The best strategy, in my opinion, would be to devote more attention and research to reasoned anti-c positions. Not parroting the more emotional arguments from society. Not marginalizing the anti-c (which, at the end of the day, is just a philosophical position and not a label describing the essence of a person).

I am pretty new and this is only my first impression on the MAP community. I'd have to research a lot before being able to counter pro-c positions. I know that there are already some defensible anti-c arguments and some pro-c people who like to be very cautious. What do you think? Is this an accurate picture of the MAP community?

[Not Forever]

I agree with the point you made — I think it describes the current situation quite well.
But I also think we’ll soon reach the dead end of academic studies, where people will start spamming meta-analyses they (both antis and non-antis) don’t understand, and where people will memorize the common criticisms of the most famous studies or of the researchers who worked on them.

I don’t think someone who’s anti-c will move into philosophical debate — they’ll go straight to popular studies or to the general consensus that exists in psychology today. Or they’ll stop at the discussion about risk. Honestly, I don’t really see much room for genuine discussions there. (And I think this is a problem with “anti” positions in general, which require a certain degree of rigidity.)

[PorcelainLark]

Even though this forum isn't officially defined as pro-contact, it has some pro-c sympathies. You probably don't need to be as guarded about pro-c positions on here, in contrast to places like Virped. As long as you don't break the rules, you should be fine.