1) I've come think publicly endorsing utilitarianism causes more social harm than good. Practically, a real utilitarian shouldn't publicly identify with utilitariansim, but instead support libertarian and animal (including human) rights policies and advocacy. In theory, smart utilitarians can do more good than harm, but it seems to me that a lot of people take from utilitarianism only the "end justifies the means" part without doing a thorough analysis whether their actions are really optimal or even beneficial. It is too small a step from there to endorsing violence and oppression which causes more harm than good. The latest example I've encountered came from Robert Wiblin, who declares that people shouldn't even have the right to bodily autonomy and ending their own lives, because he cares more about their future selves than they do. Typically, this kind of statement is combined with some anecdotal stories of people who are "grateful" that they had their options taken away from them by force, without any quantitaive evidence-based calculus and without any methodology to include unintended consequences, hidden downsides or any assssment of a control group of people who are not in the anecdotal reference class.
Other examples are Tim Tyler, Robin Hanson etc. declaring that it is good for non-human animals to exist in almost all adverse circumstances because they are evolved creatures that are supposed to be happy to exist by the magic of evolution, and therefore we can use them as meat or endorse spreading Darwinian wildlife etc. Basically, the pattern is "we're doing the non-consenting individuals a favor by making them suffer against their will, or at least we cause positive externalities in doing so, and that makes it okay". While I do not generally disagree with this logical pattern as such, it cannot be overlooked how surprisingly poor the associated analyses typically are, how often they engage in motivated stopping, and how often specific counter-arguments and questions are simply ignored. It also cannot be overlooked that there are fallacies like the just world fallacy and the fundamental attribution error, as well as self-serving biases that twist the utilitarian-type thinking into justifying any practical action the person happened to like for whatever emotional reason. And that is the part for which utilitarianism provides too easy an excuse to socially get away with. In short, I think the utilitarian thing to do is to stop endorsing utilitarian memes and instead increase social insistence on institutions like individual rights and heuristics like the non-aggression principle.
2) I've come to realize I don't have the extent of intrinsic altruistic motivation required to fulfill utilitarian demandingness levels, even though I cognitively endorsed them for years now. The "demandingness objection" isn't really an objection against utiltiarianism, but it is an objection to self-identifying with utilitarianism if you're not willing to donate practically all of your disposable income. I value consistency, and I find that I don't have the psychological motivation to fully act as a utiltiarian would, so the logical thing to do is to drop utilitarianism. Being a "half utilitarian" may still be more useful (from the POV of utilitarianism) than not being a utilitarian at all, but it's still a mismatch between endorsed philosophy and practical action, and on pain of being a hypocrite, the right thing to do is to drop the self-identification.
It is absurd and hypocritical to endorse a consequentialist philosophy whose demands you're not going to fulfill anyway, and whose public endorsement causes more harm than good within the philosophy's own value system!
I now draw the conclusion and avoid all "utilitarian" topics, communities and discussions from here on. For any of you who do actual practical work of altruistic value, I wish you the best of luck. Thanks for the interactions.