-- apply pro edits to pt. 3 (waiting on remaining parts)
-- address red team objections to pt. 3
-- address auto edit tier to pt. 3
-_ schedule Friendship Day at Valinor
-_ consult Anna
-_ consult Said
-_ Jessica's dramapost § in pt. 5
-_ consult 93 about Jessica's dramapost §
-_ finish and ship "Reply to Scott on Autogenderphilia"
-_ finish and ship "Hrunkner Unnerby"
-_ psychiatric disaster doc
-_ clear with Michael/Ben/Jessica
-_ clear with Alicorn
-_ clear with Kelsey
-_ clear with Ray
-_ clear with Ruby
-_ SHIP PT. 3!!
-------------
-_ address auto edit tier to pt. 4–5
-_ red team pt. 4–5
-_ pro edit pt. 4–5
-
-pt. 3 edit tier (red team edition)—
-✓ extract these kinds of statements of political alignment as concessions
-✓ credibly helpful unsolicited criticism
-✓ male multivariate distribution
-✓ reserve the right to lie
-✓ how to be principled about the ways in which you're dishonest
-✓ I don't think the group of gay men and lesbian
-✓ narcissistic delusions (soften)
-✓ ended up growing out of it (footnote the number?)
-✓ harm I'm theorizing (model of the child)
-✓ might be fictional (reword to not leak info)
-
-pt. 3 edit tier (auto edition)—
-✓ footnote on the bad-faith condition on "My Price for Joining"
-✓ footnote explaining quibbles on clarification
-✓ quote Yudkowsky's LW moderation policy
-✓ hint at "Yes Requires" objector being trans
-✓ quote Jack on timelines anxiety
-✓ clarify "A Lesson is Learned"
-- explain the "jump to evaluation" failure
-- FTX
-_ where were all the trans kids 10 years ago?
-_ clarify that cheerful price history is with Anna specifically
-----
-_ briefly speculate on causes of brain damage (tie in to moderation policy?)
-_ being friends with dogs (it's good, but do I have the wordcount budget?)
-_ Ruby fight: "forces of blandness want me gone ... stand my ground" remark
-_ mention that I was miffed about "Boundaries?" not getting Curated, while one of Euk's animal posts did
-_ explicitly mention http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/bad-faith-behavior-not-feeling/
-_ meeting with Ray (maybe?)
-_ mention Said rigor check somewhere, nervousness about Michael's gang being a mini-egregore
-_ I should respond to Ziz's charges that my criticism of concept-policing was a form of concept-policing
-_ Anna's claim that Scott was a target specifically because he was good, my counterclaim that payment can't be impunity
-_ do I have a better identifier than "Vassarite"?
-_ maybe I do want to fill in a few more details about the Sasha disaster, conditional on what I end up writing regarding Scott's prosecution?—and conditional on my separate retro email—also the Zolpidem thing
-_ the "reducing negativity" post does obliquely hint at the regression point being general
-_ link to protest flyer
-_ establish usage of "coordination group" vs. "posse"? (editor might catch?)
-_ "it was the same thing here"—most readers are not going to see an obvious analogy (editor might catch?)
-_ better explanation of MOPs in "Social Reality" scuffle (editor might catch?)
-_ better context on "scam" &c. earlier (editor might catch?)
-_ cut words from descriptions of other posts! (editor might catch?)
-_ try to clarify Abram's categories view (Michael didn't get it) (but it still seems clear to me on re-read?)
-_ screenshot "pleading, snarky reply"
-_ GreaterWrong over Less Wrong for comment links