> I'm not trying to get Eliezer or "the community" to take a public stance on gender politics; I'm trying to get us to take a stance in favor of the kind of epistemology that we were doing in 2008. It turns out that epistemology has implications for gender politics which are unsafe, but that's more inferential steps, and ... I guess I just don't expect the sort of people who would punish good epistemology to follow the inferential steps? Maybe I'm living in the should-universe a bit here, but I don't think it "should" be hard for Eliezer to publicly say, "Yep, categories aren't arbitrary because you need them to carve reality at the joints in order to make probabilistic inferences, just like I said in 2008; this is obvious."
-Scott got a lot of pushback just for including the blog that I showed him in a links post (Times have changed! BBL is locally quasi-mainstream after Ozy engaged)
-https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/01/links-1116-site-unseen/
-https://slatestarscratchpad.tumblr.com/post/152736458066/hey-scott-im-a-bit-of-a-fan-of-yours-and-i
+(Times have changed! BBL is locally quasi-mainstream after Ozy engaged)
+[Scott got a lot of pushback just for including the blog that I showed him in a links post
+https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/01/links-1116-site-unseen/
+https://slatestarscratchpad.tumblr.com/post/152736458066/hey-scott-im-a-bit-of-a-fan-of-yours-and-i]
It's weird that he thinks telling the truth is politically impossible, because the specific truths I'm focused on are things he _already said_, that anyone could just look up. I guess the point is that the egregore doesn't have the logical or reading comprehension for that?—or rather (a reader points out) the egregore has no reason to care about the past; if you get tagged as an enemy, your past statements will get dug up as evidence of foul present intent, but if you're doing good enough of playing the part today, no one cares what you said in 2009
playing on a different chessboard—I would be fine with it if he didn't shit on my chessboard. But my shitting on his chessboard
+I could forgive him for taking a shit on d4 of my chessboard ("at least 20% of the ones with penises are actually women"). I could even forgive him for subsequently taking a shit on e4 of my chessboard ("") as long as he wiped the shit off afterwards ([TODO linky-quotey clarification]), even though, really, I would have expected someone so smart to take a hint after the incident on d4.
+
Ben on Discursive Warfare and Faction Formation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dou43_aX_h1lP7-wqU_5jJq62PuhotQaybe5H2HUmWc/edit
> What's not wrong on purpose is persuasive but does not become a factional identity. What becomes a factional identity is wrong on purpose.
I joined the "Eliezerfic" server in spite of my enmity, and JoshTriplett is in there (contrary to my gut instinct that Rust peeps hate my rationalist peeps)
-> "too many people think it's unvirtuous to shut up and listen to [him]"
-https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1509944888376188929
-
The cowardice is remarkable, coming from someone who otherwise
jbeshir
------
+Dath ilan has a concept of "the Light"—the vector in policyspace perpendicular outwards from the Pareto curve, in which everyone's interests coincide.
+
+
In dath ilan they talk about the Light—the policy vector that everyone can agree on
It's as if the guy has just completely given up on the idea that public speech is useful, or that anyone besides he and his flunkies are capable of thought.
-> [TODO linky Tweet about "too many people think it's unvirtuous to shut up and listen to me"; I wish I had never written about LDT and just told people to vote]
+> "too many people think it's unvirtuous to shut up and listen to me" I wish I had never written about LDT and just told people to vote for reasons they understand when they're older
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1509944888376188929
-What a _profoundly_ anti-intellectual statement! This is just not something you would say if you cared about having a rationality community that could process arguments and correct its own errors, rather than
+What a _profoundly_ anti-intellectual statement! This is just not something you would say if you cared about having a rationality community that could process arguments and correct errors,
+rather than a robot cult
To be clear, there _is_ such a thing as legitimately trusting an authority who knows better than you.
+If he's frustrated that people won't listen _now_, he should remember the only reason he has _any_ people who defer to him _at all_ is because he used to be such a good explainer who actually argued for things.
That trust is a _finite resource_.
-------
\ No newline at end of file
+------
+
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff