first edit pass bookmark: "I got a chance to talk to"
pt. 3 edit tier—
-_ footnote on the bad-faith condition on "My Price for Joining"
-_ "it might matter timelessly" → there are people with AI chops who are PC (/2017/Jan/from-what-ive-tasted-of-desire/)
-_ confusing people and ourselves about what the exact crime is
+✓ footnote on the bad-faith condition on "My Price for Joining"
_ footnote explaining quibbles on clarification
+_ quote Yudkowsky's LW moderation policy
+_ confusing people and ourselves about what the exact crime is
_ FTX validated Ben's view of EA!! ("systematically conflating corruption, accumulation of dominance, and theft, with getting things done")
-_ "your failure to model social reality is believing people when they claim noble motives"
_ hint at Vanessa being trans
-_ quote Jack on timelines anxiety
-_ 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
-_ link to protest flyer
-_ "it was the same thing here"—most readers are not going to understand what I see as the obvious analogy
-_ better explanation of MOPs in "Social Reality" scuffle
-_ better context on "scam" &c. earlier
+_ 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
-_ establish usage of "coordination group" vs. "posse"?
-_ LessWrong vs. GreaterWrong for comment links?
-_ cut words from descriptions of other posts! (if people want to read them, they can click through ... but on review, these descriptions seem pretty reasonable?)
-_ try to clarify Abram's categories view (Michael didn't get it) (but it still seems clear to me on re-read?)
_ explicitly mention http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/bad-faith-behavior-not-feeling/
_ meeting with Ray (maybe?)
_ friends with someone on an animal level, like with a dog
-_ "Density in Thingspace" comment (maybe a footnote in the § explaining the background to "Unnatural Categories")
-_ Ruby fight: "forces of blandness want me gone ... stand my ground" remark
-_ Motta-Mena and Puts probability-of-gynephilia-by-intersex-condition graph, re trans kids on the margin
_ mention Said rigor check somewhere, nervousness about Michael's gang being a mini-egregore
_ at some point, speculate on causes of brain damage
-_ the "reducing negativity" post does obliquely hint at the regression point being general ("Let's say that the true level of negativity"), does that seriously undermine my thesis, or does it only merit a footnote?
-_ quote Yudkowsky's LW moderation policy
-_ Said on Yudkowsky's retreat to Facebook being bad for him
_ 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
+_ quote Jack on timelines anxiety
+_ 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?)
+_ GreaterWrong over Less Wrong for comment links
pt. 4 edit tier—
_ body odors comment
_ emphasize that 2018 thread was policing TERF-like pronoun usage, not just disapproving of gender-based pronouns
_ if you only say good things about Republican candidates
_ to-be-continued ending about how being a fraud might be a good idea
+_ selective argumentation that's clearly labeled as such would be fine
_ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible
_ Litany Against Gurus, not sure humans can think and trust at the same time; High Status and Stupidity
_ when EY put a checkmark on my Discord message characterizing his strategy as giving up on intellectual honesty
I'm not, overall, satisfied with the political impact of my writing on this blog. One could imagine someone who shared Yudkowsky's apparent disbelief in public reason advising me that my practice of carefully explaining at length what I believe and why, has been an ineffective strategy—that I should instead clarify to myself what policy goal I'm trying to acheive, and try to figure out some clever gambit to play trans activists and gender-critical feminists against each other in a way that advances my agenda.
From my perspective, such advice would be missing the point. [I'm not trying to force though some particular policy.](/2021/Sep/i-dont-do-policy/) Rather, I think I know some things about the world, things I wish I had someone had told me earlier. So I'm trying to tell others, to help them live in a world that makes sense.
+
+-------
+
+I don't, actually, expect people to spontaneously blurt out everything they believe to be true, that Stalin would find offensive. "No comment" would be fine. Even selective argumentation that's clearly labeled as such would be fine. (There's no shame in being an honest specialist who says, "I've mostly thought about these issues though the lens of ideology _X_, and therefore can't claim to be comprehensive; if you want other perspectives, you'll have to read other authors and think it through for yourself.")
\ No newline at end of file
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff