✓ make sure I'm summarizing "policy debates" moral from "Challenges"
✓ revise "too good a writer" to be more explicit "someone could be that naive"
✓ footnote about how I could be blamed for being too credulous?
-_ Stephen Jay Gould
-_ edit post to clarify "nudging the cognition"
+✓ Stephen Jay Gould
+✓ social gender, hair color, and "believing in"
+✓ emphasize that the philosophy-of-language thing was much worse
+✓ Feynman, "pretend that the master truthseekers of any age of history"
+✓ Dawkins and Coyne and Hooven
+✓ edit post to clarify "nudging the cognition"
_ Tail's objection to FFS example
_ Brennan "everyone else should participate" needs more wording adjustments
_ Sept. 2020 clarification noted that a distinction should be made between
_ emphasize that 2018 thread was policing TERF-like pronoun usage, not just disapproving of gender-based pronouns
-_ emphasize that the philosophy-of-language thing was MUCH worse
_ note the "larger than protons" concession
_ look for a place to link http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/discursive-warfare-and-faction-formation/
-_ parenthetical defending literal fraud?
-_ link https://thingofthings.substack.com/p/why-callout-posts-often-include-trivial
_ the mailing list post noted it as a "common sexual fantasy"
-_ Feynman, "pretend that the master truthseekers of any age of history"
-_ Dawkins (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments) and Jerry Coyne (https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/08/27/on-helen-joyces-trans/) and Hooven (https://www.thefp.com/p/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard)
-_ emphasize that the philosophy-of-language thing is much worse
-_ it's gotten worse in the past 10–20 years
-_ social gender, hair color, and "believing in"
_ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible
-_ "if he decided after all that" exact clause
+_ add headers to pt. 2 and link back?
time-sensitive globals TODOs—
✓ consult Said
https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356494399945854976
> ...he tried to avoid telling outright lies or making public confusions worse, but mainly got by on having a much-sharper-than-average dividing line in his mine between peer pressure against saying something, and that thing being *false*. That's definitely most of how I do it.
-
--------
-
-> Anyone who's worked with me on public comms knows that among my first instructions is "We only use valid arguments here." (Which makes hiring writers difficult; they have to know the difference.) I've never called for lying to the public. Label the shit you make up as made-up.
-https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1760133310024671583
-
-https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BahoNzY2pzSeM2Dtk/beware-of-stephen-j-gould
-> there comes a point in self-deception where it becomes morally indistinguishable from lying. Consistently self-serving scientific "error", in the face of repeated correction and without informing others of the criticism, blends over into scientific fraud.