outline of NRx-adj thoughts

diff --git a/content/drafts/an-infovists-advisory-or-standing-athwart-history-yelling-wait-i-like-the-idea-but.md b/content/drafts/an-infovists-advisory-or-standing-athwart-history-yelling-wait-i-like-the-idea-but.md
index da65a67..ef365b8 100644 (file)
--- a/content/drafts/an-infovists-advisory-or-standing-athwart-history-yelling-wait-i-like-the-idea-but.md
+++ b/content/drafts/an-infovists-advisory-or-standing-athwart-history-yelling-wait-i-like-the-idea-but.md
@@ -8,6 +8,8 @@ TODO
 
 OUTLINE OF POINTS TO HIT—
 
+POINTS FROM MY EMAIL TO BBL—
+
  * the current situation re MtF is crazy
  * activists who want to change society are both incentivized and selected for self-delusion—
     * incentivized because: ... ? (Exercise: what was I thinking when I said
@@ -28,3 +30,37 @@ OUTLINE OF POINTS TO HIT—
    the standard sex-ed textbooks, but not trying to dictate what the social
    norms of who should transition should be, who should pay for it,
    &c. "Infovism" rather than activism.
+
+
+NRx-inspired (sigh ... yes, unfortunately) points—
+
+(most of this should probably be split into a separate post even if I'm happening to do some outlining in this file; evil speculation shouldn't contaminate the solid "Infovism" idea/slogan)—
+
+ * democracy is government by whichever memes happen to be the most virulent
+ * outcomes of the long run of a one-dimensional conflict can be classified, roughly something like: Left total victory, right total victory, mutually assured destruction, and program equilibrium
+    * program equilibrium isn't easy/possible for humans
+    * the key point here is that "grant this demand, deny all others" isn't a
+      defensible Schelling point; if you yield here, the _same algorithm_ is
+      going to be running the next time
+ * "Berkeley 2009 morality was just right, but this Berkeley 2017 bullshit has
+   gone _too far_!"
+    * If I were dictator, (Berkeley, 2009) could be made to work, but everyone has her own (city, year) pair
+       * for some reason I thought this was analogous to something from the
+         Coherent Extrapolated Volition document: Dennis thinks he should own
+         the world, but fairness requires that Dennis's name be erased from any
+         such request, and "some X should own the world" is underspecified"
+ * remember my conversation with a certain female bio-/psychologist studying at
+   Harvard who told me that "Trans women are men with a mental illness" made
+   more sense, but that she was afraid to even think that within the privacy of
+   her own head
+    * fucking _Harvard_
+ * Moldbug, "The True Meaning of Diversity": "Certainly not every party member
+   is an [X]. Most of them, in fact, are not. Nor is it absolutely guaranteed
+   that every single [X] will be a party member. But most of them, in fact,
+   are"—thus, requiring representaiton of Xes benefits the party
+ * practice of deferring to designated-victim trans women _makes the trans
+   women worse people_: if you know that you can win a dispute by playing the
+   transphobia card, that incentive shapes your life (Moldbug: discussion of
+   "ignoble privilege" in "Gentle Introduction" pt. 3)
+    * kind of like how _the right to be sued_ is an important part of legal
+      personhood: the possibility of recourse is necessary for trust