memoir: Michael's mysterious ally

[Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git] / content / 2023 / a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md

diff --git a/content/2023/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md b/content/2023/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md
index d8f7bd2..8a48cd5 100644 (file)
--- a/content/2023/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md
+++ b/content/2023/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ As for the attempt to intervene on Yudkowsky—here I need to make a digression
 
 (If you are silent about your pain, _they'll kill you and say you enjoyed it_.)
 
-Unfortunately, a lot of other people seem to have strong intuitions about "privacy", which bizarrely impose constraints on what _I'm_ allowed to say about my own life: in particular, it's considered unacceptable to publicly quote or summarize someone's emails from a conversation that they had reason to expect to be private. I feel obligated to comply with these widely-held privacy norms, even if _I_ think they're paranoid and [anti-social](http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/blackmailers-are-privateers-in-the-war-on-hypocrisy/). (This secrecy-hating trait probably correlates with the autogynephilia blogging; someone otherwise like me who believed in privacy wouldn't be telling you this Whole Dumb Story.)
+<a id="privacy-constraints"></a>Unfortunately, a lot of other people seem to have strong intuitions about "privacy", which bizarrely impose constraints on what _I'm_ allowed to say about my own life: in particular, it's considered unacceptable to publicly quote or summarize someone's emails from a conversation that they had reason to expect to be private. I feel obligated to comply with these widely-held privacy norms, even if _I_ think they're paranoid and [anti-social](http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/blackmailers-are-privateers-in-the-war-on-hypocrisy/). (This secrecy-hating trait probably correlates with the autogynephilia blogging; someone otherwise like me who believed in privacy wouldn't be telling you this Whole Dumb Story.)
 
 So I would _think_ that while telling this Whole Dumb Story, I obviously have an inalienable right to blog about _my own_ actions, but I'm not allowed to directly refer to private conversations with named individuals in cases where I don't think I'd be able to get the consent of the other party. (I don't think I'm required to go through the ritual of asking for consent in cases where the revealed information couldn't reasonably be considered "sensitive", or if I know the person doesn't have hangups about this weird "privacy" thing.) In this case, I'm allowed to talk about emailing Yudkowsky (because that was _my_ action), but I'm not allowed to talk about anything he might have said in reply, or whether he did.