check in

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

diff --git a/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md b/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md
index 3d27a9c..7f3d746 100644 (file)
--- a/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md
+++ b/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md
@@ -372,9 +372,17 @@ As it happened, the next day, Wednesday, we saw these Tweets from @ESYudkowsky:
 
 The most obvious reading of this is as a "concession" to my agenda. The two-type taxonomy of MtF was the thing I was _originally_ trying to talk about, back in 2016–2017, before getting derailed onto the present philosophy-of-language war, and here Yudkowsky was backing up "my side" on that by publicly offering an argument that there's probably a more-than-one-type typology.
 
-At this point, some people might think that should have been the end of the matter, that I should have been satisfied. I had started the recent drama flare-up because Yudkowsky had Tweeted something unfavorable to my agenda. Now, Yudkowsky was Tweeting something favorable to my agenda—a major concession! Wouldn't it be _greedy_ and _ungrateful_ for me to keep criticizing him about the pronouns and language thing, given that he'd thrown me a bone here?
+At this point, some people might think that should have been the end of the matter, that I should have been satisfied. I had started the recent drama flare-up because Yudkowsky had Tweeted something unfavorable to my agenda. Now, Yudkowsky was Tweeting something favorable to my agenda—a major concession! Wouldn't it be greedy and ungrateful for me to keep criticizing him about the pronouns and language thing, given that he'd thrown me a bone here? Shouldn't I "call it even"?
+
+That's not how it works. The entire concept of there being "sides" to which one can make "concessions" is an artifact of human coalitional instincts; it's not something that _actually makes sense_. My posse and I were trying to get a clarification about a philosophy-of-language claim Yudkowsky had made a few months prior ("you're not standing in defense of truth if [...]"), which I claimed was substantively misleading.
+
+Why would I 
+
+That was 
+
+
+
 
-That's not how it works. The entire concept of there being "sides" to which one can make "concessions" is an artifact of human coalitional instincts; it's not something that _actually makes sense_. My posse and I were trying to get a clarification about a philosophy of language claim Yudkowsky had made a few months prior ("you're not standing in defense of truth if [...]").
 
 [TODO bookmark: finish section explaining why concessions are not the Way ...]