check in

[Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git] / content / drafts / the-signaling-hazard-objection.md

diff --git a/content/drafts/the-signaling-hazard-objection.md b/content/drafts/the-signaling-hazard-objection.md
index 3c4097d..2eb6ada 100644 (file)
--- a/content/drafts/the-signaling-hazard-objection.md
+++ b/content/drafts/the-signaling-hazard-objection.md
@@ -10,6 +10,6 @@ People who grew up in the current year generally don't think much of this argume
 
 The argument might be easier to understand if we can find other examples of "signaling hazard" dynamics. For example, well-read people in the current year are often aware of various facts that they're careful never to acknowledge in public for fear of being seen as right-wing (racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, _&c._). In this context, the analogous dismissal, "Why do you care if someone isn't sure you're progressive? What's wrong with being right-wing?", doesn't seem compelling. _Of course_, we care; _of course_, there's something wrong with it.
 
-One person's _modus ponens_ is another's _modus tollens_; the implications of the analogy could be read in two ways. Maybe it's especially important that we repress right-wing ideologies, so that good progressive people can afford speak more freely among ourselves without being confused for one of the bad guys.
+[One person's _modus ponens_ is another's _modus tollens_](https://www.gwern.net/Modus); the implications of the analogy could be read in two ways. Maybe it's especially important that we repress right-wing ideologies, so that good progressive people can afford speak more freely among ourselves without being confused for one of the bad guys.
 
 Or maybe being constrained by signals is this way is dumb and inefficient, and a smarter Society would figure out how to coordinate on a better equilibrium, with more freedom for everyone to speak or show affection without being confused for something they're not.