+(No private reply expected.)
+
+> If it is as you describe
+
+Done (1 2 3), although I think the final product turned out more aggressive than my earlier messages in this thread made it sound ([TODO quotes]), thus justifying this additional notification email (because "a true friend stabs you in the front").
+
+If you care about defending yourself, the comments for the _Less Wrong_ linkpost on the last part is probably the best place to do so.
+
+------
+
+But you probably don't care. (If you already thought sucking up to Stalin was more important than living up to my standards, it's hard to see why me explaining the standards-violation to everyone else would change anything.)
+
+--------
+
+Or maybe the summary comment would actually make things worse? It would turn the memoir into an instrument of war. But maybe the Whole Dumb Story speaks for itself. (In the process of writing, I realize that Yudkowsky _did_ give me a _lot_ of concessions—so many, that I shouldn't want to make war against him, because war is the wrong framing: I want to explain, to anyone who can still listen, about how it's terrible that our incentives make people take for granted that speech doesn't work.)
+
+------
+
I could use some politics/ettiquiete advice
I want to publish (as a comment on the _Less Wrong_ linkpost for my forthcoming memoir) a summary of Why I Don't Trust Eliezer Yudkowsky's Intellectual Honesty, and promote the comment on social media
(Really, that's _also_ why I'm publishing the comment. I tried talking to the guy _first_, a lot, before eventually concluding (after using up what I assume is my lifetime supply of Eliezer-bandwidth) that it's a waste of time. My final email to him said, "I think the efficient outcome here is that I tell the Whole Dumb Story on my blog and never bother you again", and even if that wasn't a _promise_, it seems healthier to basically stick to that—I mean, like, I said a few words to him about _Planecrash_ at the anti-smallpox party, but my position is that that doesn't count as "bothering him" in the relevant sense.)
-If he _wants_ to engage to defend his reputation, that's _great_—I would actually prefer that—but I don't want it to look like I'm trying to demand that, or threaten him into more engagement: rather, the function of the comment is to explain to _everyone else_ why I, in fact, don't trust him anymore, which is something I seflishly want them to know.
+If he _wants_ to engage to defend his reputation, that's _great_—I would actually prefer that—but I don't want it to look like I'm trying to demand that, or threaten him into more engagement: rather, the function of the comment is to explain to _everyone else_ why I, in fact, don't trust him anymore, which is something I seflishly want them to know before the world ends
probably the right move is to unblock and tag, but then explain the "stabs you in the front" rationale in a followup Tweet?
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff