long confrontation 14: not ontologically confused

[Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git] / notes / a-hill-marketing.txt

diff --git a/notes/a-hill-marketing.txt b/notes/a-hill-marketing.txt
index b080f85..aae7476 100644 (file)
--- a/notes/a-hill-marketing.txt
+++ b/notes/a-hill-marketing.txt
@@ -1,3 +1,22 @@
+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
+
+and I'm kind of facing conflicting deciderata
+
+Right now, I have Yudkowsky blocked on Twitter. It seems wrong to leave him blocked while Tweet-promoting my comment, because that's attacking his reputation _behind his back_, which is dishonorable. ("A true friend stabs you in the front.")
+
+But if I unblock and tag him, then I'm effectively bidding for his attention, which I had said that I wasn't going to do anymore, which is the reason I have him blocked.
+
+(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 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?
+
+-----
+
+
 I'm attacking his reputation seflishly; he's _welcome_ to defend himself, if he wants, but I'm trying to do this in a way where I'm not _asking_ for that; I'm addressing the audience rather than him (because I said the efficient outcome is that i never bother him again)
  
 Definitely in-bounds—