with internet available—
-_ Quillette link placement in proton concession
-_ did that Reddit comment cite "Kelsey" or "TUOC"?
-_ quote from "Kolmogorov complicity" about everything being connected
-_ citation/explanation for saying "Peace be unto him"
_ address the "maybe it's good to be called names" point from "Hill" thread
-_ quote part of the "Hill" thread emphasizing "it's a policy decision", not just "it's not lying", if there is one besides the "Aristotelian binary" Tweet
-_ quote "maybe as a matter of policy" secondary Tweet earlier before quote
_ 2019 Discord discourse with Alicorner
_ screenshot Rob's Facebook comment which I link
_ compile Categories references from the Dolphin War
-
far editing tier—
_ edit discussion of "anti-trans" side given that I later emphasize that "sides" shouldn't be a thing
_ clarify why Michael thought Scott was "gaslighting" me, include "beeseech bowels of Christ"
_ explain first use of "rationalist"
_ explain first use of Center for Applied Rationality
_ erasing agency of Michael's friends, construed as a pawn
-_ chat with "Wilhelm" during March 2019 minor psych episode
_ mention the fact that Anna had always taken a "What You Can't Say" strategy
_ when to use first _vs. last names
_ explain why I'm not being charitable in 2018 thread analysis, that at the time, I thought it had to be a mistake
https://somenuanceplease.substack.com/p/actually-i-was-just-crazy-the-whole
sorrow at putting on a bad performance with respect to the discourse norms of the people I'm trying to rescue/convert; I think my hostile shorthand (saying that censorship costs nothing implies some combination "speech isn't useful" and "other people aren't real" is pointing at real patterns, but people who aren't already on my side are not going to be sympathetic)
+
+
+
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067300728572600320
+> You could argue that a wise policy is that we should all be called by terms and pronouns we don't like, now and then, and that to do otherwise is coddling. You could argue that Twitter shouldn't try to enforce courtesy. You could accuse, that's not what Twitter is really doing.
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067302082481274880
+> But Twitter is at least not *ontologically confused* if they say that using preferred pronouns is courtesy, and claim that they're enforcing a courtesy standard. Replying "That's a lie! I will never lie!" is confused. It'd be sad if the #IDW died on that hill of all hills.
+
+> Acts aren't sentences, pronouns aren't lies, bathrooms aren't fundamental physical constants, and if you know what a motte-and-bailey is you're supposed to know that.
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067287459589906432
+
+> I don't care whose point it is on this planet, the point I'm making would stand in any galaxy: You are not standing in noble defense of Truth when you ask who gets to use which bathroom. This is true across all possible worlds, including those with no sociologists in them.
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067187363544059905
+
+------
+
+https://twitter.com/davidxu90/status/1436007025545125896
+
+I'm curious what might count for you as a crux about this; candidate cruxes I could imagine include: whether some categories facilitate inferences that *do*, on the whole, cause more harm than benefit, and if so, whether it is "rational" to rule that such inferences...
+
+...should be avoided when possible, and if so, whether the best way to disallow a large set of potential inferences is the proscribe the use of the categories that facilitate them--and if *not*, whether proscribing the use of a category in *public communication* constitutes...
+
+..."proscribing" it more generally, in a way that interferes with one's ability to perform "rational" thinking in the privacy of one's own mind.
+
+That's four possible (serial) cruxes I listed, one corresponding to each "whether". I could have included a fifth and final crux about whether, even *if* The Thing In Question interfered with rational thinking, that might be worth it; but this I suspect you would...
+
+...not concede, and (being a rationalist) it's not something I'm willing to concede myself, so it's not a crux in a meaningful sense between us (or any two self-proclaimed "rationalists").
+
+My sense is that you have (thus far, in the parts of the public discussion I've had the opportunity to witness) been behaving as though the *one and only crux in play*--that is, the True Source of Disagreement--has been the fifth crux, the thing I refused to include with the...
+
+...others of its kind. Your accusations against the caliphate *only make sense* if you believe the dividing line between your behavior and theirs is caused by a disagreement as to whether "rational" thinking is "worth it"; as opposed to, say, what kind of prescriptions...
+
+..."rational" thinking entails, and which (if any) of those prescriptions are violated by using a notion of gender (in public, where you do not know in advance who will receive your communications) that does not cause massive psychological damage to some subset of people.
+
+Perhaps it is your argument that all four of the initial cruxes I listed are false; but even if you believe that, it should be within your set of ponderable hypotheses that people might disagree with you about that, and that they might perceive the disagreement to be...
+
+...*about* that, rather than (say) about whether subscribing to the Blue Tribe view of gender makes them a Bad Rationalist, but That's Okay because it's Politically Convenient.
+
+This is the sense in which I suspect you are coming across as failing to properly Other-model.
+
+·
+Sep 9, 2021
+Crux: "If you say that Stalin is a dictator, you'll be shot, therefore Stalin is not a dictator" has the same structure as "If you say that trans women are male, they'll take massive psych damage, therefore trans women are not male"; both arguments should get the same response.
+Zack M. Davis
+@zackmdavis
+·
+Sep 9, 2021
+Thoughts on your proposed cruxes: 1 (harmful inferences) is an unworkable AI design: you need correct beliefs first, in order to correctly tell which beliefs are harmful. 4 (non-public concepts) is unworkable for humans: how do you think about things you're not allowed words for?
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1436025983522381827
+> Well, Zack hopefully shouldn't see this, but I do happen to endorse everything you just said, for your own personal information.
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff