noncontiguous on deck—
-_ being put in a box (school)
-_ "duly appreciated"
-_ "Actually, I was just crazy the whole time"
+✓ being put in a bucket (school)
+- "Actually, I was just crazy the whole time"
+- "duly appreciated"
+_ Doublethink (Choosing to be Biased)
+_ the reason he got pushback
+
_ if he's reading this
_ tie off reply to Xu
_ let's recap
_ "fraud" as deception that moves resources
-
with internet available—
-_ woke filter bubble thinking, stopped talking to Michael when he went that way https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1435619618052214787
-_ "praise Ba'al" language from "Rationalist Blogging" (both on first ref to that post, and Feelings vs. Truth speech)
-_ disclaimer on "Categories Were Made"
-_ update "Argue Politics" link to Sarah's static site
-_ link simulacrum posts: Zvi (he has a category), Elizabeth, at least one more from Ben
_ examples of snarky comments about "the rationalists"
_ Discord logs before Austin retreat
_ screenshot Rob's Facebook comment which I link
_ 13th century word meanings
_ compile Categories references from the Dolphin War Twitter thread
_ weirdly hostile comments on "... Boundaries?"
-_ report comment count "Blegg Mode" trainwreck
far editing tier—
Really, self-respecting trans people who care about logical consistency should abhor Scott and Eliezer's opinions—you should want people to use the right pronouns _because_ of your gender soul or _because_ your transition actually worked, not because categories are flexible and pronouns shouldn't imply gender
+> Because it was you, I tried to read this when it came out. But you do not know how to come to a point, because you are too horrified by the thought that a reader might disagree with you if you don't write even more first; so then I started skimming, and then I gave up.
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1435605868758765568
+
https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1435605868758765568
> Because it was you, I tried to read this when it came out. But you do not know how to come to a point, because you are too horrified by the thought that a reader might disagree with you if you don't write even more first; so then I started skimming, and then I gave up.
> If you think you can win a battle about 2 + 3 = 5, then it can feel like victory or self-justification to write a huge long article hammering on that; but it doesn't feel as good to engage with how the Other does not think they are arguing 2 + 3 = 6, they're talking about 2 * 3.
https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1435618825198731270
+> The Other's theory of themselves usually does not make them look terrible. And you will not have much luck just yelling at them about how they must *really* be doing terrible_thing instead. That's woke filter bubble thinking. I stopped talking to Michael when he went that way.
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1435619618052214787
+
+
But I think Eliezer and I _agree_ on what he's doing; he just doesn't see it's bad
Speaking of narcissism and perspective-taking, "deception" isn't about whether you personally "lied" according to your own re-definitions; it's about whether you predictably made others update in the wrong direction
> Okay. I’ve never seen a male author write a female character with the same depth as Phedre no Delaunay, nor have I seen any male person display a feminine personality with the same sort of depth and internal integrity, nor have I seen any male person convincingly give the appearance of having thought out the nature of feminity to that depth. Likewise and in a mirror for women and men. I sometimes wish that certain women would appreciate that being a man is at least as complicated and hard to grasp and a lifetime’s work to integrate, as the corresponding fact of feminity. I am skeptical that either sex can ever really model and predict the other’s deep internal life, short of computer-assisted telepathy. These are different brain designs we’re talking about here.
https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/FBgozHEv7J72NCEPB/my-way/comment/7ZwECTPFTLBpytj7b
-> I sometimes wish that certain men would appreciate that not all men are like them—or at least, that not all men _want_ to be like them—that the fact of masculinity is not necessarily something to integrate.
+
> Duly appreciated.
If we're going to die either way, wouldn't it be _less dignified_ to die with Stalin's dick in his mouth?
[Is this the hill he wants to die on? The pronouns post mentions "while you can still get away with disclaimers", referring to sanction from the outside world, as if he won't receive any sanction from his people, because he owns us. That's wrong. Yudkowsky as a person doesn't own me; the Sequences-algorithm does]
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1568338672499687425
+> I'm not interested in lying to the man in the street. It won't actually save the world, and is not part of a reasonable and probable plan for saving the world; so I'm not willing to cast aside my deontology for it; nor would the elites be immune from the epistemic ruin.
+
+The problem with uncritically validating an autodidactic's ego, is that a _successful_ autodidact needs to have an accurate model of how their studying process is working, and that's a lot harder when people are "benevolently" trying to _wirehead_ you.
\ No newline at end of file
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff