Friday morning drafting "Challenges": bad faith

[Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git] / notes / challenges-notes.md

diff --git a/notes/challenges-notes.md b/notes/challenges-notes.md
index 8907576..66df659 100644 (file)
--- a/notes/challenges-notes.md
+++ b/notes/challenges-notes.md
@@ -18,8 +18,15 @@ Fit in somewhere—
 
  * need introductory sentence before first reference to "we" or "the community"
 
+ * it is merited to touch on the nearest-unblocked strategy history somewhere in this piece, even if I may also need to write a longer "A Hill of Validity"
+ * also need a short statement of what I'm fighting for (AGPs are factually not women, and a culture that insists that everyone needs to lie to protect our feelings is bad for our own intellectual development; I want the things I said in "Sexual Dimorphism" to be the standard story, rather than my weird heresy)
+
+ * my "self-ID is a Schelling Point" and "On the Argumentative Form" show that I'm not a partisan hack (maybe also publish a brief version of )
+
 4 levels of intellectual conversation https://rationalconspiracy.com/2017/01/03/four-layers-of-intellectual-conversation/
 
+> I find the "(chromosomes?)" here very amusing. I am also a Yudkowskian, Eliezer; "female human" is a cluster in thingspace :)
+https://twitter.com/EnyeWord/status/1068983389716385792
 
 > 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.
 https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067302082481274880