Fit in somewhere—
- * singular they for named individuals undermined indefinite singular 'they'
- * parenthetical about where "Oliver" came from
- * some people have complained that my writing is too long, but when your interlocutors will go to the absurd length of _denying that the association of "she" with females_
- * people have an incentive to fight over pronouns insofar as it's a "wedge" for more substantive issues
- * appeal to inner privacy conversation-halter https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wqmmv6NraYv4Xoeyj/conversation-halters
- * don't use "baked in" so many times
- * Aella https://knowingless.com/2019/06/06/side-effects-of-preferred-pronouns/
- * "gamete size"—this is a tic where everyone knows what sex is, but no one is allowed to acknowledge the cluster
- * maybe worth explaining why I keep saying "sex category" instead of "gender"—and be consistent about it
+For "Challenges" proper—
+
* transition interventions are bundled: asking for pronouns could only plausibly be a good idea if coupled with further interventions—but that's not the picture we'd get if we took Yudkowsky literally
- * this post needs to exist because I can't let him have the last word
* I need to acknowledge the
> In a wide variety of cases, sure, they can clearly communicate the unambiguous sex and gender of something that has an unambiguous sex and gender, much as a different language might have pronouns that sometimes clearly communicated hair color to the extent that hair color often fell into unambiguous clusters.
-
* maybe by "much more strongly ... different firm attachments", he's pointing to different people having different intuitions about what male/female clusters map to; that's definitely a thing, but it's wrong to conflate that with "Maybe it's like not being named Oliver"; people do agree on the approximate meaning of blue and green even if there are edge cases, cite fallacy of gray
+ * singular they for named individuals undermined indefinite singular 'they'
+ * people have an incentive to fight over pronouns insofar as it's a "wedge" for more substantive issues
- * need introductory sentence before first reference to "we" or "the community"
+4 levels of intellectual conversation https://rationalconspiracy.com/2017/01/03/four-layers-of-intellectual-conversation/
+
+For postscript—
+ * some people have complained that my writing is too long, but when your interlocutors will go to the absurd length of _denying that the association of "she" with females_
+ * appeal to inner privacy conversation-halter https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wqmmv6NraYv4Xoeyj/conversation-halters
+ * "gamete size"—this is a tic where everyone knows what sex is, but no one is allowed to acknowledge the cluster
+ * this post needs to exist because I can't let him have the last word
+ * 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)
+* need to stress that EY isn't surrendering to progressives in the straightforward way of normal academics; instead, he's trying to put on a Pretending-to-Be-Wise above-it-all independent centrist act (while being careful not to say anything that would make progs _really_ mad)
+
* 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'm only doing what _he_ taught me to do
+
+
> 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
-
> Lying about atheism, in a conv about atheism, is defecting in a coop effort about atheism.
https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1226605895091507200
The ]
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/bounded-distrust
+
+If "rationalists" are both a social cluster, and seekers of systematically-correct-reasoning, then people trying to protect the power and prestige of the social cluster face an incentive to invent fake epistemology lessons when the correct answer is unpopular! That's fatal!!
+
+If someone fires back bad faith allegations at me and is prepared to defend them, that's actually more invigorating and productive than the Berkeley equilibrium
+
+I don't think I'm setting [my price for joining](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Q8evewZW5SeidLdbA/your-price-for-joining) particularly high here?
+
+[principled trans people should be offended, too!]
+
+[our beliefs about dolphins are downstream of Scott's political incentives]
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff