(I'm avoiding naming anyone in this post even when linking to their public writings, in order to try to keep the _rhetorical emphasis_ on "true tale of personal heartbreak, coupled with sober analysis of the sociopolitical factors leading thereto" even while I'm expressing disappointment with people's performance. This isn't supposed to be character/reputation attack on my friends and intellectual heroes—I just _need to tell the story_ about why I've been crazy all year so that I can stop grieving and _move on_.)
+
"Don't Revere the Bearer of Good Info" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tSgcorrgBnrCH8nL3/don-t-revere-the-bearer-of-good-info
casuistry
People who spend their entire lives on the receiving end of the calm voice of [authority-backed-by-implied-violence](http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/29/reflections-from-the-halfway-point/) might be justified in thinking that Slate Star mistake-theoretic ideals like "reason" and "debate" are for suckers: that's what their distribution of training data actually looks like!
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/dy7gkv/what_happened_to_me_and_why_i_think_women_need/
+
+Archive links—
+Extropians "changing sex is difficult" https://archive.is/En6qW
+
+The _original_ meaning of the word "woman" points to a cluster in
+
+No one is actually surprised in System 1; it's just that the parts of us that talk aren't supposed to believe in psychological sex differences (since before my time—and I still prefer not to believe) or physical sex (since 2015).
+
+Slate Star-power: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/28/ssc-meetups-everywhere-retrospective/ 1,476 people attended SSC meetups,
+
+not-lying is most usefully constraining when a situation is suspected to be adversarial (if you're trying to hurt someone with your speech, not being allowed to outright make shit up constrains you quite a lot)
+
+to which my attitude is: if your behavior is optimized to respond to political threats, but _not_ optimized to respond to carefully reasoned arguments from your friends, at some point your friends have to stop being your friends and start threatening you politically because you've made it clear from your behavior that _that's all you'll respond to_
+
+I think if the so-called "rationality" community is going to not be FRAUDULENT, we should at LEAST be able to publicly clear up the philosophy-of-language mistake (I DON'T expect a community consensus on gender politics; that would be crazy! I JUST expect public consensus on "You can't define a word any way you want", which was not controversial when Eliezer taught us in 2008)
+
+I'm grateful to [...] for actually helping me, but I feel incredibly betrayed that Scott is playing dumb about philosophy (and doesn't want to talk to our coalition anymore), Eliezer will PRIVATELY admit that he has no objections to my philosophy arguments but is playing dumb about how the things he said in public were incredibly misleading (and doesn't want to talk to our coalition anymore). I have more conversation-bandwidth with Anna because I've been friends with her for 10 years, but Anna doesn't believe in free speech; she'll privately sympathize that it's bad that we're in a situation where political factors are interfering with being able to have an honest public conversation about philosophy, but
+
+
+
+This whole multi-year drama _should_ have been a three-comment conversation. If we were _actually trying_ to do the systematically-correct-reasoning thing
+
+Random Commenter: Hey, that can't be right—we had a whole Sequence about
+
+Robot cult leaders:
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff