-near editing tier—
-✓ scan through "far editing tier" list and scoot anything applicable to the near editing tier
-✓ explain that "A Human's Guide to Words" / 37 Ways are the same text
-✓ explain the title
-✓ happy price subject line in pt. 1
-✓ incentives of gatekeeping and system-mandated lies
-✓ explain back in the _Overcoming Bias_ era
-✓ smooth out "still had his email" callback
-✓ better summary of Littman
-✓ clarify that I'm not a sex work prohibitionist
-✓ Autoheterosexual as secondary literature
-
_ scan through pt. 1½ and extract highlights to include
-pt. 1—
-_ say more about why omit pt. 1½
-_ "Margaret" discussion needs to cover the part where I'd cause less disruption if I transitioned
-_ so embarrassed after the Singularity
-_ mention HRT pause / stop in pt. 1 end
-
-pt. 2—
+pt. 2 near editing tier—
_ explain Michael's gaslighting charge, using the "bowels of Christ" language
_ the function of privacy norms is to protect you from people who want to selectively reveal information to hurt you, so it makes sense that I'm particularly careful about Yudkowsky's privacy and not Scott's, because I totally am trying to hurt Yudkowsky (this also protects me from the charge that by granting more privacy to Yudkowsky than Scott, I'm implying that Yudkowsky said something more incriminating; the difference in treatment is about _me_ and my expectations, rather than what they may or may not have said when I tried emailing them); I want it to be clear that I'm attacking him but not betraying him
_ mention my "trembling hand" history with secrets, not just that I don't like it
_ Eric Weinstein, who was not making this mistake
_ "A Hill": I claim that I'm not doing much psychologizing because implausible to be simultaenously savvy enough to say this, and naive enough to not be doing so knowingly
+to send (Discord) only needed for pt. 2—
+_ Alicorn
+
------
_ mention "special simulator attention" in cxn with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideas_of_reference_and_delusions_of_reference
_ better explanation of posse formation
_ explain why I'm not being charitable in 2018 thread analysis, that at the time, I thought it had to be a mistake
-
-
-people to consult specifically before pt. 1–3:
-sent, need approval for pt. 1-2—
-✓ Tail (AGP discussion)
-✓ Anna
-✓ Ben/Jessica (Michael)
-✓ "Riley"
-✓ Scott
-- professional editor
-- "Thomas"
-- "Rebecca"
-- Sarah
-
-to write—
-_ Sophia
-_ "Margaret"
-
-
-to send (Discord) only needed for pt. 2—
-_ Alicorn
-
-
----------------
_ "Lenore" psychiatric disaster
------
With internet available—
-_ define ersatz
-_ link to my Facebook post for Coming Out Day
_ "All You Zombies"
_ links to PA hospitals
_ link to my Facebook posts on Azkaban, prematuring conceding the bet, and correcting the bet record
> No I think there's a case for this approach. Like you see the argument for why you might want to be laboriously fair to Yud because it's important that no one dismiss your complaints on the grounds of "I dunno, doesn't seem fair enough for me".
> Whereas doing that for every random person you mention would be a lot of work.
-
I never got an answer to why it was wrong for me to talk to Scott!! And the contradiction between that, and Ben's emphasis on privacy being unjust!
It would have been a lot simpler if you could _just_ make object-level criticisms: "'yelling' is a tendentious description, from our perspective we were arguing passionately"—rather than first
If someone ran over a pedestrian in their car, at the trial you would actually argue about how culpable they are (if they were drunk, it would be worse than if it could be proven to be a freak accident), and "The victim is so much worse off than you!!" isn't actually an argument relevant to determination of culpability
+
+
+When I mentioned re-reading Moldbug on "ignoble privilege", "Thomas" said that it was a reason not to feel the need to seek the approval of women, who had not been ennobled by living in an astroturfed world where the traditional (_i.e._, evolutionarily stable) strategies of relating had been relabeled as oppression. The chip-on-her-shoulder effect was amplified in androgynous women. (Unfortunately, the sort of women I particularly liked.)
+
+He advised me that if I did find an androgynous woman I was into, I shouldn't treat her as a moral authority. Doing what most sensitive men thought of as equality degenerated into female moral superiority, which wrecks the relationship in a feedback loop of testing and resentment. (Women want to win arguments in the moment, but don't actually want to lead the relationship.) Thus, a strange conclusion: to have an egalitarian heterosexual relationship, the man needs to lead the relationship _into_ equality; a dab of patriarchy works better than none.
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff