-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
-
-_ scan through pt. 1½ and extract highlights to include in pt. 1–6
-
-_ explain Michael's gaslighting charge, using the "bowels of Christ" language
-_ "Margaret" discussion needs to cover the part where I'd cause less disruption if I transitioned
-_ so embarrassed after the Singularity
-_ mention my "trembling hand" history with secrets, not just that I don't like it
-_ Eric Weinstein, who was not making this mistake
_ mention "special simulator attention" in cxn with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideas_of_reference_and_delusions_of_reference
_ pt. 1 end needs to mention BABSCon (back referenced)
-_ clarify that I'm not a sex work prohibitionist
_ born five years too early
_ you didn't do a good job explaining to me why someone would think that being bullied into selective silence doesn't constitute a conflict strategy
-_ mention HRT pause / stop in pt. 1 end
_ psych ward vs. psych hospital
-_ "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
_ running away to Burlingame; Hamilton tickets
_ "counterfactual boyfriend"/It's California in the year 2016??
-_ be clearer about dates in "Wilhelm" conversations??
_ "people with fragile identities" dialogue doesn't fit the flow, probably cut or move
_ get exact dates and correct Sequencing on late 2016 conversations
_ mention Michael's influence and South Park recs in late 2016?
_ re Persongen, footnote or sentences about how I knew I was wrong to use naïve-Bayes on facets, but I didn't know what was right
-_ 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
-_ elaborate on why I'm not leaking sensitive bits, by explaining what can be inferred by what was and wasn't said in public
_ footnote to explain why I always include the year with the month even though it could be inferred from context
-_ clarify why Michael thought Scott was "gaslighting" me, include "beeseech bowels of Christ"
_ address the "maybe it's good to be called names" point from "Hill" thread
-_ explain "court ruling" earlier
-_ Nov. 2018 continues thread from Oct. 2016 conversation
_ 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
-_ better summary of Littman
-_ I should respond to Ziz's charges that my criticism of concept-policing was a form of concept-policing
-
-
-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 send (Discord)—
-_ Alicorn
-
-to write—
-_ Sophia
-_ "Margaret"
-
----------------
------
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
_ better explanation of Scott's jailbreaking accusation against Vassar
_ archive.is karma history for Jessica's post
_ "tossed in a bucket" is ignoring advice from Sept. 2022 clarification to be clear about the type distinction
-_ explicitly explain "Hill of Validity" title inversion
_ figure out full timeline of which of my Less Wrong posts to mention
_ update "80,000 words" refs with the near-final wordcount
_ the "outright bad faith" clause in "Your Price for Joining"
-_ secret posse member pointing out that it worked better because it was Oli
+_ "Riley" pointing out that it worked better because it was Oli
+_ I should respond to Ziz's charges that my criticism of concept-policing was a form of concept-policing
_ update "karma at press time"
_ better explain "lie inflation" ambiguity
_ Facing Reality
> 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.
+
+https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/should-we-fear-ai-james-w-phillips-and-eliezer-yudkowsky-in-conversation/
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1680166329209466881
+> I am increasingly worried about what people start to believe in after they stop believing in Me
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff