_ finish and ship "Reply to Scott on Autogenderphilia"
_ finish and ship "Hrunkner Unnerby"
_ clear with Michael/Ben/Jessica
+_ consult Said?
_ clear with Alicorn
_ clear with Kelsey
_ clear with Ray
_ clear with Ruby
_ SHIP PT. 3!!
------------
-_ address auto edit tier to pt. 4–5
-_ red team pt. 4–5
-_ pro edit pt. 4–5
+- address auto edit tier to pt. 4
+_ solicit red team pt. 4
+_ solicit pro edit pt. 4
+_ apply red team pt. 4
+_ apply pro edit pt. 4
+
+_ address auto edit tier to pt. 5
+_ solicit red team pt. 5
+_ solicit pro edit pt. 5
+_ apply red team pt. 5
+_ apply pro edit pt. 5
+
_ consult lc
_ psychiatric disaster private doc
✓ do I have a better identifier than "Vassarite"
✓ log2 with an 'o'
✓ yank note about LW comment policy to top-level
+✓ "Common Interest of Many Causes" and "Kolmogorov Complicity" offer directly contradictory strategies
+_ re-check wording of trans-kids-on-the-margin section
_ briefly speculate on causes of brain damage in footnote?
----
_ Ruby fight included ban threat, "forces of blandness want me gone ... stand my ground" remark
✓ "Ideology Is Not the Movement" mentions not misgendering
✓ mention Nick Bostrom email scandal (and his not appearing on the one-sentence CAIS statement)
✓ explain why he could think of some relevant differences
-_ body odors comment
-_ emphasize that 2018 thread was policing TERF-like pronoun usage, not just disapproving of gender-based pronouns
+✓ rephrase "gamete size" discussion to make it clearer that Yudkowsky's proposal also implicitly requires people to be agree about the clustering thing
+✓ honesty and humility, HEXACO
+✓ GreaterWrong over Less Wrong for comment links
+
+- ending qualifications on "fraud" and whether it might be a good idea
+
_ if you only say good things about Republican candidates
-_ to-be-continued ending about how being a fraud might be a good idea
-_ selective argumentation that's clearly labeled as such would be fine
-_ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible
+
_ Litany Against Gurus, not sure humans can think and trust at the same time; High Status and Stupidity
+_ body odors comment
_ when EY put a checkmark on my Discord message characterizing his strategy as giving up on intellectual honesty
-_ honesty and humility, HEXACO
-_ rephrase "gamete size" discussion to make it clearer that Yudkowsky's proposal also implicitly requires people to be agree about the clustering thing
-_ "Common Interest of Many Causes" and "Kolmogorov Complicity" offer directly contradictory strategies
+
+_ selective argumentation that's clearly labeled as such would be fine
+---
+_ emphasize that 2018 thread was policing TERF-like pronoun usage, not just disapproving of gender-based pronouns
_ https://cognition.cafe/p/on-lies-and-liars
-_ GreaterWrong over Less Wrong for comment links
+_ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible
+
+
+
pt. 5 edit tier—
_ sucking Scott's dick is helpful because he's now the main gateway instead of HPMOR
_ mention Michael's influence and South Park recs in late 2016?
_ GreaterWrong over Less Wrong for comment links
-
things to discuss with Michael/Ben/Jessica—
_ Anna on Paul Graham
_ Yudkowsky thinking reasoning wasn't useful
_ Michael on creepy and crazy men (new)
_ elided Sasha disaster (new)
_ what should I say to Iceman?
-_ "yelling"
+
pt. 3–5 prereaders—
Men aren't women! Men aren't women tho!
-It's only _after_ people pretended to disagree with _that_, that I started recusively digging into the details—why adult human males on hormone replacement therapy still aren't adult human females, why 'adult human male' and 'adult human female' are natural categories that it makes sense for Meghan McCarthy to want short codewords to point to, how words can be used in different ways depending on context (such that we can understand Meghan McCarthy's claim as it was meant, even if the words _woman_ and _man_ can also be used in other senses), what it means for something to be a natural cateogry, what it means to say that _X_'s aren't _Y_'s ...
+It's only _after_ people pretended to disagree with _that_, that I started recusively digging into the details—why adult human males on hormone replacement therapy still aren't adult human females, why 'adult human male' and 'adult human female' are natural categories that it makes sense for Meghan Murphy to want short codewords to point to, how words can be used in different ways depending on context (such that we can understand Meghan Murphy's claim as it was meant, even if the words _woman_ and _man_ can also be used in other senses), what it means for something to be a natural cateogry, what it means to say that _X_'s aren't _Y_'s ...
It is more than a little insulting to be told, after all this, that the problem is that _I_ don't know how to come to a point, rather than everyone in Berkeley not knowing how to accept a point that contradicts their religion. It's such a stupidly simple stonewalling strategy: when the critic makes their point simply (men aren't women! men aren't women tho!), sneer at them for being ontologically confused, and then when they spend years of their life writing up the exhaustively detailed rigorous version, sneer at them for not being able to come to a point.
https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1404697716689489921
> I have never in my own life tried to persuade anyone to go trans (or not go trans)—I don't imagine myself to understand others that much.
-If you think it "sometimes personally prudent and not community-harmful" to go out of your way to say positive things about Republican candidates and never, ever say positive things about Democratic candidates (because you "don't see what the alternative is besides getting shot"), you can see why people might regard you as a _Republican shill_—even if all the things you said were true, and even if you never told any specific individual, "You should vote Republican."
+If you think it "sometimes personally prudent and not community-harmful" to go out of your way to say positive things about Republican candidates and never, ever say positive things about Democratic candidates (because you "don't see what the alternative is besides getting shot"), you can see why people might regard you as a Republican shill—even if all the things you said were true, and even if you never told any specific individual, "You should vote Republican."
https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154110278349228
> Just checked my filtered messages on Facebook and saw, "Your post last night was kind of the final thing I needed to realize that I'm a girl."
But if he's _then_ going to take a shit on c3 of my chessboard (["important things [...] would be all the things I've read [...] from human beings who are people—describing reasons someone does not like to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket, as it would be assigned by their birth certificate", "the simplest and best protocol is, '"He" refers to the set of people who have asked us to use "he"'"](https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10159421750419228)), the "playing on a different chessboard, no harm intended" excuse loses its credibility. The turd on c3 is a pretty big likelihood ratio! (That is, I'm more likely to observe a turd on c3 in worlds where Yudkowsky _is_ playing my chessboard and wants me to lose, than in world where he's playing on a different chessboard and just _happened_ to take a shit there, by coincidence.)
-(The authors of the [HEXACO personality model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEXACO_model_of_personality_structure) may have gotten something importantly right in [grouping "honesty" and "humility" as a single factor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honesty-humility_factor_of_the_HEXACO_model_of_personality).)
+
------
I don't, actually, expect people to spontaneously blurt out everything they believe to be true, that Stalin would find offensive. "No comment" would be fine. Even selective argumentation that's clearly labeled as such would be fine. (There's no shame in being an honest specialist who says, "I've mostly thought about these issues though the lens of ideology _X_, and therefore can't claim to be comprehensive; if you want other perspectives, you'll have to read other authors and think it through for yourself.")
+The problem is with selective argumentation that falsely claims to be complete.
+
-----
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff