check in

[Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git] / notes / notes.txt

diff --git a/notes/notes.txt b/notes/notes.txt
index 2f75c0a..9c881cf 100644 (file)
--- a/notes/notes.txt
+++ b/notes/notes.txt
@@ -1406,8 +1406,6 @@ https://humanvarieties.org/2017/07/01/measurement-error-regression-to-the-mean-a
 
 I'm imagining that there's some margin at which the shame and intimidation is counterbalanced by E pur si muove concerns. (Conditional on the hypothesis that, in fact, e pur si muove.)
 
-Scott being more sensible in a less-visible place: https://archive.is/In89y
-
 http://www.trans.cafe/posts/2016/6/27/17-signs-i-was-transgender-but-didnt-know-it
 
 https://medium.com/@transstyleguide/alternatives-to-afab-and-amab-d7cf8fe20a72
@@ -1419,3 +1417,25 @@ There are Facts About Males that neurotypicals probably don't explain in words?
 support group can't mention anatomy: https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/bripts/peak_trans_ix_tell_your_story_here/f6wjry3/
 
 https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/transwomen-in-my-ptsd-group-and-performing-femininity.1004483/
+
+Damore new job: https://twitter.com/JamesADamore/status/1034623633174478849
+
+https://www.reddit.com/r/itsafetish/comments/d54b7x/thank_you_and_goodbye/
+
+"Genuine question: Are there any straight transitioned women out there? Who weren’t previously gay?" https://twitter.com/IndiaWilloughby/status/1204773053986725889
+
+https://twitter.com/LaraAdamsMille1/status/1199132705478381568
+
+-----
+
+If someone wants to rewrite this post because they can do a better job of it (perhaps, as Jim suggests, because the post has objective flaws that are causually related to the author's crimes), that's great.
+
+If someone wants to re-write the post because we want to use the idea but it would be embarrassing to give the author credit for it, that's just PR-driven plagiarism. And I don't think it would even work.
+
+Suppose we include "Affordance Widths" in the Best-of-2018 collection as-is. If /r/SneerClub gets word of it, they'll point and sneer and say, "Look, the robot cult blog just canonized a post by a rapist! What terrible people they are!"
+
+Suppose we get someone to re-write the post because of the reputational risk. If /r/SneerClub gets word of it, they'll point to this discussion and sneer and say, "The robot cult blog rewrote a post because they're worried about reputational risks. But the fact that their rationale was 'reputational risks' suggests that they don't know that rape is wrong. What terrible people they are!"
+
+And they would kind of have a point? The function of "bad reputation" is to correspond to things that are actually bad.
+
+-----