check in

[Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git] / notes / notes.txt

diff --git a/notes/notes.txt b/notes/notes.txt
index c94c3d5..9c881cf 100644 (file)
--- a/notes/notes.txt
+++ b/notes/notes.txt
@@ -1418,5 +1418,24 @@ support group can't mention anatomy: https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/com
 
 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.
+
+-----