+Sections I should be able to easily make progress-per-minute on—
+* Dr. Will Powers
+* I Don't Do Policy
+* Cara's Egregore
+* Scott Alexander Understands Language
+* Moral Error and Moral Disagreement
+
+
Points to work in—
* wipe culturally defined values: https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/BkkwXtaTf5LvbA6HB/moral-error-and-moral-disagreement (this might have to go after Failed-Utopia #4-2)
* the moment in October 2016 when I switched sides http://zackmdavis.net/blog/2016/10/late-onset/ http://zackmdavis.net/blog/2017/03/brand-rust/
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jNAAZ9XNyt82CXosr/mirrors-and-paintings
-* explain the Singularity/paperclip terminology before use
-
-* the literature talks about crossdressing a lot, but I mostly just fantasize; dress-up isn't really convincing
+Terminology to explain before use—
+* Singularity/paperclip/Methods
+* "non-exclusively androphilic" / nonhomosexual
+
+* everyone who wants to talk about AGP to call us predators
+
+* too big to fail
+
+* claims to victimhood are leveraged into claims to power
+
+* I need to put this behind me
* not a theory of trans men
Anne Lawrence described autogynephiles as ["men who love women and want to become what they love."](/papers/lawrence-becoming_what_we_love.pdf) But it's worse than that. We're men who love what we _wish_ women were, and want to become _that_.
-
-* "The Opposite Sex"
-
* EY was right about "men need to think about themselves _as men_" (find cite)
* Superhappies empathic inference for not wanting to believe girls were different
[TODO: my pseudobisexual moments (it's California in the year 2015)
our analogues would make a good couple in a nearby alternate universe where at least one of us is female. "Exactly one," he said. "It's California in the year 2015," I said.]
-
https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/
"people who have sexual fetishes that can't possibly be realized using existing technology [...] like the guy who gets on by entropy decreasing in a closed system"
Normal straight men also have positive-valence thoughts about women when they're not immediately horny.
-NYT hit piece https://archive.is/0Ghdl
+-----
+it's that I want culture to innovate in the direction of "achieving godlike understanding of objective reality and optimizing the hell out of it" rather than "playing mind games on each other to make it artificially harder to notice that we don't actually live in a Total Morphological Freedom tech regime."
-https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sXHQ9R5tahiaXEZhR/algorithmic-intent-a-hansonian-generalized-anti-zombie
+(write script to extract links, with useful argparse, incl. dropping into a Python shell)
------
**To be fair, it's not obvious that I _shouldn't_ cut my dick off!**
-I don't think I'm setting [my price for joining](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Q8evewZW5SeidLdbA/your-price-for-joining) particularly high here?
+
[cruelty to ordinary people, optimized to confuse and intimidate people trying to use language to reason about the concept of biological sex]
All I've been trying to say is that, _in particular_, the word "woman" is such a noun.
It _follows logically_ that, in particular, if _N_ := "woman", you can't define the word _woman_ any way you want. Maybe trans women _are_ women! But if you want people to agree to that word usage, you need to be able to _argue_ for why it makes sense; you can't just _define_ it to be true, and this is a _general_ principle of how language works, not something I made up on the spot in order to stigmatize trans people.
+
+> Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:04 PM
+> So Katie and Seanan did end up coming over last night, but I wasn't very fun to be around because I was emotionally floored because Michael Vassar (!) said that something I said in an _Overcoming Bias_ comment thread was really creepy and that his first reaction was that I should be banned. And I remember lying in bed last night or this morning feeling sick about it, and trying to think about something not thematic, so that I could relax--and I couldn't think of anything.
+
+> But Vassar had a point, and I apologized, and I feel better now.
+
+> So I am broken and I have made terrible mistakes, but in my rationalist's splendor, all I can do is try to understand the facts of the matter and do better tomorrow. This, even as in my rationalist's splendor, I must predict that this is unlikely to actually work.
+
+> Michael fucking Vassar. Shit!
+
+I'm worried about the failure mode where bright young minds [lured in](http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/construction-beacons/) by the beautiful propaganda about _systematically correct reasoning_, are instead recruited into what is, effectively, the Eliezer-Yudkowsky-and-Scott-Alexander fan club.
+
+> I'm not trying to get Eliezer or "the community" to take a public stance on gender politics; I'm trying to get us to take a stance in favor of the kind of epistemology that we were doing in 2008. It turns out that epistemology has implications for gender politics which are unsafe, but that's more inferential steps, and ... I guess I just don't expect the sort of people who would punish good epistemology to follow the inferential steps? Maybe I'm living in the should-universe a bit here, but I don't think it "should" be hard for Eliezer to publicly say, "Yep, categories aren't arbitrary because you need them to carve reality at the joints in order to make probabilistic inferences, just like I said in 2008; this is obvious."
+
+https://twitter.com/caraesten/status/1092472430465929216
+> damn one extremely bad way to start my day is having the receptionist at slack say I look like a male celebrity
+> I'm so mad. wow. like. I look like this right now, how could anyone ever think that was an okay thing to say???
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff