+I've now told enough of my Whole Dumb Story that it's time for the part where I explain how @ESYudkowsky has not been consistently candid in his communications with his followers, hindering their ability to exercise their responsibilities: 1/
+
+
+If the world is ending either way, I prefer to die with my committment to public reason intact. It's been heartbreaking coming to terms with the apparent reality that the person who long ago once wrote the Sequences doesn't feel the same way. I thought you deserved to know.
+
+--------
+
+
+----------
+
+So, I'm almost ready to publish pt. 4 of my memoir sequence, which features a loud public denunciation of Yudkowsky for intellectual dishonesty. Is anyone interested in offering advice or "hostile advice" (trying to talk me out of something you see as destructive, _e.g._ kicking up intra-cult infighting while the world is about to end)?
+
+My ideal outcome is for Eliezer to actually learn something, but since that's probably not going to happen (by the Law of Continued Failure), I'll settle for dealing reputational damage.
+
+I thought about taking out a Manifold market for "Will Yudkowsky reply to [post tile] in a way that an _Overcoming Bias_ reader in 2008 would consider non-evasive, as assessed by [third party judge]?" and buying some NO. (I think Ben Pace is credibly neutral and would agree to judge.) The idea being that the existence of the market incentivizes honesty in a potential reply, because it would look very bad for him if he tries the kind of high-verbal-IQ ass-covering I've seen from him in the past and the judge rules that a 2008 _Overcoming Bias_ reader wouldn't buy it.
+
+But I'm leaning against the Manifold gambit because I don't want it look like I'm expecting or demanding a reply. I've more than used up my lifetime supply of Eliezer-bandwidth. The point is for me to explain to _everyone else_ why I think he's a phony and I don't respect him anymore. If he actively _wants_ to contest my claim that he's a phony—or try to win back my respect—he's welcome to do so. But given that he doesn't give a shit what people like me think of his intellectual integrity, I'm just as happy to prosecute him _in absentia_.
+
+
+[TODO: reply to message in question]
+I do quote this November 2022 message in the post, which I argue doesn't violate consensus privacy norms, due to the conjunction of (a) it not being particularly different-in-character from things he's said in more public venues, and (b) there bring _more than 100 people in this server_; I argue that he can't have had a reasonable expectation of privacy (of the kind that would prohibit sharing a personal email, even if the email didn't say anything particularly different-in-character from things the author said in a more public venue). But I'm listening if someone wants to argue that I'm misjudging the consensus privacy norms.
+
+------
+
+My guess is that that's what the mutual best response looks like: I deal reputational damage to him in the minds of people who care about the intellectual standards I'm appealing to, and he ignores it, because the people who care about the standards I'm appealing to aren't a sufficiently valuable political resource to him. If there's a Pareto improvement over that, I'm not seeing it?
+
+[TODO: at this point, the entire debate tree has been covered so thoroughly that Caliphate loyalists don't have anything left other than, "accusing people of bad faith is mean". E.g., Xu and Kelsey. Did I stutter?]
+
+[TODO: maybe he'll try to spin complaints about the personality cult into more evidence for the personality cult]
+
+----------------
+
+Post later (can't afford to spend more Twitter time now)—
+
+https://twitter.com/zackmdavis/status/1436039564032823313
+
+@davidxu90, you said the other month you were curious about what would count as a crux for me, and I supplied one (↑). Any thoughts?
+
+(I generated the dictator analogy while consciously trying to play the double-crux game, but I confess my actual reaction is "Harmful inferences?! What the fuck is wrong with you?!" [link "Choosing to Be Biased"])
+
+-----
+
+the Blue Tribe/Gray Tribe color schema is really unfortunate given how enthusiastic the Blues are about Civil War analogies
+
+Funny coincidence to come across @SeriesTangled lyrics extensively referenced in a cognitive-science-of-gender blog post (looks like a really cool paper about language and color perception from [...], too)
+
+Free-speech conditions in the country as a whole have gotten worse, but conditions in my immediate social graph have gotten better, as people who previously wanted to stay on the good side of Blue Egregore hit the "I can't live like this" breaking point that I hit in October 2016
+
+Do we even know what a fair election looks like? "Trump legitimately loses but falsely alleges vote fraud tipped it to Biden" and "Trump appears to lose, alleges election fraud tipped it to Biden, and this allegation happens to be true" have very similar consequences! 1/2
+
+Like, I'm assuming on priors there are nonzero partisans on both sides willing to resort to vote fraud? The question is, how many each, how organized, with how much collusion from the top, does it affect the result, &c.? 2/2
+
+Another interesting thing about #Next is that the Right Wing Bad Guy-coded character (hacker with "white nationalist" (!) contacts in a previous life) is on our side (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NominalHero), which is not something I expect to see network television lately ... I guess it is Fox?
+
+Okay, THIS TIME if I've learned the math DEEPLY enough & explain the math CLEARLY enough, then maybe @ESYudkowsky's robot cult will stop trying to trick me into cutting my dick off! The previous attempt can only have failed due to insufficient math, and not for any other reason!
+
+Who would have thought getting @ESYudkowsky's robot cult to stop trying to trick me into cutting my dick off (independently of the empirical facts determining whether or not I should cut my dick off) would involve so much math?? OK, I guess the math part isn't surprising, but—
+
+KQED was asked: "When will life be better in California?"
+KQED answered: "In California, life already has been better."
+
+KQED was asked: "Why does Walnut Creek have a yacht club (http://wcyc.net/)?—they're not on the Bay."
+KQED answered: "To spite Berkeley: they have a Free Speech Café."
+
+✓ In the NRx production of Hairspray, "You Can't Stop the Beat" is re-keyed to a chilling C minor
+
+On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
+A man and woman liked to shake it on a Saturday night
+
+✓ No justice, no peace (where "justice" means "maximizing the probability assigned by the shared map to the observed outcome")
+
+Hey. What if we arrested the cops who killed Breonna Taylor, AND had genuine freedom of inquiry into biological causes of human behavior? We could just do both! They're not actually contradicting each other!
+
+"Well, actually, we're ASHKENAZI supremacists" may not be as convincing a defense as you think :cold_sweat:
+
+✓ A more innocent world in which "HSTS" stands for "HTTP strict transport security", and "MAP" stands for "maximum a posteriori"
+
I never expected to become a polarizing figure 1/5
like, compared to the ENTIRE REST OF SPACETIME, I'm yet another nice smart progressive Jewish trans girl, just like everyone else 2/5
Then offer her a job at the salary of an 8x engineer. (Get it? It's an efficient markets joke: if companies really behaved like this, they would compete to equilibrium & there would be no pay gap in the 1st place. But real-world markets aren't efficient for many reasons 😰)
+> that which they cannot appropriate is biologically determined
+https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1129538855554539520
+
You know who else believed that "biological sex" was a useful concept? Hitler!
Only losing coalitions have an incentive to support free-speech norms. You don't want to be a LOSER, do you??
-Men are trash! (With respect to the definition of "trash" as "of or relating to the sex that typically produces sperm.")
+✓ Men are trash! (With respect to the definition of "trash" as "of or relating to the sex that typically produces sperm.")
-"Bayesian reasoning" is a TERF dogwhistle
+✓ "Bayesian reasoning" is a TERF dogwhistle
Taylor Swift's "Speak Now" is an allegory about how a single dissenter's courage can shatter preference-falsification equilibria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ6O785wx8c
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff