-### Option A (just a link, with just the meme denunciation)
-
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: [link]
-### Option B (thread with more explicit denunciation)
-
-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: [link] 1/7
-
-The Whole Dumb Story is 87K words so far, which few will read, so in this thread I'll briefly summarize why I think @ESYudkowsky has relinquished his Art and lost his powers (with the disclaimer that this is only a summary & the full Story covers nuances that don't fit here). 2/7
-
-Since 2016, I've been frustrated that Society has apparently decided that men can be women by means of saying so. There's a lot of nuance that I've covered elsewhere, but briefly, in less than 280 characters, my objection is that this just isn't true. 3/7
-
-I know that Yudkowsky knows that it isn't true, because I learned it from him in 2008. But as I document in the post, since 2016, he's repeatedly made public statements that obfuscate and prevaricate on this point, switching to new arguments after I've critiqued the old ones. 4/7
-
-Coming from any other public intellectual, this might not be a big deal. But Yudkowsky makes a lot of grandiose claims to authority, that he's an "epistemic hero", that "too many people think it's unvirtuous to shut up and listen to [him]", &c. https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1509944888376188929 5/7
-
-I consider these authority claims to be morally fraudulent. Someone who behaves the way @ESYudkowsky has (as I describe thoroughly in the post) is not an epistemic hero, and I think he knows that. 6/7
-
-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 realization that the person who wrote the Sequences apparently doesn't feel the same way. I thought you deserved to know. 7/7
-
-----------
-
-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)?
-
-(This is unpleasant, but at this point, it's my only other option besides laying down and dying. I tried making object-level arguments _first_, for years, and he made it very, very, clear that he doesn't see any problem with marketing himself as an epistemic hero while reserving the right to ignore counterarguments on political grounds. What is there left for me to do but cry "Fraud!" at the top of my lungs? Does anyone want to make a case that I _should_ lay down and die, for some reason?)
-
-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 justified 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_.
-
-As for my Twitter marketing strategy, I tried drafting a seven-Tweet thread summary of the reputational attack (because no one is going to read a 16K word post), but I'm unhappy with how it came out and am leaning towards just doing a two Tweets (option C: <https://gist.github.com/zackmdavis/7395e1978c42e0251cd8ae7add406ebc>) rather than trying to summarize in a thead. That's possibly cowardly (pulling my punches because I'm scared), but I think it's classy (because it's better to not try to do complicated things on Twitter; the intellectual and literary qualities that make my punches _hit hard_ to people who have read the Sequences don't easily compress to the 280-character format)
-
-[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_ (not sure about this channel particularly); 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.
+(I think this is the best and most important post in the sequence; I suspect that many readers who didn't and shouldn't bother with the previous three posts, may benefit from just reading this one.)
------
-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]
-
-It's really striking how, despite sneering about the lost of art of perspective taking, he acts as if he's incapable of entertaining the perspective under which the published text of the Sequences might have led someone to form higher expectations of him. Oli Habryka gets it! (<https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/juZ8ugdNqMrbX7x2J/challenges-to-yudkowsky-s-pronoun-reform-proposal/comment/he8dztSuBBuxNRMSY>) Vaniver gets it! (<https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/yFZH2sBsmmqgWm4Sp/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them/comment/dSiBGRGziEffJqN2B>) Eliezer Yudkowsky either doesn't get it, or is pretending not to get it. I almost suspect it's the first one, which is far worse
-
-----------------
-
Post later (can't afford to spend more Twitter time now)—
https://twitter.com/zackmdavis/status/1436039564032823313
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff