X-Git-Url: http://unremediatedgender.space/source?p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=notes%2Fnotes.txt;h=4c2d54f5d426fcf2f32fd268427a8daaa39105a1;hp=a288f5d4db240e2bd6edd2295f9022f0cfdb435f;hb=c0b1ffee586c1a66e1f03e226c9c7741ee94d5b9;hpb=7e4ba93774931457e78c917dd5a50f71aed51557

diff --git a/notes/notes.txt b/notes/notes.txt
index a288f5d..4c2d54f 100644
--- a/notes/notes.txt
+++ b/notes/notes.txt
@@ -2950,3 +2950,9 @@ I don't particularly fault Scott for this: [by his own admission, he's not a mat
 (Incidentally, Scott himself is actually very good about [not trying to claim more authority than is actually justified by his performance](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/04/some-clarifications-on-rationalist-blogging/). His fans should try to be more like him along this dimension!)
 
 https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/
+
+https://www.facebook.com/zmdavis/posts/10156642447060199
+Is there a named TV Trope for "one of our heroes seemingly betrays their comrades, but later turns out to have reasons to behave as they did (e.g., a secret undercover mission, or they were being extorted) even though they were prevented from explaining at the time" scenarios?
+Okay. Now what do you call it when one of our heroes EXPLAINS CLEARLY AND AT LENGTH the reasons for their actions, but their comrades still regard it as a betrayal because they just refuse to follow the argument?
+
+https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/three-little-pronouns-go-to-court