From c0b1ffee586c1a66e1f03e226c9c7741ee94d5b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "M. Taylor Saotome-Westlake" Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2022 08:30:00 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] check in (clean slate for Saturday) I had a lot of trouble doing things yesterday; chores are piling up, and I even still have some dayjob work that it would be embarrassing to not have finished by Monday morning. But Today could be Different. Will Today be Different? O future reader of `git log`, you know the answer! Some would say that, in my own way, so do I. --- .../challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal.md | 9 ++++++--- notes/notes.txt | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/drafts/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal.md b/content/drafts/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal.md index b3cb4f8..01b38f1 100644 --- a/content/drafts/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal.md +++ b/content/drafts/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal.md @@ -343,16 +343,19 @@ I claim that (a') and (b') are _overwhelmingly likely to be true_. Can "we" talk We're unlikely to get clarification from Yudkowsky, but based on my experiences with the so-called "rationalist" community over the past coming-up-on-six years, I'm going to _guess_ that the answer is: No; no, "we" can't talk about that. -Telling the Whole Dumb Story about that is something that I've been meaning to lay out in _another_ multi-thousand word blog post. (Not because it's an interesting story, but because I'll never be able to stop grieving and move on with my life until I get it all out of my system.) Since that will take me some more time to write, I hope it's all right if I _briefly_ hit some of the highlights relevant to understanding the context of this post, with the understanding that I have much more to say. +For a while, I've been meaning to write up a _different_ multi-thousand word blog post telling the Whole Dumb Story about that. (Not because it's an interesting story, but because I'll never be able to stop grieving and move on with my life until I get it all out of my system.) -When this Whole Dumb Story started back in 2016, I _never_ expected to end up arguing about anything so trivial as pronoun conventions. (That's not even an interesting hill to die on.) In 2016, I was _trying_ to talk about the etiology of transsexualism and gender dysphoria. -You see, +"Gendered Pronouns For Everyone and Asking To Leave The System Is Lying" + +"Biological Sex Actually Exists", and "Biological Sex Cannot Be Changed With Existing or Forseeable Technology", and "Biological Sex Is Sometimes Socially Relevant", + + this puts one of Yudkowsky's comments elsewhere in the thread in a different light https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10159421750419228?comment_id=10159421986539228&reply_comment_id=10159424960909228 —] > now that we have a truth-bearing sentence, we can admit of the possibility of using our human superpower of language to _debate_ whether this sentence is indeed true or false [...] Trying to pack all of that into the pronouns you'd have to use in step 1 is the wrong place to pack it. diff --git a/notes/notes.txt b/notes/notes.txt index c8c6bd4..4c2d54f 100644 --- a/notes/notes.txt +++ b/notes/notes.txt @@ -2954,3 +2954,5 @@ 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 -- 2.17.1