InfoTeddy
4mo ago
Your post puts my pause about supporting EA into better words than I possibly can write. I've always found it... cheating, kinda?... that the entire premise of EA seems to just be brute-forcing morality and ethics by shoving as many zeroes into a number as possible. And that's how we get what you have described here, where it's easy to say that you've saved 200,000 or however many lives, but then people don't interrogate that result beyond that. People just see the number and go "wow that's a lot of zeroes so it must be good".
I guess what I'm wondering is if there's much focus put in to long-term solutions (and I don't mean "longtermism" like figuring out how to get humans to colonize the stars or whatever to maximize the number of future lives) rather than just whatever saves the most lives in the short term. For example, I was always under the impression that you can't just brute-force solving world hunger by confiscating all the world's billionaires' wealth (ignoring the fact that much of it isn't liquid and actually kinda doesn't exist and if you confiscated it then most of the wealth would just go away) and funneling it into programs to distribute food to starving populaces (ignoring the fact that this would outcompete and devastate local markets, etc.). Sooner or later, their governments would stop you, because it turns out that the reason they're starving in the first place is because their government wants them to, and there's plenty of things the government can do to get their country in a place to feed them, but they don't for various reasons. So there's a good short-term solution by just distributing as much as you can, but an actual long-term solution requires some change to the government, and a lot of focus seems to be put on the short-term brute-force way of doing things.
Downthread, @FirmWeird posits a similar scenario where the population is way beyond carrying capacity. What do you do? Feeding them makes the line on a graph go up, if you ignore that this means you'll need even more in the future (induced demand). Not feeding them makes the line go down but it results in a more stable equilibrium. "Just shove as many zeroes in as you can" ignores plenty of side effects that may or may not be desirable, almost like a paperclip maximizer.
InfoTeddy
4mo ago
It's their thinly-veiled attempt to be loftier, paint themselves as descending from the ivory tower to do a good deed, and aren't just another lowlife doxing someone on the internet, when in reality, well, that's exactly what they are. They're going to stoop to the level of the people they accuse of doing "online harassment", but they're going to do it in a way that makes it seem like they're not doing it at all.
InfoTeddy
4mo ago
Epsilon. Note the sneaky clause about "online harassment" (which these days is a nebulous term that can mean anything from posting one mean comment to actually showing up to someone's house in person), not to mention the "often-gendered" part.
That's to say, if your scenario happened, they would bemoan that it's doxing and they'll say that's because it's online harassment of a woman.
InfoTeddy
4mo ago
I wish they would take this definition to its logical conclusion and charge the phone book and people finder sites with doxing, but they never do. (Of course, they added the "with malicious intent" part which could be used to conveniently absolve said people finder sites of wrongdoing.)
It's absolutely staggering how people will blame anything and everything but data brokers for doxing. The United States is an unreasonably easy place to dox people. If you reside in the US and give me your legal first and last name, I can very likely find your home address in seconds by going to one of these sites and typing them in. That's absurd. I hate to play the "this only happens in the US" card (and to be fair, equivalent sites exist for Canada and possibly other countries), but this genuinely seems like a US-specific problem. Nowhere else will governments just release what should be private information to any party who has enough money to buy them.
If there were any laws against releasing that sort of information to data brokers, and people finder sites were forced to be shut down, 99% of US-based doxing (and subsequent "online harassment") would disappear overnight. But of course, there's a huge financial incentive to keep things the way they are, as having data rakes in huge revenue for companies (it's digital oil after all) and they're not liable for their information being misused. And modern journalism isn't suited to actually rocking the boat, so they will never publish a news article on how easily people can be doxed in the US because of these data brokers, and they will never challenge this state of affairs.
InfoTeddy
8mo ago
I mean, yes. But arguably even if you do link your real-life identity, it's still a digital simulacrum, because typing text is different than saying words in real life. Is there a standard by which if you reveal enough details on a pseudonym, it's no longer considered a "digital simulacrum"?
InfoTeddy
8mo ago
Sure. Never express yourself, just keep everything held down.
That is not what I meant. What I meant is that, for example, if you don't want to reveal to others where you live, you shouldn't mention the name of your city or town. Basic stuff like that. You can still express yourself.
This seems to be one of the most pertinent problems of our time.
How is it a problem? Arguably, it's the other way around, and wanting your identity affirmed or expressed is the problem. The entire trans movement and its externalities stem from a misguided goal to affirm and express their identities.
InfoTeddy
8mo ago
It's preposterous, and a sign of the times, that one needs to be well-versed in opsec in order to freely speak their mind.
Maybe it's a sign of the times, but this isn't anything unique to the internet. The Federalist Papers were published under pseudonyms.
Arguably, it's a sign of the times that a significant many on the internet aren't practicing opsec. When the internet first started, people were just screen names in ephemeral chat rooms. Now, they use their real names, with real photos of themselves, leaving behind permanent posts on social media sites describing everything in detail for the entire world to see.
The highest degree of opsec is to simply never share your thoughts, never post anything online, ever.
Technically true, but that's like saying the highest degree of transport safety is to never drive or get in a car, ever.
(And before the urbanists go "this but unironically", might I point out that bikes, trains, trams, and planes still have accidents too, so the technically-true highest degree would also avoid those.)
Both modes of living are fundamentally dishonest, misrepresentative, and, indeed, miserable.
I don't see how this follows. There's nothing fundamentally dishonest or misrepresentative about adopting a pseudonym. It also doesn't have to be miserable. 90% of opsec is shutting up, and that could get many people by for many years. You would only have to do the remaining 10% if you're really paranoid.
Freedom of expression without fear of cancellation and censure is required for one to affirm their identity. Anything else is robbing one of their ability to authentically express their identity and who they are.
I don't find much value in having my identity affirmed or expressed.
InfoTeddy
8mo ago
Not least because it's verboten to consider whether trans people can "spread" being trans to others like a social contagion.
There's a couple reasons to believe this is the case. The proportion of trans people historically has been almost zero. There's two ways they try to explain this:
-
Cite various examples of historical trans people. But the problem is that these examples are not trans people in the sense of a person who thinks he's a woman in a man's body. These are always an effeminate man who couldn't perform the male gender role, so he was assigned a third gender role (this is almost always what the "third gender" or "two spirit" stuff means), or someone who pretended to be the opposite gender for strategic reasons (e.g. a woman pretending to be a man to join the army).
-
Say they were just not noticed, or, uncharitably, suppressed by cisheteronormativity. But this doesn't explain why there wasn't a lot of suicides from these transgender identities being suppressed or not affirmed.
InfoTeddy
8mo ago
The biggest example I have in mind is of someone who didn't make opsec mistakes as a teenager, only as an adult.
It's quite curious how rationalist (or rationalist-adjacent) figures will go through the trouble of creating a pseudonym, but then make basic mistakes in opsec that will link them back, thus rendering the whole effort pointless.
The article claims that he reused email addresses, which is a really serious basic mistake. Not only does doing this assume that every website the email address is used on will never suffer a data breach or some other exploit that leaks users' email addresses, it also risks "crossing the streams" where you absentmindedly start doing things meant for one pseudonym on another. And it's really easy to avoid this mistake, too. Just create a new email account.
There's a couple other rationalist figures I have in mind that have had poor opsec, but it's probably best to not name them or go into detail (unless people here are really curious about opsec and want to learn more). Although, all the information I would post is public anyway.
InfoTeddy
8mo ago
Just goes to show that even in Europe, it's not enough. Europe solves many of their complaints, but they can always find something new. Even Not Just Bikes said he's ceased talking about North America to focus on advocacy in Europe, because there's apparently (or at least it seems like he thinks this) a real risk that Europe will backslide into car-dependency hell. He attributes this hypothetical backslide to the rise of right-leaning parties.
InfoTeddy
8mo ago
Indeed. That's why I prefaced the next part with "if I were to be charitable". Sadly, many urbanists in real life do not behave as a charitable one would.
InfoTeddy
8mo ago
A lot of the talk about suburbs is confused because "suburb" can refer to many forms of development that are less dense than skyscrapers. Commonly what urbanists are referring to when they hate on suburbs is the sort of low-density, single-family neighborhoods built throughout North America. Some urbanists (like Adam Something) make a distinction between American-style suburbs and European-style suburbs, and their argument is that European-style suburbs are better, because they are denser ("missing middle" housing) and can be served with transit.
If I were to be charitable to urbanists, I would say they just use "suburb" as a shorthand since many people in the States will think of a low-density, single-family neighborhood when they hear that word, and that is indeed what urbanists are talking about (and railing against). They don't need to put any more qualifiers than "suburb", because most of the time they aren't comparing between European-style and American-style suburbs, and they don't really have any qualms about abolishing even European-style suburbs as they prefer living in the urban cores anyway.
But it is strange that people's views on this particular question seem to align perfectly with their views on trans people in general.
Is it really? It's people having consistent principles. Which, I can agree is strange, but on TheMotte I don't think is that strange.
I am not aware of a single case of a trans woman assaulting a woman in a women's bathroom. This is purely hypothetical as far as I know. If it happened, I expect the anti-trans side would publicize it heavily.
It's a standard mistake to say "this never happens", because it's happened quite a lot. For example, this case.
The one case I am aware of where a trans prisoner was placed in a women's prison and impregnated a woman involved consensual sex. The safety of other prisoners was not endangered.
Any sources that it was consensual?
One point is that trans people are far more likely to be the victims rather than the perpetrators of sexual assault and violence
Source? I was under the impression that they're actually less likely to be the victims of any crime, although it is a pretty small sample size to draw any significant conclusions either way.
and you won’t have much luck convincing groups like rationalists to focus on the statistically smaller externalities of bad actors that they don’t know [...]
Okay. But they should at least edit in a little disclaimer that says their writings on trans people are meant to be read in the context of the rationalist community, right? (Actually, they should do that for basically everything, but that's a different story...)
But moreso I fail to see why trans people need any special policies. Assault or sexual harassment in bathrooms is illegal regardless of the perpetrator’s gender or biological sex;
Well, why do we have an age of consent? That could be considered a special policy for children, since violating someone's sexual consent is already against the law.
The reason is that there's enough gray area in the law that it's far more prudent to draw a line in the sand and add a special policy that forbids any sex with anyone below the age of 18. This way, we can cut the Gordian knot and end the otherwise interminable debates about whether a minor really consented to sex in this instance or not.
The meta-reason is that children are different enough than adults and thus need a special policy for them. So it goes for trans people too.
Segregating by biological sex is a losing battle; if trans men are forced to use the bathroom of their biological sex, they can get assaulted for being “men in women’s bathrooms”.
The trans person in the news story you linked to, Noah Ruiz, pleaded guilty to aggravated disorderly conduct. I'm guessing that this is referring to "defense mode":
[Jennifer Ruiz, Noah’s mother said] “He was in defense mode, and when police got there, they didn’t listen to him.”
So I doubt the story that Ruiz claims. The TikToks that Ruiz has posted don't really amount to anything significant, nor do they support the claims. It sounds like Ruiz started the altercation (and not for looking like a man in a woman's bathroom).
Again, I don't believe this narrative of trans people just being flat-out attacked if someone thinks they are doing the wrong thing.
Rape in prisons should not be tolerated, people who sexually assault their cell mate should be isolated and dealt with appropriately.
Yes of course, that is already the policy. But my focus was on women being impregnated, because the easiest and simplest way to 100% prevent prison pregnancy is to separate by sex and disregard prisoners' trans identity.
a trans woman who took puberty blockers since the age of 12 would not [have an advantage against cis women]
It's a misconception that you can simply "stop" puberty. I mean, you can, but the rest of the body still develops. I would also object to this being possible in the first place because I don't believe taking puberty blockers is good for the physical health of any minor. They'll have many health problems for the rest of their life.
Here's a different idea - why not just let trans people compete with men, or create a separate sports category for trans people?
InfoTeddy
9mo ago
Whatever (huge) disagreements I have with Yud, it's not that he's chained down to conventional opinions about political correctness!
I would only share this view if I believed that Yudkowsky would face serious consequences for dissenting from the mainstream narrative about transgenderism. Which I seriously doubt. (Serious as in losing his job and/or some of his close family; losing clout on Twitter (or I guess X now) doesn't count.)
InfoTeddy
9mo ago
Sure. Obviously, a lot of the externalities with transgenderism go away if you have a social norm to actually be nice, including not using transgenderism for bad results.
But I understood Scott (and others) to be talking about trans people in wider society. I would have less of an issue with them if they clarified that they were only talking about trans people in the context of the rationalist community.
Or if they drew a line in the sand and said, no, actually, it's not acceptable to give Norton the head of Rutherford B. Hayes, and we need policies on emperor-identified people to ensure that doesn't happen.
InfoTeddy
9mo ago
Exactly. By this same standard, we might as well replace a power substation with a playground because the power substation is ugly.
Being beautiful is not (usually) one of the main aims of infrastructure projects.
InfoTeddy
9mo ago
It really does strike me that Scott Alexander, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Aella et al are putting on the kid gloves tight when it comes to the proposals of transgenderism.
Take Scott, for example, responding to the 4chan post about trans-Napoleonism. He basically says "just let him wear the silly bicorne hat" and points to "Emperor" Norton of San Francisco as a happy-go-lucky story of just going along with what a trans-emperor says because it's easier. But he doesn't ever adequately address the hardball arguments - a Napoleon-gender that demands absolute power over the French Empire and its satellites in Europe (as the 4chan post said), and a Norton that demands the head of President Rutherford B. Hayes (as you, Zack M. Davis, point out). As far as I can tell, Scott's response to people pointing out the demands for a French Empire and Hayes's head - although he doesn't explicitly state this - is "lol, that just doesn't happen".
This is a very troubling dismissal, because there are a lot of Rutherfords in transgenderism. The reason why people point out President Rutherford Hayes and demands for a French Empire is because transgenderism affects others - it has externalities - and attempting to cure someone's distress by agreeing to their false map of reality is not a cost-free action and is not something with no meaningful consequences to other people (hence, the story about putting the hair dryer in the passenger seat is simply irrelevant). In other words, "just be nice" is a really bad argument.
For example, the inclusion of trans athletes in women's sports, or the inclusion of trans people in women's bathrooms, or the inclusion of trans people in women's prisons. Everyone seems to agree that it would be a very bad thing if a trans-Napoleon today gained control over the countries that used to make up the former French Empire, or if Norton was given the head of Rutherford B. Hayes, so they just... dismiss those and say it could never happen. They say they would never demand Rutherford's head and that it's absurd to even consider the possibility that Rutherford might be decapitated to fulfill the desires of an Emperor Norton.
And then when those externalities do happen, and a male-born trans person wins against a female athlete (inherently, unfairly), or a trans person assaults a woman in the bathroom, or a trans prisoner impregnates a woman, those objections are at best handwaved away and dismissed as outliers or discredited, or at worst labeled "transphobic" and censored.
In my opinion, the refusal to honestly engage with these arguments reflects poorly on the leaders - or otherwise influential figures - of the rationalist community. To put it lightly, it's unbelievable how they make a simple mistake - that their own foundational writings (the Sequences) warned about - and how they have failed to correct their own mistake (at least, they haven't corrected it yet, although I'm not optimistic about their chances of doing so).
InfoTeddy
9mo ago
It got a ton of engagement at first, but that fell off a cliff extremely quickly. Many speculate that this was due to its stricter content moderation compared to Twitter.
InfoTeddy
9mo ago
(reposting because new thread)
Is Twitter finally dead yet?
Usually, I'd be the last person to ask such a provocative question. I used to be one of the people who rolled their eyes or otherwise ignored sensationalized media stories surrounding Elon Musk and his takeover of Twitter, stories which have plagued the news cycle for the better part of almost a year now. It felt like you couldn't go a day or two without an article on the most mundane of things that were only remarkable because of Musk, like him going to the bathroom in the middle of the night.
But I have to - reluctantly - admit, maybe all the media's negative hype had a point.
The latest decision Musk has made is to rebrand Twitter to "X". The URL X.com will automatically redirect Twitter. Twitter is changing its logo from the iconic blue bird into a white "X". Apparently a tweet should now just be called an "X".
The obvious question is: Why? Musk's answer seems to be that he wants to change Twitter into some sort of "super-app" where one can do everything on it, similar to the WeChat app in China. This only raises further questions, like why people couldn't just use other apps, or why it had to be done in this why, or why they couldn't even just go the Meta approach where the company is renamed X (in fact, it's already been "X Corp." for a while) but Twitter gets to still be named Twitter and keep the blue bird logo.
The one thing that everyone in the Musk-Twitter discourse seems to agree on is that Twitter has significant value in its brand. Now, it might not even have that. Who really wants to talk about "'X'-ing on X" when it's far more idiosyncratic to say "tweeting on Twitter", which people have done for the better part of the decade?
But to answer my own question: No, I think it's the wrong approach to look at each change as potentially an outright Twitter-killer. I think the bigger picture should be looked at, and that in the long run, the demise of Twitter will be a death by a thousand paper cuts, where each change isn't quite so negative to kill it entirely, but it keeps Twitter on a downwards and downwards trend. And there's already been several paper cuts - fleeing advertisers, ratelimits, restricted guest browsing, etc.
InfoTeddy
9mo ago
Is Twitter finally dead yet?
Usually, I'd be the last person to ask such a provocative question. I used to be one of the people who rolled their eyes or otherwise ignored sensationalized media stories surrounding Elon Musk and his takeover of Twitter, stories which have plagued the news cycle for the better part of almost a year now. It felt like you couldn't go a day or two without an article on the most mundane of things that were only remarkable because of Musk, like him going to the bathroom in the middle of the night.
But I have to - reluctantly - admit, maybe all the media's negative hype had a point.
The latest decision Musk has made is to rebrand Twitter to "X". The URL X.com will automatically redirect Twitter. Twitter is changing its logo from the iconic blue bird into a white "X". Apparently a tweet should now just be called an "X".
The obvious question is: Why? Musk's answer seems to be that he wants to change Twitter into some sort of "super-app" where one can do everything on it, similar to the WeChat app in China. This only raises further questions, like why people couldn't just use other apps, or why it had to be done in this why, or why they couldn't even just go the Meta approach where the company is renamed X (in fact, it's already been "X Corp." for a while) but Twitter gets to still be named Twitter and keep the blue bird logo.
The one thing that everyone in the Musk-Twitter discourse seems to agree on is that Twitter has significant value in its brand. Now, it might not even have that. Who really wants to talk about "'X'-ing on X" when it's far more idiosyncratic to say "tweeting on Twitter", which people have done for the better part of the decade?
But to answer my own question: No, I think it's the wrong approach to look at each change as potentially an outright Twitter-killer. I think the bigger picture should be looked at, and that in the long run, the demise of Twitter will be a death by a thousand paper cuts, where each change isn't quite so negative to kill it entirely, but it keeps Twitter on a downwards and downwards trend. And there's already been several paper cuts - fleeing advertisers, ratelimits, restricted guest browsing, etc.
InfoTeddy
9mo ago
"Selection bias doesn't make Aella's surveys worse than average" should not mean Aella's surveys are useful; it should mean on average surveys are about as useful as astrology.
Definitely. Scott's article is arguing against some hypothetical person that disbelieves Aella's surveys but for some reason believes the average sociological survey, when as far as I'm aware, people who criticize Aella don't also believe in the average survey.
I doubt that this is Hbomberguy just acting without bias, since he more-or-less gives Hasan Piker (and other react streamers) a pass despite react streamers committing arguably worse plagiarism, and Hasan is another BreadTuber friend. Around the same time his video came out, a couple other videos attacking James Somerton also came out. It's really hard to not see these videos as coordinated.
More options
Context Copy link