.

[. @doobeedooway]

@johnsmithyson0 Moving stuff with my dad

[. @doobeedooway]

@Os144C @Plinz Chicken-and-egg issue with your first sentence, no? On that model what was the ur-model, and what’s the substrate that allows baby humans to start imitating others?

[. @doobeedooway]

@forshaper Name is a big deal

[. @doobeedooway]

@inerati Antinatalism?

[. @doobeedooway]

@Romy_Holland it can be worth thinking of very "basic" human skills, like movement, as high skill

[. @doobeedooway]

@vividvoid removing the legal and social apparatus that make sex war possible seems potentially pretty bad to me. how do you do this without taking away people's speech and weapons? (also, how do I justify people having speech and weapons?)

[. @doobeedooway]

@vividvoid removing the legal and social apparatus that make sex war possible seems potentially pretty bad to me. how do you do this without taking away people's speech and weapons? (also, how do I justify people having speech and weapons?)

[. @doobeedooway]

@BeraHugs @vividvoid i might see what you're saying but i kind of wonder how it works out in practice. is it the questioning or the not questioning that's more dangerous to the principle?

[. @doobeedooway]

@BeraHugs @vividvoid i am wondering about the other side though. that a human right (I'm not sure I believe in *fundamental* human rights vs power dynamics) *not* being questioned is threatening to its existence, because the ability to actually justify it is lost

[. @doobeedooway]

@BeraHugs @vividvoid if a philosophical/scientific debate really has no chance to have bearing on reality (people's actual rights), then we're just having a fun time doing math

[. @doobeedooway]

@BeraHugs @vividvoid But either of those issues seems to create serious problems with the prospect of even trying to discuss *at all*, about literally anything

[. @doobeedooway]

@BeraHugs @vividvoid Possible issues:

-The reasoners aren't reasonable enough
-Conflict means that the concept "a good principle" doesn't make sense - in for example a two player zero-sum game, what's good for one person is bad for the other.

[. @doobeedooway]

@hecubian_devil There might be something that isn't quite squaring to me, both about what I've read in the original thread and comments to it, as well as other retweets and Twitter comments

[. @doobeedooway]

@hecubian_devil -The top post doesn't use the word "sociopath" at all.
-How do you square the narrative in your post with the following comment and comments to it: https://t.co/dfDOSc0cj5 ?
-In https://t.co/lHv9f8V5ph, George seems to be pretty clearly saying "Brent did bad things"

[George @georgejrjrjr]

The fine details are being hotly debated by others in the replies. But briefly:

Performed badly wrongly in deeply fucked up relationships that included a profoundly hazardous unwise mix of trauma cases, heavy drugs, other extreme kink, extreme emotional neediness, narcissism, OUTRAGEOUS demands for control and obsequious support absolutely no-one should have EVER granted him, even in part, based on his self-characterization.

AND TO BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR: sometimes Brent still says he needs outrageous amounts of power and control that no sane person should ever give a person so wounded. To which I say...DON'T DO THAT. THAT WAS REALLY STUPID WHEN BLACK LOTUS DID IT, AND IT WOULD BE BEYOND PROFOUNDLY STUPID TO REPEAT.

Obviously! (I wish).

Relatedly, I have come to a motto for relationships: you always want the more compassionate aware person to win the principle dominance games.

One way to frame the SERIOUS BADNESS was a house full of famous brilliant people (with neurotypes like mine, that lead some of us to seek out scenarios in which we DEFINITELY won't be the 'bad guy;) that endorsed and supported and looked the other way while Brent was being given power he was manifestly --as he described very publicly-- ill-equipped to wield compassionately.

Which brings me to the next SERIOUSLY DESTRUCTIVE thing Brent did:

Brent failed to push back on the lies. Bad for him, worse for the scene, because his tacit endorsement of his own immolation hurt the epistemic and reputational commons BADLY --and permissioned the space for unhinged scapegoating dynamics that are vibe poison with very wide reach.

https://t.co/aazsYjDkaq

[. @doobeedooway]

@Oszillate @simonsarris Reading either Simon’s thread or your posts here, “something feels a little forced” from https://t.co/oEQYhGdYkB came to mind

[. @doobeedooway]

@Oszillate @simonsarris I think CFAR and folks on LW have talked about “System 1” for a long time, which seems pretty similar to “intuition”

[Andrew Côté @Andercot]

@cremieuxrecueil I was also led to believe piranhas and quicksand would play a prominent role in my adult life and this has been a total disappointment

[. @doobeedooway]

Maybe the right search term is "group theory mechanism design"

[. @doobeedooway]

Was wondering about applying group theory to law - I was thinking that certain arguments I had (about a game) come down to what symmetries people care about preserving

[. @doobeedooway]

Might fit better for narrow-focus things like tournaments; sports events, than something like the court systems in a large country? Maybe rather than "law" I'm thinking more specifically of "rules systems" ... systems used to govern pretty specific events like a vote