LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Theoretically, if everybody starts to believe in doom, they sell their assets to spend on consumption, so market crashes and shorts pay off.

What's true already is the case, not worse from owning up. To not be open anyways will never make it stop.

Because it's real, it is there for interaction with. What is untrue cannot be where there's truth that we can live.

And we can stand reality, the truth that we admit. We know because we're already in fact enduring it.

This post makes me feel better about my writing process. I write how I think, which means I can get away with little editing.

I'm fond of saying, "your ethics are only opinions until it costs you to uphold them"

Whoever thinks that this is evidence of Lauren using her safeword DOESN'T KNOW HOW SAFEWORDS WORK.

These are the libelous statements for which I am suing Duncan Andrew Sabien.

(Plenty) more detail available here.

Issues in transcript labeling (I'm curious how much of it was done by machine):

• After 00:07:55, a line is unattributed to either speaker; looks like it should be Timothy.
• 00:09:43 is attributed to Timothy but I think must be Elizabeth.
• Then the next line is unattributed (should be Timothy).
• After 00:14:00, unattributed (should be Timothy).
• After 00:23:38, unattributed (should be Timothy)
• After 00:32:34, unattributed (probably Elizabeth)

This person (segfault) is a liar.  In particular, he is lying about caring about consent.  He claims to, and gives a lot of lip service to the idea, but in fact he directly violates consent all the time, including explicit safewords. Immediately after the exchange below, he went and visited the other person anyway, and has been harassing her ever since, up to and including making wild accusations against her coach and getting himself banned from Stanford campus.

BTW if anyone does want to get into the argument, Will Petillo’s Lenses of Control [LW · GW] post is a good entry point. 

It’s concise and correct – a difficult combination to achieve here.