Comment by aneopuritan on Death in Groups · 2018-04-05T13:58:21.163Z · score: 6 (2 votes) · LW · GW

The shotgun, or its price wasn't at stake - money is never at stake with a military that has F-35s, and the Taliban likely has little use for a shotgun. What was at stake was you being put in your proper place before a corrupt institution. And many, many warriors throughout history simply weighed their options in chance of dying and weight of loot - which is, if nothing else, smarter than being in the US Armed Forces.

Comment by aneopuritan on [Meta] New moderation tools and moderation guidelines · 2018-03-08T20:46:35.858Z · score: 1 (5 votes) · LW · GW

Definitely put on the Ialdabaoth hat. You do not in any circumstances have to consciously devise any advantage to hand to high-status people, because they already get all conceivable advantages for free.

Comment by aneopuritan on [Meta] New moderation tools and moderation guidelines · 2018-03-08T20:44:49.172Z · score: 2 (3 votes) · LW · GW

If a nobody disagrees with, being less wrong than, Yudkowsky, they'll be silenced for all practical purposes. And I do think there was a time when people signalled by going against him, which was the proof of non-phyggishness. Phygs are bad.

You could try red-letter warnings atop posts saying, "there's a rebuttal by a poster banned from this topic: [link]", but I don't expect you will, because the particular writer obviously won't want that.

Comment by aneopuritan on Against EA PR · 2017-09-23T17:17:36.351Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW
I was aware of disagreement between the priorities of existential risk and global poverty, but are there now people who consider animal welfare more important than both others? How many?