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.
aNeopuritan
Karma: 6
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.
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?
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.