Lavender

Karma: 66

Lavender 19 Jul 2023 17:30 UTC
18 points
14
on: Blanchard’s Dangerous Idea and the Plight of the Lucid Crossdreamer
I’m an openly trans person in the Rationalist community and I want to go on record here saying:
Writing a 21,000 word essay about how you’ve been suppressing your gender dysphoria since you were a kid and posting it on LessWrong is not a healthy way of addressing your gender dysphoria.

And btw in one of the blog posts Zach links in this post, they call their transgender impulses as “the beautiful feeling at the center of my life.”

This essay has a lot of self-hate in it which is self-destructive and although I respect your Freedom of Speech and Bodily Autonomy I think it would be unwise for anyone to emulate Zach.

Lavender 9 Nov 2018 21:23 UTC
11 points
in reply to: Said Achmiz’s comment on: No Really, Why Aren’t Rationalists Winning?

Lavender 16 Dec 2015 1:43 UTC
6 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Interpersonal Entanglement

You didn’t say anything about technology not having “unwanted health effects” before.

That was supposed to be implied. Allow me to quote Facing The Intelligence Explosion by Luke Muehlhauser:

One day, my friend Niel asked his virtual assistant in India to find him a bike he could buy that day. She sent him a list of bikes for sale from all over the world. Niel said, “No, I need one I can buy in Oxford today; it has to be local.” So she sent him a long list of bikes available in Oxford, most of them expensive. Niel clarified that he wanted an inexpensive bike. So she sent him a list of children’s bikes. He clarified that he needed a local, inexpensive bike that fit an adult male. So she sent him a list of adult bikes in Oxford needing repair. Usually humans understand each other’s desires better than this. Our evolved psychological unity causes us to share a common sense and common desires. Ask me to find you a bike, and I’ll assume you want one in working condition, that fits your size, is not made of gold, etc.—even though you didn’t actually say any of that.

You appear to be acting like that virtual assistant. People’s suggestions can only properly be understood in the context of common sense.

And generally it is considered okay for people to speculate by saying “hey, what if X happens, it might be a good idea” as long as X is possible and the speculator is not asserting X definitely can or will happen. It’s pretty crazy to enforce a rule against speculation and brainstorming. You appear to be reacting as if I’m saying: “hey we will definitely be doing X in the future! There is no reason not to and no reason it could go wrong.”

The difference between speculation and baseless assertion is the difference between making a tentative suggestion in what could happen and making an uninformed suggestion about what will happen.

Lavender 20 Sep 2015 17:23 UTC
6 points
on: Ideas for rationality slogans?
Reversed Stupidity Is Not Intelligence.

Slightly more than 5 words:

The facts don’t know whose side their on.

Every cause wants to be a cult.

Lavender 18 Oct 2017 20:35 UTC
5 points
in reply to: Ray’s comment on: Applause Lights
Lorem Ipsum

Lavender 16 Feb 2016 2:07 UTC
5 points
on: Atheism = Untheism + Antitheism
I’ve always thought saying that babies are atheists is like saying rocks are atheists.

Lavender 21 Jan 2016 23:09 UTC
3 points
on: Intellectual Hipsters and Meta-Contrarianism
This triad was missed:

“Muslims are terrorists!” / “Islam is a religion of peace.” / “Religion is problematic in general but Islam is the worst and I can back that claim up with statistics I read on Sam Harris’ blog.”

Lavender 17 Dec 2015 21:21 UTC
3 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Interpersonal Entanglement
Lorem Ipsum

Lavender 6 Feb 2023 21:09 UTC
2 points
0
on: You Don’t Exist, Duncan
Jeez… this was, somehow relatable.

I wonder if autistics in general tend to experience this.

Lavender 10 Nov 2018 19:58 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Said Achmiz’s comment on: No Really, Why Aren’t Rationalists Winning?

Lavender 16 Dec 2015 1:04 UTC
2 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Interpersonal Entanglement
Are you saying that technology to enhance the appearance of the male body without having unwanted health effects is so implausible that it will never happen? Because over the long term (200-1000 years from now) I prefer to avoid saying “technology X will never happen” unless there’s an actual law of physics that says so. Remember that this is just speculation.

Lavender 16 Dec 2015 0:01 UTC
2 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Interpersonal Entanglement
Yeah I know it’s a shitty argument I admit it.

I fully understand what you are trying to say. The problem is that thinking about the issue that way is inproductive. You don’t engage with the actual knowledge we have about making people more fit.

I see. But does this imply that we shouldn’t use transhuman technology to make people more muscular? If we could use such technology, why wouldn’t we?

Lavender 15 Dec 2015 22:48 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Interpersonal Entanglement
The gym is not nearly as powerful as the technology I’m talking about. I’m talking about biotechnology / transhuman technology. Men given the genetic short end of the stick can’t reasonably expect to look fit no matter how much they work out, unless they don’t have a job or any time consuming responsibilities. And no I’m not a jealous fat guy. I’m not athlete, but I’m in decent shape.

And what I’m talking about here is upgrading the average man’s attractiveness so that it’s on par with the average woman’s attractiveness. Nobody complains that all women look the same. In fact women look very diverse. I’m talking about a scenario where men look as diverse as women do.

Also due to supply and demand, there would be an incentive for men to look diverse to match the diversity of women’s desires. A higher supply of Ryan Gosling clones than there is demand for Ryan Gosling clones would create incentives for men to look different from Ryan Gosling.

Lavender 30 Jan 2014 22:42 UTC
2 points
on: Open thread, January 25- February 1
Does anyone have a simple, easily understood definition of “logical fallacy” that can be used to explain the concept to people who have never heard of it before?

I was trying to explain the idea to a friend a few days ago but since I didn’t have a definition I had to show her www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com. She understood the concept quickly, but it would be much more reliable and eloquent to actually define it.

Lavender 17 Dec 2015 2:33 UTC
1 point
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Interpersonal Entanglement
Lorem Ipsum

Lavender 16 Dec 2015 19:24 UTC
1 point
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Interpersonal Entanglement
Lorem Ipsum

Lavender 16 Dec 2015 2:06 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Interpersonal Entanglement
Lorem Ipsum

Lavender 14 Dec 2015 22:04 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Good_Burning_Plastic’s comment on: Interpersonal Entanglement
Well people dislike PUAs because they see them as emotionally manipulative and dishonest, (which is sometimes true) and I don’t think problem would be present here.

Lavender 12 May 2013 2:57 UTC
1 point
0
on: Illusion of Transparency: Why No One Understands You
I believe this article illustrates the greatest cause of conflict on the internet.

Lavender 28 Jan 2016 0:58 UTC
0 points
on: The Virtue of Narrowness
Lorem Ipsum