Maybe lying is "worse" than rationalizing, but if you can't hold people culpable for rationalization, you end up with a world that's bad for broadly the same reasons that a world full of liars is bad: we can't steer the world to good states if everyone's map is full of falsehoods that locally benefitted someone
http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/bad-faith-behavior-not-feeling/
+
+------
+
+https://discord.com/channels/936151692041400361/1022006828718104617/1047796598488440843
+
+I'm still pretty annoyed by how easily people are falling for this _ludicrous_ "Ah, it would be bad if people _on Earth_ tried to do this, but it's OK _in dath ilan_ because of how sane, cooperative, and kind they are" excuse.
+
+Exception Handling is depicted as _explicitly_ having a Fake Conspiracy section (<https://glowfic.com/replies/1860952#reply-1860952>). Why is that any more okay, than if FTX or Enron explicitly had a Fake Accounting department?
+
+Isn't dath ilan just very straightforwardly being _more_ corrupt than Earth here? (Because FTX and Enron were _subverting_ our usual governance and oversight mechanisms, as contrasted to the usual governance mechanisms in dath ilan _explicitly_ being set up to deceive the public.)
+
+I understand that you can _assert by authorial fiat_ that, "it's okay; no one is 'really' being deceived, because 'everybody knows' that the evidence for Sparashki being real is too implausible", and you can _assert by authorial fiat_ that it's necessary to save their world from AGI and mad science.
+
+But someone writing a story about "Effective Altruism" (instead of "Exception Handling") on "Earth" (instead of "dath ilan") could just as easily _assert by authorial fiat_, "it's okay, no one is 'really' being defrauded, because 'everybody knows' that crypto is a speculative investment in which you shouldn't invest anything you can't afford to lose".
+
+What's the difference? Are there _generalizable reasons_ why fraud isn't worth it (not in expectation, and not in reality), or is it just that Sam and Caroline weren't sane, cooperative, and kind enough to pull it off successfully?
+
+What is "It would be OK in dath ilan, but it's not OK on Earth" even supposed to _mean_, if it's not just, "It's OK for people who genetically resemble Eliezer Yudkowsky to deceive the world as long as they have a clever story for why it's all for the greater good, but it's not OK for you, because you're genetically inferior to him"?
+
+(I was fine with the arrogance in the Sequences, when it seemed like a harmless stylistic affectation during some really valuable lessons, but if "Eliezer Yudkowsky is smarter than you" now just _is the lesson_, it seems like a very different lesson)
+
+https://discord.com/channels/936151692041400361/1022006828718104617/1047374488645402684
+
+A. J. Vermillion seems to be complaining that by not uncritically taking the author assertions at face value, I'm breaking the rules of the literary-criticism game—that if the narrator _says_ Civilization was designed to be trustworthy, I have no license to doubt that is "actually" is.
+
+And I can't help but be reminded of a great short story that I remember reading back in—a long time ago
+
+I think it must have been 'aught-nine?
+
+yeah, it had to have been _late_ in 'aught-nine, because I remember discussing it with some friends when I was living in a group house on Benton street in Santa Clara
+
+anyway, there was this story about a guy who gets transported to a fantasy world where he has a magic axe that yells at him sometimes and he's prophecied to defeat the bad guy and choose between Darkness and Light, and they have to defeat these ogres to reach the bad guy's lair
+
+and when they get there, the bad guy (spoilers) ||_accuses them of murder_ for killing the ogres on the way there!!||
+
+and the moral was—or at least, the simpler message I extracted from it was—there's something messed-up about the genre convention of fantasy stories where readers just naïvely accept the author's frame, instead of looking at the portrayed world with fresh eyes and applying their _own_ reason and their _own_ morality to it—
+
+That if it's wrong to murder people with a different racial ancestry from you _on Earth_, it's _also_ wrong when you're in a fantasy kingdom setting and the race in question are ogres.
+
+And that if it's wrong to kill people and take their stuff _on Earth_, it's _also_ wrong when you're in a period piece about pirates on the high seas.
+
+And (I submit) if it's wrong to decieve the world by censoring scientific information about human sexuality _on Earth_, it's _also_ wrong when you're in a social-science-fiction setting about a world called dath ilan.
+
+(You can _assert by authorial fiat_ that Keltham doesn't mind and is actually grateful, but you could also _assert by authorial fiat_ that the ogres were evil and deserved to die.)
+
+but merely human memory fades over 13 years and merely human language is such a lossy medium; I'm telling you about the story _I_ remember, and the moral lessons _I_ learned from it, which may be very different what was actually written, or what the author was trying to teach
+
+maybe I should make a post on /r/tipofmytongue/, to ask them—
+
+_What was the name of that story?_
+
+_What was the name of that author?_
+
+(What was the name of the _antagonist_ of that story?—actually, sorry, that's a weird and random question; I don't know why my brain generated that one.)
+
+but somehow I have a premonition that I'm not going to like the answer, if I was hoping for more work from the same author in the same spirit
+
+that the author who wrote "Darkness and Light" (or whatever the story was called) died years ago
+
+or has shifted in her emphases in ways I don't like
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / commitdiff