Why is it not okay? Is it because he should be signaling more that he knows that most other people wouldn’t justifiedly have enough confidence (yet) to make the same tradeoffs he’s advocating for? I think it makes sense to advocate for making tradeoffs even if others wouldn’t yet agree; convincing them would be much of the point of advocating.
he’s burning respectability that those who are actually making progress on his worries need. he has catastrophically broken models of social communication and is saying sentences that don’t mean the same thing when parsed even a little bit inaccurately. he is blaming others for misinterpreting him when he said something confusing. etc.
Why is it not okay? Is it because he should be signaling more that he knows that most other people wouldn’t justifiedly have enough confidence (yet) to make the same tradeoffs he’s advocating for? I think it makes sense to advocate for making tradeoffs even if others wouldn’t yet agree; convincing them would be much of the point of advocating.
he’s burning respectability that those who are actually making progress on his worries need. he has catastrophically broken models of social communication and is saying sentences that don’t mean the same thing when parsed even a little bit inaccurately. he is blaming others for misinterpreting him when he said something confusing. etc.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jachiam0/status/1641867859751239681
https://mobile.twitter.com/lovetheusers/status/1641989542092713987
in contrast, good safety communication:
https://mobile.twitter.com/soundboy/status/1641789276445630465
https://mobile.twitter.com/liron/status/1641928889072238592
https://mobile.twitter.com/anthrupad/status/1641997798131265536
Hm. You may be right. Maybe picking a few sentences or a paragraph or two from the TIME article or his tweets, and rewriting them, would help clarify.