Comment author: Omid 27 October 2014 03:56:13PM 8 points [-]

What chores do I need to learn how to do in order to keep a clean house?

Comment author: Omid 30 September 2014 03:27:44AM 5 points [-]

I'm having trans issues and would like to talk a trans person who has some experience coming out. Send me a PM if you can talk. Thanks.

Comment author: Omid 01 July 2014 05:55:48PM *  9 points [-]

The quantified risks of gay sex post is in the early stages of development. If you are a mod and think such a post would have negative value, pianoforte611 and I would appreciate hearing your concerns before we invest our time in it. If you are not a mod but want to make some pre-emptive suggestions, those are welcome too.

Comment author: Omid 27 June 2014 12:23:13PM 0 points [-]

Are you still using Zim Wiki?

Comment author: fubarobfusco 20 June 2014 12:45:19AM *  3 points [-]

I am reminded of this comic.

I don't have a principled moral judgment of PZ Myers' trolling of the Catholics, or for that matter Terry Jones' trolling of the Muslims. As far as I can tell, both are polarizing, which isn't super-great; but it's probably a good thing for discourse in general if every once in a while some showman type — a Lenny Bruce, or even an Anton LaVey — makes a point of making some sacred-cow hamburgers. (An expression I recognize rests on a misinterpretation of yet another religious group's beliefs ...)

But censorship can also lend countercultural legitimacy to ideas that are plainly false. Take the case of Wilhelm Reich, for instance. I find his social critiques of sexual repression and sex-economy to be pretty well on the mark, and had he stopped there he would have made a major contribution to radical psychotherapy, sexual liberation, and (for that matter) women's rights. But bions and orgone are not real, and cancer is not caused by a deadly form of orgone radiation. The FDA burning Reich's books, and his death in prison, made him into a martyr, rather than a plain quack, to a lot of people. And that was a long time before the Internet and the Streisand Effect.

Comment author: Omid 23 June 2014 02:23:35AM 2 points [-]

That comic is unfair. Being called a blasphemer or a ratfink is not the same as getting bashed on the head with a cross. Now the artist would argue that this is a metaphor, but in that case, wouldn't breaking a cross also be metaphorical assault?

Comment author: Omid 31 May 2014 05:40:05PM *  2 points [-]

Meta: I've submitted four proposals, and might submit more later. I don't have time to write all these posts and I have no idea what posts people would want to read, so I'd appreciate advice, criticism, or requests.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 31 May 2014 05:11:11PM 1 point [-]

wearing a condom is safer than wearing a condom

You presumably meant "than not wearing a condom".

Legal risk seems unlikely-- I've never heard of anyone sued for just giving bad advice.

Saying something boneheaded and damaging the site's credibility seems more possible, but not what I'd call an extremely likely. A substantial compendium of research may well be likely to do more good than harm, but damned if I know how to compute that.

Comment author: Omid 31 May 2014 05:36:46PM -2 points [-]

Fixed, thanks.

A lot of websites use a "This is not medical advice" disclaimer, enough to justify a generic template.

Comment author: Omid 31 May 2014 05:32:13PM 20 points [-]

Proposal: Don't fear GATTACA. A post where I explain why people are afraid of the dystopia featured in GATTACA, and why these fears are unjustified.

Comment author: Omid 31 May 2014 05:26:29PM *  21 points [-]

Proposal: You don't need politics. In which I argue that keeping up with the news and political controversies is not a duty nor effective altruism. Intended to counteract the "Rah political activism!" message I got in school.

Comment author: Omid 31 May 2014 05:02:40PM *  12 points [-]

Proposal: Quantified risks of gay sex: As a bi-curious man, I have some interest in gay sex, but I'm also worried about STDs. As a nerd, I'd like to weight my subjective desire to have gay sex against the objective risks of stds. This has been surprisingly difficult.

The risks of lesbian sex doesn't need quantification because it's basically zero. The risks of straight sex have been decently-enough quantified here and here. But there's no comparable guide for gay sex.

All of the websites for gay men give vague advice like "wearing a condom is safer than not wearing a condom." Sure, but does wearing a condom make gay sex safe enough to rationally partake in, or is it like wearing a seatbelt while you're drunk driving? I'd like to write a post that told men how risky gay sex was and how much of that risk can be avoided. It would help men decide not just whether they should have gay sex, but whether they should get circumcised or insist their partners be tested.

This post could be a hazard if it exposes Less Wrong to legal risk, or if it says something boneheaded and damages the forum's credibility. So I'd probably need some help researching and editing it and I'd want to show it to whoever is in charge of these forums before I post it.

View more: Prev | Next