I paged through all of it. It's a standard handbook for meetup planning and not especially spicy in its departures from sense, or even very culty. The reading list and quoted "luminaries" are what you'd expect from the rat crew. Maaaaybe don't choose Nick Bostrom as the pull-quote for the "devil's advocate" game, sheesh. What stood out most was the myopic lack of caveats for argument- and belief-based games and activities that are practically guaranteed to result in othering, offense, harassment, etc. The section on male/female balance at meetups gives a brief, passing, supercilious nod to the idea that hey, the perception of sexism is important even if the offender didn't intend it -- and then blithely chucks that out the window thereafter. The "Rejection Game" could be an actually useful exercise but the obvious "DON'T FKING USE THIS TO HIT ON OTHER ATTENDEES" advice is absent (of course). There's almost no consideration of sensitivity toward group members' well-being in the execution of their club activities, as if they assume everyone else is a Rational Robot-Person Who Is Far Beyond Plebeian Concerns Like "Being Offended" Or "Considering Other People Might Lack The Privilege I Take For Granted". Shocking, I know. also, a quote from Yud's "Epistle to the New York Less Wrongians" = oh man how pompous can you *get*, dude

what else did you expect from rationalist source material

"Even well-meaning statements like “it’s nice to see some women here” single out a person’s sex" This bit in particular is decent advice, though.

WLers, its the opposite lmao.

Who wants voluntary rejection therapy!? Why!?