You’re making strong personal claims about Aella and the commenters without providing enough evidence. By jumping to your conclusions and implying that the evidence is obvious, you’re violating community norms of politeness and process.
Isn’t Aella doing exactly that here?
(Some are a bit less skilled; for example, see Geoff Anders dutifully including option C in this otherwise aggressive tweet)
Why is this OK? If the community is so easily hypocritical then isn’t this just proving my point?
Well, that’s for the moderator to decide. I think the points are legitimate and if someone paints a personal narrative onto something it’s fine to point out the narrative as you see it.
Giving a highly mimetic name to something, a really compelling object-level mental framework, and putting a personal narrative behind it is a really big deal and actually significantly alters people’s thought processes in a way they don’t easily detect. I’m not actually sure that anyone should do this in any situation.
And when you tie this into an ongoing moral issue with real consequences—this is just a really big deal. I think the justice system is super important, I think the blog-sphere is much more influential than people realize, I think personal branding/distribution affects things to a really surprising degree, and stuff is leaking across which really shouldn’t.
It’s just that these are worlds that really shouldn’t be colliding and she’s apparently just decided to appoint herself as juror and burn the whole thing down. It’s not right.
I think it’s good too.
Motive/intent doesn’t matter, this is literally point two of her entire argument, how can I interpret your previous comment honestly when you didn’t even read the post, you are just proving me right...
You are saying that because she is your friend, e.g. here she is retweeting you. https://twitter.com/RomeoStevens76/status/1458933961153908736
You are not impartial and it is deceptive to give the impression that you might be.
She knows that now everyone is going to think of this post, the fact that she’s hot/interesting, the idea of ‘frame control’ and her abusive father, whenever leverage/paradigm gets mentioned. She has tied these things together in your mind and it will affect the way you perceive the situation. I don’t understand how you aren’t seeing this.
I also don’t understand why you expect me to update on your self-reported counterfactual. Would any rationalist actually do this? What on earth is going on? It seems like you’re just trying to signal to support your friend. I can’t really believe you’d do that so brazenly on a rationalist forum.
Your whole career seems to be repeatedly exploiting morally-grey areas to become famous/wealthy/powerful and occasionally playing the victim card. It’s shady. You seen to launder a ton of your personal grievances through well-written blog posts that to a large degree people listen to because you are a smart rationalist porn star with an aspirational narrative who can talk her way out of any overton window.
It’s a good post but you also have an agenda with the leverage/paradigm thing and you aren’t being clear about it. Most people here are only going to notice the object level. It’s just really bad to tie your personal narrative/brand into an ongoing issue and present it as a really compelling object-level framework. It’s distorting and just pretty frustrating. You’re quite significantly altering the narrative, it’s not really clear that you should be, and half of this stuff should be dealt with in a court house anyway.
It just seems crazy that I can point out that Aella is being manipulative and you guys are easily-fooled, I get a bunch of well-written and thoughtful replies telling me I am wrong and a jerk, I almost convince myself that you are right, but under closer examination what you say is completely hypocritical and applies to Aella’s post too.
And other people in the comments can point out that Aella’s post is doing literally the thing she describes in her post.… and this is just of intellectual interest to you guys? Like, it’s not actually making you examine your metacognition at all? There is a total disconnect here.
This is supposed to be a rationality forum but it seems you guys barely update on anything, don’t really think critically, and mostly just shuffle around ingroup ideas that have been validated by [Eliezer, Aella, Scott Alexander] or whoever is in the ingroup these days and somehow don’t really notice it.
I think this forum is mainly interesting as a case-study in cult behaviour, avoidant thinking, and sociopath mind-control.