Not on any level other than superficially: When people critique the Dems from the left they generally are doing it based on things like "The Democrats aren't doing enough to rebuild our gutted social safety net, nor do they want to" or "the Democrats won't make more than superficial attempts to combat systemic racism"
What Geoffrey "[Literal Eugenicist](https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838/)" Miller means when he says the Democrats and the GOP are too close is some Jonathan Haidt shit about how the Democrats are [stereotype accuracy deniers](https://i.redd.it/nr28d5adj6u31.png) which is just as bad as wanting creationism taught in schools.
I love how there’s like, one truly valuable lesson in
rationalism, and it’s all about how we are also deeply biased, and to
question everything, and when faced with the realization that they were
very wrong about something, this person’s first instinct is to blame
everyone else.
The core tenet of “rationalism” is “I am very smart, so if I’m wrong,
it’s not my fault”.
There are two common flaws I see over and over in rationalists:
\- Denying they have feelings, then being ruled by those feelings
\- Questioning biases everywhere but themselves.
Sometimes people will make a show about questioning their own biases, but it's rarely more than skin deep.
She goes on to say “I also am sympathetic to arguments that, while
Trump is horrible, Biden is worse. I personally don’t really agree
though - I think I’d prefer a semi-competent person I disagree with
driving the ship than an incompetent person I disagree with slightly
less”
Like what could you possibly agree with Trump, but not Biden, on?
https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/search?q=aella&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all
She's really more of a eugenicist but she's a strong "all lives matter" sort.
she seems to agree that black lives matter and racism is bad. i get being leery of the weird puritanical undercurrents of some parts of the movement doe, seems reasonable
https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1268927805435244544
i don't think it makes sense to call her a eugenicist just because she posts questions about eugenics
ok. she's a content creator. what about her shift from "gnome predicament" content to "assigned reproductive partner" content?
also, use the Bayes. P(asks questions about eugenics|is eugenicist) vs P(asks questions about eugenics|is not a eugenicist).
>ok. she's a content creator. what about her shift from "gnome predicament" content to "assigned reproductive partner" content?
lol what about it?
> P(asks questions about eugenics|is eugenicist) vs P(asks questions about eugenics|is not a eugenicist)
What do you think is more likely -- that this random internet woman is a scary evil white supremacist, or that she's just a weird edgelord asking intentionally offensive questions to see how people react and, perhaps even more importantly, to generate buzz and drive people to her page, where they are more likely to click on her start-up or her onlyfans
> "assigned reproductive partner"
> lol what about it?
gee I dunno what could assigning partners *possibly* have to do with eugenics??
The "edgelord" defense has also struck me as a weak one ever since 2016, when an edgelord became American president and then started doing scandals.
You strike me as someone who isn't all that familiar with Aella tweets.
>gee I dunno what could assigning partners possibly have to do with eugenics??
Sorry i don't even know what you're referring to with the "assigning partners" thing, does she think partners should be assigned? where has she said that?
>The "edgelord" defense has also struck me as a weak one ever since 2016, when an edgelord became American president and then started doing scandals.
Do you...think she is trying to...become president...? do you think the existence of trump somehow makes it untrue that lots of taboo-ignoring edgelords exist ?
>You strike me as someone who isn't all that familiar with Aella tweets.
I followed her for awhile, got annoyed, unfollowed, then refollowed to gawk when I saw she had an onlyfans and thus had a higher likelihood of posting lewds
Tax cuts for the rich.
Policies that harm minorities that you can’t call them racist for because they are ackhshuslly motivated by principled libertarian beliefs and why are you still crying wolf this is why people voted for Trump. /s
All her recent comments try so hard to excuse trump of possibly being
a white nationalist. Why is it always so hard to for Rationalists to
admit that somebody might actually be a white nationalist and repeatedly
liking people who shout ‘white power’ is prob a sign that they are one.
Also because open white nats are not really liked, most people wouldn’t
be inclined to openly support white nats, so you should always be
worried when people say vague thinks like ‘well I agree with some things
Hitler did, but not everything’ without going into specifics. This all
seems so basic that you need to be either naive, or secretly trying to
help the natzis if you don’t at least get this.
Legit unrelated to the above but
this is bad (Btw, people accuse Biden of being a demented weirdo sex
pervert, (I certainly have in the past) but turns he always was a person
who speaks in a lot of gaffes, he just isn’t that great of an public
speaker. So he isn’t demented). Unless I misread the tweet and she means
that Trump is the person she agrees more with btw (in that case it is
related, and see my first paragraph and ignore me screaming).
Well, I'm in no position to judge his history on that, as all I know about biden before this is the jokes about him, and how I personally think the lower half of his face looks like [Judge Dredds face in the comics](https://ahvalnews.com/sites/default/files/styles/is_article_featured_top_1200x550/public/2019-05/judge_dredd_1.jpg?h=2e75806b&itok=F21_Et27). And then there is my preference to not say people are mentally not doing well just by media appearances (I dislike the same being done for trump for example, who granted also does very badly, and I'm still annoyed so many media cleans up what he says to make it coherent (the speeches are a lot weirder than what is written about the speeches)).
To be fair, I also have not really listened to Bidens recent speeches where he wears a mask, I did see he was wearing one on some images.
Biden is a Stutterer: [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/joe-biden-stutter-profile/602401/](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/joe-biden-stutter-profile/602401/)
It may not explain everything, but some of his verbal moments are clearly due to this.
Well, im not allowed to vote anyway, and in Bidens case im more worried he doesn't walk the walk. Esp considering the recent democratic votes. (No on weed? wtf)
If someone’s dumb enough to not see “Trump bad”, my priors force me
to conclude that their opinions on everything politics/culture related
will be terrible. Did I apply Bayes’ correctly, or can only Rationalists
do that??
This is the risk of getting all your info from social media. She said
in a related tweet “Of course I agree he is in fact bad, just most
people talking about him being bad are really bad at it.”
Well, if you read the front page of the Washington Post, or the oped
section, you’d get an eyeful of GOOD reasons why Trump is a garbage
fire.
This is the problem with social media!
EDIT: Social media is the worldwide equivalent of only talking to
your neighbors or friends about international or political issues: you
still get dumb takes, only at a worldwide scale!
I also am sympathetic to arguments that, while Trump is horrible,
Biden is worse. I personally don’t really agree though - I think I’d
prefer a semi-competent person I disagree with driving the ship than an
incompetent person I disagree with slightly less
I just can’t see a perspective from which Biden is worse. What is she
talking about? It seems to me that you could nominate a cactus for
president and still be doing better than Trump.
And that is the true danger of getting accustomed to only reading arguments in the rhetorical style of the dying wizard.
Geoff Primal jumps in with one of the worst replies of all time: https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/1277328336956477440?s=20
I love how there’s like, one truly valuable lesson in rationalism, and it’s all about how we are also deeply biased, and to question everything, and when faced with the realization that they were very wrong about something, this person’s first instinct is to blame everyone else.
The core tenet of “rationalism” is “I am very smart, so if I’m wrong, it’s not my fault”.
I don’t get it. She had Bayes’ rule. How could it have failed for so long? Perhaps she did the math wrong.
She goes on to say “I also am sympathetic to arguments that, while Trump is horrible, Biden is worse. I personally don’t really agree though - I think I’d prefer a semi-competent person I disagree with driving the ship than an incompetent person I disagree with slightly less”
Like what could you possibly agree with Trump, but not Biden, on?
What a horrible person. Able-ist slurs and all.
All her recent comments try so hard to excuse trump of possibly being a white nationalist. Why is it always so hard to for Rationalists to admit that somebody might actually be a white nationalist and repeatedly liking people who shout ‘white power’ is prob a sign that they are one. Also because open white nats are not really liked, most people wouldn’t be inclined to openly support white nats, so you should always be worried when people say vague thinks like ‘well I agree with some things Hitler did, but not everything’ without going into specifics. This all seems so basic that you need to be either naive, or secretly trying to help the natzis if you don’t at least get this.
Legit unrelated to the above but this is bad (Btw, people accuse Biden of being a demented weirdo sex pervert, (I certainly have in the past) but turns he always was a person who speaks in a lot of gaffes, he just isn’t that great of an public speaker. So he isn’t demented). Unless I misread the tweet and she means that Trump is the person she agrees more with btw (in that case it is related, and see my first paragraph and ignore me screaming).
aella we know you hate read this sub because if Scott and Yud do it so do you
just come out and say you’re a fascist it’d make everyone’s life easier
On the one hand, he can’t form complete sentences, says extremely stupid and rude shit constantly, and is obviously incompetent.
On the other hand, this makes the libs mad.
What a conundrum.
If someone’s dumb enough to not see “Trump bad”, my priors force me to conclude that their opinions on everything politics/culture related will be terrible. Did I apply Bayes’ correctly, or can only Rationalists do that??
This is the risk of getting all your info from social media. She said in a related tweet “Of course I agree he is in fact bad, just most people talking about him being bad are really bad at it.”
Well, if you read the front page of the Washington Post, or the oped section, you’d get an eyeful of GOOD reasons why Trump is a garbage fire.
This is the problem with social media!
EDIT: Social media is the worldwide equivalent of only talking to your neighbors or friends about international or political issues: you still get dumb takes, only at a worldwide scale!
Further down the thread:
I just can’t see a perspective from which Biden is worse. What is she talking about? It seems to me that you could nominate a cactus for president and still be doing better than Trump.