Confirmation bias - “I’m aware of a minority group, therefore
I notice them more often and think they’re more prevalent than they
really are”
Just World fallacy - “I believe the hard sciences™
are a completely objective meritocracy, so I assume a particular
group’s prominence or lack thereof must be an indicator of raw talent
rather than cultural bias.”
Jokes are an in-group signifier whose efficacy is directly adjacent to the degree of commonality of the implied or explicit priors so uh no sweatie, it's totally justified to pick the tweet apart
(/s)
Jewish people are overrepresented in a couple of different fields and it's far less gross to point out cultural reasons for this than to talk about Jewish people like they just have some kind of genetic or conspirtorial edge on everyone else imo.
I've read a lot about theories concerning the roots of antisemitism (specifically the [post-emancipation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_emancipation) form). The majority seem to boil down to Jewish people being an ethnoreligious minority that looks/acts in a way distinct from other minorities. Antisemites interpret their culture as if it were designed with the goal of deceiving or otherwise harming them.
People who like to think in terms of, "Us vs. them" don't like, "thems" but like grey areas between Us and Others even less. They're particularly upset by the idea that an Other could have power over Us. Some argue it also comes from a sense of guilt over mistreating outsiders, fearing that what has gone around could come around.
I believe the explanation is fairly simple... of the predominant world religions (Christian, Muslim, jewish) in early europe/asia/mesopotamia Christians and Muslims had specific religious edicts forbidding charging interest on loans. This is obviously a terrible idea for capital efficiency as the lender assumes all the risk and gets no reward... Jewish people were the only group that was allowed by their religion to use capital in a way we would call a bank (they could charge interest to non jews). This was to the benefit of all (capital sitting unused benefits no one) but created the justifiable stereotype at the time of all bankers being Jewish. Trades of course persisted in families so Jewish prevalence in early banking continued long after the edicts for other religious groups went away.
It is also true that Jews were forbidden from owning property at different times in various areas of Europe and as such developed other means of establishing financial security, e.g. precious metals and stones, lending and so on.
It's worth bringing up, but only because that conspiracy theory relies on looking at cause-and-effect in completely the wrong direction and ignoring old injustices.
Jews in early-early-modern Europe were denied rights and knew they would be treated as "foreigners" no matter how long they stayed in one place. On top of that, they had (and have) a religion that required a degree of literacy when literacy wasn't a priority for lower-class christians. So they had a social pressure towards trades that were considered tawdry or unclean by the era's standards, didn't require land ownership, and required literacy - medicine, finance, entertainment, and so on.
Not coincidentally, they're also trades with tools that can be packed into a bag for a midnight flit when a rabble-rouser starts to Just Ask Questions about why *They* were untouched by an outbreak of food poisoning and whether *They* had anything to do with it (and by the way torches and pitchforks are on offer this week, please drop by the store).
Like absolutely everyone else on the planet, people tended to take on trades similar to their parents. So by the late modern era when medicine and finance became much more respectable professions, a lot of European Jews had already biased their families towards academia.
So medieval practices intended to keep a minority at the bottom of the ladder - and that minority being literate - accidentally ended up giving some of that minority's families a head start on preparing for the modern world, compared to the people who wanted to keep them in poverty. It's all familial and cultural, genetics has nothing all to do with it, and none of it was planned by anyone.
Meanwhile there are still rabble-rousers whose worldview relies on everyone's traits being inherent and genetic. They're still Just Asking Questions, and still selling torches and pitchforks. Sometimes literally.
A personal theory of mine in addition to this, though I've never seen confirmed: the rich Jewish people could flee the holocaust while the poor Jewish people died so as a total number of population those who survived tended to be richer on average.
Nope. The wealthiest jews had the most incentive to risk staying while the middle class and poorer jews had nothing to lose from leaving. When all you needed to emigrate to the US was enough money for a boat ticket lot of Jewish peasants loving in the pale of settlement set off for the "goldene medina" where they could ostensibly work to accumulate wealth in a country where they weren't legally prohibited from owning farmland or living in certain places. By in large the migration was of the middle and lower classes. Beyond that, the major European Jewish migrations took place up in the 19th and early 20th centuries up until the 1920s before the rise of nazi Germany. Roughly 1870 to 1910 was the golden age for the majority of Eastern and Central European jewry. My family came from the peasantry and middle class. One of my ancestors had a name that literally meant "swamp people" in the local language. Another was an itinerant farmer and a third was a penniless polish orphan. The wealthy tended to assume that status and wealth would protect them.
To add to that the Nazis tended to extract as much wealth from the fleeing (or staying) Jews as possible, so if your posessions were very unmovable (land, houses, companies) you would be forced to sell them for pennies on the dollar (or just get it seized without compensation).
verification on twitter is weird, it is easier to get verified as an entertainer, (~~you need 10k follows or something~~ I was wrong apparently there is no min number) vs 100k as an activist. But good for them being a bit more proactive in protecting SW.
Wait that was the same girl? Fuck I remember that post. Was that really what jump-started her... not a career... whatever the fuck her whole "tweeting all day" shtick is?
I don’t know if that’s the big thing that made her a quote unquote “name” (although it certainly *seems* to have been the major originary factor), but she’s been cashing in ever since
She also found an [unconventional application of Bayesian reasoning](https://knowingless.com/2021/10/19/becoming-a-whorelord-the-overly-analytical-guide-to-escorting).
Yeah, no other social media let's you see Elon Musk being up emeralds and then get ratio'd by someone.
This is all nonsense if you don't use Twitter, but incredibly funny if you do.
To be fair I have a reasonably (not that) successful twitter account which led to my going on the podcast linked in the second sticky on this sub
I would say that being on reddit or indeed in academia has been much more damaging to my mental health than twitter, which is a place I can have a lot more fun cracking one-liners
> In the most general sense, she has physical attributes that are very widely considered physical attractive, and she’s made some money and clout out of that
Right, like, somebody who's willing to show you their breasts is going to get attention whether you think they're a 10 or somewhat lower on the scale.
Reminds me of my biggest ex, who also happens to be into Dharma…
I’m personally more into obscure sects of Islam as a solution to the whole “God is Dead, and we have killed him” issue
një ditë do të jem i lirë
One of these days an ashkenazi transwoman will emerge from the void
of our world and she will see into fourth dimension and think
exclusively in complex mathematical formulas and maybe even have laser
eye and she will lead humanity to a better tomorrow with flying cars and
legalized heroin.
I was going to say "Nah, she would just write a eurovision-winning pop song thats a total banger" but alas, Dana International is apparently Yemenite-jewish, and not Ashkenaz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv83u7-mNWQ
Trying to put a happy spin on racism by saying, “Look, I believe the
Ashkenazim are genetically gifted” seems more of a Geoffrey
“Primalpoly” Miller schtick, but apparently he’s too busy jerkin’ it to
Musk and Gabbard this week.
I remember seeing an unironic take from a Tumblr rationalist that
went something like ‘The best way to get closer to a gender parity in
STEM careers is to encourage more people to transition because trans
women can understand math with their male brains whereas it’s
unrealistic to expect this of feeble-minded cis women’ 🤮
Also Aella’s greatest achievements are taking gnome nudes and making dumb polls on Twitter, of course she thinks other women (and she clearly does not believe trans women are women) aren’t capable of being brilliant and accomplished either
Yeah, the sense I'm getting here is that she wants to be able to say that trans women are "male-brained" whilst accusing anyone who disagrees with her of being "the real transphobes".
That’s the angle I initially thought this tweet was taking. The whole “trans women have an unfair biological advantage” deal and whatnot that people being up with sports.
Considering she recently also went 'democracy doesn't work' or something ([here the tweet](https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1459213856992108549), Bonus [primal poly agrees](https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/1459248492866646022)), I have my doubts. But fair enough, im not sure either. Lets assign a 50% chance. ;)
I agree. IMHO, if someone spends their whole lives online pretending to be (something), I think it’s safe to assume that they are actually (something). Sure, it may be a performance piece or a troll, but if the person *never* breaks character then you don’t have anything really to base that assumption on.
Well, this seems more a case of just asking questions than always keeping that role, so I don't think that applies here. (not saying you are incorrect btw, but in Aellas case it she seems to be pretending to be quirky, or is quirky).
Being skeptical about democracy as an information aggregation method and executive tool doesn't make you NRX. To be a NRX you must support some reactionary alternative to democracy. If you maintain that democracy is still "the best we got" then you're not a reactionary, and if you want to replace it with some other institution that isn't reactionary, then you're also not NRX.
He literally funds neoreactionairy projects because he wants to increase the neoreactionairy movement but whatever. Sure we cant look into his heart if he really is a nrx type crypto fascist. *wet fart sound*
You arent a butter, this isnt buttcoin. Why are you dragging up old shit. (I thought this was a post about peter thiel).
Last part of the reply still applies. Just replace he with she.
what the fuck are you talking about, you can obviously be a reactionary who thinks democracy is good. Are we so far down the normalisation rabbithole that you have to openly advocate for untrammelled despotism as the ideal to be a reactionary now?
i’m willing to assign 100% probability to the female
mathematician/physicist in question being a woman whos written something
or other about theoretical physics or maths
This hot take was just next level. Simps giving her all the attention
she’s seeking combined with casual bigotry and all of that baked in a
mush of acid-stewed brain is an incredible combination.
She was in Austin recently and I saw her on ok cupid. I didn’t
realize she was so conservative until I read her profile. She came off
really arrogant too. Someone who has experienced a lot of trauma and has
closed their heart.
She's got very old fashioned ideas about gender relations. Seems like she's trying to put out #bossbabe energy in a sort of /r/femaledatingstrategy sort of way.
would be better to leave the jews out completely and reword it to something like
>you want more trans women in the workplace because you're a feminist
>i want more trans women in the workplace because i'm an anti-feminist
>we are not the same
Oh that’s good too! I saw this one on Twitter last week:
>You hate trans women because you’re transphobic
>I hate trans women because I hate women
>we are not the same
thatsthepointofthememe.jpg
Welp. As soon as you have to explain the joke to someone who doesn’t get it, it kills the joke. You seem earnest and not just memeing so lets kill the joke so you can breathe a sigh of relief: 😇
Aella is implying that there is something inherently “better” about female scientists who used to be male. In other words, she seems to be arguing that there are female scientists and then there are *male* female scientists who are “more smarter”.
That’s what the meme is making fun of. It doesn’t work if the “narrator” of the meme (in this case a stand-in for Aella) believes that transwomen are as equally “not male” as ciswomen.
Now I’m off to do penance for the unforgivable sin of unironically explaining a sneer on sneerclub.
At this point, as in, after seeing that be the case so many times. Do you actually think that Jewish people aren't overrepresented in Physics, or that a disproportionate amount of women in STEM fields are transgender? I'm in infosec and can anecdotally confirm those numbers are essentially correct over here.
I’ve noticed this woman and also some posts on r/slatestarcodex
mentioning ashkenazi Jews in weird ways. I was stoked to find slate star
and love many of the deep dives into topics that aren’t tolerated in the
mainstream. But what gives? What’s connection between Aella and
slatestar? Is this stuff actually just anti-Semitic? Confused. Please
enlighten.
With SSC I think it's primarily an expression of Siskind's ginormous inferiority complex (he's Jewish and I guess he likes the idea of being genetically superior to everyone else) and also he's racist. Aella is just racist and/or trying to get racists to buy her nudes.
What a fucking bummer. I started reading SSC recently because I was stoked on what little I had read. Namely AI. At first glance it did seem rational. Less than 48 hours later I am sorely disappointed. I appreciate the help, glad I learned this before I put too much stock into his other writings. Be well.
You too! If it's any consolation, a sizeable portion of this sub's userbase once enjoyed SSC and other rationalism-adjacent blogs. I read SSC for years before becoming disillusioned with the blog and the rationalist ideology, and tired of the way it seemed to attract idiot rightwingers Just Asking Questions about how IQ is Heritable and Definitely Associated with Race? and maybe Ethnostates are Good and Other Races Are Problems?
I was never huge on the AI angle, but I was interested in some of the (pseudo) wonkish policy discussions that I felt I couldn't find elsewhere on the web
I totally understand how you feel. There is some good writing on SSC and the Sequences; but it’s not original and taken from other writers and rewritten (to reach a wider audience). I think you can still use SSC and the Sequences as a source but put every claim under serious scrutiny because there’s a lot of shitty ideology they tie in with the good stuff. You can also follow up on the sources linked in their posts to get it straight from the original writer. Nick Bostrom is a prominent writer on AI, have you read his book Superintelligence?
Thanks for commiserating and yeah, I’m still interested in reading some of it but will keep my guard up for sure. I’m new to understanding AI and I’m mostly learning what I can about it to inform a sci fi novel I’m working on. I have not read this book but will look into it. Thanks for the recco!
It’s gonna be ok. You can still read. The great thing about SSC and also Rogan’s podcast for example, and this is me trying to be charitable, but they cover tons of topics and people that are genuinely interesting - you just gotta ignore basically anything they say about it and go research the topics on your own. It’s also a way to realize how full of shit they are in their opinions.
I also read dreaded outlets like Breitbart and National Review lol, but I can’t justify that nearly as well, except to say…I’m keeping tabs on mine enemies!
Well careful with not getting some minor brainrot over that. And you can always stop if it starts to effect you, you don't have to read things like that. (and if you compulsively start reading it, there are ways to block sites).
Hahaha no worries. I think I’m immune to their whining and outrageousness. Been doin it for years. Perhaps I am a masochist. But I read plenty of the enlightening, enjoyable, and encouraging as well. My good buddy and I also have a pact to off one another if ever the dark incantations turn us sideways. Ok that’s a joke, but we do keep tabs on the assholes together. It’s not a solitary effort 😄
The rationalist sphere strongly subscribes to a version of white supremacy that includes Ashkenazi Jews (which includes both Eliezer and Scooter). This was actually quite a common substrain before the Nazis.
Some of it is is primarily Ashkenazi supremecism, and 'whites' are further classified into various lesser grades, using e.g Albion's Seeds as a reference.
Hey, I also used to like ssc and thought it was insightful, but it has a weird undertone in a lot of posts. Like how he says he is pro LGBT rights, but somehow comes to the conclusion that Rationalism says transphobia is correct (E: just to be clear here, Scott isn't a transphobe, just that Rationalism help with transphobia), and how people pushing for lgbt rights should have been more respectable, then stuff would have gotten done earlier. (E: there is more btw, but some stuff I don't like to bring up).
He also simply doesn't get certain leftwing ideas/ other commentary.
While rereading a lot of his posts I got the idea that I missed an undertone, and I started to notice some of the rhetorical tricks he kept pulling, to make you agree with him more.
Then there is also the fact he refuses to take responsibility for the 'empathy removal training center' which is themotte. Which has given the rise to the saying here that he is teaching liberal/centrist people to bring a butterknife to a political gunfight.
His favorite boogyman being feminists (of who he thinks only 30% are sane), should have been a big hint, but I'm an idiot at times.
Anyway, yeah it sucks, at least you didnt put that much time into it ;).
E: of course, this subreddit does have a bias, so dont take everything here as instantly true (you can always search the sub here, or ask for more info).
> His favorite boogyman being feminists (of who he thinks only 30% are sane)
The race and class stuff is bad enough to make it a bit of a fun surprise to remember "oh right, this guy resents women having rights, too!"
Well, in total centrist beigeness he never said he was against womans rights, he just thinks people are getting their rights the wrong way. (Holy shit, why did I ever think this guy wasn't a conservative, the anti-abolitionists used this argument ffs).
Basically. The whole deal of "well if you think about it only Certain People should have rights and freedoms guaranteed and protected by society" only leads in one direction. His hankering for the poor and disabled to be sterilized was a major sign of just what kind of world the guy wants.
Wait, where does it say "rationalism says transphobia is correct"? As far as i knew Scott's a racist but not transphobic (not that that's exactly gold fucking star material).
A long time ago he made a post where he went 'well basically if we think about trans people using a Rationalist lens, you come to the conclusion that transphobia is correct, but obv as transphobia is bad we are going to drop this part and Rationalism is wrong' and then he tries to create a non transpobic argument (by misrepresenting trans people) (My words obv).
He says his ideology leads to transphobia, but otoh he says transphobia is bad. (So calling Scott transphobic isn't fair, it is just that Rationalism just really helps with the anti-trans arguments).
I might be able to find the link. [Via this excellent comment (by a very attractive poster I must add)](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/ll99n5/scott_siskind_admitted_fan_of_eugenics_and/gno55jd/) I found [the article, so you can judge for yourself](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/) (search for ' anti-transgender' to get to the correct part).
I would interpret that essay as moderately anti transphobic. When he says that rationalism seems to lead to transphobia, he argues that is is a result of a sort of naive misunderstanding, i.e. a failing to realise that categorising things should be a pragmatic exercise, and perhaps some sociological flaw where people really want to show off their hardheadedness.
There's a couple possibilities, none good.
Most obvious chance is the implication "they're only being praised because of what/who they are." That is, people who praise the work of Jewish or trans women are insincere and politically motivated.
Or, it's the same kind of rank prejudice that makes whites perfectly balanced specimens against mentally inferior Black people and physically inferior Asian people. With the results of social and historical forces interpreted as pure genetics. Aella's on record as having various regressive ideas about the "proper" role of men and women, and the idea that only a woman who's "really" a man could be good at math is about on-brand for her.
Jesus Christ I need my glasses. I read through several threads on
this post, getting more and more confused as to what the fuck happened
to Adele and when she apparently went off the deep end.
Whenever I see an egregious post from a woman on r/SneerClub I assign something like 90% probability to the woman being Aella.
So this looks like:
Confirmation bias - “I’m aware of a minority group, therefore I notice them more often and think they’re more prevalent than they really are”
Just World fallacy - “I believe the hard sciences™ are a completely objective meritocracy, so I assume a particular group’s prominence or lack thereof must be an indicator of raw talent rather than cultural bias.”
[deleted]
One of these days an ashkenazi transwoman will emerge from the void of our world and she will see into fourth dimension and think exclusively in complex mathematical formulas and maybe even have laser eye and she will lead humanity to a better tomorrow with flying cars and legalized heroin.
Trying to put a happy spin on racism by saying, “Look, I believe the Ashkenazim are genetically gifted” seems more of a Geoffrey “Primalpoly” Miller schtick, but apparently he’s too busy jerkin’ it to Musk and Gabbard this week.
I remember seeing an unironic take from a Tumblr rationalist that went something like ‘The best way to get closer to a gender parity in STEM careers is to encourage more people to transition because trans women can understand math with their male brains whereas it’s unrealistic to expect this of feeble-minded cis women’ 🤮
We get it Aella you are a neoreactionairy.
Evo psych: the science of finding the perfect balance of racism, sexism, and transphobia in your twitter takes.
This angers the Basilisk.
i’m willing to assign 100% probability to the female mathematician/physicist in question being a woman whos written something or other about theoretical physics or maths
Yikes i almost missed her reply
This hot take was just next level. Simps giving her all the attention she’s seeking combined with casual bigotry and all of that baked in a mush of acid-stewed brain is an incredible combination.
She was in Austin recently and I saw her on ok cupid. I didn’t realize she was so conservative until I read her profile. She came off really arrogant too. Someone who has experienced a lot of trauma and has closed their heart.
I don’t get it Why would admiring a female theoretical physicist make you trans ?
This display of brainrot inspired me to quickly whip up this meme.
This person as good at math as I am. And I suck at math.
“at this point”
what is that supposed to mean? at this point in twitter posts?
ah yes, bayes in action.
I’ve noticed this woman and also some posts on r/slatestarcodex mentioning ashkenazi Jews in weird ways. I was stoked to find slate star and love many of the deep dives into topics that aren’t tolerated in the mainstream. But what gives? What’s connection between Aella and slatestar? Is this stuff actually just anti-Semitic? Confused. Please enlighten.
Lmao what a transphobic piece of shit radfem
Jesus Christ I need my glasses. I read through several threads on this post, getting more and more confused as to what the fuck happened to Adele and when she apparently went off the deep end.
[removed]
This content and response to the content in this thread make me lose hope for humanity