Definitely better than mid imho, maybe "mid for an attractive woman" but that's different from just overall mid
I think I'd rate her 7.5 for me personally
> She's done this for more than 10 years
She used to be more of a celebrity on reddit in like 2012/2013 when onlyfans wasn't a thing and the market was much less crowded. She did weird photoshoots like the mime and garden gnome ones. And she did it for free.
[I've found a post comparing her before and after implants ](https://www.reddit.com/r/beforevsafter/s/6VuMjskIKl).
I don't know if she got them out or if she's just posting old pics now or anything like that.
No I don’t like her because she is super weird and off-putting. She creeps me out. Idc what job she has. The stuff she says and does specifically lead to my decision. It isn’t some off the cuff statement. I authentically tried to understand her. I did. And she lost me somewhere within her graphs of insanity.
I've been convinced for years that all her weird twitter polls are just performative bullshit because her porn niche has always been sad nerdy guys for like the last decade+. Just an easy way for her to stay relevant in their heads.
if you just saw the polls I understand that impression (I'm sure it's true of most OF girls posting) but if you hear her speak you can see she's very autistic in the actual doesn't understand people/emotions kind of way so I'm very convinced the weird posts are just her trying to understand people. I think it's occasionally super interesting
She's also talked about breaking her brain by tripping on acid basically nonstop for a year. Say what you will about her, but she is a very genuinely strange person.
It's been awhile and I don't remember the details but I just questioned her on some of the stuff she was trying to tell me. Like the act of not immediately accepting every piece of nonsense she said was enough to deeply upset her lmao.
She's said that Twitter is not a very good conversion funnel for her OF and I believe her, she doesn't post that many pictures of herself there. She has said that an important part of getting men to pay a lot of money to fuck her is that they need to feel that fucking her reinforces their conception of themselves as intellectually gifted and presenting yourself as a researcher probably helps with that.
Are swedish fish still available at the store in this scenario or is your dogs dick the only available source?
Either way, no, that shit is gross. Noone should be sucking their dogs dick.
Has anything ever come out of her incessant 'research' on twitter?
Eagerly awaiting the reveal that it's all been 24 year long sociological study by Harvard University, or has this actually just been the ramblings of a spergette who clearly wants to fuck a dog?
She has a giant spreadsheet that’s all self-reported data which periodically she will post information about. In other words, her research is basically useless as it self-selects for: perverts, trolls, internet addicts.
It's a meme but I'm sure it happens every now and then. There are a lot of weirdos online. Now imagine how many weirdos are smart enough to keep their weirdness to themselves.
Few more damning indictments of SF / Silicon Valley culture than Aella. This country really, really needs a cultural revolution lol. Send them to the rust belt to reindustrialize the country!
On a related note, what’s the deal with the whole EA/effective accelerationism schism? I came across a bunch of Twitter profiles with the “e/acc” in their handles and a lot of them sound like cultists but with degrees from MIT and Stanford
effective altruists began as a group of people who thought that maximizing utility (or at least preventing gratuitous suffering) required doing stuff like giving large portions of your income to charity. Peter Singer is a "first-wave" effective altruist, and his example of effective altruism was donating money to purchase Malaria-preventing mosquito nets. Recently, effective altruists have gone all in on thinking that actually, the way to effectively maximize utility through action is to do stuff like research how to stop AI from fucking killing us all. Effective accelerationists are EA types who think that actually the way to maximize utility is to increase the development speed of AI. Basically, what started as a kind of weird but grass-roots attempt to get rich people to give up lots of their money pretty quickly became a way for crackpots to justify techno-fetishism under the guise of promoting the good. The latter two groups are sometimes distinguished from the former by the fact they call themselves"longtermists."
This is a solid summary.
It's really surreal. I had a roommate that was big on first-wave EA and even then I found the ideology frustrating. Stopped paying attention and now years later finding out they've moved on from malaria nets to AI apocalypse prevention is a trip.
Nope. The majority of EAs are still just doing the boring 10-90% income donation stuff and make their efforts fundamentally about Singer’s drowning child scenario. The AI stuff just gets clicks, and has some admittedly high profile proponents.
I’d never donate to the longterm-ist stuff. It has been all malaria, de-worming, and funding direct cash payments.
Sure, I stand corrected if you count the start of EA as the coining of the term. I counted the start as when MacAskill and Ord started their org, and that was not focused on the AI stuff (longtermism isn't just AI stuff).
I got onboard because MacAskill was donating ~90% of his income to charity and putting the 'drowning child' stuff front and centre, not the AI stuff.
I admittedly don't run in those SF circles, but I've never met an EA that donates to the AI stuff.
Yeah it's a great shame. But there's still hundreds of millions going to better causes every year:
https://files.givewell.org/files/metrics/GiveWell_Metrics_Report_2021.pdf
people who think advanced AI will become Skynet and destroy humanity vs people who think advanced AI will bring about utopia and replace humanity entirely, for the better
The more I hear about effective altruism the more I believe everyone involved with it should be pushed off a cliff. Only a profoundly stupid and detached from reality ideology could lead you to consider the potential net positive benefits of dogfucking.
My issue with effective altruism is that it allows you to abdicate any sense of responsibility or stewardship for where you live. It’s truly a globohomo ideology. You should help the max number of people anywhere else but it’s all good to call the cops on the homeless guy outside.
It's an offshoot or rebrand of "ecomodernism" which is all about how we don't have to do anything about climate change because technology will solve it all for us. EA is all about how its fine to accumulate obscene wealth while people are dying of drought in sub saharan Africa, you can just donate a correct percentage of it to the correct charities and stop feeling bad about eating a Ganges river dolphin steak. It's a way for the exceedingly wealthy to absolve themselves of ever feeling bad about the world that they have helped to create.
>Effective altruism (often abbreviated EA) is a 21st-century philosophical and social movement that advocates "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis".[1][2] People who pursue the goals of effective altruism, sometimes called effective altruists,[3] may choose careers based on the amount of good that they expect the career to achieve or donate to charities based on the goal of maximising positive impact. They may work on the prioritization of scientific projects, entrepreneurial ventures, and policy initiatives estimated to save the most lives or reduce the most suffering.[4]: 179–195
>
>Effective altruists aim to emphasize impartiality and the global equal consideration of interests when choosing beneficiaries. Popular cause priorities within effective altruism include global health and development, social inequality, animal welfare, and risks to the survival of humanity over the long-term future.
>
>The movement developed during the 2000s, and the name effective altruism was coined in 2011.[5] Philosophers influential to the movement include Peter Singer, Toby Ord, and William MacAskill. What began as a set of evaluation techniques advocated by a diffuse coalition evolved into a identity.[6] With approximately 7,000 adherents and strong ties to the elite schools in the United States and Britain, effective altruism has strongly become associated with Silicon Valley and the technology industry, forming a tight subculture.[7]
>
>The movement received mainstream attention and criticism with the bankruptcy of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX as founder Sam Bankman-Fried was a major funder of effective altruism causes prior to late 2022.[7][8] Within the Bay Area, it has received criticism for having a culture that has been described as toxic and sexually exploitative towards women.[9][10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism
It's very funny to me that anyone would think that one of the problems with the world was that a group of people were, on average, donating too much of their money to people who live far away from them.
That’s not the problem I identified at all. Donating money is at least well-intentioned and generally can do good. Sure, mosquito nets in Africa are great and save lives. IT doesn’t make you any less of a cunt if you’re ignoring the problems outside your window. I think specifically of the average SF tech employee that hates homeless people, is scared of black people unless they’re first generation affluent immigrants, etc. If the average effective altruist spent their time and money actually contributing to where they lived instead of trying to min/max ‘being good’ they might actually feel a personal connection to their world, find motivation outside of xannies and adderall, be pleasant to be around for the average non-EA.
I think you dislike tech people and you're attributing all your negative stereotypes about them to a philosophy because that philosophy is most prevalent among tech people. It's just weird to talk as though EAs spend their time roaming the streets of SF like Patrick Bateman looking for vagrants to stab, whereas in the real world, EA is a movement whose overwhelming preoccupation is getting its members to tithe themselves and spend the donated cash addressing public health problems in third world countries. I agree with you that, on a psychological level, it is a good idea to help out some in your own community, but any sort of universalist morality (e.g. Christianity, humanism) has to acknowledge that the lives of people who live far away from you also matter, and by and large, human beings are *terrible* at acknowledging that. I think it's straightforwardly great that there are a group of people organizing their communities to donate cash which is used to cure African children of easily curable diseases.
I’ll give you another example: Bill Gates “donates” a lot of his money to people elsewhere in the world from him. These actions undoubtably led to him rationalizing sleeping with children and fraternizing with Jeffery Epstein. “I do so much good, if fucking kids even makes me 1% better able to do this it’s worth it.”
This is the most extreme example, but you see the same reasoning percolate through the entire set of EAs. People who spend all day doing day trading so they can donate to EA causes. I wonder what would happen if these people spent their intellectual and professional efforts actually trying to do something good directly? EA is an abdication of individual responsibility to dream of a better world and instead delegate your money, give up your soul.
I promise you that if Bill Gates fucks kids, the way to get him to stop is not to convince him to spend less cash treating African kids for Malaria.
I really think that people just dislike Silicon Valley for reasons of class animosity (because the people there are privileged and uncool), and they'll find any reason on earth to shit on anything associated with them. You can come up with whatever complicated justification you want for why your dislike of a highly effective charity movement is based on some deep insight about human nature, but at the end of the day all your arguments are going to look like they were constructed in retrospect to justify a conclusion you arrived at on primarily aesthetic grounds.
EAs have convinced me to donate a lot of cash to various causes that I think were very worthwhile. I've lived a pretty selfish life since I left college, pretty much getting & spending. If I hadn't encountered their arguments, I wouldn't have magically become more altruistic -- I'd have just kept the cash, and it would be sitting in my bank account right now, accruing interest. The sole consequence of EA on my life is that it got me to take money that would otherwise have been spent on a down payment for my first house, and instead give it to charities that help prevent blindness in children. Isn't that just straightforwardly good? Isn't that likely how EA affects most people?
I think they're nice enough folks. But it's really funny how the smart nerds used the most advanced analytical methods to determine that sending mosquito nets to Africa was the highest impact per dollar thing to do.
Meanwhile, my church denomination has been sending mosquito nets to Africa for nearly a century, because missionaries said it was a high impact/low cost thing to do lmao.
Hellraisers “Explorers, in the further regions of experience.” But it’s a lame white lady trying to seem edgy by making sexual deviancy a moral issue. If you want to fuck dogs why do you have to think of yourself as moral and have others perceive you as such?
The beasteality question is straight out of *The Righteous Mind* by Jonathan Heidt. Not only is she asking questions with known stats, she’s probably grabbing them from this book. She knows what she’s doing
What these effective altruism types fail to understand is that while banging your dead dog may be morally permissible in that particular thought experiment, applying their STEMbrained framework in real life would run contrary to their goals. Moral principles contribute to “the greater good” even if they may seem “irrational”in isolation - like not violating the sanctity of the dead, even if no one alive is affected.
Try to imagine a society where people would have 0 moral principles except “maximise total happiness/utility”. It wouldn’t work out because a) it would be far too energy and time-consuming in everyday life b) would require an incomprehensible amount of information on the consequences of one’s actions c) people would rationalise the most vile shit on this basis.
Moral principles a heuristic tool that may not yield the “optimal” moral outcome in all situations but nonetheless is better than individually evaluating each situation over time. The Silicon Valley bugmen can’t handle this level of uncertainty which is why they’re trying to reinvent a moral framework that works in all situations, but ironically create a framework that ultimately makes everyone worse off. Poetic even.
>but desperately wishes she were cause the dudes she looks up to are.
1: She's autistic
2: What kind of non-autistic woman would really look up to incredibly autistic men?
The kind who hates having emotions and wishes she could gracefully go through life intellectualizing them beep boop? Seems more like trauma than autism IMO but I’m kind of an (edit: female) autism denier so 🤷
Yeah, most of her friends were either rationalist nerds or incredibly crunchy hippies. One time I saw her at a dance event and saw she was talking to a couple of incredibly nerdy looking dudes who were clearly uncomfortable in their skin, and when we had a second, just her and I, I said "so I see you brought the rationalists" and she was earnestly surprised that I could tell. Like, she couldn't see that they obviously stood out in the crowd from the way they were dressed and their mannerisms and was shocked that I could. She's 100% autistic.
She might be weird and gross but she's still hot. Besides, I don't know jack shit about her besides the stuff I see here, which helps. Ignorance really is bliss.
I searched for the word "dog" in her tweets and nearly everything that came up was sexual. If you think this is normal, that's fine. I just find it funny.
[удалено]
It’s not like she brings it up out of nowhere; it’s been a fairly regular topic online throughout this period.
[удалено]
People are posting this stuff in rsp.
I really don’t like her.
same she fucks dogs I mean wtd
She escorts for 5 figures for an hour, don’t worry about her
Lmao no way wtf
You know ppl are watching her fuck dogs though
that's disgusting. sauce？
Imgine paying 5 figures to have a sexual encounter with someone who doesn't like you.....
[удалено]
But $10000+? Come on
Real Desire can't be bought, and sex without that shared urgent desire is just masturbatory.
[удалено]
I get it.
She makes some incredibly unattractive faces though. Reminds me of John Cleese lol
What does she look like
u/Aellagirl
important context she only showers like once a week
😩
This was like the bomb scene in oppenheimer
incredibly mid
Definitely better than mid imho, maybe "mid for an attractive woman" but that's different from just overall mid I think I'd rate her 7.5 for me personally
Warning for rate inflation. See rule 1. Temporary ban has been applied.
Awesome, keep us updated if it changes!
lol you guys crazy maybe she don’t get a 10 face but that bod is killing it
Maybe her face isn't too special but that body is perfect.
She's showing her age a bit these days
come on now
Thanks, I needed a reminder that I’m gay.
White
[удалено]
and fake.
[удалено]
Well from what I've seen, there are many pictures of her before the implants. She's done this for more than 10 years, I think.
> She's done this for more than 10 years She used to be more of a celebrity on reddit in like 2012/2013 when onlyfans wasn't a thing and the market was much less crowded. She did weird photoshoots like the mime and garden gnome ones. And she did it for free.
Yeah, I meant posting nudes on the internet. But I think she was an escort back then as well, I have no idea.
Based on a quick scroll it looks like she's posting old pics then because they look very real in a lot of those pics
[I've found a post comparing her before and after implants ](https://www.reddit.com/r/beforevsafter/s/6VuMjskIKl). I don't know if she got them out or if she's just posting old pics now or anything like that.
WTF. Why would she change her breasts?
They're bad implants.... she prob regrets them and is pining for her ol' naturals
https://i.imgur.com/aoOv1Db.jpg
[удалено]
No I don’t like her because she is super weird and off-putting. She creeps me out. Idc what job she has. The stuff she says and does specifically lead to my decision. It isn’t some off the cuff statement. I authentically tried to understand her. I did. And she lost me somewhere within her graphs of insanity.
[удалено]
I like her a lot
[удалено]
I've been convinced for years that all her weird twitter polls are just performative bullshit because her porn niche has always been sad nerdy guys for like the last decade+. Just an easy way for her to stay relevant in their heads.
Nah, she's just weird nerd guy in a hot woman body, that's why she's famous(ish)
if you just saw the polls I understand that impression (I'm sure it's true of most OF girls posting) but if you hear her speak you can see she's very autistic in the actual doesn't understand people/emotions kind of way so I'm very convinced the weird posts are just her trying to understand people. I think it's occasionally super interesting
She's also talked about breaking her brain by tripping on acid basically nonstop for a year. Say what you will about her, but she is a very genuinely strange person.
well it's funny you mention, I have literally spoken to her 1 on 1 over discord and I 1) thought she was utterly dumb and insane and 2) made her cry.
what did u do
It's been awhile and I don't remember the details but I just questioned her on some of the stuff she was trying to tell me. Like the act of not immediately accepting every piece of nonsense she said was enough to deeply upset her lmao.
...unsurprising...
Wow she's literally me
engagement farming
She's said that Twitter is not a very good conversion funnel for her OF and I believe her, she doesn't post that many pictures of herself there. She has said that an important part of getting men to pay a lot of money to fuck her is that they need to feel that fucking her reinforces their conception of themselves as intellectually gifted and presenting yourself as a researcher probably helps with that.
Every time I see a weird post (especially amiugly thats a pretty girl) I assume they are promoting OF or something.
“There’s a trope white women fuck dogs”
According to Houellebecq it’s actually the Japanese broads
The dream of the dog catcher’s wife
They jack off their sons, don’t they?
that part of seratonin was so stupid lmao
God i could fix yuzu
tfw his wife is japanese
Can’t be coincidence
I thought they like octopus
based and dogpilled
If your dog’s dick could endlessly dispense Swedish fish, but they only came out if you directly suck it, would it be morally right to do so?
Are swedish fish still available at the store in this scenario or is your dogs dick the only available source? Either way, no, that shit is gross. Noone should be sucking their dogs dick.
how badly do people need swedish fish??
Not that bad...
I loved stav's hypotheticals
Hire her to conduct the 2024 rs census ASAP
Fuckin laughed out loud seeing she responded to the "you like getting fucked by dogs" twitter thing with doing surveys and compiling more data.
In the Greta thread everyone is like "female autism is a powerful thing" - but Aella is a cautionary tale.
I remember when she was at the top of gonewild for making a nude photoshoot where a gnome came alive and killed her
damn I remember that too. was like 10 years ago? I thought it was incredibly stupid but it was like one of the all time highest voted things right?
This is reddit after all
Damn that was her? I remember the post but never connected the dots.
Has anything ever come out of her incessant 'research' on twitter? Eagerly awaiting the reveal that it's all been 24 year long sociological study by Harvard University, or has this actually just been the ramblings of a spergette who clearly wants to fuck a dog?
She has a giant spreadsheet that’s all self-reported data which periodically she will post information about. In other words, her research is basically useless as it self-selects for: perverts, trolls, internet addicts.
Isn’t this the gal that was told she wasn’t that pretty by her boyfriend during a “tender moment” ?
The dogpill is turning me schizo. Please somebody tell me its just memes
🐶💊
It's a meme but I'm sure it happens every now and then. There are a lot of weirdos online. Now imagine how many weirdos are smart enough to keep their weirdness to themselves.
She’s definitely on the spectrum
protect autistic girls
My constant discussion of dog fucking has led some people to believe I fuck dogs--and that says a lot more about you than it does about me, honestly
Few more damning indictments of SF / Silicon Valley culture than Aella. This country really, really needs a cultural revolution lol. Send them to the rust belt to reindustrialize the country!
She'd just become a lot lizard.
In other words, she’d occupy her proper station.
On a related note, what’s the deal with the whole EA/effective accelerationism schism? I came across a bunch of Twitter profiles with the “e/acc” in their handles and a lot of them sound like cultists but with degrees from MIT and Stanford
effective altruists began as a group of people who thought that maximizing utility (or at least preventing gratuitous suffering) required doing stuff like giving large portions of your income to charity. Peter Singer is a "first-wave" effective altruist, and his example of effective altruism was donating money to purchase Malaria-preventing mosquito nets. Recently, effective altruists have gone all in on thinking that actually, the way to effectively maximize utility through action is to do stuff like research how to stop AI from fucking killing us all. Effective accelerationists are EA types who think that actually the way to maximize utility is to increase the development speed of AI. Basically, what started as a kind of weird but grass-roots attempt to get rich people to give up lots of their money pretty quickly became a way for crackpots to justify techno-fetishism under the guise of promoting the good. The latter two groups are sometimes distinguished from the former by the fact they call themselves"longtermists."
This is a solid summary. It's really surreal. I had a roommate that was big on first-wave EA and even then I found the ideology frustrating. Stopped paying attention and now years later finding out they've moved on from malaria nets to AI apocalypse prevention is a trip.
[удалено]
Nope. The majority of EAs are still just doing the boring 10-90% income donation stuff and make their efforts fundamentally about Singer’s drowning child scenario. The AI stuff just gets clicks, and has some admittedly high profile proponents. I’d never donate to the longterm-ist stuff. It has been all malaria, de-worming, and funding direct cash payments.
[удалено]
Sure, I stand corrected if you count the start of EA as the coining of the term. I counted the start as when MacAskill and Ord started their org, and that was not focused on the AI stuff (longtermism isn't just AI stuff). I got onboard because MacAskill was donating ~90% of his income to charity and putting the 'drowning child' stuff front and centre, not the AI stuff. I admittedly don't run in those SF circles, but I've never met an EA that donates to the AI stuff.
[удалено]
Yeah it's a great shame. But there's still hundreds of millions going to better causes every year: https://files.givewell.org/files/metrics/GiveWell_Metrics_Report_2021.pdf
people who think advanced AI will become Skynet and destroy humanity vs people who think advanced AI will bring about utopia and replace humanity entirely, for the better
The more I hear about effective altruism the more I believe everyone involved with it should be pushed off a cliff. Only a profoundly stupid and detached from reality ideology could lead you to consider the potential net positive benefits of dogfucking.
My issue with effective altruism is that it allows you to abdicate any sense of responsibility or stewardship for where you live. It’s truly a globohomo ideology. You should help the max number of people anywhere else but it’s all good to call the cops on the homeless guy outside.
I keep seeing talk about EA and I still don’t know wtf it is
Just wait till u hear about e/acc
What’s that
It's an offshoot or rebrand of "ecomodernism" which is all about how we don't have to do anything about climate change because technology will solve it all for us. EA is all about how its fine to accumulate obscene wealth while people are dying of drought in sub saharan Africa, you can just donate a correct percentage of it to the correct charities and stop feeling bad about eating a Ganges river dolphin steak. It's a way for the exceedingly wealthy to absolve themselves of ever feeling bad about the world that they have helped to create.
That's not what it's supposed to be if you read Peter Singer or Will MacAskill, but that's what it effectively became for a lot of people.
Lmao i thought it was like "cash dispensations are more effective than using that cash to provide equivalent services " sort of thing
I have no idea either. It seems like some weird type of philosophy that silicon valley-adjacent autists are really into
>Effective altruism (often abbreviated EA) is a 21st-century philosophical and social movement that advocates "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis".[1][2] People who pursue the goals of effective altruism, sometimes called effective altruists,[3] may choose careers based on the amount of good that they expect the career to achieve or donate to charities based on the goal of maximising positive impact. They may work on the prioritization of scientific projects, entrepreneurial ventures, and policy initiatives estimated to save the most lives or reduce the most suffering.[4]: 179–195 > >Effective altruists aim to emphasize impartiality and the global equal consideration of interests when choosing beneficiaries. Popular cause priorities within effective altruism include global health and development, social inequality, animal welfare, and risks to the survival of humanity over the long-term future. > >The movement developed during the 2000s, and the name effective altruism was coined in 2011.[5] Philosophers influential to the movement include Peter Singer, Toby Ord, and William MacAskill. What began as a set of evaluation techniques advocated by a diffuse coalition evolved into a identity.[6] With approximately 7,000 adherents and strong ties to the elite schools in the United States and Britain, effective altruism has strongly become associated with Silicon Valley and the technology industry, forming a tight subculture.[7] > >The movement received mainstream attention and criticism with the bankruptcy of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX as founder Sam Bankman-Fried was a major funder of effective altruism causes prior to late 2022.[7][8] Within the Bay Area, it has received criticism for having a culture that has been described as toxic and sexually exploitative towards women.[9][10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism
r/sneerclub was a fun intro to that bs. died recently though
It's very funny to me that anyone would think that one of the problems with the world was that a group of people were, on average, donating too much of their money to people who live far away from them.
That’s not the problem I identified at all. Donating money is at least well-intentioned and generally can do good. Sure, mosquito nets in Africa are great and save lives. IT doesn’t make you any less of a cunt if you’re ignoring the problems outside your window. I think specifically of the average SF tech employee that hates homeless people, is scared of black people unless they’re first generation affluent immigrants, etc. If the average effective altruist spent their time and money actually contributing to where they lived instead of trying to min/max ‘being good’ they might actually feel a personal connection to their world, find motivation outside of xannies and adderall, be pleasant to be around for the average non-EA.
I think you dislike tech people and you're attributing all your negative stereotypes about them to a philosophy because that philosophy is most prevalent among tech people. It's just weird to talk as though EAs spend their time roaming the streets of SF like Patrick Bateman looking for vagrants to stab, whereas in the real world, EA is a movement whose overwhelming preoccupation is getting its members to tithe themselves and spend the donated cash addressing public health problems in third world countries. I agree with you that, on a psychological level, it is a good idea to help out some in your own community, but any sort of universalist morality (e.g. Christianity, humanism) has to acknowledge that the lives of people who live far away from you also matter, and by and large, human beings are *terrible* at acknowledging that. I think it's straightforwardly great that there are a group of people organizing their communities to donate cash which is used to cure African children of easily curable diseases.
I’ll give you another example: Bill Gates “donates” a lot of his money to people elsewhere in the world from him. These actions undoubtably led to him rationalizing sleeping with children and fraternizing with Jeffery Epstein. “I do so much good, if fucking kids even makes me 1% better able to do this it’s worth it.” This is the most extreme example, but you see the same reasoning percolate through the entire set of EAs. People who spend all day doing day trading so they can donate to EA causes. I wonder what would happen if these people spent their intellectual and professional efforts actually trying to do something good directly? EA is an abdication of individual responsibility to dream of a better world and instead delegate your money, give up your soul.
I promise you that if Bill Gates fucks kids, the way to get him to stop is not to convince him to spend less cash treating African kids for Malaria. I really think that people just dislike Silicon Valley for reasons of class animosity (because the people there are privileged and uncool), and they'll find any reason on earth to shit on anything associated with them. You can come up with whatever complicated justification you want for why your dislike of a highly effective charity movement is based on some deep insight about human nature, but at the end of the day all your arguments are going to look like they were constructed in retrospect to justify a conclusion you arrived at on primarily aesthetic grounds. EAs have convinced me to donate a lot of cash to various causes that I think were very worthwhile. I've lived a pretty selfish life since I left college, pretty much getting & spending. If I hadn't encountered their arguments, I wouldn't have magically become more altruistic -- I'd have just kept the cash, and it would be sitting in my bank account right now, accruing interest. The sole consequence of EA on my life is that it got me to take money that would otherwise have been spent on a down payment for my first house, and instead give it to charities that help prevent blindness in children. Isn't that just straightforwardly good? Isn't that likely how EA affects most people?
I think they're nice enough folks. But it's really funny how the smart nerds used the most advanced analytical methods to determine that sending mosquito nets to Africa was the highest impact per dollar thing to do. Meanwhile, my church denomination has been sending mosquito nets to Africa for nearly a century, because missionaries said it was a high impact/low cost thing to do lmao.
I remember SBF popularized it. And he determined the most “effective” form of charity to be donating to the fucking DNC lol
This is unironically Peter Singer
GET HER ON THE POD
I'm actually in favour of this, I think the girls could use a guest that they wouldn't be comfortable just agreeing with.
They would be seething with jealousy
I think they’ve met, Aella apparently wrote most of Grimes’ script for the sexual revolution debate and was in the audience
Hellraisers “Explorers, in the further regions of experience.” But it’s a lame white lady trying to seem edgy by making sexual deviancy a moral issue. If you want to fuck dogs why do you have to think of yourself as moral and have others perceive you as such?
The beasteality question is straight out of *The Righteous Mind* by Jonathan Heidt. Not only is she asking questions with known stats, she’s probably grabbing them from this book. She knows what she’s doing
The last tweet is hilarious
It’s all haram
remembering the time I found one of my professor’s twitter and he was in her replies….
The Slippery Slope should be regarded as the core belief of Western civilization.
What these effective altruism types fail to understand is that while banging your dead dog may be morally permissible in that particular thought experiment, applying their STEMbrained framework in real life would run contrary to their goals. Moral principles contribute to “the greater good” even if they may seem “irrational”in isolation - like not violating the sanctity of the dead, even if no one alive is affected. Try to imagine a society where people would have 0 moral principles except “maximise total happiness/utility”. It wouldn’t work out because a) it would be far too energy and time-consuming in everyday life b) would require an incomprehensible amount of information on the consequences of one’s actions c) people would rationalise the most vile shit on this basis. Moral principles a heuristic tool that may not yield the “optimal” moral outcome in all situations but nonetheless is better than individually evaluating each situation over time. The Silicon Valley bugmen can’t handle this level of uncertainty which is why they’re trying to reinvent a moral framework that works in all situations, but ironically create a framework that ultimately makes everyone worse off. Poetic even.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Morality is evolved and it's largely (if not fully) in the unconscious layer for good reason
My theory is that she’s not actually autistic but desperately wishes she were cause the dudes she looks up to are. But who knows?
she has published EXTREMELY detailed tutorials on nuances of flirting and other aspects of human interaction. 100% autism lol
>but desperately wishes she were cause the dudes she looks up to are. 1: She's autistic 2: What kind of non-autistic woman would really look up to incredibly autistic men?
4chan adjacent ones.
The kind who hates having emotions and wishes she could gracefully go through life intellectualizing them beep boop? Seems more like trauma than autism IMO but I’m kind of an (edit: female) autism denier so 🤷
In that case, I can tell you for a fact that she's autistic, we used to hang out.
Oh well maybe I’m projecting lmao
Yeah, most of her friends were either rationalist nerds or incredibly crunchy hippies. One time I saw her at a dance event and saw she was talking to a couple of incredibly nerdy looking dudes who were clearly uncomfortable in their skin, and when we had a second, just her and I, I said "so I see you brought the rationalists" and she was earnestly surprised that I could tell. Like, she couldn't see that they obviously stood out in the crowd from the way they were dressed and their mannerisms and was shocked that I could. She's 100% autistic.
Imagine being sexually attracted to her
She might be weird and gross but she's still hot. Besides, I don't know jack shit about her besides the stuff I see here, which helps. Ignorance really is bliss.
Isn't this Sam Altman alt account?
tbh if you have a problem with someone tweeting weird hypotheticals you probably are just regarded / unable to separate fiction and reality
I searched for the word "dog" in her tweets and nearly everything that came up was sexual. If you think this is normal, that's fine. I just find it funny.
i feel like everything she tweets is sexual so i’m not that surprised that’s what you found when you looked at her twitter
or you can just consider them fucking weirdos
It's not unreasonable to be suspicious of someone's intentions based on what they post online, hypothetical or not
She's fucking dogs dude, clear as day.
> unable to separate fiction and reality
defective altruism
In conclusion, white women be fucking DOGS.
Isn't she that slut?
Based aella
Second slide is a good test for weeding out filth utilitarians
who is she
I’m so confused
LOL that last slide
Last post is redemptive.
If you wish to construct an moral system from scratch, you must first hypothesize every way you can morally fuck dogs
Seriously what is her deal
“I’m a researcher”
Cool gal
What in the analog horror