wemptronics
No bio...
User ID: 95
wemptronics
3d ago
I suppose I'm just a high enough decoupler that the fact that in some future conflict I may need to take up arms against the majority of my fellow posters here doesn't bother me too much.
A shame. Positive Mottezen identification should confer basic gentlemanly prisoner of war treatment. Ideally it would include a parole d'honneur standard of defeat that allows Mottezans to go home and post about it. We should make patches.
Don't. I mean don't argue. Are arguments with angry drivers worthwhile? They are unproductive at best. At worst, they end with a bullet in your gut. Unless arguments are with someone I trust to reconcile, then I consider arguments as unproductive affairs. Cathartic release at best. Don't argue.
From what I've observed, minority (or majority) opinion havers that come here primarily to defend the honor of their tribe burn out quickly. They crumble from their own hatred, or they generate too much heat to follow the rules. More interested in locking horns or drive-by shooting than discussion.
The few (bless them) minority opinion havers the forum retains seem to manage their engagement. They set limitations for themselves. They understand they aren't compelled to reply to every disagreement or grievance. They probably find a way to enjoy themselves or glean other value while they provide a minority opinion. This is a recreational activity. You should enjoy contributing. I know I appreciate the minorities who are willing to contribute honestly.
If it is impossible to enjoy or find value here because you are committed to conflict, then there's not a good reason to spend time here arguing or not. Not even if you're committed to pyramids due to other fading principles. If you're committed to conflict, then it'd be more productive to prepare. If you're interested in an exchange of ideas -- with all that comes with it -- this isn't the worst place to practice.
This kind of asocial behavior is either performative edgelordism (edgeladysm?)
Yeah, that's around where I land. A soft impression. The linked essay isn't even the basis for that impression, which is older than that, but it was the last piece of hers I read. I have no will to dig for evidence on this topic.
"At social events, I keep lowkey evaluating lots of men I have faint brushes with. I notice signs of coolness - competence or bravery or something - and any time a whiff of it floats by I follow it to chat with them at parties. But my body does not like them. One man talks about his failures in a tone that implies he's uncomfortable with himself, like somewhere deep down a part of him believes he's a bad person, and it seems that many of his bids for social approval are attempts to be reassured that he is in fact okay."
She can't write "I like confident men," because that defeats large portions of the essay. There's nothing autistic about that. Most women judge confidence and, intentionally or not, use it as one gauge of attractiveness. In this case to explain a lack of attraction.
"I would have felt safer if he seemed at home among awkward questions."
She chooses to push the envelope with "awkward" or inappropriate behavior in the context of a date. As she relays to us, it's not a failure to consider or model the emotive state of others. On the contrary, she knows it is uncomfortable. Plenty of non-autistic women enjoy their little tests. Maybe autistic women do this as well. I'm no an expert in autism, autistic women, or Aella.
Autists may act cruelly or too directly in their quest to make sense of the world, but it's little things like that I picked up that suggest different explanations. She doesn't cite any of this as a reason for autism which might be unfair. Even if that is the case, logic bot behavior is probably more common among her audience.
Oh no. Viral dog piles are usually disproportionate and unfun. As someone who gleans some of her output, my impression is that she engages in a significant degree of bait, provocation, and an outrage schtick. She is part curious investigator of taboo, and I can be entertained by that part of her output, but she's also part persona of Taboo Teehee. She may be a kind, considerate individual, but she's also an advocate -- maybe even rebel -- and that's a big red target.
Aella is not an accidental microcelebrity. She built herself a brand, then propagated her brand and services in social networks saturated with nerds. Most of us don't wield a social media platform to grow an audience for great profit. She does not always carefully hedge her ideas with preventative measures and considerations, because that is less virality. That's not extraordinary behavior on Twitter, but it does make disagreeable outrage part of her brand. Scott Alexander may enter a half-dozen qualifications to demonstrate whole-minded fairness in order to avoid outrage-- all for a statement that carries a tenth of the controversy. Aella's long-form content might be best described as a salacious gonzo journalism.
I've seen her deploy Gee whiz, guys, what's wrong? Just asking questions ;) enough times where I try to avoid her when internet surfing. She has demonstrated above average intelligence and emotional competence on more than a few occasions. I can't dispute the autism claim, but she seems socially aware and capable, if a little vain-- women, amirite? For myself, the reputational cost for shitposting means I get tired of the schtick and pay less attention. Others have decided the cost will be extra mean comments. I think that's bad, but given the medium it's a normal, expected amount of bad.
A curious investigator of taboo who shows us a glimpse into the psyche of sex workers, or the systems of OnlyFans, might also be controversial. I really doubt they would generate as much seething contempt as a certified shitposter. I've seen her hedge some, go through the well it's not for everyone motions, but that carries less weight when bracketed by many other instances of designed engagement.
Aella is maybe a victim of her own success, but probably not. Criticism of her positions, advocacy, and behavior was never going to come in the form of 2000 word LessWrong posts. Surely she learned this already. If people believe they're going to run her off I believe they are mistaken. Maybe she'll return baptized and born again. Now that would make for interesting gossip.
Blinkers: Yes, for habit. Nearly every time. There is almost no effort involved in using blinkers.
Stopping: Yes, for habit with qualifications. Stop signs I may slow California roll. Traffic lights, hard yes.
Speed limit: No, don't be silly. If you're in The Neighborhood you shouldn't speed. If you're on the highway and 90% of traffic is going 70mph in a 55mph zone, no.
Left lane passing only (highway): Yes. Passing lane riding: No, that should be a reminder to move out of the lane at your next opportunity. We live in a society, people!
Merging jerk: I'm sure I have done this before, but it's not a major issue. Since you correctly anticipated the turn you'll find someone else who will allow you to merge, wave at them, and go about your day. If one jerk successfully prevents your merge, then you likely did not correctly anticipate the turn. Lesson learned for next time. I've yet to drive in an American city where aggressive merging that could be described as cutting off (rather than assertive/clear) is a regular requirement to merge, so if no one wants to let you in you've probably messed up.
Breaking rules: No. There seems to be something close to consensus on what qualifies as extra bad behavior with some local variation. For example, almost everyone considers cheating a highway's exit traffic by riding the shoulder as bad behavior.
Highway packs in general are bad, and drivers should do more to avoid/deconstruct them. 12+ cars densely packed at 75mph with two cars in the front driving to some degree and the rest merely following. If we we had better enforcement of slow left laners it'd make high speed driving more enjoyable. Left lane hogs go first against the wall.
More options
Context Copy link