She wants higher value males than her friends to purchase transactional sex from her. Maybe she is feeling the atypical judgement for "A woman who has slept with over 200 men", and is, as earlier posters posited, looking to find a rich and exciting male eager to wed a whore an escort they just paid for sex.
I wonder how she would handle an explicit request to shower before selling her body for thousands of dollars an hour.
She wants higher value males than her friends to purchase transactional sex from her. Maybe she is feeling the atypical judgement for "A woman who has slept with over 200 men", and is, as earlier posters posited, looking to find a rich and exciting male eager to wed a whore an escort they just paid for sex.
I wonder how she would handle an explicit request to shower before selling her body for thousands of dollars an hour.
Believes that sending your kid to school when they don't want to is the same as a creepy uncle touching/kissing them without permission. View attachment 4898798
This is probably one of the biggest fallacies the rationalist crowd uses: false equivalence. "We don't ask kids for consent to go to school, so how could we care about their consent when it comes to relatives touching them?"
It reminded me of this point in the Aella/Meghan Murphy debate where Aella kept insisting there wasn't much difference in being paid for sex and just having sex, and how it taught her to be more particular about her needs in bed because she realized "If I'm going to do this for free, I'm going to enjoy it because I'm not getting paid." And Megan Murphy pointed out that this was something anyone should do when maturing in a relationship: make sure they communicated and enjoyed sex. They didn't need to become a prostitute to realize that.
Boyce jumps in to try to help defends Aella's point, but ends up having his argument leveled by Murphy:
Murphy:Fundamentally I think that it's unethical to pay another person for sex why and so I think we're constantly going to be talking past one another. Boyce: But why? Murphy:Because there's an aspect of coercion in it. If somebody needs the money if they're taking money from you it's because they don't want to have sex with you, and I think that it's creepy and unethical to have sex with somebody who doesn't want to have sex with you, who wouldn't do it for free. Boyce: How is sex different? How is that different than mowing lawn? This is just an academic question: how is sex being paid for sex different than being paid to build a house or mow a lawn? Murphy: Well I think that we all know that sex is more intimate than mowing the lawn because if somebody else mowed your lawn you wouldn't feel traumatized by it. Like there's a reason why women are traumatized by rape and not by somebody stealing a cup of coffee from them. It's much more intimate and you're much more vulnerable.
Although Boyce is delivering the argument here, this is a common thread in Aella's reasoning when it comes to things like bestiality. "If you can kill a cow, why can't you have sex with its corpse? After all, it hurts no one!" Killing a cow to eat it or an animal dying is a part of nature... having sex with a corpse is not. These folks pontificate so deeply on these questions they miss the answer staring them in the face.
I wouldn't put my dick anywhere near her after her shower tweets, but she seems nice. Like she has no filter. I knew she was autistic before she confirmed it btw, her face expressions (specially her mouth) screamed autismo
this just occurred to me, and I'm sure it's occurred to many others: do Aella & co. not realize the Twitter userbase itself is quite different from the general population? even if she got literally everyone on Twitter to vote in a poll, there's already lots of research showing just how different Twitter users are from typical Americans. this dissimilarity was one among several reasons why so many journalists were shocked at the outcome of the 2016 election — what's a big deal on Twitter can be very insignificant in real life and vice versa.
this just occurred to me, and I'm sure it's occurred to many others: do Aella & co. not realize the Twitter userbase itself is quite different from the general population? even if she got literally everyone on Twitter to vote in a poll, there's already lots of research showing just how different Twitter users are from typical Americans. this dissimilarity was one among several reasons why so many journalists were shocked at the outcome of the 2016 election — what's a big deal on Twitter can be very insignificant in real life and vice versa.
Don't worry, she does but she believes that she is still more advanced in her polling of her sphere and in her reverse engineering hypotheses for the basis of finding meaning in the "relationships" of her data, so much so that she recently I guess ranted off on twitter with another horrible analogy and the following livestream (idk where the whole thing is, I have *pending stolen this from the Last Night on Destiny YT)
"Aella rant triggers a Destiny debate misleading trans studies" Archive whenever I can finagle the file under the size limit for the site
In the meantime here's some stupid Aella in twitter form:
Destiny's community, which has apparently a bunch of Phd. candidate statisticians, have been roasting her on Reddit and she has been responding like a retard, but only with 1 dimensional "peer review is BAD! therefore I am SMART" takes and not to the posters directly, but to the softer targets in the comments when she thinks she has a win lol.
Apparently there has been a concerted effort of banning the dissent because Destiny constantly defends her because he dicks her down or vice versa (shown below)
My validity testing for the "She only does this for clout" statement (dw catty gay man, I believe your in-person assessments ) and the fact that when people call her research stupid that she takes it personally and it wounds her deeply:
Rachael Antier Slick should have a child with Christian Weston Chandler, now that he is out of jail. It'll boost her fame to the stratospheric levels she craves. She can make a lot of money on this move as well, not having to worry about the difficulty of marrying a wealthy Silicon Valley figure. If she wants a chance at truly being remembered in history, this is her chance while the motherfucker is free.
edit: also I just broke a long nofap streak to her vids on spankbang. I feel really ashamed now and will take a very long break from posting on Kiwifarms.
Listen stinky, the rules aren't arbitrary, you're not supposed to break them unless you have a good reason for breaking them. "But I'm breaking the rules" isn't a response to "you've ignored basic ways to improve your methods." Read some fucking Hayek, Ms. "libertarian" jeez. ("But I'm breaking the rules of being a libertarian too!")
The fact that she goes on to complain about being gatekept because of this is pretty funny. Probably more people read her shit currently than would ever read it if she got it published in any journal. She just wants the credential to wave in people's faces when they criticize her.
Don't worry, she does but she believes that she is still more advanced in her polling of her sphere and in her reverse engineering hypotheses for the basis of finding meaning in the "relationships" of her data, so much so that she recently I guess ranted off on twitter with another horrible analogy and the following livestream (idk where the whole thing is, I have *pending stolen this from the Last Night on Destiny YT)
"Aella rant triggers a Destiny debate misleading trans studies" Archive whenever I can finagle the file under the size limit for the site
Although Boyce is delivering the argument here, this is a common thread in Aella's reasoning when it comes to things like bestiality. "If you can kill a cow, why can't you have sex with its corpse? After all, it hurts no one!" Killing a cow to eat it or an animal dying is a part of nature... having sex with a corpse is not. These folks pontificate so deeply on these questions they miss the answer staring them in the face.
Her response is consistent with Autism and the ability to disconnect, as well as their tendency towards mind-blindness. She doesn't know how normal people function. Not everyone on the AS is Rain Main or Extraordinary Attorney Woo. And I wonder if she thinks she is that. Delusion.
@Business Scrub OMG thanks for this. she is determined to think her issue is "status" or "speaking the language" and not "aella's methods are bad, but they might not be if she had real training." this person got it 100% right, the hell's kitchen analogy is perfect.
this reply needs to be her laptop wallpaper.
@Business Scrub OMG thanks for this. she is determined to think her issue is "status" or "speaking the language" and not "aella's methods are bad, but they might not be if she had real training." this person got it 100% right, the hell's kitchen analogy is perfect. View attachment 4932752
this reply needs to be her laptop wallpaper.
It's telling that if Reddit can see she's a charlatan any professional / academic in statistical mathematics or data science would not give her the time of day.
Also -putting this here as it's been bothering me. Twitter is not representative of the populace. It is not a valid sample. If she genuinely believes Twitter polls hold weight then why do we need Ipsos Mori / YouGov and so on.
It's a hobby at best, Misleading quackery at worst.
Her response is consistent with Autism and the ability to disconnect, as well as their tendency towards mind-blindness. She doesn't know how normal people function. Not everyone on the AS is Rain Main or Extraordinary Attorney Woo. And I wonder if she thinks she is that. Delusion.
I don't think she's autistic at all, sorry. It's that Cluster-B thing instead, combined with Evangelical Christian/homeschool narrow-mindedness and social problems.
I don't think she's autistic at all, sorry. It's that Cluster-B thing instead, combined with Evangelical Christian/homeschool narrow-mindedness and social problems.
"Autism" is the cozy thing for cluster B girls to hide behind now. It makes them sound harmless and quirky and provides cover for various eccentricities, as well as an identity for them to steal and larp in (the only way they have an identity at all). It doesn't come with the baggage of being a deranged, self-destructive slut with a violent temper, like BPD.
I don't think she's autistic at all, sorry. It's that Cluster-B thing instead, combined with Evangelical Christian/homeschool narrow-mindedness and social problems.
Pardon the theological sperging in this post, but I thought it would be interesting to address Aella's flimsy theological reasoning that led her to lose her faith. I think it has something to do with her father's superficial apologetics training of her.
“Now Rachael,” he would ask, “What is the hypostatic union?” and I would pipe back, “The two natures of Jesus!”
“What is pneumatology?”
The study of the holy spirit!
“What is the communicatio idiomatum?”
The communication of the properties in which the attributes of the two natures are ascribed to the single person!
This rote instruction rarely yields long-term results because it focuses on memorization of stock responses rather than a deeper understanding of the subject. Kids are trained that when an atheist says "X" they respond with "Y." This approach runs the risk of giving rise to a Chinese Room situation where the child may be able to deliver what appears to be an impressive defense of their position when in reality they grasp little of what they are saying.
This is certainly the case with Aella. She describes how she lost her faith by stumbling across an unanswerable theological conundrum with her friend Alex:
I had a habit of bouncing theological questions off him, and one particular day, I asked him this: If God was absolutely moral, because morality was absolute, and if the nature of “right” and “wrong” surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?
Alex had no answer — and I realized I didn’t either. Everyone had always explained this problem away using the principle that Jesus’ sacrifice meant we wouldn’t have to follow those ancient laws. But that wasn’t an answer. In fact, by the very nature of the problem, there was no possible answer that would align with Christianity.
This is actually a basic question any Christian apologist should be able to answer in a heartbeat: the Old Testament laws she refers to weren't based on transcendent morality, but rather on ceremonial guidelines. Even in the Old Testament, God changed them around quite a bit because they dealt with things not fundamentally moral or immoral, but rather with religious formalities.
The Old Testament gave different laws: moral law, ceremonial law, and judicial law. Moral law addresses innately wrong things, e.g., murder, stealing, etc. Ceremonial law didn't have to do with things that were innately immoral, but rather outlined guidelines for ceremonies involving the temple, sacrifices, etc. To use an analogy, a parent may tell their children to go to bed at a certain time, not because it's fundamentally immoral to stay up past that time, but rather because they are trying to teach their children an important lesson about ordering their day. Yes, it's still a violation of the parent's instruction if the children refuse to obey, and therefore punishable, but if a parent allows the children to stay up an hour later, that's not some signal that the parent's fundamental morals have changed. In the New Testament, we are told the purpose of this ceremonial law was to teach us about God's holy nature and eventually bring humanity to Christ (Galatians 3:24). The idea isn't quite, as Aella puts it, that Jesus' sacrifice makes it so that Christians can disregard those laws. Yes, because Christ is the ultimate sacrifice that the ceremonies pointed to, there is no need for further offerings of animal sacrifices. But even in the Old Testament God repeatedly says he doesn't actually need sacrifices from humans but rather values an obedient, faithful heart (Hosea 6:6-7, Isaiah 1:11, and many other verses). In fact, the Old Testament abounds with examples of OT figures bending these ceremonial regulations with God's blessing. A good example is 2 Chronicles chapter 30 where Hezekiah celebrates the Passover in a way that violates the levitical guidelines, but because the people are doing so with a repentant spirit, God allows it. Similarly, the priests had to do what would qualify as work under Jewish law in order to prepare Sabbath sacrifices. So even in the OT it's clear it's not innately immoral to do work on the Sabbath, and God allowed it in certain circumstances. (The third class of law, which doesn't have much relevance to Aella's question, is simply the judicial law for governing the OT nation of Israel, e.g., the legal guidelines in Numbers 35 for how to handle an accidental killing.) In summary, these laws never addressed matters of basic morality--stealing, murder, etc.
Now, I know the above response might not satisfy an atheist who wanted to offer some pushback, but the fact that Aella didn't even stumble across the conundrum until college makes me think Slick's apologetics training had some major holes in it. Some years ago a YouTube atheist by the name of "Holy Koolaid" attended a talk by Matt Slick and posed his own daughter's theological question to him during the Q & A. I wasn't impressed with Slick's response.
Text of Slick's response at 0:40:
Generally, it has to do with the issue what a covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties. Go to Hebrews Chapter 8 verse 13, Hebrews 9:15-16 they talked about the principle of the Old Covenant being done away with or three aspects of the Old Testament law: judicial, priestly, and the moral. Judicial and priestly are done away with, and the moral extends. That's why some of the things in the Old Testament are done away with and not carried over into the New Testament. And there are certain phrases that occur in the Old Testament like "Save the sons of Israel" and specifically only for them and only for that context and that time. That's really quick, but that's what it is.
Slick rattles this off really fast, mentions the distinction between ceremonial, judicial, and moral law, but doesn't explain why that distinction is important. He also fails to point out the fallacy in the question itself: the question assumes that ceremonial law has to do with universal morality when it doesn't. You get the feeling that he barely listened to the question, and was just hearing "This person said X, and I'm going to respond with Y." To an atheist's ears, especially not one familiar with these distinctions, it simply sounds like he affirms that God changed the rules around, but no explanation is provided as to why. Sure, it would be there if they looked up the verses he cites from Hebrews, but he says them so quickly I wouldn't even be able to write them down had I been prepared.
Again, this points to the similarity between Slick's brand of apologetics and the rationalist / effective altruism community's obsession with analysis. Both sometimes fall into what I'd call sophistry--not so much in that they are using actually fallacious arguments, but rather they martial reason to make an argument for whatever serves their ends without thinking seriously on the subject.
archive.md
) and the fact that when people call her research stupid that she takes it personally and it wounds her deeply:
