It just seems crazy that I can point out that Aella is being manipulative and you guys are easily-fooled, I get a bunch of well-written and thoughtful replies telling me I am wrong and a jerk, I almost convince myself that you are right, but under closer examination what you say is completely hypocritical and applies to Aella's post too. 

And other people in the comments can point out that Aella's post is doing literally the thing she describes in her post.... and this is just of intellectual interest to you guys? Like, it's not actually making you examine your metacognition at all? There is a total disconnect here.

This is supposed to be a rationality forum but it seems you guys barely update on anything, don't really think critically, and mostly just shuffle around ingroup ideas that have been validated by [Eliezer, Aella, Scott Alexander] or whoever is in the ingroup these days and somehow don't really notice it.

I think this forum is mainly interesting as a case-study in cult behaviour, avoidant thinking, and sociopath mind-control.

You’re making strong personal claims about Aella and the commenters without providing enough evidence. By jumping to your conclusions and implying that the evidence is obvious, you’re violating community norms of politeness and process.

Isn't Aella doing exactly that here?

 (Some are a bit less skilled; for example, see Geoff Anders dutifully including option C in this otherwise aggressive tweet)

Why is this OK? If the community is so easily hypocritical then isn't this just proving my point?

Well, that's for the moderator to decide. I think the points are legitimate and if someone paints a personal narrative onto something it's fine to point out the narrative as you see it.

Giving a highly mimetic name to something, a really compelling object-level mental framework, and putting a personal narrative behind it is a really big deal and actually significantly alters people's thought processes in a way they don't easily detect. I'm not actually sure that anyone should do this in any situation.

And when you tie this into an ongoing moral issue with real consequences-- this is just a really big deal. I think the justice system is super important, I think the blog-sphere is much more influential than people realize, I think personal branding/distribution affects things to a really surprising degree, and stuff is leaking across which really shouldn't.

It's just that these are worlds that really shouldn't be colliding and she's apparently just decided to appoint herself as juror and burn the whole thing down. It's not right.

I think it's good too.