May 3, 2014

Who Bullies The Bullies?



pacific-standard-cover.jpgbut they're welcome to buy an iphone





Pacific Standard. Get it? It's like The Atlantic, but it's Pacific. Totally different. So unlike The Atlantic, it will "attack the conventional wisdom from a west coast perspective." That's a quote. "But didn't the editors come from The Atlantic?" Yes. "So what's the diff? Does west coast imply the writers will be better looking?" The women will be, unless they write about gender issues, then they will appear gendered. The men will look wise if they're crushing on social science, or tough and no-nonsense if they're hating on Republicans. Don't worry, pics of the writers will be included to suggest an appeal to authority. "Hold on, is the owner of this magazine Sara Miller McCune? The same woman who is responsible for those atrocious SAGE journals like Psychological Science and Evolutionary Perspectives On Human Development that charge CV padding post-docs a few hundred dollars to publish linkbait like "Ovulating Women Prefer Men With Large Sneakers", that Malcolm Gladwell and media outlets like Pacific Standard then cross promote as valid science?" Yes, but I'm sure it's a coincidence. "This magazine sounds terrible." Duh.

This cover story details #young #vulnerable #feminist writer Amanda Hess's frustration with disinterested male law enforcement when, after writing an article about receiving rape threats from a troll, she received rape threats from a troll. I sympathize, though in my experience what's even more frightening than a guy telling you he's going to rape you is a guy not telling you he's going to rape you.

There's a big push for "women's safety" online, for getting rid of trolls and cyberbullies and cyberstalkers, not coincidentally another one of Randi Zuckerberg's pet causes; and while these are all legitimate worries someone should take a minute and ask why, when mustached men have been stalking women since the days of Whitecastle yet no systemic changes have been effected, the moment women feel threatened from the safety of their LCD screens America opens the nuclear briefcase. No one finds that suspicious?

In fact, regular stalking is barely ever mentioned in media, no matter how many times the guy was laying under her new boyfriend's front porch on Wednesday nights after Organic Chemistry class, what drives the article is "and then he stalked her on Facebook!"

Here's just a sampling of the noxious online commentary directed at other women in recent years. To Alyssa Royse, a sex and relationships blogger, for saying that she hated The Dark Knight: "you are clearly retarded, i hope someone shoots then rapes you." To Kathy Sierra, a technology writer, for blogging about software, coding, and design: "i hope someone slits your throat and cums down your gob." To Lindy West, a writer at the women's website Jezebel, for critiquing a comedian's rape joke: "I just want to rape her with a traffic cone." To Rebecca Watson, an atheist commentator, for blogging about sexism in the skeptic community: "If I lived in Boston I'd put a bullet in your brain." To Catherine Mayer, a journalist at Time magazine, for no particular reason: "A BOMB HAS BEEN PLACED OUTSIDE YOUR HOME. IT WILL GO OFF AT EXACTLY 10:47 PM ON A TIMER AND TRIGGER DESTROYING EVERYTHING."



As the recipient of not zero decapitation emails I admit it does make you curious about whether or not you can buy an alligator, but while you're arming your windows like a Saw movie you should contemplate the difference between what should be done and why it appears something should be done.

I.

The force for this change isn't coming from safety or ethics. Neither is it activism. If you see any group advocating influentially for change in a media they don't own or control, you can double down and split the 10s, the dealer is holding status and quo. No change is possible on someone else's dime, and if what looks like a supermodel approaches you with a microphone and a camera crew, you should run like she's Johnny Carcosa. On occasion what the activists think they want may happen coincidentally to align with what the system wants, and from that moment on they will be lead to believe they are making a difference, which means they're making money for someone else. "Your writing is so muddled." Sorry. Were you better persuaded by the concise prose of Amanda Hess?

Her article seems to be about what could be done to stop anonymous trolls from terrorizing and threatening women. How about prosecuting them, since terroristic threats is already a crime? Unfortunately, as Hess discovers, the police don't care much about online stalking, which is consistent since they don't care about IRL stalking either. But never mind, it's not the problem: misogyny is the problem, amplified 1000x by online anonymity. Anonymity makes the internet mean and gives trolls= men too much power. This is the subtle shift: what starts out as "misogyny is bad" becomes "anonymity facilitates misogyny."

Keeping in mind that actual stalking has never been dealt with in any significant way ever, the desire of a few female writers to curb online anonymity wouldn't be enough to get an @ mention, except that this happens to coincide with what the media wants, and now we have the two vectors summing to form a public health crisis. "Cyberbullying is a huge problem!" Yes, but not because it is hurtful, HA! no one cares about your feelings-- but because criticism makes women want to be more private-- and the privacy of the women is bad. The women have to be online, they do most of the clicking and receive most of the clicks. Anonymous cyberbullying is a barrier to increasing consumption, it's gotta go.

II.

You may at this point roll your eyes epileptically and retort, "well, who cares 'what the system wants', the fact is anonymity does embolden the lunatics, shouldn't we try to restrict it?" Great question, too bad it's irrelevant. You've taken the bait and put all your energy into accepting the form of the argument. The issue isn't whether we should abolish online anonymity, since this will never happen. For every American senator trying to curb anonymity there's going to be a Scandinavian cyberpirate who will come up with a workaround, and only one of them knows how to code. Besides, there's no power in abolishing anonymity, the power is in giving everyone the pretense of anonymity while secretly retaining the PGP keys to the kingdom.

To understand what's really happening, start from basics: if you're reading it, it's for you. I assume you're not a cyberbully or a stalker. So do you have any power to abolish anonymity?

If Hess has made you wonder, hmm, maybe unrestricted anonymity is bad because it gives trolls too much power, then the system has successfully used her for its true purpose: brand it as bad, to you. She is unwittingly teaching the demo of this article, e.g. women in their 20s with no actual power looking to establish themselves, who are the very people who should embrace anonymity, not to want this: only rapists and too-weak-to-try rapists want to be anonymous. Smart women write clickable articles about their sexuality for nothing, because what good are you if you can't make someone else money? Interesting to observe that the article's single suggested solution to cyberharassment is to reframe a criminal problem into a civil rights issue using a logic so preposterously adolescent that if you laid this on your Dad when you were 16 he'd backhand slap you right out of the glee club: "it discourages women from writing and earning a living online." Earning a living? From who, Gawker? Most of the women writing on the internet are writing for someone else who pays them next to nothing. None of them control the capital, none of them get paid 1/1000 of what they bring in for the media company. You know what they do get? They get to be valued by work, and in gratitude they are going to the front lines to fight for the media company's right to pay them less.

And the indoctrination has worked, the less Asperger's a woman is, the more she'll hate writing anonymously. Don't get angry at me, they did a study, and I think it explains why women don't want to write for The Economist. In the reverse, put a pic in your byline and you improve your female audience; put a pic of a female in your byline and you've maximized ROI, everyone will click on a pic of a chick. This is economic and psychologic universe in which Hess finds herself.

"But you can't use a pen name at places like The New Yorker. You know they pay their top staff writers $100k a year?" Jesus. a) yes you can; b) listen to me: if those swindlers are willing to pay you $100k, then you could probably get $200k yourself, and if you can't get $200k yourself then you aren't worth their $100k either and they will eventually notice. When they pay you that much they're not paying you to write for them, they're paying you not to write for anyone else, that's called controlling the capital.

"So your solution is that she should use pseudonym? Isn't that blaming the victim?" No, not her-- you. You should use a pseudonym. You aren't writing for Gawker, you just use the internet, comment on things, etc. Why should you use your real name? "Why shouldn't I?" I'm sorry, I wasn't precise: why are you being encouraged to use your real name? Again, the question of whether anonymity emboldens trolls is not the force of that article, it isn't about their behavior, it is about yours.

"But merely 'branding anonymity as bad' isn't going to stop the cyberbullying misogynists." You are correct, which is why the spokesperson for this crisis is Amanda Hess. No one is trying to stop cyberbullies, there's no point, they don't shop and no one wants to look at them. Hess has entirely misunderstood what the medium wants. The whole game is to get women-- not the cyberbullies, not criminals, but the consumers-- to voluntarily give up all of their privacy, while paying lip service to privacy at home-- knowing full well women that women will pay money not to have the kind of privacy they have at home. Voluntarily exposing yourself makes you a targetable consumer and targetable consumable. Is it worth it?

III.

All of this is for the benefit of the media, which is why I know with 100% certainty that nothing will change. Because she wrote that article, because some people camped in Zuccotti Park, the energy for activity was discharged. And the media got all the profits.

What Hess didn't realize is that while she was fumbling impotently with the cops, the media company that she worked for could have crushed the troll if it was worth it to them. Did you have this thought? If not, it's not your fault, some people are trained not to have it while others were trained to have it immediately. Which are you? If the founder of Religions For New Atheists Sara Miller McCune herself had received an electronic rape threat from some Fox News stenographer in a Kentucky man cave, you think she's dialing 911? From her apartment? She would have waited until she got to the office, waved her hands like in Minority Report and her lawyers would have midnight Seal Team Sixed him while he was overhand jacking it to interracial porn. Do you know what Hess's employers did for her? No, I'm serious do you know? It can't be nothing, right? That would be Bananastown. It was nothing? Really?

Maybe hypotheticals aren't your bag, ok, here's a true story: "Amy" received a couple of voice messages from a "customer" she met at work who wanted to put something in her vagina. These messages were not violent, in so far as forcing your fantasies of consensual sex into an unwilling girl's ear is considered not violent, but of course they creeped her out. There's one other crucial piece of information needed to understand this story: her harasser probably had large sneakers. I'll give you all a minute to catch up.

Every woman has some version of this story, with one important difference: Amy was a medical student, which meant a lot of money went into her and a lot of money was expected of her. One (1) phone call from the Dean to a phone number that was not 911 and that guy was evaporated. Two cops located him minding his own business, and because he defended himself with the magic words-- and you should write these down, they're gold-- "it's a public street, I have a right to be here"-- he was jailed for eight months for harassment and resisting arrest-- pre-trial. Pre means without. Of course his case was ultimately dismissed. Does that matter? Please observe a) Amy herself didn't have to do anything to effect any of this, she was mostly unaware of the results, the system was on autopilot; b) he was jailed not for what he did but for whom he did it to, had Amy been a 1040EZ at the Footlocker we'd say she was asking for it. "But it isn't fair that her protection money should get her concierge policing while the rest of us have to make due with socialized law enforcement." Was it fair that he did eight months because he couldn't afford bail, is it fair that he didn't know that it wasn't fair? On the other hand, was he a dangerous nut, should he have been punished? Of course. Was he operating from a perspective of institutionalized sexism, patriarchal thinking, misogyny? Sure, #whatevs. Sometimes the structural imbalances go your way, and sometimes they don't, better figure out who makes the scales.

After Hess got the runaround, she spent a lot of time trying to get a protection order, a force slightly less compelling than wind. Why didn't she just call the Mayor? "Hi. I work for the city paper, the one that caters to voting Democrats and men looking for Russian companionship. I'm doing a story about police apathy regarding sexual violence from a first person perspective, by which I mean your perspective. Comment?" That would have solved her problem, but more importantly it would have forced her to think about WHY that solved her problem. What is the difference between a "woman" who is threatened and a "reporter" or "medical student" who is threatened? Why is it more bad to attack a journalist than a woman? Think about that, it has not always been so. The former is an attack on the system, so the system must respond; the latter is an attack on a woman, so -------------------------------------. And so it goes.

But Hess preferred to see misogyny on the internet, so instead we get another trending article about how the problem has a penis. This coincides perfectly with the media's desire to frame it as a gender war because that makes for good clicking. Let's summarize the media's thesis via unwitting Hess: 1. cyberharassment is a women's issue, never mind the men who are harassed. 2. The appropriate way to handle women's issues is not necessarily to solve them but to discuss them in the media. "It's called awareness." We are all aware. Are you aware of how much you made for Pacific Standard at your expense and to no avail?

IV.


Hess is fighting the battles of 50 years ago because she was told to fight them by people who profit from the fight, and as a bonus it gets her out of any self-criticism. Oh, Sheryl Sandberg thinks Silicon Valley can be a boys' club? Was that why she manned up and sold us out to the NSA? Curious that she didn't accuse the NSA of being a boys' club. Perhaps real power transcends gender? More curious/on purpose is that she and the boosters at Wired are more horrified about NSA spying, despite there being an explicit terms of service agreement with them that what it finds without a warrant is inadmissible, but Google monitoring my sexts for their commercial benefit is SAGE approved behavioral economics. Google buying Boston Dynamics is better than DARPA having it, is that the game we're playing now? If I had to put my chips and my children against an 8 year rotation of civil service nincompoops vs. some nerd with an open marriage who spent $15M on a "bachelor pad" so he could score chicks of questionable emotional stability, I'm going with the group my private sector lawyers have an outside chance of pwoning. "But how cool is that guy that he could spend $15M on scoring chicks!" You're looking at it backwards, the only way he could score chicks was by spending $15M, and now that guy owns cybernauts. Power corrupts, but absolute power doesn't exist, so for everything else, there's Mastercard.

What Hess and others fail to see is that this kind of postgraduate sexismology-- Hess's "ability" to see it-- is encouraged because it favors the status quo. It is a tool for maintaining an economic and psychological disavowal favorable to Gen X and older-- men and women. Their collective psychology has caused to be a machine that is calibrated to ensure their life is not disrupted-- at the expense of everyone under 30, you guys waste your life Banning Bossy and make sure you pay back all of your student loans, sorry about the future but the SLEEP/CONSUME machine from They Live has to keep running.

Here's a "class struggle" example: name one Wall Street type who went to jail post 2008, everyone picks Bernie Madoff. Now name one person you know who was harmed by Bernie Madoff. That's weird. Note he didn't cause the crash, his criminal empire was a "victim" of the crash. What got him jailed was stealing from the wrong people-- that the media coded as either "celebrities" or "pension funds". Look carefully at the result: you got a distraction to label as evil so you don't have to feel any guilt about overusing your credit card; the rich guys get (some of) their money back; and the media makes millions of dollars engaging you in a "conversation." "But he was symptomatic of Wall Street excesses." Way to treat the symptoms. Hence the most important result: nothing changed. The whole thing is a defense against change, for the system and for you. Still have that credit card at max?

Radical political action, radical as in "outside the frame" radical, the kind self-aggrandizing #OWS is incapable of, would be to demand Bernie Madoff be released, so that everyone would have to watch him in restaurants and hookers, an unignorable signal to the system and to yourself that things are not right. Not to settle for symbolism and scapegoats. But the media won't let this happen, they thrive on symbolism and scapegoats; and you won't let it happen as long as you can get an iphone.

So the system encourages women like Hess to "critique the patriarchy" or "bring awareness" because it stands no chance of moving the money, let alone the power, and also the media gets a cut. Meanwhile men all over the place are left questioning why their opportunities are just as limited but their answer can't be a glass ceiling. "Maybe it's reverse sexism!" Maybe your media is no different than her media, we'll see what kind of sexism there is when the robots replace all of you. What is both obscene and astonishing in its power is that this distraction is foisted on Millennials by other Millennials, they're fighting for the other team, precisely because the immensely hard work of work can be avoided by hoping the problem is sexism. Hess is frantically fighting against-- whom? Cyberbullies? Frat guys? Stand up comedians? What are the results she expects from this fight? The fight is a symptom of neurosis, frantic energy as a defense against impotence, frantic energy as a defense against change. "Why am I in the top 20% of intelligence but I'm running the register at a store whose products I can't afford?" Because trolls are preventing women from earning a living online? "So it's Reddit's fault!"

V.

There should be no controversy: a guy should never tell a girl he's going to rape her, online or not, kidding or not. I get that he's probably not serious, but there should be no instinct at all to defend such a jerk, and yet----- and yet that is precisely the instinct many people get. Men who have never wanted to threaten anyone read Hess's story and side with the troll. And Hess will agree: it is a massive number of people. So they're all misogynist jerks, too? No other explanation?

Yet a typical such "misogynist" probably has a wife and daughters whom he loves in a more equal way than sexists in the Whig party did. He is aware his daughter is a girl, he wants the best for her, he'd be thrilled if she became President, do you think he doesn't want her to have power/money/influence, more than any man? And of course he wouldn't want his daughter to receive such rape threats, but what's important is that he believes she wouldn't-- she wouldn't deserve them.

There is plenty of existing sexism and [insert lip service here]. I do not deny or minimize it, the point here is to identify the self-imposed kind of oppression, instead of top down it is bottom up: impotence. All of these choices, all of these products, all of that sex, all of that power-- why not me?

The troll and Hess have this feeling of impotence, which Hess easily finds to be the fault of patriarchy, which she uses interchangeably with class, except when that class is Sarah Miller McCune, then it's just patriarchy. The troll thinks the source of his impotence is "militant feminism", which also explains why he's not worrying about his daughter. She's not a woman, she's a person, i.e. like all American parents, he's raising her like a boy: school x 16, sports x 12, violin x 6, and for everything else there's LCDs. I don't know why he thinks his daughter will fare any better through the same machine that is failing his son, but I guess it's worth a shot. Of course, he probably won't be too happy if she becomes a "feminist"; e.g. living with a teenage Zosia Mamet drove David Mamet to the Republican Party. I'm going to go ahead and protect myself by saying that's a joke.

So in order to explain their otherwise irrational feeling of impotence, they pull from any of the media-approved categories of blame, depending on your news network: sexism, racism, feminism. The central importance of the media in soliciting their anger is totally lost on the older "activists" who still believe that the -ism is the primary force. They're enraged that a white Princeton student would dare to write that white privledge doesn't exist; they never wonder why they read it. They are at a loss to explain why the very same trolls who want to "rape" feminist bloggers are even more enraged that women in Saudi Arabia are forced to wear burqas. So do misogynists hate Arab men more than American women? Is there a hate hierarchy? Yet the media is unsurprisingly ambivalent about the burqa, the feminism risks an assertion of cultural priviledge so they'd just as soon not get involved. And to hell with George Bush who made us have to.

There was a time not long ago when the dumbest people in the world were polacks. Do you see any dumb polacks around today? What happened? "Awareness?" Do you think we all just learned "poles are just like us?" You think it was... education? Pole empowerment? Tolerance? The question is not how did we learn to get over that prejudice, but rather what purpose did it serve in the first place, why was it the preferred expression of hate of that time?

VI.

Hess had a chance to wonder about this, but the media's keyword list and her own personal psychology converge to make her prefer to see sexism. Against these force vectors she is powerless. The medium is the message, she just puts her byline at the top. Hess even looked for a "woman problem" at The Economist which I thought was going to be that there weren't enough women there because she cited the statistic that 77% of the writers are men, except that she then lamented that since there are no bylines you couldn't tell which ones were the men and the women, which was also bad. But she had something else in mind:

In many ways, the magazine suffers from the same woman problem that plagues libertarianism more widely. The Economist's central belief in "free trade and free markets" informs its one-size-fits all approach to its readership--the idea that women might actually want to consume news differently than men doesn't fit into this theoretically level global playing field.


Women consume news differently. True? Let's find out:

When I lived with a boyfriend who subscribed to The Economist, I'd pick up the magazine occasionally, scanning the table of contents for the odd piece that appealed to me--a dissection of the racial dynamics of American marriage, for example, or a takedown of U.S. sex offender laws. Typically, though, I'd flip straight to the book reviews, a space I discerned as a little more inclusive than the front of the book. I recently asked that guy whether the contents of the magazine ever struck him as particularly masculine, too. "It's called The Economist," he replied. "It's like Maxim for nerds."

Lord have mercy.

First of all, Maxim is already for nerds, who else would want to look at glamour shots of still dressed women only women have heard of? This month is Sophia Bush and Olympic figure skater Tara Lipinski, yum, time to get your hard on. "Oh I loved her with Johnny Weir covering Sochi!" Can't say Maxim doesn't know its demographic.

usweekly-maxim link.jpgthis is what women are told men want; this is how women are told how to want

So for him to think Maxim isn't for nerds means he thinks it's for Dude-Bros, i.e. large genitaled males who get to rape all the drunk chicks at the Delta house. Which means he's an easy mark for branding, and which, I am willing to bet $10M, is why he tells his guy friends about Maxim but shows his girlfriend he subscribes to The Economist. Don't worry, Amanda, he only reads the book reviews, too. Stab in the dark, here's a guess at his character sketch: a smart underachiever, proud he's "not some frat jerk", he knows he's supposed to be interested in topics not related to him but finds his concentration isn't up to the task-- so he reassures himself with the trappings/magazines of intelligence. "Would Adderall help me do more work and less porn?" No, but it will help you write a book of porn and you will be terrified at what you learn. His favorite way to consume news is to forgo primary sources in favor of skimming two paragraph dissections written by others who also forwent the primary sources. Unmotivated, unthreatening and unrelevant, publicly not drawing from the system according to his need but privately disavowing a lack of contribution back to the system according to his ability. "But the system is corrupt." $100M says there's a vaporizer nearby.

Second of all: hell yeah, dissections and takedowns, thank you for your consideration.

Third of all: observe that she asked him about The Economist after they had broken up. Her ex was her go-to guy when she had a question about masculinity, and magazines. Does she know any other men? Has she interacted with any men without the polarized glasses of stereotype, prejudice and fear? Is every guy only either a love interest or a Dude-Bro?

Fourth: she misunderstood/completely understood his answer about whether the magazine was particularly masculine: "It's called The Economist." Uh oh. If I ask, "Is Cosmo Magazine particularly feminine?" and you reply, "Duh, stupid, it's called Cosmo, any more feminine and it would have a tailbone tattoo," then you are implying not only that the magazine is feminine, but that I should have been able to infer that because cosmos are feminine. To him, The Economist is masculine is because economics is intrinsically masculine-- and she implicitly accepts this. Now who's the sexist? Whose theoretical daughters have a better chance of learning economics? Of course she'd say any women can learn economics, yay women, but her daughters would be learning a masculine discipline, see also math, which I predict she's bad at. The barrier is in herself, sexism is merely her projection of it.

So while she pretends that it is the male perspective she doesn't like, it is evident that it's the contents themselves that she objects to. They're boring, but that can't be related to intellectual curiosity because she's a thinker. So it has to be the "male perspective". But didn't the same male perspective write the takedowns and dissections? Books, sex, relationships; those are "inclusive to women". What happens when you don't sign up for NATO-- that's masculine. But is it? Really? I agree that most of the articles in The Economist are boring and don't "relate" to my lifestyle as an alcoholic, but I force myself to go through them like social studies homework, and most of the women who do the same are doing it as the same. The articles aren't supposed to be interesting to me, they are supposed to be important and I force myself to be interested.

However, the point isn't that she should read The Economist, the point here is that she saw sexism, which means she didn't notice this:

UNWITTINGLY, perhaps, Vladimir Putin is playing Cupid to America's Mars and Europe's Venus. ... "I have not felt this good about transatlantic relations in a long time," whispers one senior European politician.

WTF, why would anyone whisper this? Is Putin standing right there? The Economist does this all the time, citing unnamed sources while alluding to their power and significance. Of course the easy critique to make, and even this one Hess was not allowed to formulate, is that in this way The Economist conveys the impression that it has personal access to the levers of power, the way Us Weekly recasts publicists as "sources close to Kim Kardashian", shrinking the gap between the magazine and the sources and artificially widening the distance between Kardashian and us. She becomes more important and less accessible-- except through Us Weekly.

But this critique is backwards, it assumes the magazine is trying to trick its audience, this is wrong, the audience is using the magazine to trick itself. The audience wants this distance. It wants heroes, celebrities, people with power-- it wants an upper class-- and it wants them inaccessible. Envy? No, that's advertising, this is the "news." This is what happens when a whole generation's narcissism is threatened with injury-- since everything is possible, why aren't you enjoying everything?-- the personality structure becomes overwhelmingly defensive. "If I were Kim Kardashian, then I would be able to do X!" is NOT envy, flip it over and read the redacted obverse: "Only Kim Kardsahians can do X -- therefore it's not my fault that I can't!"

The Economist demo appears to want this same defense. The real trick of The Economist is that as a magazine of "libertarianism" [sic], its belief in "free trade and free markets" requires as axiomatic that these are not real. The Invisible Hand is actually attached to a benevolent class of gentlemen capitalists who have the money, the connections, and the information to best mold the world. You don't know these people, but fortunately The Economist does. Their motto, inscribed in runes over a blue moongate on Jekyll Island, is, "Be content to bind them by laws of trade. You have always done it. And let this be your reason."

Why would the The Economist's rich and powerful demo want to be ruled? Because they aren't powerful, only rich, all that time getting rich did not translate to any power, only the trappings of power. So they've postulated a fantasy power structure/NBA owners that explains why they can't enjoy their lives as they think they should-- to absolve themselves of the guilt they feel for having money/intellect/opportunities and NOT being able to do anything with it except spend it on the system-wide approved gimmicks: Trading Up, college educations, the National Bank of S&P 500.

And you say, boo hoo for the rich. That's your media approved classism talking. Does $200k/yr have more in common with $50k/yr or $1M/yr? What do your TV commercials tell you? Don't think about where the lines are drawn, think about who draws the lines.

Hess yells about a world of masculine power because she has the power to yell at it. But of course her power is limited only to yelling, she is impotent against a troll who yells at her. But her mistake is in thinking he has the power. No one has it, the system doesn't allow it. Even the mighty Economist demo feels impotent. Are they all delusional? This is the true critique of the system, not simply that one group reliably oppresses another; but that the entire system is based on creating a lack. This lack is not a bottomless hole that nothing could ever fill, but a tiny, strangely shaped divot in your soul into which nothing could ever fit: not money, not sex, not stuff, not relationships. Nothing "takes." Nothing counts. Nothing is ever right. Only novelty works, until it wears off.

This lack of power-- not power to rule the world, but existential power-- what is the purpose of my life? What is this all for? I get that I'm supposed to use my Visa a lot, but is that it? Shouldn't I be able to do more than this? Everything is possible, but nothing is attainable. Nothing tells them what is valuable; worse, everything assures them that nothing could be more valuable. That the media is the primary way the system teaches you how to want should have been obvious to Hess, she works for it, but for that same reason it was invisible to her.

You shouldn't be surprised that the only sane response to this impotence is neurosis, for which of course the system provides a psychiatric treatment that couldn't possibly work. "I need an Ambien, I can't sleep." But where did you hear that you needed to sleep?

VII.

If you're a guy, you probably don't realize the awesome pressure on women to let themselves get looked at: to reveal themselves online, to post a pic, to give everyone your attention, to stop what you're doing and give the other your self, even if they want to yell at you. "Hey lady, I hate you!" And yet that same pressure tells women they are valueless unless they are public. Madness.

The system is illogical, the things you want cannot actually coexist, but you dare not attack the system that promises everything, therefore something else must be blamed. As a basic example, Hess probably wants all the benefits of socialism and all the brand products of capitalism. When she can't have it, obviously the problem is misogyny.

Another example: Donald Sterling.

donald-sterling.jpgeveryone hates two of these: fat cats, america, virgins

Here's a transcript of an illegal recording not done by the NSA that therefore everyone is ok with, consistent with our new standard of conduct: it is not illegal to make an illegal recording as long as it is given to the media and they profit from it and we can use it to rationalize our lives. Got it. Now I know you think you know what he said, but this time pay attention because he leaked a state secret:

You can sleep with them, you can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on [Instagram] and not to bring them to my games.... Don't put him [Magic Johnson] on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me... Yeah, it bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you're associating with black people. Do you have to?...You're supposed to be a delicate white or a delicate Latina girl.

Here's a question: who is THEY who have to call him? Why is a gazillionaire 3 years from God's judgment worried about They? And why would They care what his girlfriend does? The implication is that They are even more racist than he is, which should blow your mind when you consider They are about to pretend to try to take his team away from him and give him $600M.

But the other possibility-- which coexists with the first-- is that They don't exist, not in any coordinated way: They are you, the public, far more dangerously racist than he is because his racism is overt and yours is disavowed. What he is worried about is that you will see a picture of "a delicate white or Latina" girl next to a guy with large sneakers and... film your own conclusions.

Some clueless TV types have deduced that she set him up. Duh. Then they tried to figure out why he hooked up with such a manipulative harpy, and I therefore know with 100% certainty that to them having a hot young girlfriend is an unattainable fantasy. But he didn't have a choice: his superego required it, as a condition of his identity he is obligated to have a mistress, a miss-stress-- a girlfriend who is way more headache than any wife he was "bored" with. Since everything is possible, he is obligated to enjoy-- and if it isn't enjoyable there must be something preventing it, and that obstruction has to be her fault, or They's fault, what it can't be is his fault. He's 80, his sexuality is... on the decline. If he can't enjoy sex someone else has to enjoy it for him, in his place: no, not the black guy, but her-- she is doing the enjoying for him. Being cuckolded-- that's what this is, right?-- is fine, it works for him, as long as he isn't humiliated in public. "It's ok if They see me as a racist because I AM a racist, I accept it as part of my identity, there's no shame in it; but if They think I'm not satisfying her, or worse-- if they think I'm a cuckold-- if they don't see me the way I want to be seen----"

"If only you were the girl I thought you were!" he said, paraphrased. But of course she was the girl you thought she was-- she picked you. When you pick a woman for certain reasons, you are also picking the kind of woman who wants to be picked for those reasons. You may even have succeeded in tricking her that you like her for other reasons, but this is irrelevant: you like the kind of girl who likes the kind of guy who pretends to like women for other reasons....... But in any event, his desires were illogical, they can't actually coexist, so it must be They's fault.

It is heartwarming to think of the backlash against Sterling as a new intolerance of racism, and I'm told his case is important to society because he's famous and rich, but his money doesn't come with any power. So while you are all glowing in self-righteousness because you outed another racist rich guy, consider that you will never hear a recording of the head of Goldman Sachs making racist statements. "Maybe he's more progressive?" Hmm. Or maybe power won't allow it, power won't even allow you to think about it. The more likely explanation-- remember, basketball is a TV show on The Disney Channel the outcome of which couldn't be less relevant to humanity-- is that it is projection, it represents frantic activity as a defense against change. "I'm not a racist-- because THAT's a racist!"

---

bitcoin qr.png

1Bbu9uvaNMWmAGj6sPF3edaA4u1wY2DLtZ






Comments

So glad to see more writing... (Below threshold)

May 3, 2014 11:32 PM | Posted by Socialist Gumshoe: | Reply

So glad to see more writing, I am super excited to read it. Thank you!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
One of your best. Thanks.<... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 12:21 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

One of your best. Thanks.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The way you look at the med... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 12:30 AM | Posted by The Media: | Reply

The way you look at the media is adolescent, Alone. Overdetermined. Pacific Standard is a far more banal entity than you might think--it used to be called Miller-McCune (after Susan) and its beat is the social sciences, meaning it's more like Psychology Today than The Atlantic. I feel like you miss the individual struggle involved in creating a piece of advertising or writing. What you end up reading in this things is a Frankenstein's monster of ideas that were great and digested through multiple layers of editors and art directors, and the writer's own self-censoring mechanisms... It's a system!

Okay, now that I've got that off my chest I'll read beyond the first two sentences...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Writers like Amanda Hess ar... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 12:48 AM | Posted by How Journo Make Money PostInternet: | Reply

Writers like Amanda Hess are encouraged to create their own brands and that's basically what her article is about. To make a living in the age of clickable links you have to become marketable. That way you can create alternate streams on income, sell a book (snag an advance), get flown out to your alma mater to talk about civil rights with a thousand dollar honorarium... gradually you expand your mini empire with TV appearances use this as evidence of your enormous 'platform' which justifies a second big advance etc

If you look at her twitter she's got a website called sexwithamandahess or something like that and she has a column in Slate. This article is a cover story in a second-rate mag, so in a way it's social proof for that she can one day land a similar trend-driven story in The Atlantic or New York magazine or something like that. If you're interested she was probably paid about $1/word for it. New Yorker staff writers earn $3/word (and are expected to generate 30K a year, the bulk of their earnings comes from book sales and other income streams)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
These jobs sound awful.... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 1:07 AM | Posted by meets: | Reply

These jobs sound awful.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Interesting! Looks like she... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 1:08 AM | Posted, in reply to How Journo Make Money PostInternet's comment, by johnnycoconut: | Reply

Interesting! Looks like she's already done a lot of the things you've mentioned (and yes, you're right on the website name. Hey, it's memorable!)

http://sexwithamandahess.com/

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The Economist is actually a... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 1:14 AM | Posted by The Economist: | Reply

The Economist is actually an opinion magazine, people don't realize it because it's so fact-heavy, but it's essentially a blog: a weekly magazine summarizing other people's reports (along with some of their own). Sure they call it analysis but it's opinion... Amanda is all wrong about the demographics of its staff, many of its senior editors are women (at least the ones I've dealt with).

Here's James Fallows on The Economist circa 1991: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-the-economics-of-the-colonial-cringe-quot-about-the-economist-magazine-washington-post-1991/7415/

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Until last week, I hadn't p... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 2:01 AM | Posted by in Ohio: | Reply

Until last week, I hadn't purchased a newsstand magazine in one a year. I broke my streak, and in my opinion, for good reason; the most right-wing opinion magazine in America ran a special issue about how the US Government should refuse to pay back any of the national debt, starting today. The cover was the famous National Debt Clock in Manhattan, Photoshopped to show nothing but zeros.

I figured that was worth $5 if anything was.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
'Frantic activity as a defe... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 2:49 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

'Frantic activity as a defense against change'.

I've begun to think of Narcissism (henceforth 'N') increasingly as a psychological incapacity to register feedback, an incapacity for *interaction* with the outside world (i.e. to let the world *act upon you* and in so doing allow yourself to *act upon it*).

I still have difficulty comprehending the defenses that carry this out or how they operate, and I suspect that 'Frantic Activity' refers to the operations of these defenses.

I kind of see it as a frantic urge to pretend to self-sufficiency. What would real interaction require? It requires interest in Another. You wish to please Another *for the sake of pleasing the Other*; you please yourself *because* you please the Other. Or you truly detest the Other and wish to defeat him in some way, and insofar as you are successful in your real impact upon the Other, you please yourself as well. The Other might be an ally or an enemy; either way, how you act upon him matters, and your own sentiments are a rational response to your impact on the outside world, including how others respond to you.

N seems to be disconnected from this sort of interaction; he is chiefly concerned with how he makes himself feel *regardless* of his *real impact* on the Other. Desperate to be loved, but terrified that real Others will reject him, N frantically seeks *tokens* of approval that can validate him while keeping him at a safe distance from Others who are potentially hostile. Tokens allow N to be the sole referee of his value, to validate himself in *his terms*, to remain completely in charge of the terms of reference in which he is to be judged, while providing the *illusion* that your value comes from something real and outside yourself, your mark upon the outer world.

For N to admit himself into a real relationship of real interaction with an Other, as friend or foe or anything in between, would run the risks that come with his ceasing to be judge in his own cause, and to subject himself to the evaluations of an Outside world that is not obligated to oblige him and that may well judge harshly. N is terrified of this, probably because his feelings of worthlessness are so intense that any negative feedback sends him reeling.

This frantic activity which I am trying to understand may be the result of this double bind. N constantly has to elude the Scylla of confronting his fraudulence while evading the Charybdis of confronting the real world on terms that he cannot control, and running the risk of hurt, failure, and rejection.

The fear of change TLP talks about I sense to be a fear of placing himself at the mercy of a reality which he is certain will pronounce him despicable. The frantic activity is that of the self in preserving a delusion that it knows for certain to be a delusion, because the N's 'self' is still more certain that if he were to acknowledge the Outer world or interact with it(and change requires such interaction) he would be revealed as loathsome and despicable.

But perhaps there is more to the fear of change than I can discern from the overall shape of this fascinating behavioral complex. I am not a psychiatrist.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
when mustached me... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 3:27 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

when mustached men have been stalking women since the days of Whitecastle

Did you mean "Whitechapel" or is there a joke I'm missing?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
N's reputation is an ends. ... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 10:06 AM | Posted by RichieD: | Reply

N's reputation is an ends. It's a matter of caring about the eulogies N will be given, pre-mortem. N is so insignificant that N feels already figures, secretely, that N's only legacy will be the good memories and high opinion of those N leaves behind. The tokens of affirmation N seeks will be grasped at by those at Ns funeral to justify celebrating N's life at all, probably because everyone else at the funeral have the same plans.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Dear Alone,What wo... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 10:33 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Dear Alone,

What would be an example of change? Besides different interpretations of Literature and Art?

"All of these choices, all of these products, all of that sex, all of that power-- why not me?" This is exactly what I felt.

I am 22.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You are either joking, or n... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 11:13 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

You are either joking, or need to read way more of this blog. Change for you is a change of interpretation of literature?

Once of Alone's core tenents is that you are what you do. Your opinion on something everyone else has already read is of zero importance except to get others to like or hate you when you share it. This nets you affirmations of who you say and think you are. Thus, you do not change who you are.

Change is to use your thoughts and opinions to drive action. The setting and accomplishments of long-term goals, with risks and sacrifices. Save cash and stop buying video games, start a business, start writing every morning or learn an instrument. Or maybe you need to stop just playing an instrument and make time to write, record, polish, finish songs. Change is to change what you do, not what you think. Change is moving forward, not stagnating with "mental preperation" (i.e. laziness) that will consume all your time and energy. Why have taste in art and literature if not to try, over and over, to create art that meets your own high standards?

"Why not me?" -- why not you because you're not doing what's necessary to achieve those things. Are you studying for a job that is going to bring in big bucks? If not, then that's why not you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Once of Alone's core tenen... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 12:06 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by 22YearOld: | Reply

"Once of Alone's core tenents is that you are what you do" Yes indeed, but you could just as easily fool yourself into believing that whatever you are doing is an action, and not pretending to be active.

Here is the post where I got the idea from that you interpret literature differently, then it is only 1 of the indications that you may have changed.


http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/08/just_because_you_see_it_doesnt.html


Interpretation and Taste are different things. I do not know much about having taste for things, what is more interesting is how people respond to fiction, and what people see in fiction, its not that their interpretations are wrong or right, but their interpretations may show what they know or do not know. I suppose I need to find a more clear example of this.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
See Also <a href="... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 12:07 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by 22YearOld: | Reply

See Also

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/06/where_did_the_title_come_from.html

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
What the change in literary... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 12:52 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

What the change in literary interperation signifies is maturation. It is a way of noticing personal growth. If you aren't challenging yourself and integrating new knowledge and experience into your person, by stagnating and filling you hole with fetish objects instead, then you will have had less growth to track.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
There was a time n... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 2:17 PM | Posted by cmoney: | Reply

There was a time not long ago when the dumbest people in the world were polacks. Do you see any dumb polacks around today? What happened? "Awareness?" Do you think we all just learned "poles are just like us?" You think it was... education? Pole empowerment? Tolerance? The question is not how did we learn to get over that prejudice, but rather what purpose did it serve in the first place, why was it the preferred expression of hate of that time?

Any thoughts on this? I wasn't alive when pollack jokes were in favor. Was it just a means of seeing ourselves in better light in relation to this dumber breed? That seems too simple for what Alone is going for here.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Johnny Carcosa? From Alan M... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 3:57 PM | Posted by LegitS: | Reply

Johnny Carcosa? From Alan Moore's the Courtyard and Neonomicon?

Did some light reading in interpreting True Detective did you?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Changing literary interpret... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 3:59 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by VainSaints: | Reply

Changing literary interpretations does *signify* maturation. It is probably putting the cart before the horse, however. Maturity will change your literary interpretations, but the latter is a tertiary phenomenon. If one focuses one's attention on 'growth' in their literary interpretation, one will not get very far. Such a person will spin his wheels. He might, if he's lucky, realize that he's full of hot air. More likely he will confuse his meanderings for growth in substance and self.

Confusing signs for substance is a central facet of You-Know-What-ism, you can spin any 'interpretive' meanderings as 'growth' because you're in charge of the storyline. There is no external reality that can limit your interpretation of interpretation. It's the classically typical narcissistic closed loop.

Real interpretive growth is a nice by-product of real interpersonal growth that involves getting out in the world and dealing with people and things that resist your definition. It involves situating yourself in a world that is infinitely larger than you and making a real peace with it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I'm always left with diffic... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 4:37 PM | Posted by DannyGoldberg: | Reply

I'm always left with difficult questions at the end of a TLP article. This one (and the last few actually) has left me wondering what I should spend my time reading. I've been slowly realizing that most of what I read doesn't really benefit me in any important way. What do I need to read The Economist for? Is it really worthwhile for me to know what's going on in Zimbabwe? I am I being a Narcissist for wanting to read something that only benefits myself? Will the people in Zimbabwe benefit if I read about them?

The biggest problem I have in life is that I cannot connect with people. I can't talk to someone and develop a friendship. I usually spend my time reading about social science in magazines like The Atlantic, but since reading TLP I think this may have done more damage than good. Alone often says reading about something is a defense against actually doing it. But I don't know what I'm supposed to do to fix my problem.

Alone advises to define yourself by your actions. But what if something is too hard to do? What then? Do I just resign myself to existential turmoil for the rest of my life, or do I look for more knowledge?

There are so many causes for being alone, that I don't even know where to start. TLP seems to help, but it leaves you figure everything out alone.


Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
If one focuses one... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 4:37 PM | Posted, in reply to VainSaints's comment, by 101 and 1: | Reply

If one focuses one's attention on 'growth' in their literary interpretation, one will not get very far.

Where exactly is there to "go" in literary interpretation?

More likely he will confuse his meanderings for growth in substance and self.

And what are legitimate measures of "substance and self"?

There is no external reality that can limit your interpretation of interpretation. It's the classically typical narcissistic closed loop.

This seems to come from a naive understanding of the world. How does exernal reality bear on something like literary interpretation in such a way that it delimits it? Only certain fields of knowledge can claim objectivity. Literary interpretation, as much as some people might like to argue otherwise, is not one of them.

Real interpretive growth is a nice by-product of real interpersonal growth that involves getting out in the world and dealing with people and things that resist your definition. It involves situating yourself in a world that is infinitely larger than you and making a real peace with it.

I basically agree with you, but you're treading the line between argument and platitude here. "Real interpretive growth" and "real interpersonal growth" can never be measured in any meaningful way (subjectively or objectively), so we may as well discard them as somewhat misleading phrases. And on the other hand, it is very possible for a narcissist to situate himself in environments which may be disagreeable to his constructed self but set up enough of a buffer personality which allows him just enough closeness with just enough distance to think he is "making peace" with his surroundings when he is still detached and incapable of connecting. Or he might categorize the people who "resist their definition" in ways that make it easy to dismiss their opinions (ie, they're rednecks, they're stupid, they're shallow, etc.). In fact, you could argue that being situated in a "world that is infinitely larger than you" is the very reason the constructed self was developed in the first place.

Narcissism thrives in vagueness, which unfortunately your post is full of.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Consider the protection the... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 7:02 PM | Posted by John: | Reply

Consider the protection the system offers the law student in the example.

What protection shall be awarded to Randi Zuckerberg?

If we go to her Tumblr we realize that she really likes herself and Jared Leto.

Also, she is aware of TLP. This quote is there: “Unlocking creativity is the third biggest swindle perpetrated by management consultants, after open floor plans and management consulting.”

Fine, maybe she isn't and others manage her online presence. Still, how long until she perceives this site as a threat? How long until Miller McCune does? The system?

Bloggers in other countries disappear all the time and I'm not talking about those who get arrested.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"But what if something is t... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 7:20 PM | Posted, in reply to DannyGoldberg's comment, by 22YearOld: | Reply

"But what if something is too hard to do?"

That is a defense against change. "That was hard, now I can give up, oh well back to curling into my bed and sulking".

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
most mental illnesses are i... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 8:02 PM | Posted, in reply to 22YearOld's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

most mental illnesses are incurable

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Mental Illness"Th... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 8:10 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by 22YearOld: | Reply

"Mental Illness"

This could very well be a defense against change. "Look at me im so depressed" People who have decided they have depression, also have decided to do nothing. Rather than attempt to do something to switch their focus back on something within reality. If you at least try to draw and read, you will notice more things outside of yourself, the focus on how miserable you are will lessen(I am miserable is an identity).

The mistake is symptoms are a cause of certain actions or a certain lack of actions.
Actions are a cause of symptoms.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Just a note, I actually fou... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 8:11 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Theodor Philip: | Reply

Just a note, I actually found the substitution of the word narcissist to make your post more difficult to understand, mostly I think because it chops off the last section of the word; ism, ist. I'd recommend putting Nism / Nist if you really need to abbreviate it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Experience with real emotio... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 8:25 PM | Posted, in reply to 101 and 1's comment, by VainSaints: | Reply

Experience with real emotions, triumph and failure, love and lost love, war and disillusionment, and all the rest will very much inform one's interpretations of texts, especially of rich texts.

A typical adolescent, having had little experience in his life, will not read Shakespeare or 'Death of A Salesman' or Joseph Heller or Dostoyevsky or Nietzsche or Augustine or the Gospels or the Psalms in the way someone who has seen more and experienced more would. It is the maturity that comes with getting out in the world and doing things in it, and having the self shaped and reshaped by it (what is commonly called 'building character') that will inevitably result in different (more developed) readings of literature.

A clever adolescent, I'm sure, could come up with a million novel interpretations of various texts, and they would all be sophomoric because he is himself sophomoric. He does not have the range of experience to understand deeply the emotional content of what he is reading. And when he does, there will in fact be interpretive growth, and the former adolescent, clever as ever, will be able to speculate upon the text with the same novelty, but a deeper grasp of the content, and then might be able to use his skills to write a dissertation that any sane person would read.

And when I was talking about reality limiting interpretation, I was not talking about literary interpretation (although reality bounds this as well, otherwise the moral of Oedipus Rex could be 'love conquers all'). I was talking about reality informing one's own narrative 'interpretation' of one's own life. I was saying that concentrating on text interpretation as a marker of growth is wrongheaded precisely because the subject remains the arbiter of his own growth, and is thus free to do what the Narcissist is so desperate to do: to fool himself into thinking he's done something without actually doing anything. To truly change as a person, the Narcissist needs to subject his character to things that resist his deceptions, to allow the outside world to reshape his subjectivity, to let the world be the hammer and him to be the block of marble.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
you are on a blog called "t... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 8:31 PM | Posted, in reply to 22YearOld's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

you are on a blog called "the last psychiatrist" written by a practicing psychiatrist arguing mental illness is an excuse used by weak willed people. you're an idiot if you expect this to go anywhere.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Ofcourse there are mental i... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 8:41 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by 22YearOld: | Reply

Ofcourse there are mental illnesses, but you should take care before you define your life by a mental illness. I am not one to judge however on if someone is mental or not, and if they are making an excuse or are acctually ill.

Then again mental illness may not have been so bad if it was not so segregated as bad as black people were segregated.


Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Enlightening as always, but... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 9:17 PM | Posted by Mark: | Reply

Enlightening as always, but I do have one question.

It took me until the third reference for me to decode the "large sneakers" euphemism. I've heard of some of the publications described here, and in your earlier articles, but as often as not you write about a controversy that's news to me. "If I'm reading it, it's for me," but what about the inverse?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Had to read this twice to r... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 9:30 PM | Posted by Heinlager: | Reply

Had to read this twice to really digest it. It's really nice to have my discomfort about the media well articulated.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The US/MAXIM screenshot is ... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 10:10 PM | Posted by J: | Reply

The US/MAXIM screenshot is unclear to the point of being bewildering, rather than illuminating. I generally blame myself when I don't understand the reasoning of a paragraph, but surely a man of TLP's intellect can make a diagram a little more lucid. :D

this is what women are told men want; this is how women are told how to want

I gather he's claiming US weekly is telling women that men want what's on the cover of MAXIM. I'm not sure how the women are being told "how" to want. And then there's the reflexive arrow from the woman's face to the title of MAXIM? and the green arrow to the US logo? Are these two supposed to correspond to the two clauses in the caption? I'm just not getting it.

Someone, help me out, please!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
How about we arrange for yo... (Below threshold)

May 4, 2014 11:24 PM | Posted by KarlYoung: | Reply

How about we arrange for you punch Malcolm Gladwell in the dick? Can we settle it then? (Yes, he-and all that he represents-is our downfall.)* But where the fuck were we going? Alone, were we supposed to successfully navigate post killing a bunch of yellow people with nukes, then post WWII commercialism, then post Cold War, then post 9/11, then post killing a whole bunch of brown people out of narcissist rage? So what if a fairy sling bs amuses a few people into a death filled with idiocy.

Don't be a life addict bro-or spend your time arguing with life addicts. You're too talented for that.

*I'm sorry, but I couldn't get past the first paragraph. That half fruitcake appeared in your writings again. I hope you're talking to your therapist about that shit.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Why not come right out and ... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 1:57 AM | Posted by Watcher of Watchers: | Reply

Why not come right out and say what you know?

The system sustains itself on thought-terminating cliche, the irreality of language, and brute force.

Sometimes, that's the brute force of turning narcissism (itself the product of training: narcissism buys, the system sells) against itself - forcing a would-be anon to stick to their name... sometimes, with the helpful side-benefit of silencing anyone who'd like to speak out.

Authenticated video (following on the notion of bitcoin's authenticated sign-value) for surveillance is the next logical step in the evolution of this system for control - unfortunately, those who do the watching would prefer to remain unaccountable to those they watch.

The alternative: authenticated video for sousveillance; system corruption cannot stand to scrutiny, and this society trained to confuse signifier-for-signified could use a little dose of reality.

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls - keep your eyes open, watch, and see.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
incidentally, this week's i... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 1:58 AM | Posted by the ghost of leon trotsky: | Reply

incidentally, this week's issue of the new yorker has an entire piece on narcissism, a thorough working-over of which i eagerly look forward to

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sweet feathery sparkling Je... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 2:07 AM | Posted by swarlos: | Reply

Sweet feathery sparkling Jesus this was incredible

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
What bothers me most about ... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 3:09 AM | Posted by Tobias Boon: | Reply

What bothers me most about this entire scenario is the degree to which people are active participants in their own disempowerment. It doesn't take that much to read a title like 'Why Women Aren't Welcome On The Internet' and to realize that it is the equivalent of 'click-bait'. Of course there has to be a willingness to reach that conclusion.

I would think that an article titled something like 'How I Learned To Not Let Mean Things People Say Bother Me' would be of infinitely more value to people, but I'm guessing that would not get the same attention. Is it cynical of me to assume that the sentiment of Hess' article are insincere or am I being overly hopeful in assuming that it is mostly calculated?

For most of my life I had assumed that the "strangely shaped divot in your soul" that I felt was unique. I had assumed that it was the result of my sense of being an outsider for many of my younger years. I realize now of course that it is not unique to me. A lot of the guys I know think that it is a woman they need to fill that void and you can pretty much forget about trying to tell them otherwise. I know women who believe this as well, although it is usually a man they are after instead of a woman, but not always. Of course there are also those women who are convinced it is 'The Patriarchy'.

What I would like to know is who says that divot in your soul is ever supposed to be filled? Maybe it was a creation of the system, but couldn't it just be a symptom of the human condition?

I've come to the conclusion that the solution is to do your best to live life on your own terms. Meaning decide for yourself what your priorities are and what you think is important. Take part in the system, but do your best to have it serve you rather than blindly serving it. I suspect that I have this belief structure because of my experience of seeing myself as an outsider, because I don't seem to be able to find many others who share my perspective or who are willing to adopt it.

I think of this belief structure as empowering. It's saying 'yes this is my fault, but that's great news because it means I have the power to change it'.

What I don't understand is why are people so dependent on the knee jerk "therefore it's not my fault" reaction. Why is it so important that it not be your fault? Why are you so committed to being an agent in your own "feeling of impotence".

I get that the ego wants to preserve itself, but is that really all it comes down to? Is it really just about a preference for being weak and innocent rather than being responsible? It requires a bit of a leap and the willingness to live in a sort of temporary state of limbo, but is avoiding that really all that's stopping them?

The only other thing I can think of is that I am deceiving myself by seeing this as being empowered. That maybe I am just kidding myself because at the end of the day I am ultimately choosing to serve the system. That I came to these conclusions because that is what the system wanted me to do.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
My interpretation is that M... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 3:34 AM | Posted, in reply to J's comment, by Tobias Boon: | Reply

My interpretation is that Maxim tells women by putting Sophia Bush on the cover that she represents what men want and thus what they should aspire to, therefore the green lines. US Weekly by highlighting Maxim teaches women that they should want, therefore the purple lines.

The process of learning how to want is broken down in another post. If I am remembering correctly it goes something like this. You watch a TV commercial for one car company, Nissan for example, and you think to yourself 'hah, I know you're trying to manipulate me into buying a Nissan, but I'm going to buy a Toyota'. But as far as the system is concerned what matters isn't that you buy one car over another but that you want to buy a car.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Any fragile, special snowfl... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 5:26 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Any fragile, special snowflake who lets "trolls" on the internet get to them needs to get the fuck off the internet and stay off, and that goes for either sex. That, or spend a few weeks on any 4chan board of your choosing. That should toughen you up a bit.

I think Doug Stanhope said it best:

“If you're offended by any word in any language, it’s probably because your parents were unfit to raise a child. They were too stupid. They should have been neutered. Because all it is is a sound you can make with your mouth. It’s not a weakness that you have naturally. When you come out of that pink ugly hole onto this planet, you're nothing but a gooey, shrinking, wrinkled ball of weakness. That’s all you are: you're weak, you're nothing but weak, and your parents look at that, and they think: “Not weak enough. We can make this thing even weaker by training it to react poorly to different sounds that you can make with your mouth.”
Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Think Tobias answered this ... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 10:05 AM | Posted, in reply to J's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Think Tobias answered this pretty well, but it doesn't hurt to include a symmetrical example.

I'm watching TV with my girlfriend and a Victoria's Secret commercial comes on. If our (systemic) training is working, I look at the screen and she looks at me looking at the screen. She then says to herself, "That's what guys want." But the truth is that the commercial ISN'T for me, and it never was. It pretends to be for me so that it can get to her. Aside from once every ten fucking years or so, men don't buy lingerie. And guess what? VS isn't staying in business by selling a corset and a pair of thigh-highs every decade; they stay in business by selling the same basic, sexless undergarments the Mormons wear, only with a different tag and fewer safety pins.

So, by convincing women that those adds are actually for men (and, conversely, by convincing men that those adds are actually for men), they successfully "trap" the female consumer's desire. The trick is that, unless SHE believes the add is for ME, it doesn't work. As soon as you have women selling underwear to women, instead of selling themselves to men, you'll have adds that look a lot more like those idiots dressed up as fruit.

Notice, too, that Victoria Secret serves a female demographic that is utterly comparable with Fruit of the Loom's male demographic. So while you have "high-end" men's underwear (e.g., Calvin Klein, D&G, etc.) marketed in a fashion similar to how VS markets (e.g., hot guys fanning themselves with some woman's engorged lips), the "low end" (i.e. every guy who wears underwear daily for stuff other than fucking supermodels) just bills itself as functional. Hence why they always have some pragmatic tagline like, "They keep your junk in." In other words, male and female consumers within an otherwise identical demographic (25-39, 40 hrs/week, 30-130k/year), are expected (read "trained") to react to these adds in fundamentally different ways.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Does $200k/yr have more ... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 10:45 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Does $200k/yr have more in common with $50k/yr or $1M/yr? What do your TV commercials tell you? Don't think about where the lines are drawn, think about who draws the lines.

I don't get this. An interpretation, reply or downvote if it's wrong: the Wireless Sales Consultant ($30k? $50k?) may theoretically outperform the other consultants, making vastly more money for the host company. He may be enticed to do this by the potential of a far more lucrative position, maybe Wireless Sales Manager ($60k? $100k?). What the two have in common is they are never allowed to make $1M/year or higher, never allowed to approach, much less replace, the CEO of Verizon. The maintenance of ever-higher potential rewards - or, at least, threats to take away the highest allowed rewards if he doesn't perform - ensure the worker never stops to think about how he could become $15M/year threat to the company, rather than its best, hardest-working servant.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"I sympathize, though in... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 10:52 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"I sympathize, though in my experience what's even more frightening than a guy telling you he's going to rape you is a guy not telling you he's going to rape you."

Just awesome, effective writing. Well done, TLP.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
$600M? For the Clippers? ... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 5:16 PM | Posted by Jake: | Reply

$600M? For the Clippers? The Milwaukee Bucks were sold this year for $550M, despite the fact that Milwaukee is in--get this--Wisconsin. With the mortgage market out of the picture, owning a major sports franchise is the only sure-fire way a billionaire can see a decent ROI guaranteed (it hasn't failed yet, right?).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
[i]Any thoughts on this? I ... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 6:33 PM | Posted, in reply to cmoney's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

[i]Any thoughts on this? I wasn't alive when pollack jokes were in favor. Was it just a means of seeing ourselves in better light in relation to this dumber breed? That seems too simple for what Alone is going for here.[/i]

I was wondering about this too and some other comment mentioned WWII and the two clicked. Another cold war propaganda tool / fear of communism at the time? Could be wrong.

I'm 31 and definitely remember when this was a "thing". Maybe from watching old movies on TV when I was young but I definitely remember a lot of polack jokes from txt dumps on BBSes during the early 90s and even the internet in the mid/late 90s. It was definitely a "thing" and I even mentioned it to a Polish girl who said "we've never had to deal with stereotypes."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
nope never mind there's eve... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 6:37 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

nope never mind there's even wikipedia articles about polack jokes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_joke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Polish_sentiment#.22Polish_jokes.22

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This relationship ... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 7:01 PM | Posted by Runs with scissors: | Reply

This relationship of substitution is not limited to beliefs: the same goes for every one of the subject's innermost feelings and attitudes, inclusive of crying and laughing. Suffice it to recall the old enigma of transposed/displaced emotions at work from the so-called "weepers" (women hired to cry at funerals) in "primitive" societies, to the "canned laughter" on a TV-screen, and to adopting a screen persona in cyberspace. When I construct a "false" image of myself which stands for me in a virtual community in which I participate (in sexual games, for example, a shy man often assumes the screen persona of an attractive promiscuous woman), the emotions I feel and "feign" as part of my screen persona are not simply false: although (what I experience as) my "true self" does not feel them, they are nonetheless in a sense "true" — the same as with watching a TV mini-series with canned laughter where, even if I do not laugh, but simply stare at the screen, tired after a hard days work, I nonetheless feel relieved after the show… This is what the Lacanian notion of "decentrement," of the decentered subject, aims at: my most intimate feelings can be radically externalized, I can literally "laugh and cry through another."
Now just substitute "Alone" and "narcissism" for "Lacan" and "decenterment," respectively.
Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I thought it was called "Th... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 7:26 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I thought it was called "The Economist" because if you are Dick Cheney and you want to print some money you call the editors there and have them reservedly and wholeheartedly endorse your war in Iraq?

Speaking of military action; what's with the debate about enlisted womens' hairstyles instead of the debate about why women in the military get raped by their own side so much? That was rhetorical, obviously even though we're letting women in the military now the establishment doesn't actually want them to rise in the ranks; crush their persons silently (literally?) while granting them the freedom to do their hair in one of five approved braids or buns. Men only get one choice! See, in the armed forces women are doing _better._

Thanks for the post!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Would it be considered narc... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 7:48 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Would it be considered narcissistic or unnecessarily violent to print this out, shred it into tiny pieces, mix the pieces with cannon powder, and blast them into the brain of every part-time tumblr identity politician?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I don't understand this at ... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 9:47 PM | Posted by NoDreams: | Reply

I don't understand this at all. I read it,so its for me, so can someone explain this contradiction.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This definitely went over m... (Below threshold)

May 5, 2014 9:50 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by NoDreams: | Reply

This definitely went over my head. Is alone saying that its more terrifying to be rape unexpectedly vs someone telling you they are going to rape you and then you are actually raped ?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
That's a great point. I've ... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 1:15 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Tobias Boon: | Reply

That's a great point. I've seen the woman watching the Victoria's Secret commercial then proceed to get angry about the unrealistic expectations of men for supposedly wanting her to look like the models in the commercial.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I took it to mean that it i... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 1:20 AM | Posted, in reply to NoDreams's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I took it to mean that it is more terrifying for nothing to be said and actually being raped than someone idly saying they will.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Interesting article.<... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 3:05 AM | Posted by feizhuzhu: | Reply

Interesting article.

Alone, have you ever read anything really good by a woman? Because it's weirdly absent from your blog. You write spectacularly well about narcissism from a male perspective. But you never refer to anything written by a woman as authoritative or valuable.

Like, for god's sake, your other blog is called "Partial Objects" and you never once in all these posts mention Melanie Klein.

This is an incredibly useful diagnostic tool: does the subject ever volunteer praise for a work by a woman? If he doesn't speak of accomplishments by anyone but him, fine, he's a narcissist. But if he never, ever lets slip any evidence that women did anything great, is he half a narcissist? Like a narcissist, but only against women? Is there a word for that . . . ?

Anyway, suggest you read some of the more time-honored feminist authors, you might learn something. They're nothing like Hess and would never, ever get published in the Atlantic or Slate.

Andrea Dworkin and Sheila Jeffreys offer good places to start, with many works available free on radfem.org.

If somewhere you heard something about either of them that gives you a reason to laugh and roll your eyes and feel superior and not read them, well, if you're hearing it, it's for you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I feel like you may have br... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 5:53 AM | Posted, in reply to feizhuzhu's comment, by Melanie Klein: | Reply

I feel like you may have brain damage.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Honestly, are you serious? ... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 9:25 AM | Posted, in reply to feizhuzhu's comment, by Seriously, WTF?: | Reply

Honestly, are you serious?

"You don't talk enough about women in a GOOD way." If that's a real criticism, you might have brain damage.

"A narcissist, but only against women." If you think narcissism is "against" others, you might have brain damage.

If you think Alone profiles MEN in a positive way, and ignores women, you might have brain damage.

"Alone, have you ever read anything really good by a woman? Because it's weirdly absent from your blog." If you think this is some kind of review site, and that Alone is somehow morally or professionally bound to advertise the awesomeness of any woman's writing he reads and agrees with, you might have brain damage.

Do you honestly not see how pissy and whinny your comment sounds? Do you honestly not see you it makes YOU look like the raging narcissist? Then you might have brain damage.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Alone, where's the book? I... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 10:03 AM | Posted by Mike: | Reply

Alone, where's the book? I'm warning you, if you don't write it I won't buy it.
Have you given up on it?


Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I took it to mean that if s... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 12:10 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I took it to mean that if someone threatens to rape you, it means you are at least worth raping. If no one threatens to rape you, to the damaged mind, it means that on the scale of human interaction, with transcendant life-long mutual love on the highest end, and rape down at the lowest, you fall somewhere below rape.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Had to pause in mid-read.<b... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 12:28 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Had to pause in mid-read.
"$100M says there's a vaporizer nearby."
Pure gold.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This blog is not all about ... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 12:43 PM | Posted, in reply to feizhuzhu's comment, by Ryan: | Reply

This blog is not all about you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"What I would like to know ... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 12:53 PM | Posted, in reply to Tobias Boon's comment, by Ryan: | Reply

"What I would like to know is who says that divot in your soul is ever supposed to be filled? Maybe it was a creation of the system, but couldn't it just be a symptom of the human condition?"

That emptiness is really a desire toward wholeness, toward a metaphysical certainty of "who you really are." Narcissism arises when we cling to this fragile illusory notion of self, even when others stand in the way, or, in other words, don't see you the way you want to be seen, "the way you "really are".

The step forward is to realize that "you really aren't anything" and never were, at least in the absolute sense. Then you have the freedom to choose who to become.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"The step forward is to rea... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 1:29 PM | Posted, in reply to Ryan's comment, by VainSaints: | Reply

"The step forward is to realize that "you really aren't anything" and never were, at least in the absolute sense. Then you have the freedom to choose who to become."

That 'cure' is worse than the disease, and I doubt even the most nihilistic psychiatrist would apply such an approach.

The step forward isn't to realize that identity is an illusion and that 'You' aren't anything (that is probably the existential terror that makes the Narcissist cling to his imaginary identity).

The step forward is to realize that any identity that you construct for yourself is illusory if it is not firmly situated in external reality: in a standard that exists outside yourself.

Insofar as a person has a tangible social role (even in his family), insofar as he is worth something to others and others are worth something to him, insofar as there is tribute and reciprocation, Narcissism is successfully staved off.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
That emptiness is ... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 1:57 PM | Posted, in reply to VainSaints's comment, by Friend of Bill W.'s: | Reply

That emptiness is really a desire toward wholeness, toward a metaphysical certainty of "who you really are."

This.


Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
you rock, thanks for postin... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 2:37 PM | Posted, in reply to feizhuzhu's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

you rock, thanks for posting this. I wonder if Alone would even be able to survive a Dworkin binge.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
ain't about you either, sil... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 2:38 PM | Posted, in reply to Ryan's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

ain't about you either, sillypants

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
That's kind of what I thoug... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 3:23 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Second Anon: | Reply

That's kind of what I thought. I've never heard of a person threatening rape, or even chasing a person down the street with their arms up like the boogeyman yelling "I'm gonna rape you", and then actually raping the person.

Usually you just get jumped or some shit - words are pretty easy and probably bullshit, anyone who plans to act won't waste time with them.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
2 suggestions, if I may - -... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 3:53 PM | Posted, in reply to DannyGoldberg's comment, by Scott: | Reply

2 suggestions, if I may - -

Try reading The Idea of History, by R. G. Collingwood. It may seem unrelated, but history is the unfolding of human action - - choice. To understand history, you must understand people, which requires you to relate to their way of thinking. And in general, I find philosophy (this is a philosophy book) to clear up my thinking and help me to do it better.

Second, try 19th century literature, especially the chick-lit type stuff. You can find more than you could ever possibly read for free online. If you are looking for a place to start, maybe George MacDonald? He is fairly religious, but I find that he truly, deeply understands people, and writes them pretty well.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
hahahaha who spends time wr... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 6:42 PM | Posted by SRD: | Reply

hahahaha who spends time writing this

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Oh you go girl! Woo! ... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 6:48 PM | Posted, in reply to feizhuzhu's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Oh you go girl! Woo!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Not-raping" should be a de... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 7:41 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"Not-raping" should be a default mode; people don't say "yeah I'm going to breathe in and out a few times a minute for the next hour" so when they say something like "I'm not going to rape you" it's wait, why are you reassuring me of this?

He says "trust me," you say "bye," they should give little girls that advice instead of whistles.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You take whatever you can t... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 7:54 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Skepticalchemist: | Reply

You take whatever you can take. Find solace in your journey, for you will mostly be Alone.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
All of your posts have been... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 8:10 PM | Posted by TC: | Reply

All of your posts have been leading up to this brilliant analysis. Can't wait to see what you write next.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
MAN ARE YOU MORPHEUS? I WON... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 8:59 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

MAN ARE YOU MORPHEUS? I WON'T TELL PLS ANSWER ME

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Phantastes by MacDonald is ... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 10:34 PM | Posted, in reply to Scott's comment, by Mike: | Reply

Phantastes by MacDonald is great. Any other works you would specifically recommend?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Having read a good number o... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 10:46 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Having read a good number of your articles, Alone, I can't help but wonder whether, as a self-professed alcoholic, you would not be railing against a society that falls exactly into how you prescribe humans to behave were we all to try and make it exist. I mean, say all of us were to work towards helping one another out as a means to better ourselves. Say each individual ceased their own self-delusions and started actively trying to improve the lives of others. How soon before we all started judging one another, as was the case in many Communist states, on whether other individuals truly were contributing enough to the betterment of the rest of us? How soon before this society got lost and reverted back to bettering themselves?

I can't help but feel that your attacks against the current system (which I agree is irreparably flawed in many ways), are really attacks in defence of your own change. You drink because the system is hopeless. Really? Hasn't the world always been hopeless to certain segments of the population since drugs have existed? I can imagine the first shaman in hunter-gatherer times insisting that the whole tribe has it wrong and that he has the answers despite the fungi and tea he just drank.

Ad hominem attacks aside, given that nobody in the system truly gets what they want, wouldn't it be better to just be pragmatic? Realize what the system wants, then position yourself to gain from it? Maybe, after you've amassed the billions from being in the right place/time, reinvest that income into efforts to effectively improve lives a la Bill Gates?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I always thought of the "lo... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 10:48 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I always thought of the "lots of long rums" angle as more of a rhetorical device than a statement of fact about Alone's self.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This is one of the dumber t... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 10:53 PM | Posted, in reply to feizhuzhu's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

This is one of the dumber things I've ever read in these comments, and I read most of jonny's corpus. That's saying something.

Alone has deconstructed feminism in many places on the blog. Dove beauty ads, makeup, zuckerberg, etc. etc. etc. And those are all just _recently_. Equal opportunity deconstruction, here. If your gripe is Alone doesn't go out of his way to elevate The Average Woman, well... Look around and ask yourself if he's aiming at elevating The Average Man. Then kindly show yourself out and re-lock yourself in the Womyn's Studies department library.

Your ideological blind spot is showing. Try harder.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Pretty much all of what I'v... (Below threshold)

May 6, 2014 10:54 PM | Posted, in reply to Mike's comment, by Scott: | Reply

Pretty much all of what I've read has been worthwhile. I do think the fantasy stories are generally better than the traditional novels, but that may just be a matter of taste.

Probably Lilith is, to me, the pinnacle of his writing (it is also, I think, the last book that he wrote). It is fantasy, better than Phantastes, I thought. But it is more overtly religious (don't know if that's your thing. Perhaps you found Phantastes by way of C. S. Lewis?) The only fantasy-type story I did not quite care for as much was At the Back of the North Wind. But it was still okay. Also, aside from Phantastes and Lilith, I think most of the fantasy stories are children's stories.

Of the traditional novels, David Elginbrod has been my favorite. But it is also more overtly religious. But some of that may be difficult for you to read, because he writes in Scottish accent quite a bit, which can be difficult to decipher.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I agree with most of what y... (Below threshold)

May 7, 2014 12:23 AM | Posted, in reply to VainSaints's comment, by Ryan: | Reply

I agree with most of what you said. From a practical standpoint I think you mapped a better step forward for those struggling with narcissism insofar as it is more conducive to change due to the fact that it prevents existential terror. However, this doesn't make the statement any less true from a philosophical perspective.

I also take (minor) issue with your statement that "The step forward is to realize that any identity that you construct for yourself is illusory if it is not firmly situated in external reality: in a standard that exists outside yourself."

Where does this standard come from? This doesn't seem like it would eliminate narcissism because the narcissist believes that h/she can create and amend standards on the fly. Further, this standard can also just take the form of another identity, i.e 'this is how X preconstructed identity would act.'

I am going to stand by the proposition that the solution is to let go of the impulse to identify. Accept the fact that you will never know who you are and reorient yourself toward the mode of acting rather than the mode of being. The narcissist is afraid of operating without knowing who h/she is because of the crippling anxiety that would result. "How do I know what to do, if I don't know who I am?", says the narcissist.

Just start doing stuff, pick something and stick to it. Don't listen to the voice in your head that tries to tell you "you don't want that, you want something else." Do something (you think) you don't like and maybe you will end up liking it. If it turns out you (actually) don't, at least you have begun to engage in the process of constructing an authentic self. Keep practicing action and it will become second nature.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Alone doesn't go out of hi... (Below threshold)

May 7, 2014 2:30 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"Alone doesn't go out of his way to elevate The Average Woman" I think that's the point. This is what feminists convince people is sexism these days.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
'Where does this standard c... (Below threshold)

May 7, 2014 2:36 AM | Posted, in reply to Ryan's comment, by VainSaints: | Reply

'Where does this standard come from? This doesn't seem like it would eliminate narcissism because the narcissist believes that h/she can create and amend standards on the fly.'

We are probably saying the same thing with different emphasis.

I'm thinking here of the difference between Believing/doing/wanting and saying 'I believe/do/want' and (when we hit full-blown Narcissism) 'I--as a Transcendentalist--believe/do/want'.

The idea is the need to have that 'I' the identity mediating between the self and the object and the need to give it content because the self is too weak to believe/want/do anything.

So I agree that the best way to break out of this is to become action-oriented rather than identity oriented. Commit to something. Fake it, as TLP says.

But at the end of that tunnel, I don't discount the possibility of a 'real' identity emerging, one that is situated, where who the subject is, who others largely believe him to be, what he believes, and what he does have a degree of coherence, and he thus loses that existential anxiety. His beliefs/ideals/actions flow easily from the self, of which the identity is merely what it should be, an accurate reflection of the real item.

But I agree emphatically that it would be disastrous for the Narcissist consciously to think of this endpoint. He would, as you said, fall into his habit of reinventing himself, fooling himself into thinking the new self is 'authentic'.

The ease of which I speak only comes after self-preoccupation is dead and buried, and the subject's attention is pointed *outward* towards the world. The world then pours selfhood back into the subject.

The relation is reflexive; the subject's role is to look out, and let the world look back in. If the subject tries to control *both* sides of that reciprocal dynamic, probably out of a deep lack of faith in the outside world, you get Narcissism.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"No Self-Respecting Woman W... (Below threshold)

May 7, 2014 6:29 AM | Posted by Sistrum: | Reply

"No Self-Respecting Woman Would Go Out Without Make Up" is one of the most "feminist" articles I've read in a long time.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The part about Bernie Madof... (Below threshold)

May 7, 2014 6:51 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

The part about Bernie Madoff really spoke to me. Shows you where I'm at, I guess.

Does anyone have ideas about what to do? I don't like where things seem to be heading yet I like my current standard of living. I want revolutionary internal change but I don't want a war. The system keeps going but I don't think it can keep on going indefinitely, so where does that leave us?

I realise that paragraph is inconsistent, probably because my thinking is inconsistent. When I read TLP, I'm confronted with inconsistencies and misdirections I swallow every day. The solution is surely not to read The Economist - what other blogs are out there that rip away the mask like this one does? What books are good to read to expand and refine my thinking and action?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>I want revolutionary inter... (Below threshold)

May 7, 2014 7:30 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Glen: | Reply

>I want revolutionary internal change?

But when that happens, what do you intend to follow it with? Such is the nature of fantasy. "When we cannot really get to know things, fantasy provides an easy answer." See Zizek address that concept here with a short clip from Pervert's Guide to Ideology. Pay very close attention to 7:14-7:28, considering.

If you truly care to delve deeper, familiarize yourself with Alice Miller's work on child rearing, with a central focus on abuse and its repercussions on (global) society. If her work seems sensible then have a look at Lloyd Demause's work as well. Free chapters of stuff at the bottom of the page available here.

I find Kazimierz Dabrowski's Positive Disintegration appealing as well. The idea here is to move yourself onto Level III: Spontaneous Multilevel Disintegration. Read the Wiki. You'll understand.

You must learn more about childrearing modes to understand the origins of that which you are motivated to move on from.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I totally agree. I think t... (Below threshold)

May 7, 2014 9:03 AM | Posted by Dovahkiin: | Reply

I totally agree. I think the entire notion of post-modern feminism could be summed up in a single sentence.

Woman are not capable of self defense so we (society) have to pre-chew the entire culture for them. It explains more of what's going on than any other explanation. Why is being threatened with rape by people who don't know where you live a huge deal? Because women are incapable of dealing with their delicate emotions. Why must women be handed equal pay? because woman are incapable of making decisions to earn it.

I'm down with actual equality. But woman are not being trained to take actual equality. Woman are not (as men in general are) trained to deal with hurt feelings and bullies. They aren't taught that a decision generally means choosing not to do other stuff just as surely as it means choosing to do what you want. Women are not taught to use power to protect themselves. They're shinking violets, and since they want to be in the line of fire, but aren't trained to deal with it, that means that we must de-ball the entire internet for them.

And it does, as TLP says, play directly into the hands of the powerful. The most powerful tool of oppression is a population rendered incapable of dealing with its own problems without going to an authority to solve (by removing yet more freedom and power from the people). It's a totalitarian's wet dream. And not only are we allowing it to happen, we're demanding it. We can't deal with bullies and trolls ourselves, so that means we give up free speech (big brother insists on knowing who the trolls are and doing nothing when they are punished for free speech), we can't handle our jobs, so the government must dictate with ever more specificity exactly how we interact at work. We can't handle fighting for our rights by ourselves, so we must have someone else fight for us. In other words, unlike Soviet Russia where the government was protecting the Russians from themselves, we demand that the government protect us from ourselves.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
When I read TLP, I'm co... (Below threshold)

May 7, 2014 10:34 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

When I read TLP, I'm confronted with inconsistencies and misdirections I swallow every day. The solution is surely not to read The Economist - what other blogs are out there that rip away the mask like this one does? What books are good to read to expand and refine my thinking and action?

I've been down this road before. You say you want to expand your thinking and action, but what action? Have you ever acted upon information you've read in The Economist?

Who are you? Or who do you think you are? And why does the person who you think you are need information to redefine his/her thinking and action?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Everything you just said is... (Below threshold)

May 7, 2014 1:19 PM | Posted, in reply to VainSaints's comment, by Ryan: | Reply

Everything you just said is spot on.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The manifestation of narcis... (Below threshold)

May 7, 2014 1:42 PM | Posted by Quine: | Reply

The manifestation of narcissism is a disregard of semantics, and the system knows this. The real question is why does a system that wants you to see symbols and metaphors have so much fine print.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Who bullies the bullies? <b... (Below threshold)

May 7, 2014 2:57 PM | Posted by jonny: | Reply

Who bullies the bullies? Bullies must respect their elders.

I dunno why? Because they're older?

Because elders haven't respected themselves for longer?

Because the god chosen by elders said not to spare the rod?

I dunno why? Elders just need to bully, I suppose. Or else?

I thought this post was going to be about mothers. But I guess truth is rude. Who don't you put more clothes on, you perverts.
_______

A side-effect of White Female Privilege (the Right To Be Pursued By Men, an entitlement they protect by killing every slut) must be that they imagine they're being verbally pursued (harassed) by trolls. That's ironic because, in the troll's mind, her verbal harassment offended him. So they're both insane but to be fair to the troll, her mean words started it. She's the first offender.

Regardless, both trolls should know it's not sane to imagine senseless pain in your imagination. Unless ESP is a thing now, it is psychotic (by definition) to imagine mean words can hurt you.

Where's the police when an insane woman needs sectioning for her own protection? She's cutting herself in her imagination. Throw her in an imaginary asylum. I think Society has one where it's "normal" to be insane. It may not be civil but it sure is polite.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Of course information alter... (Below threshold)

May 7, 2014 3:39 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Of course information alters our thinking and behavior. Did you just spawn your worldview within your own psyche? Maybe in part... but that's the only way to cultivate a worldview is with new information. Personally, TLP is my daily does of the red pill and there are few so bold as him that stand to offer that red pill. He may not always be right, but he is always enlightening. If you find someone else that has that to offer, I'd like to read that too but so far TLP is all I can find. Partial Objects has some to offer, but if it's not written by TLP it's always a little iffy. Like you can kind of agree with most of it, but not all.
TLP is where it's at. At least he has the guts to rip apart the beloved Matrix and give us poor souls some mana to eat.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
<a href="http://27.media.tu... (Below threshold)

May 7, 2014 5:05 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

http://27.media.tumblr.com/eAjcQX6ADq8anr5wwCD2yhlJo1_500.png

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
When offered refreshments, ... (Below threshold)

May 7, 2014 6:10 PM | Posted by jonny: | Reply

When offered refreshments, boys are told by Polite Society's mothers they're to decline twice before they can reluctantly accept a third offer. No matter how much they want cookies, when offered they must lie and say, "No thank you, I'm fine." In Polite Society, you can't be "easy". Women know truth is rude.

Women aren't objects. Objects have a function. Objects don't need. If truth is rude, it'd be rude to say "truth is rude". It's recursion, nitwits. They obliterate children's minds to secure exclusive control of their bodies for utility or disposal in war. How the fuck do any of you sleep at night? Pardon my French.

If I pretend fuck is a French word instead of an English word associated with sex, whores can pretend to believe me and then they no longer need to imagine (or pretend to imagine) pain in their imaginations. All colourful (sex-related) words trigger senseless (not sensory) pain, a conditioned response in the minds of victims (or pretend victims) of trauma. To protect daughters from sex, mothers scream them insane. To protect sons from violence, mothers tell them to be brave. They'll need to be. If deceit is diplomatic - call me crazy! - but conflict may ensue.

To protect boys from cookies, mothers tell them to lie to induce cookie harassment and then lie a third time as they reluctantly (emotional fraud) submit themselves to cookie-rape. Cookie bakers know What Boys Want but they have to cookie harass or even cookie-rape boys to accept the cookies. If they accept No means No, boys will just sit and stare at the jar of cookies with longing, faces pained with cosmetic hunger, wanting cookies. Boys are biologically coded to desire cookies. #NaturalSelection

There isn't a boy alive who doesn't like cookies. The cookies could be as bland as Sterling is old or as ugly as Donald Trump's stupid face, boys love cookies so they don't mind. There is no shame in liking cookies and if a nice lady wants to bake cookies for boys, what's it to you? It's a Cookie-rape Culture created by mothers who force "good boys" to wait patiently for what they deserve.

"What part of No means No is so hard for men to understand?", a feminist troll asked half a million readers in Polite Society's Guardian newspaper the other day. My answer was censored along with 2/3rds of the comments. They are not confused.
This is about war. Biopolitics. They need the broken children of dependent, malicious women. Boys for war. Girls for sale. Warriors and whores abusing children. No humane exit. Surreal.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Good call on George MacDona... (Below threshold)

May 8, 2014 9:22 AM | Posted, in reply to Scott's comment, by Gabe Ruth: | Reply

Good call on George MacDonald. Lilith is amazing. Another mundane novel of his worth a look is Robert Falconer. It is not a very interesting story, but it offers a critique of the modern idea of charity that I found very challenging.

I wouldn't downplay his Christianity, because it's hard to miss in his writing. But if you are looking to affect a revolution in your soul, you're going to have to offend somebody.

Also, you could do worse than reading Dickens.

On another subject, does anyone know why some of TLP's pieces are disappearing? The Terrible, Awful Truth About SSI and SSDI, and the review of Django Unchained are the ones I've noticed, which may suggest a pattern. A couple options: TLP deemed keeping them up unwise. TLP no longer thinks they help the odds of achieving moksha. TLP has been instructed to remove them by the system, suggesting his other writing is inoffensive to the system.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Wasn't the Django Unchained... (Below threshold)

May 8, 2014 9:56 AM | Posted, in reply to Gabe Ruth's comment, by JW Katadreuffe: | Reply

Wasn't the Django Unchained review embedded in "No Self-Respecting Woman?"

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Am I the only person here w... (Below threshold)

May 8, 2014 7:24 PM | Posted by Your Friend: | Reply

Am I the only person here who thinks "jonny" dresses up in drag as his mother and screams at a mirror?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Some of George MacDonald´s ... (Below threshold)

May 8, 2014 8:13 PM | Posted by Me: | Reply

Some of George MacDonald´s early stuff is insanely narcissistic, though. To the point where it seeming like "Notes From the Underground" where we´re supposed to see ourselves in the main character and repent. Maybe that was his goal. Maybe not.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
What (of it) is inside you ... (Below threshold)

May 8, 2014 11:04 PM | Posted, in reply to Your Friend's comment, by Glen: | Reply

What (of it) is inside you that goes unheeded/ignored in order to focus your attention so tightly on the apparent character of someone else?

Repeat this question, replacing the "you/your" with "me/my."

You don't have to share what comes to mind. But if something does, trust me, it's significant.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Stuff is probably taken dow... (Below threshold)

May 8, 2014 11:17 PM | Posted, in reply to Gabe Ruth's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Stuff is probably taken down because some half-wits decided that minding their own fucking business and respecting anonymity was a rule that didn't apply to them and thus have fucked other people over. How kind of them, eh?

You can't read/reference things now thanks to some degenerate's poor upbringing.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It's disappointing for sure... (Below threshold)

May 8, 2014 11:19 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Curio: | Reply

It's disappointing for sure. I was hoping that Alone had taken further precautions to keep those comments off of his blog. I'm thinking about saving some of his articles as PDFs, not sure how long a lot of this material will remain on the web.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Not saying that that... (Below threshold)

May 8, 2014 11:37 PM | Posted, in reply to JW Katadreuffe's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Not saying that that content was there*, but IF it was, it was removed because, well, as Alone says, lawyers. (or at least a variation on the theme) State health boards have heydays investigating allegations involving what they deem as "racially charged." No accessible content eliminates this possibility, which is the only rational thing to do even if no wrongdoing took place to begin with.

Is it bullying to wish I had a time machine to go back in time and convince the "outing" poster's mother to take birth control?
___________

*I'm sure you get it

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>Was he operating from a pe... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 12:19 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

>Was he operating from a perspective of institutionalized sexism, patriarchal thinking, misogyny? Sure, #whatevs. Sometimes the structural imbalances go your way, and sometimes they don't, better figure out who makes the scales.

The scales are made from the laws of the universe. Structural "imbalances" are the consequence of natural imbalances. Society is a biological construct.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Maybe he will/has set up hi... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 12:20 AM | Posted, in reply to Curio's comment, by johnnycoconut: | Reply

Maybe he will/has set up his spam filter to block comments containing his name, using something like this:

http://www.movabletips.com/2010/03/banning-a-word-or-term-in-your-movable-type-comments.html

I think he already knows about this, but I e-mailed him that link now just in case.

Also, if you look up this site's archives page on Web Archive, you can find those posts (and you can also find an earlier deleted post from 2008, and a whole deleted exclusively-psychiatry-focused version of the blog from 2004-5 that has a lot of good stuff).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>Hess is fighting the battl... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 12:21 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

>Hess is fighting the battles of 50 years ago because she was told to fight them by people who profit from the fight

It's not about money; it's about inertia. She's fighting the boomer's battles because that cultural paradigm remains supreme. It won't be long.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Nihilism, thy name is gen-x... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 1:20 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Nihilism, thy name is gen-x.

Only neurotic people become psychiatrists.

lrn2transcend

"the system" is not a thing in itself. It is not an alien conspiracy. It is the universe unfolding according to natural laws; you and me and everybody. What goes up, comes down, and things fall apart. "I only watch for their going back"

Smoke a joint. Chill the fuck out. Quit drinking so much. Quit doing synthetic drugs. Put down the porn. Read the Tao, then Sartor Resartus. Spend some time in the sun.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Who here is getting any bet... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 1:33 AM | Posted by JW Katadreuffle: | Reply

Who here is getting any better?

Do people here ever talk about how they are getting better and letting go of their narcissism? I see some people talking about the books they are reading, which is great. I feel now, with this article, that Alone has finally spoken directly to the concerns that brought me to him in the first place. I feel I have a very clear map of how my narcissism came to be. Of course, that doesn't mean that it's going to go away anytime soon, but it helps to know what is liable to renew my narcissistic injury and to avoid it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>"Only neurotic people b... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 2:23 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Glen: | Reply

>"Only neurotic people become psychiatrists."

Being acquainted with a few psychiatrists myself I'd say that if we're to go the route of The Four Temperaments then they're more likely to hover around sanguine, i.e. they tend to be talkers more than listeners, which is detrimental to some degree in practice. Neurotics/melancholics OTOH are regarded as touchy and operate near or in the realm of perfection/type A.

Personally I enjoy having drinks with them, their sense of humor is infectious and most like talking about their music collections. FWIW they're Cal state hospital psychiatrists.

Speaking of the Dao, of which I mean that of which is spoken cannot be the Dao, let us recall:

One who knows does not speak, one who speaks does not know
-Dao De Jing, Ch. 56
Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Thanks for sharing, JW.... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 2:35 AM | Posted, in reply to JW Katadreuffle's comment, by Glen : | Reply

Thanks for sharing, JW.

Curious, though, and it's a strange question-- what decade where you born? I'm asking because those who begin to relate the way you do seem to be of a certain age, if you will.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I am very much a Gen-Xer.</... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 3:58 AM | Posted, in reply to Glen 's comment, by JW Katadreuffe: | Reply

I am very much a Gen-Xer.

For me the final piece of the puzzle is "The fight is a symptom of neurosis, frantic energy as a defense against impotence, frantic energy as a defense against change." I now understand what Alone means when he says "and no, yelling won't make it any less true." That behavior, yelling at reality to make it go away, causes narcissistic injury to the people around you. These where not the injuries that got the ball rolling, but they've kept the ball rolling over the years.

Is anyone here working on letting go of their narcissism? I assume that you, like me, are faking it as has been suggested, but how are you faking it?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>One who knows does not spe... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 4:57 AM | Posted, in reply to Glen's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>One who knows does not speak, one who speaks does not know

And yet, those words were spoken (in print).

It's a good book but don't take it too seriously.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
If you're a guy, y... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 6:31 AM | Posted by jonny: | Reply

If you're a guy, you probably don't realize the awesome pressure on women to let themselves get looked at: to reveal themselves online, to post a pic, to give everyone your attention, to stop what you're doing and give the other your self...

I've seen girls' social media / online dating inboxes with four or five figures of unread messages from men forced to make the first (and every subsequent) move. These 'men' were begging, pleading, screaming but girls aren't scared. They solicit attention.

One girl was complaining. Being an object of desire isn't easy. I asked her why not take her clothes off? She wasn't born in them. She didn't understand. Girls dress to undress to impress (or dress to suggest [ i.imgur.com/9wVfT9i.jpg ]). That's a Glass Ceiling.

I asked her why not take her makeup off? She didn't understand. Keen to help, I asked her why not replace all her enhanced images with pics that actually look like her (or her cosmetic appearance) in reality? She didn't understand.

"Those pics are me!"

Reality is obfuscated at every step for a fraudulent end result that looks nothing like them. She didn't understand. When 1300 guys click "Like" on her fraud, she values an illusion created by her own illusion. 1300 guys don't like her, they merely appear to.

"What do you mean?"

Does it matter? No one says what they mean or means what they say so why talk at all? Women destroy girls' minds with intent. From the age of two, women are conditioning girls to imagine men want to kidnap them, leer at their exposed object, look up their skirt, rape them. "No one will rape that face, poor thing. Try this." [ i.imgur.com/jV8PG6s.jpg ] "Us girls gotta stick together."

Girls' big sisters look out for them, help them faceplant, police their modesty and purity, teach them to be hostile, to defeat themselves [ i.imgur.com/vxosPY7.png ], to be afraid.

"After all, being mentally alert is the greatest weapon you can ever have." - women (telling girls how to get raped)
Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Congratulations on posting ... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 6:41 AM | Posted, in reply to Glen's comment, by Your Friend: | Reply

Congratulations on posting the most pretentious remark I've ever seen on this site. For all of his faults and neuroses, at least "jonny" isn't a pompous pseudo-intellectual who disguises weak ideas under big words and dense dialogue. You should ask yourself why YOU got so miffed at my crack at "jonny". Why you feel the need to stick up for him? As much as I disagree with almost everything he types, he's apt at sticking up for himself just fine.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Actually, no I quite like p... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 6:52 AM | Posted, in reply to Your Friend's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Actually, no I quite like people sticking up for me. But if you disagree with everything I say, why not counter it? It's not like I'm not taking great pains to explain my points and provide supporting examples / evidence.

But speculated smear as a counter-argument? You wonder if I dress up like a woman I never think about? You're channeling your mother.

To your question, I don't. Where are we going with this productive line of reasoning?

You are my argument. You were brilliant once upon a time. But now? "Why she wouldn't even harm a fly."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Doug Stanhope:<... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 9:55 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Doug Stanhope: If you're offended by any word in any language, it’s probably because your parents were unfit to raise a child. They were too stupid. They should have been neutered. Because all it is is a sound you can make with your mouth. It’s not a weakness that you have naturally. When you come out of that pink ugly hole onto this planet, you're nothing but a gooey, shrinking, wrinkled ball of weakness. That’s all you are: you're weak, you're nothing but weak, and your parents look at that, and they think: “Not weak enough. We can make this thing even weaker by training it to react poorly to different sounds that you can make with your mouth.”

Exactly. But to pretend it's parents doing the malicious conditioning is ridiculous. There's a fine line between malice and ignorance, but mothers aren't too stupid. They know exactly why they condition girls to associate pain with (talking about) sex.

Or exposure to male genitalia. They'll do unspeakable things with it but you can't send them a picture of it. Or speak of it. Some girls get offended. Others get aroused. The latter would explain the former. They're conditioned to take offence at their interests before they're interested. Puberty would scramble their brain. (Doublethink used as a coping mechanism?) Girls are setup to feel biological desire and sociological shame of desire, simultaneously [ i.imgur.com/B74DW69.png ]. Perverse cruelty.

Feminists want the age of consent raised to 25, to protect kids.

Guardian: Leave the Age of Consent Alone

...whack the age of consent up to 25, when you're a) pretty much beyond peer pressure and b) on good terms with your vagina and have arrived together at a working understanding of what you want to get involved in, how, why and from what angle.

But violence will always be rated G. Onward Christian soldiers.

The National Coalition on Television Violence estimates that an American child will witness 8,000 murders & 100,000 acts of violence on television by the time they finish elementary school.
Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Jonny wrote:"Femin... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 1:04 PM | Posted by HGJ: | Reply

Jonny wrote:

"Feminists want the age of consent raised to 25, to protect kids."

I read the article you cited to support this claim. The woman who made it is CLEARLY joking.

With all due respect, have you ever considered the possibility that, at least when it comes to sex, you're simply too neurotic to have a valid opinion?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Except you really don't pro... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 1:48 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Other: | Reply

Except you really don't provide examples or evidence most of the time.

Take this very post of yours - the last line "You are my argument. You were brilliant once upon a time." Rather than actually coming out and saying what you mean, half the time you hide it in flowery bullshit. I guess it sounds kind of deep? But its not like we're freshman you're trying to bang, so I don't know what you expect to accomplish.

The rest of the time, I firmly doubt the accuracy of your claims. I really can't speak to the arguments you base around various philosophical ideals, but having spent many years in academia studying the sciences there are many times where you have made a claim about biology or another field and all I can do is shake my head. Frankly, that makes me doubt you aren't just pulling the philosophical items from thin air as well.

Shit in the very next post you make a claim that women are set up to feel biological desire and sociological shame simultaneously. Well, okay - not exactly blazing a new trail with that claim, hell you could probably replace "women" with "great apes in general" and be just as accurate. But then you post a bizarre image that seems to involve you sending a picture of your dick to a girl, being surprised that she wasn't happy with you and captioning it with a somewhat disturbing stream of consciousness wherein you appear to try to analyze this girl (who I have a feeling is underage) based on her four word replies, and make claims based on just about nothing. That isn't an example, or evidence - its just a good way to show a cop your dick. You could have written almost anything else in the margin and made just as much sense if not more, and it would be just as well supported.

You seem to be far more dedicated to maintaining the "jonny" persona you present here than actually fact checking your own claims or producing a straightforward argument - but the weak link is that you aren't as interesting as Da Vinci or as charismatic as Michelangelo, so nobody is interested enough to puzzle out whatever underlying meaning you might be trying to present.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
so when's the book coming o... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 2:54 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

so when's the book coming out, you fuck? I can barely contain my simultaneous excitement and erection

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The woman who made... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 4:16 PM | Posted, in reply to HGJ's comment, by jonny: | Reply

The woman who made it is CLEARLY joking.

Was it her hilarious leadin about when she's President of the World that clued you in? The joke itself was hilarious, CLEARLY.

...whack the age of consent up to 25, when you're a) pretty much beyond peer pressure and b) on good terms with your vagina and have arrived together at a working understanding of what you want to get involved in, how, why and from what angle.

Where's the punchline? Has a feminist ever made a joke in all of history? They're not exactly known for their comedy.

With all due respect, have you ever considered the possibility that, at least when it comes to sex, you're simply too neurotic to have a valid opinion?

When you next imagine I could be interested in your mother's shrewd emotional exchange in lieu of one (1) argument, abstain.
_______________

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You were brilliant... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 4:30 PM | Posted, in reply to Other's comment, by jonny: | Reply

You were brilliant once upon a time.

When you were 2-3, your mind had twice the synapses you presently possess. Though I'm no neurologist, the neurologists seem a little shaky on logic [ i.imgur.com/uFH3StR.jpg ]. Neurologists believe humans don't need those synapses. Have they met any? Seems like the neurologists need those synapses.

Something happened when you were three that put a stop to all synapse production and you ended up disposing of half the synapse shipments your 3yo mind had mistakenly ordered and taken delivery of. Easy mistake for a 3yo to make, but your genetic code is actually 2,500,000yo and isn't likely to err.

Say, just before your mind went into receivership, didn't you do something awe-inspiring with all those synapses and a tongue?

Human Nature: Justice versus Power
Noam Chomsky debates with Michel Foucault 1971

Noam Chomsky: If a Martian were to look at this process of acquiring this vast and complicated and intricate system of knowledge on the basis of this ridiculously small quantity of data, he would think of it as an immense act of invention and creation. In fact, a Martian would, I think, consider it as much of an achievement as the invention of, let's say, any aspect of a physical theory on the basis of the data that was presented to the physicist.

You were as brilliant as a physicist, Noam reckons. Logic suggests he's wrong. You had more synapses. In terms of capacity, you may have been more brilliant than any adult in (known) history.

Now you're too stupid to be plausible. Do you recall the last time you were so ashamed, you literally wanted to die? You were 3yo and infant amnesia protects you from the memory of the trauma. It would threaten your survival, otherwise. Science doesn't know what causes infant amnesia but the problem with scientists, neurologists and physicists is love. It blinds so your whore mother wanting it is hardly virtuous. Scientists dress for work, trying to solve infant amnesia but do you think - crazy idea - infant amnesia might be caused by the cause of amnesia?

Wikipedia: Amnesia is a deficit in memory caused by brain damage, disease, or psychological trauma.

Mothers say "No" so Science says "No" for the same reason Science believes psychopathy is genetic and that Alice Miller is a quack. Mothers know best but you have PTSD. Look in a mirror for proof of her abuse. [ i.imgur.com/4SrtIH2.png ].

She taught you how to be ashamed of yourself. You didn't know how lol. Wasn't that nice of her? Happy Mother's Day, retard.
_____________

...there are many times where you have made a claim about biology or another field and all I can do is shake my head.

Well if that's all you can do, you are forced to accept my logic.

But then you post a bizarre image that seems to involve you sending a picture of your dick to a girl...

You cannot be this reduced. The girl made a 180 degree emotional reversal, from Society's conditioned pain to biology's desire. Your filthy whore mother was given a deity child and gives us you? Motherfuck. I have no desire to engage you ever again.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Was it her hilari... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 4:36 PM | Posted by HGJ: | Reply

Was it her hilarious leadin about when she's President of the World that clued you in? The joke itself was hilarious, CLEARLY.

I never said it was a funny joke, just that it was a joke. And it was the 'President of the World' but that clued me in. Nobody ever says that when they're being serious.

Where's the punchline? Has a feminist ever made a joke in all of history? They're not exactly known for their comedy.

Where's the punchline in the Dead Parrot sketch? There are plenty of forms of humour which don't rely on the standard set-up/punchline format. Sarcasm, irony, surrealist non-sequitur, slapstick, none of them necessarily rely on punchlines. This 'joke' relied on humorous over-exaggeration. It's a light hearted rhetorical device, nothing more.

As for feminists making jokes...well, pretty much every female stand-up touches on feminist issues at some point in their acts. You may not find them funny, but they're still making jokes.

When you next imagine I could be interested in your mother's shrewd emotional exchange in lieu of one (1) argument, abstain.

I'm sorry, I read this about six times and I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It seems pretty obvious to ... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 7:40 PM | Posted, in reply to HGJ's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

It seems pretty obvious to me that by

When you next imagine I could be interested in your mother's shrewd emotional exchange in lieu of one (1) argument, abstain.

Jonny means that you're offering a conditioned emotional response that simply "won't accept" a perspective based on nothing BUT that conditioning (otherwise, you would be able to offer a logical support for your contention), and would rather next time that you didn't. I.e., if you don't have anything logical to say, don't say anything at all.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Jonny, I'm with you. I thi... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 7:56 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Jonny, I'm with you. I think you have some good ideas. Some of what you say makes a lot of sense. (P.s., Not trying to hedge with the "some"s, just have a question). One point that I'm hung up on is the idea that Mother's necessarily have the power to shape their offspring. "Men don't give birth," is one of your arguments in this regard.

Perfect example:

She taught you how to be ashamed of yourself. You didn't know how lol. Wasn't that nice of her? Happy Mother's Day, retard.

Please explain why it's necessary that "she" is responsible and not "he". And please (not trying to be pushy, just want to know more) go further than "because men are the products of their mothers," as that would only beg the question. Is it PURELY biological? And, if so, isn't that the same sort of biopolitic you revile?

I need a condition that is sufficient for making mothers the indispensable agents of children's socialization.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"I'm a narcissist"... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 8:16 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"I'm a narcissist"

Shut the fuck up faggot, no you're not. You're just shallow and pretentious. Affluenza.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WMXtU2IrKw

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It seems pretty o... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 8:17 PM | Posted by HGJ: | Reply

It seems pretty obvious to me that by:
When you next imagine I could be interested in your mother's shrewd emotional exchange in lieu of one (1) argument, abstain.
Jonny means that you're offering a conditioned emotional response that simply "won't accept" a perspective based on nothing BUT that conditioning (otherwise, you would be able to offer a logical support for your contention), and would rather next time that you didn't. I.e., if you don't have anything logical to say, don't say anything at all.

Well...I'm glad it was obvious to someone. To clarify, are you saying that when I said this:

With all due respect, have you ever considered the possibility that, at least when it comes to sex, you're simply too neurotic to have a valid opinion?

Jonny thought this was something my mother somehow programmed me to say? Like she was speaking through me, or something?

If so...well, I never pretended my statement was an argument, as such. It was merely a suggestion. That Jonny has serious mother issues is pretty well unarguably true, I think. It's hard to reach a different conclusion, given the content and (IMO rather manic) tone of his posts. It's my experience that people with "issues" of any kind tend to use them to explain too much. It seems to me (and I freely admit I may not be as well versed with Jonny's posts as some here, since he's made so many) that Jonny feels that pretty much everything bad that can happen to a person can be traced back to their mother in some way. It seems self-evident to me that this way of thinking is very narrow. It's also self-evident that narrow thinking makes it hard to reach balanced conclusions.

In much the same way that, if your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail, if you think every problem in life is due to bad mothering, you're going to misidentify a lot of problems; hence my suggestion.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"I want to be one of the co... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 8:18 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"I want to be one of the cool kids. I want something that defines me"

How's this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxWHm8V4lZo

Pretend 2029 = 2014 or whatever

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It's likely unwise to contr... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 8:54 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by J: | Reply

It's likely unwise to contribute to this particular exchange: futile at best and bear-baiting at worst. I want to be doing useful work, but what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. As they say.

Johnny has been a constant presence on these posts for as long as I have been scrolling down to look at the comments. I'd somehow thought that TLP would attract a certain style of discourse involving a reasonable, polite exchange of ideas. Surely TLP's devotees are interested in learning the flaws in their perception of the world, and you'd think the blogs incessant railing against narcissism should prompt some level of humility.

But it seems quite the opposite, as this exchange demonstrates, or the painful bantering between "el puerco" and "Dissenter" at the bottom of the last post. It's like they don't just want to prove eachother wrong, they also want to demonstrate their complete superiority to anyone capable of having a thought remotely similar to that of their opponent: rhetoric so extreme and childish (churlish!) that it can't help but rob the speaker of credibility. And I can't help but see this as less of an attempt to convince, and more an attempt to build an image in the mind of the reader.

I've been to places in the internet where the discussion isn't so acrid. How did this blog's comments get like this? Was it always this way?

Of course, TLP has a very distinctive style---shock value, snarky answers to rhetorical questions, etc. Powerful, often opaque, and ruthlessly unapologetic---maybe this contributes? Johnny seems to be aping this style, but leaves a bitter taste in my mouth: while TLP appears to be conveying a reasonable, coherent, and generally understandable message under his spiky tone, Johnny seems to have all the harshness and noise but with nothing underneath.

Johnny, you rightly point out that Other---and likely most other before him---is not providing too much in the line of actual argument against you, falling instead on expressions of incredulity, offense, and exasperation. But please don't take this as an indication that you're correct, or that your points are just that defensible. There comes a point in every discussion where the gulf between the worldviews of the participants becomes apparent, and it becomes clear that no volume of words will bridge the gap. Maybe---maybe---years of personal involvement in one another's lives can approach some understanding, but that's certainly not going to happen in the medium of a forum discussion which consists primarily of vitriol. If they were arguing with you, you'd be right: it's an empty ad hominem. But they'e not; they're appealing others that can also see your words as empty, because with them communication might be more feasible. I realize my opinion is unsolicited and likely unwelcome, but you're not TLP, and I think you'd get much better traction in proselytizing your views if you drop the rhetoric entirely.

"Whore mother" loses its shock value very quickly. It's probably ineffective to start off with "I'm not a neurologist, but..." and then proceed to misunderstand neurology, apparently claiming to know more than the scientific community. You may want to read about synaptic pruning; marble doesn't become worse when you chisel away the bits that aren't part of the sculpture inside. Similarly, Other's brain doesn't become half the brain it used to be when he learns to ride a tricycle.

I also question your use of a conversation in which a girl wants you. On a blog about narcissism. I imagine many of those looking at it noticed especially your picture: you're young, and that makes sense: not because young people can't have valuable thoughts, but even I'm beginning to learn that humility often acquired with the passage of years tends to dull the brashness with which people trumpet minority opinions. It doesn't invalidate what you say, but it does allow people to explain why it's being said.

Lastly, these comments use HTML formatting; try putting your imgur links in this form, so they show up:

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris"> LINK TEXT </a>

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This Blog Is Fascinating! T... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 9:05 PM | Posted by New Kid: | Reply

This Blog Is Fascinating! Though I will admit that the content is at times beyond my frame of reference, out of my field. Could Some kind poster, TLP recommend some works either on or how to reach this level of cognition? Half the fun in this blog comes from the informed musings in the comments, Refreshingly civil as well.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Everyone has their own reco... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 9:50 PM | Posted, in reply to New Kid's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Everyone has their own recommendations. Here's my personal recommendation for a decent overview. I'm a medical student; I'm no philosopher-- so take it with a grain of salt. TLP peppers his writings with thoughts from existentialists and camus. Gordon Marino's "Basic Writings of Existentialsim" provides a good introduction. But there are plenty of youtube videos with lectures. People here love Baudrillard, Foucault, and Zizek.

My personal favorites who also are pretty easy reads are Camus (Myth of Sisyphus) Marcus Aurelius (meditations), and Seneca (letters). Good luck!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
That's well said and worthw... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 9:53 PM | Posted, in reply to J's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

That's well said and worthwhile to read as well as an effective rebuke to jonny!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Try something <a href="http... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 10:11 PM | Posted, in reply to New Kid's comment, by Glen: | Reply

Try something along these lines first.

Self-deprecation sans abuse/masochism that does not expect cheerful refutation in return, not taking yourself too seriously, etc. are seldom not helpful.

Shut the shit off --> look inside yourself --> actively seek to get made fun of. Maintain this cycle.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
If it helps you to feel bet... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 10:14 PM | Posted, in reply to Your Friend's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

If it helps you to feel better, then do go on.

I truly mean this.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Forgot my name. Tone of voi... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 10:22 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Glen: | Reply

Forgot my name. Tone of voice above is flat and neutral as well just so you know.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
J! Thank you, J. If I coul... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 10:28 PM | Posted, in reply to J's comment, by B: | Reply

J! Thank you, J. If I could give you gold, I would. A million fake internet points for you.

I would add, though, as a reader of a lot of these comments, that some of the conversations that devolve into name-calling aren't as bad as the entire identity fiasco. There's some good shit in some of these "threads" but it seems like no one really engages with a lot of it. It is, as you say, a Good Sign, I think, that TLP stirs up this much emotion and thought in the readers and, to my mind, some of the vitriol is simply an expression of frustration as people grapple with new knowledge. In any case, it appears that humility is a necessary condition for actual learning.

Thanks for your post.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Fuck Foucault, Camus, and B... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 10:48 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Fuck Foucault, Camus, and Baudrillard (except his book on 9/11. That was worth skimming).

Read Nietzsche - Marcus Aurelius is fine - Carlyle, Joyce, Lao Tze, etc.

No excuses. Then transcend, if you can.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
That Jonny has serious m... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 10:48 PM | Posted by el puerco: | Reply

That Jonny has serious mother issues is pretty well unarguably true, I think.

Thoughts are not reality.

The best you could say, forensically speaking, is that Jonny's messages left here could be one of two alternatives: they may be interpreted as written by someone imagining or harboring (or both) certain perspectives & "issues" (as you call them), or they may be read literally and then embellished by whatever the reader projects onto Jonny.

Unless you know Jonny personally and are skilled at both deciphering personality expressions and getting 100% heart-of-hearts honest confessions of true sentiments-impulses-influences, you're just projecting.

But then, that's how narcissists interact with others, isn't it?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Black steel in the hour of ... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 10:51 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Black steel in the hour of chaos? "What the fuck does that mean? I have a Bachelors degree!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7izGUvCWYM0

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
But it seems quite the o... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 10:51 PM | Posted by el puerco: | Reply

But it seems quite the opposite, as this exchange demonstrates, or the painful bantering between "el puerco" and "Dissenter" at the bottom of the last post.

Speaking of projection and failing to know the person you're projecting onto... there it is right above ^^^^^^^^^^.

In the last thread I was making a point consistent with TLP's main essay focus, while the whinger adversary was trying to hold a seminar on Marxist thought and avoid the certification fetish question.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
All this talk of ancient le... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 10:55 PM | Posted by el puerco: | Reply

All this talk of ancient leatherbound volumes with crumbling pages makes me think nobody has bothered to mention Walker Percy's novels.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Speaking of projec... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 11:08 PM | Posted, in reply to el puerco's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Speaking of projection and failing to know the person you're projecting onto... there it is right above ^^^^^^^^^^
I think most would agree that it's not misperception that the exchange was painful banter at best.

Look, this is what Alone had to say about projection:

It sounds like you project unwanted feelings onto another person, which is both wrong and impossible. It's not an action, it's a problem of perception. The unwanted feelings don't make sense coming from someone like you, so you conclude they must be coming from the other person.
-Hipsters on Food Stamps, Pt III

"J" does not have a problem of perception.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Well that's really terrific... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 11:15 PM | Posted by el puerco: | Reply

Well that's really terrific. Retreat into the subjective feelings you have, and extrapolate them to generously paint every reader with them.

I don't know if you're trying to be ironic here, with the strange emphasis on narcissistic impressions you hold regarding people you don't know, in which you paint them with psychiatric profiles based only on text typed in a comment box. Are you? Is this some kind of weak attempt at emulating Ricky Gervais comedy?

I realize the idea is for TLP's readers to be drawn to his essays because they are narcissists themselves, and inevitably those who comment will display narcissism. So your responses don't surprise me with their avoidance and projection.

Let's have another 2,000 words on how your feelings are impugned by the tone you detect here and what night terrors you have as a result.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I realize the idea... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 11:34 PM | Posted, in reply to el puerco's comment, by Shay: | Reply

I realize the idea is for TLP's readers to be drawn to his essays because they are narcissists themselves

That's like saying the idea is for a criminologist's blog's readers to be drawn to his/her essays because they themselves are criminals.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
el puerco wrote:<bloc... (Below threshold)

May 9, 2014 11:52 PM | Posted by HGJ: | Reply

el puerco wrote:

Unless you know Jonny personally and are skilled at both deciphering personality expressions and getting 100% heart-of-hearts honest confessions of true sentiments-impulses-influences, you're just projecting.

Oh, please! If a guy who seems constitutionally incapable of writing the word 'mother' without prefixing it with the word 'whore' doesn't have mother issues, then nobody does. You don't have to be Sigmund Freud to work that out.

But then, that's how narcissists interact with others, isn't it?

You use the word 'narcissist ' as though you intend it to be a conversation stopper. Two can play at that game. After all, surely only a narcissist would presume that I'm projecting simply because my analysis of Jonny goes further than yours. A non-narcissist would surely concede at least the possibility that maybe I'm just paying more attention.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
After all, surely ... (Below threshold)

May 10, 2014 12:03 AM | Posted, in reply to HGJ's comment, by Shay: | Reply

After all, surely only a narcissist would presume that I'm projecting simply because my analysis of Jonny goes further than yours

My thoughts as well. It's like when during an exchange, you offer a bit more in return, (only to share! Not to be superior!) and you're met with the you-think-you(r)-_______-everything/me/whatever rage. Which is projection.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hey man, I've brought up Wa... (Below threshold)

May 10, 2014 1:33 AM | Posted, in reply to el puerco's comment, by Gabe Ruth: | Reply

Hey man, I've brought up Walker Percy a couple of times, but I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Is this some kind ... (Below threshold)

May 10, 2014 3:16 AM | Posted, in reply to el puerco's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Is this some kind of weak attempt at emulating Ricky Gervais comedy?
The second time this person has tried to ad hom. a commenter by reference to Gervais (which, for some reason, is an insult).

Do you pick up on my sarcasm, el shitbag? Or are your foreign sensibilities not honed enough? You're syntax sounds confused. So do your ideas.

And to J: Point taken. Sure, I'm splenetic, but this guy is borderline retarded. (Don't go all "P.C." on me). "The comments-thread isn't the appropriate forum to vent your frustration." You're right: the comments thread is the place where private sleuths deduce identity (see "frantic activity in place of impotence"). Look at Jonny, for chrissakes. He's got some good ideas (I"m not the first to think this); too bad he can't comment without working himself into sadomasochistic ecstasy. His posts are too salty for my taste.

El puerco (literally, "the pig") is clearly well-fed -- a troll, by all accounts. But two can play at that game, because he has nothing of value to contribute; he just hates it when people refer to ideas he doesn't understand.


Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Signed,Yours Truly... (Below threshold)

May 10, 2014 3:17 AM | Posted by Dissenter: | Reply

Signed,

Yours Truly

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Walker Percy is the man... (Below threshold)

May 10, 2014 9:35 AM | Posted, in reply to Gabe Ruth's comment, by Curio: | Reply

Walker Percy is the man

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
How convenient that ... (Below threshold)

May 11, 2014 8:53 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

How convenient that Alone's conclusions and the system's injunctions are finally so similar. Be more productive! Take more risks! Invest in your education! Be your own person! Be creative! Set impossible standards for yourself and suffocate in self-loathing for not meeting them!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Invest in your edu... (Below threshold)

May 11, 2014 11:04 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Invest in your education!

Um...what blog are you reading?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Please explain why... (Below threshold)

May 11, 2014 12:01 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Please explain why it's necessary that "she" is responsible and not "he".

We learn our mother's tongue.

Mothers break us with shame, saddling us with clothes to play gender role-playing games; making boy soldiers and girl whores.

It would appear within the last generation or two, at least in the West, Power decided women needed to be in the workforce; I half-suspect this may have been due to inferior product but until recently in the West, and across the world still, only men work.

Mothers raise children Right.

And I suspect the way this was working for awhile was that mothers were doing their jobs (as dictated by traditional gender roles which have always enslaved men, feminists are just nauseous revisionists). George Orwell on White Male Privilege:

Down and Out in Paris and London (1933)

Tramps are cut off from women, in the first place, because there are very few women at their level of society. One might imagine that among destitute people the sexes would be as equally balanced as elsewhere. But it is not so; in fact, one can almost say that below a certain level society is entirely male.

The cause is presumably that unemployment affects women less than men; also that any presentable woman can, in the last resort, attach herself to some man...there is no doubt that women hardly ever condescend to men who are poorer than themselves.

Feminists fight for equality, if your brain is dead.

1984 is clearly about a toddler's valiant, if ultimately futile, rebellious and lonely struggle to remain sane before being crushed by a totalitarian Big Mother, who regulates appropriate thoughts with loving violence, changing the logic to illogical.

"Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing."

"We are the priests of power. God is power."

"We shall abolish the orgasm."

"There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother."

"All competing pleasures will be destroyed."

"We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.“

“In the face of pain there are no heroes.”

“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”

“Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”

"But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

You can't fight Big Mother. In the end, every toddler is defeated. Everyone has Stockholm Syndrome. Everyone loves Big Mother.

Mothers control emotional, cultural, religious, societal values. Girls are their natural enemies. Men are their broken slaves.

And for a while, mothers were doing their jobs, reducing their female competitive threats and raising men Right, to be real men (dependable slaves). Valuable, honourable, hard-working men; miserably exploited but then that's what they were bred for.

This splendid poem about a young Mickey Mantle says it better:
_____________________
Body and Soul - BH Fairchild

Half-numb, guzzling bourbon and Coke from coffee mugs,
our fathers fall in love with their own stories, nuzzling
the facts but mauling the truth, and my friend's father begins
to lay out with the slow ease of a blues ballad a story
about sandlot baseball in Commerce, Oklahoma decades ago.
These were men's teams, grown men, some in their thirties
and forties who worked together in zinc mines or on oil rigs,
sweat and khaki and long beers after work, steel guitar music
whanging in their ears, little white rent houses to return to
where their wives complained about money and broken Kenmores
and then said the hell with it and sang Body and Soul
in the bathtub and later that evening with the kids asleep
lay in bed stroking their husband's wrist tattoo and smoking
Chesterfields from a fresh pack until everything was O.K.
Well, you get the idea. Life goes on, the next day is Sunday,
another ball game, and the other team shows up one man short.

They say, we're one man short, but can we use this boy,
he's only fifteen years old, and at least he'll make a game.
They take a look at the kid, muscular and kind of knowing
the way he holds his glove, with the shoulders loose,
the thick neck, but then with that boy's face under
a clump of angelic blonde hair, and say, oh, hell, sure,
let's play ball. So it all begins, the men loosening up,
joking about the fat catcher's sex life, it's so bad
last night he had to hump his wife, that sort of thing,
pairing off into little games of catch that heat up into
throwing matches, the smack of the fungo bat, lazy jogging
into right field, big smiles and arcs of tobacco juice,
and the talk that gives a cool, easy feeling to the air,
talk among men normally silent, normally brittle and a little
angry with the empty promise of their lives.

...continues here: Poemhunter: Body and Soul
______________________

It's long but hauntingly beautiful. They don't make men like that anymore. They make men like this now (bullies):
[religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/2014/02/might-is-right.html]

If "he" rather than "she" was responsible, why would marriage exist? Would "he" have a motive to objectify / slut-shame girls? Why would "he" want to make children self-conscious and ashamed of their own skin? Women need slaves. Men are slaves.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I think you'd get ... (Below threshold)

May 11, 2014 2:08 PM | Posted, in reply to J's comment, by jonny: | Reply

I think you'd get much better traction in proselytizing your views if you drop the rhetoric entirely.

What rhetoric? You perceive reality through emotional lens. The word whore has no synonym in the English language. It is the only word that can be used to describe a woman inducing artificial desire with intent to manipulate suffering (extortion).

Your mother conditioned you to perceive shock value in the sole English word that accurately describes her? That would be telling.

You may want to read about synaptic pruning; marble doesn't become worse when you chisel away the bits that aren't part of the sculpture inside.

Neurologists say they were going to be part of the sculpture, but for disuse leading to their weakening and eventual pruning.

Pruning is thought to be a process of removing neurons which may have become damaged or degraded in order to further improve the "networking" capacity of a particular area of the brain.
The selection of the pruned terminal arbors follow the "use it or lose it" principle seen in synaptic plasticity. This means synapses that are frequently used have strong connections while the rarely used synapses are eliminated.

You've linked me to a page that literally backs up my argument. One way you could instantly disprove my hypothesis would be to find evidence that synaptic pruning in other mammal species mirrors that of humans. I just skimmed through abstracts for an hour looking for that very thing but found nothing conclusive.

I also question your use of a conversation in which a girl wants you.

One girl? It would be pretty hard to prove the point I was trying to make if the subject doesn't reverse her position. But to prove that I was not being narcissistic, I can show you evidence of hundreds or thousands of girls that want me? You know they're all filthy liars obsessed with sex, right? I state this repetitively.

My frustration with girls is that they're worthless frauds? I'm not.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Alone, you may just find th... (Below threshold)

May 11, 2014 2:23 PM | Posted by Doesn't Matter: | Reply

Alone, you may just find this too precious (especially in light of your porn book): "In Toronto with the world’s feminist pornographers" http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27192724

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Could Some kind po... (Below threshold)

May 11, 2014 2:38 PM | Posted, in reply to New Kid's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Could Some kind poster recommend some works either on or how to reach this level of cognition?

This is actually one of Alone's recommendations but I forget where from. It's Zizek brilliance before he sold out.

Liberation Hurts
University of Illinois at Chicago, September 29, 2003
An Interview with Slavoj Zizek
Eric Dean Rasmussen

Bernard Williams, the English moral philosopher, develops, in a wonderful way, the difference between 'must' and 'have to.' He opposes the logic of positive injunction - in the sense of "you should do this" - with another logic of injunction, a more fundamental sense, of "I just cannot do it otherwise." The first logic is simply that of the ideal. You should do it, but never can do it. You never can live up to your ideal. But, the more shattering, radical, ethical experience is that of "I cannot do it otherwise."

For example - this is one of the old partisan myths in Yugoslavia - Yugoslavian rebels killed some Germans, so the Germans did the usual thing. They encircled the village and decided to shoot all the civilians. But, one ordinary German soldier stood up and said, "Sorry, I just cannot do it." The officer in charge said, "No problem, you can join them," and the German soldier did. This is what I mean by sacrifice. There's nothing pathetic about it. This honest German soldier, his point was not, "Oooooh, what a nice, ideal role for me." He was just ethically cornered. You cannot do it otherwise.

The Yahweh religions introduced the illogical idea that acting in one's best interests was some kind of ideal (if one can afford to), but what is Right is right not because it's moral, saintly, good, prescribed, legislated, etc. What is Right is selfish optimality.

"It can't be optimal to die?"

In this instance, I fear our mothers and their religions actually know best. If you ignore what they say and listen to what they do, our status as slaves is revealed. If the question is To Be or Not To Be, extensive measures prevent our choosing the latter.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
el puerco: ... (Below threshold)

May 11, 2014 3:29 PM | Posted, in reply to el puerco's comment, by jonny: | Reply

el puerco: I realize the idea is for TLP's readers to be drawn to his essays because they are narcissists themselves...

I was under the impression everyone but toddlers, and perhaps nudists, are narcissistic to a degree. We all wear clothes to conceal our true Self, projecting false images to please others, in fear of their disapproval. Isn't that textbook narcissism?

I suspect you're correct about the projection.

HGJ: After all, surely only a narcissist would presume that I'm projecting simply because my analysis of Jonny goes further than yours.

Perhaps the question you might ask yourself is why you're proffering unsolicited psychoanalysis of anyone? That infantile screaming is the hallmark of objectified women, who project this emotional vitriol to smear their imagined adversary or whatever.

It's just screaming, worthless noise projected at the source of the imagined pain inside your mind. Where do you see this going?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
An Interview with Slavoj Zi... (Below threshold)

May 11, 2014 4:33 PM | Posted by JW Katedreuffe: | Reply

An Interview with Slavoj Zizek is mentioned in Wolf Dad, Tiger Mom, And Why Trying To Be A Good Parent Is A Bad Idea:

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/12/wolf_dad_tiger_mom_and_why_try.html

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"We all wear clothes to con... (Below threshold)

May 11, 2014 5:05 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"We all wear clothes to conceal our true Self, projecting false images to please others, in fear of their disapproval. Isn't that textbook narcissism?"

No but if you were told at some point that people who don't wear clothes are freaks who masturbate in public and this naturally led you to believe that the association that is in your mind is in everyone elses makes you an unhealthy narcissist.

In the comment section people often talk about narcissism like it is some big plague and learning how to escape it will lead to salvation and enlightenment. That's bullshit, just keep it in check know how it affects you and the world around you and you will be a better person for it. Doing so you can start to learn how it affects other people and actually get a picture of how some other people think inside of some introverted attempt at attaining salvation for yourself.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I love all the quick cultur... (Below threshold)

May 11, 2014 8:36 PM | Posted by Midlife: | Reply

I love all the quick cultural references in Alone's writing. But this one has me stumped: "$100M there is a vaporizer nearby". Is her erstwhile boyfriend an asthmatic?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
He's referring to a popular... (Below threshold)

May 11, 2014 10:03 PM | Posted, in reply to Midlife's comment, by El Unico: | Reply

He's referring to a popular marijuana smoking device. I don't see A.H's boyfriend as a sweet literary pothead, she's too ambitious. He is probably a baby banker working 100 hours a week or some plugged-in venture capital dweeb.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"We all wear clothes to con... (Below threshold)

May 11, 2014 10:12 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by VainSaints: | Reply

"We all wear clothes to conceal our true Self, projecting false images to please others, in fear of their disapproval. Isn't that textbook narcissism?"

No. It's normal human functioning. Narcissism is when you wear clothes that you don't like to please yourself.

Let me explain. The Narcissist isn't trying to *please* other people. He is trying to *feed* on their emotional energy. There is an enormous difference.

For example, a Narcissist might wear a brown paper bag to scandalize the public. He in doing so weaves together a fantasy world in which his wearing a paper bag carries some meaning, gives him a role to play. He *feeds* on the public's scandal because it *reinforces* his fantasy and hence feeds his sense of self which he is constantly seeking to buttress because his real self (his real sense of propriety in feelings, relations, desires, etc.) is either too horrible for him to face or too vague and distant for him to latch onto.

The difference between this and a real Cynic, wearing a paper bag for a real reason, is that the Cynic has a sense of purpose apart from the reaction he draws from others. He *really* believes in his reasons for wearing the bag, and will persevere in the face of being ignored and shunned. (Further, he can really change his mind.) For the narcissist, it's a role. If he doesn't get the reaction he wants, he'll find an excuse to change identities because his *lack* of real purpose or feeling makes him require constant validation of his fake Self.

Note that the next role the Narcissist takes may be one of a people-pleaser. But the point is that it's NEVER about actual OTHER people. It's all about the fantasy and the identity.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Why doesn't jonny get a blo... (Below threshold)

May 12, 2014 4:54 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Why doesn't jonny get a blog or a soapbox or something?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Randi Zuckerberg has nothin... (Below threshold)

May 12, 2014 5:07 AM | Posted, in reply to John's comment, by James K: | Reply

Randi Zuckerberg has nothing to fear from this blog. The system is crafted to match our desires, and that makes it robust. For the same reason, horoscope writers have nothing to fear from a blog explaining how they generate a horoscope, or why it is hokum.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
No. It's normal hu... (Below threshold)

May 12, 2014 7:20 AM | Posted, in reply to VainSaints's comment, by jonny: | Reply

No. It's normal human functioning.

Oh thank goodness. I was starting to wonder if it was some twisted, unnatural perversion used by a reduced species of emotional cannibals to traumatise their innocent young and make them feel bad about existing, breaking down their natural resistance to the imposition of whore NEED, eroding their Self to induce unnatural love and dependency and attachment.

But if it's "normal human functioning", which can only mean normal biological functioning (or you need to revise your understanding of the word "human"), so I guess we were born ashamed of our offensive, natural skin. Phew. What a relief. I thought some fucking whores did this perverse shit, I swear. That was the impression I was under. But we were born ashamed of being human. Who knew?

Narcissism is when you wear clothes that you don't like to please yourself.

Do you proofread before submitting? Sometimes I don't. But then my errors are legitimate errors. Something is fundamentally chaotic with your understanding of words like Self. Let me guess, you're a woman? Sometimes one can just tell.

But no. You don't do things you don't like to please your Self. No! Zip it. This is called a logical proof. You have your Self confused with someone's else's Self.

Let me explain. The Narcissist isn't trying to *please* other people. He is trying to *feed* on their emotional energy. There is an enormous difference.

Why did your explanation fail to include a motive? Where is the NEED coming from? Why would HE - or let's say, SHE - NEED to feed on the emotional energy of others? Why would she NEED attention or NEED anything from anyone other than her Self?

...because his real self (his real sense of propriety in feelings, relations, desires, etc.) is either too horrible for him to face or too vague and distant for him to latch onto.

You're terrible at motive. Why would her Self be deemed too horrible for her to face or too vague and distant to latch onto? What happened to it?

These are rhetorical questions to teach you how to think. I know the answers but if you're looking for a clue, you might find one underneath the clothes which conceal your mother's traumatic shaming of your true Self.

Of course, abuse is "normal". What is "normal"? Conformity. What is conformity? Suppressing your true Self to please others, like the way you put on clothes every day to conceal yourself. And makeup, to conceal yourself, because you're female and it's "normal whore functioning" to make yourself appear to be what you are not, in reality.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
No but if you were... (Below threshold)

May 12, 2014 10:03 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

No but if you were told at some point that people who don't wear clothes are freaks who masturbate in public and this naturally led you to believe that the association that is in your mind is in everyone elses makes you an unhealthy narcissist.

This is a good answer. But if you walked naked through a mall, everyone literally would presume exactly that until the police violently arrested you for not being ashamed of your true Self.

In the comment section people often talk about narcissism like it is some big plague and learning how to escape it will lead to salvation and enlightenment.

It's a pretty big plague. But conformists aren't interested in what is true or correct. The Answer is not what they are looking for. Salvation is marked "Exit". The only enlightenment is death.

Everyone is suffering in denial of their reality of endless denial (recursion). Our minds evolved in Paradise where denial is optimal for winners, allowing us to endure incidental trauma or suffering to return to happiness (where memory of pain serves no purpose). Denial would enhance Paradise. But Toddler leeches...

Dueteronomy 6 (KJV)
10 And it shall be, when the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,
11 And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not...

Losers. Paradise lost. Logically, denial would enhance Hell as well.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"What is conformity? Suppre... (Below threshold)

May 12, 2014 10:05 AM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by 22YearOld: | Reply

"What is conformity? Suppressing your true Self to please others, like the way you put on clothes every day to conceal yourself. And makeup, to conceal yourself, because you're female and it's "normal whore functioning" to make yourself appear to be what you are not, in reality. "


How do you know everyone who conforms suppresses their true self? This is an old song, but does it fit for our age? But if their wearing the normal clothes and doing whatever normal people do maybe its all they know? A girl from the suburbs only knew consumerism her whole life, and all she wants is a bf she could show off, and enjoy being with, a bf who is funny, has a decent job, knows how to party. There is no true self supressed underneath, that is who she is until she decides to change. Is there really some true hidden self underneath? If you live in the suburbs or a communist commune, your self becomes intertwined with it, just like your self becomes intertwined with whatever action you are taking.

I do not think there is a true self. The self changes based on environment and action. Yes being a californian soririty girl is being yourself.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Since you are very intellig... (Below threshold)

May 12, 2014 10:22 AM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Atman: | Reply

Since you are very intelligent and there is a chance this might help (it doesn't help most people):

It's a game of hide-and-seek, jonny. Knowledge for knowledge's sake and pleasure for pleasure's sake will become emptiness over some time.

Imagine yourself a grand chess champion - would you enjoy playing against amateurs knowing that you might win every time? Maybe the first few games, but hundreds, thousands of games which you are certain you will win?

Maybe you'll find a new game. You will enjoy mastering it, and having mastered it, but only for a brief time.

Existence is such a game of hide and seek and black and white. Pleasure and suffering come into being together. You may not be more sensitive to pleasure without being more sensitive to pain. If you can bring yourself to accept this concept, there is little else to learn existentially IMO. Where does this lead us when we get bored?

Adults play just as children play - although our strength and suffering from those who came before us allow us to dominate nature for our benefit to some extent. What else then?

You could accept logically, beyond survival, there exists nothing but play! And there is really only one kind of game - conquest through pretend suffering, with a chance of failure.

"Whores" must tease, enslave, and cause suffering, else no pleasure would exist in fucking them. People can't enjoy themselves unless they can pretend they're winning. Having won is not important - it is the post-climax refractory state. What is important is the "winning."

I find enjoyment in the meta. I run role-playing games as a gamemaster. My friends play characters and I play everything else that exists. For them to enjoy themselves, there must always be some chance of failure in every thing, a chance at defeat and even death.

You will only wake up if you want to, but you are teasing yourself so much.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Johnny, I really don't unde... (Below threshold)

May 12, 2014 10:53 AM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by VainSaints: | Reply

Johnny, I really don't understand what you're getting at.

There are many reasons why one's 'Self' (one's proprietary relations, desires, feelings, etc.) would be either horrible or distant.

In cases of Pathological Narcissism, it is considered (and the explanation makes perfect sense) to be 'caused' by disengagement from the parents, parents who may not be blatantly abusive, but who are chronically indifferent and/or manipulative.

There seems to be something in the mind whereby a subject, when it finds that it is utterly dependent on another person, as an infant or toddler must be, comes to see this other person as Good, and does not understand how to integrate Good and Evil onto the same object (i.e. Good but imperfect, or Evil, but redeemable).

If the infant's emotional energy is routinely spurned, if s/he finds no affection coming from the source of his/her entire life, the infant ceases to direct this emotional energy outward, and develops deep feelings of inadequacy and confusion.

The pattern of Pathological Narcissism eventually emerges as the child, as he grows, does not trust the outside world, but neither does he trust himself. He seeks refuge and self-esteem in an adopted identity *because* he is desperate to be something other than what he is, which is (in his hind-brain) an inadequate, worthless, contemptible reprobate. Lurking in his psyche, never too far below the surface, is the narcissistic core of pure rage against the world and loathing of himself.

The Narcissist thus *appears* to be preoccupied with himself, and in a sense, he is, but it's purely out of a desire for survival. The Narcissist is desperate to escape from his core self (the raging nothing) and identify as much as he can with the Self-Image he conjures. He is obsessed with making that image real, which for him is the same as making it *appear* real. This is why he confuses the trappings of power/success for the real thing. His defenses don't allow him to ask fundamental questions like 'is my position meaningful?'. His core self is like a Gestapo, his identity his refuge, you can see why he doesn't ask too many questions.

Note please that conformity has nothing to do with any of this. Conformity or non-conformity is incidental to Narcissism.

A real conformist loses any independent sense of self BUT he *does trust* the outside world enough so that he doesn't need to take refuge in a manufactured identity. Narcissists need the image because they are as afraid of the outside world as they are of themselves, and use the outside world to feed the image. Conformists are content to feed the outside world with themselves. They want to belong and have a very weak core self, so they adopt the Group Mind as theirs.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Can you install a print fea... (Below threshold)

May 12, 2014 4:46 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Can you install a print feature to your articles, TLP? Just like a button that takes one to an easily printable page for your articles? :)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
How do you know ev... (Below threshold)

May 12, 2014 7:36 PM | Posted, in reply to 22YearOld's comment, by jonny: | Reply

How do you know everyone who conforms suppresses their true self?

By definition, our true Self is unique. To conform, one must deny one's true Self and work hard to be reduced to a "normal" robot.

But if their wearing the normal clothes and doing whatever normal people do maybe its all they know?

It will be all they know but if you're motivated to appear normal, your desire to conform will be fuelled by shame of who you were. Your Self will have been suppressed in disgust and self-loathing.

Why are they wearing clothes? That's not normal for mammals. You meant normal for humans, but nup. If it were normal, we'd wear clothes by choice but we have no choice. Even if we were allowed, we couldn't. Chances are, we couldn't function if we were naked in public, not even if our lives depended on it. I guess it would come down to how viciously we were abused but most people would have a nervous breakdown. That's severe PTSD.

You can't create normal by killing all the normal people; you'd only create the illusory appearance of "normal". Normal is dead.

"Clothes maketh the man." - mothers who needed to undress to impress

Shame maketh the BOY (soldier). Reducing children with shame of biology makes them feel wretched and dirty, unloved and worthless; then along comes a war to offer worthless BOYS redemption in the form of heroism. All they have to do is die. It's a no-brainer. BOYS with sentimental mush where their brains used to be have been dying to be heroes for as long as mothers have been abusing them. The 'civilised' (shamed) BOYS cut a swathe through a world that had stupidly prepared for Peace, oblivious to the opportunity to destroy themselves. Religion grabbed that opportunity with both hands and won The End.

Numbers 31:49 (KJV) "And they said unto Moses, Thy servants have taken the sum of the men of war which are under our charge, and there lacketh not one man of us."

~200,000 'enemy' slain. 32,000 virgin girls kept alive for possessive erections. No slaves lost (the power of cannibalism).

and all she wants is a bf she could show off

Because she has no Self. She must live through Her male host.

There is no true self suppressed underneath, that is who she is until she decides to change.

Suppressed very deep. But her control is illusory. 95% of domestic violence victims are leeches. It's not natural to need to be with someone who beats you because you just won't leave. But women realise these things only in hindsight, the lure of betting it all on their looks is too powerful. Men are to blame.

Is there really some true hidden self underneath?

Yes, she is a human being with an identity of her own, intended to be self-reliant, self-sufficient, independent and need-free; not merely an island unto herself, but an island that can cater to her offspring's need to feel secure. She is not supposed to be leaning on anybody, her children are supposed to feel protected by her alone [i.imgur.com/kiIsMcg.jpg]. Males shouldn't be needed.

I do not think there is a true self. The self changes based on environment and action. Yes being a californian sorority girl is being yourself.

Everyone has a true Self. Sorority girls are very needy no? Need attention, need popularity, need football jocks, need perfect image? All need is weakness, we are slaves dependent on those who control what we need. A healthy Self would never be dependent. The erosion of girls' Self is biopolitics, with a view to harvesting broken children raised with learned helplessness. Any girl that doesn't feel presentable without first concealing her face with cosmetics or a burqa has a severely-eroded Self. So needy.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Knowledge for know... (Below threshold)

May 12, 2014 9:57 PM | Posted, in reply to Atman's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Knowledge for knowledge's sake and pleasure for pleasure's sake will become emptiness over some time.

I don't doubt you on pleasure, though girls may have a different perspective; but with knowledge, how can we know that? We're on one of the grains of sand on a beach, incapable of jumping to another grain. Of the universe's secrets, do we even Know one?

You could accept logically, beyond survival, there exists nothing but play! And there is really only one kind of game - conquest through pretend suffering, with a chance of failure.

Hmm. There is, in theory, a great deal of fulfillment in constructing something that matters, a work of art perhaps; or some form of innovation or self-perpetuating contribution. Just theory because nothing in this world matters, everything is going up in mushroom clouds or going underwater but play, as a lifestyle? A life of endless leisure would be a form of torture.

I've never really understood conquest but I have a feeling you're making the point that, in this world, conquest has to replace construction? Or there's nothing else. Ugh. Orwell was a genius.

1984 There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science.

There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler.

Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

Nothing for me, then. I don't see the appeal. All power is bullying or suicide, boot or face. Humans self-destruct too efficiently to be worth conquering. If it's a woman wanting to be conquered, I'd communicate an enthusiastic suggestion for her to fuck herself.

"Whores" must tease, enslave, and cause suffering, else no pleasure would exist in fucking them...What is important is the "winning."

Many years ago, I'd lose interest as soon as they showed interest but then I was pretty broken. Now, they just seem broken. I can't even listen to their canned protestations. They're insulting robots obsessed with fraud & sex, I'd rather conquer a stationary chair.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
great article content, it r... (Below threshold)

May 12, 2014 10:35 PM | Posted by friv10go: | Reply

great article content, it raised detailed issues of gender

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I realize that some of Alon... (Below threshold)

May 12, 2014 11:42 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I realize that some of Alone's arguments are rhetorically exaggerated, but I felt that the 3rd point about that author's ex boyfriend was weak and more like a rude personal attack than anything insightful. There's no need to be a jerk. The character of Alone probably got away from the author at that point, I imagine, but they should try to get a better handle on it lest those thoughts intrude too easily into their own life.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I realize that what you're ... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 12:22 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Dram-a-wham: | Reply

I realize that what you're pointing out is mildly sensationized, but I felt that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th points of your diatribe about the author say more about the probability that you are Stan's mom. You should get a better handle on it lest you fail to achieve your purpose in life: To become Towelie's like-minded lover.

Until then, enjoy your authority!

With love,
Dram

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I personally think your art... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 4:55 AM | Posted by lonton: | Reply

I personally think your article is awesome! I am intrigued with much of your information and am persuaded to agree with you after reading your material. I'm hoping you'll add more articles on this topic.
Loola 2

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You use the word 'narcis... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 11:45 AM | Posted by el puerco: | Reply

You use the word 'narcissist ' as though you intend it to be a conversation stopper.

Wrong.

You READ my posted thoughts and PROJECT those "intents" onto the plain words.

I don't "intend" any kind of "conversation stopper."

Meanwhile, you continue pretending to know my thoughts, while not knowing me at all. Also, did you explain how, when, where, why you met Jonny and how you conducted your in-person psychiatric assessment of him? What methods?

Remind me. Show me the post.

Or, I suppose, you can keep playing whack-a-mole with your deflected distractions, like pretending you know another's thoughts and intentions simply because of the words contained in a comment. You really are a forum leader in delusional commentary!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
That's like saying the i... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 11:49 AM | Posted by el puerco: | Reply

That's like saying the idea is for a criminologist's blog's readers to be drawn to his/her essays because they themselves are criminals.

Sure, in the same way vanilla is like chocolate because they're both flavors.

Good job misunderstanding my comment. It wasn't meant as a deep insight revealing what previously was hidden from you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Oh, please! If a guy who... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 11:53 AM | Posted by el puerco: | Reply

Oh, please! If a guy who seems constitutionally incapable of writing the word 'mother' without prefixing it with the word 'whore' doesn't have mother issues, then nobody does. You don't have to be Sigmund Freud to work that out.

Keep shrieking on, feminist hero!

It's possible "Jonny" is a fictional character created to offer a hypothesized human perspective, built on stereotypes, and designed to provoke exactly the kind of assumptions you make with your hair-trigger certitude.

What online (previously: mail order) institution awarded your Internet Comment Diagnostic Techniques Professional certificate? I'll be sure to recommend that entity to all Forum Wizards who seek a piece of frame-able paper to hang on their e-wall.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I was under the impressi... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 11:59 AM | Posted by el puerco: | Reply

I was under the impression everyone but toddlers, and perhaps nudists, are narcissistic to a degree. We all wear clothes to conceal our true Self, projecting false images to please others, in fear of their disapproval. Isn't that textbook narcissism?

Probably depends on which textbook you read.

Show me a human who isn't narcissistic, and we'll probably be looking at a wax figure in a museum.

It's just a quality/trait, and it would seem the question is whether the trait/quality gets ...uh... out of hand. Self-defeating. There's got to be a healthy variant, one must protect one's self first before one can help others. Narcissism helps with self-protection. When does it go beyond that, and into self-defeat?

I suppose lessons from one's own life, told here in some semblance of honesty, might help define the contours. Or, as TLP does in his essays, you could use social signals and events to describe when the contours are broken and the self-defeat is in full charge, running on all cylinders, in the heart of the engine's powerband.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Keep shrieking on... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 12:09 PM | Posted by HGJ: | Reply

Keep shrieking on, feminist hero!

You do realise, of course, that you are doing exactly the same thing to me that you so desperately and defensively resent me for doing to Jonny.

I would dearly love for you to cite the specific words I used that lead you to believe I'm a feminist hero. Please, don't hold back.

See, I can easily back up my contention about Jonny. If a man who is on record stating that the only word which can accurately describe a mother is the word "Whore" doesn't have mother issues then the term has no meaning.

Let's see you back up your contentions about me. Clock's ticking...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You READ my poste... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 12:19 PM | Posted by HGJ: | Reply

You READ my posted thoughts and PROJECT those "intents" onto the plain words.

I never said that was your intention, just that that's how you come across. It's not my fault that you're not a good enough water to accurately convey what you mean.

Or, I suppose, you can keep playing whack-a-mole with your deflected distractions, like pretending you know another's thoughts and intentions simply because of the words contained in a comment. You really are a forum leader in delusional commentary!

And you really are a tedious obscurantist, obsessed with debating the absolute bleeding obvious. That Jonny has mother issues is as obvious as the fact that his username begins with the letter J. If you can't see it, it's because you can't read. I really, truly do not know how to make it any more obvious than he has already. If his own words have not convinced you then I doubt I will be able to. I doubt I would be able to persuade a colour blind man that the sky is blue either. As such this will be my final word on this desperately tedious matter.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You do realise, of cours... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 12:38 PM | Posted by el puerco: | Reply

You do realise, of course, that you are doing exactly the same thing to me that you so desperately and defensively resent me for doing to Jonny.

1) Looks like you don't like being satirized, and respond to being satirized by projecting your flaws onto whomever satirizes you.

2) I'm neither desperate nor resentful, nor anything else you project onto me -- but my telling you this surely won't fix your projection issues, at least not if this thread's practice is an indication of your regular tendencies.

Do you visit TLP's blog in order to "find" the people who rankle you most in meatspace, and then "expose" them here with the projections you foist upon them?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I never said that was yo... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 12:40 PM | Posted by el puerco: | Reply

I never said that was your intention, just that that's how you come across. It's not my fault that you're not a good enough water to accurately convey what you mean.

'scuse me broheem, but INTEND was your choice of words. Now you say you didn't use the word you used? Whack-a-mole.

Keep using TLP's comment threads to work through your issues by projecting your issues onto others. That's top shelf self-help right there!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
And you really are a ted... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 12:43 PM | Posted by el puerco: | Reply

And you really are a tedious obscurantist, obsessed with debating the absolute bleeding obvious. * * * As such this will be my final word on this desperately tedious matter.

Because you've got to run out to buy poppers and buttplugs?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
When I said "last word ", I... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 1:00 PM | Posted by HGJ: | Reply

When I said "last word ", I meant it. You just wasted your time. Don't expect a response. I know a lost cause when I see one.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I admire your investment in... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 1:04 PM | Posted by el puerco: | Reply

I admire your investment in telling others what they think.

What's it like to hate yourself so much that you use the internet to find people to spew invective toward? I'd like you to tell us all.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
anon 5/5/14 10:45,... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 1:50 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by cmoney: | Reply

anon 5/5/14 10:45,

It's like this. I make $110K a year. My roommate makes $40K/yr. (Already the problem is revealed: I have a roommate). We both go to work, watch a lot of sports, go out occasionally, bone someone occasionally, etc etc. i.e., we're both just still consumers.

Hell, guys in my relatively poor neighborhood drive even nicer cars than me!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This relationship ... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 1:55 PM | Posted, in reply to Runs with scissors's comment, by Keith: | Reply

This relationship of substitution is not limited to beliefs: the same goes for every one of the subject's innermost feelings and attitudes, inclusive of crying and laughing. Suffice it to recall the old enigma of transposed/displaced emotions at work from the so-called "weepers" (women hired to cry at funerals) in "primitive" societies, to the "canned laughter" on a TV-screen, and to adopting a screen persona in cyberspace. When I construct a "false" image of myself which stands for me in a virtual community in which I participate (in sexual games, for example, a shy man often assumes the screen persona of an attractive promiscuous woman), the emotions I feel and "feign" as part of my screen persona are not simply false: although (what I experience as) my "true self" does not feel them, they are nonetheless in a sense "true" — the same as with watching a TV mini-series with canned laughter where, even if I do not laugh, but simply stare at the screen, tired after a hard days work, I nonetheless feel relieved after the show… This is what the Lacanian notion of "decentrement," of the decentered subject, aims at: my most intimate feelings can be radically externalized, I can literally "laugh and cry through another."

Now just substitute "Alone" and "narcissism" for "Lacan" and "decenterment," respectively.

Bump.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Why would I be "trying to s... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 4:37 PM | Posted, in reply to Gabe Ruth's comment, by el puerco: | Reply

Why would I be "trying to say" something other than what I said?

I'm not following you. My comment about Percy was pretty simple, I don't know why there would be more "trying to say" content hidden in it. It's not The White Album being played backward and revealing satanic messages designed to put Tipper Gore in a tizzy.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
My thoughts as well. It'... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 4:42 PM | Posted by el puerco: | Reply

My thoughts as well. It's like when during an exchange, you offer a bit more in return, (only to share! Not to be superior!) and you're met with the you-think-you(r)-_______-everything/me/whatever rage. Which is projection.

Look at the big brain on you!

"It's like __________" ?

Really?

You know what sorts of things are "like" each other?

Everything is like everything else, if you dumb-down and gloss-over all the distinguishing details.

And you're so convinced that GBJ or FDQ or HBL or whatever that entity's handle was, he/she/it is only "sharing" and "not being superior"?

How would you know another's mind-state?

Hey, maybe that's my point! And maybe you missed it because you're so eager to project while accusing others of doing that thing!

Or maybe you just read an issue of Psychology Today and learned a poppsych cliche and decided to come here to whip it out for a measuring contest?

Your e-penis is huge. You must be a porn star.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Only somewhat related, but ... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 4:44 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Only somewhat related, but I wonder to what degree social anxiety (the diagnosis and in general) overlaps with narcissistic personalities. After reading a lot of this site, I can't help but feel my social anxiety stems from nothing but a narcissistic need to self-protect.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Of course it is.Yo... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 5:56 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Of course it is.

You might think you're wrong to keep it, but you would self-destruct if you didn't self-protect.

Alone is encouraging you to be some kind of impossible Ubermensch who gives no shit because he has his precious kierkegaardian faith or whatever. It's wankery and useless misanthropy disguised as therapy.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You might think yo... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 7:15 PM | Posted by You're Probably Not Even British: | Reply

You might think you're wrong to keep it, but you would self-destruct if you didn't self-protect.

The identity would self destruct. And then you would grow.

Alone is encouraging you to be some kind of impossible Ubermensch who gives no shit because he has his precious kierkegaardian faith or whatever. It's wankery and useless misanthropy disguised as therapy.

Pearls before swine.

If you'd actually read Nietzsche, you'd remember that he stuck to the Heraclitean principle that "being is an empty fiction." Hence you cannot be the Ubermensch, you can only become. It is in the recurring journey between the zenith and the nadir that growth occurs. Rather than changing the words, the laws, the culture, etc. to adapt to your fear of leaving the nadir, you are encouraged to live, struggle, succeed, struggle again, and repeat. People often forget that it was Nietzsche who coined the Kanye West lyrics: "From life's school of war: what does not kill me makes me stronger."

As for misanthropy, I wonder how you come to that conclusion when the implicit premise of so many posts here is to lead others to think less about themselves and more in consideration of the people around them?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Really?</blockquot... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 8:13 PM | Posted, in reply to el puerco's comment, by Shay: | Reply

Really?

I'll let Maddox handle this one

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
That's some incisive Maddox... (Below threshold)

May 13, 2014 8:59 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

That's some incisive Maddox right there.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>J! Thank you, J. If I coul... (Below threshold)

May 14, 2014 12:15 AM | Posted, in reply to B's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>J! Thank you, J. If I could give you gold, I would. A million fake internet points for you.

Jesus Christ, stop this shit. I hate this overenthusiastic, affected popularity contest style of writing. You can be civil without sounding like a cockmongling Redditor.

This is not Reddit.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>Exactly. But to pretend it... (Below threshold)

May 14, 2014 12:23 AM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>Exactly. But to pretend it's parents doing the malicious conditioning is ridiculous. There's a fine line between malice and ignorance, but mothers aren't too stupid. They know exactly why they condition girls to associate pain with (talking about) sex.

I'm the person you replied to. Look, jonny. Sometimes I agree with you. Most of the time I don't, and the few times I do agree with what you say it's probably through no conscious work of your own. Most of you what you say is absolute nonsense and your writing style mirrors the kind of shit that manic psychotic people spew on Facebook day in and day out, garnering no likes or comments, and everyone else just wonders what the hell is going on inside that person's head. I'm sure everyone here knows at least one person like this and occasionally gets treated to little gold nuggets of marijuana-fueled insanity on their Facebook feeds once and a while.

Your knowledge of pyschology, biology, neurology, and pretty much every other -ology under the sun that you've ever pontificated on is woefully lacking. I enjoy lighthearted fem-bashing as much as the next heterosexual dudebro, but I rarely take it seriously and I have the presence of mind to realize that not all women are whores, and not every problem in the world is the cause of women. If anything you're just creating a hell of your own making by trying to link women as the root of all evil. Most everything you say can be easily refuted by the existence of any number of people who grew up without a mom.

In any case I feel bad for your mother, who undoubtedly had to spend Mother's Day sitting alone in a retirement home somewhere because her spiteful, vitriolic, kissless virgin son was too busy raging against females on the internet.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Very interesting and entert... (Below threshold)

May 14, 2014 1:26 AM | Posted by Heisenberg : | Reply

Very interesting and entertaining piece. Thanks.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>Maddox>linking to s... (Below threshold)

May 14, 2014 5:17 AM | Posted, in reply to Shay's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>Maddox
>linking to shitty Buzzfeed-tier clickbeit on an article specifically about shitty clickbait

BRAVO!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Maddox on Buzzfeed:<b... (Below threshold)

May 14, 2014 7:20 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Maddox on Buzzfeed:

Nothing makes me go from happy and optimistic to destitute and angry as quickly as seeing a BuzzFeed link. Between the stolen images, vapid content, lame jokes, recycled memes and desperate assimilation of all things pop culture, I feel like I'm dealing with a cultural hydra. Only what BuzzFeed accosts you with is worse than poisonous breath and virulent blood; BuzzFeed attacks our collective intellect, worsens civilization and collects a handsome reward for doing it.
Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Buzzfeed link" is intercha... (Below threshold)

May 14, 2014 7:24 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"Buzzfeed link" is interchangeable with "any given Maddox video" in that paragraph. He's basically Buzzfeed for edgy manchildren.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
No, that's 4chan. ... (Below threshold)

May 14, 2014 10:35 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

No, that's 4chan.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Has anyone actually read th... (Below threshold)

May 14, 2014 1:07 PM | Posted by cmoney: | Reply

Has anyone actually read the pac standard article? It's pretty long and I'm not done yet, but the first blown-up-for-relevance quote the magazine uses:

“Twitter is the place where I laugh, whine, work, schmooze, procrastinate, and flirt. It sits in my back pocket wherever I go and lies next to me when I fall asleep. And since I first started writing in 2007, it’s become just one of the many online spaces where men come to tell me to get out.”

How much did Twitter pay for this advertising?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
nope... (Below threshold)

May 14, 2014 4:23 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

nope

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
What's telling is that it's... (Below threshold)

May 14, 2014 8:39 PM | Posted, in reply to cmoney's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

What's telling is that it's always men.

"Men" are telling me to get off the internet. Not "people", but specifically "men".

I thought the point of anonymity was not knowing anything about the person you're dialoguing with, including their sex?

Why is she so sure that it isn't another woman telling her to fuck off?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
2007 yılında İstanbul’da ku... (Below threshold)

May 15, 2014 3:17 AM | Posted by HİPERMEDYA: | Reply

2007 yılında İstanbul’da kurulan HİPERMEDYA, dijital dünyanın taleplerine uzman kadrosu ile hızlı ve profesyonel çözümler üretmek amacı ile kurulan bir interaktif tasarım ve iletişim ajansıdır.

Reklam Ajansı

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
<a href="http://www.hiperme... (Below threshold)

May 15, 2014 3:48 AM | Posted by hipermedya: | Reply

Reklam Ajansı Web Tasarım

internet sitesi tasarım, yazılım ve geliştirme, mobil uyumlu internet sitesi, interaktif kampanya yönetimi, banner tasarım ve uygulama
web tasarım, google adwords yönetimi reklam planlama, uygulama ve raporlama, facebook reklam yönetimi,
sosyal medya uygulama geliştirme, sosyal medya yönetimi

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So, if someone posted a map... (Below threshold)

May 15, 2014 5:34 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by felonious grammar: | Reply

So, if someone posted a map with a target drawn over your house, and invited their fellow trolls to send you rape and murder threats then you're just going to rise above it? Think you'd feel that way if you had been raped?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The "real name" fetish is s... (Below threshold)

May 15, 2014 6:19 PM | Posted by Felonious Grammar: | Reply

The "real name" fetish is some kind of narcissistic and delusional woo. Do people always tell the truth when their legal name is in evidence? Does no one ever lie under oath, either? Are we supposed to give a shit about what someone's given name is? Is that supposed to mean something?

Why?

The "real name" means even less on the internet. I could legally change my name to Cranberry Mint and say exactly what I would have said under any other handle. Who could tell? I don't assassinate people's character wholesale or make threats under any name.

Whence comes this mad idea to deal with extreme trolls by having everyone use their legal name? If anyone wants to take a stab at the real name woo, I'd love to hear it. Might a family crest lend yet more 'credibility'?

Why not require everyone to post their phone number, home address and a picture of their driver's license with every comment? Schedule and datebook optional. If someone didn't have to go too far out of the way to beat up a person they disagree with on-line, then we'd have peak trolling season, right? Click-Bait Mania! You-Tube videos! Then, no one would have to have any skills to dox you--- anyone on the internet could make your life a living hell with very little effort because it would be so irresistibly easy for assholes to do so.

Rape isn't prosecuted or even investigated enough for most rapists to worry much about having their careers cut short by incarceration. So why would policing be anymore successful on the internet where kids post their gang-rapes and other sorts of sexual violations so that the media gets to mourn the losses of those poor high-school football players who had such promising futures? Let's not forget who the real victims are. Because high school football stardom is so much more likely to lead to a promising career than rape? Guess it depends on what kind of reward is most desired.


Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Just wanted to let you know... (Below threshold)

May 15, 2014 7:49 PM | Posted by Charles Victor Szasz: | Reply

Just wanted to let you know, reading your articles helped me more extract myself from a dangerous situation. Thank you. You're doing a dead god's good work, Dr. Blackbeard. Don't ever sober up. And publish the porn book, already: I want to pay you for it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Pretty sure this site is th... (Below threshold)

May 15, 2014 9:28 PM | Posted, in reply to Charles Victor Szasz's comment, by Stan Smith: | Reply

Pretty sure this site is the porn book, take it how you will

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Wouldn't it be cool if Alon... (Below threshold)

May 16, 2014 2:02 AM | Posted by Robert Christgau: | Reply

Wouldn't it be cool if Alone made an entry where he didn't argue with and refute an imaginary person once every other paragraph? I mean, I like masturbatory self-back-patting as much as the next guy, but your smugness can get old at times.

Anyway, glad you're making content again.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So, if someone pos... (Below threshold)

May 16, 2014 2:52 AM | Posted, in reply to felonious grammar's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

So, if someone posted a map with a target drawn over your house, and invited their fellow trolls to send you rape and murder threats then you're just going to rise above it?

Yes, because I'm not mentally a child who just started browsing the internet yesterday.

If you're that concerned about someone doxxing you and actually coming to your house to rape you, instead of just occasionally sending pizzas anonymously to your house until the trolls finally get bored and leave you alone, then by all means notify the police. And then get on with your life like any well-adjusted adult.

What I definitely wouldn't do in that situation is respond by writing a 10-paragraph diatribe about how the internet is misogynistic and how everyone's rights end where my feelings begin.

Think you'd feel that way if you had been raped?

I tend not to put myself into circumstances where I could be raped.

Lots of people still think that a girl who is raped deserved it because she was wearing sexy clothes or whatever. Obviously this is silly; nobody "deserves" to be raped. But on the other hand, why tempt fate?

Am I going to tell my daughter that indignance and moral superiority is the correct way to combat rape and stop yourself from being physically molested? If a rapist accosts her on the street, should she verbally shame him and rant at him about the patriarchy? No. I'd tell her not to walk alone in a dangerous part of town, and if she absolutely has to, to carry a gun. I'd tell her not to attend a party with the entire drunk, horny football team and allow herself to get blackout wasted.

In the same way, I don't go into the middle of the Smoky Mountains, slather my naked body with honey, and slap a grizzly bear in the face while calling it a "faggot". I lock my doors at night in case I get robbed. I don't get into cars with strangers or pick up hitchhikers. I'm 22 years old, in good shape, attend the gym 3 days a week, and I still cross the street when I see a group of adolescent black kids walking down the sidewalk towards me. Why? Because why risk it?

To do anything else is to be naive and sheltered. Rapists will rape, bears will eat you, and creepy celebrity stalking weirdos will always do creepy celebrity stalking weirdo shit. Do you really think writing an article for the Pacific Standard is going to make the next rapist stop and say "Damn, I really ought to stop raping!"?

No amount of passive aggressive bitching on twitter or moral indignance will change that. It's like getting hired at McDonald's and being outraged that you have to work the cash register. Comes with the territory.

Why dress yourself looking for sexual attention when you don't want any, and then act indignant when some fucking douchebag grabs your ass at a bar? Humans are animals, so to not expect all the different kinds of animalistic behaviour that comes with that, good and bad, is a display of extreme hubris.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I wonder if black people th... (Below threshold)

May 16, 2014 5:53 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Robert Christgau: | Reply

I wonder if black people think you're autistic when they always see you anxiously evacuating the area.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Probably.... (Below threshold)

May 16, 2014 8:15 PM | Posted, in reply to Robert Christgau's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Probably.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Lots of information and wha... (Below threshold)

May 17, 2014 12:11 AM | Posted by friv 4: | Reply

Lots of information and what can be expressed, we can understand and feel. all that can be shared. Who Bullies The Bullies?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
No. No, it's not that sort ... (Below threshold)

May 17, 2014 4:19 AM | Posted, in reply to The Media's comment, by Not the Media: | Reply

No. No, it's not that sort of magazine.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
TLPCould you pleas... (Below threshold)

May 17, 2014 8:04 PM | Posted by B: | Reply

TLP

Could you please write an article about high school students getting extra time on tests, including standardized tests? I struggle with bitterness. Most of these kids I know have no disability whatsoever, but just are slower or dimmer witted than they or their parents want. They have diagnoses like ADHD, PDD, or "premature baby" and get 50% more time on tests in school and the SAT and AP tests.I estimate they are 10 to 20% of students. Would your recommendation be to "get yours" or that this practice should end? In addition, most students from this school expect to get A's in everything and end up going to top-tier schools.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It means that in most peopl... (Below threshold)

May 18, 2014 2:33 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

It means that in most people's eyes, 40k is what dad made, and all that a good honest blue-collar needs. 200k is getting upper class, but is near enough to cause contempt, and 1mil is unattainable by 40k, partially because of crab theory, the 200k is trying to get out of the bucket and must be crushed, and for both, 1mil isn't even on the beach. 40k can't hate 1mil, they give you your shifts at McDonald's, they sell you your cars, and open a Starbucks on your block. That fucking 200k with his one dealership or landscaping business though? What does he do for you? Nothing except have the nice car/wife/home YOU rightfully deserve. So, depending on whether 1mil needs you to feel contempt or hatred for the competition, Mr. 200k gets pushed back and forth.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
so all of your readers are ... (Below threshold)

May 18, 2014 5:51 AM | Posted by jinka: | Reply

so all of your readers are hess's ex?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Jesus Christ, stop... (Below threshold)

May 18, 2014 12:09 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Jesus Christ: | Reply

Jesus Christ, stop this shit.

I will not.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
What is this? Rand... (Below threshold)

May 18, 2014 5:12 PM | Posted by V: | Reply

What is this?

Random people not aware of it?
Calculated responses from inspired individuals?
Electronic intervention?

Does it matter?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Why dress yourself... (Below threshold)

May 19, 2014 8:38 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Why dress yourself looking for sexual attention when you don't want any, and then act indignant when some fucking douchebag grabs your ass at a bar?

The Answer is right in front of you. Casino advantage players (bonus whores) call this sort of thing coverplay (disinformation).

"I had a friend who got so many DUIs that he had to go to jail for a year. Now, his only concern was getting raped. So for the entire year, he didn't take a shower. 'Cause he was so busy getting raped." - Anthony Jeselnik

I had a flatmate who racked up so much CC debt that she had to date older men for a year. Now, her only concern was getting raped. So for the entire year, she didn't get a job. 'Cause she was so busy getting raped.
____________

As you and I know, No means No. Those who don't know include:
* all women.
* men who have a lot of sex.
* children raised to be polite.

Women don't want to have their cake and eat it. That's a ridiculous suggestion. Women want to have your cake and eat it. Here is some #truth. Of all the women in your life who have desired you, the one who desired you the least still desired you more than you have ever desired a woman.

* Women want you to pay for [what women want to give you].
* Women don't want you taking [what women want to give you].

They'll respect only one of the two. You cannot beat them, they have no value. You lose just by being in the game. What is needy love worth? Society is changing fast but this is still a world of depraved women who perceive reality just like Josef Fritzl. Their love is worse than hate. But it's "normal" and on TV so it's okay.
_____________

For thousands of years, women hated sex. To challenge them was impossible. You can't beat Big Mother and the Church, mothers and priests working in perfidious tandem to cannibalise the globe. Truth has varied. They like sex now. They're still lying but why listen to what women say when you can listen to what they do?

They scream truth, non-stop. No time for children or themselves, they're so busy getting raped. In a Rape Culture, it makes sense to look your best. I spend hours making myself appear more sexually desirable than I am. What if no one wants to rape me?

That would be very hard to accept.

"Truth is on the side of the oppressed, never the oppressor." (Malcolm X)
Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
There's got to be ... (Below threshold)

May 19, 2014 9:48 PM | Posted, in reply to el puerco's comment, by jonny: | Reply

There's got to be a healthy variant, one must protect one's self first before one can help others. Narcissism helps with self-protection. When does it go beyond that, and into self-defeat?

I was harassing this Buddhist expert on a forum in frustration with the Buddha's seemingly contradictory statements on the value of "Self", when he put it like this:
__________

Self is a liferaft we should be obsessed with, caring only for ourselves until we can get across this river (Childhood, I guess; or Life, if we never make it) to independence (unattachment).

When we reach the other side, our selfish liferaft is discarded as we no longer need it. Holding onto it would prevent us from reaching the next level of awareness (which I took to mean a higher level of selfishness, which includes the interests of others to our mutual advantage, etc).

Our species drowns in the river, our liferafts have been vandalised, punctured and torn (childhood self-erosion, trauma, shame, deceit, fear), tethered back to our infant shore. We capsizing, having failed to free ourselves from attachment.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I think you're on to someth... (Below threshold)

May 19, 2014 11:45 PM | Posted by Brent: | Reply

I think you're on to something with the power/impotence theme, but it isn't fully developed. There is something fundamentally powerful in both the trolling antagonism (the examples you supply are so overblown as to be unbelievable--which leads me to the belief that they were "uttered" in an effort to produce a reaction and only that), and Hess's reply that you analyze (deconstruct?) at length. She is also looking for power. While the real power dynamic is ignored, or rather Hess and those she hates have developed selective amnesia... well, many of us have.

I think there is a valuable critique here. I would encourage you to develop it, focus it further.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
See, I can easily ... (Below threshold)

May 20, 2014 1:29 AM | Posted, in reply to HGJ's comment, by jonny: | Reply

See, I can easily back up my contention about Jonny. If a man who is on record stating that the only word which can accurately describe a mother is the word "Whore" doesn't have mother issues then the term has no meaning.

There is no logic in this statement. I gave a specific definition of the word whore to explain the need for it. Do you have a substitute word for the description below? Do you have a counter-argument to make or a denial that your mother, or mothers in general, weren't as I described them below?

The word whore has no synonym in the English language. It is the only word that can be used to describe a woman inducing artificial desire with intent to manipulate suffering (extortion).

You declare the term "mother issues" to have no meaning, based on my being correct. You make no argument. To start with, you would need prove my argument was incorrect. You make no effort to do so, proving you haven't the mind nor the interest in doing so. Your motives aren't productive. You were never raised to consider veracity. Whether something is accurate, correct or applicable never crosses your mind. You were not raised to think, but to feel your way through life. You want conflict between identities you've constructed in your mind for an emotional exchange that will never happen. You're driven by your mother's bitter longing for male genitalia to fill her emptiness inside.

...only word which can accurately describe a mother is the word "Whore"...
...only word that can be used to describe a woman inducing artificial desire...(extortion).

The word describes a pre-mother. You're not literate. The next time you paraphrase me as being "on record", use blockquotes and quote me because your mind is custard. I'm compelled to disengage from your need to scream and feel involved. You're just another horror show who imagines you're shrewd because you wouldn't even harm a fly. Go project onto your mother.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sometimes I agree ... (Below threshold)

May 20, 2014 6:59 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by jonny: | Reply

Sometimes I agree with you.

Your approval means a lot.

Most of the time I don't

Your disapproval hurts a lot.

and the few times I do agree with what you say it's probably through no conscious work of your own.

Your approval is everything, so I get why this matters.

Most of you what you say is absolute nonsense

Your disapproval hurts a lot.

your writing style mirrors the kind of shit that manic psychotic people spew on Facebook day in and day out, garnering no likes or comments

Validation and approval mean a lot. Not getting any really hurts.

and everyone else just wonders what the hell is going on inside that person's head.

Universal disapproval hurts a lot. Just imagine. That's how much.

I'm sure everyone here knows at least one person like this and occasionally gets treated to little gold nuggets of marijuana-fueled insanity on their Facebook feeds once and a while.

Insanity is a treat. You are sane. You're the normalest "normal".

Your knowledge of pyschology, biology, neurology, and pretty much every other -ology under the sun that you've ever pontificated on is woefully lacking.

Can't argue with you. It's on me now. You've said all you know.

This is a treat, for me.

I enjoy lighthearted fem-bashing as much as the next heterosexual dudebro

Your enjoyment means a lot. Approved activities are enjoyable.

Your sexual identity means a lot. Does this mean we're dudebros?

but I rarely take it seriously and I have the presence of mind to realize that not all women are whores

You have presence of mind in your imagination. You imagine real.

and not every problem in the world is the cause of women.

Not every problem, some caused by fem-hetero-dudebro-men.

If anything you're just creating a hell of your own making by trying to link women as the root of all evil.

More the pathetic paedophiles who respect sex with dependants.

Most everything you say can be easily refuted by the existence of any number of people who grew up without a mom.

I grew up without a Mom. Easily? Rather than say, why not do.

In any case I feel bad for your mother

Your sympathy means a lot. If you feel bad, she's truly blessed.

who undoubtedly had to spend Mother's Day sitting alone in a retirement home somewhere because her spiteful, vitriolic, kissless virgin son was too busy raging against females on the internet.

Mean words hurt a lot. I thought we were dudebros, dudebro.
______

You are uniquely normal, which is the best kind of normal. There are many kinds of normal, but some are more normal than others. You have hit upon the most normal of them all and that's quite a Special thing for you. Don't worry, it's normal. You should feel Special and conform, in reality. I understand that you have been working on this for awhile. You're splendid. The perfect psychotic. Your feelings are the most valuable commodity you have. You should value them. You should feel good about being you. It's what you wanted. It can't have been easy. Be proud of it. You are you and one day you will realise what you are you for.

You're the perfect human machine, finely-tuned, reduced to perfection. Thousands of years of feeding whores the rope they need to hang their children, and here you are. You are perfectly worthless. That's gotta be worth something to someone. To look more uniform than the rest, start practising your salute now.

You are half of Power's wet dream, 50% of what dreams are made of. They're getting the other half ready now. So you hang tight. When the time is right, you will fight. Boys like you aren't made for war. Wars are made for boys like you. Win, lose, die, live, love, hate, it doesn't matter. It's all profit. You were born to be the hero of you. So thank you. Thank you for your sacrifice.

It means a lot.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So, if someone pos... (Below threshold)

May 20, 2014 9:01 AM | Posted, in reply to felonious grammar's comment, by jonny: | Reply

So, if someone posted a map with a target drawn over your house, and invited their fellow trolls to send you rape and murder threats then you're just going to rise above it?

If they wanted to kill you, why would they threaten? Why are they threatening in the first place? Why don't you stop trolling.

If you can't conduct yourself in Society without lying, then you are the first troll. If you need the suffering of men and children to peddle your 'services', you need to be made comfortable. You must be removed from the reality where you only disturb the peace to manufacture the pain you need to sell your pain 'relief'.

No one wants your hijack, your extortion, your lies, your violence, your rape. No one wants to be forced to suffer to please you.

Think you'd feel that way if you had been raped?

The only victims of rape that act like victims are men. Women don't fear rape, just mean words. You say you do. You do not.

Stop lying. What you do tells the truth.

I'd put you all down in a blink if I could. You bring helpless children here. You owe them everything, including your lives, they owe you nothing; and you repay your biological debts by torturing and killing tiny defenceless innocents for sex.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Johnny should stop hijackin... (Below threshold)

May 20, 2014 9:44 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by isurvived4chan: | Reply

Johnny should stop hijacking better, more coherent blog posts and just let it all out about mothers being whores and harming their children and whatnot in his own blog. See how much attention he can get without riding TLP's coat tails. [BOLD]Do[BOOOLD], not say.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"media-approved categories... (Below threshold)

May 20, 2014 9:51 AM | Posted by porcupine: | Reply

"media-approved categories of blame"

So, which are non media-approved categories of blame? Capitalism? Money? I always thought that when the whole thing about the dongle jokes blew up, people were quick to take sides, but nobody questioned the fact that companies could fire people for stupid shit like that. It was the fact that it was a woman that got them fired over a joke they felt entitled to make that made her so hateful and fueled the discussion, but nobody [exept for me im so special etc] thought, so.. um.. if the jokes were so harmless, why doesn't the company stand behind its employees??

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
When I was a producer for a... (Below threshold)

May 20, 2014 11:23 AM | Posted by Casey: | Reply

When I was a producer for a news magazine show that aired on FOX, I was stalked by members of a religious sex cult called Children of God. They posted photos of my car, my dog, and my kid's school. I called the FOX legal adviser, who called the cult's ISP provider, slapped a C&D on them, got a retraining order, and had me write an op-Ed about press intimidation which ran in not just the Murdoch papers, but got picked up by wire services. That's how you do it. Hess could have traced her anon stalkers had she wanted to do so, but there no page views in that.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
And an actual rape acting o... (Below threshold)

May 20, 2014 2:52 PM | Posted, in reply to felonious grammar's comment, by Dovahkiin: | Reply

And an actual rape acting out threats posted on the internet are so rare that I can't think of one such event since the 1990s, so there is not one good reason to have women faint at the sight of a "threat" that has a 1/100 of a percent chance of actually happening. It's much more likely that a freak power surge will fly through the power cord of your laptop and electrocute you than that a person who writes a rape threat on an internet forum is actually going to rape that person.

But, since most upper class women have extremely thin skins and get the vapors reading the word "rape", the internet is threatening to them, even though there's no risk of any of these threats being carried out. The threat isn't to their safety, the threat is to their delicate feelings. the only long term solution is the one that's prevented by the continued weakening of women. That solution is stop letting other people decide how you feel. Stop handing over your emotions to the internet.

"Why, courage then! What cannot be avoided 'Twere childish weakness to lament or fear.
William Shakespeare"

You can't avoid the trolls, or the naysayers. You can decide whether or not you're going to let a dictatorship of anonymous nobodies scare you into writing vapid trash about them on the internet. Here's a little secret. That "troll" who just ruined your day with that "rape threat" that "threatened you"? he's off playing Call of Duty. He's not even thinking about you. You're just a name on a blog. You are not even on his radar. You, however, being ruled by fear, have allowed him to get so deep inside your head that you have to tell people how "dangerous" the internet is to all women, and how scared you are. It probably took a week to write the article and edit for publication. The comment that started it all was written in less than a minute and was forgotten by the troll, and he was so up in your head that you're still thinking about him more than a week later. it's not HIM at all, it's you. You're afraid of the internet and mean boys. Fine. Own that. Own the fact that you're afraid of words. Own the fact that his comment rules your life. You did that to yourself. You decided that his comment deserved a week of your life, a week that could have been spent on anything else.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hey man, there's some kille... (Below threshold)

May 20, 2014 5:26 PM | Posted, in reply to isurvived4chan's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Hey man, there's some killer stuff on his g+, though.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>gets charged with incohere... (Below threshold)

May 21, 2014 4:30 AM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>gets charged with incoherent babbling
>responds by incoherently babbling

Bravo, jonny! Keep the fountainhead running, your manic projection and incessant, desperate reaching is entertaining for the rest of us.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Your response is as product... (Below threshold)

May 21, 2014 5:49 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Sophistophile : | Reply

Your response is as productive as replying to spam (I'm not calling jonny's material this, to clarify)

If you don't understand the content, then you cannot debate, which you're not capable of (obv.); this would explain your declaration of "incoherent." And this coming from an idiot (read: me) at that.

Do not disobey Isis.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
re: Kim Kardashian:<... (Below threshold)

May 21, 2014 6:02 AM | Posted by Bonze Anne Rose Blayk: | Reply

re: Kim Kardashian:

Through the miraculous interventions of modern medical technology, it has become possible to construct a woman who is all ass.

"there's no power in abolishing anonymity, the power is in giving everyone the pretense of anonymity while secretly retaining the PGP keys to the kingdom."

very perceptive (J. Edgar Hoover understood)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I get your point - it may b... (Below threshold)

May 21, 2014 9:50 AM | Posted, in reply to Dovahkiin's comment, by feelingsaregay: | Reply

I get your point - it may be worth it to develop a thicker skin on the basis of the individual and men are generally raised to do that (not crying, feelings are gay etc). An instance comes to mind, where a fat girl was ridiculed for cosplaying while fat and what she did was talk to the people sharing her picture on fb mockingly (risking further mocking), but what happened is that most people felt embarassed and apologized. It is not like the anonymity of trolls is sacrosanct, people usually leave traces and this approach (holding them fucking accountable) seems better than complaining to the general internet. However, given that many women get blamed for not being careful enough when raped (even in these comments), I think there is strong disincentive not to go after the sort of troll who makes threats directly, lest you are held responsible for "making them mad" or escalating the situation (even though logically this may be unlikely, but, almost nobody, man or woman can claim that their approach to risk is 100% logical). If you had the power to make them regret typing stuff, as the TLP suggests you don't, then that would be a different story.

Also, a lot of men, while for one reason or the other, pretending to be women on dating sites have felt apalled at the treatment they received. So, growing a "thicker skin" against this particular treatment is something that a lot of men never have to do. I would propose to people making those arguments to impersonate an attractive woman on the internet or raise any sort of feminist-sounding issue while female on the internet, and see if they want to keep doing it. What I agree with is that publishing articles that the troll will never read is not what I would do. I would either ignore or attack back, depending on the resources/stakes.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Has anyone brought up the s... (Below threshold)

May 21, 2014 7:17 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Has anyone brought up the significance of Google+ real-name posts on YouTube and how that only seemed to increase the ratio of shitheadery?

When that fiasco was in progress, I took joy in imagining posters easily setting themselves up for a Silent Bob and Jay visit like the Movie Poop Shoot, so the table could be turned:

All you Motherf*kers are gonna pay! You are the ones who are the ball-lickers!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Get help! ... (Below threshold)

May 21, 2014 7:38 PM | Posted by Floyd Smith: | Reply

Get help!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
jonny's on a roll for sure.... (Below threshold)

May 21, 2014 7:49 PM | Posted by el : | Reply

jonny's on a roll for sure.

You are half of Power's wet dream, 50% of what dreams are made of. They're getting the other half ready now. So you hang tight. When the time is right, you will fight. Boys like you aren't made for war. Wars are made for boys like you. Win, lose, die, live, love, hate, it doesn't matter. It's all profit. You were born to be the hero of you. So thank you. Thank you for your sacrifice.

That would be Samantha Power, eh jonny?

It does take a bit of remove to understand jonny's posts. A bit of remove, such as removing your focus from your self's glare in the quicksilver. But then that would require you stop projecting onto jonny whatever history and profile you've already assured yourself is the real chronology.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
In any case I feel bad f... (Below threshold)

May 21, 2014 8:03 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by el puerco: | Reply

In any case I feel bad for your mother, who undoubtedly had to spend Mother's Day sitting alone in a retirement home somewhere because her spiteful, vitriolic, kissless virgin son was too busy raging against females on the internet.

Words are just words. They have only the power you give them when you read or hear them.

Apparently you enjoy hunting down misogynists and you think you're the great Elmer Fudd here, blunderbuss trained on Jonny the Forum Misogynist, already smugly beaming a doofy grin because you bagged yourself a Patriarchy-Promoter.

I suppose it would be embarrassing for you to consider that the jonny posts are written intentionally for purposes other than as heartfeld angst and sincere sin-box confessions.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>That would be Samantha Pow... (Below threshold)

May 21, 2014 9:05 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

>That would be Samantha Power, eh jonny?

Just get straight to the point, i.e. Freemason happy-time. As if the UN building wasn't completely decked out in geometric ratios and Roman paganism.

Or if you're really old school, Templar Knights.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Excellent post and wonderfu... (Below threshold)

May 22, 2014 4:09 AM | Posted by Friv: | Reply

Excellent post and wonderful blog, I really like this type of interesting articles keep it up.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Shut the fuck up, douchebag... (Below threshold)

May 22, 2014 10:10 AM | Posted, in reply to el puerco's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Shut the fuck up, douchebag. You're too stupid to live. Kill yourself.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
<a href="http://www.vox.com... (Below threshold) This isn't a novel (I don't... (Below threshold)

May 22, 2014 11:39 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

This isn't a novel (I don't think) and Jonny is not an omniscient narrator. But many of you are acting like he is and you're protesting motivations and intent, none of which Jonny can really know or you can fully understand. All we can be sure of is behavior itself, the event itself. Jonny takes an unexceptional event---like getting married or having a kid---and puts a malevolent or "toddler" spin on it. His readers jump to say, "but I am not that!" But they forget that you cannot prove a negative, ever. It is up to Jonny, who is making the exceptional claim, to back up his assertions, and because your life is NOT his novel. he can't do that.

Psychoanalyzing him is also a fool's game. You have no idea what or who he is, or what his motivations are. You can't know because he is not just a character in your damn novel either. I can think offhand of about ten different plausible explanations for his posts, and only some of them have anything to do with emotional states. There is no way for me to know which, if ANY, of these plausible stories come close to the truth. Novelists are deeply dishonest in what they do, imputing clear motives to behavior in their characters; real humans tend not to work that way. Stuff is messy. Camus showed this very well in The Stranger.

So, yeah, don't get all torn up about someone's mean words. He is not the omniscient narrator of your damn novel. Of course, neither are you, but that's another thread.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Re: The real ID thing.... (Below threshold)

May 22, 2014 1:42 PM | Posted, in reply to Felonious Grammar's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Re: The real ID thing.

The reason that people want REAL ID (TM) has nothing to do with the online bully. The online bully is the excuse. The point is to remove privacy from online interactions in general.

Who benefits? Anyone with an interest in seeing their agenda put forward. Eich (Firefox CEO) got fired when he was "outted" as having contributed to an anti-gay marriage campaign. There was no evidence whatever that he'd done anything negative to gays in his company, nor that he'd ever said a cross word to gays. He had a political opinion (one I disagree with, but that's beside the point. He was driven out of his company because he disagreed with the wrong people -- people with power and and agenda.

Consider any number of other political opinions you might hold and perhaps dare to talk about online. It doesn't have to be social issues. What about health care? Suppose you work for a company that sells health insurance. Wouldn't it be sort of dangerous to be signing your legal name to an opinion that disagrees with your company's "party line"? What if you work for Target and happen to support the fast food worker's strike? There are dozens of possibilities, and the reality is that your employer would love to be able to weed out people who have a political disagreement with. So would Social Justice Warriors.

There's something stopping that from happening. That something is the ability to put something on the internet without having to put your real name on it. Anonymity. Disgustingly it prevents the Elitist Superstructure from punishing people who disagree with what the Elitist Superstructure wants them to believe. Right now, the only way to punish someone who speaks anonymously is to Dox them. Essentially you google search all kinds of things they talk about to drill down and find a real name. Then, you get to punish them for thoughtcirmes.

That's a pain in the ass, don't you think? Wouldn't it be so much easier to grind the dissenters in the gears of the matrix if we forced the batteries to sign off on everything they write on the internet? One problem though, that's not an easy sell, telling someone that they have to give up on anonymity and privacy to make it easier for the Matrix to purge its ranks of free thinkers. So you change the story. Suddenly a wild troll appears. They're threatening our womyns with rape! They're saying racist things! They're threatening people! **not doing any of those things, not even attempting to, but hide that from the proles** So the entire internet must be made safe from cyberbullies not by telling people to unfriend the idiots, or blocking them, or simply not talking to them. That's stupid. The only "real solution" is to make sure that every thought posted online is indexed by the poster's REAL NAME(TM)to make thoughtcrime easier to punish. Of course, we'll never abuse that power, even though we actually already have. The better to maintain power -- for the good of the proles, of course. They need the Elites to protect them from rape jokes. And as a side benefit, we can crush any opinion we don't like. Just find the trouble makers and fire them.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Maybe you just figured out ... (Below threshold)

May 22, 2014 3:18 PM | Posted, in reply to DannyGoldberg's comment, by Susan: | Reply

Maybe you just figured out that 95% of people on the planet are morons and the other 5% are definitely assholes. I mean...there's narcissism- and then there's *that*.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
test... (Below threshold)

May 22, 2014 11:56 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

test

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hymen Spotnitz is the psych... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 12:18 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Hymen Spotnitz is the psychiatrist/psychoanalyst on clinical treatment for the Narcissistic disorders. First to understand is the Narcissistic Defense. The N turns aggression around onto the self.This is Narcissistic Rage. Treatment consists of freeing the rage. No creativity or progress can take place until this rage is harnessed in a way that works for the patient and to free it up takes a skilled clinician not a pop therapist.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
And thus talking strategies... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 1:11 AM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

And thus talking strategies used for the neurotic patient are not applicable yet for the N, is this correct?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I think that men who go out... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 8:32 AM | Posted, in reply to feelingsaregay's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I think that men who go out of their way to pose as something they are not don't necessarily overlap with the sort of men that grow thick skins. They're more firmly in the narcissistic camp by virtue of, whether they consciously intend it, looking for reasons to be hurt, and validate that they are so important that others care enough to hurt them.

I think an issue to explore is that many people turn to this route simply because they have no one else in their life that they can look to for validation of their existence. Americans kick their kids out at 18, and regard them as failures when they move back, while the ones that "make it", end up working ever increasing hours to maintain a small apartment in an oh-so-diverse neighborhood where they have an even chance of speaking the same language as their neighbors, much less having enough in common to make a connection.
If they work their way out, isolation has become a habit, a tradition that is passed to their children, most likely while their parents move from town to town, looking for "community", never understanding that the sort of person they are is the majority now, not black, white, gay, straight, but that strange new ethnicity, Lonely-American.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
What does "school x 16, spo... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 10:59 AM | Posted by Klaus D.: | Reply

What does "school x 16, sports x 12, violin x 6" mean? I don't understand the numbers.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Years. Its multiply by year... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 11:53 AM | Posted, in reply to Klaus D.'s comment, by Anon.the.anon: | Reply

Years. Its multiply by years.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So now the need for sleep i... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 12:44 PM | Posted by frubert: | Reply

So now the need for sleep is a media fabrication, too? Yeesh.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hymen Spotnitz is ... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 3:07 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Hymen Spotnitz is the psychiatrist/psychoanalyst on clinical treatment for the Narcissistic disorders.

You made that name up. Didn't you? DIDN'T YOU?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Don't they? And if she did,... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 6:52 PM | Posted, in reply to Tobias Boon's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Don't they? And if she did, doesn't she then get angry about the unrealistic expectation that she will not age, or that she does not look different in some other way?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
LOL! Actually it is real if... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 7:20 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

LOL! Actually it is real if you wiki it. I heard him in his 70's and 80's and he was so utterly brilliant and enchanting he could take a hostile audience of 200 people and put them in the palm of his hand and play with them. The only ones who were better at it were the older - than he - women he first trained at the Jewish Board of Guardians in NYC. Sorry I have forgotten their names. I am tto lazy to look them up but they were marvelous when I heard them speak. Clinically always.

If you are really interested in this - apart from commenting - then read Francoise Dolto's book Dominique:An Analysis of An Adolescent Boy. The very best case study I ever read in my life and I have read a slew of them.Each visit has a short essay and then the complete transcript of the visit. It is a miraculous case study and cure. And 30 years later I found out that Dolto was Lacan's analyst. She went with him into excommunication from the International Psychoanalytic organization. You need to know that this is the group that kept the Wolfman secret and supported - meagerly - all his life so he would never talk to anyone about Freud and his analysis. A young German woman journalist found him and became his friend. Her book is so worth reading.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yes Melanie Klein was perfe... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 7:29 PM | Posted, in reply to feizhuzhu's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Yes Melanie Klein was perfect to mention. I find alone somewhat behind on continental philosophy which is very Lacanian.Alone is a clinician and a very good one. His article here on Ritalin is still a classic.

The new feminists are very sophisticated in all this. Butler, Rubenstein, and so many many others that I would love to post links to but this software puts links into moderation. Or at least mine. But I do not find alone particularly sexist at all. I just think he is not keeping up but trying to alert his readers to the here and now.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The very interesting women ... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 7:31 PM | Posted, in reply to frubert's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

The very interesting women I met on a plane going to see Baba for his birthday said he never slept. The best I ever felt in my life was on a year of 4 hours a night. No the best eve was doing a study on dream deprivation for one week.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Abbey, Curious as ... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 8:03 PM | Posted by Joey: | Reply

Abbey,

Curious as to whether you've blogged about the similarities between John Nash and his son, and how blurry the line is with biology.

Not that there are ever black and white considerations.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sorry don't know anything a... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 9:23 PM | Posted, in reply to Joey's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Sorry don't know anything about John Nash.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Nash was a Economics Nobel ... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 9:54 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Joey: | Reply

Nash was a Economics Nobel Laureate who is more often noted for having "suffered" from schizophrenia. Per your mention of Spotnitz, whose work I am entirely unfamiliar with, I was curious as to what mention Spotnitz gives of schizophrenia as a defense.

Thank you for your time.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
OK I read and I knew about ... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 9:54 PM | Posted, in reply to Joey's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

OK I read and I knew about A Beautiful Mind which I didn't like.The youtube interview with his son is awful also. Obviously he got no significant help. You would like The Fifty Minute Hour by Robert Lindner composed of case studies of his very very psychotic patients, one of whom almost kills him. He is excellent and very close to R. D. Laing's work in treatment of psychotics. I think his wife has something to do with it. Some kind of trigger to do with his mother. His deep understanding of game theory would support this, as deep games go on with schizophrenics and their mothers and families.I like Ross Speck's work in this area using an extension of family therapy and the Navaho work with a disorder like this. I can't stand the present diagnosis and treatment. It is about Big Pharma and their bottom line.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Spotnitz wrote on Narcissis... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 9:59 PM | Posted, in reply to Joey's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Spotnitz wrote on Narcissism, a textbook with patient case studies interspersed. But Dominique by Dolto is flat out mad and ready to be institutionalized when brought to Dolto. Under the National Health Care umbrella. She was a star in her field at the time but most of them, including Winnecott in the UK (transitional object) devoted time to the National Health Care Service.

Schizophrenia is a clinical definition that is not very old. If you read Foucault's Madness and Civilization he will demolish it all for you. Thomas Szasz of The Myth of Mental Illness also.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I know it will go without s... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 10:09 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by joey: | Reply

I know it will go without saying that you're most likely aware how helpful a person you are, but I'll say so nonetheless: Thank you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Schizophrenia as a defense?... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 10:10 PM | Posted, in reply to Joey's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Schizophrenia as a defense? Let's see. Schizophrenia is a diagnostic label, a clinical label that allows a psychiatrist to figure out what meds to give them. I participated in some med studies for lots of money and knew other volunteers. They are awful drugs.And the studies were corrupted but no one cares.

Melanie Klein's work on partial objects and the good mother/bad mother split in the primary paranoid position. The infant must perceive the mother as all nourishing, all wonderful, but sometimes she will not be that. She will be angry, abusive maybe, hostile to the infant who must deal with this "other" mother. The internalized imago of the mother splits the introject and the infant psyche now includes the bad mother/ good mother introject. It is intolerable for the infant to embrace the "bad mother" when its very life depends on her. Nash's wife as a transference object figures in this but I have no idea how. Her pregnancy set him off and that is bypassed. I once had a patient who at 20 had gone thru a slew of therapists. Very sophisticated patient and paying for her own treatment while dropped out of college. She had had more than one therapist who left the treatment because she was pregnant, and my patient never knew she was pregnant. This was startling.I probably learned more from her than anything else as her recovery was dazzling.But she backed me up against the wall every time we met. She pushed me to my limits. This is unnerving to therapists not trained to welcome it, and not having the present supervision to respond correctly to it, emotionally and intellectually. She left treatment to an amazing future I could never have imagined or accomplished for myself who had dreams in that direction. My supervising analyst pointed that out to me.Nicely but still it hurt.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Thanks. Mostly I get horren... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 10:12 PM | Posted, in reply to joey's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Thanks. Mostly I get horrendous insults. Foucault also wrote another on this (Foucault is my idol) on Psychology. His first book. Get the one with the original and his later editing of it. He afterwards repudiated both versions and tried to stop publication but his publisher wouldn't.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Aha, you practice, I see. O... (Below threshold)

May 23, 2014 11:33 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by joey: | Reply

Aha, you practice, I see. One more thing: For some reason it had come to mind reading your account; (may come off as entirely irrelevant) is there anything in the way of, say, common denominator(s) when it comes to patients that are left-handed? It is never talked about, save for Darian Leader, who has raised the question that left handers way of identification is well, different.

I am not a journo major or anything--but young and truly fascinated altogether.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I do not practice anymore b... (Below threshold)

May 24, 2014 2:28 AM | Posted, in reply to joey's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

I do not practice anymore but I think about it a lot. As for left handedness I have spent a lot of time on that one.But you ask about the common denominator and I think that is a false question that the Dominating Discourse teaches one to ask. Now I am framed in post modern - continental philosophical thinking, so I think most of your questions are made up, fabricated by the culture, and don't exist outside the culture. Of course there are always those who think divergently, and right now a new movie for YA is titled Divergent.

In cest for example what is it? In this movie Divergent there are two young actors - Shai Woodley and Ansel Elgort - who play brother and sister in Divergent. But the new movie coming out shortly is The Fault In Our Stars of two young cancer patients falling in love (of course it will end sadly). BUt what is highly disturbing is that fans are experiencing weirdness that two actors who play brother and sister in one movie are playing lovers in another movie. Seriously bothered by this. This means that they are so invested in this fanning, that the Simulated Reality of the movie has infected real life for them to the extent that they do not experience any boundary. These are the patients referred to as "borderline" patients. Not having any ego strength. A weak ego that cannot tell the difference. OK so far?I mean there are postings in the comments and tweets every day and they generate considerable threads about this.

So I have written about it reading incest through Deleuze who is a great Freud reader BTW. http://moviesandfilm (dot) blogspot( dot)com/2014/05/brother-and-sister-incestdivergent-and.html

Deleuze as you are about to see links Capitalism and Schizophrenia and links paranoia to despotic machine and hysteria to the territorial machine. I am taking a course right now online at the Global Center for Advanced Studies on Deleuze with Clayton Crockett. I suggest you look into tis as a 3 credit online course with 3 meetings is $49. There will be a residential one with ZIZEK in MI this summer. And Caputo will also be there. The most radical theologist of our time. These are the most outrageous thinkers in the US right now in this area.

As for left handedness Jerome Bruner wrote a book of essays called Essays for the Left Hand and there are piano pieces composed for the left hand for a pianist who lost one hand during WWI.I feel this is a better way to think about left handedness: art; aesthetics, etc. I once watched moths for hours going around a light in the ceiling to see if they were left circlers or right. They would change from time to time and I never got an answer that would hold up experimentally but I did see that they were "ambidextrous." Leonardo was also as we know he wrote as if in a mirror which dyslexics tend to do if not stopped. But then that unique perception is taken from them isn't it?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
<a href="https://www.youtub... (Below threshold)

May 24, 2014 4:29 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbv5Vpa-B-0

Watch the whole thing and then read this.

http://www.keyt.com/news/shooting-in-isla-vista/26152454

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Everything Alone has writte... (Below threshold)

May 24, 2014 6:43 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Everything Alone has written about mass shooters sounds once again incredibly relevant.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Now I am framed in... (Below threshold)

May 24, 2014 10:24 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Now I am framed in post modern - continental philosophical thinking, so I think most of your questions are made up, fabricated by the culture, and don't exist outside the culture.

How fucking convenient, you bullshit artist.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
That of which you call "bul... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 12:45 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Dae-su Oh: | Reply

That of which you call "bullshit" was HEAVILY influenced by the author (Ludwig Wittgenstein) of the top banner of the blog you read/comment on, you (Oldboy reference alert) "dickshit."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Huh?... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 1:15 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Huh?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sigh.Continental p... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 2:31 AM | Posted, in reply to Dae-su Oh's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Sigh.

Continental philosophy is fine. It's the snake oil salesman who gets to decide your questions are "made up" at his self-serving whim that I'm calling bullshit on.

And the work that the quote at the top of this page comes from (th Tractatus) is a work that is literally on the opposite side of the philosophical spectrum, dummy. And the work after that literally sought to reduce most philosophical arguments to confusion of language/conflicting "language games."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
@10:24 @2:31 Have you ever ... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 3:38 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

@10:24 @2:31 Have you ever asked yourself why you want others to fail?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Actually my huh was to the ... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 3:40 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Actually my huh was to the bullshit comment. Increasingly I find I cannot reply to comments that try to force me into their box where I am muzzled.But doing this helps to clarify my ways of saying what I want to say as simply as possible. This is one thing I like about Zizek. They can't pin him down. And he is so very funny.More and more I see that any stand or theory gets spun against you and you are in another ping-pong game.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Want others to fail at what... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 3:52 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Want others to fail at what? Continuously misrepresenting ideas while simultaneously acting like an authority on them? Yes, I would like people to fail at doing that. There are a lot of impressionable readers.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>There are a lot of impress... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 4:52 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>There are a lot of impressionable readers.

So calling "bullshit" on the comments section of a little-read blog is a great measure of effect?

There are no less than ten million other things you could be spending time/effort on with more far-reaching results than this.

You're not stupid, but still, keep this in mind--time is finite.

Now move.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You comment on the little t... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 5:05 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

You comment on the little things and the big things will take care of themselves. Your language is imprisoning you. Ever read The Prison House of Language? Slater I think.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The reason why liberals lik... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 8:26 AM | Posted by Heaviside: | Reply

The reason why liberals like Zizek is because he is novel, and, as they like to say in the Platypus Society, the Left is dead. It is all out of ideas. But wait, doesn't this Zizek guy have new ideas? Actually, they aren't. He is a fascist. Lefties just don't recognize this because genuine right-wing thought has been so completely removed from public intellectual discourse people don't even know what it looks like anymore, nor would they recognize it if they saw it.

He speaks the language of modern Continental philosophers, but deep down he has much more in common with the Nouvelle Droite and fellows like Alexander Dugin than any liberal. You may say that I abuse the term "liberal" by using it as equivalent to "leftist," but there are no more leftists who aren't liberals around anymore. Sure, some use hyperbolic rhetoric, but that kind of rhetoric has become an institution of contemporary society, so that it actually reenforces liberal power structures instead of weakening them.

Dugin believes that post-modern society is in a process of never-ending ending, and what most be done is to complete the ending so that history can start over again. He also states in his "Metaphysics of National Bolshevism" that there are only two sides: National Bolsheviks and Liberals, and you are with one or the other. Zizek says essentially the same thing, the he obviously does not use the term "National Bolshevik."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Ideology is a game of contr... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 8:29 AM | Posted by Heaviside: | Reply

Ideology is a game of contrasts. You cannot have an ideology without an enemy. Liberalism no longer has a clearly-defined enemy, which is why it is dying(we are no longer willing to be as ruthless against Afghanistani civilians as we were with Germans explicitly targeted in terror bombings, even though we were not engaged in a guerilla war with the latter.) Winning hearts and minds? Should we have been so kind to poor Greta, burned alive by the RAF, her family buried under the rubble. Oh, but you only want to hear the story of Anne Frank in the 500th retelling, don't you?

Zizek does not contrast his leftism with fascism, conservatism, or reactionary monarchism, but with liberalism. If you draw a Venn diagram of Marxism-Leninism, and you subtract everything in common it has with Liberalism, you are left only with what both the left and right of today would denounce as "fascism". National Bolshvism is the ideology of everyone who appreciates in communism precisely what liberals hate about it. As Jonathan Bowden said, "the harshness, the camps, the secret police, the belief in struggle!"

Zizek believes that the only utopianism is to believe that things can continue as they are indefinitely. Orwell said that fascism was the desire to avoid the utopia of the too-rational and too-comfortable world. What is that utopia but the world of today? Then the fascist is the one who rebels against this utopia, precisely as Zizek suggests we do.

Being a closeted fascist is far worse than being a closeted homosexual, especially in today's society, so you learn pretty well how to sniff out your clandestine comrades. Zizek is one of us.

And what does that say about where the world is heading? That perhaps the most popular leftist intellectual of any substance is actually a fascist? Do you think your weak and pathetic Obama will stand up to Putin? His bodyguard just got a new shipment of leather trenchcoats. The Iron Dream is rising from the ashes.

Heil Hitler! We have a world to win!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fXPKfJ_H4s

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Please provide proper citat... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 10:01 AM | Posted, in reply to Heaviside's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Please provide proper citation from any of Zizek's writing that would lead you to believe he is a fascist.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
...but the world isn't rati... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 11:43 AM | Posted, in reply to Heaviside's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

...but the world isn't rational or comfortable!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
All the comments about inte... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 2:11 PM | Posted by feelingsaregay: | Reply

All the comments about internet threats being insubstantiated sound (rather, read) so hollow now in the aftermath of the guy who posted online about killing a bunch of females and then actually did it!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Why? He followed the age-ol... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 3:43 PM | Posted, in reply to feelingsaregay's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Why? He followed the age-old model of: manifesto -> dead people. He didn't harass his victims online.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You have to be in error bec... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 5:54 PM | Posted, in reply to Heaviside's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

You have to be in error because Zizek would NEVER say that anything came down to 2 choices. Because he is a deep Lacanian and Hegelian and he knows exactly what fascist means. Unlike you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Comments cannot demand cita... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 6:10 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Comments cannot demand citations as in a thesis or dissertation. Not the place for them. Besides Zizek has NEVER offered a theory. He is too smart for that. I am sure you can comb his interviews and writings and come up with stuff that rings fascist. Interpretation leads to ping pong and that's why Foucault threw it in the toilet. Forever. Zizek is slippery and you will never pin him down. Baudrillard maybe, but he's dead now and he wouldn't try anyway. Zizek has so very much to offer, so why not concentrate on his superlative insights.They are legend.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I would reckon that you've ... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 6:59 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I would reckon that you've compiled a working list of suggested reading electronically somewhere?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I wouldn't even know where ... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 7:32 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

I wouldn't even know where to begin. You could start with my blogs. http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I agree about Zizek. He is ... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 8:33 PM | Posted, in reply to Heaviside's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I agree about Zizek. He is indeed a Fascist. He hates the crass materialism of today's culture, the softness; claims there is no place for virtue within it. You called this one right.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Why does this make him a fa... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 8:36 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Why does this make him a fascist. A fascist must think inside the Dominating Discourse of classical Hegelian opposites. Zizek doesn't,

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>one textbook narcissistic ... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 8:43 PM | Posted, in reply to feelingsaregay's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>one textbook narcissistic psychopath follows up on his threats, so that means internet anonymity is bad and everyone who types something that offends your delicate sensibilities is a potential spree shooter

Fuck off.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This young guy is just Dete... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 8:49 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

This young guy is just Deterrence. A spectacle that has your attention today. Bread and circuses.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>[you] cannot demand citati... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 8:53 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>[you] cannot demand citations as in a thesis or dissertation.

Except I can and I just did.

You (or rather Heaviside) made the claim that Zizek is a fascist based on a vague, 5-paragraph word vomit that doesn't actually provide examples of him touting fascist ideology.

And as for your other comment, I have combed through Zizek's writing, as well as all of his television and film appearances. Either substantiate your claim or don't expect anyone to take you seriously, and based on your rambling, incoherent blog, I don't think very many people will.

>I agree about Zizek. He is indeed a Fascist. He hates the crass materialism of today's culture, the softness; claims there is no place for virtue within it. You called this one right.

Still waiting for someone to post something from his writings that would even hint at him being a fascist.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
And when have I ever said o... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 8:57 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

And when have I ever said otherwise? Even so, how does it matter?

What does the ridiculous pseudo-intellectual redpill faggotry in your post have to do with my response to feelingsargay?

People are now going to take this event and try to spin it into "internet anonymity is bad" and "preventative measures should be taken to stop and / or expose internet trolls", just like they always do. Protip: the problem, once again, is not everybody else: it's you. If you can't handle something as trivial as being harassed on the internet by people you don't even know, then perhaps it's time for some self-reflection.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You can demand that's right... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 9:02 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

You can demand that's right. But you ain't gonna get.

Substantiate my claim? Well you can come over and watch me read. I am not gonna fall into the trap of playing this game on your baseball field.You are not gonna frame this argument for me.Not gonna happen.

">I agree about Zizek. He is indeed a Fascist. He hates the crass materialism of today's culture, the softness; claims there is no place for virtue within it. You called this one right."

Sorry but how does hatred of consumer culture and fascism go together. I do not think he is a fascist.Yes he has said some fascist things. Yes he is not consistent. Yes he does not propose a theory that you can pick at for academic coolness, tenure,celebrity at Zizek conferences.

Well I remember his saying in an interview that if the planet is to be saved for us then Draconian measures are going to have to be taken and that we won't like that.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Of course people are going ... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 9:06 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Of course people are going to do that. That's what Deterrence is. There is no anonymity here. Anyone could have found out his identity had they wanted to do so.Why are you harassing me?I guess because I keep replying to you thinking you might really want to know something. My bad.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>He didn't harass his victi... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 9:14 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>He didn't harass his victims online.

Technically he did, but most of it was in response to initially being bullied. Although considering his original comments that incited the online bullying, it's no wonder people shit on him on the internet, just as people shit on him in real life. There are scores of forum posts he had made on sites like the misc section of Bodbybulding.com (he clearly didn't even lift, but he was apparently very insecure about his height; he probably had some type of body dysmorphia), pickup artists sites, etc. And for all of them he used his real name. You can easily look them up.

So not only was he a slam-shut classic case of NPD, but he apparently wasn't that smart either. Being outraged about your height, appearance, and inability to get women is one thing, but announcing your virginity to the entire world via a Youtube weblog and a veritable shit-tonne of various internet forum comments is some next-level retardation.

His enormous sense of entitlement (all women owe me sex, and if they reject me then all women deserve to suffer), his hatred of those more successful than him (all jocks and all people who are sexually active must suffer, etc.), his secret feelings of universal superiority (while simultaneously having his self esteem depend entirely on how people view his constructed, projected fake-self), his ideal image of himself as some kind of "god", his harlequin personality sewn together with pieces from his favorite television and movie characters, his stilted affectations and mannerisms, his referring to himself as the "supreme gentleman", his use of the word "degenerates" to describe people he looked down upon (most especially white "alpha male" jocks and "obnoxious" black kids), and his tendency to speak like he's in a film in which he is the main character...

This kind of behavior should be incredibly familiar to anyone who's been browsing this site for at least a few years. This kid is like a walking stereotype. If there hadn't been actual, innocent people that had to suffer and die because of this, I would probably say it's funny. You couldn't even make this shit up. Elliot Rodger couldn't have been more of an N if Alone had written him as a character himself.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>You can demand that's righ... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 9:18 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>You can demand that's right. But you ain't gonna get.Substantiate my claim? Well you can come over and watch me read. I am not gonna fall into the trap of playing this game on your baseball field.You are not gonna frame this argument for me.Not gonna happen.

If demanding substantiation of wild claims you've made on the internet is "framing the argument for you" then I don't know what to say and you're beyond help.

Why did you even make the comment then? Do you expect people to take you seriously when you make wild claims without backing them up? And if the answer is no, who are you writing for? Yourself? Do you just like to hear yourself talk?

>I guess because I keep replying to you thinking you might really want to know something. My bad.

Hard to learn something useful from you when you refuse to provide citation for the simplest of claims.

Either explain why you think Zizek is a fascist or I don't see why you're even part of this conversation. Although apparently you don't think he's a fascist, Heaviside does, so I really don't even know why you felt the need to chime in there, unless of course it was to shill your blog for page hits.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Wow. The Force is strong wi... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 9:40 PM | Posted by Susan: | Reply

Wow. The Force is strong with this thread.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>Technically he did<p... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 10:30 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>Technically he did

But technically he didn't. You're right that he had an online presence, and it's true that he made a video outlining his plan. Neither of that amounts to harassing his victims online, who were, as far as I've read, randoms whom he never interacted with online. Unless details have come out that I'm not aware of.

>pickup artists sites

I don't know if he posted on a pickup artist site, but I do know that he posted on a site called PUAhate, which was dedicated to condemning pick up artists as fraudsters, liars, etc. I know the difference because, for better or for worse, I'm a regular on bodybuilding.com's Misc section and PUAhate members often trolled on the Misc with their incredibly obsessive and toxic viewpoints. Nothing, not working out, not having confidence, personality, or "game", mattered more to the members of that community than "facial aesthetics", which they would analyze down to the canthal tilt of your eyes. It was literally a board full of Patrick Batemans. And I say "was" because the FBI has apparently shut it down.

He had maybe ~50 posts on bodybuilding.com, at least under that name. If you're not familiar with BB.com, that's hardly enough to be noticed (it's a fast-paced board with lots of members) and I don't even recall him posting on the forum. I've seen the screencaps of his posts, and to be honest, they read like thousands of other posters who would troll with that kind of stuff. And among those thousands, half appear to simply be fucking around, which is what I would have assumed about his posts had I seen them when they were posted. The fact that his videos come off as a parody is a repeated theme I've seen in other people's reactions: they seem too absurd to be serious.

He clearly had a lot of problems, and NPD jumps out, but one thing I've noticed is how utterly fast people have been in using this event as grounds to start yelling about things they don't like, whether it's guns, misogyny, or MRAs. I'm familiar enough with the crossover of BB.com users with Red Pill users and PUAHate users to know there are tons of nuances and subtleties in the perspectives and what is or isn't trolling that make generalizing incredibly useless. And part of me is convinced that if this guy had a girlfriend and no internet access he still would have killed people. But what I'm amazed at is how fast people are becoming at turning events into ideological opportunities. I guess it's just copy + paste at this point. Older folks go after the guns, younger kids go after MRA. Nobody considers the possibility that they're wrong.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>But technically he didn't.... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 11:17 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>But technically he didn't. You're right that he had an online presence, and it's true that he made a video outlining his plan. Neither of that amounts to harassing his victims online, who were, as far as I've read, randoms whom he never interacted with online. Unless details have come out that I'm not aware of.

I guess this would depend on your definition of "harassment", but the comments he made were clearly hostile: mocking other users for their aesthetics, their race (he had a strange hatred for Asian males, and considering he was half-Asian himself it was probably some kind of jealousy and self-loathing about how full-Asian males were getting pussy while he himself, a half-Asian, was getting none), etc. They're still available on the Google cache even though the BB.com thread is now deleted.

>I don't know if he posted on a pickup artist site, but I do know that he posted on a site called PUAhate

I left this out of my previous post because I didn't think it mattered, but why do you think he was browsing PUAhate? Obviously he at one point tried out the whole pickup artist schtick and upon realizing it didn't work for him (on top of it being a system for virgin losers who have to turn the courting ritual into a checkbox game science), he joined the site and channeled his hatred there, yet again blaming other people for his various failures.

>If you're not familiar with BB.com, that's hardly enough to be noticed (it's a fast-paced board with lots of members) and I don't even recall him posting on the forum. I've seen the screencaps of his posts, and to be honest, they read like thousands of other posters who would troll with that kind of stuff. And among those thousands, half appear to simply be fucking around, which is what I would have assumed about his posts had I seen them when they were posted. The fact that his videos come off as a parody is a repeated theme I've seen in other people's reactions: they seem too absurd to be serious.

I'm familiar with the misc (I'm from /fit/). Having a userbase comprised of wannabe Patrick Batemans (sans the charisma and minus the ability to actually pull women) is not unique to BB.com, although it may be exacerbated by the shallow nature of the site's subject. It certainly doesn't excuse his content of his posts there. You can troll, fuck around, or say something in jest and not mean it. Alternatively, you can say something in complete seriousness, but never follow up on it in real life. Both options are better than saying something and meaning it, and then following up on it by shooting innocent bystanders.

I really do feel bad for those people who were walking down a sidewalk in Isla Vista, minding their own business, when a hurricane of virgin fury decided to end their lives, all because poor Elliot Rodgers, with all of his money and resources, was incapable of simply hiring a fucking hooker.

>And part of me is convinced that if this guy had a girlfriend and no internet access he still would have killed people.

We can make any number of baseless conjectures about what would or would not have happened if he had a girlfriend. Armchair analyzing this kid after he has already died is an exercise in determinism without any kind of real insight. I honestly think the best course of action is to not give him the positive attention he so desperately craved. People who think to do this sort of thing should see this as an example that they will not get the kind of recognition they hoped for.

Based on his worldview and outlook on life, it seems to me that he would have been a whiny miserable cunt regardless of having a girlfriend, but I don't think he would have gone on too shoot up random strangers. Having a girlfriend would have changed nothing, but maybe it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Who knows.

>But what I'm amazed at is how fast people are becoming at turning events into ideological opportunities. I guess it's just copy + paste at this point. Older folks go after the guns, younger kids go after MRA. Nobody considers the possibility that they're wrong.

Probably goes without saying but this is how it's always been and how it will always be. We're born, history will repeat itself, we'll die, and then new players will take the field, making the same mistakes in an endless loop.

If there was ever a stronger case for deciding not to have children I can't think of a better one than this. Not out of fear of raising your child to be a spree shooter (Rodgers himself admitted that his parents didn't treat him badly, although they could perhaps be implicated somewhat by not raising their child at all and substituting nurture with cars and money), but because I can't think of any reason why I'd want to subject another human being to the kind of world where they could get mowed down by some kid who put the pussy on a pedestal. I'll relinquish my right to add to the pool of human suffering, thanks.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>I guess this would depend ... (Below threshold)

May 25, 2014 11:58 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>I guess this would depend on your definition of "harassment", but the comments he made were clearly hostile

When I say "harassed the victims" I literally mean the victims of the shooting. Somebody said that Rodgers is a case of a cyberbully following through on their threat and I noted that that's not what happened. He may have made hostile comments to people on a forum, but he didn't actually threaten them and more importantly he didn't kill them. He killed randoms. He never cyberbullied his actual victims. Not saying this is better or worse, just pointing out what it isn't.

>Having a userbase comprised of wannabe Patrick Batemans (sans the charisma and minus the ability to actually pull women) is not unique to BB.com

I was referring to PUAHate w/r/t Bateman, not the Misc. Though Misc has its fair share.

>It certainly doesn't excuse his content of his posts there. You can troll, fuck around, or say something in jest and not mean it. Alternatively, you can say something in complete seriousness, but never follow up on it in real life. Both options are better than saying something and meaning it, and then following up on it by shooting innocent bystanders.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Obviously following up on a threat of mass murder is a bad thing. But he never made that threat on bodybuilding.com, and none of his posts were of a nature that implied he would do something like that. I'm not defending the content of his posts, but because of all of the trolling that goes on, the content didn't especially stand out. And that includes the hostility against Indians, manlets, etc. unfortunately.

>all because poor Elliot Rodgers, with all of his money and resources, was incapable of simply hiring a fucking hooker.

More conjecture, but I don't think he was looking for sex as much as he was looking for sex-as-validation. Hookers provide the sex, but not the validation. And [more useless conjecture] because of the N word, I don't think a girlfriend would give him the validation he was looking for either.

>Probably goes without saying but this is how it's always been and how it will always be.

Right, but note that it's the speed that amazes me. I feel like these days we get Slate articles by noontime and hashtag enemies before dinner.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I've decided not to reply t... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 3:55 AM | Posted, in reply to Susan's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

I've decided not to reply to any anonymous comments. Easy to gt entangled with A replying to A and using a site to converse and argue.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Since the narcissist turns ... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 6:03 AM | Posted by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Since the narcissist turns aggression back onto the self in analysis the narcissist needs to VERBALIZE his/her aggression onto you, the analyst. Bottled up anger gets violent, hateful, poisonous, etc. I would bet that he was not able to express his aggressive feelings in his family, that he constantly turned them back onto his self. Imagine the jealousy as his father worked with beautiful young girls who never paid any attention to him.How jealous he must have been. How much he must have wanted to lash out against his father and couldn't. It is important in a family to accept aggression early on, welcome it (verbalized aggression)and channel it into creativity. You are not going to get creative intelligence until aggression begins to focus outwards in a progressive constructive way. What the hell do you think all these govt military people are doing? Just finding ways to express their aggression (arms, secret ops, wars, espionage, etc)and just think they get paid a huge amount of tax money to do this.As long as the money flows and they do it, they will not have a breakdown. Why military come back from a war and go crazy.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Add to that his complete pa... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 8:05 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Add to that his complete passivity, whether in terms of self-improvement or actually talking to girls. And the indefinite aspect of his rage; sometimes it's against girls, sometimes against the guys who have sex with them. Sometimes it's against his brother, or black people. But naturally, in the end it's the easiest targets that he attack ("easiest" both in term of availability, courage or lack thereof, and most importantly, narrative).

Alone doesn't even need to post about this guy, the case speaks for itself.

Another interesting point; some people seem surprised that his victims were finally quite average-looking.
But that's precisely it. His rage wasn't grounded in reality; the world where everyone but him was oozing sexiness only existed in his own head. The fact that we expect his act to reflect his words speak volume about ourselves. This wasn't retribution against people more sexually successful than yourself, reader. This was a case of roughly ordinary kids getting gunned down for petty reasons.


"Well, there is a problem with women today..."
Sure, buddy. And that rage was entirely a product of "mental illness", too. We ourselves are nothing like that, right?

"I am so angry at _____." The direct object is a red herring, the subject-verb is the whole truth.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Why military come ... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 8:53 AM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Lurker: | Reply

Why military come back from a war and go crazy

One of the dumber things you've said.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This lack is not a botto... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 12:35 PM | Posted by Joan of Argghh!: | Reply

This lack is not a bottomless hole that nothing could ever fill, but a tiny, strangely shaped divot in your soul into which nothing could ever fit

Just wanted to see that line again.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I'm curious what Alone woul... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 4:23 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I'm curious what Alone would say about Elliot Rodger. I think the kid was gayer than a picnic basket, and that's okay minus the fact that he was so far in denial of it, it drove him to murder. He had to post a bunch of videos on YouTube and kill some people as the ultimate proof and expression of his frustration with women who he really, really, totally wanted to love him.

If you examine his language, he talks about how he wants girls to love him and enviously fixates on men. He never mentions loving a specific female. He talks about women in the abstract. "Beautiful, blonde girls," etc. He speaks about women in generic terms, which a lot of people are going to push as a frustrated heterosexual male who views women as objects, but to me it sounds like what you might say if you're faking it. What I don't understand is how people can call him a narcissist but refuse to understand that the image he is projecting of himself would possibly be a lie. Is that just because we think of narcissism as a sense of self-grandiosity rather than what it really is?

He also uses the word fabulous.

Two of his videos are titled "Why do girls hate me so much?" and "Life is so unfair because girls don't want me". That's called projection.

Few people are going to touch this narrative. Some psychologist on Fox News suggested it, and commenters at the Huffington Post were livid. They think it's about suggesting that homosexuals are bad, which, maybe it is if it's on Fox News. It's about a narcissist trying to force his image of himself onto others. "I'm heterosexual! Look, I'll kill these gorgeous blondes to prove it."

But I could be wrong. Doesn't matter. I'll never know. We'll never know. Unless someone comes out and says Elliot tried to kiss him on the mouth.

---

Here's "Life is so unfair because girls don't want me."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KP62TE1prs

Hey. Elliot Rodger here.

I'm just sitting in my car right now after watching that beautiful sunset descend beyond that hill up there, enjoying a nice vanilla latte. [sips] Oh yeah, that's nice, makes me feel all pumped up.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about how sad and unfair my life has been all because girls haven't been attracted to me.

I've been going through college for two and a half years now, and in those two and a half years, I've had to rot in bleak and sad loneliness, while other guys got to enjoy all the pleasures of, you know, sex and socializing and partying. I've never had a taste of that because no girls give me a chance. No girl at my college has ever expressed any interest in me. I mean, you give a chance to all these stupid, obnoxious guys that I see, that I see you walking with, but you don't give a chance to me.

Why not? I'm such a magnificent guy. I'm beautiful. You can't deny that. I've traveled all over the world. I have so much to talk about. I'm civilized. Intelligent. Sophisticated. I have a sense of style. And yet you girls don't see it. And every single day, I have to be insulted by the sight of all these lesser men walking around with beautiful girls. I see so many couples where the guy is just so unworthy of having a beautiful girlfriend like that, and yet, they're together. He has her love. And I've never had any of that love and affection from girls.

Why do you girls give those guys a chance, but not me? I deserve it more. It's not fair. Every single day I have to be insulted by the sight of guys enjoying girls while I'm all alone.

Even watching that sunset up there [sigh] is a bittersweet experience because while I love the peaceful beauty of it, I can't help but think of all the other guys who get to enjoy that same sunset with a beautiful girlfriend at their side while I'm sitting here all alone in my car. There's no beautiful girl in that passenger seat to enjoy it with me because you girls have something against me. I don't know what it is.

Whenever I drive through this college town called Isla Vista, which is just right next to UCSB, I see so many hot, beautiful blonde girls walking with absolute stupid, obnoxious-looking douchebags, and I just can't help but think how wrong that is. Those beautiful blonde girls should be walking with me, not those brutes. I deserve them more. Why do those horrible men get to experience the love and affection of such beautiful, heavenly girls, while I've had to rot in loneliness all my life. It's not fair. It's such an injustice.

I don't understand you girls, it's like your sexual attraction is flawed. It's perverted. You're attracted to the wrong kind of guy. You should be attracted to guys like me. Beautiful, magnificent guys.

This world, it's so twisted. It's so cruel. And you girls make it cruel. You girls have starved me of sex and enjoyment and pleasure for my entire youth. You've taken eight years away from my life, eight years I'll never get back. Do you know how much misery you've caused me? I'm such a nice guy, why won't you give me a chance?

---

"Why do girls hate me so much?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBvaVWdJRQM

Girls have never seemed to have any interest in me, and I want to know why. I'm such a perfect, beautiful, fabulous guy.

---

Excerpts from the manifesto:

---

Now I know what he meant. Childhood is fun, but when a boy reaches puberty a whole new world opens up to him… a whole new world with new pleasures, such as sex and love. Other boys will experience this, but not me, it pains me to say. That is the basis of my tragic life. I will not have a great time in the next ten years. The pleasures of sex and love will be denied to me. Other boys will experience it, but not me. Instead, I will only experience misery, rejection, loneliness, and pain.

[Specifically mentions boys, sex, love, and pleasure, but does not mention girls.]

---

It was no better inside the classroom. There was this one obnoxious jock with a buzz-cut who was taking the class with his gorgeous girlfriend. They always sat next to each other, talking and touching each other with affection. Every day I had to see this, and my envy grew and grew. I constantly glared at them with raw hatred. What did I do wrong that he did right? I yelled out to the universe on the way home. Why does he deserve the love of a beautiful girl, and not me? Why do girls hate me so? Questions and questions. All I could do was question why I was suffering so much injustice in life.

[More actively describes and focuses on men.]

---

All of the tall, hunky jocks that girls love so much will be having all of the sex and all of the fun, while an unwanted outcast like myself would rot in loneliness. I imagined that some attractive guys who only visited Isla Vista for the Halloween event will be getting laid that weekend. They’d be getting sex from just one night in Isla Vista, while I’m still a virgin after living there for over a year. It was too unfair. I wanted to punish them all.

---

All I had ever wanted was to love women, but their behavior has only earned my hatred. I want to have sex with them, and make them feel good, but they would be disgusted at the prospect.

[Hello! Seriously? Is this not obvious yet?]
---

One time while I was alone at Planet Cyber, I saw an older teenager watching pornography. I saw in detail a video of a man having sex with a hot girl. The video showed him stick his penis inside a girl’s vagina.

[Focused on the man and what the man is doing. One might alternatively say, "That bitch was gettin' fucked!" and something about fake tits.]

---

So… even at the early age of ten, boys were starting to be attracted to the female body. I didn’t understand this… I hadn’t yet reached that stage. I pretended to be interested just so that I wouldn’t appear uncool.

---


I always enjoyed my family’s get-togethers with the Humphreys. These get-togethers became a common occurrence in my life. Maddy became a very close friend of mine. She was the only friend from Farm School who I continued to see after I graduated. They had a huge back yard area, and the two of us would go on adventures. She also grew up watching The Land Before Time, and we would watch the sequels together whenever they released a new one.

Sometimes when I went to her house, she would have other female friends there, and I played with them too. I had no trouble interacting with girls at that age, surprisingly. My six-year-old self was playing with girls, unbeknownst to the horror and misery the female gender would inflict upon me later in my life. In the present day, these girls would treat me like the scum of the earth; but at that time, we were all equals. Such bitter irony.

---

I had to go Christmas shopping, and I decided to do it at the Calabasas Commons. I was always going there anyway. While walking around, I ran into Maddy, who was there with her boyfriend. For some strange reason, I have never had any sexual attraction towards Maddy, despite the fact that she’s a blonde girl and I’m obsessed with blondes. Perhaps it was because she used to be my friend when we were children, I don’t know.

[Nor anyone else in his manifesto. I searched through it for the words "love" and "date", found nothing indicating he was attracted to a specific female in his life at any point.]

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
tl;dr:Elliot Rodge... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 4:27 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

tl;dr:

Elliot Rodger didn't want to have sex with girls. He wanted to want to have sex with girls.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
What I don't understand ... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 4:43 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

What I don't understand is how people can call him a narcissist but refuse to understand that the image he is projecting of himself would possibly be a lie.

Everyone understands that the image he was pathetically trying to give of himself was fake. That's what narcissism is. But that doesn't mean that the person underneath was homosexual.

Even if he was (and that's still a pretty big if), there are many, many other things about himself the guy was obviously not processing. Him possibly being in the closet is only a minor part of the issue.

And that issue, as a whole, is the kind of narcissism Alone has described, combined with a total lack of self-awareness. By comparison, him being in denial about his own orientation doesn't have much explaining power.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It's a great line. Thanks.<... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 6:25 PM | Posted, in reply to Joan of Argghh!'s comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

It's a great line. Thanks.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Nice observation.... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 6:27 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Nice observation.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
No it doesn't.... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 6:29 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

No it doesn't.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
High suicide rate. Mental h... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 6:33 PM | Posted, in reply to Lurker's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

High suicide rate. Mental health problems. Work problems. Hello?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Alone doesn't even need to... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 6:34 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

"Alone doesn't even need to post about this guy, the case speaks for itself."

So why don't you take your own advice?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You are becoming strangely ... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 6:36 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

You are becoming strangely obsessed with his sexual orientation and what he has said. Don't you find this disturbing?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The narcissist is a borderl... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 6:38 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

The narcissist is a borderline pre-oedipal personality disorder as clinical terminology labels it.

Pre-oedipal means that sexual orientation has not been established.So why all the fuss about that here?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Oh you have no idea of all ... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 6:42 PM | Posted, in reply to Lurker's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Oh you have no idea of all the dumb things I've said. This doesn't even come close.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
High suicide rate.... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 6:57 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

High suicide rate. Mental health problems. Work problems. Hello?

You're just trying to draw me into the Dominating Discourse where, as Foucault observed, everything becomes mired in the "swamp of interpretation." I'm not going to play ball on your field.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Signed,Lurker... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 6:58 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Signed,

Lurker

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Personally, I think this is... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 7:06 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Lurker: | Reply

Personally, I think this is a great observation. I don't know why abbeysbooks would give you shit for displaying good scholarship (to wit: "You are becoming strangely obsessed with his sexual orientation and what he has said. Don't you find this disturbing?"). That's bullshit. As a journalist at a MAJOR news network, I can assure you that I haven't combed that so-called manifesto for the kind of quotes you culled, so good on you. IMO, you've crafted not only a viable and well-supported opinion, but also a pretty solid clinical examination of the projection mechanism.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
" As a journalist at a MAJO... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 8:48 PM | Posted, in reply to Lurker's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

" As a journalist at a MAJOR news network, I can assure you that I haven't combed that so-called manifesto for the kind of quotes you culled, so good on you. "

So you the major news journalist is a lurker here? Bashing me for the second time. Ahem.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Well when in Rome........ (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 8:49 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Well when in Rome.....

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Abbeysbooks are you autisti... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 9:21 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Abbeysbooks are you autistic?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
jonny has a blog, for those... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 9:48 PM | Posted by cmoney: | Reply

jonny has a blog, for those interested. It's got some interesting posts, if not a bit repetitive and a bit over the top. He actually links to it here somewhere.

It's telling, though, that he appears to live in Thailand, and most of his IM and text chats posted are him using very sophisticated English with deep subject matter directed at girls whose understanding of english clearly isn't great, and who are younger and less intelligent than him.

Perhaps if he didn't surround himself with only the types of women he rails against, his experiences wouldn't be so self-fulfilling.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>jonny has a blog, for thos... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 9:55 PM | Posted, in reply to cmoney's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>jonny has a blog, for those interested. It's got some interesting posts, if not a bit repetitive and a bit over the top. He actually links to it here somewhere.

If I wanted to read the psychotic ramblings of a mentally ill virgin psychopath, I'd probably just go back and re-read the Elliot Rodgers manifesto. At least then I might get a few laughs.

Thanks though.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Your article is very good, ... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 11:36 PM | Posted by Lipai: | Reply

Your article is very good, I was so excited to read it and also have many emotions. I hope everything will be fine. Friv 2

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Do you have a name?... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 11:48 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Do you have a name?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
One of the things that real... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2014 11:52 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

One of the things that really struck me about Elliot Rodgers in his videos was the whole evil laugh thing he was doing: it seemed so contrived that I had such a hard time beliving he himself didn't notice how fake it was. He struck me immediately as someone who was acting but who was a such incredibly poor actor that it would have made his performance utterly laughable if it weren't for the lives ruined by his actions.. Fucking creep.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"I am so angry at _____." T... (Below threshold)

May 27, 2014 12:06 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"I am so angry at _____." The direct object is a red herring, the subject-verb is the whole truth.

Bullshit. The emotion is select for a reason. Object is half the equation.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This will be used to say so... (Below threshold)

May 27, 2014 3:07 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

This will be used to say something about men, how men treat women, and how men objectify women. "This is why we need X," where X = Feminism, carving a path to associate Elliot Rodger's behavior with that of CEOs or engineering students or some other perceived male-dominated group.

The response to these shootings is typically ineffective politicization. In this case, we need more gun control and we should heed the feminists. If only we forced Elliot Rodger to take a Women's Studies course, this never would have happened. And while I don't want to get too tangential here, if feminists were comparing Elliot with the men he hated pre-mass-murder, am I wrong in assuming the feminists would be more content with Elliot's behavior? He never bothered or inconvenienced any women by asking one out on a date. He never grabbed one's ass. He didn't eat at Hooters. And he didn't subscribe to Maxim magazine. Somehow, all these other men who objectify women get by without mass murder.

We all remember when Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read. "All of 'em, any of 'em..." "Can you name a few?" People were prepared, even eager, to believe Sarah Palin never read a single newspaper based on that. If I can't find Elliot Rodger fixating on any particular female rather than all of 'em, any of 'em, or at least the hot, beautiful, gorgeous blondes, why can't I assume he's gay? Even the most self-absorbed narcissist can fake his love for a woman. Why didn't Elliot? Because women didn't love him, because that's what he told us in his manifesto catered to influence our opinion of him? He's an unreliable narrator.

The reason I point this out at all is less about understanding him and more about rejecting the narrative of this story, which we will hear about for another couple of weeks. Elliot Rodger truly was resentful toward women, he felt entitled to them, and other men feel this way and that is bad because who knows when the next one will snap.

And that makes a lot less sense if he was gay.

If you have time to scan his manifesto, it's like a nonfiction Notes from Underground.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I hope to see Alone deconst... (Below threshold)

May 27, 2014 5:23 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I hope to see Alone deconstruct this whole sorry episode in the same manner he analysed Sodini. The mainstream anti-gun, anti-male (curious how an effeminate, possibly homosexual virgin is an example of "toxic masculinity", unless we are speaking in homeopathic terms) narrative is somewhat lacking in refinement.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yup. Not to mention the att... (Below threshold)

May 27, 2014 9:45 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Silvia: | Reply

Yup. Not to mention the attempts to make this the poster case for better mental illnes screening or public funding for it etc.

I think that there is something going on with misogyny here (and also racism), but it´s not what it seems and not what people want to make it into. It might be a mistake to rebrand these killings as a kind of "this is what misogyny will get you" narrative.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
My impression is that both ... (Below threshold)

May 27, 2014 9:57 AM | Posted, in reply to Silvia's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

My impression is that both his misogyny and his violence have the same source: the N-word.

Hate of any sort is a common proxy for narcissism, and the obsession with women is pretty much a given in a 20 yo N.

More generally, rage against the other sex will be one of the default answers to the ego being threatened, regardless of age.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
For me, I see the same: the... (Below threshold)

May 27, 2014 10:27 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Silvia: | Reply

For me, I see the same: the N-word. But different than Soldini...

The dead giveaway was Rodgers long term inability (unwillingness? not sure which) to see other human beings as real, they only existed as far as they were relevant to him. Women- not even all women, just "pretty white blond girls" were supposed to be the prop to get him sex, i.e. make him look like a stud to his male peers (his first 3 victims were stabbed, they were his male roommates. why? possibly because the mattered more than women?), make him more respectable etc. He tried to convince his mother ffs to marry rich, so he could get the lifestyle he thought he was entitled to.... Seems pretty clear. Though I might be wrong.

But I just can´t get my head around - why make this into an anti-misogyny campaign? Did it just happen at the time where it seems to fit into this narrative of rampant sexism that nobody takes serious because it´s online (see article above)?

And how are they (feminists, the huffington pop kind) going to spin 4 men out of 6 dead as a case of "extremist misogyny"? Unless is it the same as with reproductive rights. To get society to care- they had to pretend they were not about some specific rights for women like access to contraceptives, but "family planning"- as in- it´s for men too? Just as they are suggesting now- here you have a killer (another one) who claimed he hated women so much, he was willing to shoot men for basically having physical contact with them. So then they can say misogyny is a danger to society as a whole. Is that what is going on? Is that a good thing?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Elliot Rodger never wanted ... (Below threshold)

May 27, 2014 10:35 AM | Posted by Komizu: | Reply

Elliot Rodger never wanted to succeed with women. He built his entire identity around being a social reject, if he had gotten success with women it would have shattered his identity.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yeah, sorry about that -- I... (Below threshold)

May 27, 2014 11:22 AM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Lurker: | Reply

Yeah, sorry about that -- I don't mean to bash. You do good work here. Keep it up.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
If anyone around here reall... (Below threshold)

May 27, 2014 7:21 PM | Posted by abbeysbooks: | Reply

If anyone around here really understood narcissism it would help. I mean clinically not the theoretical bullshit that passes for an understanding of it. The infant is narcissistic. It cries, someone feeds it, changes it, hovers over it. Things change tho. The hostile mother (I love you while she pushes the child away)has often murderous impulses towards her baby. Even the non-hostile mother who sometimes is just fed up today. The baby expressing rage begins to turn the rage against the self. This is what the Narcissistic Defense is.First this boy rages, then kills, then kills himself. Watch yourself do it to someone you care about. Make them feel guilty or they make you feel guilty. One of you then attacks the self.

Jesus was a Narcissist. But he forced them to torture and murder him by following Isaiah. He knew what he was doing. An inversion of it. That shabby trial the Hebrew elders gave him destroyed Hebrew Law which was the most advanced Law the world had ever known. Trashed in one weekend. We have done the same to the Tsarnaev brothers.They will become Islamic martyrs.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The Narcissist has a very f... (Below threshold)

May 27, 2014 7:32 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

The Narcissist has a very fragile ego if it exists at all. When you work clinically you NEVER ask a question that has YOU in the syntax or sub text. In other words - say at the beginning - the patient is quiet on the couch. Saying nothing. YOU DO NOT ask the patient why s/he is not talking. YOU DO NOT say "Tell me." as the YOU is implied as "(You) tell me." INSTEAD you day, "Is this silence comfortable?" or perhaps "What is the quality of this silence?" Believe me it's going to be "uncomfortable." Then you get to say, "What am I doing to make it uncomfortable? or How can I change that?" You are directing the hostility against yourself. Then the patient feels UNDERSTOOD. It is YOUR fault!The beginning of treatment is to first keep the patient from self-destructing treatment, then for the patient to feel understood.

I once had a crazy teen who did stuff with his twin sister, both identifying with Bonnie and Clyde. But he kept getting caught and punished. It got serious enough for his mother to seek treatment. He brought a male friend with him the second or third time so they could laugh at me. I asked him why he wanted to be caught. He looked at me as if I were crazy. I asked him if he wanted me to help him to it better so as NOT to get caught. Then he thought I was mad. Finally he began to talk about his thoughts and feelings.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>If anyone around here real... (Below threshold)

May 27, 2014 10:35 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>If anyone around here really understood narcissism it would help.

Boy, you are one arrogant autist.

>When you work clinically etc.

Based on your nonsensical, incoherent ramblings in this thread, as well as your word vomit blog, I have a really hard time believing you have ever worked in any field of medicine in any kind of clinical capacity. Not to mention the fact that you said you were taking classes at GCAS, which is an unaccredited institution and seems at first glance to be a diploma mill.

Your anecdotes are duly noted, though.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Happy to send you my transc... (Below threshold)

May 27, 2014 10:49 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Happy to send you my transcripts but you will have to pay for them. $10 apiece now I believe. Got $50 in your paypal account from me. I need one sent to Univ of Penna, another to Arcadia Univ,another to Univ of Delaware, others on request from you.GCAS is accredited BTW and I am not taking credits there. Have more than enough already.But it is an excellent place to study Continental Philosophy.Zizek will be with them this summer in MI. I would go in a minute if I could.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
For me not from me.... (Below threshold)

May 27, 2014 10:51 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

For me not from me.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You are definitely correct ... (Below threshold)

May 27, 2014 10:54 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

You are definitely correct about one thing tho. I am arrogant. Particularly with low levels like you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Clinical Narcs are, in my u... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 12:21 AM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by VainSaints: | Reply

Clinical Narcs are, in my understanding, defined by inner rage coexisting with intense fear of the outside world. The Narc flees from himself as if fleeing from the Gestapo to his false identity. He then scavenges from the outside world to confirm and maintain this identity, which comes across as a kind of self-obsession.

This rage, and the response to it, are subjective phenomena, and there seems to be little point in locating a definite cause. Though the classical Narcissistic parent is an obvious risk factor, there seems to be a high variability in how subjects cope with such influences, and a high variance in their inner resources.

The key distinction between Narcissist and Psychopath seems, so far as I can tell, to be that the psychopath has dissolved his sense of shame as well as guilt, and also that he has had to marshal his inner resources for sheer survival, so that he isn't afraid of the outside world in the sense that the Narc is. The Narc seems to register the outside world as a mysterious cave that he is afraid to enter. The psychopath seems to register it as a den of lions, where it's kill or be killed.

Also intriguing is the more general phenomenon of cultural narcissism, which I would define as any barrier of identity that gets between the self and the world that is negatively reinforced, either by fear or ennui, or anything in between.

One point of Narcissism that puzzles me is crowdsourcing the superego. It is something that I have seen, but I'm not quite sure why they feel they have to so this. I'm hoping abbeysbooks might shed some light on this subject.


Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
As someone who didn't reali... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 2:04 AM | Posted by RichieD: | Reply

As someone who didn't realize I was gay until I was 23, I am completely convinced of the repressed-homosexuality hypothesis. When I thought I was straight, tried to be, I just replaced the question "am I attracted to her?" with "is she hot?". I can tell if a girl is hot, even though I'm gay, so I took attraction for granted when, in retrospect, I totally lacked it. That seems to be just what Rodgers is doing in his videos and manifesto.

It's total denial, frantic energy spent maintaining narrative and running from cognitive dissonance. It would explain why no girls liked him, or even gave him a chance even though he's physically attractive. Faking attraction is hard, and he's a shitty actor. Just watch how he drinks and talks about his coffee. If he can manage to act sexy and monitor nearby women for attraction to him, he's likely failing to demonstrate any reciprocating attraction. He probably assumes she knows she's hot, like he does.


He's a whiny mopey self-pitying piece of shit that no one ought be like (after he's opened his mouth (or killed people)). But even a guy like that can usually attract a girl,if just for a little while, by demonstrating that he is attracted to her, that she is worthy of his affection. Rodgers can't do that convincingly. I had a few awkward dates and a short "relationships" with girls and my own palpable disinterest for the girl was my number one problem (before reaching the bedroom). He's got that plus his hate-able personality. That combination explains his complete girl failure better than just his shitty personality alone.

If he was straight, his looks should have counted for something in this society, and he would probably have had enough affirmation from undiscriminating partners to not go postal.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>GCAS is accredited BTW... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 2:16 AM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>GCAS is accredited BTW

Straight from their website:

>"The Global Center for Advanced Studies is not presently accredited as a degree-granting institution by Title IV-recognized regional or national accrediting bodies."

Nice try. Although in all seriousness I wouldn't mind going to see Zizek speak.

>low levels like you.

Oh no my shattered ego! :(

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I think extrapolating that ... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 2:22 AM | Posted, in reply to RichieD's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I think extrapolating that he was a fag is, quite literally in your case, wandering into projection territory. The real reason he failed with women despite his looks and his near-infinite resources seems to be that he didn't even try, and he admits as much in his "manifesto".

This kid expected women to flock to him without any effort on his part, just by virtue of his existence, which again fits neatly with the narcissism narrative.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>The real reason he failed ... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 2:28 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>The real reason he failed with women despite his looks and his near-infinite resources seems to be that he didn't even try, and he admits as much in his "manifesto".

Also I forgot to mention that based on his videos he was also a fucking creeper with serial killer vibes and the demeanor of corpse. Even if he had worked up the balls to actually engage in a meaningful conversation with a woman, looks don't really count for much if the girl is afraid you're just as likely to fucking stab her as you are to take another sip of your orange juice.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It just started a few month... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 3:03 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

It just started a few months ago. Degrees are in the works and if you take a course and do the required work then you are taking it for credit, which I am not. It will be offering graduate credit. Zizek is not speaking. He is part of the team offering the course in MI this summer. Badiou did one this fall.You don't get much better than that hon.

So I doubt you can just go to hear him speak. Unless you know someone who says OK. You might try.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"One point of Narcis... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 3:09 AM | Posted, in reply to VainSaints's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

"
One point of Narcissism that puzzles me is crowdsourcing the superego. It is something that I have seen, but I'm not quite sure why they feel they have to so this. I'm hoping abbeysbooks might shed some light on this subject."

Sorry never heard of this term. If you define what you know about it maybe I can extrapolate. I'll try.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Crowdsourcing the superego... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 4:42 AM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"Crowdsourcing the superego" was made-up by Alone.

See here.

In short, it's confessing your own sins to the public sphere, counting on it becoming a matter of OPINIONS instead of morality. Some people will hate you, some people will say "meh", some will support you. Those things a narcissist knows how to deal with. Better than keeping it all inside and having to judge yourself alone.

This happens when the narcissist miraculously manage to feel guilt ("I am a little shit"). So he uses that trick to transform it into shame ("People outside think I am a little shit"). Then he's free to react to that shame in any way he wants, while guilt would force him to change how he acts, without any shortcut available.

As an aside, you are one self-important mofo. People mock you about Zizek, and you choose to refer to Badiou?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Badiou and Love?... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 4:59 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Badiou and Love?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Seemed more like he was fak... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 1:00 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Seemed more like he was faking it to me.

Here's an excerpt from the epilogue to his manifesto, in which he dreams of a womanless society:

In fully realizing these truths about the world, I have created the ultimate and perfect ideology of how a fair and pure world would work. In an ideal world, sexuality would not exist. It must be outlawed. In a world without sex, humanity will be pure and civilized. Men will grow up healthily, without having to worry about such a barbaric act. All men will grow up fair and equal, because no man will be able to experience the pleasures of sex while others are denied it. The human race will evolve to an entirely new level of civilization, completely devoid of all the impurity and degeneracy that exists today.

In order to completely abolish sex, women themselves would have to be abolished. All women must be quarantined like the plague they are, so that they can be used in a manner that actually benefits a civilized society. In order carry this out, there must exist a new and powerful type of government, under the control of one divine ruler, such as myself. The ruler that establishes this new order would have complete control over every aspect of society, in order to direct it towards a good and pure place. At the disposal of this government, there needs to be a highly trained army of fanatically loyal troops, in order to enforce such revolutionary laws.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Faking it is a pretty good ... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 2:26 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Bacter: | Reply

Faking it is a pretty good description.

I recognized, more or less the awkward "villain" laugh in his confessional video. Without having any proof, it sounded a lot like an anime villain laugh - like, how a bad voice actor would try to sound bitterly humorous about their situation, or about killing people. Sure enough, that looked like one of his interests.

People have made a lot out of how he grew up in the entertainment industry, where he was exposed to the countless movies that showed people living dream lives (or, as we'd say here, at least being the main character in their own movies), and even if he was too self-aware or whatever to be taken in by the movies themselves, he lived in the world of actors and movie people, who (this is a generalization I don't really have any data to back up, just portrayals I've heard about) live and act just like main characters.

Even if they themselves are very insecure, they work very hard to seem like they have effortless natural charisma. So you'd see a world of people like that, playing characters in movies who are just as intrinsically important to their world.

And you're... a nerd. That's how I'd read the guy. I don't think he seemed "hollow inside" or "ice cold" or anything dumb like that, he reminded me of a cosplayer or a kid on halloween.

I'm not saying there wasn't mental dysfunction, obviously anybody who actually gets the gun and goes cruising has gone too far, but most of the buildup looks like desperately reaching for some way that he actually IS the confident main character.

And sure, he found it. He's an anti-pua guy, locked out of heaven BECAUSE OF his character traits that HE CHOOSES to have, for sure not because he needs to change in any way to be palatable to other people.

There is no girl he wants to be with, he wants to be the kind of guy that girls get with. A girl wouldn't cut it, because it wouldn't fix the panic at not being anything.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Summed up very nicely.... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 3:13 PM | Posted, in reply to Bacter's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Summed up very nicely.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You'll pay to know what you... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 3:53 PM | Posted by Dobbs: | Reply

You'll pay to know what you REALLY think.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Rodgers suffered from repre... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 4:35 PM | Posted, in reply to RichieD's comment, by Bonze Anne Rose Blayk: | Reply

Rodgers suffered from repressed homosexuality: a very plausible notion; of course, saying that on TV will get you fired.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
About what? Sorry I didn't ... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 5:23 PM | Posted, in reply to Dobbs's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

About what? Sorry I didn't get what you meant.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Respectfully, bull.<p... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 5:27 PM | Posted, in reply to Bonze Anne Rose Blayk's comment, by Bacter: | Reply

Respectfully, bull.

We're distracted from the true (terrifying) story because we're accepting the form of the argument, and therefore missing the real story(1).

SINCE IT IS TRUE that he did this because he hated women so much that it twisted him up, THEREFORE he must have done it because that stuck-up b-word rejected him when he was twelve(?!), or because he's secretly gay, or because of the culture of objectification of women and their inability to refuse. That dialogue can go on forever until we find which easily identifiable group of people we hate, grab our cuss thesaurus, and have on with it.

Don't get me wrong, any or all of those individual elements might be true, heck, he might secretly be a llama fetishist with neo-nazi ties, it wouldn't change why HE did it, and why people LIKE him do it, and not any of the other men's rights internet cowards or repressed senators.

The much (much) scarier story is about a guy who, even though he DIDN'T ACTUALLY HATE WOMEN, managed to get involved with a community of guys that did, then took on their identity and was willing to go 110% to defend it, at the cost of his life and the lives of others.

I haven't read "My Twisted World" because good gravy it is 141 pages long and I think I get the idea. I have watched his confession video, and a bunch of other ones on his Youtube channel, and casually perused his Facebook.

It must have occurred to somebody else that he doesn't actually mean what he's saying. He has two things to say: he feels crappy about his life, and he's got a litany of these unbelievably stupidly worded mini-manifestos.

When he's talking about how he feels miserable, and has since at least puberty, that's him.

When he says stuff like "and on that day I will show you who the TRUE alpha wolf is [awkward pause] heh heh heh hehehe", that's some kid with a fedora and growing anxiety about moving out of his parents house from Minnesota, talking through Rodger. The forums are the means of transmission.

If you look back at his (Rodger's) Facebook, you can see the identity he wanted. Sleek, international, a little mysterious. Sipping champagne on first class. Oh, here's LA from the clouds, just on my way to my dad's mansion.

The problem is, he isn't that guy at ALL. Look at the photos of him at publicity functions. Shoulders hunched, glowering, way off to the side. I'd be willing to accept that the media selectively published pictures of him looking like an ogre, but these ones are from HIS FACEBOOK PAGE.

I'd be willing to bet some fat stacks that this kid could have got a girlfriend, if he'd have been willing to not be Rico Suave, and found somebody to watch fantasy movies or game of thrones or anime or whatever with. He wasn't bad looking, he was socially awkward, and his dad was rich, AND involved in a blockbuster TV world.

But no. Hanging out and engaging in his actual interests didn't fit the identity. It wasn't torrid. The girls didn't look right. So he, my strong guess is, stopped trying.

Did it strike anybody as odd that his strongest memory of rejection was from when he was... what was it, 12 or 10? That's not the case for somebody who keeps trying. I'm a happily married man, and I'm here to say my first rejection was by FAR not the most painful. But if it's all you have to choose from...

He wanted to be something very badly, and picking something different, something more suited to who he actually WAS, wasn't something it looks like he even tried. The important thing was the feel, the emotion. Enter the women-hatin' online community. Now he can be a guy who knows what he wants and acts to get it and isn't afraid, BUT STILL be failing totally. It's society that has the problem!

He found happiness and identity in misery. It was just as brooding and dramatic as Mr. International, and you don't need anybody to validate it for you. In fact, the less you try, the more secure your identity is. And when you're living in broodworld, there aren't a lot of options, and there aren't a lot of emotions.

If he hadn't shot people, his youtube channel would be hilarious. "My life is hell", "why do all women reject me", and my personal favorite "My reaction to seeing a young couple at the beach (envy)". Yes, thanks for spelling it out man.

His endgame before was James Bond, now it's... man, who knows. Do the misogynists HAVE a goal besides something like this? At least this is ONE option for them.

But even when he'd reached the boiling point, and HAD the gun, and HAD the plan, and had his identity and online community, that didn't change who he ACTUALLY WAS.

Remember, in his video, his goal was to march right into "the hottest sorority house" on campus, and fill the place with lead, shooting "every blonde bitch I set my eyes on" (rough quote).

What did he do? He stabbed his roommates, then marched up to the sorority house, knocked loudly..........

And nobody answered the door, so he left. Got in his car, drove to the 7-11, then, more frantically as the night went on, just randomly drove around shooting and crashing into bicycles. Remember what TLP said Mass Murder was the violent expression of.

So this is super scary, yeah? It's not EVEN the dyed-in-the-wool misogynists you have to look out for. Or the feminazis, or whatever.

It's people who can't imagine a world where they aren't a character with clear motivations acting rationally, and suffering or being rewarded accordingly. It doesn't even matter what the ending ends up being, it's about them. And if it's down to their ego or your life, and they have a gun......

And we've accepted that this is true, and we're debating the issue like he was a kid who had any idea what he was doing.

I'm just saying, maybe don't take the manifesto of a mass murderer at face value.

1) Yeah yeah, it's a TLP cliche, but hey, we're both reading him, right?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This is a complete paranoid... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 5:30 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

This is a complete paranoid fantasy. Read Freud's case on Schreber which is more intelligent and detailed.But really the same template. Hannah Greene describes hers in I Never Promised You a Rose Garden in which while institutionalized she was treated by the great Frieda Fromm-Reichmann who catch-22'd her with a paradoxical communication and so began her cure. Probably she was medicated. She was definitely electric shocked. Lindner's Fifty-Minute Hour has some unequaled case studies of this type in his book which is so very readable. Like mystery stories. Lindner would enter the fantasy with the patient and in one he was almost killed and in another it was so fascinating a world he almost couldn't get out himself.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
18 April 2007: <a... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 6:19 PM | Posted by Bonze Anne Rose Blayk: | Reply

18 April 2007:

The APA Says The Media Is Making Women Really Hot

No. I'm not worried about girls, What we should be worried about are the boys. What happens to a boy who is told by the media that women are sexualized, they are objects, they are sluts? And then he goes out into the world and discovers they aren't? That they won't sleep with him? That, try as he might, they won't do all the things he was promised in ads, movies, porn? But they might be willing to do it with someone else, even women?

Depression? Or maybe misogyny? And maybe he starts hating women so much he, oh, I don't know, shoots 30 people at a college?

MY REIGNING HYPOTHESIS HAS TO BE

… TLP paid this kid off to "do the job" and get those telling videos in the can beforehand… promising him umpteen-seventy virgins in heaven or media immortality or ("same difference," all such deals with Old Scratch are a ripoff), just to make himself look like a seer, or a genius-level analyst, or maybe just somebody who really knows how to read.

kudos
- bonzie anne

PS: "knows how to read" what?

Nietzsche, what else?

"And his heart is full of mud, who can imagine nothing better than to lie with a woman."

(From memory, way back when I was earning my "D" in Bouwsma's Nietzsche Seminar: a badge of honor from which I entered no appeal.)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Woman wants a warrior - Nie... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 6:25 PM | Posted, in reply to Bonze Anne Rose Blayk's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Woman wants a warrior - Nietzsche
Man wants danger and play.

Why man wants woman because she is the most dangerous plaything.(I don't think he said plaything but I am not going to look it up.) Here's a nice fanfic on it tho. Don't be put off by the Edward Bella Twilight names. http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/2013/05/review-substance-clad-in-shadows.html I did two of them on this fanfic as it is exceptionally well done. The writer is intelligent.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"We're distracted from the ... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 6:27 PM | Posted, in reply to Bacter's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

"We're distracted from the true (terrifying) story because we're accepting the form of the argument, and therefore missing the real story(1)."

Yes and so are you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yes, but did his mom know h... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 6:42 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Yes, but did his mom know he was gay?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Simulated Reality is alive ... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 7:12 PM | Posted, in reply to Bonze Anne Rose Blayk's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Simulated Reality is alive and well. Here is what I think on this from Don Jon with Gordon Levitt: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2013/10/reviewdon-jonreading-through.html

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Gay has nothing to do with ... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 7:26 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Gay has nothing to do with Elliot's murders and suicide. Anyone who repeats this stuff about women over and over is using it as a "floating sign" masking something quite different. I realize it is interesting to interpret and test your guesstimates with everyone else. After all we were all trained to that educationally from forever. But it has nothing to do with "truth" or why and it really isn't important.

What is important that with all the govt draconian measures to keep us safe they cannot. All the stuff they do to tell us it is to make us safer is a "floating sign" masking the emptiness of their ability to do so.

He did live in a Simulated Reality. People who work in movies tend to fall into this. It is their work, what they get paid for doing, so it is real to them. But it is not real. Sometimes it is art but most of the time movies are not art, just entertainments, just to amuse us and make money from our boredom.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I dislike abbeysbooks, plea... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 7:42 PM | Posted by Chinchilla: | Reply

I dislike abbeysbooks, please stop commenting.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
WHAT! You dislike me so I s... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 7:47 PM | Posted, in reply to Chinchilla's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

WHAT! You dislike me so I should stop commenting. Are you for real?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sometimes it is ar... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 7:48 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Sometimes it is art but most of the time movies are not art, just entertainments, just to amuse us and make money from our boredom.

Look everyone, it's the Grand Arbiter of what is and isn't art!

Everything is art. Some of it is just bad art. Your arbitrary distinction is silly and pretentious, something that I wouldn't expect from the type of person who links to vampire Twilight fanfiction as a form of argumentation, but somehow you managed to pull it off anyway. Bravo.

Gay has nothing to do with Elliot's murders and suicide. Anyone who repeats this stuff about women over and over is using it as a "floating sign" masking something quite different. I realize it is interesting to interpret and test your guesstimates with everyone else. After all we were all trained to that educationally from forever. But it has nothing to do with "truth" or why and it really isn't important.

This is of course coming from the lunatic who, with no prior military experience, speculates that servicemen who come back to the civilian world "go crazy" because the "money flow" into the military allowed them to release their "aggressions".

Take some of your own advice.

Yes and so are you [accepting the form of the argument, and therefore missing the real story].

Are you going to spend this entire comment thread shooting down everyone else's posts with half-sentence replies, linking to your blog, and refusing to engage in any kind of meaningful discourse under the pretense of "being led into accepting the form of the argument / arguing under the dominating discourse"? All you're doing is hand-waving your responsibility to back up your claims. You refuse to write anything that isn't completely incoherent because you don't want to be "pinned down" (aka getting called out on your bullshit), all the while pretending that being held accountable = "accepting the form of everybody's argument".

You are not the brilliant writer you think you are. You are not Alone. You are definitely not Zizek. You are one of the many, many hangers-on that populate this blog who think they can be cool and radical by channeling Alone's verbage, and who think that some of that literary uniqueness will rub off onto them, except they don't even have 1/10 of the knack for writing or analysis that he does and had they realized this, they would also know that trying to be Alone-lite is silly and screams "Daddy look at me!" Let your writing come about organically and stop trying to be something you're not. We already have one TLP, and one is enough.

TL;DR: Get your own scthick. You're boring.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Also for what it's worth so... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 8:03 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Also for what it's worth some of your writing is pretty good. I did enjoy your article on The Counselor and I do agree with you about morons shitting on McCarthy's dialogue and finding it stilted and didactic because they don't understand it. So take that however you want, preferably as far up your hole as possible.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yes I 'for real' want you t... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 8:03 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Chinchilla: | Reply

Yes I 'for real' want you to stop, call it censorship, the system or whatever you want. Your posts don't really offend me or agitate my political views in any way. I just don't like their style or what you write about.

Your voice is the self-aggrandizing, post modern 'matrix speak' that alone rails against on regular basis.

Maybe I am completely wrong, but I will never know. Voting is off.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
In all fairness, I never wr... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 8:04 PM | Posted by Bacter: | Reply

In all fairness, I never write "........." like I did up in my last comment, but, uh, Alone does.

Hm.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So I should stop commenting... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 8:25 PM | Posted, in reply to Chinchilla's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

So I should stop commenting because you want me to do so?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
But what's your name?... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 8:27 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

But what's your name?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Your name?... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 8:28 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Your name?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hey don't knock Twilight. I... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 8:31 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Hey don't knock Twilight. It's a retelling of Tristan and Iseult which itself was not a literary star in fiction either.

Your name?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
But what's your na... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 8:33 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

But what's your name?
Your name?
Your name?

Anonymous

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yep. Opinion has not change... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 8:41 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Chinchilla: | Reply

Yep. Opinion has not changed since my first post.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It's your opinion. NOt a ve... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 8:46 PM | Posted, in reply to Chinchilla's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

It's your opinion. NOt a very interesting one, but, hey, it's yours.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Boohoo, people are telling ... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 8:52 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Boohoo, people are telling you to stop doing things.

You should stop commenting because you've made your point and that everyone caught enough elements to judge for themselves whether you're talking out of your ass or not.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The solution to pollution i... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 8:54 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

The solution to pollution is to not engage it until it's at least vaguely interesting. Putting my mouth on the line, reading my twisted world and seeing if maybe he WAS a woman hater since old times - anybody read it before me?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I would say it's necessary ... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 9:07 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I would say it's necessary if you want to better understand his psyche, but Jesus is it a cringey slog to get through. It reads like really bad anime fanfiction, or if someone had commissioned Episode 3 Anakin Skywalker to write a memoir.

Ironic, considering Rodger's pilfering of the "I'll slaughter them like animals" line.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
In addition to everything e... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 9:14 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

In addition to everything else he was a dumb fuck.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Good lord. Two par... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 9:17 PM | Posted by Bacter: | Reply

Good lord.

Two paragraphs in and I need a palate cleanser.

He sure doesn't make it hard for we of the narcissism blog to discuss: "my world, the dark and mysterious story of every event in my life"

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Respectfully, Bacter, I'm a... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 10:22 PM | Posted, in reply to Bacter's comment, by Bonze Anne Rose Blayk: | Reply

Respectfully, Bacter, I'm a Harry Benjamin Type V "True Transsexual," and I really believed that I was merely a "transgendered lesbian" with a love of women's fashion - up until I was hit by an Adverse Drug Reaction from Hell. I was 40 years of age, and though that seems like a long time to avoid the awareness that I longed to live as a woman - up to and including obtaining an SRS? - it's not at all unusual when your culture is based on loathing for your nature.

And it turns out, I'm not actually a lesbian?

So I relate strongly to RichieD's comment: sometimes you may not allow yourself to know what you are, if you have a deeply embedded, veiled understanding that knowing, you must act on it, and acting on it is quite possibly going to get you killed - or maybe you will die of embarrassment?

It's like DID, kind of: menacing works to distort the self-perception of the victim by inducing repression.

I'm not saying repressed homosexuality was the cause of his offense; I happen to think the kid suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, but that's just how I read him.

But MRAs, no, he had zip to do with them, and if they had influenced him, he would have been trying something different; he's a misogynist, but that doesn't make him at all like your "average" MRA, who has suffered severe abuse by the legal system because (for example) "all men are rapists," and when he's talking at the end of his screed about nationalizing the wimmins, I believe he means it: he probably took some Intro Philosophy course where some fool said Plato said it was a great idea, etc.

… one of my best friends likes the idea, no kidding!, but she's transsexual, and apparently wants to get left on the men's side of the partition?

.7 LOL

thanks,
- bonzie anne

PS: I didn't read his MANifesto, 'coz the Scribd interface sucks too much for me to hassle with; point me to a PDF and maybe I will.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Respectfully, Bact... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 10:41 PM | Posted, in reply to Bonze Anne Rose Blayk's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Respectfully, Bacter, I'm a Harry Benjamin Type V "True Transsexual," and I really believed that I was merely a "transgendered lesbian" with a love of women's fashion - up until I was hit by an Adverse Drug Reaction from Hell. I was 40 years of age, and though that seems like a long time to avoid the awareness that I longed to live as a woman - up to and including obtaining an SRS? - it's not at all unusual when your culture is based on loathing for your nature.

...So, as I said in a previous post, this is quite literally a case of hopeful projection.

You see parts of yourself in Rodgers and use your experience to help flesh out his narrative because it's the narrative you know firsthand. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing; we view the world through the foggy lens of our experience. But your anecdotal lived-in experience (as well as the experience of your other transsexual friend - he? she?) has limited explanatory power. You're seeing what you want to see.

If I lived in Bumfuckistan, having never seen a wrecking ball before, and my only experience with collapsed buildings was a force of nature, and I suddenly moved to New York and stumbled upon a collapsed building, nine times out of ten my explanatory narrative is that a hurricane ran through. Why would I believe otherwise?

Speaking of which, how did you come to the conclusion that you wanted to "live as a woman", or even that you could live as a woman? Assuming you're a male, you understand that you're not a woman, right? Lopping off your dick and bombarding yourself with various chemicals and hormone treatments does not change your biological sex. When they come up with a way to reassign chromosomes, please let the rest of us know. They hand out Nobel Prizes for that kind of stuff.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
PS: I didn't read ... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 10:42 PM | Posted, in reply to Bonze Anne Rose Blayk's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

PS: I didn't read his MANifesto, 'coz the Scribd interface sucks too much for me to hassle with; point me to a PDF and maybe I will.

The "Scribd interface" is just a container for the actual pdf file. You have the option to download it and view it as a pdf.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Can you say a little more?<... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 10:47 PM | Posted, in reply to Bonze Anne Rose Blayk's comment, by Bacter: | Reply

Can you say a little more?

It's not that I think you and RichieD are wrong about repressed homosexuality - I don't know if he is. I guess he could be, but honestly any reason I'd list for or against it would be stereotyping about gay people based on what I saw in his videos / read in as much of his manifesto as I can choke down.

I'm totally in on your idea that he failed with women because when the time came to show affection, he wasn't into it. I guess the difference would be between 1) he couldn't fake affection because he's a bad actor and his real affection was towards men (repressed homosexual), or 2) because he was living in his own mind too much to actually connect with any other human (narcissist).

So:

1) I might have used a wrong term. I guess "men's rights" specifically refers to people who think we live in a female-dominated society, and men need to be free to rape as they will. I don't know that he was associated with them in particular, but I think it's beyond debate to say he actively posted in women-hating communities that argue for and celebrate violence against women and think that women deserve what they get because of friendzoning and etc.

2) Arguments that he didn't succeed with women because he was gay and then was so frustrated by that that he shot them up means he DID do it because of the closeted homosexuality, right?

Or does the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia just negate everything? If he was really into trains, might he have gone from train modeling to shooting everybody, because of his paranoid schizophrenia?

3)

http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Anonymous?I keep h... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 11:30 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Bonze Anne Rose Blayk: | Reply

Anonymous?

I keep having this problem with my Crayolas, because they don't seem to provide the palette required to shade in Deep Clueless bits of the pictures I see scrawled up for me to complete on the web by anons.

There's a bunch of other colors missing too; maybe I should sue.

"Good news, everybody! I've just discovered a new spectrum of light… I call it 'UltraPurp!'" - BARB

are you aware of being afraid

Sincerely,
BARB

PS: Just for starters: Clinical implications of the organizational and activational effects of hormones - Milton Diamond, Hormones and Behavior 55 (2009) 621-632.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Bumfuckistan LOLdSch... (Below threshold)

May 28, 2014 11:34 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Bonze Anne Rose Blayk: | Reply

Bumfuckistan LOLdSchool - BARB

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
If Elliot Roger was gay, th... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 2:42 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

If Elliot Roger was gay, then why he was masturbating every day to straight porn (according to his manifesto)?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You all seem to be confusin... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 3:13 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

You all seem to be confusing gender with sex. Sex is biological, genetic, you are born male or female and in certain cases some combination. Foucault discusses the combinations in his 1974-75 Lectures in Abnormal at the College de France. Very interesting stuff.

Gender is socially constructed as Judith Butler has observed and written about for us.The two are separate, sometimes coinciding and sometimes not. A woman can be gendered masculine while sexed as a woman.A really great performance of this is Cameron Diaz in The Counselor. She produces provocative sexuality - floating signs - while not being seductive. Her mind is masculine gendered - as culture tends to define it - and she masquerades as female in the way she walks, dresses, acts, etc. But she is a "man" and I think that's why reviewers, particularly male ones, have not liked her performance in that excellent movie of Cormac McCarthy.

Just off the top of my head on Elliot having watched only one video, he eels "soft," feminine. So he is sexed male and gendered female I am guessing. Not that it really matters.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yes a diagnosis of paranoid... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 3:40 AM | Posted, in reply to Bacter's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Yes a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia negates it as it is a pre-Oedipal clinical label. There is no sexual organization tht is genital. But here's Deleuze and Guattari's take on it:

Is the schizophrenic sick and cut off from reality because he lacks Oedipus, because he "is lacking" in something only to be found in Oedipus - or on the contrary is he sick by virtue of the oedipalizatio he is unable to bear, and around which everything combines in order to force him to submit (social repression even before psychoanalysis)?

Interesting way to read this.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Gender is socially... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 4:00 AM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Gender is socially constructed as Judith Butler has observed and written about for us.The two are separate, sometimes coinciding and sometimes not. A woman can be gendered masculine while sexed as a woman.

The entire concept of "gender" as a social construct separate from biological sex is a nonsensical confabulation from people who would have you believe that you can be whatever the fuck it is you identify as.

"Gender" has indeed become a social construct, which is a fancy way of saying it's made up. When I refer to you as a he or a she, I'm talking about your sex. I don't care what you "identify" with. You can identify as an otherkin space unicorn; doesn't mean you're a unicorn.

As far as transsexuals go: why do so many medical professionals play into the deluded fantasies of people who wish to physically disfigure themselves in a misguided attempt to change their biological sex? My first guess would be because quote unquote "sex change" operations are expensive and people are greedy, but there has to be some percentage of doctors who actually buy into the idea that people can change their biological sex.

When a paranoid schizophrenic comes to your psychiatry practice and claims that he is Napoleon Bonaparte, he is (usually) discouraged from this inane line of thinking and if he can't ultimately come to grips with the fact that he is not Napoleon Bonaparte, he is locked away in a straightjacket in his own special room of the loony ward.

Conversely, when a "transsexual" comes to your psychiatry practice and claims that he/she "identifies" with the opposite sex, he or she allowed to continue this delusional fantasy, completely contrary to the reality of the situation (your chromosomes designate you as either M or F, in an entirely binary fashion; obviously hermaphrodites and other biological abnormalities exist, but this is rarely the case). Sometimes they are even encouraged to seek mutilation as a solution to their mental illness.

As health professionals, why is this allowed? How can this be considered caring for the patient? Why do we play into the fantasies of someone who seeks to cause themselves bodily harm to further this fantastical delusion?

Just a handy and quick (but non-comprehensive) on-the-fly field guide for anyone who starts up with some anti-scientific nonsense about gender politics:

Do you have a dick? Congratulations, you're a guy!

Do you have a cooch? You're a chick!

Do you have both? You're a hermaphrodite!

Do you have neither? The surgeon did something wrong and you're probably going to die.

The point being that mutilating your body won't change a thing, much in the same way painting a lemon green doesn't make it a lime. And if "gender" truly is just a social construct, then people shouldn't have to undergo surgery in order to switch to the other "gender". All that's required is maybe to dress and act like the opposite sex in order to achieve the desired mental effect. Either gender is a social construct, rendering surgery pointless, or gender has a biological basis (I.E, your sex, and more specifically your chromosomes), making surgery and hormone therapy as ineffectual as trying to chop down a tree by plucking off the branches. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There really needs to come a time when we don't coddle these people and tell them that their delusions are healthy. Let's call a spade a spade. It is a mental illness.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You haven't delved deep eno... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 4:06 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

You haven't delved deep enough into the concept of socially constructed gender. I'll take Judith Butler's immense and original intelligence over your amateur ramblings any day or night.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
No, I have, and it's not wo... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 4:13 AM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

No, I have, and it's not worth repeating.

You can call it amateur all you want. Science disagrees with you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Is that a fact.... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 4:46 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Is that a fact.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Really like what you've wri... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 4:50 AM | Posted, in reply to Bacter's comment, by Anun : | Reply

Really like what you've written Bacter.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Your argumentative skills a... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 5:03 AM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Your argumentative skills are truly legendary.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Science disagrees with y... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 5:40 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Science disagrees with you.

The neckbeard is strong in this one.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>neckbeardcome on<... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 5:59 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>neckbeard

come on

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
neckbeard</blockqu... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 6:29 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

neckbeard

Look mom I'm projecting!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>using "neckbeard" as an in... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 7:33 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

>using "neckbeard" as an insult

Please crawl back to Reddit, or tumblr, or whatever shithole it is that you crawled out from.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Man, samefagging is obvious... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 8:14 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Man, samefagging is obvious enough when it's done on 4chan.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I guess all that hard scien... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 10:04 AM | Posted by zizeks crusty beard crumbs: | Reply

I guess all that hard scientific data showing that transgender individuals have parts of their brain that are usually found in the opposite sex is uh, like not as important as the prejudice of anon.

Is it really so hard to believe that individuals can change their gender? Not like it doesn't happen in the animal kingdom or anything. Not like the majority of transgender people go on to live normal lives after their operations.

Of course its possible for it to go wrong, some people have changed back (a very small number), but the idea that you are mentally ill if you want to change your biological gender does not hold up to close scrutiny. I've met an extremely mentally ill guy on a pysch ward who started to talk more after I arrived and befriended him. He would make up bizarre things but he seemed as baffled at himself for saying them than anything else. One day he said he was gay and the next he said he wanted to be a woman. So I get that there are cases where a doctor could not do their job properly and send someone down the road of a sex change who doesn't really need it.

But it seems bizarre and prejudiced to have such a problem with people changing their gender. I think its more the self image of the person making such prejudiced statements that is the real problem, either through ignorance/fear or whatever.

It's probably disturbing for people to face the true plasticity of the body, and how malleable and alterable it actually is under our advanced scientific and surgical techniques.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Anyone else find it interes... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 11:17 AM | Posted by Frank: | Reply

Anyone else find it interesting that, after months of puking deranged junior serial killer lunacy over this blog, jonny disappeared at the exact same time that Elliot Rodger went apeshit?

I'm sure it's just a co-incidence, but still...it's an amusing co-incidence at least.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Pray, tell: what are these ... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 11:18 AM | Posted, in reply to zizeks crusty beard crumbs's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Pray, tell: what are these "hard scientific facts"?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yeah, I wondered about that... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 11:25 AM | Posted, in reply to Frank's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Yeah, I wondered about that, too. Maybe he's just being respectful? IDK.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
boom <a href="http://www.pi... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 12:34 PM | Posted by zizeks crusty beard crumbs: | Reply

boom http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/26/scans-show-difference-in-transgender-brains/

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Jonny always comes and goes... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 1:03 PM | Posted, in reply to Frank's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Jonny always comes and goes. It hasn't even been a week since the shooting. But, anyway, he doesn't live in America.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Can you (or someone) either... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 2:45 PM | Posted, in reply to abbeysbooks's comment, by Bacter: | Reply

Can you (or someone) either go about 10 steps towards layman's terms or point me to a good reference?

I just don't know enough terminology to make heads or tails of this.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Read up about Deleuze and G... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 3:35 PM | Posted, in reply to Bacter's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Read up about Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus project. It's a critique of psychoanalysis, and their use of "schizophrenia" is not orthodox.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
jonny being respectful?... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 4:29 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

jonny being respectful?

I guess there's a first time for everything.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I guess all that h... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 4:43 PM | Posted, in reply to zizeks crusty beard crumbs's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I guess all that hard scientific data showing that transgender individuals have parts of their brain that are usually found in the opposite sex is uh, like not as important as the prejudice of anon.

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. No one is denying your brain is different. We are denying you the ability to fool everyone, including yourself, into thinking that you're a purple unicorn just because you claim you identify with one.

If gender truly is a social construct, then you can go about changing it without mutilating your body. If you really do seek go about mutilating your body because of an abnormal, unhealthy, fantastical delusion about "identifying" with the opposite sex, then you are by definition mentally ill and your fantastical delusions should not be entertained.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/26/scans-show-difference-in-transgender-brains/

Congratulations, you were able to link to a gay news site (oddly enough instead of the original New Scientist article) that ran an article about the differences in the brains of trans people and men and women. Coincidentally which has absolutely nothing to do with any of the previous discussion. Nobody is claiming your brain is not different. What is evident is that you cannot change your biological sex. Assuming you are a male, you are not biologically a female, nor can you become one via reconstructive surgery. Have fun trying to reassign your chromosomes.

Is it really so hard to believe that individuals can change their gender?

Not at all, although it is physically impossible, outside of hermaphroditic individuals, for you to change your biological sex, which is what the majority of people are using as a reference point when they refer to you as a he or a she.

Nobody has a problem with you changing your "gender". The problem arises when a mentally ill person seeks to mutilate his or her body because they have a fantastical delusion about identifying with the other sex.

I think its more the self image of the person making such prejudiced statements that is the real problem, either through ignorance/fear or whatever. It's probably disturbing for people to face the true plasticity of the body, and how malleable and alterable it actually is under our advanced scientific and surgical techniques.

I'm completely fine with the plasticity of my own body. I also don't hold any delusions as to what my biological sex is and whether or not I can really change it, nor do seek to self-harm as a salve to a mental illness, nor do I hold any illusions about the entirely fabricated, non-actionable concept of "gender" as a social construct.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Of course the usual blowhar... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 5:06 PM | Posted by el puerco: | Reply

Of course the usual blowhards are eager to armchair-Dx the Shooter of the Season. After all, they read the cherry-picked "evidence" gathered to endorse the Misogynist Whackjob Commits Mass Murder in Isla Vista story line.

What else would you need to know? Well, plenty of self-styled pundits of the tweetscape have issued xerox-copy retweets of some highly snarky original snarktweet that alleged THE SHOOTER WAS A MISOGYNIST!

Internet psychiatry is fascinating. People seem to think words are the truest window into the latent psychotic's murderously sociopathic soul.

I'd like to thank abbeysbooks for using this comment thread as his own Match.com singles bar.

Goo joh mang!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Duh.... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 7:58 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Duh.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
If I thought you wee seriou... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 8:00 PM | Posted, in reply to Bacter's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

If I thought you wee seriously inquiring I would answer your question.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sorry didn't mean to ridicu... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 8:05 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Sorry didn't mean to ridicule what you said. D and G link schizophrenia to capitalism and paranoia to the despotic state. It's a difficult but enticing book: Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Anywhere you open it you can begin to read to refresh yourself on it. Like the Bible eh.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Assumin this is true....and... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 8:07 PM | Posted, in reply to zizeks crusty beard crumbs's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Assumin this is true....and........Your POV?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Love this comment.... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 8:09 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Love this comment.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Gender is socially const... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 8:16 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Gender is socially constructed as Judith Butler has observed and written about for us.

Nothing Butler has ever written concerns cause and effect, it's all impressionistic, phenomenological mumble-jumble.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Last comment s/b Asher not ... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 8:17 PM | Posted by Asher: | Reply

Last comment s/b Asher not Anonymous

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Cause and effect? You are o... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 8:45 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Cause and effect? You are out of the loop aren't you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It's a 1.0 correlation. Con... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 8:47 PM | Posted, in reply to Frank's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

It's a 1.0 correlation. Congrats for the science stats.A publishable paper at least for your tenure. I'm just making fun of academic bs.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
abbey, since we are product... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 8:48 PM | Posted by Asher: | Reply

abbey, since we are products of evolution you need to explain how gender, as opposed to sex, is an evolutionary development. Gender theorists don't even attempt this.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Or, as I once put it to a p... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 8:49 PM | Posted by Asher: | Reply

Or, as I once put it to a postmodernist, all true psychology is evolutionary psychology.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Here's an example of good p... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 8:53 PM | Posted by Asher: | Reply

Here's an example of good psychology, one where the author attempts to link psychological functions to cause and effect, i.e. evolution:

http://www.epjournal.net/articles/art-as-an-indicator-of-male-fitness-does-prenatal-testosterone-influence-artistic-ability/

That's the antithesis of someone like Butler.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>evolutionary psychology</p... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 9:02 PM | Posted by Killer: | Reply

>evolutionary psychology

You must be new here.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You must be new here.</i... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 9:04 PM | Posted by Asher: | Reply

You must be new here.

I rarely read the comments. Been reading the blog posts for a couple years.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You're better off not readi... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 9:08 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

You're better off not reading the comments (we all are), but my comment was in reference to the constant potshots The Last Psychiatrist takes at evolutionary psychology.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You misunderstood my previo... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 9:11 PM | Posted by Asher: | Reply

You misunderstood my previous comment. If we are products of evolution then our psychological makeups are products of evolution, too. I stated that all good psychology is evolutionary psychology, not that all psychology that claims the mantle of evolution is good psychology.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Say what you want about evo... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 9:13 PM | Posted by Asher: | Reply

Say what you want about evo psych but it's better than the Butler's of this world who just make shit up, whole cloth.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Here's an example of good ... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 9:19 PM | Posted, in reply to Asher's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

"Here's an example of good psychology, one where the author attempts to link psychological functions to cause and effect, i.e. evolution:"

There you are. Right in that quote. Now I know how the writer of that quote thinks. Read Foucault: The Order of Things and The Archaeology of Knowledge. difficult but beautifully written to keep you reading. Like Toynbee.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Here you are taking an obje... (Below threshold)

May 29, 2014 9:22 PM | Posted, in reply to Asher's comment, by abbeysbooks: | Reply

Here you are taking an object "evo psychology" and comparing it to the "Butlers of this world." This kind of faulty thinking is madness being performed. It is a meaningless statement like "The purple trees are furious." Or whatever that famous quote is as I forget. You can't compare two made up categories like that.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0