Will he every make a comeback?

Stuff like this:
thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/02/the_decline_effect_is_stupid.html
or this:
web.archive.org/web/20150217050745/http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/02/pedophilia_is_normal_because_o.html

Or better yet, read all his articles on psychiatry and see that it's pretty much just a tool for social and political control

>If you're surrounded by carpenters, everything becomes about hammers.
What? Hammers aren't really important to carpenters. Mallets, chisels, saws, sandpaper, glue, bevels, wood planes, awls, rulers ... all these things are significantly more important to a carpenter than a hammer.

>Hammers aren't really important to carpenters. Mallets
Mallets are hammers user.

Thanks for your clarification.

Why didn't he say mallet then? Still not really an important tool. He's just misunderstanding the "when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail" saying.

>being this autistic
>destroying your own "correction"
Guess you're a pop non-fic fag then?

I think it's fairly obvious he didn't mean a mallet. I'm sorry but if this person who you consider to be some sort of authority or worth reading can't understand a saying as basic as that, then I have no respect for you or him.

>if i screech enough mallets will cease to be hammers
poor you, too autistic for fiction's allusions, too sloppy with referents for worthwhile non-fiction.

I hope you don't sincerely believe that greentext is applicable, because that would be a wildly inaccurate inference.

>flip flopping this much
it's either accurate or you just reversed you position. you can choose being wrong once or twice, but not not at all.

*your position
since I'm speaking to an autist, I should probably correct that before he has a tantrum

I stand by my original position that he is an idiot and the new added position that you are too.

You're the one who didn't know a mallet was a hammer. Think I'm winning this one, since mallets will go on being hammers.

Stop replying to the thread derailing baiters.

I'm not disputing that mallets are hammers, as you would have understood if you had a minimum of reading comprehension. This speaks volumes about his fanbase.

Then why contrast a mallet as an example of something that is not a hammer? You goofed and are too arrogant and autistic to realize it. I'm mainly laughing at you because I know you're not a carpenter.

When someone says "hammer", they mean a claw hammer. When someone says "mallet" they mean a mallet. As I said, he obviously doesn't understand the phrase he was using and fucked it up. Then you read it and are so much dumber than him you can't even tell he fucked it up.

>I'm mainly laughing at you because I know you're not a carpenter.
I'm not claiming to be a carpenter, this seems like a very odd thing to laugh about.

>they mean a claw hammer
Not if you're a carpenter. Even then, claw hammer isn't implied by hammer- it could be a ball peen, or any other type of hammer. It's only you that thinks it implies only one type of hammer, because you're too autistic and arrogant to realize you're wrong. But, being wrong and arrogant isn't going to make you right or knowledgeable.
You seem to want to speak for carpenters the world over and tell them that they can't call it a hammer if it's not a claw hammer, so that makes you not being a carpenter or having any context for its meaning even funnier. I don't expect you to find it funny, but I find it hilarious that your ego is so fragile you'd argue with a dictionary.

that hotel concierge guy just isn't very good, i hope it's not actually alone writing that stuff

If someone asks you to fetch a hammer from the toolbox in which there is a claw hammer and also a mallet, which one do you think they want?
Why are you avoiding the actual question at hand which isn't whether or not people mean mallet when they say hammer but that the man obviously doesn't understand the phrase he tried to use and that you're also an idiot?

>If someone asks you to fetch a hammer from the toolbox in which there is a claw hammer and also a mallet, which one do you think they want?
Depends what they're working on. If they were working on a rivet, they probably want a ball peen. If they were trying to get a nail out of something, they might want a claw. If they are fixing a joint, a claw, ball, or mallet could work. See, that's the problem you're running into when you claim to know better what carpenters need for a job- you don't. Whether a mallet or claw is better for the job is still all talk about hammers. Which is exactly what he said. Just your autistic ass is freaked out by mallets being a subgroup of what he was saying they were talking about.

You're the one arguing for the technical definition of something rather than the common use one, you're being significantly more autistic here. He was trying to use the phrase about hammers and nails and fucked it up, pure and simple. You sperging out about how mallets are technically hammers is just absurd.

No, you're the one arguing that mallets are different to hammers and carpenters don't use claw hammers often enough to consider them to use hammers above mallets. You're actually that dumb that you think common use of the term hammer is ruled over by you, despite every industry involved with mallets being perfectly willing to accept that they go in the hammer section, just like all the other hammers you know nothing about.

I'm arguing that you and he are idiots, there's plenty of evidence supporting that. I don't know why you find that idea that some people aren't carpenters hilarious but I suppose your tastes are inexplicable.

I find it hilarious you think that you know more about carpentry than carpenters, more about the author's intent than the author, and that you think you rule over the common use, and that you think you don't look like you failed reading comprehension and need singular monolithic meanings to all terms and phrases which will utterly cripple your ability to read literary fiction. Or, in other words, I find dilettantes making fools of themselves hilarious, of which you are subgroup, as mallets are to hammers.

I'm not arguing with a carpenter though, I'm arguing with an idiot. The author's intent is obvious, this is what reading comprehension is used to determine. Maybe you'll discover that one day.

>the author obviously meant to write something different, you can tell by how he didn't write what i meant him to
kek. You're actually this buttmad and incapable of admitting you fucked up. Enjoy crippling yourself with rigid definitions that nobody else recognizes; I'm sure the private language fags will love you if you drop in a Wittgenstein thread.

You're the one arguing rigid definitions, idiot.
>ACKSHUALLY a mallet is TEKNIKALLY a sort of hammer

>thinks "hammer only connotes claw hammer" is a less rigid definition than "hammer could connote any type of hammer"
By rigid, did you perhaps mean "flexible"? I wouldn't be surprised if you did and were incapable of admitting it, considering the preceding.

>thinks common parlance is more rigid than dictionary definitions
By drooling on your keyboard did you mean to write something that makes sense?

>still thinks he's everybody and carpenters don't have conversations without him
It's precious that you think your ignorance is everyone else's ignorance also. Especially when even a dictionary, let alone a carpenter, could tell you how you're wrong. I don't think there's many carpenters as attached to you being right about mallets being different to hammers compared to those that realize that mallets are hammers. You're not common use, you're just wrong.

I don't give a fuck about dictionary carpenters, he fucked up the phrase "when all you have is a hammer everything starts to look like a nail" because he's an idiot and so are you.

>too autistic for a play on words
I know you are, and I know you really care that common use doesn't support your rigid definitions, so why keep lying? It's not saving you any face, it's not going to make you right, it's not going to make a mallet not a hammer, so I don't know what you think you're achieving besides proving that you're pathologically afraid of being known to be wrong. It's a bit late to undo your posting here, so you're always going to have been wrong. You'll have to find some way to live with it, though, because you are wrong.

The doxxed theory is stupid because one of his professional articles mentioned his website in the byline, he only kept his identity a secret because of an autistic belief that it was importnat to separate the work from the person

Suicide is likely though, RIP rummy

This is where all the cool kids read their edgy contrarian op-eds now

It's not a play on words, he tried and failed the play on words. I can't help if you have to sperg out about it your meme philosopher is called out for being almost as dumb as you. Snowflakes gonna be offended no matter what.

>being known to be wrong
this is an anonymous board, idiot

>I am not here making a case for what is normal or not; I'm pointing out the very specific societal approval-- encouragement-- that allows me to keep drooling as long as I ALSO say out loud, "son of a gun, Ali Lohan's only 14? She looks so much older!" but forbids me from even putting up a picture of a boy and making any comment-- even if I am gay; even if I am a woman. Go ahead and try it. And what does it mean that society permits a 14 year old boy to choose to be a girl who is [her]self attracted to males, but in theory lacks the maturity/intellect/right to seduce a grown man? It means stop asking questions, wiseguy. We have a society to run.

And that is why the Illuminati had him killed.

According to you he failed because carpenters don't talk about hammers, so I'm thinking you're still wrong, and still pained by the knowledge someone corrected you.

Some of the things he said were pretty racist if I remember correctly.

Lies

What is that? Link in because I can't find it on google.

What? I thought it was pretty established that he was racist (Not saying that's a bad thing.)
>"

First, the obvious: what's wrong with hipsters on food stamps is that these are college educated people who should be able to get jobs, not live off the state. They're not black, after all. Hell, one of the two in the article is even Asian. "What, like Russian Asian?" No, like Asian Asian."

Mumble mumble narcissism mumble mumble

hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/

he's a tlp rip off, some stuff is good but his essays tend to be bloated with examples and pop culture references

Some stereotypes are true.

He employs inflammatory rhetoric to highlight the point of view of the author and the readership.

>There is an article about hipsters on food stamps
>If the article has been written, it's to push an agenda (if you're reading it, it's for you)
>The article exists because the hipsters are white ("blacks on food stamps" would not be suitable clickbait, "hipsters on food stamps" implies whiteness)
>one of the hipsters being Asian challenges our preconceptions of Asian-Americans being affluent

He does the same thing a few paragraphs later in the same article:
>It's hard to accept that the University of Chicago grad described in the article isn't employable, that the economy doesn't need him, but it is absolutely true, but my point here is that not only is he not contributing, the economy doesn't need him to contribute. Which is good, because there's nothing he can do for it. 1. Anything requiring science is out. 2. "He can work manual labor!" I love how people assume economics doesn't apply to construction. The demand for those jobs is very high AND hipsters suck at them. At any wage, Gerry the hipster will always be outworked by Vinnie the son of a longshoreman, who will always be outworked by a Mexican illegal, i.e. the system will always be able to find someone who can do the job better AND with lower labor costs. Bonus: no need to pay Jose's insurance, everyone knows Hispanics never get sick, except fake psychiatrically.

n.b. he doesn't actually believe that Hispanics are immune to disease or that his Hispanic patients are faking mental illness

Alone is not racist. When he lists stereotypes of black people, Hispanic people, women etc. he's merely pointing out the subjective biases that people hold in their hearts. He trying to show you how your common man possesses a horrible prejudice about people before he even reads about the issues; or how John Smith relies on anecdotal evidence, images from mass media, his parents' words, etc which shapes his worldview.

Look at your example. If the article was about black people, instead of hipsters, being unable to find a job after college, most people would think, "oh well, that's too bad, but they are black, what did you expect?"

The stereotype is that black people are dumb, East Asians are smart, etc. and it's shocking when people don't fit the image that is projected onto them.

This all ties into Alone's main point, about narcissism, and how not only how people want to be seen as how they think they should be seen, but that others should ALSO conform to how THEY see them.

Perfect example: the "nice" guy at a bar who tries to pick up chicks by being creepy
When he's inevitably rejected, he shows his true colors, calling the woman cunt and bitch and such

Narcissism is evident here; he wants to be seen a certain way, but saying you're a nice guy doesn't make you so
The girl can see through that, and when she rejects him, it's basically rejecting the image he's trying to portray, his "self"
As such, he attacks her, seeking to repay the favor by denigrating her "self"

Even the fake conversation in that paragraph points out what Alone is trying to do. You forgot a "What?!" at the end, which is the bullet that shows the average man's bewilderment at an "Asian Asian" being unemployed, because it doesn't fit the stereotype

Go read the piece he wrote about women and makeup
He largely talks about power structures and how positions that once commanded power and respect, like the government, and teaching, were strictly dominated by men, until more recently, there's been an influx of women and minorities

The thing to note here is that these jobs didn't become powerless when women and minorities entered the field (the average, illogical man's thoughts)
But that because these jobs became powerless that women were able to enter them

And he goes on to say how women seem to be unable to enter the areas where they can achieve real power
Law used to be big back in the day, now there's a ton of women in law school right around the time where lawyers are telling people to study literally anything else
And high finance positions and tech firms, the two largest places for opportunity and money right now, are staffed be the vast majority of men
Think about that, and why that's the case

Come on Veeky Forums I thought you understood subtle writing
It saddens me that some of you think racism isn't a bad thing, or even illogical
I'll probably leave this website soon

You're completely right, and you said what I wanted to say with fewer words. I'm glad there are still intelligent people who are able to understand Alone's writing, and not take it at face value.

>Come on Veeky Forums I thought you understood subtle writing
>It saddens me that some of you think racism isn't a bad thing, or even illogical
I picked up on this subtlety but many racists write in this same way. You aren't familiar enough with opposed belief structures if you're not familiar with the "Yes of course blacks are inferior but unlike you LOW-CLASS racists I don't hate them because of it and I recognize there are outliers" archetype. Given Alone's twitter associates, psuedonymity, and writing style I figured this was his angle. Basically nothing you wrote is something someone who accepts HBD would deny.

Oh, I forgot to address that second part I quoted. I'd like to know what specifically you find illogical or bad about HBD since you seem actually sincere and not just a shitflinger.

nigga you reaching

Okay whatever

>"Why is Alone lenient on the judge who beats his daughter? Can he really believe Wall Street is blameless? He thinks the media is creating a straw man of a college kid angry at Paterno's firing?"

>You don't need me to point out the obvious bad guys, there is no point for me to decry scientific misconduct and pedophilia. But when I don't do it you think there's something wrong with me, that I'm blind. Why do you want me to say the things you already know are true? Because that's what you were trained to want.

>What you need me for is to untrain you, force you to realize that focusing on the obvious bad guys is a defense against looking at everything else, because that everything else is you. You were trained by media which labels hypocrisy as the worst sin imaginable; and individual instances of corruption-- hey, there's a welfare cheat, hey, there's Bernie Madoff-- as the appropriate target for your wrath. Bernie Madoff is not your problem, he is not your enemy, and unless you lost money to him he is nothing to you; and as long as you can be reminded to be angry at him you are not going to ask why the system needs Bernie Madoffs to survive. Stapel may have invented the data that no one will look at but Science didn't vet the conclusions that everyone will remember. Which is worse? "Keep your guns trained on the bullet proof straw man. Look over there, he's a jerk!" If they can drive you to rage, they've succeeded.

>Here's the synthesis: there's an argument against OccupyWallSt, and another about a beating your daughter, and another about raping some kid in a shower, and this, and etc-- all of these are the same thing. All of these represent the institutionalization, the mainstream acceptance, of self-serving behavior because that behavior allows everyone else to be equally self-serving. Or, in more basic yet precise language: individual narcissism is encouraged to permit the existence of societal narcissism, all of which is at the expense of your soul. Repent.

I miss him so much bros

by HBD I'm assuming you're referring to human biodiversity
Like so: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#Race_and_intelligence

Honestly I don't know nearly enough about genetics to try and pretend that my opinion is fact

But whether humans vary in traits by race or not, to be prejudiced against someone because of assumed characteristics is horrible
Does one part represent the whole?

I understand HOW someone can see a black person, and generalize their negative traits/behavior to an entire group of people, because it's easy to think like that
I make racist jokes and remarks too sometimes, like women can't drive, or whatever
But it doesn't make it right; rather, it's terribly wrong

"You can't judge a book by it's cover" and all that
I understand this is more of an emotional argument than a logical one

But can you honestly tell me that discriminating based on race is a good thing?
It feels sickening to think that people do do that, and I'm guilty of it myself

what are you trying to say? Did you even read the article?
Alone is trying to point out that there are so many factors here that you can't even use the conclusions of the study

What of racial bias?
What of the trash on the ground?
Would the same thing happen, black on black?
What about the white researchers observing, this isn't a natural environment?
whatever

ultimately your and mine and everyone else's prejudices come out
that's why he titled it "White People Think Black People are Dirty"
He's trying to show you something about yourself

At least, thanks to him, I've tried to make significant changes in my life. Other anons should think to do the same.

In high school I became a buddhist nazi (unironic kind) after binge-reading TLP so I'm not sure everyone applies his teachings to their life in the same way.

A buddhist nazi? I don't mean to be rude, but how did that work out?
Buddhism and natsoc seem to be polar opposites
and how did reading Alone's work push you in that direction?
I'm really intrigued

Isent there "national-bolchevism"? Realy, ideologies dont need to make sense, they need to make you feel good. Is just like politics. Problem is, you end up at some realy stupid combinations, like the natbol and so on

I know what you mean, I became an aimless NEET

>you will never be as smart as Alone

why live

Can't publish from the grave

Any actual source for that statement.

>The book is in two parts. The first part is a straight up porn short story. There's penis and vagina and lots of cum/ming. I have deliberately not written the story "well", whatever that means, I am imitating the flow and style of that kind of story. I didn't try to make it sensual or unusual; while it is hard core pornography it is a fairly vanilla story-- boy vs. girl, no vampires, no one dies-- obvious in its language and plot and etc. My goal wasn't to elevate the genre but to photograph it. I did this so that you could assure yourself that there is nothing meaningful there, no symbolism-- just explicit porn. And then to business.

>No. It's not the deconstruction of a text, it is the interpretation of a dream. I make no attempt to explain what porn means in general, only what it means to you.

Can we find his book, Veeky Forums, and whatever pseudonym it's been published under?

>contrarian
>voted Hilary

Well, I became a psychiatrist and started my own clinic with the model he provided and now I am fucking rich.

So is Alone a he or she?

mega.nz/#!p950BTAK!Ojz_2B9gP4bKETa-GczW-dTIo0wGYm6inPmogzPpmWE

Audio for a talk he gave at the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law about narcissism

Why would you even think he's a girl? Even discarding the fact that he's doxed, you can tell from his prose he's male.

I remember they would argue about that in the comments a lot. I haven't paid attention to that blog for the past three years so I don't remember what got me on board with questioning the author's sex

That sounds pretty much exactly how I thought he'd sound.

>First article
>Amy Schumer is very funny and very quick

OD'd on rum, press F to pay respects

it was a different time

>"I'm actually a hardcore Republican"

oh SHIT

Does that surprise you?

Why did he stop paying the bill for partialobjects?

He's dead, the TLP site will soon go out as well.

I always thought he was a lolbertarian

2012 was still the phase where everyone was 'shocked' with her humor. Once the shock wore off, everyone realized she's just an unfunny pig who talks about having a vagina and being a whore.

I know that you're arguing based on values, but I would argue that racism and discrimination based on race isn't an issue of values. I mean sure, some lower-iq racists who haven't analyzed themselves might see it as an issue of values, but implicitly values don't really have anything to do with what drives it. Racism is first and foremost a strategy of survival, both of yourself as an individual and of your offspring.

Would you agree that racism is the end result of identity politics? I mean, if you’re going to fight for the rights and privileges of your identity, you’re going to be making generalizations based on identity and ultimately be discriminating against competing identities in favor of your own. And the decisions as to whether to engage in identity politics or not is just a matter of game theory. A group of cooperating individuals who can all easily tell in-group from out-group is going to be more successful than the out-group if the out-group is made up entirely of selfish, non-cooperating individuals, or even if it’s made up of humanitarians who try to treat everyone equally. So at that point, it just becomes a matter of who can form a cohesive in-group first and keep everyone in the out-group from doing the same.
jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Now to try to swing this back around to what you were talking about, in matters of survival, does it really matter who is “good” and “bad” by your standards? If one group is going to push for identity politics in their favor, to not play the game with them and join in on the identity politics is to forsake your own survival in the long-term. It doesn’t really matter whether my group is the best or the worst, just that another competing group sees and treats me as part of that group. Is it good that we have to slaughter pigs and chop down trees? Maybe not, but the pigs and trees of the world could care less if I starve.

Can I get a quick rundown on this guy?

thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/10/the_story_of_narcissus.html

I agree that racism is really a more specific form of the "us vs. them" mentality that has existed since time immemorial, a survival tactic which still persists (sports fans, politics, social class obviously)

Racism is the end result of id politics, yes
When you utilize racism, you can define yourself and others like you against people who aren't like you
This allows one to consider themselves superior to other groups, and convince themselves that they are the ones who are more deserving

Since race is more evident that other characteristics, it serves as an easily applicable measure to identify and segregate groups of people

Like you said, with game theory in mind, of course an ethnocentric mindset which excludes others not of your group is more successful

And it's not just ethnocentrism which is dominant, but a similar "people like us" group mentality; attending certain schools, joining frats, living in a certain area, knowing the language, dress, etc. of certain social/wealth based classes

These are all categories which help bring similar people together, to assist one another, and simultaneously exclude others

Taking all of this into account, whether you apply positive or negative labels onto the excluding action (here, racism), you're playing a losing game if someone else engages in an ethnocentric attitude and you aren't

I understand this. Most people tend to help out others who are like them, myself included, and race is usually a large factor in deciding who receives said help.

However, racism as a survival tactic is not essential as your example of slaughtering pigs and cutting down trees
It provides more of an advantage in social dynamics, like being promoted in a job

If we're to argue that values don't apply here, that racism isn't "bad", despite all the harm it has caused throughout human history, despite the millions of people who have suffered unjustly as a result of the prejudices of racism, the millions of Jews who were executed in the Holocaust on the basis of race, the Africans who were mistreated and killed because of apartheid, and, since this is America, the multiple generations of African Americans who were enslaved and beaten, raped, killed, and worked to death, who were then and are still sort of today treated as second class citizens, never mind the many immigrants of this country who were discriminated against when they came here, never mind the good they've done for it, never mind an U.S. President who has openly made racist and misogynist remarks

Then the simplest argument I can give is an appeal to authority (logical fallacy I know bro), that in countries around the world, in the major world powers, and in the UN, racism is considered abhorrent, and laws exist to prevent its propagation

And since powers much greater than you and I have set the rules regarding racism, our discussion about it serves no purpose
They consider it wrong, so that's that

I consider it wrong as well

Racism as a survival tactic is entirely essential in the long-term. Modernity is a bubble, it's not going to last forever. Genocide, pogroms, and sectarian violence aren't exceptions in history, they're the rule. The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. Maybe the strong don't fit some hippy worldview definition of good, but I'd sure as hell rather be a part of the strong than the weak. I never said racism was good, that’s not my argument. If the choice comes down to being ‘bad’ and able to defend myself and being ‘good’ and doomed to suffer at the will of others, well then I’m not going to give a damn about your conception of good and bad, I’m going to do what I need to survive. And I think my last post puts forward a pretty strong argument that your idea of ‘bad’ is doing what is necessary to survive.

It’s kind of interesting the examples you chose, as if to frame it that the West is the only one guilty of this line of thinking. This isn’t unique to the West at all, it’s the baseline of thinking for every successful society. Who enslaved the Africans in the first place and sold them to the Europeans? What of the Barbary Slave Trade, or the Arab Slave Trade, or the Untouchables of India, or the Booi Aha of China? The idea that any of these things are unacceptable itself is a Western idea in the first place, but where did that lead the European peoples?

Europeans began favoring the out-group above their in-group, but what are the consequences of that in Europe? A total replacement of the in-group peoples by the out-group peoples?
un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

You deride Apartheid, but where has its absence left the Boers in the country they created from nothing?
telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/03/jacob-zuma-calls-confiscation-white-land-without-compensation/
businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2017-07-06-transform-or-wait-for-the-revolution8218-warns-julius-malema/
news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-escalate/news-story/3a63389a1b0066b6b0b77522c06d6476

When the US was founded, it was dominated by the British and full of Germans, Irish, Dutch, and Africans. But none of those groups are going to inherit the country, La Raza will.

And finally the old “the powers that be believe x, don’t fight for y”, the last refuge of a losing argument. A large change is the sum of many smaller changes. White Europeans didn’t become convinced to forsake their in-group bias all at once. The powers that be fought it and the current order won the day, if we’re to have any hope of survival than we have to do the same and retake the institutions that have been turned against us.

I understand "racism" just feels so bad and icky to you. Its just not a good thing, kind of like how "democracy" and "equality" make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. But this reddit bullshit doesn't fly here. Race is statistically well founded as evidence for various other traits. Just like an animal looking like a bear is statistically well founded evidence for other traits. The only difference is degree and how bad it makes you feel. And don't ever fucking post again with a trip or reddit spacing.

I didn't mean to cast the West in an unfavorable light or anything

And I'm also worried about the mass migration currently occurring in Europe

But I'll never be convinced that racism is ever the right choice, and yes, "right" is a subjective thing that I define and value

As says in a demeaning way, it really boils down to ideas like equality and how it makes me feel

But that's what I value, and that's what drives my thinking

Racism isn't right, or justifiable, period.
That's what I think.

>some of you think racism isn't a bad thing, or even illogical
>I'll probably leave this website soon
byebye

thanks bro
take care