The book is Sadly, Porn. Like you I have a fondness—a nostalgia—for the writings of The Last Psychiatrist (hereafter TLP). In fact, those who have been with me for a while know that my 2019 novella, God-Shaped Hole was intended as an homage to this then-hypothetical work. Also like you, I never expected TLP to deliver. But he has, and I have torn myself away from judging over 400 of your original works of fiction for
Hey ZeroHP, TLP here, I want to say that I was just pretending to be retarded for 300 pages. And furthermore, I'm not a cuck, the explicit and finely detailed porn scenes are just the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of sex. Niggers tongue my anus.
Ironically, you and Scott Alexander fully convinced me to buy this book. Not because the writing is particularly appealing, nor because I have any familiarity with The Last Psychiatrist (I was a tween when he stopped writing), but because the actual method of analysis seems interesting.
I'm not quite sure I understand your critique of his both-sideism. While it is an annoying trope of the (usually left-leaning) politically illiterate to claim that "both sides are equally bad," TLP's point that the most animated of politically active individuals are fundamentally similar is not new, even if his particular analysis is. Many have pointed out that much of the right has adopted the tactics of the left, but with opposite goals. There are left-wing and right-wing "progressives," but few true conservatives left. Ironically, I would posit that these conservatives are theological (as opposed to political) Christians and neoliberals, but I'm not familiar enough with your writing to know in advance what your response would be.
888 about 888, but I read the whole thing. I guess that makes me an 888 connoisseur. TLP was always "eccentric", but this almost seems sad.
Not looking forward to reviewing the Zero HP Lovecraft book about cuckolding and womens suffrage in 8 years. You either get off the internet in 6 years, or you live long enough to write a book full of cringe.
I particularly like the parts of this review where you slip into talking like TLP. The line about Gell-Mann amnesia is one he absolutely could've written.
I didn't really discover TLP until recently - he's a bit before my time - but with all his use of antiquated metaphorical cliches it's pretty clear what generation of psychology this guy comes from. Recognizing the work in the field of cognitive science would be a good start for any psychologist because our brains aren't simply keeping ledgers, relationships formed in the brain are extraordinarily dynamic.
Nov 8, 2023·edited Nov 8, 2023Liked by Zero HP Lovecraft
It occurred to me that one reason why Sadly, Porn may have felt, sounded, and looked disjointed is that TLP perhaps mostly didn't 'write' but 'assemble' the book. This would make the extensive unrelated footnotes make sense as something preexisting before the writing or assemblage of the book but has to be squeezed in, and it'd also account for the indulgent length.
"Cold reading works exactly the same way: TLP tells you twenty pathological things about you and you relate to four of them, and then you think, wow, so insightful. There’s really something to this"
Ever thought that this is not about a particular "you", the reader, but about the reader's culture, that is, the potential audience and the world around them at large? And you might only have (or only relate to) 4 of those pathological things, but your culture has all 20, and even more so, other cultures/eras didn't have those particular 20.
That's what the diagnosis is of: of a culture, not of an individual reader (even less so of each individual reader), which the author has no way of knowning, haven't met, and haven't examined. But, even if this is obvious, to repeat the author, you thought it was all about you, didn't you? That's certainly one of those 20 pathologies, and it's also one you can now relate to yourself too!
"The way that cashes out is that the book assumes you have progressive (normie) politics, even though I suspect anyone online enough to read this book probably does not have normie politics, though it’s hard to be sure. One theory is that it’s written to normie because the dissident can handle normie content, but not the other way around, another theory is that if the writer and the reader both pretend we’re talking about a normie then it gives us a certain kind of breathing room to maintain a critical distance while assessing the ideas. "
Given the previous answer, isn't it obvious why it's written assuming normie politics? Because normie politics are the culture of 21st century USA (and other politics an irrelevant, increasingly dwindling demographically, academically, politically, etc. case). Again: it's not about some specific reader, it's about the waters any reader (or non-reader) swims in.
In his infamous "zex question" answering, he was merely representing the teaching of the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches alike on lust. He is correct in his tweet about not doing to your girlfriend what you wouldn't do to your sister: a "girlfriend" has no canonical status, after all. No sexual desire can be acted upon outside the bounds of marriage, and even within marriage, the Law of God (which is Love) doesn't become lenient to the extent that the world would like it. Too bad, Die For Christ, Die To Self And Live For Him.
Though not all nudity is harmful to look at, Zoomer Theosis is CLOSE. He is calling attention to the fact that lust can exist within marriage, and be sinful.
That said, I'm not reading the thousand page unfunny schizopost thanks to this post. You are like the Jews of Mideval Europe were to the Catholic order- you commit usury by delving into the pornographic book so we don't have to (Likewise, it is a position that would be better unfilled)
Incredible stuff. A controlled demolition of a scale not seen since Tower 7.
Hey ZeroHP, TLP here, I want to say that I was just pretending to be retarded for 300 pages. And furthermore, I'm not a cuck, the explicit and finely detailed porn scenes are just the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of sex. Niggers tongue my anus.
Ironically, you and Scott Alexander fully convinced me to buy this book. Not because the writing is particularly appealing, nor because I have any familiarity with The Last Psychiatrist (I was a tween when he stopped writing), but because the actual method of analysis seems interesting.
I'm not quite sure I understand your critique of his both-sideism. While it is an annoying trope of the (usually left-leaning) politically illiterate to claim that "both sides are equally bad," TLP's point that the most animated of politically active individuals are fundamentally similar is not new, even if his particular analysis is. Many have pointed out that much of the right has adopted the tactics of the left, but with opposite goals. There are left-wing and right-wing "progressives," but few true conservatives left. Ironically, I would posit that these conservatives are theological (as opposed to political) Christians and neoliberals, but I'm not familiar enough with your writing to know in advance what your response would be.
888 about 888, but I read the whole thing. I guess that makes me an 888 connoisseur. TLP was always "eccentric", but this almost seems sad.
Not looking forward to reviewing the Zero HP Lovecraft book about cuckolding and womens suffrage in 8 years. You either get off the internet in 6 years, or you live long enough to write a book full of cringe.
Who’s the comedy act of the alt right? Kantbot?
I gotta say, you really make me not want to read this book.
I particularly like the parts of this review where you slip into talking like TLP. The line about Gell-Mann amnesia is one he absolutely could've written.
> the best coinage in the book is when he refers to your smart phone as a teleprompter.
I had a bit of a brain hiccup and read it as a telescreen, of the Orwellian variety. I can't decide which version of this comparison I like more.
I didn't really discover TLP until recently - he's a bit before my time - but with all his use of antiquated metaphorical cliches it's pretty clear what generation of psychology this guy comes from. Recognizing the work in the field of cognitive science would be a good start for any psychologist because our brains aren't simply keeping ledgers, relationships formed in the brain are extraordinarily dynamic.
I read the whole thing and described it to my fiance. It was thrilling.
Insightful, as always.
"Psychoanalysis refers to the capacity to act as “having the phallus.” This is based. On Freud."'
Ha !
It occurred to me that one reason why Sadly, Porn may have felt, sounded, and looked disjointed is that TLP perhaps mostly didn't 'write' but 'assemble' the book. This would make the extensive unrelated footnotes make sense as something preexisting before the writing or assemblage of the book but has to be squeezed in, and it'd also account for the indulgent length.
"Cold reading works exactly the same way: TLP tells you twenty pathological things about you and you relate to four of them, and then you think, wow, so insightful. There’s really something to this"
Ever thought that this is not about a particular "you", the reader, but about the reader's culture, that is, the potential audience and the world around them at large? And you might only have (or only relate to) 4 of those pathological things, but your culture has all 20, and even more so, other cultures/eras didn't have those particular 20.
That's what the diagnosis is of: of a culture, not of an individual reader (even less so of each individual reader), which the author has no way of knowning, haven't met, and haven't examined. But, even if this is obvious, to repeat the author, you thought it was all about you, didn't you? That's certainly one of those 20 pathologies, and it's also one you can now relate to yourself too!
"The way that cashes out is that the book assumes you have progressive (normie) politics, even though I suspect anyone online enough to read this book probably does not have normie politics, though it’s hard to be sure. One theory is that it’s written to normie because the dissident can handle normie content, but not the other way around, another theory is that if the writer and the reader both pretend we’re talking about a normie then it gives us a certain kind of breathing room to maintain a critical distance while assessing the ideas. "
Given the previous answer, isn't it obvious why it's written assuming normie politics? Because normie politics are the culture of 21st century USA (and other politics an irrelevant, increasingly dwindling demographically, academically, politically, etc. case). Again: it's not about some specific reader, it's about the waters any reader (or non-reader) swims in.
I am going to defend Zoomer Theosis!
In his infamous "zex question" answering, he was merely representing the teaching of the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches alike on lust. He is correct in his tweet about not doing to your girlfriend what you wouldn't do to your sister: a "girlfriend" has no canonical status, after all. No sexual desire can be acted upon outside the bounds of marriage, and even within marriage, the Law of God (which is Love) doesn't become lenient to the extent that the world would like it. Too bad, Die For Christ, Die To Self And Live For Him.
Though not all nudity is harmful to look at, Zoomer Theosis is CLOSE. He is calling attention to the fact that lust can exist within marriage, and be sinful.
That said, I'm not reading the thousand page unfunny schizopost thanks to this post. You are like the Jews of Mideval Europe were to the Catholic order- you commit usury by delving into the pornographic book so we don't have to (Likewise, it is a position that would be better unfilled)
So what am I supposed to do?