510 Comments
founding

Welcome back! We've missed you!

Expand full comment

Ah, the smell of a fresh post

Expand full comment

For those eager to see new Scott writing after the drought, check out that Lorien Psychiatry page! There's lots of psychiatry-related content there, most of which seems new, written in Scott's usual style (with slightly fewer amazing offhand comments than usual, but quite the page-turner compared to just about any other online medical resource).

Expand full comment

Thanks! The notes on supplements definitely has that feel to it of a sane person patiently explaining something in a world of insanity.

Expand full comment

While I like the writing style of Lorien Pschiatry unfortunately I find the site physically hard to read: if the font was changed from a weight of 300 to 400, and the color from #555 to #000, I would find it a lot easier to read, as I expect would many older people with poor eyesight.

Expand full comment

I know it may be helpful enough, but there are some excellent addons (or "extensions") for Chrome (any browser, really) that can dramatically improve readability. I tried many in Chrome and settled on "Reader View Plus." I appreciate being able to change line spacing, width of the paragraphs, setting the font to something larger and serif, and using light gray on a dark gray background. Hopefully you can find something that works for you!

Expand full comment

I use Firefox and the reader view on that is pretty good and allows me to view the articles. Also I use the Stylus add-on (user-defined CSS). So it's not really what works for me that's my concern -- it's what works for other people, i.e. Scott's prospective patients. If I find a web layout annoying or hard to read, others will to and I'd like Scott's business to be a success.

Expand full comment

Pocket has served me well. getpocket.com

Expand full comment

Try https://readup.com/ there is an app on iOS plus extensions for Firefox, Safari, Chrome, etc...

There is a little social element too, in that you cannot place a comment on an article, until you've read the piece in its entirety.

That way you know everyone who has commented has read the piece! allows for great conversations.

Expand full comment

Hey, Scott! I'm really glad to see you back. I can't wait to read what you write next.

Expand full comment

That last sentence is heartwarming. Welcome back, my man. We've missed you.

Expand full comment

So utterly delighted you are back!

Expand full comment

The Glados interlude throughout really makes it.

Expand full comment

I love how he changed just two words (two phonemes, three letters) in the last bit to really change the meaning.

Expand full comment

I'm really glad everything turned out ok for you and you're back to blogging. Best luck with your new practice!

Expand full comment

Thanks.

Expand full comment

Fantastic.

Expand full comment

Wheeee!

Expand full comment

I'm sufficiently pleased about this that I'll overlook making it a Portal reference but don't push your luck bub

Expand full comment

Portal is one of the greatest games ever made and Jonathan Coulton is one of the best living musicians. This is just good taste.

Expand full comment

Right, but, any joy in that song was washed out by that solid year of people doing really sincere covers of Still Alive on ukelele / trombone / dot matrix printer etc.

Expand full comment

Instant subscribe, It's great to hear from you again Scott. I wish you the best of luck with Lorien Psychology and I look forwards to seeing which direction you take with this new blog.

Will you be returning to Twitter in any capacity, either as @slatestarcodex or @astralcodexten?

Expand full comment

I just claimed https://twitter.com/astralcodexten; happy to give it to Scott if he wants it. I also got astralcodex.net and pointed it to the substack.

Expand full comment

I see the subreddit AstralCodexTen is private. Is that you, too?

Expand full comment

Nope, though I had the same thought. No idea who that one is.

Expand full comment

Good job!

Expand full comment

I like the astralcodex.net idea! Use the domain as part of the anagram.

Expand full comment

He lives!

Expand full comment

Oh my gosh. I have missed you so much.

I want your next couple of posts to be about nothing more than what you've been up to with nothing more stressful than stories about the various recipes you've been working on in the kitchen.

Expand full comment

Hey Scott, how's tricks

Expand full comment

It feels so good to see you back Scott :)

Expand full comment

Welcome back to blogging, Scott! Best of luck with your new practice, I look forward to your conversation with Alex Tabarrok whether you succeed or fail gloriously.

Expand full comment

Great to have you back, dood!

Expand full comment

Wonderful news! Great to have the blog back (for both myself and the world) but even better to hear that you’re doing well and that this will hopefully be the start of great new things!

Expand full comment

Congratulations, good luck with the practice, I look forward to hearing the hilarious and horrifying story of how bureaucracy killed it

Expand full comment

Bentornati Scott! Good to see you back and very best of luck with your new practice.

Expand full comment

So happy to have you back, Scott! I just signed up for an annual subscription, the first time I've paid for writing online. My bank (Boa) didn't seem to expect this of me, and initially declined the transaction as suspicious.

Expand full comment

I also just got a call from my bank for exactly this, lmao

Expand full comment

Welcome back Scott!

Expand full comment

It's wonderful to meet you, Dr. Siskind.

Expand full comment

So, what happened to the deadly neurotoxin?

Expand full comment

Welcome back! I'm baking cake in celebration.

Expand full comment

Your blog is one of the bright spots in my life, so glad to hear from you again!

Expand full comment

Welcome back, hero.

Expand full comment

Welcome back, Scott

Expand full comment

Welcome back. You SWATted our hearts.

Expand full comment

ACT, eh? That's an acronym I can get used to. Welcome back Scott, long live The Blog!

Expand full comment

He appears be using ACX

Expand full comment

Tbh, I like that even better

Expand full comment

Welcome back!!!

Expand full comment

This is so wonderful. Congratulations.

Expand full comment

Literally brought a tear to my eye. Great to see you pull strength out of adversity. Looking forward to reading you again.

Expand full comment

I'm so glad you're back! I really missed your blog especially during the past few months.

Expand full comment

Hey, your "all psychiatrists" link points to a Google cache rather than directly to the page being linked. It should point here: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/why-psychiatrists-don-t-share-personal-information-with-patients/

Thank you!

Expand full comment

Oh my god, this post cured my cancer. Thanks Scott - we've all missed you greatly and warmly welcome you back.

Expand full comment

I'm very psyched. I am subscribing as soon as I get home.

Expand full comment

So good to have you back Scott. Best of luck with these new ventures, I can't wait to see how it all turns out.

Expand full comment

Instantly subscribed for the year. Thanks for all of your incredible writing in the past. I wait excitedly for all of your writing in the future.

Expand full comment

Let's hope that Substack improves the comment interface. I miss the original site's density, page size and comment threading.

Expand full comment
author

By threading, do you mean that I can respond to your comment directly? Are other people having problems with this?

Expand full comment

Actually, I was unaware of this when I wrote my comment, since none of the comments at that time were threaded. Maybe nobody is using it yet, because this topic isn't one that begets discussion! (But your original blog did always have very interesting comment threads so I'll wait hopefully.)

Expand full comment

I agree about the density. As proven by this comment, threading works fine for me. One thing I actually liked a lot about the old comment threads was the _lack_ of a like button: it forced me to just read arguments at face value without thinking about the extent to which there was popular support for those arguments. I hope the like button here doesn't change the comment landscape perversely

Expand full comment

I like the number of likes that this comment has.

Expand full comment

I like the number of people who like that you like it.

(I'm open to seeing how this new incentive structure seems to be playing out, but the SSC comment section was so uniquely good before that I'm worried that changes are more likely to cause regression to the mean than to be improvements.)

Expand full comment

Strong upvote!

Hmm... if you use Tampermonkey-or-a-similar-plugin, hiding the like-count is [extremely simple](https://tinyurl.com/hide-substack-likes-userscript). (Though obviously this doesn't change the incentive landscape.)

Expand full comment

I agree the like button might make bandwagoning easier. You should be able to hide it with an extension or ublock for personal use at least.

A couple other things:

- The comments seem to nest indefinitely, which leads to issues that heavily nested comments get very narrow and hard to read. As much as people complained about the lack of deep nesting on the old blog, it seemed to have the advantage that things were easy to read and didn't lead to a bunch of hidden rabbit holes.

- There doesn't seem to be a way to do simple formatting, unless I've missed a source. Testing _underscores_ *asterisks* -dashes- ~tilde~.

This is all with the understanding you may not have much control over how comments are done on here. Mostly just glad you're back, Scott!

Expand full comment

Yes, this. If possible please get rid of the like button. For a readership as ideologically diverse and often very contrarian this button decreases the utility of the comment section.

Expand full comment

Threading is fine, but I really loved the ~new~ text on the old site. If there's any way you can bring it back here, that'd be great.

(Also, could you please restore the old site's theme, so we can sort comments oldest-first instead of newest-first? It's almost unreadable now.)

Expand full comment

The lack of a "no, seriously, just load all the comments right now onto this page so I can search/scan/whatever them myself" button is painful for me, and possibly not just me

Expand full comment

You're definitely not alone. Ctrl-f works so much better if you don't have to click "Load more" fifty times first. (Naively, I'd estimate a "Load All" button to be two hours of coding work, and that would pay off in collective time saved in a single popular post.

Expand full comment

What I can't figure out is how I'm supposed to see if anyone has replied to any of my comments?

It seems like I literally have to hit 'load more comments' over and over until it runs out, before I can ctrl-f myself.

Somewhat excruciating, especially i the comment section remains large.

Expand full comment

Well they seem to email you every time someone replies. (And every time someone likes your comment. Is there really no way to disable this without manually muting every thread?) But yeah, it doesn't seem smart enough to load your comment directly even when using their link.

Expand full comment

Now I feel bad about 'like' ing and replying.

Expand full comment

The comments don’t even seem to have unique URL identifiers. So if you click the link it emails to reply to someone, you have to keep showing more until the one you want appears.

And I wouldn’t type long replies in the browser, because it’s easy to accidentally delete them.

Expand full comment

You are going to make substack a lot of money -- I bet they would consider adding some new options (like turning the like button on and off) if you asked.

Expand full comment

I also recommend scrapping like button, if possible. It was rather unique and great feature of the SSC that it did not have one.

Expand full comment

Fantastic to have you back Scott, 2021 just got a whole lot better.

Expand full comment

Fantastic to have you back Scott. 2021 just got a whole lot better.

Expand full comment

I have not read yet, but I wanted to say thar you are a big inspiration in my life right now, I'm a piece of shit & trying to better myself, every time I read your art I want to study like there is no tomorrow. Strange bit of text but just thanks and I hope they don't make you go away again. Respectfully

Expand full comment

A wonderful way to kick off 2021

Expand full comment

Good to see you back

Expand full comment

Once again, is really really good to have you back.

There's a lot in there, but one thing above confused me. Or, more to the point, confused me in a "am I bad/terrible/stupid/etc for not getting this?" level of confusion:

"She then went on to doxx the Vice reporter involved, Which Was Morally Wrong And I Do Not Condone It"

Why was it morally wrong in that circumstance? Doxing is wrong in general, but if someone promises not to dox you, then goes ahead and willfully doxes you, and you have no other reasonable recourse... why is "dox them back" actually morally wrong? Could you or anyone here spell it out for me why "doxing the doxers that dox you, who clearly are acting in a way that implies they themselves have no objection to doxing" is bad? (I feel stupid and bad for asking this, but that feeling doesn't actually provide me with a clear spelled out answer, so...)

Expand full comment

Big picture stuff; if somebody draws a knife and stabs you, the law of the jungle gives you the go ahead to draw your knife and stab them back.

But then all future admonitions about how crappy it is that everybody of going around stabbing each other over every got dang little thing will ring a bit hollow. Hard to enforce a taboo when it gets broken casually every day of the week and twice on Fridays.

Scott cares more about keeping the taboo intact than about affirming the right to stab back when stabbed.

Expand full comment

That did occur to me, but... the flipside is if the taboo isn't really being recognized by one side, so one side feels free to be all stabbystab, and the other goes "I must not fight back, even if I get stabbed", well... that's not exactly leading to good "big picture" prospects either.

As I basically asked in my reply to darwin's reply to me here: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/still-alive/comments#comment-1103418 is there any other adequate enforcement mechanism for the taboo presently available? My confusion was in the context of me being ignorant of any other reasonable recourses available to her.

(also, minor substack annoyance: I can't resize the textbox I'm typing this in. Aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!)

Expand full comment

I agree with this. Also, Scott capitalized it. I interpreted this as a tongue-in-cheek way of saying "this is the official position that I, as one who follows appropriate social norms, must of course hold". I thought the capitalization was a way to leave some ambiguity about whether Scott felt that doxxing the Vice reporter back was 'actually' bad (for some sense of actually - perhaps see https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/28/contra-askell-on-moral-offsets/).

Expand full comment

I not only love this blog, I love the people who love this blog. Thanks, Scott.

Expand full comment

Another detail is that doxing is an asymmetric weapon. Some people have more to lose than others. For some people in some countries it can mean secret police knocking on their door. For others, there is a small chance of some crazy people visiting them or trying to SWAT them... and this probably also depends a lot on the neighborhood. If you are a rich person, your house will probably be better protected, and the police is more likely to think twice about the evidence they have before kicking down your door.

So if a rich American man doxes a Chinese woman famous for having politically incorrect opinions, and she doxes him back for being an asshole, that's like someone stabbing you, and you spitting on them (because you don't have a knife with you while walking on the street). An emotional response that is understandable, arguably impolite and unnecessary, but can hardly be called justice.

(I have the same objection against using Twitter to make people lose their jobs. Don't those people realize they are legitimizing a weapon that works best against poor people who need jobs to survive, while a trust fund kid would just laugh at it?)

Expand full comment

I someone murders your sister, you're supposed to report them to the police instead of going out and murdering them yourself.

Of course, under many moral system, and most people's moral intuitions, you wouldn't be *wrong* to revenge-murder them, especially if you tried the police and they couldn't make a case.

BUT, a world where everyone relies on vigilante justice and revenge killings instead of an organized police force quickly descends into violent madness and endless blood feuds.

Similar here. The revenge doxing is ok in an 'eye-for-an-eye' sense, but counter-productive to the effort of creating a better world where people dox less.

Expand full comment

Not sure I agree with that logic. Murder is illegal and will hopefully get the attention of the police. Doxxing is not OK but AFAIK legal, so reporting to the police will have little effect. Therefore, any legal action that has a chance of getting people to understand that doxxing is in fact not OK is fair game. Revenge doxxing seems to fit the bill rather nicely.

Expand full comment

The idea of 'we will do a bad thing to hurt people so that everyone realizes that thing hurts people and stops doing it' is a very optimistic one, and I don't think it's how the world actually works usually.

I think doing bad things that hurt people, and facing no consequences for doing so, just tends to normalize those things and make them more common. Especially if you can make a compelling narrative that they 'deserved' it and therefore it was *good* that you did the bad thing, which seems to be the case here.

Expand full comment

Sure. But who is the "organized police" that'll do something about this? Right now, as near as I can determine, "you do to me, I do to you" is the only extant functional enforcement mechanism on this specific sort of matter. If I knew of alternative adequate recourse, then I wouldn't have found the "this is immoral" commentary as confusing.

If you have A promises B not to dox, then A doxes B, putting B in danger, and there's nothing at all that happens to A in return, so that they can happily keep doing that sort of thing, there appears to be a problem. (Am I missing something? Did she have some other recourse that I missed? If there exists some sort of "anti-dox police" that does a good job coming down hard on this sort of thing and actually preventing it, and she just chose not to avail herself of such, then that's a whole other situation.)

Expand full comment

This puzzled me, too. I wrote a friend with the quote and spelled out my confusion. Should've just asked the commentariat here.

I see you have replies. I'm about to read them, jus wanted To let you know you weren't the only one confused by it, and if that makes you stupid and bad I guess we can be stupid and bad together.

Expand full comment

Essentially, Kant was right. Behave as if the motivations for your behavior universalize, because your behavior provides a justification for others' behavior. The universal condemnation of doxxing is especially relevant for Scott because the entire point of this article, the deletion of his blog, hell this whole Substack, is that doxxing is bad.

Expand full comment

The modern day Nietzsche returns with some verse as well!

Expand full comment

I'm so relieved and happy you're back. I hope the changes you've made work out for you and make your life more awesome! :)

Expand full comment

Cool-cool (in the voice of Abed on Community).

Expand full comment

Cool cool cool*

Expand full comment

Oh, hey -- if you're giving up on anonymity, does that mean you'll put the old LJ back up? :) There's a lot of good posts there and it's a pain to have to use the Wayback Machine to read it.

Expand full comment

Seconding this.

Also, welcome back!

Expand full comment

thirding

Expand full comment

Welcome back king. I knew you'd come up from the ashes

Expand full comment

It is really good to have you back.

Expand full comment

Gavin McInnes is a lot of things, but "violent neo-fascist leader?" At this point, I want to see what happens if he has a sit-down chat with Scott. I am a fan of them both.

Expand full comment

Um. I think there may be some things about yourself that you don’t fully realize.

Expand full comment

I would like to realize them.

Expand full comment

Then here goes: You are either a fascist yourself, or particularly susceptible to the manipulation tactics used by fascists. McInnes is absolutely a fascist, and also the leader of a violent, white supremacist (not to mention deeply weird) gang.

I could go through it in more detail, but your reflexive rejection of a plain fact-stated by pretty much the most likely to be sympathetic source that is not also a fascist-means you’re likely unwilling to hear it.

Expand full comment

The Proud Boys do suck, and I agree with you on that point, but you have gotten several facts wrong. They are a violent paramilitary organization that should have disbanded long ago, but they are not fascist or white supremacist. They're multiracial and civic nationalist. Their problem isn't what they believe, which

is somewhere along the lines of PragerU or Daily Wire, but rather is their tendency to initiate fights. The group was supposed to act as security and defend speakers, not do brawls. Gavin stepped down in 2018, and my only complaint is that he hasn't sufficiently denounced the recent activities of the group, comparing them to "consensual bar brawls," as though those are somehow acceptable. Gavin himself is still the most entertaining person on the right today, and deserves to have the career Steven Crowder does.

Expand full comment

Pro tip: Anyone who describes themselves as “nationalist” is a Nazi being too cute by half. If you haven’t caught on, it’s because you aren’t that far down the radicalization pipeline they they dispense with the bullshit. You might never get there, but Nazis have been using coded language like that since the 1960s. Both to inure potential members (not to mention society more broadly) to their fascist ideology, but to avoid legal trouble.

> Their problem isn't what they believe, which is somewhere along the lines of PragerU or Daily Wire

Buddy, that right there is... it’s interesting. Because you named two stops on the fascism express, both part of a concerted effort to give fascist ideas a veneer credibility while insulating the group from inconvenient opposing views.

Remember that’s stuff you didn’t know about yourself? You just admitted to it. The beliefs are why they’re fascist, and you consider their fascist beliefs to be moderate. Which is due to an intentional focused effort to convince of just that going back decades.

> but rather is their tendency to initiate fights.

This is why they’re on the FBI’s radar. But not why they’re fascists. They pretty much figured fascism was on the brink of winning, so they could cut the bullshit and just become a terror group without consequences. They were a few million votes from correct about that not very long.

> The group was supposed to act as security and defend speakers, not do brawls.

Yes, and the Genovese family was just supposed to pick up garbage and provide security for small business owners.

> Gavin stepped down in 2018, and my only complaint is that he hasn't sufficiently denounced the recent activities of the group.

He “stepped down” to avoid civil liability and/or RICO exposure. It not entirely convincing that his ties are severed. Unless you take his word for it. Which, of course you do.

> Gavin himself is still the most entertaining person on the right today, and deserves to have the career Steven Crowder does.

Yes, he should have the career of Noted Not Fascist Steven Crowder.

I’m really sorry, buddy. But you’re in the pipeline. And if you’re not very careful, you risk being convinced to get involved in some bad shit.

Expand full comment

Daily Wire is a step to fascism? What's your definition of fascism?

Expand full comment

My family are army brass and they would consider themselves nationalist patriots. Nationalism is literally the name of the game, at the broad social level, and has been for thousands of years. Nationalism is literally how you avoid getting rubbed out by other nationalists. It's just the Nash Equilibrium of group violence.

"All nationalists are Nazis" is a lazy take. I get that it's a popular take, but it's lazy.

Expand full comment

You wrote a lot here, and made a lot of assertions, but I don't see where you presented any arguments that McInnes is a fascist. I hand't heard of the guy before just now, so I'm not sure who to believe but leaning toward the commenter who was less incendiary.

Also, I wonder whether your comment meets Scott's "true, necessary, kind" standard.

Expand full comment

I'll one up you. Gavin has sufficiently denounced them. He told them not to go to the January 6th protest. He told them not to go to the inauguration. One of them, Biggs, is now in jail, and Gavin is explicitly not supporting him legally because Gavin told Biggs not to go. All of this is public.

The original accusation of Scott was about Gavin. I think it's needless to go off into debating Proud Boys.

Gavin's alright, and the show is pretty tight.

Expand full comment

The Proud Boys have been indefensible for years, and I wish Gavin would admit it already instead of doing this "it's just brawling, like me and other punks did as teens" thing. But aside from that, Gavin is a good guy and I will defend him.

Expand full comment

Has he denounced himself? He's called for violence many times: https://www.facebook.com/vicbergeriv/videos/1243400416013469

"We will kill you, that's the Proud Boys in a nutshell"

"Beating the shit out of these people, I think it's our job to do it, and the cops to turn a blind eye"

"...don't listen to what he has to say, choke him"

"Fighting solves everything. We need more violence from the Trump people... choke a bitch, choke a tranny"

"Get ready to blow someone's fuckin' head off"

"This is a fuckin' war"

Honestly makes me sad to see people in the SSC comments defending this guy. This is not the "niceness, community, and civilization" ethos by any stretch.

Expand full comment

Any idea where I can find Gavin nowadays? I used to watch him somewhat, up until his youtube channel was taken down.

Expand full comment

>They are a violent paramilitary organization that should have disbanded long ago, but they are not fascist or white supremacist

Not *officially* white supremacist, but they've got people working on it! https://www.newsweek.com/proud-boys-based-stickman-enrique-tarrio-goys-1546597

Expand full comment

The current leader of the Proud Boys - Enrique Tarrio - is Cuban/latino which most wouldn't consider white.

Doesn't the fact that a group has to break away to be white supremacist exactly prove Jason's point that they are not white supremacist?

The whole point of this thread is that Scott made some pretty wild claims about Gavin Mcinness without much evidence except for a highly biased Wikipedia article. Scott should be smart enough to know not to link to _any_ controversial figure's Wikipedia article. It's sad to see is all.

Expand full comment

"Gavin stepped down in 2018"

> At times, McInnes appeared to contradict his promise to quit. He repeatedly described the group as “we”, throughout a lengthy defence of its actions, said “this is 100% a legal gesture, and it is 100% about alleviating sentencing”, and also called his actions a “stepping down gesture, in quotation marks”.

(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/22/proud-boys-founder-gavin-mcinnes-quits-far-right-group)

Expand full comment

What a wonderful piece of news. Welcome back, Scott!

Expand full comment

"They managed to take a complaint about a video game review and mishandle it so badly that they literally got condemned by the UN General Assembly"

You'd think Scott would have figured this one out by now, but for whatever reason, his attitude on this topic remains one of "invincible ignorance". Irony of ironies.

Here's a topic for you to ponder: why people consistently refuse to give agency to the media when describing a conflict between media and their readers.

On August 28, 2014, a dozen very large gaming sites, with a reach of millions of people, published articles saying their core audience was irrelevant ("gamers are dead"). The _press_ managed to take a minor scandal about an indie personality and turn it into an industry-wide thing. They did this. It's right there for you to find.

They also didn't get the UN General Assembly involved, it was UN _Women_. It goes to show you how various organizations and brands are used as skin suits to lend an air of authority to what is, essentially, someone running to the principal to DARVO after their bullying tactics backfired.

Expand full comment

Lol.

Expand full comment

Whether or not the media behaved properly or defensibly in this case, 'being good at PR' just means 'managing your relationship with The Media as they actually exist.

'Get everyone in the media to hate you to the point that they write terrible things about you and make tons of people think you're a monster and widely denounce you' is pretty much a definitional example of 'being bad at PR,' which is the only thing Scott accused them of.

Expand full comment

The NYT may think "You want your freedom? Take it! Now I only want you gone." But we wanted you back. Welcome to Dr. Scott Siskind, blogger.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I imagine it’s mostly a reference — the post cites Portal’s ending song, and this snippet is from Portal 2’s credits song, “Want You Gone”:

“You want your freedom? Take it

That's what I'm counting on

I used to want you dead, but

Now I only want you gone”

:-)

Expand full comment

Yes yes yes yes! This is the best thing one can possibly find out at midnight :)

Expand full comment

Very important comment: it's not "glad I've got you", it's "glad I'm not you", unlike my feelings for this blog.

Expand full comment

I think that was intentional :)

Expand full comment

Makes sense...

Expand full comment

I saw that one, tiny but very significant, change to the lyrics that Scott had made, and I started to tear up a little bit :) Given the emotional tone of what surrounds it I'm pretty sure it's deliberate.

Expand full comment

This is exciting and great, welcome back! it's been such a weird time in the past year, and I'm excited to read your perspectives on it!

Expand full comment

I'm so excited to see you are back. This is a good start of the year :) Welcome back, Scott!

Expand full comment

I've missed your insight dearly during this crazy time. You are a bright light in this dark world.

Expand full comment

And so close to my birthday too! Welcome!

Expand full comment

We're glad you're back. I loved the post, its style, its length, and its emotion.

Very glad you and this entire community exists, and we love you back!

Expand full comment

I cried a lot when reading this

Expand full comment

Subscribed

Expand full comment

Amazing to have you back.

I agree entirely about the online right to psudo-annoyminity. Maybe I'm a hopeless nostalgic but I still share some of that early internet dream where your race, sex, nationality was irrelevant and so your argument would stand and fall on it's own merits. You could even be a dog and nobody could tell if you made a good argument.

Also I have to say. If you manage to get an argument about a video game review all the way to the United Nations that is either the very worst, or the very best PR of the decade. There's an article by an ex editor in chief of Gawker saying that GamerGate is more responsible than anyone for Gawker's fall, so I'm leaning towards the later.

Best of luck with your attempts to fight cost disease, I'm not American so I can't say more on that.

Expand full comment

We missed you so much Scott, its good to have you back. Take my money.

Expand full comment

Instant subscription. As one of the embarrassing fanboys, I'm glad you're back :D

Also, shameless plug of my last article whose title style I obviously stole from you: https://federicorcassarino.substack.com/p/ar-glasses-much-more-than-you-wanted

Expand full comment

Good to have you back! Happy to see you revealing your name willingly - it's a complete arc! With character growth!

Expand full comment

So overjoyed to be able to read your posts again! This one is a great example of your humour, humility and insightfulness.

Looking forward to reading the latest on the birth order issue, as well as all your thoughts on the crazy events of the past year.

Expand full comment

Good to see you back!

Expand full comment

The long 2020 is over.

Expand full comment

So excited to get this blog back. It's simply the best blog on the internet for me, and I look forward to learning more from Scott and you all.

Expand full comment

One question: are you planning to continue releasing your posts under a CC-BY license, as you did on your old blog? Your doing so was a huge boon to free culture and to rabid fans like myself who like having things on paper :)

Expand full comment

Joy to the world! The king is back!

Expand full comment

You had me grinning the whole way through, and very nearly tearing up at the end. We're stoked to have you back, and glad it seems to have been as thought-provoking as it was awful.

Expand full comment

Welcome back, Scott!

Expand full comment

The "Scott is Kind" full name reveal is the perfect climax to this arc.

Expand full comment

Wait, why isn't the logo for Lorien Psychiatry a hair dryer?

Expand full comment

Knowing Scott's full name feels *weird*. Like stumbling on your parents sex tapes.

Expand full comment

I had never had any urge to go find it out, but it does feel touching and special to have him tell us publicly.

Expand full comment

I feel like using it would still be somehow rude? I will continue with the pseudonym for now.

Expand full comment

You didn't put a hairdryer on your practice's site. Kind of disappointed.

Expand full comment

"Who could have guessed that a webzine founded by a violent neo-fascist leader and named after the abstract concept of evil would stoop so low?"

The violent neo-fascist group he leads is also named after the most serious sin.

Expand full comment

No, it's named after a showtune.

Expand full comment

My friend, you are weirdly invested in defending the proud boys for someone who thinks they’re actually bad.

Expand full comment

There are a lot of reasons for my investment. In part it's because I'm still a fan of Gavin, and in part it's because I know I'm next. I was a part of the Proud Boys in the very early days, but I left on amicable terms when the focus shifted from being a fan club for Gavin's podcast to running security for campus speaking events. I'm horrified by what they've become, but the revisionist history is bad for me personally. Anthony Cumia and Joe Rogan are the only guys who seem to understand what happened except for the people who were there.

Expand full comment

"still a fan of Gavin"

Is this part of the reason why, or do you have some kind of innocent explanation for every clip: https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1311413755633381381

Expand full comment

At the time (and in-context), those comments seemed to be hyperbole about self-defense. That was my inference as someone who listened to Gavin's podcast and knows how he speaks, and it was also how the Proud Boys explained those comments at the time. When joining the group, you had to read and agree to a set of rules that included "we don't start fights, but we do finish them!" It fit my priors as someone who had been assaulted and seen others be assaulted at campus events, but had never been a victim of or personally witnessed politically-motivated violence by a conservative against a leftist.

When I first saw this compilation of those comments, most of which I was already familiar with, it was easy for me to dismiss it. It uses dramatic music to frame an interpretation of Gavin's comments, and does not include any rebuttal from him. It was also made by Vic Berger, who put his name on a (now defunct) flash game for Super Deluxe where you beat up Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos. Here's the most easily accessible quote I could find from Gavin on this subject.

["McInnes appears to believe that the beating came about as an act of self-defense, as his group were threatened. ‘This is people standing up for themselves,’ he said. ‘This person was not randomly beaten in the street on 35th and Park just going to get a coffee. This guy had been screaming threats all night as part of a group that had been threatening people all night, vandalising our establishment, trying to attack us. This was not a random incident, this was someone who fucked around, and found out. We don’t start fights, we finish them. And we are living in a culture today, where the media says “if you don’t just sit there and take an antifa beating, then you’re violent.”]

This easily fit my priors as 1. someone who has seen a lot of comedians say outrageous things that they then had to clarify were being hyperbolic (see Seth Rogen's comments on Israel) and 2. someone who has had experience with violence from only one side. But I may be wrong. Unlike allistic people, I literally don't know how to tell when people are lying unless I catch them in a contradiction. When I catch someone in a contradiction, I call them out on their contradiction, and I decide whether they're lying based on whether their answer satisfies me. Obviously, this is impossible to do with public figures, but I did it with the Proud Boys at least a dozen times just while reading their rules. I actually pissed them off pretty bad by asking them which version of racism their "no racism" rule was about, quoting Scott's "Against Murderism" post on SSC to make my point. Good times.

Do I think Gavin was just lying out his ass? How would I know? I've never had the ability to interrogate him. I've gaslit myself a lot over the past year and a half in response to recent developments, and my answer is still "I don't know."

Speaking of, I have one remaining contact in the Proud Boys, an old friend who I knew before the Proud Boys and who got me to join in the first place. After a member showed up at Vic Berger's house, I asked my friend why the hell Gavin hasn't denounced it. He said, "Because this wasn't a threat. Vic declined multiple requests for an interview or any sort of conversation, so this guy went to force him to respond. If you look at the video, you'lll see he isn't being threatening at all." He also implied my inference that showing up at someone's house = threatening is a mistake I made due to being autistic, to which I said "Yeah, well, I wouldn't know."

Boy this turned out long. Hope someone enjoyed reading it! I'm not gonna take the time to respond to the two other comments I got notifications about related to that video, because I'd just be saying the same thing.

Expand full comment

Welcome back Scott! Can definitely see 2021 being a better year now

Expand full comment

Welcome back and uh I checked your psych website. The menu where the black fonts on dark blue background is not a great idea. Not enough contrast

Expand full comment

I forgot just how damn good your writing was. Glad to have you back.

Expand full comment

"When I look out there it makes me glad I've got you"

I noticed the change, and the feeling is mutual.

Expand full comment

This makes me glad!

Expand full comment

You call Gavin McInnes is "a violent neo-fascist leader"? Really? Is this someone you're actually familiar with and have followed or just skimmed the Wikipedia article?

Expand full comment

Like I said in another comment, Gavin is far from innocent, but he's not the monster he's made out to be. He's not a fascist, nor is he a leader at this point in time.. but he is, unfortunately, a "consensual street brawler." Scott literally didn't know who Gavin was until last year, so I doubt he's knowledgeable of the man's complicated history. I would love to see a conversation between the two of them very much.

Expand full comment

Weirdly invested.

Expand full comment

First they came for the X, Finnydo. I'm invested because I know I'm next. I want Gavin to be criticized fairly and accurately, just as I would want to be.

Expand full comment

Okay, so how would you describe Gavin McInnes? What do you think would be a fair characterization of him?

Expand full comment

In general, when they come for the fascist domestic terrorists, they stop there. But I suspect you know that, or you wouldn’t be “no, you-ing” fascism.

Expand full comment

It's quite surreal to find "they stop there" as a deadpan assertion written below the very article describing how they came for Scott.

The key bit for the above metaphors is to pin down "who's 'they'?" The NYT is a relevant-enough 'they' in my book. If it isn't relevant-enough in your book, then I concede that your book is more interesting than mine.

Otherwise I have no opinion on what McInnes is or isn't as I haven't dug into that much, though I find Scott provides good priors in a remarkably high percentage of cases. As to what is or isn't fascism, that is a quite complex question to pin down, and I find Eric S. Raymond's essay on the subject to be an excellent and very relevant attempt: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8310

Expand full comment

I think the accusation here is that Gavin is part of the 'they', not the 'X' in that formula.

The quote isn't just saying 'never say bad things about anyone ever.' The whole point is about opposing the 'they' who is attacking people, which means you *are* supposed to oppose *someone*.

Most people believe Gavin is that someone. He's a rich white male with a huge public platform and ties to a media empire. The people he disparages are outsiders, minorities, and women.

He's the one emboldening the folks who are 'coming for people', whether he believes that about himself or not.

Expand full comment

Welcome back! Here's hoping that your readers never make you post "Want You Gone".

Expand full comment

Geez this could have been a less rambling post!

Expand full comment

This does seem like the week when the difficulty level goes down a notch. Wonderful to have you back! Also, a big fan of that song (so much so I once translated it to Hebrew: https://web.archive.org/web/20131021030413/http://laaz.co.il/עדיין-בחיים)

Expand full comment

Geez could have been a less rambling post! Time is short. Nature only gives us about 80 years.

Expand full comment

Really glad to have you back Scott!

Expand full comment

Oh wow, oh wow. I'm so glad to have you back. That last line drew shivers around my back and instantly filled my eyes with tears.

Expand full comment
founding

I'm over the moon with joy, welcome back!

Expand full comment

Subscribed as soon as I got to read the email. If you will forgive me quoting Pete Townsend, "I've got a feeling twenty-one is going to be a good year, especially if you and me see it in together". Missed you.

Expand full comment

Oh, and sorry about the nym - it's pretty hubristic here at your substack, but it's my substack nym and I will not be shamed over it.

Expand full comment

If you charge 4x less than what anyone else does supply and demand equilibrate in some other way, currently by seniority/connections. What's your plan for future allocation?

Expand full comment

It's an interesting question because there's sort of a split based on purpose:

If you want to give this new system a fair test, I guess you'd screen for all the applicants that a normal practice would be willing to take, then choose randomly among them.

If you want to learn as much as possible about psychiatry (for the blog and for personal professional development), you could select interesting patients with symptoms you want more experience with.

If you're worried about your livelihood and the continuation of the clinic, you can choose people who you trust to pay.

If you want to enjoy your life, you could choose patients that seem fun/easy to work with.

Of course, that's all assuming the advertising is good enough to get a plethora of applicants, I'm not sure how that works in the psychiatry field.

Expand full comment
founding

!

Expand full comment

First time commenter. I've really missed your blog, and it's made me realize I want to try to be a bigger part of the community. So that's what I'll try to do. I'm very glad to say welcome back!

Expand full comment

Feeling the same way here. Thanks for expressing my feelings nicely!

Expand full comment

ronpaulitshappening.gif

I’ve missed you so, so much

Expand full comment

I had figured out your name a few years ago based on info that you gave about your brother. I purposely forgot it because I appreciated what you do. It is a great comfort to know that someone like you exists in the world at this time in history. Welcome back!

Expand full comment

It is just a blog. Maybe I should get a life. Yet I don't think there would be a better use of my time than to read a new Slate Star Codex (or Astral Codex Ten) post at 2am. Thank you for everything Scott!

Expand full comment

We can try to understand

The New York Times' effect on man

Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother

You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive

Expand full comment

Welcome back! I wish you good fortune in your new endeavor after the hell you've been through!

Expand full comment

I've participated on the subreddit a bit, but never in the comment section of your blog. I'll try to change that this time around because I feel I've missed out in the past. I subscribed (as promised on reddit) immediately when I saw this.

> "IT'S JUST A BLOG, GET A LIFE"

"It's just a ____" is a pretty good example of the noncentral fallacy you yourself coined. Sure, it's a blog, and most blogs are kinda just ok. The fact that your writing takes the form of a blog doesn't detract from it.

I can meet you halfway and qualify with the word "some" here: Some of your writing is on par with the best essayists of the past century.

Expand full comment

I was so curious what your name was, and I had resisted the urge to look it up out of respect. But finding out your name was just anti-climactic. Like it *was* Scott all along? Gimme my money back

Expand full comment

absolutely psyched you're back

Expand full comment

Welcome back! You truly are a national treasure.

Expand full comment

Delightful… With your help we can save reality and bring peace to (parts of) the planet! There is hope!

Expand full comment

I am moved to tears.

Expand full comment

I have missed your writing so much! I'm so happy you have figured out a way to make this work, and I can't wait to read more :)

Expand full comment

Glad you're back, Scott!

Expand full comment

New to Substack so I'm not sure about everything regarding how comments work here. I guess this one will appear as anonymous? Do I have to get a Substack account and/or subscribe to this blog to comment here with a handle? (I'm infrequent Wordpress user and SSC commenter Liskantope, much more frequent Tumblr user also under that handle.)

Anyway, I'll skip the gushing and say thank you for coming back, and I'm glad to see that everything seems to be going all right for you after this disturbing sharp turn in your life. (I sensed a strange layer of irony in "I had, not to mince words about it, a really weird year.")

A quick comment: I'm curious about this early-2010's blog under your real name and whether you're referring to your LiveJournal or something else I never knew about. It seems like you were a pretty busy LJer until you took that down and set up SSC, but (1) it wasn't that easy to find your real last name from your LJ as I recall (only from like one reference to it in a comment under the earliest LJ post publicly viewable in the mid-2010's?), and (2) seems to me there was plenty of controversial stuff starting from 2012 and spanning the final months of the LJ?

Expand full comment

This came up as Liskantope - looks like it drew it from somewhere?

Expand full comment

Yeah, I didn't know what would happen when I hit "post" but it asked me to create a name and email for a profile. (I wanted to put my old avatar there too but couldn't find it on this new laptop.) I hope my email isn't visible...

Expand full comment

Not your email, just your SSN and home address.

Expand full comment

The list of credit card numbers and raw genetic test data are much more worrying, I think.

Expand full comment

To clarify from the joke: I'm registered to substack and can't get any information about you from clicking on your name, so I think you are good.

Expand full comment