I’m not dead yet!
However, I am a bit rusty (although not quite as rusty as the gentleman in the video).
I needed to stop saying stuff and just listen for a while, to stop writing so as to better read.
Nevertheless, when a blogger does that, not only do people get confused and drift away, the blogger himself forgets what the hell he’s doing.
I’ve left threads hanging, owe two fellow writers reviews, have about forty-five posts I want to write, and feel a bit overwhelmed. The muscles that used to whip out amazing insights now feel unable to emit so much as a fart.
So I’ll take the easy way out and rip off others.
Become the man you want to marry — or rather, the woman the man you want to marry will want to marry.
You know that drug dealer who keeps money in his freezer and doesn’t know where to put apostrophes? Date him. Same with the guy who literally has “I’m a mistake” tattooed on his arm.
Fake so many orgasms.
That guy who seems almost perfect but still doesn’t feel right? Trust yourself, dump him and then wallow in sorrow.
And finally, after years of doing the opposite:
You know that guy friend you weren’t romantically interested in because he was just too nice and available? Suddenly, you’re grown up enough to come to your senses. Marry the fuck out of him.
I always thought that you become “grown up” through actually “com[ing] to your senses”, not by doing everything humanly possible to avoid it. Sure, we’re supposed to learn from our mistakes. However, intentionally making mistakes so that you can learn from them strikes me as being the opposite of learning from your mistakes.
I’m pretty sure that’s sexist somehow. Fine, I’ll just join all the other insecure sexist assholes overseas and find a wife there. Tracy and her followers are obviously way too good for us.
Second, Ed Driscoll promotes the ridiculous conspiracy theory that somebody’s out there trying to destroy the family or lead us all into totalitarianism or something.
Apparently Scotland is going to appoint a government official to watch over each Scottish child from birth until (only?) their eighteenth birthday.
One the one hand, bureaucrats will be observing and advising on the minutiae of Scottish family life, sending children the message that government officials know how to raise them better than their parents, and establishing what could easily become the foundation for a State “security” apparatus that could rival anything put into place during the French, Chinese, or Russian revolutions.
One the other hand, it’s for the children so we have nothing to worry about.
They’re no longer your children, they’re our children. Get used to it, knuckle-dragger.
And finally, Captain Capitalism exemplifies a way to think about issues I’ve almost elaborated on multiple times before but haven’t (or maybe I have, after a certain number of posts you forget what you’ve written).
There are three basic reasons to support any policy, and like damn near everything else, these three reasons fit into my GIA structure (see the sidebar or search “GIA”).
The most level is to support or oppose something primarily because of how it affects you, or I. The next level up is to form your opinions based on what you believe actually works. It corresponds with how you believe things operate, your notion of A is A, or just A.
But the most profound form of reasoning is that based on your concept of morality, that being G. You don’t care about how it affects you personally, you’re not sure whether or not it actually works, but you oppose or support something based on what you believe to be right or wrong.
For example, if you support reforming family law in such a way as to lessen the likelihood of divorce, it can be because of:
I: You don’t want your own wife to be able to wreck your family for cash and prizes.
A: You believe that strong families provide for a healthy economy, reduce the likelihood of crime, lessen the need for social welfare schemes, etc.
G: You believe in the sanctity of Marriage, that it’s wrong for one family member to wreck another’s life and subsequently benefit.
This works for gun rights (I: “keep your hands off my rifle”, A: “more guns=less crime”, G: “no man has the right to render another man powerless in the face of danger”), tax policy (I: “it’s my money, not yours”, A: “lower taxes lead to greater investments, more incentives to work hard, etc”, G: “I have no right to what you’ve earned”), and most everything else.
And CPT Capitalism describes the G rejection of Keynesianism, that even if it were possible for a small group of eggheads could formulate the basis for a “strong economy”, it would be immoral for them to do so.
So I recommend reading his post and formulating your own G supports for whatever issues you find most important. Don’t just think in terms of how it affects you, nor should you think just in terms of “what works.”
For if you think through the morality beneath personal benefit and what works, not only will you understand your own points better, you might even become inspiring.
(And for my beloved secular readers who don’t believe in the God that inspires my G, CPT Capitalism doesn’t either.)
Anyhow, welcome back.