Quote of the day—Peter Dreier

Incidents like the Virginia and San Francisco shootings inevitably lead to a debate over gun control. Here again the media, politicians, and advocacy groups play their scripted roles. The media quote Republicans and conservatives repeating their claims that tougher gun-control laws wouldn’t have prevented the Virginia shooting, because the shooter could have obtained the gun illegally. And, they add, gun control undermines our liberties. 

To provide “balance,” the media quote Democrats and gun-control advocates, repeating their claims that this specific shooting, and the epidemic of mass shootings, would be dramatically reduced if we restricted the sale of guns and ammunition, including sales across state lines, because shooters often obtain guns in states with lax laws and bring them to states with tough laws.

Peter Dreier
June 16, 2017
The Virginia Shooting Isn’t About Bernie. It’s About the Right’s Embrace of Guns.
[I’m more and more convinced that, as Michael Savage says, Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder. I haven’t read his book but I took a college class on, and have experienced enough, abnormal psychology to recognize it. In this case it is conclusive because he cannot see that his political beliefs contributed to the bad results. One thing common to all personality disorders is that, in their minds, they didn’t contribute, in any way, to a bad outcome. It is always someone else’s fault.

With that mindset he goes on to describe a delusional world that is nearly unrecognizable to normal people.

This nut job, Dreier, not only gets things wrong, but he gets his “facts”, essentially, backwards. In this case the guns were purchased legally in a state, Illinois, with some of the most strict gun control laws and brought the gun to a state with much more relaxed laws. Although I didn’t quote that portion of the article, he repeatedly claims the gun was an AR-15 (it was actually an SKS). Furthermore, gun sales across state lines are already restricted.

This idiot thinks he knows what his writing about but his story is very nearly wrong in a fractal way. There is no attention given to fundamental principles, he does not address the infringement of specific enumerated rights, his conclusions are wrong, the theme is wrong, the paragraphs are wrong, nearly every sentence is wrong, and some of the words are wrong.

He has crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Robb

It appears that western society is in the process of killing something of equal import in this century.  Something that has been a foundational building block of the psychology of our species for millions of years.  Something that IS causing a vacuum of meaning and deep psychological trauma.

We are killing masculinity.  Maleness in all its forms has been deprecated as an outdated bit of software.  Something to be rewritten for the modern world.

We’re rewriting it and we can already see its ill effects.   We can see it in the deep psychological distress it is causing in men and women.  We can see a vacuum of meaning forming all around us.  A void that new social movements are starting to fill from the online tribal nihilism that propelled Trump into the oval office to identity utopians who are being manufactured by the millions in US Universities. 

As it stands right now, we’re likely screwed.  If the last Century is any guide, it’s going to require oceans of blood to resolve this loss…

John Robb
June 2, 2017
“Man is dead, and we have killed him, you and I!”
[Interesting hypothesis.—Joe]

Quote of the day—6Gunner

I’ve worked with and trained with law enforcement officers from all over the world (including British LEO’s), and inevitably we have discussed the realities of criminal violence in our respective jurisdictions and shared our exasperation with just how… misguided… most private citizens are regarding the realities of crime. A lot of people state they “never felt the need” to worry about their own protection or security, and sure, the odds that you’ll ever be accosted – even in the most crime-ridden societies – are relatively low. BUT… even the safest societies still have crime. Even the safest societies still have innocent people who get brutalized and murdered by criminals… and a lot of the victims of violent crime would NOT have been victimized if only they had taken even the most rudimentary steps to protect themselves.

6Gunner
April 27, 2017
Posted to the thread Gun control in the UK
[Self defense is more than just possessing a firearm and knowing when and how to use it. It requires awareness of your surroundings, the nature of people, and criminal methods.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Z. Williamson

This supports an hypothesis of mine that most such “social justice” types are themselves exceptionally shallow, narrow-minded bigots.  When something even more blatant than “Friday” comes along, and they are forced to be aware of their own human failings, they over-react, as does the reformed alcoholic or druggie who suddenly “Finds God” and obsesses over religion (versus faith or piety) to the point where it’s apparent it’s merely a substitute addiction.

Once aware of their own failings, their form of denial is to project their shortcomings onto all “normal” people, who obviously feel as they do, about those “non-normal” people they suddenly realize were in fact human beings all along.

Michael Z. Williamson
May 20, 2017
The Failure of the Science Fiction Reader
[“Friday” refers, of course, to Robert Heinlein’s science fiction novel.—Joe]

Mere practice does NOT make perfect

I learned that concept early on in the music business, from similar observation.

Although there is a small percentage of people who pick things up intuitively, most anyone will benefit from quality instruction. It applies to pretty much everything.

Then again; how did the instructor learn what he knows? Who taught his teacher and where did that person get the knowledge and insight? At some point someone had to figure things out on his own, we benefit from generations of those people’s combined knowledge, and ideally we can add to it. Competition or other direct comparison is the way to prove you know what you know, or to disprove that which you think you know but don’t.

Here is where I restate the side benefits of hunting (the primary benefit being the harvest of wonderful protein from wonderful nature by your own hand). You can do all the range shooting in the world, and even excel at it, and be under-prepared for “shooting for real”. Even though game animals generally don’t shoot back, if you hunt for several seasons you will realize this in ways you cannot otherwise imagine. Here’s another man who sees it that way;

I’m in a practical shooting match as I type this

Tam has a good funny.

I’ve said before that it would be cool to design an IPSC stage in which there are no “shoot” targets (only “no shoots”). Maybe even, everyone goes home without firing a shot that day, because that’s more “real life” than anything else you could set up.

The most unrealistic thing about a Practical Shooting match, then, is that you go to one knowing for a fact that shots will be fired, and you are thus prepared for it. In real life on the other hand, you never have that advance notice, there are no rules, no scratch lines on the ground, no range Nazis to correct your “mistakes”, no timers, no “walk throughs” prior to shooting your stage, and probably not even any safe places to shoot at all.

In that most realistic sense then, I’m in an IPSC match right now, as I type– I’m carrying a gun and assessing the environment, seeing no immediate threats. I’ve been in this particular “IPSC Match” for over 20 years already and have yet to draw my pistol, much less take a shot. This isn’t merely similar to real life; it IS real life. I only draw and fire my gun when I’ve decided to pause the “IPSC Match” for a while, and find a safe place to shoot.

The range mentality has gotten so insane that I’ve seen multiple gun demonstration videos in which the shooter loads five of six, in a percussion revolver (which is stupid right there if you understand how a percussion revolver differs from a cartridge gun), fiddle farts around trying to lower the hammer on the empty but inadvertently lowers it on a live chamber instead and has to fiddle fart with the gun some more to be sure it’s “safe”, walks five feet to the firing line, confident that he’s “being safe”, and then looks down and shuffles around a bit to make sure his feet are right on the scratch line. Stuff like that.

Don’t even try to talk to me about it. I’m just…not…listening…anymore. I’ve hear it all before anyway. Hell I wrote some of those the rules, literally– I was once the president of a Practical Shooting club.

Go ahead and call me crazy though. I’m accustomed to it, as you may well imagine.

Measuring success in one metric

For some things, measuring success is pretty obvious, and the metrics are nicely binary. e.g., “Did the boomer go BOOM after you pulled the trigger?”

In other things the metrics are either much harder to measure, or there are “good” reasons that the people measuring success don’t want a good metric; it would show they are failing miserably. Or, worse, they are no longer needed to “do the job.” Pick just about any political appointee and the example writes itself.

Anyway, the reason I ask is that I am, among other things, a teacher. Yeah, I know, taking one for the team here guys, leave me alone about that, will ‘ya? So in preparing for an upcoming interview, I started to think about what sorts of things I can ask them – that’s always a “fun” place for the interview to go, because it can’t be any trivia you can just read off the school web-site, but it also cannot be something that exposes glaring problems or hypocrisy in their system, because after they uncomfortably give you a non-answer you’ll not be offered a job. So it’s a balancing act.

So this question popped into my head, and I thought I’d bounce it off ya’ll to see what sort of trouble I might get myself into, but also maybe find some good follow-ups. I’ve got what I think it’s a pretty good measure of success, but it would likely open a huge can of zombie attack worms the size of anacondas, which I don’t want to deal with just yet. So, the question is: Continue reading

Quote of the day—Rob Morse

The antipathy towards gun owners is not based upon stopping violence, but upon reducing the discomfort felt by idealists.  For the idealist, letting society take the burden removes both the duty and the emotional cost of facing an imperfect world. For the idealist, protecting the fantasy narrative is more important than respecting the facts.

Rob Morse
March 27, 2017
Violence and Utopia- Realism and Idealism in the age of Gun Control
[This is probably fair to the majority of the anti-gun people. But, I wouldn’t use the word “idealist” to describe a large minority of them.

“Idealist” is far, far too generous to those in power who know and understand the facts. They want a monopoly on power and the existence of a large number of gun owners are an obstacle to them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rachel Dolezal

People didn’t seem able to consider that maybe both were true. OK, I was born to white parents, but maybe I had an authentic black identity.

Rachel Dolezal
March 24, 2017
Rachel Dolezal struggling after racial-identity scandal in Spokane
[And maybe I’m standing upright and on my head at the same time.

It’s not surprising that she changed her legal name in hopes it would help her get a job. But, “Nkechi Amare Diallo”? And then she tells the AP her new name?

The political left not only is the party of criminals it’s the party of the mentally ill (see also my post on Peterson Syndrome)..—Joe]

Quote of the day—Andrew Heaton

We threw the baby out with the bathwater when we kicked the monarchy out of America, and we ought to bring it back.

In America we’ve combined power and reverence in the office of the presidency, but legal authority and veneration compliment each other about as well as Scotch and back pain medication. It’s safer to ingest them separately.

Andrew Heaton
March 18, 2017
Why America Needs A Monarchy
[I find it hard to disagree with this point. There many be some interesting psychology going on here that could be affecting politics adversely.—Joe]

Expendable men

Times change.
But it ain’t all progress.

There has been a lot of social upheaval in recent years on the topics of equality, “equality,” women’s rights, men’s rights, patriarchy, the wage gap, marriage, MGTOW, misogyny versus misandry (I note the spell-checker has the previous but not the latter word), marginalizing men, etc. websites like Men of the West, videos like this Continue reading

Is she clueless, or hoping we’re clueless?

Or both?

The bizarre assertion is that feminism is being bogged down by its association with leftist causes.

Sisters; the one and only purpose for the “feminist movement” is to advance what are essentially Marxist principles and goals. That of course includes the defamation and de-emphasis of men, especially Jewish and Christian men, along with them the very concept of morality, and the de-emphasis of the nuclear family as a cornerstone of civilization.

Calling for outreach to Christian women who embrace the American Principles then, is like the PLO and the other jihadists reaching out to Jews for assistance in destroying Israel.

It could work in some cases I suppose, if you find enough dumb “conservative” women who’re only pretending to be conservative or pretending to be Christian but don’t really know what any of it means. You get them irritated and agitated enough, and they’ll be open to your propaganda.

Agitprop.

Truly strong, American women have no use for the “feminist” movement. They’re already doing what they want to do, and the “feminists” (communists, essentially) have been verbally attacking them for it all along.

Constantly viewing oneself as a victim of this or that, or a victim of everything, is detrimental to one’s success, whether you’re a truly strong woman or anyone else (we have to be careful with definitions here though; to “The Sisterhood” of pissed off leftist women, the term “strong woman” means “nasty, dumb bitch”).

That’s the whole point really; the Marxist/Progressive/authoritarian movement needs as many people as possible thinking of themselves as victims and thus being pissed off, otherwise the movement has nothing. It’s the Grievance Culture, and so it doesn’t matter whether it’s women, men, black women and men, gay, trans, or any and all of the rest of Humanity; if we can get people pissed off and feeling like they’re powerless without Big Daddy Government stepping in to intervene in their personal lives, then the American Principles have been defeated right there.

It’s never been about protecting anyone’s rights or advancing anyone’s quality of life. The Original American Principles do that already. The Grievance Movement is purely about keeping the grievances alive and growing, as a political weapon against the American Principles.

And you in the “movement”, at least those few calling the shots, you know all this perfectly well. Nice try, keep it up and all, but your premise here is just ridiculous.

A more complex label

Rachel Dolezal, white woman who identifies as black, now jobless, may soon be homeless:

Rachel Dolezal, the infamous white woman who for years passed herself off as African American and rose to become head of an NAACP branch, is now jobless, on food stamps and expects to soon be homeless.

A defiant Dolezal, 39, recounted her current plight to The Guardian. Dolezal said she’s only been offered jobs in reality television and porno flicks. A friend helped her come up with the money for February’s rent and she doesn’t know how she’s going to pay for March.

And she still says she’s not white.

“I do think a more complex label would be helpful, but we don’t really have that vocabulary,” Dolezal told The Guardian. “I feel like the idea of being trans-black would be much more accurate than ‘I’m white.’ Because, you know, I’m not white . . . Calling myself black feels more accurate than saying I’m white.”

I agree with her. A more complex label is needed. I’ll bet a good psychologist could find one for her.

I wish her luck with therapy.

Innovation?

Maybe I’m old-fashioned in thinking that a motor vehicle design team would set out to make something that works.

This is similar to the “flying car” company web sites. They’re “designing” things that cannot work. They’ll even pre-sell you one.

In this case, they’ve “designed” something out of science fiction fantasy. I don’t know, but I think this crosses a line, and not a good one. We have designers from two major companies getting together to roll out their brand new…nothing. It only works in the virtual world, where the laws of physics are completely flexible. I have to believe there was marijuana involved.

Quote of the day—john jay

the snowflakes simply lack toughness. because they have never needed it. never understood its utility. and, quite likely, never will. they will be, essentially, children of arrested development the rest of their lives. they don’t know what it is to surmount a challenge, because they have never met a challenge.

so, they sing “i will survive” to indicate they can take a trump presidency. as eloquent a demonstration of idiocy as you will ever witness.

john jay
January 16, 2017
Comment to Speculative thought
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Speculative thought

A thought occurred to me about all the Special Snowflakes in society today. Could it be in significant part the result of smaller families? In China the “One Child” policy has resulted in a generation plagued with “little emperors.” When you have a lot of children, even a good parent that loves all of them equally, and treats them all as fairly and equitably as possible will know they are not all truly equal, and not all as smart, or strong, or whatever, as anyone else. In short, you know some are more “valuable” or “expendable” on different measures because you confront it every day in your own home. Continue reading

Violence and the left – pathology and party

Interesting interview by Stefan Molyneux of an academic researcher. Dr. John Paul Wright is a Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati and the author of “Criminals in the Making: Criminality Across the Life Course.” More links and discussion at his youtube page.

Not a lot we here didn’t already know, but interesting. I like some of his observations about why this sort of connection are not normally the subject of research.

Quote of the day—Scott Adams

You’re wondering how I can know that other people are hallucinating and not me. That’s where it comes in handy to study persuasion and hypnosis. Delusional people leave tells.

One of the tells in this case is an ad hominem attack on whoever disagrees with you on climate science. You can see that happening on my Twitter feed today as the pro-climate-science types are coming after me in numbers. When you see an oversized reaction to what should be nothing but competing scientific claims, that’s usually a tell that someone slipped into cognitive dissonance.

Scott Adams
December 29, 2016
The Illusion of Knowledge
[And in the gun rights domain we have Markley’s Law demonstrating anti-gun people are delusional in regards to their beliefs.—Joe]