Lion of the Blogosphere

Archive for January 2019

Response to another comment about gun control

with 53 comments

This comment by “MoreSigmasThanYou” helps to explain things:

The level of disgust directed at “those people” (the wrong kind of whites) can get pretty crazy. How much have you paid attention to “signaling” and the emotional motivations for political decision making? Some of the rage and hatred is faked, and some of it is totally real. Usually, it’s a mix of both, and frequently it’s also mixed with other emotions.

I used to date a woman who was left of center politically. She had only touched a gun once in her life. While cleaning a friend’s apartment, she found what she thought was a toy gun. She picked it up, realized it wasn’t a toy, dropped it, and started crying.

She was not telling me this story to impress me. She told it to me matter-of-fact in response to me asking if she had ever touched a gun. She knew I was a gun owner, and had no reason to virtue signal to me that she hated or feared guns.

Pro-gun commenters have been concocting a ridiculous story about how gun control is a secret liberal plot to disarm the people so they can finally implement liberal policies like gay marriage and transgender bathroom rights. Oops, no one had to be disarmed to do any of that stuff, all liberals have ever needed to do to get their policies enacted is to vote enough liberals into office and onto the Supreme Court and use their control over Hollywood to brainwash the masses to support them.

Nope, gun control is about how educated liberals feel disgust towards guns, primarily see them as objects that dumb proles fetishize (and they are right about that too), and which cause unnecessary deaths because guns kill people so easily.

Meanwhile, we have right-wing types making very poor illogical arguments. They can’t just admit that they love guns and don’t have to justify owning them by concocting benefits for society. They can’t just say “I love guns so much, it’s too f-in bad that a few thousand people have to die each year because there are so many guns in society, but I love them so damn much that it’s worth the cost.”

One or two commenters argued that it’s a good thing that judges are afraid of an armed populace, but I see absolutely no benefit to society of judges being afraid of retribution from the mafia or criminal gangs.

Stop looking to the American Revolution as an event that has any relevance to the 21st century. The correct model for a nationalist revolution is Hungary, a country where only 1.3% of the population owns a gun. Not a single shot was fired, the people voted nationalists into office, and nationalists took over the newspapers and universities, all done peacefully and without any violence. We have the same power to do that in the United States.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 17, 2019 at EST am

Posted in Crime

Response to a comment about gun control

with 101 comments

Commenter Antipodean Coward writes:

I think this is a good post by the Lion, and there’s no need to call the man senile!

Liberals aren’t afraid of guns because of the threat of armed insurrection – they just don’t like them and think they increase the murder rate. Likely they increase the suicide rate more than anything else, so reducing that is an added bonus.

Philosophically there’s some attraction to the idea that you should be able to take your own life, but when I think of my friends with mental illnesses etc and the impact of suicides on families I conclude that reducing suicide is good. If I saw someone about to jump off a bridge I’d try and talk them out of it.

Now in a dissident blog like this one we are well aware that guns aren’t the reason that the US has a much higher murder rate than Europe. But the revolutionary fantasy behind American gun culture isn’t really allowed by the current laws. For instance rocket propelled grenades would be much more effective for armed resistance but are not allowed. Also there is very little appetite for this kind of fight.

It would be much better if we could just focus on winning our main points against the elites rather than getting drawn into redneck causes that will make the right look bad to most voters (nearly all college educated women for starters).

Our main points are that the West is a net good, we don’t owe the world admission, HBD – other groups doing badly aren’t our fault, education can be expensive signalling and affordable family formation (less immigration, cheaper college, more building approvals and safe public schools which give a decent chance of admission to the upper class for high IQ students).

Thank you. But actually there are two reasons why the U.S. has a much higher murder rate than Europe:

1. 13.4% of our population is a high-violence ethnic group.

2. There are guns all over the place making it easier to murder someone. Even in states without that high-violence ethnic group, the murder rate is much higher than in Europe.

Of course, I agree that people who never interact with drug dealers or other types of criminals are quite unlikely to be murdered and are probably at least 10 times more likely to die in a car accident. Nevertheless, people worry about things they have no control over, and people think they can control cars because they drive them. Liberals say the same thing about conservatives worrying about terrorism. Even in 2001, there were more than 4 times as many murders in the country than people dying from terrorism. And if you look at the 20 year average, dying from terrorism is an extreme unlikely event.

And we see conservatives worrying about “home invasions” and needing a gun to protect themselves, even though the chance of dying in a “home invasion” is practically nil. There are approximately 100 burglary-related murders per year. Which is one-fifth of the approximately 500 accidental firearm deaths per year. Conservatives worrying about needing a gun to protect themselves from “home invasions” is even more stupid than liberals worrying about dying from random gun violence. You’re 300 times more likely to die in a car accident than in a “home invasion.”

* * *

And going back to the issue of protection from the gummint, if people are too lazy, or too brainwashed by leftist media, to go to the voting booths and vote for nationalist politicians, then I don’t see guns being the answer.

* * *

And going back to “home invasions”:

State-by-state statistics totally disprove the theory proposed by pro-gun people that gun ownership discourages “home invasions.”

State with the lowest burglary rate: New York

State with the third-lowest gun ownership rate: New York

New Mexico has the highest burglary rate, and also a very high gun ownership rate.

In Alaska, 61.7% own guns, highest in the nation, but the burglary rate is pretty high, 12th highest in the nation.

Sorry for pro-gun people who believe in this “home invasion” argument, but actual real-world statistics show that, at least within the United States, low gun ownership is correlated with FEWER “home invasions.”

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 16, 2019 at EST am

Posted in Crime

Another gun control post

with 146 comments

Need to write this to respond to stupid comments, even though this is preventing me from getting to why college is so expensive.

First of all, gun people tend to totally misunderstand the liberal point of view. Far-right gun nuts fantasize about using their guns to have an armed revolution against the evil gummint. Thus they imagine that liberals fear the same thing, while in fact liberals find the idea of an armed revolution absurd. Liberals just find guns disgusting, plus they have Europe-envy, and in Europe, except for maybe Switzerland and Iceland, the population hardly has any guns.

Armed revolution in the 21st century is a dumb idea anyway. ISIS’s guns are totally useless against American drones and helicopters. The real weapons people would need to have an armed revolution, like anti-tank weapons and surface-to-air missiles, are all completely illegal.

People arguing for guns on the basis that gun ownership made sense in 1791 (when the U.S. was a frontier, there was a constant low-level war against hostile Indian tribes, and guns only fired a single shot) are just like liberals who argue for immigration because “we’re a nation of immigrants” and nonsense like that. Get with the times.

And once again, IT’S COMMON SENSE THAT FEWER GUNS MEANS FEWER GUN DEATHS. Ignoring suicides (I’m not so sure that people shouldn’t be allowed to take their own lives if they want to), gun deaths tend to happen because of stupidity, low future-time orientation, etc. It’s not smart people carefully planning how to murder someone. More like it’s two morons get into an argument, and one of them has a gun and uses it to “win” the argument. Sometimes the moron misses his intended target and hits someone else.

I also believe that merely owning guns causes some people to fetishize them and imagine how they might use them, and I think that leads to a lot of those stupid mass shootings. In other words, gun ownership causes people to want to be mass-shooters instead of merely just enabling would-be mass shooters.

Regarding other crimes that don’t involve guns, the purpose of gun control is to reduce gun deaths, and not to make people more honest or less criminally inclined. There’s a myth among gun nuts about how mass gun ownership is the only thing preventing a massive increase in “home invasions,” but there’s no evidence of a massive amount of burglaries in other first-world countries all of which have much lower gun ownership than the United States. For countries where statistics are available, the U.S. has typical burglary rates for a first-world nation.

What’s different about the United States is our massively high incarceration rate, which is probably reducing crime in the U.S. compared to other countries in the world. The U.S. incarceration rate is 655 per 100,000, the highest in the world, compared to only 140 in the United Kingdom and 75 in Germany. No doubt all crime levels would be a lot higher in the U.S. if we released 85% of our prisoners to make our incarceration rate equivalent to other first-world countries, because would-be criminals can’t commit crimes if they are locked up.

Most moderates support common-sense gun control. Restrict handguns (because people can carry them around and then use them when they get into a stupid argument), and guns with large clips that fire many bullets and thus enable mass shootings, but still allow reasonable guns for sport and hunting.

I would completely support Trump putting gun control on the bargaining table in order to get funding for the Wall plus other measures like E-Verify and visa entry-exit tracking.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 15, 2019 at EST am

Posted in Crime

The Orville S02E03 “Home”

with 26 comments

Spoilers

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 14, 2019 at EST am

Posted in Star Trek, Television

Border wall vs gun control

with 73 comments

It just occurred to me how conservatives and liberals reverse their arguments depending on which side they are on.

When it comes to the Wall, liberals say that the Wall isn’t effective because it can be breached (people can tunnel under it or cut through it).

When it comes to gun control, conservatives say it isn’t effective because people can buy guns on the black market.

I score this as:

Liberals are right about gun control. Make guns harder to get, and there will be fewer gun crimes (but it will not be reduced to zero).

Conservatives are right on the wall. Make it harder to illegally cross the border, and fewer people will illegally cross the border (but a number greater than zero will still cross).

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 14, 2019 at EST am

Posted in Politics

College, part 4 (the humanist ideal of college)

with 50 comments

I had hoped to reach the big issues of cost disease, but need to write this in response to comments on previous posts.

I totally get the humanist ideal of college, a place where minds are expanded, and you can self-actualize by studying the world’s greatest works of literature, philosophy, etc. The ideal of college is that you don’t go there for petty reasons of being able to make more money when you graduate, you go there for the intellectual experience.

In fact, it’s very prole to view college as jobs training. That’s how I viewed it going in, coming from a prole background myself, and very cognizant of my parents’ monetary disadvantages compared to most other people that I knew. Then I met these strange people at the lesser Ivy I attended who were studying the humanities and claimed that they were there strictly to learn and didn’t care about whether or not the degree would financially benefit them. It was an absurd way of thinking to someone from a prole background.

The problem with this model of college is that it doesn’t work for the majority of people whose innate intelligence isn’t high enough to self-actualize from studying the humanities, and it can also be a trap for people from non-elite families who get suckered into getting a degree that has no value to corporate America and don’t have the family connections that their wealthier fellow graduates do.

And on top of that, with colleges being taken over by leftists, probably education in the humanities is being replaced by leftist ideology, grievance studies, the traditional reading material being replaced by modern books written by women and “people of color,” etc.

Going back to the innate intelligence issue, it should be pointed out that SJWs DENY the truth of innate intelligence, and part of their reasoning for believing that everyone should go to college is the belief that college makes people smarter, and if only everyone went to college then there would no longer be any stupid people. And even if there were truth in people getting smarter from studying the humanities, we know that nearly all proles who go to college study vocational subjects, or “psychology” because … actually I am very confused about why psychology is such a popular major; perhaps it’s just known to be an extremely easy major, what we used to call a “gut major” in the 1980s.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 14, 2019 at EST am

Posted in Education

Washington state divorce law

with 15 comments

Washington is a no-fault divorce community property state. Which means that the Bezos divorce is going to be pretty boring, except for the dollar amounts involved. It doesn’t matter who cheated on whom, the state courts will just equally distribute any property acquired during the marriage. It should be noted that Bezos got married one year before he started Amazon.com, so all of the stock in Amazon.com is community property. 50/50 split. No theatrics. Shares in a publicly traded company are pretty easy to split 50/50. The two parties could argue about the values of Bezos’ various mansions, but they probably won’t. When you’re getting almost 70 billion dollars worth of stock, why worry about whether one mansion is worth a few million more than the other?

* * *

By the way, Jeff Bezos graduated from Princeton (electrical engineering and computer science), and then worked in banking and hedge funds, before founding Amazon. He met his wife at the hedge fund where she was a research associate and he was a vice president.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 14, 2019 at EST am

Posted in Law, Males and Females

Totally agree with Newt

with 19 comments

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 13, 2019 at EST pm

Posted in Politics

College, part 3.1

with 160 comments

This is an intermission. I liked this paragraph written by Matt Taibbi (whose father Mike my mother fondly recalls meeting):

So here’s the con so far. You must go to college because you’re screwed if you don’t. Costs are outrageously high, but you pay them because you have to, and because the system makes it easy to borrow massive amounts of money. The third part of the con is the worst: You can’t get out of the debt. Since government lenders in particular have virtually unlimited power to collect on student debt – preying on everything from salary to income-tax returns – even running is not an option. And since most young people find themselves unable to make their full payments early on, they often find themselves perpetually paying down interest only, never touching the principal. Our billionaire president can declare bankruptcy four times, but students are the one class of citizen that may not do it even once.

College is certainly a much better deal for students whose parents are rich so they can graduate without any debt.

(It’s unfortunate that the author had to take a stab at Trump, but maybe that was necessary in order to make the article more palatable for the Trump-hating but college-loving mainstream media. Maybe they wouldn’t publish an anti-college article unless it could also be made to appear to be an anti-Trump article. And it’s true that Trump has done nothing for the prole whites who got suckered into college debt they can’t pay off. He hired Betsy Devos to be Secretary of Education, and she makes the problem worse by reversing the Obama Administration’s crack-down on for-profit colleges, which was the only good thing to come out of the Obama Administration.)

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 11, 2019 at EST pm

Posted in Education

College, part 3

with 31 comments

While the rest of the world is convinced that college helps people make more money, strangely I have to convince certain blog commenters, because there’s a belief among some in the HBD-sphere that IQ is everything, and therefore someone with a high IQ would make just as much money without a college degree.

There’s also an idea, which is more mainstream, that it doesn’t matter what school you go to, any school is the same. That’s also absurdly false, I don’t know how anyone can believe it. I know from personal experience that if you want to get hired as a lawyer, you had better have the most elite degree possible, because if your degree is outside of the Top 14, you’ll never get hired by a big firm and it’s a lot harder to even get hired by small firms. It’s unlikely you’ll have Michael Cohen’s luck to get hired by Donald Trump, and if anything Michael Cohen disproves that IQ matters above all else, because that guy doesn’t seem all that bright to me.

There is indeed a correlation between high IQ and having a higher income, but my own research into this matter is that people with higher IQ are able to obtain better educational credentials, and then the better educational credentials (if they are lucky and have other necessary things going for them) enable people to get into a higher-paying career track. Without the degree, no one will want to hire you into any good career tracks.

People like to say that employers only care about your experience at prior jobs and not your education, but the problem is that without education you can only get hired for crappy jobs like retail or working at call centers, which only gives you experience to work at other crappy jobs.

Even if you are lucky enough to get hired (for example some people with hot in-demand computer skills have been known to get good jobs without a college degree), you’ll eventually hit a glass ceiling for people without college degrees.

None of this is to say that there is anything intrinsic in years of formal education that makes people better employers or better at making money, but because our society is set up so that only formal learning with a degree is valued, and self-learning is not valued, that’s the way it is. And it’s why I called education a positional good in my recent Lionomics post. The benefit of a degree is that it gives you a positional advantage over people without a degree, and a prestigious degree gives you a positional advantage over people with a degree from a directional state school.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 11, 2019 at EST am

%d bloggers like this: