Arguments against blogging

Suppose there were a fellow with a passion for writing poetry, but let’s say he didn’t want to expend his effort in the mundane business of getting a publisher to accept his works.  Still, he wished to share his creations with the world, so he took to scrawling poems on the walls in men’s public restrooms.  Let his poems speak for themselves; why should anyone care about the venue?  The trouble with this strategy is that reading time is a scarce resource for all of us, so we need some pretty crude filters to eliminate lots of possible reading material and bring the serious candidates to a manageable number.  One thing we do is pay attention to signals that the author himself was willing to invest in making his work be regarded as high-quality.

What’s the point of scientific peer review?  It certainly doesn’t guarantee that published papers are valid and original science.  It does guarantee that the authors were willing to expend a great deal of time and trouble (and perhaps money) to give their paper the appearance of valid and original science, and there is a loose but positive correlation between this and actually being good science.

The same thing with publishing vs. personal blogging.  Posting an article on my private blog is so much easier than trying to get a magazine to publish it, and this very easiness is a reason why readers should be a bit warier of investing their time; they know the author didn’t.


If you’re going to blog, more likely than not, you’re going to be withholding your personal identity.  There are lots of reasons we do this, but one obvious one is to avoid all the unpleasant consequences, social and career-wise, that come with voicing unpopular opinions.  Pseudonymity works, not because we’re impossible to track down, but because chances are you’re remain obscure enough that no one will feel motivated to do so.  There remains a downside.  Blogging as a hobby leaves you with a boring “secret identity”.  I’m sometimes jealous of the other professors in my department who have cool hobbies.  One is in a band.  Another wrote a novel.  Others play sports.  Blogging is not a cool hobby even when you can admit to doing it; there’s no skill involved.  But when you can’t admit to doing it, then you don’t have any answer when people ask you what you do with your spare time.  So, you need a second hobby.  (Any recommendations for me?)  So why keep the secret one?


There’s a problem:  blogging builds no skill.  It’s too private.  For example, has my writing style improved since my first essay?  How could it?  I haven’t had anyone critiquing my prose.  It has had no public confrontation that could result in failure.  Unimpressed readers usually don’t bother commenting.  Living in my own little world here, I’m free to imagine that all my essays are perfect.  If I had to submit my writings for a grade in a college rhetoric class, that would take a lot of the fun out of it, but I’m not sure that my disdain for such a thing is healthy.


The argument for blogging, I suppose, is that if I didn’t unburden myself of my opinions somewhere, I might end up popping off and inflicting them on people who would rather not hear or would not be inclined to let me get away with such opinions.


A blogger should overall spend more time reading and thinking than writing.  I’ve had little time to read for the last half decade, and I think it shows in my writing getting less interesting with time.


Miscellaneous on immigration, lesbians, and space colonization

The biggest weakness of the immigration advocates is that they won’t even address concerns that the native culture will be overrun.  They think it racist to even acknowledge this as a valid concern.  Many even promise that the native culture will be overrun, that we will become “diverse” and “multicultural”.  The biggest weakness of the restrictionist’s case is that our culture and collective identity is dying anyway and won’t be saved even if we stop the flow tomorrow.  White nationalism is an attempt to remain a European Christian society by inertia, without positively asserting the core commitments of our civilization.  If America is to remain what it has been, an English people, it must assert itself as such by public submission to the English monarch and the Church of England.

Recent events give us a good illustration of the flaw of the judiciary’s and the Catholic Church’s thinking of immigration in terms of “rights”.  In liberal polities, rights are trumps, meaning the prerogative of the individual with a right overrides any consideration of the common good.  No judge or bishop needs to consider what ruin will follow the influx of Muslims; they’ve got rights.

Patriactionary reports straight women have fewest orgasms.  I always trust stereotypes over “studies”, and lesbians are better known for being angry ideologues than being solicitous lovers, but in this case the result might be true.  I imagine there are a lot of asexual women, and most default to heterosexual since such relationships bring kids and financial support.

Just for fun, let’s speculate more about the lesbian apocalypse.  Recall, the idea is that as the social expectation of heterosexuality recedes, there’s no guarantee of a continued roughly 1:1 ratio of heterosexual men to heterosexual women.  There is some evidence that women have the more malleable sexuality, so we seem destined to have lots of lonely men.  I can see lesbianism becoming very high status and attractive to many women.  There seems to be very little of the visceral repulsion to it that male homosexuality elicits in many people.  I don’t remember how it came up, but my wife once mentioned that if I were to commit adultery, she’d rather I had sex with another woman than went gay.  I, on the other hand, would rather she cheated with another woman.  Both make sense.  Men are worried about paternity, with being supplanted.  What matters most of all is being the man to my girl.  Women are more worried about being inseminated with the best genes.  What matters most is lack of signs of defects in her boy.  A woman could fool around with other women much more than she could with men without alienating a future husband, so she may be less likely to end up bothering to switch to the future husband at all.  Another thing:  adoption would quickly become predominantly a service for lesbians.  Probably they will prefer girls even more than average adopters.

In a 2010 study, economists from the California Institute of Technology, the London School of Economics and New York University discovered, among other things, that adoptive American parents preferred girls to boys by nearly a third. The data was based on more than 800 adoptions that occurred between June 2004 and August 2009. The researchers suggested that this preference for girls might occur because adoptive parents “fear dysfunctional social behavior in adopted children and perceive girls as ‘less risky’ than boys in that respect.” Adoptive parents are even willing to pay an average of $16,000 more in finalization costs for a girl than a boy. Same-sex couples and single women showed an even greater proclivity for adopting girls.

Would bringing in foreign baby girls restore the balance of heterosexual women to men?  Or would these girls raised without fathers by potentially man-hating lesbians be unlikely to take any interest in men themselves?

It’s fun to read about plans to colonize space, but as a proof of principle, I think we should first get serious about colonizing Antarctica.  My God, what a paradise!  Breathable air at atmospheric pressure, protection from cosmic rays, lots of water ice…

I can still remember the almost religious awe I felt as a child for the idea of manned space exploration.  It was unthinkable for me that mankind’s fate might not eventually lie beyond the Earth.  As I said, I remember it, but I find I can no longer feel it.  Why would people ever want to go to any other celestial body?  Unmanned exploration is so much cheaper.  With falling birth rates in the developed world, overpopulation probably won’t be an insuperable long-term problem.  Not after the lesbian apocalypse, anyway.

Faith: another category to be vindicated

My new post at the Orthosphere:  Faith is honesty in doubt