Search Box

Sunday, March 15, 2015

The problem with this blog

The other day a commenter who calls himself "Dum da dum dum" jokingly suggested that if I just loosen up a little, drink more, and forget about physical fitness and morality, I would have a more popular blog.

He makes a good point.

I responded:

Well, there are a lot of things holding this blog back. The people who come here because they're interested in sociopathy get turned off by the fact that I'm honest about race. The race realists get turned off by the fact that every now and then I'll say something good about blacks, or because I support gay marriage. Gays and lesbians end up hating me because I describe them as they are. And a lot of people who've come here because they're interested in one of the topics I tend to dwell on have to wade through a lot of other stuff to get to their preferred subject. And I always try to be honest, but people who like honesty on one subject don't necessarily like it on others.

Not sure that drinking in the morning is going to help though. As far as physical fitness, that's been a lifelong obsession. It will give me up (through my body playing tricks on me as I age) before I give it up.

It has occurred to me that I ought to concentrate on one subject -- like sociopathy -- and refrain from commenting on others. But if I did that, I'd get bored. As it is, I've already started to repeat myself, or at least paraphrase myself, on a number of subjects.

In the meantime, I've given almost everyone reason to dislike me.

Take a look at my original post on Aspergers Syndrome and see how many Aspie commenters have lashed out at me for my description of them (thus illustrating my point about how Aspies don't take criticism well). A few days ago I may have offended the bipolar community as well, at least those who were on the depressive stage of their cycle when they read the piece.

Sociopaths are obviously not going to like the way I analyze their behavior and point out their despicable natures. And the sociopaths I've named will hate me even more. Even narcissists won't like what I've had to say about them, although, given the nature of their personalities, most will assume that what I've said doesn't apply to them individually.

Liberals, especially Obama-lovers, won't like me for obvious reasons. But conservatives won't be satisfied with me because I'm anti-war, pro-choice, and pro-gay marriage.

I hate organized atheism, and the way they try to quash Christianity at every turn. And I hate the hypocrisy of those who feel free to mock Christianity but consider other religions off-limits. But since I fall somewhere between atheist and agnostic, Christians know I'm not one of them, either.

Blacks won't like me because I'm honest about race and IQ, and race and crime. Hispanics won't like me because I'm for clamping down on illegal immigration. Asians won't, or at least shouldn't, like me because I've talked about Asian-itis.

And I'm not even white.

About the only thing I haven't gotten negative feedback on are my posts on fashion (even my father enjoyed those). But I don't think I've written one of those in over a year. Guess I'm overdue.

I write about peoples' looks, and occasionally put in pictures of women I consider beautiful. Women who are insecure about their own looks often stop reading at that point.

I've also written about men's looks. While no man will stop reading the blog because of that, I'm sure some guys probably think I sound like half a fag when discoursing on that subject. (Especially when I use words like "discoursing.")

I've written a (so far) 18-part series on being a beta male, because I thought that most guys would identify with some of the feelings I described in those posts. A couple people who know me personally have reacted by saying, you're not a beta, so you're just a liar. While I was flattered by their response, the truth is, I have felt every emotion I've described in that series.

(And, by the way, I'm sure there are others who know me personally who reacted by thinking, yep, well, at least he admits he's a beta.)

The fact is, all men feel like betas at times, and like alphas at others; it's usually just a question of circumstance. But, women probably don't find that series all that interesting.

Speaking of women, the feminists who've wandered onto this blog undoubtedly hate me for my series on FEMEN, and for what I've said about feminists in general. Frankly, though, they'd probably hate me anyway, so there's little I can do about them.

Conclusion: if you're honest, you're going to end up offending everyone, sooner or later.

(Somehow, I felt more comfortable writing the above sentence in second person rather than in first.)

I will say that one of the most gratifying things about this blog has been that the smarter and more honest someone is, the more likely he is to stick with it. It's not a perfect correlation, but in general, it holds. (Note the way I slip in some subtle self-congratulation while congratulating you.)

Anyway, to those of you who've stuck with the blog, thank you.


Steven said...

This is a great blog.

Anonymous said...

I would be sad if you limited your blog or censored it. I have come to enjoy reading it over a cup of coffee.

So I vote for honesty, with a caveat.

Honesty is not an excuse for cruelty. Many people deliver cruel and cutting remarks and then hide behind "I'm just being honest!" Expressing one's foulest, angriest, most misanthropic vitriol is not being honest -- it's being indulgent. I know on the blogosphere, and in today's culture, being "funny" and "clever" are the values that seem to trump all, but honesty without compassion has limited use in my book. At least that's what I teach my kids.


John Craig said...

Steven --
Thank you very much.

(Honestly, I wasn't fishing for compliments here.)

John Craig said...

Gardner --
Thank you, I have no intention of censoring myself, at least at this point.

(I responded to your comment from last night, too, don't know if you checked for the response.)

You bring up a good point. I too have heard lots of people say, "Hey, I'm just telling it like it is" or words to that effect when they're just being needlessly unpleasant. Having said that, I'm sure I've crossed that line more than once.

The way I look at it, making fun of people for how they behave, or what they do, is fair game. Making fun of people for what they ARE is different. Generally, the latter means you're not supposed to make fun of people for their race, gender, sexuality, etc.

But even there, that line is not so well defined. most people would draw the line before making fun of someone with Downs Syndrome. But what about, say, a particularly stupid, self-serving politician? If he says something extremely transparent and mostly untrue, I won't put any limits on my cruelty when talking about him. But, at a certain level, aren't I just making fun of him because he's stupid, in a way that I wouldn't about someone with Downs? (Cleverer politicians are better at masking their self-interest.)

Likewise, I haven't put on any brakes when it comes to mocking the women of FEMEN. But these feminists are obviously a pretty feeble-minded bunch. Should that inhibit me? (It hasn't.)

Or, I've made fun of names that black parents have given their children. That's an action on the part of the parents; yet the children who are stuck with those unfortunate names had no say in the matter. Should I refrain on those grounds, or because the parents were dumb and uneducated? (I haven't.)

I don't make a practice of pointing out anyone's ugliness. Yes I have pointed out that various movie stars are less than physically prepossessing. Making fun of someone for his looks is generally considered cheap shot; but if I limit my mockery to movie stars who aren't ugly, but aren't particularly good-looking either, is that fair?

Anyway, yes, I generally limit myself to criticism of what people do, not what they are, but when you really think about it, that's a very fuzzy line at times.

I don't know how long you've been reading the blog, but here are two examples where I essentially insult people (movie stars) for their looks, I'll let you be the judge of whether I've gone over the line. One is about women, the other about men:

dum da dum dum said...

Mr. Craig I'm sorry for shitting in your comment section. You do a good job here and I'd be awful sorry if it were to stop.

John Craig said...

Dum da dum dum --
I didin't interpret it that way at all. You were joking, I realize that. I just sort of used that joke as an excuse to go off into a bout of navel-gazing.

No problems whatsoever.

Spychiatrist said...

This is precisely why I like this Blog.

You give your opinion and you don't try to to sugarcoat it for anyone that I can tell John.

Honestly, I don't always agree with everything that you write but I'll have to say that I agree with most of your prose sir. You are a fine articulate fellow and you calls 'em as you sees 'em.

Hold the line.

John Craig said...

Spike --
That is precisely why I appreciate your comments.

Actually, thank you. (And as I told Steven above, honestly, I wasn't fishing.)

As a blogger, I'm acutely aware of how many page views i get per day. Recently I've been averaging almost exactly a thousand, (in November and December it was closer to 1100 for some reason). I know that a thousand is way more than most blogs, but I also know it doesn't put me in the big leagues with a Steve Sailer or Chateau Heartiste. I suppose this post is my excuse for the blog not being bigger.

dum da dum dum said...

ot: I don't know if you've seen it or not but the movie nightcrawler is a really good character study of a sociopath.

John Craig said...

Dum da dum dum --
Actually Steven just told me the same thing (in a comment after the Camille Muffat RIP post). I'll definitely put iron my list.

Anonymous said...

john in a world becoming ever more p.c and stifled people like you and sailer are necessary goods. now don't get puffed up because you ain't even remotely in sailer's league. but you are a funny guy and i've learnt a lot of practical wisdom from what you've written. in fact i wish somebody had given me sailers blog and yours years ago - my life and outlook would have been much improved, and would have been a lot easier.
keep writing.

dum da dum dum said...

ya steve your post is right on the money. the sperginess was just him trying to impersonate an emotional and behavioral register humans beings have that he didn't. the settings tv but I think that was the closest to the nest the filmmakers felt they could foul.

dum da dum dum said...

wouldn't suprise me if the news producer was based on the women from sony who was fired for those leaked emails.

John Craig said...

Anon from 12:10AM --

Thank you (and no need to tell me I'm not in Sailer's league, I said so myself three comments before yours).

But thanks, and I will keep writing for now. (And I too wish I'd had Sailer's blog or even this one to read when I'd been young.)

Anonymous said...

I look forward to seeing more Saint alerts posts (I love the one you wrote about Jane Goodall), uplifting stories about remarkable people. As a writer, you articulate observations that we've all made, putting these facts "down on paper," if you will. I enjoy reading your blog, having learned quite a bit from it.

- Susan

John Craig said...

Susan --
Thank you. I know what you mean about saint alerts, but I keep seeming to stumble across more sociopaths than I do saints. One of these days I'm going to write one about Aung San Suu Kyi, though, that's been on my let of to do's for a while.

I did do that eulogy for Camille Muffat recently, though it wasn't in any sort of depth. Generally, though, I'm afraid this blog is not the place for uplift.

Anonymous said...

Making fun of famous people is completely fair game and not what I meant by misanthropy or cruelty at all. In fact, I don't think you have engaged in any of that dreck, I was only pointing out that honesty is not a carte blanche. The kind of cruelty I am referring to is evident in spares on one of the blogs you mentioned above, which with, BTW, I am grateful and relieved you are not in the same league as.


John Craig said...

Gardner --
Thank you. I have to admit, I enjoy reading Heartiste, precisely because he is so cruel. (You have to be at least a little cruel to be funny.) He's also realistic, though it has occurred to me that he could well be a sociopath. And while he's realistic about women at a certain level, it's also apparent that he really hates them at another; I'd love to know what his relationship with his mother was like.

Runnerkaty said...

I found your blog in my studies of sociopathy, but have enjoyed it ever since. Most of the time, I agree with what you are writing, so not sure what that makes me. :) At the very least, I find the ones that are more controversial to be entertaining. Thanks for your constant honesty!

John Craig said...

Runnerkaty --
Thank you very much.

(And as I said in the second to last paragraph of this post, what it probably makes you is smart and honest.)

Nathan Wright said...

Having discovered your blog a few months ago and done a bit of binge-reading, I just now became aware of that Asperger's post. And having read it ... ouch. Now I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of your incisive observations.

I think the instinct of people to feel awkward around ass-burgers and quickly disengage (as you and others noted in the comments on that post) works to our disadvantage, because we don't become self-aware. And, I have read up casually on the disorder before, but it's usually, as you say, sympathetic therapist-speak -- I have never read anything remotely so cutting. So thanks for that post, I think it does a service, even if it is painful to read.

John Craig said...

Nathan --
Are you saying you have Aspergers? If so, thank you for your commonsensical -- and honest -- reaction. Yes, I can be harsh, and the truth is I was actually doing a fair amount of venting in that post, so there was admittedly some poison behind it. On the other hand, everything I said was -- I think -- accurate. And a fair amount of the examples were actually taken from real life.

Anyway, thanks.

Nathan Wright said...

I have never been diagnosed with it, but have long suspected I'm somewhere on the spectrum. Actually I sent my girlfriend the article hoping she would say "oh, you're nothing like that", but instead she went "holy crap, this describes you perfectly right down to not being able to spread peanut butter without making a mess". :-)

I'm in my mid 30s now, and I can read something like that and just wince, and not have an identity crisis. It would have been a different story 15 or 20 years ago, though. It's obviously devastating to be rejected by the culture or your peers as a teenager. I almost wonder if that trademark Aspie defensiveness is not even endemic to the disorder itself, but rather just a common response to that kind of formative experience.

Anyway, I'm not meaning to excuse or defend the boorishness of some of the comments on that thread. Apparently there is a push to establish Asperger's as yet another PC victim group. That one guy in particular sounded exactly like what an SJW tirade would sound like as performed awkwardly by an Aspie.

John Craig said...

Nathan --
Again, thanks for your rational, realistic response. If your girlfriend reacted that way (and if you reacted to the post by wincing), you probably do have it. But I can promise you that even if that's the case, judging by your two comments, you're far more calm and reasonable than most Aspies.

If Aspergers does become another PC victim group, then that post will eventually become the equivalent of unacceptable "racist" talk, I guess.

Anonymous said...

I've been following this blog for at least two years and none of it has ever offended me, probably because the only things that really offend me are dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Scott Rosen, atheist, realist (race and otherwise)

John Craig said...

Scott --
Thank you.

(But stay tuned, I may offend you yet!)