Black voices aren't the only minority voices who say things worth listening to.
"Identifying as trans is just a way for white men to place themselves at the top of the progressive oppression hierarchy. It's literally white patriarchy but with extra steps and horrible makeup. "
Lauren Chen
Dan, and others, base their arguments in favor of unrestricted abortion on the following premise.
"It's wrong to force a woman to give birth to a child."
It's not their only argument, but it's a regular. Leaving aside the multitude of problems with this statement, I want to focus on a hypothetical.
Recently, I've seen various sources reporting on the possibility of some sort of artificial womb. Some incubation container that would allow us to grow children is "greenhouses". I know it sounds horrific, and the potential for harm seems huge. But, consider this.
What if these women who can't be inconvenienced by allowing the child in their womb to fully gestate, let alone be bothered to care for it, were able to transplant the child into one of these artificial wombs? Wouldn't that completely eliminate this line of argument? What if, the millions of families who would adopt these children if their lives weren't being ended so cavalierly were able to fund these artificial womb centers?
I suspect that the pro abortion folx would find other excuses to end the lives of their children, even if they had this option. Because it's their property to dispose of as they wish with no restrictions.
https://www.lifenews.com/2022/12/26/17-years-of-data-on-over-5000-women-shows-abortion-hurts-women/
The piece above references at least a couple of studies that could reasonably lead an unbiased observer to conclude that abortion causes harm to the women who abort, as well as to the aborted child.
On top of the studies that strongly link abortion with increased cancer risk, PTSD or other mental haelth issues, and damage to the reproductive system.
By all means, let's ignore the harm.
Many say "Your doctrines and beliefs don't matter--what matters is how you live, if you are a good person or not". But that IS a doctrine--it's the doctrine of justification by works.
D.M. Lloyd-Jones
I could be wrong, but it seems like we've had a movement towards a counter culture in the US since the 1950's. I think you could say that it started with the advent of rock music and the fact that parents didn't like it. During the 50's it looked like the guy in a leather jacket, with a hot rod, and a cigarette. During the 60's is looked like hippies, those who experimented with LSD, and who protested the Vietnam War. In the 70's we saw the excesses of the disco scene, punk rock, and the emergence of the homosexual activists.
What's interesting to me is that at some point in the 70's and 80's what had been the counter culture was morphing into the dominant culture. At some point in the 90's Hip Hop culture was briefly counter cultural, until culture simply absorbed it as well. We started to see thousands of identically dressed people who all acted the same who really believed that they were non conformist and a counter culture. They must have missed the point when the trappings of the counter culture had been turned into a fashion statement.
Fast forward to the 2020's and all of a sudden the counter culture looks like people who want to get married, live on a farm, home school their kids, and dress well. It looks like young women who choose to dress modestly. It looks like people deciding to choose not to live the drugs, sex, and Rock and Roll lifestyle.
It's kind of refreshing to see a counter culture that doesn't involve destructive behavior.
Instead of my documentation of the revelations coming out of Twitter, I'll simply point people to Wintery Knight's blog where he goes into quite a bit of detail, and provides links and quotes.
He also has another excellent debate regarding the existence of God. I suspect the no one here has the intellectual ability of those being debated, and certainly don't suspect that anyone here could demonstrate that any of the arguments made are false.
https://winteryknight.com/
"It's not a person."
"It belongs to me."
"I can do with it as I please."
"The law is on my side."
Historically these 4 arguments have been used to justify two institutions. Any guesses?
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/political-progressive-conservative-christians/
I'm interested in reading this when it comes out, because it seems that the research is suggesting that the current narrative might not actually be True.
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2021/07/19/whats-current-lesbian-events-excluding-trans-identified-males-ruled-unlawful-in-tasmania/
It would appear that we're seeing the L's who are oppressing the T's.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/black-female-in-head-scarf-attacked-black-cultural-center-police/
Strangely enough, this attack was blamed on "white supremacy" , and UVA chose to hide the identity of the attacker.
If a college professor claimed the following,
"white people are committed to being villians"
That Africans arrived in North America before white Europeans
"Whiteness is going to have an end date"
"We gotta take these muthafuckers out"
Should this professor be disciplined in any way?
I could be wrong, but it seems like credible allegations of what was essentially a money laundering scheme that benefited DFL candidates and funneled money to Ukraine would be something that would be investigated, and would be a bigger news story.
It also seems like it'd be worth investigating the vast sums of money that were earmarked for Ukraine, but can't be accounted for.
It also seems like the stories of election irregularities in Maricopa county should be investigated by a neutral 3rd party, doesn't it? Because it seems improper that a sitting secretary of state, was able to oversee an election that she was running is, doesn't it? Isn't that at least the appearance of impropriety?
However, I suspect these will soon be forgotten as more conspiracy theories, until 3-4 years down the road. When, just like Hunter's laptop, the Russia dossier, and the like we'll find out that they weren't conspiracy theories but actual wrongdoing.
At one point the most recent election law updates were characterized in all sorts of negative ways. Mostly it was some version of trying to suppress voting. Yet strangely enough voting in GA has broken all sorts of records since those laws were enacted.
Clearly this couldn't be because certain people and organizations lied about the nature of GA's laws, or misrepresented them and their effects.
https://winteryknight.com/2022/11/22/cbs-news-admits-hunter-biden-laptop-is-authentic-2-years-after-new-york-post-broke-the-story/
Back before the 2020 election news broke about Hunter Biden and his questionable business dealings and of his use of his father's influence for his own benefit. This story was poo pooed by everyone on the left. "Conspiracy theory", "Russian disinformation", and more were put out by the media, the DFL, and the Biden camp. Strangely enough, years later, CBS is the most recent MSM outlet to acknowledge that the story was actually True. Now (I could be wrong) but it seems like a candidate for president who used his influence to help his son financially gain through business dealings of questionable legality, might benefit from the MSM not investigating this story right before an election. It seems like this sort of potential influence peddling might have affected the outcome of at least 2 national elections had it been investigated in a timely manner. It's possible that the DFL die hards, would have continued to support Biden, regardless of the Truth of the matter, maybe even likely. But, I can't help but suspect that this news would have affected the independent voters.
It's strange that this is finally coming to light after two elections which might have been negatively affected by this news. It's also convenient that this could well be what keeps Biden out of the race in 2024. One could almost conclude that Facebook, Twitter, and IG weren't the only media outlets that decided to influence recent elections, maybe the MSM did as well.
But hey, this is just one more "conspiracy theory" that's turned out to be True.
"Are any of you going to condemn unequivocally the shooting of gay folk at the Club Q in Colorado, apparently by a conservative?"
This, coming from someone who has never, to my recollection, unequivocally condemned any political violence from folks on the left. From the softball practice shootings, to the attempted assassination and illegal SCOTUS protests, to the years and years of riots, looting, and arson, or the vehicle attack in WI, I can't recall a specific, unequivocal, condemnation of any of those acts. Let alone the multitude of attacks on crisis pregnancy centers. It's always something like, "I condemn all acts of violence.", "We have no way to know who's really responsible.", "Jane's Revenge isn't really a leftist group.", "BLM had absolutely nothing to do with any riots, looting, or arson. It was a bunch of conservative provocateurs.", and the like.
My response to his nakedly political question is as follows.
I have repeatedly and consistently opposed and condemned anyone who kills innocent people, regardless of their cause or reason for doing so. The fact that you pretend as if I haven't said this multiple times, is simply another example of your double standard.
If the bland, nonspecific, vague, general, condemnation of "all" of any behavior is good enough for you to hide behind, then it's good enough for everyone else.
But, I really appreciate you jumping to a conclusion about the motives of the shooter without any actual evidence to back up your assumption.
Maybe if you'd remove the log of hypocrisy from your won eye...
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/reporter-world-cup-lgbtq-shirt-28549578
A CBS reporter was prevented from entering a stadium in Quatar because he was wearing a shirt that expressed support for the LGBTQXYZPDQ agenda. This event raises some questions regarding the left wing narrative, and assertions about morality.
1. Given that news reporters are supposed to be neutral observers of events and to report on those events, why was this repporter choosing to insert himself into the event and the controversy?
2. Are T-Shirts with political/agenda logos really appropriate for journalists when they are actually working?
3. Clearly Quatar finds homosexuality to be out of line with their moral code, as well as their legal code. Does this mean that they are objectively correct in finding homosexuality to be immoral, and using their sacred text to do so?
4. Why would FIFA choose to honor a country that engages in this sort of discrimination with a World Cup, and why would countries that object to this sort of discrimination participate?
5. Is it appropriate for reporters to engage in protests as a part of their reportorial duties?
I'm pretty sure I predicted this, or something close to it, but I have no desire to go back and find what I said.
But the fact that Trump hasn't waited until the results of the midterms are final to announce for 2024, is pretty much what I expected. It seems clear that he wants to be the first one in the ring as a way to intimidate any potential challengers. It also seems clear that the other part of his strategy is to preemptively attack the challengers he fears the most, as a way to keep them from running. If your goal is to elect someone who is interested in simply exercising raw political power, and who doesn't care how much long term damage he does to the GOP or the conservative movement, then Trump is your guy. If you want someone who is out for themselves first and foremost, Trump is your guy. If you want someone who's going to blame others first, Trump is your guy. If old guys are your jam, Trump and Biden are your guys.
While I'm predicting, I'll try this on for size.
If Trump doesn't the the support he believes he should, or if he loses early primaries, I suspect that he will blame others for his failures and run as an independent. This course of action will, of course, result in the DFL candidate being elected and 4 more years of crap.
I'm noticing a trend. Trump is excellent at blaming others for his failures, and now his followers are starting to do the same. I guess I've always thought that taking responsibility for your own actions was a good thing.
"a failure to understand something correctly."
Given the dictionary definition above, it would appear that if someone tells you that they are pointing out your misunderstanding about a topic, they are implicitly asserting that they do understand something "correctly".
" in a way that is true, factual or appropriate; accurately."
Given the dictionary definition of correctly above, it seems appropriate to conclude that anyone who claims that they are correcting your misunderstandings is claiming that their understanding of the topic under discussion is "True, factual, or accurate.". If you think about it that's quite a claim embedded in one word. Misunderstanding doesn't convey a difference of opinion, it conveys "I'm right and you're wrong". What's interesting is that the words correctly, true, factual, and accurately, all all words that are binary, something either is True or false, accurate or inaccurate, factual or non factual, it's an objective claim of certainty.
Well the midterms are over, and instead of a brief respite, we get the beginnings of 2024. Apparently Trump is trying to get a head start by blaming others for some of the losers he backed, and going scorched earth on his perceived rivals. Clearly this is the best of all possible GOP candidates, and someone who has the best interests of the GOP foremost in his mind.
From a senile POTUS, to a paranoid POTUS, that’s exactly what we need.
And all y’all who voted DFL because you believed Biden had actually given you a refund for your student loan debt, don’t look that smart at this point either.
During his "Christian" phase Dylan opined that we're "gonna have to serve somebody.", I've always thought he was onto something. Although I think that it's possible, even reasonable, to conclude that serve and worship can be used interchangeably in some instances.
Last night, I was at an event where Jeff Deyo spoke. Before I went I jumped into his recent book about worship. One of the things he said in the book, and amplified last night, was that we are created/wired to worship. He then followed that up with the observation that if we aren't worshiping YHWH, that we will worship something or someone else.
Then I saw a tweet from Tim Keller which said, "You don't get to decide to worship. Everyone worships something. The only choice is what yo worship.".
This led me to conclude that maybe there was something to this idea.
The question, it seems to me, is "Are we going to worship the Creator or His creation?".
It's election day, vote if you haven't. Vote early, vote once, vote if you're legally eligible. Don't vote if you are not legally eligible, and don't facilitate anyone who's not legally eligible to vote. In the absence of clearly evident vote fraud that is well documented, don't immediately default to "illegitimate" if the outcome doesn't go your way.
Based on the polls, it seems likely that there will be a 40-60 seat swing in the house, and a GOP majority in the senate. Does this constitute a "Red Wave"? I don't know.
One recent news story, that is troubling, is the increase of districts/states who are making excuses for not being able to get ballots counted quickly. Especially the ones claiming it'll take several days. Given the fact that most of these seem to be blue strongholds, this does raise some questions. I'd expect some scrutiny of these areas just to reassure people that the count is correct.
What I'm interested in is the response of folx on the left if the GOP does well. I'm especially interested in the demographic breakdowns. Polling is showing us that there might be a swing away from the DFL among certain "minority" demographics, and it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Mostly what'll be interesting is to see how the MSM will spin a GOP win tonight (or a GOP loss). I'm especially intrigued by how folx like Dan will respond.
One last thought. After the 2020 election, I expect to there y'all who've been bitching about election deniers come down hard on folx like Stacey Abrams if she loses and complains about the election being rigged. She's done it before, there's no reason why she won't do it again.
We've been working through Romans 8 for the last couple of months, and are close to the end. Where we find v. 28, one of the more popular verses in The Bible.
"28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who[i] have been called according to his purpose."
There is plenty to dig into with this verse, but I want to focus on two things for now.
1. Paul (who knew a think or two about suffering) is very clear that YHWH will use "all" things as He works for the good. Not some things, not the things that we might think are good, but specifically ALL things.
2. "The good", in this case is whatever is "according to His purpose".
Shouldn't this verse change the way we look at our circumstances, how we pray, and what we thank YHWH for?
In the following 2 verses we see this.
" 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."
Obviously people have spent decades defining what these words mean, and there is some valuable theology to be gleaned from that work.
But I want to try to simplify it for the present. What Paul seems to be saying is that YHWH has a plan for "those who love Him", that plan was in place before we were born, and the ultimate goal of the plan is to glorify us in His image.
What was pointed out the other day is that Paul uses the past tense in these verses to indicate that the work that facilitates all of this has already been finished, even as we experience the reality of living in the now and the not yet. Again, wouldn't knowing this change how we view our circumstances?
When I think of this verse, I immediately picture my wife's ex "boss". Joni Erickson Tada embodies what this verse means every single day of her life. She could easily have given up after her accident, and simply waited for death. Instead she realized that all things work together for the good, and chose a different path. Today, Joni and Friends has helped literally millions of people with disabilities all over the world. They've folded a form of prison ministry into their model. Because of her tragic accident, millions of lives are changed daily in both temporal and spiritual ways.
Maybe we get too focused on how difficult our lives are and how upset we get a YHWH because HE promised that He'd make our lives better.
FYI, Romans 8:28 and following really does contain some profound theological insights, and Truth. But that doesn't mean that it''s helpful to quote it to a family who's just lost a loved one, or someone who's just lost their job. I'm thinking that it's probably more important to focus on providing love and support, not deep theological discussion.
Creflo Dollar, a leading proponent of the false prosperity gospel, pastors a church in GA. Apparently this is now OK in churches.
"I just want to say this because I want to see how it sounds. Governor Stacey Abrams just walked in. So you already know what to do, right? How many of you have already done it? Wow. It's big time. Make it happen. Do what you git to do."
On a related note, Stacey Abrams as magically seen her net worth grow from $109,000 to $3.17 million, despite not actually having any sort of job that would have allowed her to earn that much money.
Maybe Creflo is right, and God can make you rich.
https://winteryknight.com/2022/10/25/uk-joins-france-finland-and-sweden-backing-off-gender-affirming-care-but-biden-doubles-down/
Strange, the number of western European countries accepting the "Gender Affirming" model continues to decrease, while the US continues to blaze down this path full speed. It's almost like folx in the US are choosing to ignore what's happening in western Europe when it doesn't fit with their political agenda. Are y'all really saying that the data coming out of western Europe, and the US is so badly wrong that we should ignore it and plow ahead?
Despite the title I'm not a Judas Priest fan, and I don't think they belong in the Rock HOF, but the title was too good to ignore.
I'm going to start with this premise. The terms rule, law, and command(ment) are functionally identical, and can be uses interchangeably for the most part. The second premise I'm going to start with is that sin is (at least in part) the breaking of the rules THWH has given us to follow.
So, on a very basic level breaking a rule, is us concluding that our judgement is superior to the entity that promulgated the rule. Even in the case of breaking a rule for a "good reason", we're essentially saying that the entity that promulgated the rule wasn't really intending that the rule be followed in this particular circumstance.
So let's look at the rules that YHWH gave us to follow. I'm going to focus on the top two only for this post. Mainly because Jesus Himself was very clear that these two rules are the foundation for every other rule YHWH promulgated. Those rules can be summarized as follows.
Love YHWH with all of your being, and love your neighbor the same way you love yourself.
Let's look at the first one first.
It seems safe to say that no one in the history of the world, except Jesus, has succeeded in loving YHWH with the totality of their being, every minute of their life. If there is someone else who's done this, I'd like to meet them. I think it's interesting that Mother Theresa (someone who many would offer as an example), was pretty adamant that she'd failed to adequately love YHWH or others. So, can we agree that any discussion of sin and it's seriousness starts from the place where we've all failed to follow the first and greatest commandment? Can we agree that failing to follow this commandment is a sin against YHWH?
I'm going to use Dan''s cookie example, because it points something out that subverts the point Dan thought he was making.
In Dan's example, some guy eats the last cookie, even though he knows that his wife really wanted to eat the last cookie.
The conclusion that Dan draws is that while the guy might be a bit of a cad, he's (at worst) committed a "minor" or "trivial" sin, which isn't big deal in the grand scheme of things. It's not like he raped anyone, right?
But, hasn't this guy really broken the second greatest commandment, and chosen to love himself more than his wife? Going a little deeper, didn't Paul (as a seeming extension of rule #2) command husbands to love their wives as He loved the Church? Which would, minimally, consist of sacrificing the husbands desires on the alter of elevating the wife's desires?
But, in all seriousness, is violating the second greatest commandment, to love others the way we love ourselves, really "trivial"? It's not a stretch to say that literally every single negative thing that plagues our world (war, murder, rape, slavery, theft, fraud, lying, etc) would not be a problem is we simply loved others as we love ourselves.
Let's go a level deeper in this. What the cookie eater is essentially communicating by his actions is that he doesn't have to follow rule #2. More than that he's communicating that he's really not that interested in following rule #1 either. How do we get here you ask? It's simple. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep My commandments.". One one level, as the second person of the Godhead, YWHW's rules are literally Jesus' rules. On another level, when Jesus confirmed that these rules were #'s 1&2, He was making those rules His as well. Which leaves us with this guy who's self contentedness has led him to conclude that he doesn't need to follow rule #1 or rule #2.
All of a sudden, it's starting to seem like calling his sin "trivial" or "minor" might be understating things a bit.
So, what is the common denominator to violating rules in virtually every situation? It seems like it is the human tendency to focus on one's self, and what's best for one's self at any given moment. It's the tendency for humans to conclude that this rule doesn't really apply to me, because I really need to break if for a really good reason. It's our focus on our selves.
But don't worry, focusing on and grounding our behavioral standards on ourselves, is "trivial". Why, because we do not need the Bible to tell us what the right thing to do is.
"WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO DO SO."
Dan made this emphatic assertion in the 5000 comment long morass that started in August. I think it's pretty interesting to see someone who claims the name of Christ, to empathically proclaim that "WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO...".
In this case, he's emphatically trying to claim that "WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO...", have a universally applicable, consistent, objective, standard of morality. That "WE" can construct a universally applicable, consistent, objective, standard for morality all by our selves. That we can use our "God given" faculties to construct a universal moral system. That our limited, finite, flawed, subjective, imperfect, (but "God given") faculties are up to the task.
If that claim is True, then why hasn't this happened? Why do we have entire societies that have concluded that things like FGM, child rape, disfiguring children, slavery, government appropriation of private property, and the like are moral and acceptable? Who is Dan to tell them that they're wrong?
Or, what about this.
What if "immoral" is functionally synonymous with "sin"? Would that change things? Secular culture and sociologists define morality as "Any system of behavior or mores that any given society, culture, tribe, or similar grouping define as acceptable and appropriate". (or something similar) This definition precludes any sort of universal moral code, it removes the ability of one culture to refer to the behavior of another culture as moral or immoral.
But what we (according to Dan) know with absolute, emphatic, certainty, is that "WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO DO SO" (Determine of something is moral). I wonder, in what other areas of life does Dan insist that "WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO..."?
Dan has been dragging a thread out for about 5,000 comments while he's trying to demonstrate that YHWH saves everyone, or that WHYH wants to save everyone, but can't because He's at the mercy of His creation, or something else that I don't understand. He's also back to introducing this notion of "trivial" or "minor" sins. These categories haven't been defined, supported, explained, or the like. Dan just acts like they are official categories and the YHWH agrees with him.
What I find interesting, and want to explore further in this post is how scripture speaks of sin and our relationship to it.
For example scripture tells us that we are "dead" in our sin, and the Jesus offers us "life" free from sin. Or scripture tells us that we are "slaves" to sin, and the Jesus bought our freedom from :bondage" or "slavery" to sin.
That language doesn't sound like there is room for "trivial" or "minor" sins, does it? Death/Life or Slave/Free sound like mutually exclusive categories don't they? Can you really be 95% alive and 5% dead? Or 95% free and 5% enslaved?
What I'm not interested in for this thread is Dan trying to rehash what he's already said elsewhere. If he wants to do that here, I'll keep posting his comments on the other thread. Or he can spout whatever he wants over at his place.
I'd prefer to not allow comments on this thread until I flesh the premise out a little bit more, but I suspect that Dan will find himself unable to control himself and will not honor my request. I could close comments, but if he's determined to comment on this before I'm ready, he'll just comment on another thread.
That's all for now. Hopefully I can revisit this soon.
I've fully intended to do a deep dive into this post, but the overwhelming number of repetitive, banal, unhelpful comments else where has prevented me from using my limited time to do so. I'm just going to point out that all of the language used in scripture to describe sin is binary, there is no sliding scale.
We're either:
Sick, or Well/Healthy
Dead or Alive
Enslaved or Free
For or Against
Guilty or Innocent
Wide Path or Narrow Gate
We never see the writers of scripture talking about humans just being a little sinful, just a little taint of sin. I realized that this language is so obvious and so well known that I probably didn't need to dig as deep as I was planning.
Have at it.
" Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f*** things up."
Always give credit to P-BO when he is right.
"I think it's very hard to communicate to the median voter convincingly the chaos that a GOP victory is likely to unleash, and I think a lot of professionals vastly underestimate the tail risk."
Chris Hayes
I don't know for sure, but the above sounds like threats of a return to the chaos and violence of 2020 if Hayes doesn't get the election result he wants. I wonder if he'll recant this when there's no GOP led chaos after the midterm elections?
"I was doing Meet the Press, and lightning struck a little pond behind my house," Biden told the conference Tuesday. "It came up through the ground into an air conditioning system."
"From the basement to the third floor, the attic, everything was ruined," he added. "We almost lost a couple firefighters, they tell me, because the kitchen floor was burning between beams, and then the house, in addition, almost collapsed into the basement."
An Associated Press report at the time described a "small" fire that was contained to the then-senator's kitchen, though it did mention "heavy smoke."
``Luckily, we got it pretty early,'' Cranston Heights Fire Company Chief George Lamborn told the outlet. ``The fire was under control in 20 minutes.''
So Biden is trying to claim that a "small fire" almost killed a couple of firefighters. Exaggeration as a part of political rhetoric goes back to the earliest days of our country. The difference is that when David Crockett spun his yarns on the campaign trail, no one really believed that he was actually telling the truth. It was understood that he was exaggerating for effect. Yet somehow Biden thinks that he can "exaggerate" regarding all sorts of things that can be easily fact checked, with a straight face, with impunity. At some point, doesn't "exaggeration" simply mean that he's lying, or losing his cognitive abilities?
UPDATE:
Just this morning I saw a video of Biden claiming that Gas was $5.00 a gallon when he took office. In reality I think the average was less than $2,70 when he took office.
I guess folx only object to stupid lies, when it's expedient for them to do so.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/08/25/twitter-factual-covid-info-labeled-misinformation/
Is anyone really surprised that Twitter has been flagging factual information about COVID and the "vaccine" as "misinformation"? At least they had the decency to reverse themselves after enough outcry from the medical community. I can see why we wouldn't want peer reviewed studies pointing out risks of the "vaccines" to be too widely spread, especially when the FL surgeon general is posting about it.
Anyone who thinks that Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram haven't been actively censoring things in ways that favor the left, as well is influencing information flow that might affect elections, is probably in denial.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/10/11/us/la-city-council-racist-remarks
Why am I not surprised to hear that DFL city leaders engaged in a racist converstaion.
Well, we've got Biden announcing the end of the pandemic, and his team scrambling to walk it back.
We've got Stacy Abrams claiming that the heartbeat that is audible and visible at 6 weeks is a "manufactured sound".
After Biden calls his political opponents "semi fascists and a threat to democracy" an 18 year old conservative is run down and killed by Shannon Brandt because the kid was a Republican.
Two former MPLS city officials (DFL and incidentally Muslim) were part of a large group of people indicted for stealing millions from funds intended for children's nutrition.
An investigation reveals some disturbing things happening at Vanderbilt transgender clinic.
"The best math you can learn is how to calculate the cost of your future decisions."
VJ Stoic Wealth
Apparently the notion that I should be able to go away for a couple of days with my wife, have day long training events at work, and have regular work to do without getting Dan's permission or announcing it makes Dan unhappy.
https://twitter.com/ImmuneHack/status/1567130823878492160
According to the table in the post, 47% of blacks are able to read at a basic level, while 18% are proficient. Is it reasonable to assign the difference between racial/ethnic groups entirely to "racism"? Isn't it possible that there are other factors that would improve these numbers?
A "Trans Rights" group posted a meme that points out that 98% of straight men are unwilling to date "trans women" because of "hatred". Their conclusion is, "THIS HAS TO CHANGE".
I guess I'd start with the obvious, that their claim appears to have no supporting data. Couldn't it be True that men won't date "trans women", because they're heterosexual and don't want to date another guy? No matter how the other guy presents themselves? Couldn't it also be True that this aversion to dating "trans women" isn't because of "hatred", but for other reasons? Couldn't it be because many men would want to date someone with whom they might someday want to impregnate and conceive a child?
Note: Obviously some % of women are incapable of conceiving a child. Yet in most cases, the only way to find out about this is to attempt to conceive, and in some cases there are medical interventions that can allow conception or implantation of a embryo in the womb of the woman. We all know that the possibility of a "trans woman" conceiving is zero.
https://twitter.com/sometherapist/status/1566489022209626112
For the last couple of years we've been told that "transitioning" children will prevent them from committing suicide. Now we we data that calls that narrative into question. Will those who worship Science and Data now reconsider their narrative an follow the Science?
"We have created nearly ten thousand million jobs since President Biden took office."
Karine jean-Pierre
https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a41018711/sexplain-it-vagina-fetish-sex-bisexual/
Apparently, if you're a man, and you're attracted to the lady parts of a woman (hopefully we can leave it at lady parts), then your simply expressing a "fetish". Strangely enough, this "fetish" is literally one of the main mechanisms that Evolution uses to propagate virtually all mammalian species. So much for following the Science.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/04/us/black-lives-matter-executive-lawsuit/index.html
Just one more reminder that the tens of millions of dollars donated to BLM remain mostly unaccounted for and haven't been (so far as anyone knows) spent on actual poor black people.
https://nypost.com/2022/09/03/gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-will-backfire-experts/
But, the "experts"...
As recently as the aftermath of the 2016 election Karine Jean-Pierre said that the 2016 election was "stolen" and praised Jimmy Carter for saying that "Trump didn't actually win". She also made public statements about convincing the EC to reject Trump. Yet somehow that's OK.
We just saw a video of two young black boys actively engaged in hitting and verbally attacking two police officers for no apparent reason. I can't believe that the parents bear no responsibility for two kids out on the street in their underwear showing a complete lack of respect for the officers.
https://twitter.com/
https://twitter.com/NuanceBro/status/1546566985835839489?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
"I think it is abundantly clear that the most powerful "privilege" in our society is growing up in a loving. low-conflict household witha father and mother committed to one another and their children. That's what every aspect of our culture should be encouraging 24/7/365"
Delano Squires
"The problems are not because of white supremacy but about deeper internal issues such as parenting or lack thereof."
Elijah Schaeffer
Lot's of folks on the left default to various "fact checkers" as the ultimate arbiter of Truth in society. Well Biden told quite a whopper the other day and WAPO "fact checked" him. The most obvious reason why this story is problematic is that it comes from a single source. So far there has been no independent corroboration of the story. But, the best line is this, "With news reports around the globe and now a presidential imprimatur,
however, the story has acquired the status of a “fact” no matter its
provenance.". Apparently in the MSM simply repeating something makes it a fact, regardless of whether or not it's actually True.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/09/one-source-story-about-10-year-old-an-abortion-goes-viral/
Remember back in the days of debating "Gay Marriage"? Remember when the folks advocating "Gay Marriage" kept telling us "If only these wonderful gay folk were able to marry, we wouldn't see all of the promiscuity that is so prevalent in the Gay community.". Or "The Bible writers just didn't know about the existence of monogamous gay relationships. If they had then they'd have supported "Gay Marriage". Well, it's happening. We're seeing the early salvos in an attack on monogamy. Gay's who revel in bathhouse sexual encounters, rejoice. Your predilections will soon be "moral".
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5996/is-monogamy-morally-wrong
Oh look. Masks didn't help stop the spread of COVID and may have made it worse. Studies and data, and all that sort of thing. It also looks like death rates among the vaccinated are much higher in the UK than for the unvaccinated.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9123350
https://twitter.com/guy_middleton/status/1546540670172778498?s=27&t=lUBxIK6hKJEDulXfVTdz3A
Biden- "None of what I'm talking about infringes on anyone's Second Amendment rights...I support the Second Amendment."
Biden (moments later)- "Assault weapons need to be banned...I'm determined to ban these weapons again..."
"Breakfast tacos" Enough said.
"Has anyone realized that when Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are still speaking on yur behalf the same way they did for your parents and grandparents that maybe something's wrong? If these same men are speaking to the same problems decades later, then what's being solved?!"
Barrington Martin
"2 reasons why the modern 'left' has become unhinged over the decade: 1/ The big fights have been won. Society is more egalitarian than ever - both legally and socially 2/ The focus on working class people has been lost, and replaced by race and gender ideology bullcrap.
As a society becomes more equal, fair, and tolerant, and REAL racism, ethnosupremacy, sexism, homophobia, etc. decline sharply, you're left with millions of people fighting 'battles' that don't exist.
Many end up moving things backwards with their fake struggles and bad policies.
"I fear that some men would rather be damned than be laughed at."
C H Spurgeon
Some things seem to be universally True. Although I'd add that some men would rather be damned than be on the "wrong side of history".
I guess it's an interesting look at what different people value more highly.
A while back I posted about this and I've been reminded of it again.
I don't understand how so many women have been convinced that the path to empowerment is to objectify yourself based on publicly posting pictures/videos of yourself as close to naked or posing provocatively as possible without running afoul of the censors.
I just saw a video of a state representative who posted a video of herself from behind, standing on her hands, topless (I think), with a very small bikini, twerking. Leaving aside her physical attractiveness or lack thereof, I wonder what made her think that informed voters would see this and think that she'd be an excellent legislator. Don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting she be prevented from doing this. I am wondering what convinced her that this video was the key to her success or empowerment.
I also just saw something related to Britney Spears posting a video from her honeymoon where she's rolling around on a beach, topless, lowering the top of her bikini bottom, etc. I guess I find it a little strange that she'd be publicly displaying herself while celebrating her honeymoon, but I'm a little old fashioned.
Finally, there was quite the stir when the daughter of Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards decided to declare her independence by starting an Only Fans. Surprisingly enough, dad wasn't thrilled to see his little girl entering that world, while Mom decide she'd go there to in solidarity.
Throughout history we've been told that men just "Want a beer and want to see somethin' nekkid" as Jeff Foxworthy puts it. So again, I'm struggling to understand how women putting themselves out publicly defining themselves and their worth by how far that can objectify and sexualize themselves by playing into the stereotypes of what men want, is somehow empowering to women. I guess if you define empowering as making money from a bunch of middle aged perverts who get off on looking at young, naked, women then go right ahead. Make the cash while you're young and desirable.
Disclaimer: I don't think women should be prevented from any form of trading their sexuality for cash, no matter how I personally feel about it. I'm merely wondering how appealing to men's base desires is empowering women.
I just saw an interview with Sydney Sweeney who is an actress on a very popular show. Don't know/care about the show. Apparently her character is involved in a lot of sex scenes or nude scenes, a quick look at her IG shows that she's not shy about her body. In the interview she expressed shock that people were "sexualizing" her based on what she chooses to do on TV or other media. The notion that she has any role in sexualizing herself doesn't seem to cross her mind. Again, I could be wrong, but it seems like people perceiving someone in the way that that person chooses to present themselves isn't out of line. It seems like we should have some degree of responsibility in the choices we make and how others react to those choices. Again, I'm not saying that she should be prevented from making those choices or be punished for them. I am saying that choices have consequences.
" But the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, orthodox among today's scientists, insists that evolution is an unplanned, undirected process. It combines elements of chance and necessity or natural law, a combination of random genetic changes or mutations, which accumulate through natural selection. These are impersonal material forces reflecting no preexisting intelligence and no guidance. As the outcome of this process, human beings are essentially unplanned acts of nature.
When you die, you're not going to be surprised, because you're going to be completely dead. Now if find myself aware after I'm dead, I'm going to be really surprised! But at least I'm going to go to hell, where I won't have all of those grinning preachers from Sunday morning listening.
Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin's views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.
Christian humanism has a great deal going for it. It's warm and kindly in many ways. That's the good part. The bad part is that you have to suspend your rational mind. That part is really nasty. Atheistic humanism has the advantage of fitting natural minds trying to understand the world, but the disadvantage of very little cultural heritage -- and that's a real problem.
So the question is, can atheistic humanism offer us very much? Sure. It can give you intellectual satisfaction. I'm a heck of a lot more intellectually satisfied now that I don't have to cling to the fairy tale that I believed when I was a kid. Life may have no ultimate meaning, but I sure think it can have lots of proximate meaning. Free will is not hard to give up, because it's a horribly destructive idea to our society. Free will is what we use as an excuse to treat people like pieces of crap when they do something wrong in our society. We say to the person, "you did something wrong out of your free will, and therefore we have the justification for revenge all over your behind." We put people in prison, turning them into lousier individuals than they ever were. This horrible system is based upon this idea of free will.
Since we know that we are not going to live after we die, there is no reward for suffering in this world. You live and you die. I've seen bumper stickers (very sexist ones, actually) that say "Life's a bitch, and then you die." Well, whatever life is, you're going to die. So if you're going to make things better for yourself or for those you care about, you had better become an activist while you're still alive."
Will Provine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B._Provine
I keep hearing people who try to ground some level of objective or universal morality from an Atheist/Materialist/Naturalist/Darwinist worldview with little or no success. The above are excerpts from a debate between Provine and Johnson. It's interesting that Provine is so certain in his beliefs. This notion that the most evil humans in all of history will simply cease to exist, somehow doesn't seem like it would encourage people not to commit genocide. Why not abort babies at any time, for any reason? Human life has no meaning, it's just some impersonal materialistic forces. Under this worldview what could possibly be wrong with slavery? Why is it a bad thing to harm people?
Without intrinsic value and purpose, why would anyone care about human life?
