All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
News

Facebook bans Christian apologist David Wood for posting the death threats he received

6 Comments
Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter purging conservative speech (Source: The Stream)
Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter purging conservative speech (Source: The Stream)

I got banned from Facebook for 3 days this past week, for a post that I shared on my personal account to my 45 friends. I’ll tell you what I posted below, but more important than me is famous Christian apologist David Wood. He received several suspensions from Facebook for posting threats he received, and for being critical of N*zism. Finally, he just quit entirely.

Here is his video on YouTube, which he explains what got him banned four times in a row:

He shows the five things in particular:

  • he posted a threat from someone who wanted to r*pe his mother in front of him
  • he posted a historical photo showing Hitl*r with his ideological allies
  • he posted another threat from someone who wanted to r*pe his wife in front of him
  • he posted another threat from someone who wanted to “chop chop chop” his head off
  • he posted another historical photo of someone dissenting from N*zism

So what can we infer from this? Well, if Facebook was angry at the people who posted the r*pe threats and the death threats, then they would have taken on those people. But Facebook censored David, the victim of those threats, instead. And similarly with the shaming of N*zis. If they disagreed with the N*zis, they could have let David’s posts stay. They decided to censor David instead. I think it’s pretty clear what that means.

By the way, if you would like to learn more about the people who Facebook favors over David Wood, this excellent article from The Daily Caller will prove helpful.

My 3-day suspension from Facebook

I also got a 3-day suspension from Facebook last week, for posting a video of several men rescuing a dog who was stuck in some flowing water and in danger of drowning. I originally posted it on Twitter, and I made two points above the video. First, I explained why I thought that it was wrong for everyone to shame all men for t*xic masculinity, when clearly some men were using their masculinity for good. Second, I said that the women who found men to be t*xic should remember that they often choose those men. I then took a screenshot of the tweet, and posted it on my personal account on Facebook, where ONLY my 45 close friends who know me in real life could see it. This was not posted to the blog’s public page, but to my personal page, to an audience of 45 people.

Here’s the video:

You can see why Facebook would ban this, it makes masculinity look good. And that’s against Facebook’s Communisty Standards. And you can’t tell women who complain about men to just avoid the ones who are dangerous, because that would imply that women have some responsibility to make wise choices. I think they do, but Facebook disagrees with me, and thinks I should be banned.

Well, I asked around, and I found that no one had complained about the post. But apparently, Facebook found that it opposed their “Communisty Standards”, so I got banned anyway.

Going forward

So what did I learn from this? Well, I learned to keep voting Republican, because they’re the only ones who seem to be concerned with censorship by the big social media companies. And that’s probably because the censorship by fascist companies like Facebook always seems to go in one direction – against Christians, against conservatives.

I think anyone who wants to make a difference on this misandry issue should consider sharing news stories, videos, etc. that put good men in a positive light. It’s important to intentionally counteract the cesspool of the secular left by promoting good content. Anything that shows a happy marriage, good use of legal firearms for self-defense, a family with a lot of children, homeschooling children, long-lasting marriage, chastity, etc. is bad for the secular left, and therefore bad for Facebook. Post all the good stuff you can.

By the way, you can find me here on MeWe and Minds, if you want to connect with me there. Those platforms don’t censor Christians or conservatives.

News

The seven fatal flaws of moral relativism

3 Comments
I have a key that will unlock a puzzling mystery
I have a key that will unlock a puzzling mystery

Moral relativism is the view that moral values and moral duties do not exist in reality, but only exist as opinions in people’s minds. When you ask a moral relativist where the belief that stealing is wrong comes from, he may tell you that it is his opinion, or that it is the opinion of most people in his society. But he cannot tell you that stealing is wrong independent of what people think, because morality (on moral relativism) is just personal preference.

So what’s wrong with it?

I found this list of the seven flaws of moral relativism at the Salvo magazine web site.

Here’s the summary:

  1. Moral relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing.
  2. Relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil.
  3. Relativists can’t place blame or accept praise.
  4. Relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice.
  5. Relativists can’t improve their morality.
  6. Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions.
  7. Relativists can’t promote the obligation of tolerance.

Here’s my favorite flaw of relativism (#6):

Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions. What’s there to talk about? If morals are entirely relative and all views are equal, then no way of thinking is better than another. No moral position can be judged as adequate or deficient, unreasonable, acceptable, or even barbaric. If ethical disputes make sense only when morals are objective, then relativism can only be consistently lived out in silence. For this reason, it is rare to meet a rational and consistent relativist, as most are quick to impose their own moral rules like “It’s wrong to push your own morality on others”. This puts relativists in an untenable position – if they speak up about moral issues, they surrender their relativism; if they do not speak up, they surrender their humanity. If the notion of moral discourse makes sense intuitively, then moral relativism is false.

I sometimes get a lot of flack from atheists who complain that I don’t let them make any moral statements without asking them first to ground morality on their worldview. And that’s because on atheism morality IS NOT rationally grounded, so they can’t answer. In an accidental universe, you can only describe people’s personal preferences or social customs, that vary by time and place. It’s all arbitrary – like having discussions about what food is best or what clothing is best. The answer is always going to be “it depends”. It depends on the person who is speaking because it’s a subjective claim, not an objective claim. There is no objective way we ought to behave.

So, practically speaking, everyone has to decide whether right and wrong are real – objectively real. If they are objectively real, that means that there is a right way for human beings to behave, and a wrong way for human beings to behave. It means that things that are really objectively wrong like rape are wrong for all times and all places, regardless of what individuals and societies might think of it. In order to rationally ground that kind of morality, you have to have a foundation for it – a cosmic Designer who decides for all times and places what the conduct of his creatures ought to be. And then our moral duties are duties that are owed to this Designer. It is like playing football or playing a boardgame – the person who invents the game decides the rules. But if there is no designer of the game, then there are no rules.

Without a designer of the universe, the question of how we ought to act is decided by people in different times and different places. It’s arbitrary and variable, and therefore it doesn’t do the job of prescribing behavior authoritatively. It’s very important not to get involved in any serious endeavor with another person or persons if they don’t have a sense of right and wrong being absolute and fixed. A belief in objective moral values is a necessary pre-requisite for integrity.

News

New York Times finally admits FBI spied on Trump campaign during Obama administration

5 Comments
The only collusion and treason was committed by Democrats
The only collusion and treason was committed by Democrats

Well, now that the 2018 mid-terms are over, the mainstream media thinks it’s OK to admit that the whole Trump-Russia collusion . The latest admission is from the radically leftist New York Times, which published two ACTUAL Nazi cartoons last week. I guessed they were sorry, because on Thursday, they published a story about how the Obama administration spied on Trump’s campaign.

The Federalist reports on the New York Times story:

Following months of angry claims by journalists and Democratic operatives that the Obama administration never spied on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, The New York Times admitted Thursday that multiple overseas intelligence assets were deployed against associates of the Republican nominee. It is not the first time the Times has revealed widespread spying operations against the campaign.

In addition to noting that long-time informant Stefan Halper was tasked with collecting intelligence on the Trump campaign, the Times story details how a woman was sent overseas under a fake name and occupation to oversee the spy operation. The woman’s real name is not mentioned in the article, though the Times says she went by “Azra Turk” and has a relationship with an unidentified federal intelligence agency.

[…]he NYT also admits in its article that the aggressive and unprecedented action of deploying spies and luring American targets overseas to collect intelligence on a rival political campaign “yielded no fruitful information.” It is not clear whether information collected by Halper and “Turk” was used to justify formal spy warrants against any U.S. citizens.

The spies didn’t get anything on Trump, because there was nothing to get. But that doesn’t change the fact that American law enforcement spied on American citizens, completely outside of any criminal investigation.

So why is the New York Times reporting on this now?

More:

The leak that fueled the Thursday NYT bombshell was likely placed in anticipation of the formal release of even more damaging information about how U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies potentially abused their authority to punish the government’s political enemies. The article specifically references the forthcoming release of an extensive inspector general review of potential improprieties at the Department of Justice (DOJ).

By leaking the information to the friendliest of friendly reporters, including Michael Schmidt at the Times, the individuals who ran the anti-Trump operation are likely hoping to spin the news in their favor.

Right now, Attorney General Barr is promising to launch the real investigation – the investigation that matters. That is, the investigation in to the attempted coup by Democrats within the Obama administration and their allies in the mainstream media.

Mollie writes:

So long as anti-Trump operatives controlled the FBI and DOJ, this type of leaking and concealing of information worked well. Most major media outlets have chosen to ignore the spying scandal in favor of non-stop anti-Trump advocacy. That left actual fact-finding and truth-seeking to a small group of media outlets and a handful of elected lawmakers tasked with oversight of the nation’s spy agencies.

By the way, there was also a news story on Thursday about how the Democrat Party colluded with Ukraine to try to win the 2016 election.

Finally, some real collusion

Fox News reports on a story from the leftist The Hill:

Ukraine’s embassy wrote that a Democratic National Committee (DNC) insider reached out in 2016 seeking dirt on President Trump’s team, according to a bombshell new reportThursday that further fueled Republican allegations that Democrats were the ones improperly colluding with foreign agents during the campaign.

Ambassador Valeriy Chaly said DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa pushed for Ukraine’s then-President Petro Poroshenko to mention Paul Manafort’s ties to Ukraine publicly during a visit to the U.S., and sought detailed financial information on his dealings in the country, The Hill reported. At the time, Manafort was Trump’s campaign chairman.

[…]Federal Election Commission (FEC) records confirm that Chalupa’s firm provided various services to the DNC in 2016, and that the DNC paid Chalupa more than $412,000 from 2004 to 2016.

[…]Ukrainian law enforcement officials said earlier this month they had a slew of evidence of collusion and wrongdoing by Democrats and were trying to share the information with U.S. officials in the Justice Department.

Do you remember what was Trump accused of? He was accused of trying to get opposition research from a foreign country in order to damage an opponent’s election campaign. And now we find out from this report that the Democrat National Committee did EXACTLY that. Will we now have a two-year investigation with a special counsel and non-stop media coverage for that? It seems only fair that we do, don’t you think? This is actual collusion here.

This two-year investigation created by Hillary’s refusal to accept defeat basically destroyed Republican candidates in the 2018  mid-terms. We lost so many races because the media poisoned the American voters against us with their fake news stories. I want to see something proportional done to the Democrats so that everyone is crystal clear about what really happened.