All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
News

Does Google’s anti-conservative bias affect its products and services?

4 Comments
Google's new motto
Google’s new motto

Recently, there were two news stories making their bias even more obvious. A leaked video showed Google executives lamenting Hillary Clinton’s, and a leaked briefing revealed how Google favors European-style censorship over free speech. In addition, one of their senior managers tweeted vicious vulgarities against the Republican party.

Let’s start with the leaked video, which was reported by the Epoch Times.

Excerpt:

A confidential video recorded at Google has been leaked to the press, exposing top leadership openly bemoaning Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss and discussing how President Donald Trump’s election “conflicts with many” of the company’s values.

The full recording, originally marked as “Internal Only,” that was leaked to Breitbart by an anonymous source depicts the company’s first all-hands weekly meeting after the 2016 presidential election. The unabashed remarks from top leaders reflect a sunken and depressed mood—some are on the edge of tears over the election results—while at the same time express a desire to fight Trump’s policies and reshape public opinion.

Co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, vice presidents Kent Walker and Eileen Naughton, CFO Ruth Porat, and CEO Sundar Pichai all spoke at length during the hourlong meeting.

Throughout the meeting, executives switched back and forth between emotional and combative discourse, as they discussed potential plans for using the company’s powerful resources.

“I certainly find this election deeply offensive and I know many of you do too,” Google co-founder Sergey Brin said. “It conflicts with many of our [company’s] values.”

Meanwhile, CFO Ruth Porat said they have an obligation to “fight for what’s right and to never stop fighting for what’s right.”

“Our values are strong,” she said. “We will fight to protect them and we will use the great strength and resources and reach we have to continue to advance really important values.”

At one point, Porat appeared to hold back tears when recalling the moment she realized Hillary Clinton could lose.

Here’s a clip of the highlights:

Alone, the video would be damning, but it just the latest in a sequence of news stories showing Google’s anti-American bias.

Here’s a story from last week, reported by Breitbart:

An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked exclusively to Breitbart News argues that due to a variety of factors, including the election of President Trump, the “American tradition” of free speech on the internet is no longer viable.

[…]But the 85-page briefing, titled “The Good Censor,” admits that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship” in response to unwelcome political events around the world.

Examples cited in the document include the 2016 election and the rise of Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) in Germany.

Does Google have a plan to influence elections by incorporating biased, inaccurate information in their products and services? Consider this article from the Daily Caller, which reports on internal e-mails from their marketing department:

A newly revealed tranche of emails between Google executives reportedly details how the company supported rides for Hispanic voters in the 2016 election, which one executive characterized as being an effort to boost turnout for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

According to an email chain between Google executives obtained by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson and Breitbart News, Google’s Multicultural Marketing development head Eliana Murillo sent out an email the day after the 2016 election detailing that Google had “supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states,” which she characterized as a “silent donation.”

“We even helped them create ad campaigns to promote the rides (with support from HOLA folks who rallied and volunteered their time to help),” Murillo said. “We supported Voto Latino to help them land an interview with Sen. Meza of Arizona (key state for us) to talk about the election and how to use Google search to find information about how to vote. They were a strong partner, among many in this effort.”

“Ultimately, after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us,” Murillo wrote in the email. “We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did. We saw headlines like this about early voter turn out and thought that this was finally the year that the ‘sleeping giant’ had awoken.”

Murillo noted that 71 percent of Latinos voted for Clinton and that “that wasn’t enough.” She said that despite efforts to remain “objective,” that Trump’s win was “devastating for our Democratic Latino community.”

Google spent their own money in order to boost the turnout of a group that they thought would help Democrats get elected.

Here’s Tucker Carlson reporting on the leaked e-mail:

Just last week, a manager at Google tweeted out hate speech against the Republican party:

In a Twitter rant over the weekend, Google design lead Dave Hogue claimed Republicans will “descend into the flames” of hell, and described members of the GOP as “treasonous” and “evil” following the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

“You are finished, @GOP. You polished the final nail for your own coffins. F***. YOU. ALL. TO. HELL,” posted Hogue. “I hope the last images burned into your slimy, evil, treasonous retinas are millions of women laughing and clapping and celebrating as your souls descend into the flames.”

Note that the F-word was not censored, because this person has no self-control, or respect for people who disagree with his own biased viewpoints. Google likes him, though – they made him a manager. He apparently has the emotional stability to rise high at Google.

I think the case is pretty clear about Google’s bias. It might be time for the federal government to step in and make sure that they aren’t influencing elections with biased, inaccurate information delivered by their products and services.

Previously, I blogged about how Google allies with a leftist group linked to convicted domestic terrorist Floyd Corkins, and how Google seeks to discredit conservative sources in their search engine, and how Google fired a senior engineer for disagreeing with radical feminism, and how Google censored pro-life videos, and how Google censored conservative videos from Prager University, and how Google started a worldwide campaign to push for same-sex marriage.

Polemics

Robin Collins lectures on the fine-tuning argument at Pepperdine University

Leave a comment
Christianity and the progress of science
Christianity and the progress of science

Details:

Dr. Robin Collins is a Professor of Philosophy and Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Messiah College. Collins is the foremost defender of what is known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. He has a background in both physics and philosophy and will be discussing how the specific physical constants and conditions in the universe are finely-tuned for intelligent life and how this “fine-tuning” gives us reason to believe in a Creator.

Here is the video:

Topics:

  • the constants and quantities set at the origin of the universe is fine-tuned for conscious, embodied intelligences like us
  • three kinds of fine-tuning: 1) laws of nature, 2) constants, 3) quantities
  • examples of 1): gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, quantization, Pauli exclusion principle
  • examples of 2): gravitational constant, cosmological constant,
  • examples of 3):  initial distribution of mass-energy
  • in addition to fine-tuning for life, there is also fine-tuning for discoverability
  • Naturalistic response to the evidence: the multiverse hypothesis
  • problems with the multiverse hypothesis
  • additional topics

I put the ones I am ready to speak on in bold. I recommend you learn those as well in order to illustrate the fine-tuning with evidence when you present it. It’s important to understand that if the constants and quantities change, it’s not that you still have life, but just with pointy ears and/or green skin. It’s that you don’t have stars or planets or heavy elements or chemical reactions. Things that are necessary for complex, intelligent life forms of any conceivable kind.

News

What’s behind the epidemic of false rape accusations on campus?

8 Comments
College students puking in toilet
College students puking in toilet

Heather McDonald is concerned about the feminist left’s effort to undermine the presumption of innocence for men accused of rape. She makes an argument in the prestigious City Journal that there is actually a reason why we should not believe women’s rape claims, especially in an age of feminism, until we have the evidence that proves that the man being accused is guilty.

First, she gives an example of the fake rape charge made by the Columbia University student Emma Sulkowicz. I’ll omit the history of consent before, during, and after the sex and go straight to the reason for the false accusation:

It wasn’t until eight months after their August 2012 coupling that Sulkowicz filed a campus-rape charge, alleging that Nungesser had anally raped her while she struggled and told him to stop. She claims that she waited so long to file so as to avoid re-traumatizing herself. Nungesser argues that she was simply chagrined that they had not become an exclusive couple.

Reason magazine actually reported that she texted Nungesser to come over and “f*** me in the butt”. We have that text, and we know that this happened. So what happened? She had painful sex with a guy, and the relationship ended, and she wanted to shame him for breaking up with her after she gave him recreational sex. She felt she was entitled to a relationship after doing so much.

Here’s another one where the consent was documented before during and after the act, and the woman made a false accusation after because she was disappointed that the sex did not result in a relationship:

In September 2013, two freshmen at Occidental College in Southern California had sex after both had been on a 24-hour drinking binge.

Jane reported their coupling to campus authorities only after seeing that John was unaffected emotionally by it, whereas she, having lost her virginity, felt distracted and unable to concentrate.

He was found guilty of rape and expelled.

In another case:

In another case, a female student was caught by her boyfriend while cheating on him with another male student. She then filed a complaint of assault against that second male. The morning after their sexual encounter, they had exchanged texts. He wrote: “How do I compare with your boyfriend?” She responded to the boy she later accused of rape: “You were great.”

Saying no to the hot guy would have deprived her of a pleasurable experience. The rape charge got her out of being sanctioned by her boyfriend and judged by her peers. She probably couldn’t even understand why her boyfriend was angry, or why her friends thought less of her. After all, it’s her right to pursue happiness, and nobody should judge her.

So, what’s really happening? What’s really happening is that women are consenting to sex, sometimes after having chosen to get drunk, then when they sober up and realize how it makes them look to others – their boyfriends, their peers, their family, their pastors – they use rape charges as an excuse to rehabilitate their reputation. Regret over consensual sex is driving the rape accusations.

MacDonald explains:

Our booze-fueled hook-up culture has made relations between men and women messier than ever, leaving many girls and women with pangs of regret—but those regrets do not equal rape. If we were actually in the midst of an “epidemic of sexual assault,” as New Jersey senator Cory Booker asserted the evening of the Ford-Kavanaugh hearings, we would presumably have seen women and girls take protective actions, such as avoiding frat parties and flocking to single-sex schools. None of those protective actions has occurred, however. Either women are too clueless to avoid patent danger, or the epidemic of sexual assault is a fiction. All evidence points to the latter conclusion.

I have some thoughts about this, too.

In my experience dealing with women on college campuses, they tend to want a relationship, but the only men they are attracted to are hot bad boys who refuse to commit to them with marriage before having sex. So, the women give the hot non-committing bad boys the sex, thinking that the sex will be so good that it will lead to a relationship. The alcohol is used to provide an excuse later on, if the sex doesn’t result in a relationship. And if it doesn’t result in a relationship, they accuse the hot bad boy of rape in order to restore their reputation with their friends, (“I’m not a slut”), and punish the hot bad boy for not committing to them.

The more distrust there is between men and women, the fewer men and women will get married. What should we do? We should encourage women to stop drinking so much, to stop choosing men for fun and thrills, to stop having recreational sex, and to stop blaming their own poor choices on men.

UPDATE: Glenn found a great article at The Federalist which talks about women making poor choices, then blaming the bad men they freely chose:

But in the Me Too era and under the burgeoning expectation of enthusiastic consent, the first questions asked are something like, “What kind of horrible man would do this?” and, “How can we make him pay for this crime yucky way he behaved toward women?” Any attempt to ask why a woman would invite a man into her bedroom late into the evening if she didn’t want to have sex with him, accept the offer of a third date after she really didn’t enjoy the first two, or continue a years-long sexual relationship even though sometimes the sex made her feel bad, are considered victim blaming. It is as though we are to believe that the woman involved has no agency, no free will, and no control over her own choices.

A lot of harmful and costly social outcomes happen when women choose bad men, and do bad things with those men. Abortion, divorce, single mother welfare, fatherlessness, and deterring good men from having relationships (because women are seen as crazy and irresponsible). We’d better start holding women accountable to make better decisions about men, and prioritize marriage over fun and thrills.