News

Did DEI trainer Kike Ojo-Thompson harass and bully Richard Bilkszto to end himself?

3 Comments

I think most of you have had to sit through diversity training, where you were taught by an uneducated, inexperienced, incompetent failure about what morals and beliefs you should have in order to be a good person. Well, sometimes the indoctrination can get ugly. Let’s talk about one case where the instructor harassed and bullied an attendee, who later took his own life.

Here’s the story from the New York Post:

A former Toronto principal has died by su1c1de after facing harassment for calling out an anti-racism instructor who allegedly claimed that Canada was more racist than the US.

Richard Bilkszto, 60, had served as a fill-in principal for the Toronto District School Board until his reputation was “systematically demolished” after he was labeled a supporter of white supremacy for calling out a black instructor during anti-racism training in 2021, according to a lawsuit filed against the district earlier this year.

Naturally the school board sided with the bully against the victim:

Bilkszto claimed that after he reported Ojo-Thompson’s alleged misconduct, the school board failed to look into it, appearing to side with the instructor as one member of the board praised her for handling the principal’s “discomfort.”

The Toronto Sun noted that transcripts of the training sessions show that “Kike Ojo-Thompson offered up Bilkszto as an example of white supremacy”.

An inquiry found the Kike Ojo-Thompson guilty of “workplace harassment and bullying”:

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) eventually looked into the matter and found that Ojo-Thompson’s conduct “was abusive, egregious and vexatious, and rises to the level of workplace harassment and bullying.”

Do you know how employers are not supposed to “retaliate” if they are found guilty of some workplace related infraction? Well, this guy’s employer (the school district) did retaliate:

[T]he district refused to reinstate his contract, which Bilkszto claimed was a result of either his fallen reputation or as retribution for having the WSIB investigate the incident.

If there is one thing you can count on from secular left women like Kike Ojo-Thompson, it’s their hatred of accountability.

The KOJO Institute did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment.

No accountability. No accountability for her destructive actions. Seriously, why do secular leftist women think that men would ever want to date them, much less marry them? Men don’t get involved with women who show this egregious lack of accountability. That would be a huge mistake for a man to make.

Secular leftists like Kike Ojo-Thompson can’t conceive that the victims of their selfishness could ever greet their harassment and bullying with anything other than worship and gratitude. The rules don’t apply to secular leftists. They think that they are better than everyone, and they should be allowed to force their views on others. Even with bullying and coercion. How could they be wrong?

This article from True North explains how someone with a useless degree and no marketable skills can avoid starvation:

A Critical Race Theory (CRT) organization chaired by the founder of controversial diversity consultancy KOJO Institute has received over a million dollars in government grants – including from Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government.

Parents of Black Children (PoBC), which says CRT is one of its core principles, advocates against the presence of police liaisons in schools and for “decolonized” curricula, the inserting of “Black Canadian experiences” into math and for all academic streaming to be abolished.

In 2022, the organization listed that its Board of Directors was chaired by KOJO Institute founder Kike Ojo-Thompson.

This is why men need to be really careful with women who don’t have STEM degrees or a trade. A without a STEM degree or a trade, to me, is a red flag that shows that she has been coasting through life, dropping math and science courses, avoiding anything challenging, but still being rewarded without ever earning anything by merit. Only choose women who have had to suffer through challenges where their ability had to produce real-world results. That’s how men AND women learn to be accountable. You cannot enter a marriage with someone who has coasted through life, without having to produce results in the real world.

News

Facebook censored posts at the request of the Democrat party / Biden administration

Leave a comment

I saw this article in the Wall Street Journal, and thought it was a good idea to post about it, so that if I get into a debate about Big Tech with someone, I can just find it again. I’ll also link to some other social media censorship stories so we have a few of them.

Here’s the article from the Wall Street Journal: (archived)

Facebook removed content related to Covid-19 in response to pressure from the Biden administration, including posts claiming the virus was man-made, according to internal company communications viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The emails show Facebook executives discussing how they managed users’ posts about the origins of a pandemic that the administration was seeking to control. “Can someone quickly remind me why we were removing—rather than demoting/labeling—claims that Covid is man made,” asked Nick Clegg, the company’s president of global affairs, in a July 2021 email to colleagues.

“We were under pressure from the administration and others to do more,” responded a Facebook vice president in charge of content policy, speaking of the Biden administration. “We shouldn’t have done it.”

[…]The email, and a number of other such internal company communications, were obtained by the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, which has been investigating what GOP lawmakers say is the Biden administration’s improper efforts to censor Americans’ speech on social media about Covid and other topics.

Over at the far left The Hill, I found this related article:

Facebook had refused to open its own files on government censorship efforts. That came to an end when the House Judiciary Committee finally moved to hold Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in contempt of Congress.

The resulting Facebook Files confirmed what many of us have suspected for years. Indeed, the emails proved to be a mirror image of what had occurred at Twitter — a massive effort by the government to pressure the company to censor its critics and other dissenting voices.

Not just truth, but even jokes were censored:

There was to be no allowance for humor or even true information that did not advance the government’s narrative. The House has uncovered a myriad of grants given to academic and private groups to blacklist and target those with opposing views, including the posting of true information.

There was an array of government agencies targeting citizens and groups for censorship. In another hearing, I testified on efforts by Jen Easterly, who leads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, to extend her regulatory authority by declaring that “critical infrastructure” includes “our cognitive infrastructure,” in which she saw it as her role to build “resilience to misinformation and disinformation.”

The administration also demanded the removal of “malinformation” that is “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”

Government-funded groups such as the Stanford Virality Project declared that even “true stories…could fuel hesitancy” over taking the vaccine or other measures. The Twitter files showed that this included “worrisome jokes.”

What’s a good remedy for this? Where do the people who were censored go to get justice? Maybe we should have criminal trials for the leaders of these social media companies, who seem to have violated the First Amendment rights of Americans.

One more thing that I found at Trending Politics:

The House Judiciary Committee received a host of subpoenaed materials documenting the correspondence between the White House and Facebook. Among these materials were memos that showed the White House was pressuring the social media to change their algorithms to promote media outlets that the White House approved at the explicit expense of outlets that the White House disapproved of. The ostensible reason for this request was to discourage the spread of misinformation.

One memo dated April 14, 2021, shows White House digital director Rob Flaherty requesting that Facebook “change the algorithm so that people were more likely to see NYT, WSJ, any authoritative news source over Daily Wire, Tomi Lahren, polarizing people. You wouldn’t have a mechanism to check the material impact?”

Anyway, I’ve collected some of my previous posts about Facebook helping the Democrat party and interfering in our elections.

Polemics

Is the Bible’s definition of faith opposed to logic and evidence?

1 Comment

Probably the biggest misconception that I encounter when defending the faith is the mistaken notion of what faith is. Today we are going to get to the bottom of what the Bible says faith is, once and for all. This post will be useful to Christians and atheists, alike.

What is faith according to the Bible?

I am going to reference this article from apologist Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason in my explanation.

Koukl cites three Biblical examples to support the idea that faith is not blind leap-of-faith wishing, but is based on evidence.

  1. Moses went out into the wilderness and he had that first encounter with the burning bush, and God gave him the directive to go back to Egypt and let his people go. Moses said, Yeah, right. What’s going to happen when they say, why should we believe you, Moses?God said, See that staff? Throw it down.Moses threw it down and it turned into a serpent.God said, See that serpent? Pick it up.And he picked it up and it turned back into a staff.God said, Now you take that and do that before the Jewish people and you do that before Pharaoh. And you do this number with the hail, and the frogs, and turning the Nile River into blood. You put the sun out. You do a bunch of other tricks to get their attention.And then comes this phrase: “So that they might know that there is a God in Israel.”
  2. [I]n Mark 2 you see Jesus preaching in a house, and you know the story where they take the roof off and let the paralytic down through the roof. Jesus said, “Your sins are forgiven.” And people get bugged because how can anyone forgive sins but God alone?Jesus understood what they were thinking and He said this: What’s harder to say, your sins are forgiven, or to rise, take up your pallet and go home?Now, I’ll tell you what would be harder for me to say : Arise, take up your pallet and go home. I can walk into any Bible study and say your sins are forgiven and nobody is going to know if I know what I am talking about or not. But if I lay hands on somebody in a wheelchair and I say, Take up your wheelchair and go home, and they sit there, I look pretty dumb because everyone knows nothing happened.But Jesus adds this. He says, “In order that you may know that the Son of Man has the power and authority to forgive sins, I say to you, arise, take up your pallet and go home.” And he got up and he got out. Notice the phrase “In order that you may know”. Same message, right?
  3. Move over to the Book of Acts. First sermon after Pentecost. Peter was up in front of this massive crowd. He was talking about the resurrection to which he was an eyewitness. He talked about fulfilled prophecy. He talked about the miraculous tongues and the miraculous manifestation of being able to speak in a language you don’t know. Do you think this is physical evidence to those people? I think so. Pretty powerful.Peter tells them, These men are not drunk as it seems, but rather this is a fulfillment of prophecy. David spoke of this. Jesus got out of the grave, and we saw him, and we proclaim this to you.Do you know how he ends his sermon? It’s really great. Acts 2:36. I’ve been a Christian 20 years and I didn’t see this until about a year ago. This is for all of those who think that if you can know it for sure, you can’t exercise faith in it. Here is what Peter said. Acts 2:36, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.” There it is again. “Know for certain.”

What is faith according to Bible-based theologians?

I am going to reference this article from theologian C. Michael Patton of Parchment and Pen in my explanation.

Patton explains that according to Reformation (conservative, Bible-based) theologians, faith has 3 parts:

  1. notitia – This is the basic informational foundation of our faith. It is best expressed by the word content. Faith, according to the Reformers must have content. You cannot have faith in nothing. There must be some referential propositional truth to which the faith points. The proposition “Christ rose from the grave,” for example, is a necessary information base that Christians must have.
  2. assensus – This is the assent or confidence that we have that the notitia is correct… This involves evidence which leads to the conviction of the truthfulness of the proposition… This involves intellectual assent and persuasion based upon critical thought… assensus… says, “I am persuaded to believe that Christ rose from the grave.”
  3. fiducia – This is the “resting” in the information based upon a conviction of its truthfulness. Fiducia is best expressed by the English word “trust.”… Fiducia is the personal subjective act of the will to take the final step. It is important to note that while fiducia goes beyond or transcends the intellect, it is built upon its foundation.

So, Biblical faith is really trust. Trust(3) can only occur after intellectual assent(2), based on evidence and thought. Intellectual assent(2) can only occur after the propositional information(1) is known.

The church today accepts 1 and 3, but denies 2. I call this “fideism” or “blind faith”. Ironically, activist atheists, (the New Atheists), also believe that faith is blind. The postmodern “emergent church” denies 1 and 2. A person could accept 1 and 2 but deny 3 by not re-prioritizing their life based on what they know to be true.

How do beliefs form, according to Christian philosophers?

I am going to reference a portion of chapter 3 of J.P. Moreland’s “Love Your God With All Your Mind” (i.e. – LYGWYM).

J.P. Moreland explains how beliefs form and how you can change them.

  1. Today, people are inclined to think that the sincerity and fervency of one’s beliefs are more important than the content… Nothing could be further from the truth… As far as reality is concerned, what matters is not whether I like a belief or how sincere I am in believing it but whether or not the belief is true. I am responsible for what I believe and, I might add, for what I refuse to believe because the content of what I do or do not believe makes a tremendous difference to what I become and how I act.
  2. A belief’s strength is the degree to which you are convinced the belief is true. As you gain ,evidence and support for a belief, its strength grows for you… The more certain you are of a belief… the more you rely on it as a basis for action.

But the most important point of the article is that your beliefs are not under the control of your will.

…Scripture holds us responsible for our beliefs since it commands us to embrace certain beliefs and warns us of the consequences of accepting other beliefs. On the other hand, experience teaches us that we cannot choose or change our beliefs by direct effort.

For example, if someone offered you $10,000 to believe right now that a pink elephant was sitting next to you, you could not really choose to believe this… If I want to change my beliefs about something, I can embark on a course of study in which I choose to think regularly about certain things, read certain pieces of evidence and argument, and try to find problems with evidence raised against the belief in question.

…by choosing to undertake a course of study… I can put myself in a position to undergo a change in… my beliefs… And… my character and behavior… will be transformed by these belief changes.

I think definition of faith is important, because atheists seemed to want to substitute their own definition of faith as blind belief for this Biblical definition, but there is no evidence for their view that faith is belief without evidence. I think this might be another case of projection by atheists. Blind faith is how they arrive at their views, so they are trying to push it onto us. But the Bible is clearly opposed to it.

Positive arguments for Christian theism