Category Archives: Western_Insanity

Shadow Banning

Posted on by

This came from a recent discussion about blog sites not being able to be posted on facebook and seen in the facebook browser.

Susan Lambeau, Looking at the facebook post in a browser if you click on the picture it launches a new browser window (the default browser of your system) and goes to https://phys.org/news/2023-12-theory-einstein-gravity-quantum-mechanics.html which is the URL of the article at phys.org. But using the facebook app what happens is you cannot get to phys.org. Instead Facebook generates a new web page that looks like the page at the above URL and send you to there, but inside the facebook app.

The implication here is facebook can censor the content. If they don’t want someone reporting on adverse side effects, for example, they can ban that.
Legally they can do that because they own the content on their website. They do not own the content on outside websites.

Even if you put the URL “https://phys.org/news/2023-12-theory-einstein-gravity-quantum-mechanics.html” on your facebook post people using the app will not be able to see the URL. They filter it out and re-write the display that is rendered.

This is important. Why? Well, for example, there is a recent scientific paper published in Canada about contamination level of DNA fragments in Pfizer covid vaccines. Facebook will not allow discussion of the paper. You cannot post the paper. You cannot post a link to a website talking about the paper either. They just remove your post. Sometimes they warn you not to try doing it again. The information is suppressed. This is one of the reasons people blog – to avoid censorship.

One of the side effects I recently noticed was it is not possible to get to a certain blog on medium.com where there are book reviews of books on science. The owner puts the link on her facebook group but facebook app users cannot get to the site to give feedback to the reviewer.

Really old people who still have computers and know what a browser is are slightly better off. But the new gen-alpha audience is totally locked into phones. Even my 40 year old daughter in law does not know what a browser is. And her kids have never seen a computer.

I think there is a word for this. I have heard it called “shadow banning”. The idea is to prevent unauthorized information from being viral. Or being capable of being viral.

So if a research scientist or an MD wants to say something that is “forbidden” she may be subject to shadow banning. Was there much of that happening during the lockdowns? You tell me!

When I travel I usually do not access facebook from a computer, but use a phone. I miss being able to copy a URL to paste into a note for later retrieval.
for example, the book review site. I had to ask the owner to message me the URL.

I hope this helps explain some of my concern. I want an open world wide web, not one that is controlled by a coalition of big tech that chokes off information.

Thanks!

Cancel Your Own Self Westerner.

Posted on by

Chief Ish-Tak-Ha-Ba. Remember that name!!! It means “Sleepy Eyes”. And the high school in Sleepy Eye Minnesota carries the name “Indians” in honor of their namesake, who died in 1859 and whose remains are buried under a large granite monument in town. Four years ago his great-great-great-great granddaughter donated his pipe to the Sleepy Eye historical society in a ceremony that drew press attention.

Meanwhile, at Mahnomen, Minnesota public schools, the schools logo looks like a dreamcatcher with the word “Indians” across the top. They consider it is done with a sense of pride. The majority of the population is Indian and they like it – it gives them a sense of pride.

BTW, I am part Cherokee. So I like this idea. Lets celebrate some native American heritage.

Let us not forget the Warroad, Minnesota Warriors, who have a special logo designed by native american students that shows an indian warrior’s face with two feathers. I say “bravo” for them. Its about time!

So its ok to use these logos if the people whose culture is represented actually want them. The politically correct just dont want them used if the people dont happen to have a background in the heritage. In that case its considered offensive.

But in Washington State, the mascot “Vikings” now has to be changed because the “offended” dont feel included in Viking heritage. I KNEW IT! I KNEW VIKINGS would be considered politically incorrect. And it is! But in this case you cant have innocuous because someone ISNT represented by the mascot.

The PC are offended if you name something they think is about them, and the PC are offended if you DONT name something that is about them. Soon, absolutely all speech in America will be censored by some minority that is offended. So the Seattle Pina Colada Blenders will be banned because the non-drinkers feel offended that their culture is both not included and too included to be allowed.

America has gone nuts, and free speech is getting shredded by the lunatic left.

I’m also Irish, and I shudder to think the non-Irishmen wont be allowed to celebrate anything Irish because either the Irish didnt give permission or the non-Irish feel left out. It a way for the PC to extinguish recognition of Irish culture. Its coming.

Why (some) Deists are Stupid

Posted on by


Facebook pushed this at me:

Someone answered them. Actually, Luke 14:26 is followed by a parable – which the deist ignores.

Look how the deist answers. “A true leader does not speak in code”.

The OP is going to decide who a true leader is and who you should listen to based on the OP’s opinion. It is not even an argument. It is a declaration. Sounds like authoritarianism to me.

Actually it is the OP’s “Revealed Religion”, revealed by them. Because they say so.

This isn’t actually deism as conceived historically. It is pure atheism. Deists believe God wound up the universe but does not interfere with it. This OP says there is no God.



WHATS REALLY GOING ON?

See below for this: In the Hebrew Scriptures, the contrast between “love” and “hatred” is sometimes used to communicate preference. For example, in dealing with inheritances in polygamous marriages, the Mosaic Law referred to “two wives, one beloved, and another hated”

Following the statement that we must “hate” our father and mother, Jesus relates a metaphor about a man who builds a house without first counting the cost (Luke 14:28–30). The man finds that he cannot follow through with what he set out to do. He leaves the house unfinished because he cannot pay what is required. Jesus’ illustration helps explain His difficult statement about hating our mother and father—namely, we must count the cost of being a disciple. There is a cost, and that is the point of the passage.

In order to be a disciple, we must be willing to give up everything for Jesus. Following Jesus requires commitment and faithfulness, even if our parents choose not to follow the Lord. If and when we are faced with the painful choice of loyalty to family versus loyalty to Jesus, we must choose Jesus. Even if our family members disown us—or worse—for being Christians, we must follow Christ. It is in this sense that we are “hating” our family. Jesus’ command to “hate father and mother” requires us to prioritize our relationship with Jesus over our relationship with parents, siblings, and other family members.

Of course, it is right to love our family members, and we want them to love and follow God. Elsewhere, Jesus confirmed the fifth commandment that we honor our fathers and mothers (Mark 7:9–13). And Paul sternly warned that “anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8). Jesus’ statement that we “hate” father and mother must be seen in relation to the whole of Scripture. His point is not that we are to be heartless toward our families, only that we must love Him more.

We must not forget that included in Jesus’ condition that a follower must “hate” his father and mother is the condition that he likewise hate “even his own life” (Luke 14:26, NAS). Jesus is not teaching an emotional hatred of one’s parents any more than He is teaching self-hatred. The emphasis is on self-denial and absolute surrender. Immediately following is Jesus’ instruction to “carry your own cross” (verse 27, NLT).

Some other translations make Jesus’ meaning a little clearer: “If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison” (Luke 14:26, NLT, emphasis added), and the Amplified Bible says that a follower of Christ must “hate” his family members “in the sense of indifference to or relative disregard for them in comparison with his attitude toward God.” It is a “hatred” by comparison, not an absolute hatred.

The word hate in Luke 14:26 deserves a closer look. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the contrast between “love” and “hatred” is sometimes used to communicate preference. For example, in dealing with inheritances in polygamous marriages, the Mosaic Law referred to “two wives, one beloved, and another hated” (Deuteronomy 21:15, KJV). This is a good, literal translation. There was a “loved” wife and a “hated” wife. Other translations usually soften the “hated” wife to be “unloved” (CSB) or “less loved” (NET). The law was not indicating emotional hatred on the part of the husband, only preference. One wife was preferred over the other. We have a similar use of the love/hate idiom in Malachi 1:2–3 (cf. Romans 9:13).

Many Christians will never have to make the painful choice of turning their backs on their family in order to follow Christ. But, around the world, there are many other Christians who face shunning, disowning, or persecution from their families. These believers, if they are to be true to Christ, are forced to live in a way perceived as “hateful” toward their “father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters” (Luke 14:26). All believers are called to acknowledge the lordship of Christ and show Him preference over all earthly ties. Those who must sacrifice earthly relationships have this promise: “No one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life” (Mark 10:29–30).

So, the OP has jumped to a conclusion based on inadequate research of the subject he is complaining about. He is actually just complaining about his own imaginary world.

I do not need to read any more of this atheistic claptrap shrouded in religious language. A reductionist atheist makes way more sense. They at least know what epistemology actually is.

Surely You are Joking, Mr Lightman.

Posted on by

When an atheist (Mr.X.) declares to you “I don’t care what Alan Lightman thinks about God” you know you are talking to a narcissist.

Why?

Because Alan Lightman, to the best of my knowledge, doesn’t think anything at all about God. He isn’t a theist.
https://news.mit.edu/2021/pondering-unknowable-alan-lightman-0305

Mr X, the narcissist, is either lying or he is an idiot.

Alan Lightman isn’t talking about God and religion. He is talking about physics.

The real question about what atheism is: what does atheism really have to say to humanity? Atheists need to explain the following: “How do you know thought and mind does not exist? And if it does not, isn’t your religious world view then nihilism? Is the logical conclusion of reductionism nihilism?”

Nihilism means if thought does not exist then minds do not exist. if minds do not exist then humans do not exist. The human race does not exist. its a fantasy. and values do not exist. Love, hate, justice, hope, all these are fantasies because none of them really exist. They are figments of the imagination and have no reality.

“Well, gee, batman”, a student mutters under his breath, “the trans person with hurt feelings is just going to have to lump it, aren’t they?”

What do nihilists really have to say to humanity? Nothing. They add no value. Values do not exist in their world view.

That doesnt answer the question of, “Is the logical conclusion of reductionism nihilism?”

Atheists aren’t talking. They do not know. They rage against theists on the basis of, well, as far as I can tell, a basis of ignorance. I think Jonathon Haight describes it best. They have a preconceived conclusion, really just a moral belief, and they are looking for evidence to shore up their belief. What Jonathon Haight calls “the elephant and the rider problem.” There is a cognitive dissonance in that process, and also a dishonesty.

Alan Lightman, by contrast, ponders the unknown and the unknowable and attempts to label them. That is why is is so hilarious that Mr X boldly declares “I don’t care what Alan Lightman says about God.”

Is your pronoun XY?

Posted on by

#DarwinCancelled? 😉

A post I saw today from a dentist says,

I am a practicing Dentist, but also a biology major. I do believe there are just two biological sexes: XX and XY. That is not a theory it is a fact. Gender issues are social constructs to normalize behavior. Darwin would have said: survival of the species selects for the strong biological sexes.