Recently, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a lengthy post that “Left unchecked, people will engage disproportionately with more sensationalist and provocative content.”
Gee, it’s almost as though humanity’s nature is not basically good, but basically evil. I mean seriously, I am kind of surprised to see Zuckerberg using this kind of language about people.
But I am getting a bit ahead of myself. Let’s look over just exactly what Zuckerberg is talking about.
Zuckerberg, in his post, shared the following images:
As you can see, the new changes Facebook intends to implement work towards limiting the traffic a “sensationalist and provocative” piece of content gets, even if it does not explicitly violate Facebook’s rules and guidelines. Of course, this can be taken as nothing more than yet another attempt at censorship.
What needs to be understood here is that, according to Breitbart: “A crucial distinction between this new announcement and previous ones is that the use of ‘sensationalist and provocative’ does not imply that the material Facebook intends to censor isn’t true or factual.”
In other words, anything relating to stating the scientific fact that men are men and women are women and that one cannot be a man one day and a woman the next will be subject to less traffic, if not an outright prohibition of the content.
Now, an argument could be made that such a thing happens now. But here’s the thing, this new change implies Facebook doesn’t even care to try and b.s. things as being “hate speech”.
According to Breitbart: “Facebook’s own research found that posts which were ‘offensive’ but not ‘hate speech’ ended up getting more views. Zuckerberg admits that such ‘offensive’ posts will have their engagement artificially limited in [the] future.”
So with this new change, Facebook doesn’t even have to pretend something is “hate speech” even when it isn’t. Granted, the whole charge of “offensive” could be equally as subjective as a charge of “hate speech”, but still.
Speaking of “offensive” being subjective, Zuckerberg does not reveal much about how Facebook determines what is considered “offensive” content.
But considering history, one would be naïve to expect equal treatment of “offensive” content. If a Christian man shares his views in a post, is that considered offensive? If a Christian man points out the sins of another, is that offensive? If a Muslim man attacks Christianity, is that offensive?
We have our own ideas of what is considered offensive and what is not, but it’s likely Facebook has their own ideas that greatly differ from ours.
For example, though this is Twitter, a feminist blogger tweeted these two tweets in response to some people: “Men aren’t women tho,” and “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between a man and a transwoman?” And although she is right, Twitter deemed that offensive and Twitter notified her that such content is in violation with their rules against “hateful conduct”.
Though she is 100% factually correct (and although this is Twitter and not Facebook), the tech giant has their own definition of hateful conduct and such truth is in violation of it. When NYT columnist Sarah Jeong makes it known to people just how much she abhors white people and enjoys it when white people suffer, that’s not offensive or hateful at all. But speaking the truth about men and women, Twitter responds with such a notification. Not an outright shadowban, but still a ridiculous reprimand.
And Facebook is not all too different from Twitter in regards to what they consider offensive and hateful speech.
Now, allow me to get to the main point of this article. Aside from the fact that this is a clear announcement of further censorship covering a wider area, albeit with a relatively lighter punishment (if content is offensive, it can still be seen, but will suffer in terms of traffic), let me return to the original quote I shared with you in the first paragraph.
“Left unchecked, people will engage disproportionately with more sensationalist and provocative content.”
That, to me, sounds like an admission from Zuckerberg that humanity’s basic nature is not good, but rather evil. After all, if Zuckerberg were to say that people are basically good, then there would be no need for such measures. With that post, he admits that humanity’s nature is not good, but evil.
If humanity were basically good, Facebook would not subject anyone to censorship largely because there would be no need for it at all (arguably, there’s little need for it now). As he says, when left unchecked, people will tend to go down morally questionable roads. It’s in our nature to do so.
Why? Because it’s in our nature to sin. The only beings in all of existence who were born without sin were Jesus Christ and Adam and Eve. Christ because, well, He’s the Christ, and Adam and Eve because they were created from God’s own hands and didn’t sin until they disobeyed God.
Everyone else who has ever walked this Earth has been born in sin and, for those who have not been saved, died in sin. As a result of the original sin, the basic nature of humanity has been evil. That isn’t to say we all constantly perform evil acts, and that isn’t to say we are all equally evil. Obviously, I would not say I am just as evil as Hitler was. However, what makes all of us, including you and me, basically evil is the sin we commit and the sin in our hearts.
To be apart from God means to be unholy and tainted. Humanity is tainted. As such, it cannot possibly be basically good.
Objectively speaking, Zuckerberg is right. It’s in our nature to do such things. When we become Christians and become saved and redeemed by Christ, we have a desire to limit such sin in our lives. For example, in that discussion regarding sensationalist and provocative content, he talks about (apart from “hate speech”) content that is sexually suggestive, such as “revealing clothing and sexually suggestive positions”.
I find that people who don’t tend to be Christians tend to be more interested in sexual things that, honestly, go further than even that. I remember, back when I had first created my Twitter account and following back everyone that followed me, some occasions when I would follow back accounts from sexual accounts (that I would immediately unfollow upon learning what they were) and would sometimes see flat-out nudity and porn (mostly cartoon porn, for some reason). As a Christian, I became disgusted by it and immediately unfollowed such accounts. But the fact that such accounts exist (or at least existed at that time) is indicative that there are people who make sex a big part of their lives and love seeing such things. That’s not necessarily something that surprises me, knowing the nature of humanity, but indicates the difference between someone who tries not to sin (even though they fail) and someone who is more than okay with such sin.
So while the main takeaway from the announcement should be that Facebook is going to implement new algorithms for censorship and regulation of people’s nature (you can’t regulate evil, otherwise there’d be no need for laws that punish murder because there’d be no murder), another thing that may honestly go unnoticed by people is Zuckerberg’s admission that humanity is evil.
Sure, it’s not the main point of his post, or the biggest takeaway from it, and it’s not the main point of the Breitbart article either (although I understand why that is, all things considered), but I really felt that it needed to be pointed out.
Humanity is basically evil, and that’s a concept even Zuckerberg seems to understand, which really differs from the stance many people tend to have, even those on the Right and those who might consider themselves Christians.
And that is the reason I say that it's ironic that that is what he cites as the reason for these censorship models. A lot of people, particularly on the Left, think we are basically good. So I find it funny and ironic that Zuckerberg, a Leftist, would say we're not.
1 Corinthians 2:14
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In the midst of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, the great economic news in regards to unemployment claims and rates going down, and Cory Booker tooting his own horn about supposedly being like “Spartacus” when he is not even close to that, there have been news and developments coming from Brazil.
About what? Well, last week, far-right Brazilian presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro, who has been dubbed “Brazil’s Donald Trump”, was stabbed with a knife while he was being carried around by a crowd during one of his rallies (video below, if you can withstand the shock of seeing someone being stabbed (no blood, though)).
Bolsonaro was rushed to the hospital and underwent life-saving surgery and is currently in stable condition. The suspect (whose name I won’t share so as to not give him credit or fame over this) was arrested by police, who said he “appeared to be mentally disturbed and had claimed he was ‘on a mission from God’,” according to the UK Daily Mail.
And that’s really where we get to the meat of this article.
The suspect was “a member of the left-leaning PSOL party from 2007 to 2014. On his Facebook page, the attacker recently posted messages criticizing Bolsonaro and supporting the socialist government of President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.”
According to the suspect’s lawyer, “[The suspect] told me there were religious and political motivations and that he hated the prejudice that Bolsonaro openly spoke about and held against different races, religion and women.”
It’s clear that the suspect is mentally disturbed as well as very much a socialist, if he’s praising the President of a country that is out of food, water and medicine, with things likely to get even worse as time goes on.
And yet, the suspect described himself as being “on a mission from God”?
Neither his actions nor his beliefs suggest that he is someone who is Christian or believes in a benevolent Ruler of the Universe.
But this is not the first time we’ve heard a Leftist claiming to be doing God’s work or being on a mission from God. It’s not often, but we occasionally hear Leftists such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer saying that they are doing God’s work in opposing Trump.
It’s utterly asinine for a number of reasons.
First, and perhaps most importantly, what kind of narcissistic and egotistical jerks are these people to believe God needs THEM to do anything for HIM?! If God wanted Trump gone from office, He would make it so. If God did not want Trump as POTUS, He never would have allowed him to win in the first place.
Second, the Left’s actions are very openly ANTI-GOD and ANTI-CHRIST! Let’s look over some of the things the Left supports/believes in:
Beyond that, the Left constantly mocks anyone who believes in Christ, with then-candidate Barack Obama having attacked middle-American citizens as people who “get bitter… cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
So they attack and mock those who have faith in Christ and then do a 180 and claim they are siding with God in opposing Trump or Republicans? Give me a break.
These people are the very incarnation of the Exodus 20:7 verse: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.”
Frankly, if God were a Trump supporter, they’d call Him a Nazi too. So for anyone to do literally the opposite of what God would want them to do, i.e. supporting abortion laws and organizations that literally profit off of death, supporting the destruction of the sanctity of marriage, supporting the destruction of the nuclear family, supporting the destruction of established scientific principles surrounding one’s gender and supporting a death cult that calls itself a religion is fundamentally stupid and wrong.
They don’t love God. Not even close. They LOATHE Him. They actively try to REPLACE Him through government.
Throughout all of history, Man has been looking to be like God, or even BE God. From Adam and Eve to Barack Obama and the entirety of the Left, to everyone in between including Nebuchadnezzar, Stalin, Pharaoh, Marx, Soros, etc. Man has always sought to be like God. In this search to be like Him, they all grew to hate Him and be envious of Him.
He has the sort of power these mere mortals would KILL to get, with some of these people actually having killed someone for power. He controls the universe and everything that happens within it. It’s the sort of power no one could even imagine, everyone would love to have, but no one can attain.
Let me make it perfectly clear: the Left HATES God. They hate Him, everything He represents and those who put their faith in Him instead of them. So whenever the Left claims they are doing God’s work or are in a mission from God, regardless of what the action is, I just have to call b.s. on that.
He would not call for anyone to support the death of the unborn. He would not call for anyone to stab a political candidate, good or bad. Those who do evil in the name of the Lord are detestable to Him.
How do I know this? IT’S IN THE BIBLE!
“They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny Him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.”
And before you leave, please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. Unlike the Left who lie about their convictions and motivations, I won’t tell you a single lie, so you can trust me when I say it’s completely free. All you have to do is input your email in the allotted box on the right, click on the button right below that where it says “Subscribe to our free newsletter” and you’re done! The newsletter contains a compilation of the week’s articles, as well as easy and direct access to our online store.
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
This debate has been going on for a long time. Is Man basically good or evil? Personally, I believe Man to be basically evil, and have plenty of evidence to support my claim. If you disagree with me and believe Man is basically good, I suggest you stick around to find out the truth.
Let’s begin with a classic psychological experiment: the Stanford Prison Experiment. In 1971, an experiment was conducted with students from America and Canada that answered an ad asking for volunteers for this experiment (whom would be paid $15/hour) and were in the Stanford area. This experiment was on the effects prison life has on people. A group of male students were then selected to either be a guard or prisoner through the flip of a coin.
When arriving to the ‘prison’, the assigned guards ordered the prisoners to strip naked in order to search their bodies for either foreign objects or germs. The prisoners were given prison-style clothes and were chained around the ankles to remind them of the oppressive environment in which they live, even though they don’t do that in prisons.
Often times, the guards would wake up the prisoners to do “counts”, a way for the prisoners to familiarize themselves with their new ID numbers, which is what they are always to be referred to as. In an assertion of authority, the guards would force the prisoners to do push-ups as punishment of prisoners misbehaving. However, this was usually not done in prisons, but done in Nazi concentration camps.
This was all done in the first day. On the second day, the prisoners staged a ‘rebellion’ in which they barricaded the cell doors with their beds and were taunting and cursing the morning-shift guards. The guards were infuriated by this rebellion and decided to use force. They used fire extinguishers to blast the prisoners away from the cell doors. The guards then forced their way into the cells, stripped the prisoners naked, took the beds out and forced the people in charge of the rebellion (the ones who came up with the idea) into solitary confinement (a 2x2 room with just enough room to stand in) and began to intimidate and harass the prisoners.
As a response to this rebellion, the guards stepped up their control, surveillance and aggression. After “lock-up”, the 10:00 PM curfew, they would often have the prisoners urinate or defecate in a bucket that was left in their cell unless the prisoners asked to use the bathroom. Even then, the guards would sometimes deny that request. Sometimes, the guards wouldn’t even let the prisoners empty the buckets, so the prison would often reek of what the prisoners left behind.
One prisoner eventually suffered from some serious emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying and fits of rage. Keep in mind that, this is a STUDENT, NOT AN ACTUAL CONVICT! This young man became scarred by the torture of the environment he was surrounded by in just 36 HOURS! He was, consequently, released.
At one point, there was a rumor of an escape attempt, in which the released prisoner would gather his friends to rescue the other prisoners. So what did the guards do? They put the prisoners together in chains and had them moved to a storage room elsewhere in the campus until the supposed plan was meant to take place. In fact, the lead researcher, who had been made warden, acted as more of an actual warden than a researcher. They didn’t even collect any data on the day of the alleged escape attempt.
After the rumored escape attempt, the guards once again stepped up their level of harassment on the prisoners.
Everyone in this experiment was severely submerged into their roles. The prisoner students acted like real prisoners and the student guards acted like real guards. Even the lead researcher of the experiment acted like a real warden. It wasn’t until he had realized just how far into the role he had gotten that he told a prisoner who had been very sick, weak and crying that it was all just an experiment. An experiment that the prisoner, up to that point, had come to believe was real life.
I can talk more about this horrendous experiment, but it would make this article far too long. In fact, I only planned on this experiment being only one of the examples of man being basically evil. Thankfully, I think it teaches us a valuable lesson: Man is basically evil, particularly when given power over someone else.
Even the man that was leading this whole thing showed an evil side when he heard of the escape attempt.
Man is, indeed, basically evil. Only through God can we have a sense of morality that is unwavering. It’s easy to say that you wouldn’t do evil, until the choice is presented to you. I can’t imagine anyone, Christian or otherwise, saying they would act the same way these guards did under the same circumstance of a psychological experiment. But only a Christian, would really not do these things. Because he would be able to recognize the evil in those deeds. Particularly knowing that what he’d be doing is hurting an innocent person.
Without God, man is basically evil. With God, man is made good.
“as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”
Author: Freddie M.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...