Encouragement To Keep Writing

We should be involved in both oral and written discussions with people, and both have advantages and disadvantages. I've written before about my philosophy regarding activities like evangelism and apologetics, based partly on what Paul articulates in Colossians 4:5. Christians should be making the most of whatever opportunities they have, which obviously can't be limited to contexts involving writing. But, as I mentioned in another post, it's become common for people to make derogatory, dismissive comments about the internet (as they often have about other forms of new technology and new platforms on existing technology), and a majority of the opportunities most people have on the internet involve writing.

What originally attracted people to platforms like YouTube and Twitter?

They've changed since they originated, and we need to distinguish between what these platforms are offering today and what they offered in the past. The fact that Twitter now allows people to post larger amounts of material doesn't change the fact that you could only post smaller amounts when the platform originated. And now that people can post more, how many users make use of that feature? The large majority of users don't post anything. And among those who do post, probably the large majority of those individuals still just post brief comments, often one sentence or a fragment of a sentence, typically without any supporting arguments, documentation, etc. And when a user posts something lengthier, there will often be complaints that it's too long, even if it's only a few sentences or some other small amount. Similarly, the fact that you can get somewhat good transcripts of YouTube videos today doesn't mean that you could do so when YouTube originated or that more than a small percentage of users access that feature now that it's available.

What should Christians do with things like the internet and social media platforms?

More than 1500 years ago, Augustine expressed some of his reasons for preferring a written debate over an oral one:

Skeptical Myths About The Enfield Poltergeist

There's a constant stream of new videos, podcasts, articles, and other material coming out about the Enfield case. There are certain skeptical misrepresentations that are recurring themes. I've addressed many objections to the case here and elsewhere over the years, but my material has been scattered across a lot of locations. I want to gather in one place some concise responses to particular objections, including some of the most common ones, with links to lengthier responses for those who are interested.

The objections vary a lot in their quality, but they're ones I think are worth responding to because of their popularity or for whatever other reason. Sometimes an objection is inaccurate because it's assigned too much significance to one degree or another, even though it would be accurate if kept in proportion. Since some otherwise valid objections seem to often be taken out of proportion, that's one of the problems I want to address here.

This post is meant to give people a better understanding of the case, whether as a cure for the myths after encountering them or as an inoculation before encountering them in the future. I'm not trying to resolve every issue here. You can read my other posts on Enfield, like the ones linked above, for more.

Each myth will be summarized in bold print, followed by a response. I'll probably add responses to more myths as time goes on. Below is a list of each one, with a link that will take you to the relevant section of the post.

Television Fame

"After I had appeared on Thames Television's evening news discussing my fourth book, I was greeted excitedly by one of the counter staff at my bank with, 'Oh, I saw you on telly last night!' She had seen me at least once a week for a couple of years and never mentioned having read anything of mine. Now, after five minutes' chat on the screen, I was somebody famous. Television fame, I learned, meant being famous not for actually having done anything but just for being on television." (Guy Playfair, The Evil Eye [London, England: Jonathan Cape, 1990], 21)

You should be a teacher by now, but are you?

Hebrews 5:12 tells Christians who were much more disadvantaged in life than we are in a lot of ways, "by this time you ought to be teachers". That's even more applicable to immature Christians in our day. People should be expected to grow as Christians and become increasingly self-reliant and increasingly productive. That includes intellectual contexts (1 Corinthians 14:20). What do you have to show for the opportunities you've had?

When Religious Content Is Popular In Secular Contexts

I recently saw some people discussing the phenomenon of religious content being well received on a YouTube channel, television show, or some other context that's generally secular. And that raises the question of why religious content is so much less popular when it's placed in a more religious setting (e.g., a religious YouTube channel). I think the situation is multifaceted, and I'm not going to try to explain everything that's going on, but I want to mention a few of the factors that seem likely to be involved.

Demonetized

David Wood doesn't care about big tech demonetizing and deplatforming him. He's going to continue speaking the truth, exposing Islam, exposing big tech, exposing the mainstream media, and so on. I think that speaks volumes about Wood's character.

At the same time, Wood has a large family (by modern western standards) to provide and care for including two special needs kids if I recall correctly. Last I heard he lives in NYC which isn't exactly an affordable place to raise a family nor a friendly place for conservatives of any stripe. Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be more prudent for Wood to be less provocative, but I suppose then he wouldn't be who he is nor accomplish all the good he has accomplished.

Regardless, when leftists talk about fighting for freedom, I'd say David Wood (and the many others like him) is far closer to what fighting for freedom looks like today than, say, leftists taking selfies at Antifa protests (let alone burning down local businesses and violently attacking other protesters) so decades later they can tell their kids or grandkids that they particpated in "the revolution". I just hope history remembers that they took part in what should be shameful activities, but even if history doesn't, God sure does.

Rhett & Link's buddy system

I realize the irony in my doing another post on Rhett & Link given what I say below and what I've said in the past about them. The context is I was responding to another Christian's analysis of Rhett & Link.

I think we as Christians are spilling way too much ink over Rhett & Link's apostasy. For one thing, their objections to Christianity are (largely) jejune.

More to the point, Rhett & Link could have gotten answers if they really wanted to since they are well poised to get answers from others. Certainly more so than most other people. For example, why don't Rhett & Link reach out to someone like Jonathan McLatchie or any number of Christian apologists and put them on their show so they can ask whatever questions they wish? Indeed, Rhett & Link have had tons of guests (celebrities) on their show, so why not a Christian intellectual too?

Of course, I suspect one reason they don't do this is because that might cause Rhett & Link to lose credibility with their largely secular audience if they were to host a Christian apologist on their show. However, if they really want to know the truth, why not do it? If they're not play-acting or somesuch, but really want to know the truth, then why don't they care far more about asking questions of potentially eternal significance than they care about how many YouTube subscribers or Twitter followers they have? Besides, as far as this objection goes, even if they lose one audience, who knows? They might gain another.

Instead, it appears Rhett & Link have done several videos (like 5 or 6 hours' worth) featuring themselves talking about themselves, agonizing about how it might affect them in this or that way, wringing their hands over their apostasy, etc. That's what it looks like when I watch clips, but I have no desire to sit through all their videos. Anyway I think it'd be much better if they used that time to interview people who could answer their questions. For example, Ben Shapiro has invited Christian apologists and intellectuals onto his show to ask them why they believe and otherwise ask them a bunch of questions. Rhett & Link could do the same if they really wanted to know.

If, as Christians, we don't care for Rhett & Link, per se, but we want to help others like them, then even within Rhett & Link's own hipster demographic it's not as if they all have the same kinds of questions as Rhett & Link do. Not all of them were raised in fundy environments in rural areas or small towns where everyone was told to be a YEC. If anything, I suspect most come from a far more secular background where ideas like atheism or agnosticism and neo-Darwinism predominate.

Social Media Oppression

I posted this earlier on my Facebook, but figure the results should be known wider.

So, about that search engine manipulation that YouTube swears they don't do. I confirmed if you search on YouTube for "Steven Crowder" a video from his verified channel doesn't even show up until the 19th on the list (irrespective of if I'm signed in to YouTube or signed out, but most of this was done in incognito mode). Not only that, but only 6 videos from his verified channel even appeared in the top 100 results.

If you search for "StevenCrowder" (without the space, literally matching his verified channel name of "StevenCrowder") it gives 3 videos from his verified channel in the top 25 results.
Searching for "Steven Crowder Change My Mind"...no results from his verified channel until the 23rd video.

Only in searching "Louder With Crowder" do you get all but 2 results in the top 25 actually from Steven Crowder's verified channel! Remember, the verified name of his channel, again, is "StevenCrowder", not "Louder with Crowder."

Why do I point out so repeatedly that StevenCrowder (the channel) is a verified channel? Because YouTube swears in it's last update that it tweaked the algorithm to promote verified channels as opposed to non-verified channels, so you would know you're getting the content you're searching for. And it's almost true! If you search for "The Young Turks" for example, the first 11 videos are all from their verified channel. The next two aren't, and from that point on through the top 50 results, about half are from their verified channel.

If you search for Vox, 10 of the first 11 results are from their verified channel.

Even if you search for "Joe Rogan" (a center-left leaning individual), only one video out of the first 50 was NOT from his verified channel of PowerfulJRE!

But search for Red Elephants, a right-leaning channel (official verified name: The Red Elephants Vincent James), and you get 3 results out of the top 10. Search "Vincent James" and you get 0 results in the top 30, even though you get several results for James Vincent McMorrow (yes, "Vincent James" gives you multiple results for a "James Vincent" and NOT for a guy with the name "Vincent James" literally in the verified name of the channel.

Look up "Paul Joseph Watson" and you'll get lots of videos *about* him, but absolutely none *from* him in the top 50, even though his verified channel name is exactly "Paul Joseph Watson".
It's not like YouTube doesn't know who you're actually looking for. They will still give you a link to the *channel* as the first result for "Red Elephants", "Paul Joseph Watson", and even "Steven Crowder"--all right at the top of the list! But they will not return any results for video searches.
Hence why in his last show Steven Crowder mentioned he's begun certain proceedings he's not going into detail over yet. It's not an issue about what *we* want YouTube to be; it's about YouTube lying about what *they* claim they are. False advertising is false advertising. And if you're clearly a publisher refusing to publish a specific worldview you disagree with, you are not a platform. And you deserve to be sued like a publisher can be. Period.

The great dictator

In The Great Dictator, Charlie Chaplin used two x's instead of a swastika to avoid getting demonetized on YouTube:

Skeptical Giggles

People often use humor to cover up a weakness. Laugh it off. Make the issue seem less significant than it actually is. Make yourself look more confident than you actually are. Shame your opponents with ridicule. We often see this kind of thing with critics of Christianity who refer to a "talking snake" in Genesis 3, "zombies" in Matthew 27, God as a "sky daddy", etc. You can use humor to make your position look stronger and your opponent's position look weaker than they actually are.

One of the most effective ways to abuse humor is to use it to poison the well, to prevent people from making much of an effort to look into something in the first place. Make a political, scientific, or theological view seem so disreputable from the outset that people won't give it much consideration.

In our trivial culture, humor sways a lot of people a lot more than it should. I doubt there have been many cultures in the history of the world that have overdone humor as much as we have.