Turning on moderation later today.

I’ve been swamped all week and will be even more so over the next few days. I’ll be turning on moderation in a few hours, and probably won’t turn it back off until early next week.

In the meantime, if you crave high quality Christian Manosphere discussion, there are lively discussions over at:

  1. American Dad: June Cleaver might be unmarriagable right now. Scott published the post this morning and as of 3:30 Central Time it already has 67 comments.
  2. Cane Caldo: Where We Used to Live Isn’t  Cane posted this yesterday and it currently has 11 comments.

I would also recommend Still Amusing over at Vox Day’s Alpha Game.  Hilarious!

Feel free to add any other blogs/posts you think readers would enjoy before I turn moderation on, including plugs for your own blog.

This entry was posted in Linkage. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Turning on moderation later today.

  1. Stroller says:

    I think you should give Boxer a shout-out Dalrock, he’s one of your most prolific commenters and as much as a third of why I at least keep coming back here to read. As much as the other fellows engage him seems like the opinion has width.
    Otherwise, be well.

  2. Pingback: Turning on moderation later today. | Reaction Times

  3. Not sure if this will get through moderation, but there seems to be a minor stir here in the UK caused by a Judge refusing a woman’s petition for divorce. Predictably most of the coverage has been focused on the poor unhappy woman: http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/woman-trapped-in-loveless-marriage-after-judges-refuse-divorce/ar-BByHyeW?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp

  4. Adam says:

    Well if it’s plugs for our own blogs then I will break protocol and link to myself. I wrote this week on why atheists need to go back to the church to help salvage our culture.


  5. Lyn87 says:

    Now that I’m back from my recent travels and have had the leisure to go through the comments in the most recent threads over the past week, I have an observation:

    I picked the right time to be otherwise-engaged.

  6. Gunner Q says:

    I need more Protestant/MGTOW blogs to follow. Any recommendations? Most of what I can find are just YouTube channels.

  7. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("YAC-YAC") says:

    @ Gunner Q [March 27, 2017 at 10:47 am]: not what you asked for, but then not what I was looking for when I stumbled across it, either — yet relevant to your question nevertheless, and worth at least a few seconds’ worth of attention, anyway: https://www.google.ca/search?q=captain+capitalism+mgtow



  8. ayatollah1988 says:


    The comments under the article you linked to are HORRIFYING. We really are doomed.

    “Amazing decision. If you are rich or a “celebrity” you seem to be able to change partners every couple of years, if you are just normal you are trapped.”

    “Anyone should be allowed a divorce if they want one, they shouldn’t need permission from anyone or a reason beyond they want the marriage ended.”

    “I presume, she commited adultery because she was unhappy in the marriage. There must be reasons she was unhappy and, quite frankly, life is too short so I would grant her the divorce.”

    “I think that judge just hates women.”

    “a judge playing god with this womans life.. if she wants out she should be entitled to get out.”

    Some of those comments are from men. SAD!

  9. Lyn87 says:


    I posted a comment on your blog in response to your link, but it disappeared. I’m not sure if it went into moderation, or your spam folder (sometimes WordPress does that), or something else happened to it, so I’ll post it here for you:

    You give Hitchens far more credit than he deserves: it is trivial to disprove atheism on scientific grounds, and even easier to disprove it on philosophical grounds, which was his (supposed) strong suit. Even atheists don’t believe it, and Hitchens proves it with his own words. I have destroyed guys like him in debates more times than I can count.

    This was a particularly good point, as well as a good jumping-off point:

    One of Hitchens’ core arguments was that he did not require a heavenly body to guide him on how to be a moral human being. He was able to be a good person in spite of God not because of His existence. But Hitchens was a product of his cultural and social environment, an environment which was firmly rooted in the traditions of Christianity. To claim that his civility was not a result of his civilization is pure ignorance at best.

    That is profoundly true, and Hitchens was an idiot to not see it. It also exposes an even greater flaw in his feelings on the matter (I can’t bring myself to call it his “thinking” on the matter): if there is no Transcendent Moral Lawgiver, than there is no basis for morality or ethics. Words like good, bad, moral, immoral, ethical, and unethical literally have no meaning whatsoever. Without a Transcendent Moral Lawgiver there is no Transcendent Moral Law against which to judge his claim of being moral and ethical. It is a transparent self-contradiction.

    So the obvious question to a claim by an atheist that he’s a good/moral/ethical person is, “According to what standard?” His personal standard? Big deal: Ted Bundy, Pol Pot, and Joseph Stalin didn’t see anything wrong with what they did, yet Mr Hitchens would probably claim that they were “bad,” or at least that their actions were.

    If an individual can be bad, immoral, or unethical, then the standard for good, moral, and ethical has to be something above the individual. Society? Law? Good luck with that: 1793/1794 in French society wasn’t called “The Great Terror” for nothing. The laws of Nazi Germany resulted in the legal extermination of millions of innocent people. So assuming one has a moral/ethical objection to mass murder and genocide, the basis for morality and ethics must be above society and law, too.

    We’re running out of options here. Especially since there is no humanity-wide consensus on, well, anything. So if there is a standard that humans must adhere to in order to be considered good, moral, or ethical, than it can only come from something above humanity. That “something” must posses the ability to both form and convey the ethical standard Mr. Hitchens claimed to adhere to… and also possess the authority to make binding moral law.

    In other words, God.

    In other, other words, to say, “I’m a good person” is to say, “I believe in God.”

    The obvious and inescapable conclusion when someone claims to be both a good person and an atheist is that the speaker is a fool, and a rather dim fool at that.

  10. Adam says:

    Lyn, it was in spam. Got it and replied. Cheers.

  11. Lyn87 says:

    I saw that, Adam. No worries – it happened here to me and couple of other guys about two weeks ago, and I’ve been commenting here for years.

  12. SirHamster says:

    @Gunner Q

    This isn’t MOTGW, but you may find this site good Christian reading:

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.