It’s funny that men in the Manosphere will complain about divisions and a lack of unity and then silently and uncritically put up with—or, far worse, approve of—spurious and unbiblical judgmental attacks like this:

This is simply a moral inversion. Deep Strength would have a man give publicly while keeping his real identity hidden. What Deep Strength describes is called “virtue signaling.” But, scripture teaches the opposite.

A man should not be anonymous when he speaks as a representative of Christ because doing so is a falsehood, a lie. But, when he gives to the poor, he should strive to do so anonymously or, at least, privately. His giving should never be displayed for all to see.

Scripture teaches that when a man lets others know that he is giving, his gift is just an empty moral high horse. He has received his earthly reward and is entitled to no recognition in heaven for his deed.

As for being ruined for honestly being yourself and holding to the holy principles of God, the same passage of scripture speaks to that too:

The irony is that Deep Strength has seen exactly what he should be seeing: non-anonymous people engaging non-anonymously, but without any indication at all whether or not they are giving gifts to those in need. And so long as Christians remain faithful, he will continue to see the same thing occur. Moreover, he should be extremely suspicious of anyone he knows to have publicly declared their financial support for those in need, including himself (if applicable).

Now, I also want to specifically highlight the key fault in Deep Strength’s argument. I see this same error being expressed by many leftists, and it is deeply wrong on a logical, moral, and ethical basis.

It is doubly true that men should not be anonymous and that they will likely experience persecution in one form or another. But, this does not entitle them to any financial compensation in the here-and-now. Jesus promises both persecution and a reward in the life to come (i.e. after death). He never once promises an earthly resolution to their earthly problems. Obedience to Christ does not entitle anyone to earthly rewards, even though following Christ almost certainly ensures greater earthly suffering. Moreover, there exists no moral or ethical obligation for any individual to help any other individual who is suffering from persecution, at least those outside their inner circle (e.g. family). No one can be judged for failing to do so.

Among other things, this is derived from the ethical principle of “moral distance,” which holds that one’s individual ethical obligation to another depends on the specific nature of that relationship. For example, no one can be faulted for refusing to give their entire bank account to feeding some family in Asia that they’ve never met while leaving their own family destitute and starving. We would rightly view this as an abominable, reckless practice, even if the person happened to be an anti-hunger activist.

I see this argument regularly suggested by pro-baby-murder leftists who claim “you can’t be pro-choice unless you also…” Here is one example from Twitter:

This is almost exactly the same form of argument that Deep Strength made. It contains a false equivocation, a non sequitur, an implicit emotional appeal tied loosely to the supposed consequences of the position being attacked, and an accusation of hypocrisy resulting in the same exact moral judgment (“moral high horse” vs “moral grand standing”). The form of Deep Strength’s argument, and especially its conclusion, is indistinguishable from that raised by the typical baby-killing leftist.

In other words, “Don’t you care about the children?”

Deep Strength’s argument is called “whataboutism.” It a variant form of the tu quoque logical fallacy.

The fact of the matter is that there is no moral or ethical problem with taking a principled stance against abortion or anonymity while simultaneously declining to support school lunches or donating to needy strangers on the internet. If they want to support the latter voluntarily, fine, but there is no moral obligation to do so. Anyone saying otherwise is engaging in a logically fallacious argument.

Here is the right way to go:

But if you find (or found) Deep Strength’s fallacious argument to be compelling, you should take the time to reevaluate your ability to understand right and wrong. You may want to find a mature Christian who can serve as your mentor and your moral compass. I would also suggest minimizing your involvement with social media.