The SNC Lavalin scandal and the role of Justin Trudeau, Canada’s Prime Minister, in obfuscating an objective examination of that scandal are wending their way through the judiciary and Canada’s Parliament, respectively.
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer says he’s [said he was] hopeful an opposition motion to call a public inquiry into the SNC Lavalin controversy will pass.
The NDP introduced the motion Tuesday in the House of Commons. The Conservatives say they will [said they would] support it.
But with a Liberal majority in the House, the motion can be [was] easily defeated.
Yesterday, 2019 02 20, Andrew Scheer’s hopes were dashed in a vote in the House of Commons, with 124 votes for and 160 against the motion. The debate leading up to it was instructive. Maclean’s has more on the affair:
Let me ‘speak my truth’ says Wilson-Raybould
Politics Insider for February 21: Trudeau’s tries the apology route, Wilson-Raybould gets a standing O from the opposition and a budget promise that sounds familiar by Maclean’s | Feb 21, 2019
There is no remedy, no silver bullet. Our Prime Minister is untouchable, his power far too great, not that he is above reproach, but here is a bit more about the powers of our Prime Minister.
As long as he is power, his power is greater than those of many of the most absolute monarchs in history. His power is in the order of the power of, for example, the Roman emperors, with an important difference.
Much like the power of our prime ministers, the power of the Roman emperors depended on how well they were liked by the
Aristocracy (use your imagination on what the equivalent of that is in Canada, but SNC Lavalin is just one example of many);
Legions (the Canadian equivalent is our Armed Forces);
Praetorian Guards (that would be the RCMP, right?);
Senate (the Canadian Senate has some but far less of the power of the Roman Senate). and the
People (our voters).
Another agency must be added to that list in Canada, the media. The latter is close to 100 percent liberal and largely under control of, and most definitely favorable to Liberal prime ministers. Even Maclean’s, a supposedly conservative magazine (the only one in Canada), gets a $1.5 million annual publication grant from the federal government. (The Report Newsmagazine could have had one of $250,000 a year but declined, to maintain its independence.)
The Canadian equivalents of most of those agencies (except the Armed Forces and the Senate) are more powerful than their equivalent agencies were in Ancient Rome.
There is a very grave difference between then and now. A large number of Roman Emperors ruled only for a short time, and only relatively few died a natural death, with arguably the majority of them having been either assassinated, murdered or motivated to commit suicide (as otherwise they would have been executed). In 69 AD, for example, there was a succession of four emperors following the suicide of Nero. The latter had been declared hostis publicus (enemy of the people) by the Senate and was slated for execution in “the ancient manner,” that is, to be stripped naked, having his head clamped in a wooden fork, his body flogged with sticks and then thrown off a cliff.
That may happen to Trump but cannot possibly happen to our glorious leader, notwithstanding that Trump is being vilified far more unjustly than Nero ever was, even though Trump is a far more benign and benevolent ruler with far fewer powers than Nero had and Justin Trudeau does have. Regardless of the unlikely event that St. Justin will ever be considered by a majority of the people to be an enemy of the people (he’s got far too much power and influence for that to happen), there are no powers in Canada that will replace him, unless the people will come to their senses and vote him out of office. How likely is that to happen? The next Canadian federal election (see summary of polls), which is scheduled for October 21, 2019, will tell.
So, we have what the Romans did not have, a democracy in which people can vote. A lot of good that is doing us, but it certainly is tailored to keep Liberal prime ministers in power and immune from investigation, let alone have the current PM deliver on his election promise of providing a transparent government.
It is hoped that this running inventory of notifications posted to the FB page Dads & Things : Blog Postings will help to overcome the problems that FB appears to have in keeping friends of fathers, of families and of men informed of notifications by Dads & Things that go missing on Facebook. (See also Note 1)
This web page serves to keep track of the notifications were posted to a FB page that serves to inform friends of fathers, families and men of any postings that were made and of other items that were thought will be of special interest to them and therefore worth sharing.
No attempts have been made to keep track of those notifications before 2019 02 17. It now appears necessary to do that, given that an item I thought would be of particular interest and that I informed my FB friends about on the afternoon of 2019 02 16 had disappeared for no discernible reason a few hours later, by the morning of 2019 02 17.
The items shown below are listed in order of the most recent on top of the list. Items that may have vanished from Dads & Things : Blog Postings before 2019 02 16 are not indicated in the list. It will be attempted to indicate any observed disappearances of notifications from Dads & Things : Blog Postings, whenever disappearances are noticed.
Announcement of FB page Dads & Things : Blog Postings
Posted December 29, 2018 to D&T BP
Google will downrank this web page, because it considers it to be a link factory. The downranking of the web page will affect the website ranking of the blog, Dads & Things, as well as the affiliated website, Fathers for Life. That is not of great concern.
Very little website traffic is directed through search engines at the blog and website. The vast majority of the traffic (75%) comes through direct links (bookmarks, links identified in e-mail messages, links entered or pasted into the location fields of browsers, etc.). Only about 3% of the traffic originates through search engines, and less than one percent of it comes through social media, with only a fraction of that less-than-one-percent coming from FB.
Only three percent of traffic coming from search engines is very low, abnormally low, far lower than average for a website. It has a good side, a very good side!
The average visitor to Dads & Things looks at 16 web pages and spends more than 37 minutes doing that, enough time to read them all. There are not many websites in the world that have such a high quality of visitors, let alone at a high volume.
Just for the record, Dads & Things has a current rate of 1.4 million page views a year. That makes me happy. It means that I am not wasting my time. That means a lot to me.
Many thanks to all who help to make me feel happy and appreciated.
We are obsessed with pets to the point of worshipping them, but humane societies for the unborn are virtually unheard of.
If we have gotten to the point in our desperate culture in which we feel obligated to kill children, regardless of why or of what color, then we do not deserve to survive and probably won’t.
— William Faulkner
I don’t know when William Faulkner (September 25, 1897 – July 6, 1962) stated that, but it was before our society became obsessed with legalizing the killing of children at all stages of their development. Had he lived to see that happen, he would quite possibly have stated “regardless of why or of what color or stage of development” we feel obligated to kill children.
This morning I thought that I would check to see where our priorities are in relation to that. Different search engines provided similar results for “humane society”, and the results were revealing. Google, for instance, helped me out with that:
There is an overabundance of humane societies for
Dogs (37,900,000 results)
Cats (22,900,000 results)
Pets (27,500,000 results), even for
Horses (8,570,000 results)
Sadly, there is a great dearth of humane societies for
Humans (13,200,000 results)
People (64,600,000 results)
Homeless (6,940,000 results)
Children (39,900,000 results)
Babies (24,500,000 results), and for the
Unborn (430,000 results)
Although the great numbers of search results give the impression that people and organizations have at least as much concern for the humane treatment of all sorts of people as they have for pets, that is misleading. On closer examination, the links point to efforts for connecting people with all kind of pets, to have people adopt animals, to find a market for pets. It appears that humans need not apply for compassion and humane treatment. Humans appear to worship pets but do not revere human life.
Enclosing the search strings with quotation marks narrows the searches down. That gives a better indication of how great the love of people is for the humane treatment of people. These are the results:
The vast majority of even those relatively few search results deals with providing comfort for and the protecting of the lives of cats, dogs, pets and horses. Nevertheless, the very last of those searches finally led to the proper conclusion:
The article has had a fairly large number of views since then and before midnight last night, but it is no longer listed at my FB page as the last posting made there. The link to the article had vanished by this morning. No one told me that the article called “Humane Society for the Unborn” violates any sort of community standards. It would be unfathomable to contemplate why the article would be censored. Some sort of glitch must have happened that caused the notification about the link to the article to drop from sight. Therefore I will post the link again.
Surely, no one can find fault with the fact that, at least in the anglosphere, humanity – world-wide – suffers from a very serious, essentially total lack of compassion for the welfare of humans and the lives of the unborn.
We are obsessed with pets to the point of worshipping them, but humane societies for the unborn are virtually unheard of.
“If we have gotten to the point in our desperate culture in which we feel obligated to kill children, regardless of why or of what color, then we do not deserve to survive and probably won’t.” — William Faulkner
Shadow banning by social media is not as big of a problem as some people believe it to be, but it is an issue that concerns some.
Facebook has quite a reputation as a promoter of shadow banning. Shadow banning never had much impact on the volume of traffic received by dads&things. The traffic from all social media to dads&things amounts to no more than about 0.1 percent of all visits to dads&things, and that is after I tried for years to mention various articles as much as possible at social media to drive traffic to dads&things. It was a waste of time and effort to try doing that.
Not even Google thinks that its version of the social media, Google+, has much of a future, which is why I had to remove all mention of it from dads&things. Notices kept popping up, when I was doing anything with WordPress, telling me that Google was pulling the plug on Google+, notices such as this:
Google+ is on the way out
I have more than 1,300 FB friends, and sometime I wonder whether Facebook forgot to inform the world that it is pulling the plug on the life support of non-paying clients of FB. Consider that when I post a new article to dads&things, it usually receives some views (mind you, comments are closed at dads&things, which is too bad but a necessity). However, consider also that when I post or share something at my FB wall or timeline, whatever the item may deal with, it receives no or virtually no likes.
That is not because people don’t like what I post. It is because they don’t see that I posted anything. What they don’t see, they can’t like or react to in any other fashion. The converse is true. I don’t see what my FB friends post, for which reason I can’t like or react to what I don’t see, although, when I check, I see that the FB friends who seem to have stopped posting anything were in reality busy posting a lot of interesting things, of which I saw absolutely nothing. Consider these last few posts I had made on FB and the lack of likes that makes them shine:
There you go. The four posts I made to my FB Timeline during the past 24 hours did not receive a single like, not even any sort of reaction. You think that is bad? No, it isn’t. I did not have a chance to see many of the postings my 1,300+ FB friends made during the past 24 hours, hardly any, and I had not a single chance to declare that I liked any I saw – none that mattered, that is, postings that my FB friends thought I should see. Sorry, I did not see any of those and saw no notifications that any of them had been made.
During the past 24 hours, I received a total of 18 notifications that told me that some of my 1,311 FB friends had posted something they wished me to see. Do you think that it is quite possible that in about 999 out of a 1000 cases where someone posted something that he wanted me to see, Facebook decided that I should not be able to see it? I think so. You check what your FB friends posted during the last day or so, compare that to the number of FB notifications you received, and you’ll think so, too.
Blogs have big advantages over social media. Nothing that you are supposed to see on a blog is hidden from your view. It is entirely up to you and to no one else what of it you will read or look at in detail.
Most of my FB friends must have died, or perhaps I did. Sometimes I ask myself why I don’t get many reactions to anything I state on FB, and I wonder (but only for a fleeting moment): “Why don’t I get as many responses as I got when I had only a small fraction of the large number of FB friends I have now?”
Do you ever wonder about that curious fact, that the more FB friends you have, and the longer you have had them, the less you see of them? You are getting fewer likes of what you post, and you have fewer chances to like what they post, because you see less of what they post and they see less of what you post. Why do you think that is? That does not happen in real life, where for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction (well, almost but not so much in semantics or information exchanges employing them).
In the FB universe, it is perfectly logical to see an inverse correlation between likes from one’s FB friends and the number of those frineds one has, the fewer likes, the more FB friends one has and the longer one has had those FB friends. That makes perfect sense, believe it or not. It does happen that way, especially if one expresses conservative, traditionalist or truthful opinions. I am fairly sure that FB’s algorithms already decided what will happen with this comment, which is why I can see the results of that decision as soon as when I click on <Post>.
Anyway, there are all sort of reasons why in the FB universe one sees fewer and fewer likes of what one posts. What do you think are the chances that we will have a discussion or exchange of opinions on that subject today? I am not a betting man. It does not seem fair to make bets on things that are certain.
So, tell me, how many of my closest FB friends will even get to see this comment?
I’ll tell you how much I see of what the closest of my FB friends post, the ones who seem aligned closest to what my political, ethical and ideological perspective happens to be. You would not know that, but I do, because I checked. For instance, of the 0.1 percent of my FB friends who closest think and write the way I do, I have seen exactly not a single indication that they posted or shared anything during the past three days. Don’t tell me, but that is moot, you have not seen a notification that I posted this comment, right? 🙂 That is the main reason why I don’t see many likes on what I post, and you don’t see many likes on things you post.
It is not up to you to decide what you should be liked for. You may not even give your FB friends the choice of what they should like you for. That choice is not up to you or your FB friends to make. It is being made for you.
If you wonder what shadow-banning is all about, this explains it, but it does not seem that switching to different social media is necessarily a remedy. There is no remedy.
I am being shadow-banned by Facebook. I just found another couple of instances and won’t even bother to look for more. Right, I know what I will be doing about it, but I am sorry for having wasted far too much time on Facebook, and that hurts the most.
It is hard to tell – and not worth making a detailed analysis of (the evidence of it is overwhelming) – but I have the distinctive impression that I need to divorce myself from using Facebook. Facebook quite simply violates too many of my community standards, and I cannot take it any longer. Facebook censors, Facebook sabotages the exchanges of ideas that violate Facebook’s irrational, biased perceptions. The cup runneth over. I have had enough – ten years – of it.
This is the practical thing with biased perceptions: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The trick is to have all (or most) others see the same beauty that the promoter of it sees. That is the more likely to happen, the more intensively propagandists censor the ugly truth.
It is not that I cannot stand it anymore to be repeatedly put into “FB Jail.” I only was there once, for about eight hours, while I know that others are being repeatedly barred from using Facebook for a month at a time (and even longer), for offences whose triviality boggles the mind. Such people spend more time in than out of “FB Jail,” for no other reasons than that they don’t toe Facebook’s party line. Nevertheless, Facebook routinely lets behaviour outside the norms of human decency go unpunished.
My blog category “Censorship” contains links to a number of articles I wrote over the last little while about such Facebook issues I experienced. Here is an account of just three incidents, beginning Jan. 29, 2019.
A couple of days living with Facebook censorship
This is a story of what happened with FB censorship just the other day, in a two-day interval from Jan. 29 to 31, 2019. I posted a link to a popular YouTube video. The video has had over 8-million views.
When checking that posting just a little while later,
I found that the YouTube screenshot for it, that FB had no problem displaying when I had posted it, was no longer visible in the FB display. I followed the FB link to the video, to find out what had happened to it. Well, look at how things can change in such a short time. This is what I got:
Give it a try. Either just click on the preceding link or, if you are reading this in the FB discussion thread, use copy and paste commands for the URL enclosed by the quotation marks. That will be necessary, when using FB, because just clicking on the link will lead you not to the video but to the erroneous notification about the copyright violation that FB makes sure you’ll get every time you click on the link that FB produced by appending a large number of characters to the original string for the link to the YouTube video I had identified in the original posting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwbKYcBdVyk&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1GolOZnnOCgLy0EJCSfR0iDehGM1C0FPO__667Py8a-FSBRFMJjCJaXjI
The URL for that copyright-violation notification is obviously designed to make anyone but a determined reader give up on trying to access the YouTube video. That is a scam and a fraud, but it is without a doubt effective in keeping a lot of people from wanting to try anything to watch the video, after they have been told that it is no longer accessible.
This is the second time that happened to me in the space of one day. The first time I noticed was when someone told me that another link I had identified returned a “Page not found” error message: It was this link:
Again, in that case, too (in case you run into that problem when reading this on FB), using copy-and-paste commands for the character string that signifies the URL between the quotation marks works just fine and allows to gain access to the report by Indur Goklany. (The problem is, of course, that nothing tells what the original character string was for the URL I had posted, unless I become aware of the problem that FB caused and explain to people what they must do to circumvent the problem.)
That is a scam and a fraud. The notification is a lie, a deliberate lie made by FB under false pretenses, but there is more.
Update 2019 01 31 9:25 a.m.
certainly, those three instances of Facebook censorship were discovered by accident. It is possible, even likely, that there were more, perhaps quite a few more. It has happened before that I found evidence of shadow banning on some posts I had made. How can anyone be certain that all of what he posts to Facebook will actually be visible to any intended recipient? I know that I can’t be. Some of my FB post and comments were shadow-banned.
Paul, I just had a quick look at Freegalitarians. I used to see a lot of the notifications of new posts you made, but I don’t recall having seen any of those that were made since Jan 31.
I also noticed that the posts since Jan, 31 had no likes. That would suggest that no or few others saw notifications about your posts. My granddaughter is spending time in Hawaii with her husband and their son, She posted a few photos early this morning. Those photos had 42 likes and a lot of comments by 11:30 am. I am absolutely certain that she is not being shadow banned, while on a couple of occasions FB had shadow banned comments I had made at her FB timeline.
BTW, my granddaughter has half the number of FB friends I have, and her photos got far more likes and comments than all of your and my posts combined did today. Shadow banning works well, right?
Tom, just for the record:
« Walter H. Schneider “Tom, how can her lawyer make a defence if he does not put up an argument like that?” To be clear, just in case someone else wonders, the mother you refer to is the one from Uganda who in London, England, cut her daughter so seriously (while mutilating her vagina) that she needed to be hospitalized.
The article reporting on the case mentions that the mother faces 14 years in prison. That is of course a ludicrous speculation. I’ll be very surprised if she spends any time in prison at all, regardless of what her lawyer states.
Here is the link “https://www.nst.com.my/…/mother-guilty-mutilating…” (between the quotation marks, in case FB mucks around with it). _______
PS. Just for the record, the preview of the article got displayed after I pasted the link to the article. »
I thought of testing that comment right after I posted it. Sure enough, even though only a few seconds had gone by, after I posted the edited comment, the preview to the link is no longer shown.
It surprises me that I was made aware of that. That is uncharacteristically honest and, of course, not technically shadow banning. It is merely nothing more than plain, old, open, mundane censorship.
How could I forget?! Of course, it is useless to post the link between quotation marks, because FB defaces it, in addition to corrupting the actual URL. So, just to be certain of how far FB’s censorship goes, Here is the link, (once more enclosed by quotation marks ):
« Mother guilty of mutilating daughter in landmark female genital mutilation trial
For the record, I have not yet sent this off, but the preview of the article and the full character string for the functioning URL are displayed correctly. Now let’s see what happens. I will click <send>.
I thought so, the preview is no longer visible. The URL character string is now corrupted, but, at least in Messenger (as of now), anyone could salvage the URL from the characters displayed in the comment (by using copy-and-paste commands). But what is the point of any of that? It is not my objective to spend a large portion of my remaining life in trying to outfox FB’s efforts at censoring me and the rest of the world.
There is little doubt in my mind that FB is becoming increasingly more user-unfriendly for exchanging information relating to the truth (or to satire, poking fun at politically correct, received wisdom).
If I see just a little more of that sort of sabotage, I’ll be leaving FB. Using FB has become quite simply too frustrating and aggravating.
I am sick and tired of having to explain link problems, postings that disappear without notice, or even having to worry about that not all is working as well with FB as it should.
I am getting ready to stop using FB. It is simply too aggravating to be dealing constantly with FB’s shenanigans.
I will be setting up a discussion forum. You may be interested. When it is ready, I will post a notification at this blog with a link (in the upper, right-hand corner of the web pages). There will be no censorship, other than what is contained within the house rules. Censorship has never been heavy before and will not be heavy now, but it will be a lot easier and more logical than what Facebook imposes.
If the blog loses a little traffic (a fraction of one percent) of what is coming to it from Facebook, that is not a problem. It is a small price to pay for what I’ll save in effort and time to cope with FB problems.
PS. 2019 02 04: The plan was to set up a discussion. To get a discussion forum going is too big a job for me, the learning curve is steep. I have the impression that I cannot get away with doing it using free software. There is no way I can tell until I am done with it, but there is another, serious and insurmountable problem.
The process is complex, I have completed some of it, and with another week to two weeks of work I may be able to get it going satisfactorily and in a user-friendly fashion, but I would have to spend money to make it secure, and I won’t do that. I may even have to hire someone to do that for me. I will not let FB influence my life to that extent.
The limit on what I spend on all of this was reached a long time ago. If anyone wishes to have secure, uncensored discussions such as we had before FB came on the scene, then let’s go back to where we were when FB was not around. If anyone wishes to get in touch with me by e-mail, then fine. I can be contacted. My website is still operational, and so is my blog. Contact details are provided and accessible on both,
Phone me or write to me on FB, if you wish to have secure discussions, free of any interference by Facebook. FB will not let anyone have secure discussions, but so far I can use FB to tell people what to do to have secure discussions.
Over 600,000 individuals go missing in the United States every year. Fortunately, many missing children and adults are quickly found, alive and well. However, tens of thousands of individuals remain missing for more than one year – what many agencies consider “cold cases”.
It is estimated that 4,400 unidentified bodies are recovered each year, with approximately 1,000 of those bodies remaining unidentified after one year.
“NamUs is funded and administered by the National Institute of Justice, and managed through a cooperative agreement with the UNT Health Science Center. The NamUs program is funded through the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Program, U.S. Department of Justice Award NO. 2016-MU-BX-K007.” — https://www.namus.gov
How many identities must identity politics cater to? The short answer to the question is, there are at least seven million different unique identity types that identity politics must address. That figure is much larger when catering to identity types is not just demanded in two or three developed nations but within the context of the global village.
If it is difficult to imagine why there should be such large numbers of identity types, consider the example of a man who is a gay, Black, an illegal Chinese, Lutheran, elderly, transgendered person. (Caution: When contemplating such combinations of category attributes, it is entirely possible that, apparently, some of the attributes of specific categories co-exist, e. g.: homeless, imprisoned. Upon further thought, however, it becomes clear that a homeless man, once imprisoned, is technically no longer homeless.)
Starting from the bottom up, what is the minimum number of identities we need in a radical-liberal, moral universe (a.k.a. the idealized version of a Marxist regime)? More than just a few categories and sub-categories immediately come to mind, when contemplating the radical-liberal demands of a global village:
Race: 24 – That number is far too low, as far as perceptions of race in the world go. It is the number of races recognized in the criminal justice system of England and Wales. One must add to that number a large number of biological classifications, medical considerations, as well as perceptions of social constructions, different sets of which that have legal validity in many nations. There is some overlap between sets of races in different nations.
Colour: 16 – That number, too is far too low. Colour could be regarded to be a politically correct euphemism for race. In the U.S. it serves to soften the political contrast between White (so far a majority that has ostensibly control over everything) and Black (so far the largest non-white minority, many of whose activists wish to have Black Power trump White control over everything). It was found that there are other “colours” that need to be recognized. Therefore, the U.S. uses now five “races” or “colours”, while the expression “Black” is preferred by Blacks, and, although there are many gradations of “colour”, only about three categories of Race or Colour are used to categorize all others who are neither White or Black.
No one is truly White or Black. Those designations serve to identify the extreme ends of the spectrum, with there being considerable overlap between degrees of colour and racial or ethnic origins or mixtures thereof. Some Caribbean Islands have strict social codes of discourse and conduct that address gradations by 16 divisions of colour. Other regions and nations do not have as many but have some. It would be a gross understatement to insist that there are no more than 16 colours in the world. For the purpose of this exercise, 16 colours will be sufficient to make a point.
Creed: 30 – That is an ultra-conservative number for just the major religions. The number considers religious orientations such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism as one each, while in reality each one of those is split into many different factions that are distinctly different and vehemently opposed one another within each branch (e. g.: Catholicism and Protestantism have each many different factions). Again, the number 30, although far too low, nevertheless will serve to make a point, eventually.
Social status or caste: 20 – Many countries have different classifications that rank their residents by many different categories of rank. Different sets of civil rights may apply or not, by law, not necessarily by law, or perhaps not at all by law but in practice in each country. It may or may not be that someone assessed the differences between classifications for each country and all countries, but it is doubtful that anyone ever did that for all countries in the world. Consider a set of classifications that would apply in two countries, Germany and the United States, about to equal extents:
Citizen by birth;
Developing, pre-birth child;
Age of majority;
Freedom to move anywhere;
Freedom to move only within the country;
Freedom to move only within a specific region;
Freedom to move only within one’s home;
Free to pursue a profession, an income, or to enjoy civil rights other than specific restrictions on freedom of movement and freedom of expression;
Restricted freedom to pursue a profession, an income, or to enjoy civil rights other than specific restrictions on freedom of movement and freedom of expression. That is the case when someone experiences limitations being imposed on his freedoms due to his government’s refusal to issue or renew licences he needs to make a living (e. g.: fishing licence, hunting licence, firearm ownership licence, passport, driver licence, pilot licence, boiler inspector licence; medical licence, etc…..);
Illegal citizen/child – not merely an illegitimate child. “Illegal citizen” is the lifetime status of someone born to his parents in excess of the number of children his parents are permitted to have.
Without doubt, there is a set of at least 5 different identity categories that each individual on Earth is being measured by. All of those identity categories and their respective sub-categories were at one time or another addressed by ideological activists in the media, public discussions and political debates for a bewildering variety of reasons that will not be addressed here.
The number of identities every given individual is measured by determines the sum of the civil rights a given individual is permitted to enjoy. It also determines the sum of the obligations and duties that every individual has, to ensure that all others will enjoy the varying extent of the civil rights those others are entitled to receive.
Some such classifications appear to be idiosyncratic. They are nevertheless real. Their manifestations affect many, even millions of people in some nations. Some of them are unheard of in some countries while common in others. For instance, category 5.xx, “Illegal citizen/child”, in the list of attributes in category 5, puts severe constraints on many, perhaps millions of Chinese residents, restrictions that prevent them from being able to enjoy what is taken for granted in most countries, the right to partake of any and all government services (e. g.: welfare services, government-sponsored health care services and pension incomes, to mention some).
Let no one think that there are not equally severe restrictions in so-called “free” nations in the West on the extent to which ostensibly “free” citizens or residents can enjoy their allegedly God-given right to their civil liberties. Anyone who thinks that they do better consider what freedoms someone who is being punished by being assigned category 5.xix in Canada is left with to enjoy!
Now consider that Facebook is hot in pursuit of ways that will prevent those suffering from having category attributes 5.xix or 5.xx (or any other detrimental ones) in their identity types from pointing their fingers at anyone responsible for having made that happen. No rational individual will think that Facebook should have that power!
Going by those five categories and their individual sub-categories, there is a total of at least seven million different identifiable classifications of identities that are of concern to radical-liberal advocates of identity politics. The number of identities will most certainly be much larger when advocates of identity politics pursue as well the ideal of the global village.
In a conservative moral universe, every individual, regardless of which of the seven million different identity types he could be categorized by, has a just and equal opportunity to achieve what he can achieve.
In a radical-liberal moral universe, every single individual has the right to clamor for the special rights and privileges that the one of the seven million different identity types he falls into entitles him to receive. Conversely, his identity rank not only entitles him to his justly measured share of equity but also compels him to provide his justly measured share of contributions that will ensure that all others will receive what they are entitled to. After all, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” (Karl Marx, 1875).
If he would have thought of it, George Orwell would possibly have summed that up in the slogan, “Equality of Outcomes is Tyrannical Classlessness.”
It is not necessary to be specific with the details. There is no reason one should make an exhaustive analysis of the details of the cause of the problem that constitutes the rock on which all identity politics will in short order founder. The principle of the fallacy that makes identity politics founder on the immutable rock of reality becomes obvious. Anyone may feel free to make an estimate of more precise dimensions of the factors that constitute the problem. The principle will remain.
Identity politics founder on the rock of reality because, time and again, absurdities cannot circumvent reality.
An ideal, conservative, moral universe (let’s not quibble but assume there is such a thing) needs no identity politics. No one is favored, no one unfairly burdened, everyone has equal opportunities, equal rights, equal obligations and equal privileges. That’s it, that’s all, and it doesn’t get any simpler. People (except for some progressives) in a conservative moral universe will be free and generally happy.
An ideal, radical-liberal, moral universe (again, let’s not quibble but assume that Utopia can be created) needs a (at least theoretically) large but unknown numbers of identities. Everyone is favored, everyone unfairly burdened, no one has equal opportunities, equal rights, equal obligations and equal privileges, but everyone is by law entitled to receive the benefits that his unique set of characteristics (shared with other members of his minuscule minority) entitle him to receive. All others are bound by law to do what it takes to provide what the members of every minority are entitled to. That is a very confusing complexity, but it doesn’t get any simpler. People (mostly progressives) will to varying degrees be slaves and generally unhappy, because of their demand that every individual must be differentiated from others with a different set of characteristics and is entitled to special treatment.
Some may think that is absurd. To some extent they are right, because reality demands that we cannot achieve the ideal moral universe of the radical-liberal (pure, ideal Marxist) variety. We cannot create a political structure or system that caters to a very large number of identities. How large that number will grow depends on what people want and on which of those things or characteristics they want they will be able to give legal recognition to. The number has practical limits set by what people and society can handle. A lot of assumptions must be made, and there is an unknown number of unknowns that make that very difficult, to say the least, but there it is, the fact that those who are entitled to want everything can neither be satisfied nor ever be happy.
“A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”
—Milton and Rose Friedman, in
Free to Choose: A Personal Statement
The only thing that reflects Facebook’s design for the constraints it wants to place on freedom of expression, in the preceding quote, is that no one can accuse Facebook and the people who run and own it of failing “to promote their own interests” and to constrain freedom.
In the conservative moral universe, it is essentially true that, “In the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is king.” If he rules wisely, he will be a blessing to his subjects. If he does not, he will be a tyrant, an exploiter of his people.
In the radical liberal universe (of which communism is a prime example), a one-eyed man will have his remaining eye put out, to make him equal, thereby to ensure that his ability to see is not an unfair advantage to him, whereby everyone will be forced to suffer equally, being unable to enjoy any of the advantages his ability to see can and will provide for all.
In the conservative universe, all who deviate (by nature or by choice) from the norms of the majority are free to enjoy life as well as they can, as long as they ask not for special privileges from anyone else, regardless of any distinguishing features (e. g.: sex, race, or colour) that they may possess, exhibit, or claim to have.
In the radical-liberal universe, the diktats of political correctness demand that everyone has the right to demand special considerations that are to be granted by law to anyone who is bestowed with or who chooses distinguishing features (e. g.: sex, race, or colour) that he may possess, exhibit, or claim to have. That is because of the duty for everyone else to grant those rights, as that is what equality of outcomes means. In case that is confusing, simple: If someone needs a wheel chair, then everyone gets one of those, and if someone is hired preferentially, then everyone else will automatically be given a job that poses equal demands on his time, skills and experiences, etc., whether he has any of those or not, and he will still be given the same wages or salary, regardless of his performance.
In reality, of course, there will be a more practical outcome. Not everyone will get a wheelchair, only those who need it will receive one (which is not necessarily true of preferential hiring practices that often cause someone not fit for a given job to be hired, so as to meet affirmative action hiring quotas). However, because being different, on account of which one may be experiencing or claim to be suffering disadvantages, a good number of people in a liberal regime will claim to be handicapped or discriminated against. Victim status is a much sought-after state of existence. It often provides intensively sought benefits that are being provided to claimants for extended periods, perhaps many years, at times for life.
Facebook’s “community standards” are obviously a creation of radical-liberal employees or contractors paid by Facebook. They are the unavoidable cause of an enormous amount of confusion that will end in chaos and ultimately result in the destruction of civilization. It is not likely that things will go that far. Somewhere along the line, people (individuals, groups, or masses of them) will put on the brakes, assess how far the deliberate deconstruction of society went, and work on getting enough support from others to be able to salvage what can be salvaged, to restore order and to begin the process of reconstruction.
Some may find it difficult to understand why that should be so. Maybe the example of the Stockholm Syndrome will explain it. In the aftermath of the 1973 Stockholm hostage-taking the hostages refused to testify against their captors. Variations of the Stockholm Syndrome are used in many instances, when offenders claim that someone (usually a man), perhaps even the devil or their inner demons, made them do what they did. More often than not, the self-acclaimed victim (women more often than men) will be able to gain considerations of extenuating circumstances, on account of which they will then be able to plea-bargain the charges against them down to a lesser offence, receive a reduced sentence or are perhaps even pardoned.
The Stockholm Syndrome is an example of an important difference between conservatism vs liberalism, equality of opportunities vs equality of outcomes, of the difference between being conservative while remaining absolutely objective vs drifting into the obsession with subjectivity – the inexorable transition into the Never-Never Land of ultimate radical-liberalism with its enormous number of identities and the tyranny of identity politics that has, for instance, Sweden in a tightening strangle hold.
Sweden is arguably the leader of the progressive pack of nations, but other nations are in hot pursuit and not that far behind in the race to achieve the hoped-for blissful oblivion of the radical-liberal Utopia (a.k.a. the idealized version of a Marxist regime).
Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blogs are being slandered and censored.
Whether you are a fathers-rights activist, a pro-family activist or a skeptic of environmental alarmism, it is quite likely that your website or blog is being slandered and censored, too. It is being done on the sly. No one will tell you about it. If it happened, you will have been found guilty and were sentenced in the Star-Chamber court of a multinational corporation (by an obscure clerk, in an obscure office), and it is not likely that you will be able to appeal.
Check the rating of your website or blog.
I had asked O2 to review and explain their website rating policy in regard to Fathers for Life. They did not respond.