The drive for re-education, to turn established moral traditions topsy-turvy, is a convoluted road to travel.
The FB-reality of that is that the use of bad and inappropriate language of the gutter variety is good, while even to insist only slightly on that established, more conservative traditions that society came to hold dear must be regarded as being in bad taste, wherefore it is verboten. Things become very difficult and confusing, when good becomes bad and bad becomes good, when it may be that either or both are verboten, especially when it appears that good things may at times be verboten, while bad things (things that were judged bad hundreds and even thousands of years ago) are hardly ever considered to be bad but most often good. The confusion that causes seems to be a deliberate aspect of the social engineering that Facebook is eager to bring to civilization.
It is difficult for old dogs to learn new tricks. It is especially hard for an old dog to learn that the new trick he is to learn, that to have a moral universe that he has come to appreciate and even to love with his whole heart, is to be turned topsy-turvy and to be adhered to. I taught a dog or two during my life and learned, that to confront any dog with such absurd notions is the most effective means of spoiling him.
Don’t take me wrong! FB did not ever tell me that I had done anything wrong (except for telling me, now and then, that something I remarked did not meet Facebook’s “community standards”), or that anything I had posted had violated proprieties other than their “community standards”. It’s just that it is hard for old dogs to learn new tricks, especially when all or most of the tricks they know are suddenly made to do a 180. This dog is 82 years old, and even the youngest dog has a tough time learning tricks for which the instructor gives instructions that flip to being diametrically opposed to all he has learned since he was born, even if a young dog doesn’t have to unlearn anything. Such a crazy thing is not merely contrary to the nature of dogs, in general, it is even against human nature!
To be accused in the Facebook reality of being politically incorrect can have a range of consequences, some of which can be severe. An offense may involve having pointed the finger, maybe once or maybe once too often, perhaps not at someone but at an organization, a government or society, for having done something remarkable, annoying, harmful and not merely annoying but enormously harmful to humanity, fathers and families, perhaps even to the whole environment and the globe.
In such a case, finger-pointing may well be deemed not merely impolite but politically incorrect. The pointed finger that raised Facebook’s ire may not even be directed at anyone or anything other than that it pointed out an idea that may or may not be politically correct although nevertheless wrong. It may involve nothing other than to express dissatisfaction with any aspect – no matter how trivial or inconsequential – of anything at all and no one in particular.
That sort of political incorrectness falls without a doubt into the category of thought crime, but that does not matter much. If Facebook doesn’t like it, a thought crime can or will be used to apply a judgment. No finding of “guilty” will be announced, nothing more will happen than that the designated, unsuspecting offender will suddenly find that he no longer can use Facebook. There may or may not have been a notification sent to the individual judged to be an offender. That notification then states merely that a comment or posting violated FB community standards.
Even though several times I tried to catch on to what the FB community standards imply and demand, I never succeeded. Anyone who ever tried to figure it out soon found that the FB community standards are hopelessly nebulous, convoluted and lacking clear directions. They would not have the chance of a snowball in Hell to measure up to the standards of evidence in a court of law. Nevertheless, Facebook refers to them when justifying why they found someone guilty of violating them and deserving of being sent to “Facebook jail” (if Facebook should happen to tell the alleged offender, who receives his punishment before even knowing he did anything wrong), meaning that Facebook will ban them from using the services Facebook offers, for various lengths of time, ranging from a few hours to a life time. No court in the world could solve that dilemma, not in a year full of Sundays, but Facebook insists that its community standards are just the thing for judging how individuals must conduct themselves.
Nevertheless, whether or not any of that should be done by basing Facebook’s decision on its ill-documented “community standards” should be left up to the individual doing it, and it should be left to the “accused” to feel whether the accusation should be ignored or to let it bother them, with the range of possible outcomes extending all the way to taking the accusers to court.
The range of the emotions and reactions following a perceived insult in the past extended to where they led to duels by swords, foils, handguns and other means intended to kill the accuser who was often right and had to die on account of it. Challenges involved rituals, the drop of a hat, the slapping with a glove of the face of the challenged, knocking a chip of the shoulder of the challenged or of the shoulder of the challenger (with the first of the contenders to succeed with knocking the chip off the shoulder of his opponent being the challenger, a dubious distinction in the ensuing brawl).
Today, those extremes are no longer legal. Instead, we amended laws as well as civil and criminal court procedures, in efforts designed to economically devastate accusers, whether those are right or not. Thereby we ensure that judges, prosecutors and other attorneys, lawyers and adjuncts of the legalistic industry are not deprived of a rich source of income that they intensely crave. After all, they too must feed their families, pay bills and pay back loans. Having accusers and accused try to settle things out of court by killing each other was therefore a powerful incentive for the advocates of the legalistic industry do get such attempts ruled to be illegal, and they achieved that aim. That was a great boon to the business of the law. With Facebook throwing its hat into the ring, things are becoming unnecessarily complicated once more.
Consider the next section, Facebook becomes a contender in the realm of the business of the law, being self-appointed Legislator, police, judge, jury, and jailer.
Back to index for this article series