Category Archives: Civil Rights

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 … Continue reading →

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 … Continue reading →

Equality of Outcomes destroys Freedom. “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 … Continue reading →

Individual rights and freedom of expression took thousands of years to evolve.  They made civilization great and held the promise to make it greater yet.  Facebook is out to dismantle much of the progress in attaining universal free speech.  Instead, Facebook promotes speech codes and censorship.  That is not progress, it is regress. Human nature strives to achieve improvement, perfection, with the limits to that only being set by human imagination, and that is limited only by human ingenuity.  No flights of unlimited human imagination are achievable by using anyone’s “community standards” that constrain freedom of expression.  They cannot even be launched, let alone be completed, when they are limited … Continue reading →

Update 2018 12 31: Rewritten to incorporate two sections, “Comparing Facebook to other utility-access services,” and “FB must not have the right to censor”  Speech codes limit the right to free speech and to freedom of expression.  Who gave Facebook the right to act as judge, jury and executioner, to be a lawmaker, to issue the rules, to enforce, monitor compliance, judge adherence, hand down punishment for non-compliance and administer punishment accordingly?  Why did Facebook assume the powers of legislator, police, judge, jury, and jailer? I’m no longer confused. I became confused when I heard the word ‘service’ used by these agencies: Revenue Canada Service, Canada Postal Service, Telephone Service, Civil … Continue reading →

Facebook becomes a contender in the realm of the business of the law.  That is not a good state of affairs.   Facebook assumes the roles of police, judge, jury and executioner, even that of the legislators (legislators means lawmakers, our legally elected, legal representatives, who “hammer out the laws” that our employees – the police, the judges, and our jailers and executioners of our system of jurisprudence – install, monitor adherence to, judge the quality of performance on and administer, are put in charge of performing the duties required to ensure that punishment ordered by judges is administered properly).    Facebook takes on all of those roles and the duties … Continue reading →

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 … Continue reading →

Sniffing butts is impolite.  Sniffing butts is a No-No.  I know that it is, because my parents and my oldest sister (17 years older than I) told me so, a long time ago, without any help or nudging from Facebook.  It was in 1939 when that happened.  Facebook had not yet come on the scene. It made its first appearance 75 years later, in 2004.   Humanity had managed fairly well until then to catch on to the rules of politeness and of political correctness, without Facebook’s help. Still, being blessed with an analytical mind and fairly early in my life, before the invasion of Poland by Hitler’s Armed Forces, the Gestapo … Continue reading →

Who falls asleep in a democracy will wake up in a dictatorship. — Otto Gritschneder (when asked why he wanted to publicize the system of terror in German military justice under the Nazis) Introduction This article series addresses free speech, freedom of expression, Facebook censorship (allegedly measured against Facebook’s infamous “community standards” and thereby justified), identity politics, and the number of identities that identity politics must cater to. (A linked index is shown after the following image.) Index Introduction Preamble Sniffing butts is a No-No, and Being politically incorrect is verboten Turning moral traditions topsy-turvy Facebook : legislator, police, judge, jury, and jailer Speech codes limit the right to free speech Comparing … Continue reading →