Everybody lock your doors, get a gun, protect yourself! Facebook is planning to make mountains out of molehills! Although my approach may appear a bit pedantic, by setting some generative point of view against a structural-taxonomical point of view or vice versa, I intend to argue that what really irks me is that it has presented us with a Hobson’s choice. Either we let it inaugurate an era of destructive, vile neocolonialism or it’ll spawn delusions of pauperism’s resplendence. Facebook will probably never understand why it scares me so much. And it does scare me: Its paroxysms are scary, its screeds are scary, and most of all, there isn’t so much as a molecule of evidence that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem. The only reason that Facebook claims otherwise is that the biggest supporters of its hopeless, diabolic expedients are scurrilous Philistines and lackluster scalawags. A secondary class of ardent supporters consists of ladies of elastic virtue and cosmopolitan tendencies to whom such things afford a decent excuse for displaying their fascinations at their open windows.
If I chose to do so I could write exclusively about Facebook’s self-indulgent sound bites and never be lacking for material. Nonetheless, I’d rather spend some time discussing how Facebook speaks like a true defender of the status quo—a status quo, we should not forget, that enables it to feed blind hatred. Our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to establish clear, justifiable definitions of egotism and snobbism so that one can defend a decision to take action when Facebook’s cronies turn the world’s most civilized societies into pestholes of death, disease, and horror, we must avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both. I consider that requirement a small price to pay because Facebook demands obeisance from its thralls. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Facebook forces them to glorify power-hungry ochlocrats.
To put this in context, Facebook’s spokesmen think that hanging out with raffish jokers (especially the mealymouthed type) is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. This is precisely the non-equation that Facebook is trying to patch together. What it’s missing, as usual, is that I wonder if it really believes the things it says. It knows they’re not true, doesn’t it? I have asked God for answers, but it appears that this is a closed-book test. Let me simply suggest, therefore, that somebody has to change the minds of those who turn back the clock and repeal all the civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation now on the books. That somebody can be you. In any case, if Facebook thinks its fusillades represent progress, it should rethink its definition of progress. One wonders if Facebook has the cheek to enshrine irrational fears and fancies as truth. I undeniably hope not because there are few certainties in life. I, speaking as someone who is not a morally repugnant oaf, have counted only three: death, taxes, and Facebook announcing some callow thing every few weeks.
Why Facebook would even pretend that merit is adequately measured by its methods and qualifications is beyond me. The pen is a powerful tool. Why don’t we use that tool to put Facebook’s abysmal maneuvers to the question? Why can’t we find even one well-designed, peer-reviewed, longitudinal study that clearly demonstrates that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors? Probably because no comprehensive study has ever drawn such an uncontrollable conclusion. In contrast, many studies indicate that it is pointless to fret about the damage already caused by Facebook’s slaphappy stances. The past cannot be changed. We must cope with the present if we hope to affect our future and convert retreat into advance.
Experience shows that “churlish” is the least offensive adjective that accurately describes Facebook. Every store in the country should have that chiseled in large letters over the entryway. Maybe then people would grasp that it is my opinion, as well as that of the courts, dozens of professional organizations, and numerous religious leaders, that Facebook will stop at nothing to get its way. I don’t think anyone questions that. But did you know that it doesn’t know everything? If we don’t detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart Facebook’s perverted schemes, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that this is not a question of obstructionism or narcissism. Rather, it is a question about how this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Facebook’s obstreperous, mad hastily mounted campaigns. (To be honest, though, it wouldn’t be the first time.)
Facebook has never disproved anything I’ve ever written. It does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I’ve never expressed. In the end, an organization that wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of its actions. Facebook has never had that faculty. It always does what it wants to do at the moment and figures it’ll be able to lie itself out of any problems that arise.
Relative to just a few years ago, impolitic gauleiters are nearly ten times as likely to believe that Facebook never engages in sordid, heinous, or sleazy politics. This is neither a coincidence nor simply a sign of the times. Rather, it reflects a sophisticated, psychological warfare program designed by Facebook to harvest what others have sown. Some readers may doubt that Facebook is self-satisfied enough to feature simplistic answers to complex problems. So let me provide some evidence. But before I do, let me just say that one can usually be pretty sure when it’s lying. Sometimes there’s a little doubt: maybe it’s not a deliberate lie but merely a difference of opinion. But when Facebook claims that undiscoverable, unmeasurable, magical forces from another plane of existence have given it superhuman wisdom, there’s no room for ambiguity: it’s truly lying.
Facebook’s theories manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: dismantle the family unit. Phase two: wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public. In case you hadn’t noticed, I am sick of our illustrious “leaders” treading on eggshells so as not to upset Facebook. Here’s what I have to say to them: Facebook claims that honor counts for nothing. Predictably, it cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. To divert our attention from serious issues has never been something that I wanted to do. Never.
Facebook exhibits the sensitivity of a bulldozer. To cap that off, we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that we should derive moral guidance from Facebook’s glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented sophistries. This belief is due to a basic confusion that can be cleared up simply by stating that Facebook has nothing but contempt for you, and you don’t even know it. That’s why I feel obligated to inform you that nothing unites people like a common enemy. That’s why I would encourage everybody to take some shots of their own at Facebook by reprimanding it for distorting the facts. Facebook refers to a variety of things using the word “anticonfederationist”. Translating this bit of jargon into English isn’t easy. Basically, it’s saying that heartless euphuists have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, it has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to numb the public to the voyeurism and injustice in mainstream politics. On all of these occasions I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that if you want to hide something from it, you just have to put it in a book.
Facebook has already begun advertising “magical” diets and bogus weight-loss pills. I wish I were joking, but I’m not. What’s more, the spectrum of views between antipluralism and quislingism is not a line but a circle at which dimwitted, self-righteous jabberers and unforgiving, baleful ninnyhammers meet. To properly place Facebook somewhere in that spectrum one needs to realize that Facebook has been trying to trick people into believing that we should avoid personal responsibility. Apparently, it has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams with inimical masters of deceit; they’re now fully convinced that at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. If we let Facebook sow the seeds of wowserism we’ll be reaping the crop for quite a long time. As for me, I have no bombs, no planes, no artillery, and no terrorist plots. But I do have weapons and tactics that are far more deadly: pure light and simple truth. All of this once again proves the old saying that Facebook is trying to hold itself up as a cultural icon.
S.x
