Here I am, subject to yet another Facebook ban. I’m told my next one will be permanent. The cause was that I pointed out two signs at a rally for feminism. One sign read, “All Men Are Pigs”, and another read, “Woman Are Equal To Men”.
The deduction anyone with the capacity for critical thought would make is that their total message indicates all women are pigs. I didn’t draw the deduction in the comment; I merely posted the signs, which, according to Facebook, constitutes hate speech.
I don’t identify as a feminist, however, I’m familiar enough with their symposiums and literature to speak to the subject.
Most intelligent feminists gladly entertain questions of contradictions within their circles. My final philosophy paper was addressing a debate they have within their own ranks on the topic of whether or not we should promote more women in sciences or if we should more highly value fields where women historically outperform men (nursing and midwifery, for example).
They debate themselves constantly, which means there are contradictions in their messages. Intelligent feminists acknowledge this and enjoy discussing this. The only thing I am forced to conclude is that whoever banned me is a notably unintelligent feminist.
Libertarians often don’t think of feminists as happily engaging in rational dialogue. But feminists do. We often think of transgender folks as losing their cool at the drop of the wrong gender pronoun, and yet very few of them are like this. They do this for the same reason Fox News viewers think of Muslims as inherently violent theocrats, or atheists think of Christians as dim-witted dictators, and Christians think of atheists as the angry YouTube commentators.
Atheists think of Christians this way if they don’t know any intelligent Christians. In my observations, I’ve noticed that when someone has a hatred for Muslims as a class of people, they don’t regularly interact with any Muslims. Most people who think of feminists or transgender people as easily triggered have the bulk of their observations coming from YouTube, not their workplace or friend circle.
But this isn’t what gets views. Sensationalism is what generates likes, shares, and subscribers. Facebook is geared toward psychological addiction. If a young girl posts a picture of herself in a bikini and she receives hundreds of likes it can become a highly addictive process. The same can be said of making a political or philosophical post that gets liked or shared by an intelligent, respected person.
It’s random positive reinforcement, which operates on the same principles as gambling. A person gets a small payout every now and then to keep them happy and think you might win big, but over the long term, they become bankrupt. Facebook operates according to these principles with happiness, gone are the days of wine, women, and song, now we have the most sedate entertainment; even the mundane Netflix and chill has been replaced by the clickbait of 15 reasons that aren’t reasonable, or the boring and believable results of, “The judges said she wouldn’t make it, you won’t believe what happens next”.
But negative emotions are also addictive. An innocent commentary by a conservative like Ben Shapiro leads to recommendations for a more toxic Milo Yiannopoulos, which then leads to the outright wretchedness of Richard Spencer.
People want to see extremism. We have been addicted to our emotions boiling over. Rather than a thorough discussion of Thomas Aquinas opposed to Nietzsche, people would rather call each other names. It’s easier that way.
And so I’ve been banned. Rather than having a sophisticated dialogue about truths in propositions and finding meaningful ways of reconciling them; rather than engage in critical and rational dialogue, it’s easier to label an opponent as full of hate. The world becomes more polarized, reason is lost, and hate is ushered in. Those who resist are banned.
Under the guise of pushing a feminist agenda, these people are breeding hate. Today, you can literally brag about assaulting women and be elected president. You can literally give weapons to a regime that hunts women down for having been sexually assaulted and be elected prime minister. We’re becoming morally bankrupt, with the occasional feel-good moment of banning someone that slightly points out where we might be wrong. We’re losing the capacity for critical dialogue, and it shows.
Latest posts by Brandon Kirby (see all)
- Why Bother With Philosophy? – Freedom Philosophy - February 12, 2020
- The Underlying Philosophy of Political Memes – Freedom Philosophy - February 5, 2020
- Top 3 Ways the Left Ignores Science – Freedom Philosophy - January 29, 2020