Faceb-ugh, by Arthur Tebbel – Pop Art #190 | @MDWorld
July 31, 2012 Arthur Tebbel 5 Comments
Dear Art,
Most people probably don’t know this but I read just about every thread on Facebook. Quality control you know; got to keep things on the up and up now that we’re a publicly traded company. I have noticed a stunning number of comment threads on the controversy surrounding Chick-fil-A’s CEO’s statement on gay marriage. This isn’t what I made Facebook for. I made Facebook for college students to casually stalk each other. Now it’s the focal point for seemingly every political debate in America. What have I created? What can be done about it?
-Mark Zuckerberg, Founder, Facebook
Mark,
Yeah, this thing you made kind of sucks now. I’m rather fortunate in that the assortment of statuses, links, and pictures that make it to my feed tend to be from people that agree with my political bent but even that gets annoying. Seeing points I agree with represented with poor photoshops or shitty memes doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence. Condescending Wonka is not the spokesman I want thank you very much.
Even with my Facebook friends weighted towards my particular beliefs there’s no relief. I’ll often look at comment threads and then I have to put up with whatever friends of friends drop in for their stunning commentary on the issues. The worst is actually checking threads on photos posted by Michelle Obama. Not actually a politician her photos, often just candid (or staged to look candid) photos of her family are swamped with people slamming her husband’s policy decisions. Give us all a break, huh?
I’m not saying people shouldn’t have an outlet for their opinions. I’m not even saying people should stop being heinously wrong on every important issue. I am saying that Facebook is a terrible outlet for this kind of thing. It just boils down to short screeching of one side’s talking points or another and degrades to name calling and finger pointing even faster than most other places on the Internet. People have often suggested that the anonymity offered by the Internet encourages people to behave badly but Facebook would suggest that if offered even one degree of separation from someone people will act like total monsters. Interesting sociological phenomenon but it makes for a terrible experience.
I don’t know why I bother to complain as there’s no way I’ll be leaving Facebook. That’s the social network I feel most comfortable on and have the most friends. It’s also the one with a like button. I need that little bit of reassurance that my jokes are working to keep me going every day. There’s also the complete reliance on Facebook for any kind of party invitations among my generation means giving up Facebook would mean never going to another birthday party again. We’re stuck with each other Zuckerberg but I sure am glad you realize the horrible thing you’ve unleashed upon us all.
R. Maheras
July 31, 2012 - 2:44 pm
I don’t think I’ve posted one political comment on Facebook, and I don’t think I’ve linked to, or forwarded, any political stuff.
The closest I came to doing so was about six months ago when I posted a small, 2-page scan of a WW II-era military pocket New Testament, endorsed with a letter to the troops from President Roosevelt, that one of my now-dead relatives saved from their military service days.
Accompanying the post was this “controversial” political statement I wrote:
“One hears a lot about the separation of church and state these days, and religious groups seem to be regularly criticized for trying to ‘overstep their boundaries.’ However, as a student of history, to me the opposite seems to be true: Churches are being criticized for things that, in the past, were perfectly acceptable. For example, if a similar edition of this World War II-era, commander-in-chief endorsed pocket Bible were distributed today, it would most certainly cause an uproar.”
Well, my post immediately caused an uproar — an uproar that I was only marginally involved with that two of my friends on opposite sides of the political spectrum took over.
I haven’t posted any politically sensitive topics since, so I guess the free-speech-chilling crowd was victorious.
What I find interesting is that recently, at least three hard-core liberal folks I’m currently friends on Facebook with have independently said they will de-friend anyone who posts conservative-leaning messages. I haven’t seen any such threats from conservatives I’m friends with.
What’s the deal? I though liberals were supposed to be the tolerant ones.
JosephW
July 31, 2012 - 11:21 pm
Well, Maheras, I’m guessing there aren’t that many conservatives who are friends with liberal folks to warrant their making such “threats.” (And, really, “threats?” Really? Talk about making mountains out of molehills. It’s also interesting that you do note they’ve “independently” said. Does that not suggest that these people might have decided they simply don’t want to associate with certain people? I still believe, however, that many of your conservative “friends” don’t “friend” any liberals so there’s no reason for them to make any such announcements.)
As for your comment that raised such a ruckus, you might also go back and look at that history and see how minority religions were treated by the “majority.” How many Catholic presidents have been elected to the Presidency? And that one who was, didn’t he have to actually swear that he wouldn’t take orders from the Pope? Now, how many Jews have been elected President? How many Muslims? How many atheists?
We’ve heard all sorts of whining from “Christians” that they’re being persecuted because a store wants to wish “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” I don’t hear any liberals attacking the more inclusive greeting, but I certainly hear a lot of conservatives (led by *their* “news” network) complaining about it. Then, of course, there’s the near-annual attacks on Halloween by Christians who claim it’s “Satanic” (which, of course, as a recognized religion in this country is protected, but Halloween has nothing to do with Satanism; it’s actually a holiday that, like Christmas and Easter, was co-opted by the early Christian church but that doesn’t seem to matter to the professional victims).
I’m quite tired of your constant (and belligerent) attacks on liberals while you routinely ignore conservative failings.
JosephW
July 31, 2012 - 11:28 pm
As for me, I have no desire to join Facebook. What irritates me, however, is that a number of sites that I regularly read have gone to a comment system that basically requires Facebook membership in order to participate. (Some purport to offer alternative ways to leave comments but none of the alternatives work for me. The sites’ primary given reason is to make everyone “responsible” for their comments and stop trolls yet there’s really nothing about Facebook that prevents someone from creating a fake name for trolling purposes. And some of the comments since the sites went to the Facebook comment system have been far more appalling than any of the definite trolls who frequented the sites before then, so the “Facebook to take responsibility for your comments” hasn’t really worked all that well in my opinion.)
R. Maheras
July 31, 2012 - 11:51 pm
I said this before and I’ll say it again: Most of the folks here are very liberal and already relentlessly attack the right. Do you really need me to step in and do the same? Is an audience of politically like-minded bobble-heads what you are looking for? If so, why?
Anyone who’s a Democrat and who’d rather be skinned alive than EVER vote for a Republican; or anyone who’s a Republican and who’d rather be thrown in the cone of an active volcano than EVER vote for a Democrat; is the person with the problem — not me.
At least I’m willing to listen to both sides and make up my own mind.
Mike Gold
August 1, 2012 - 12:51 am
Facebook is a way of life. Like, oh, Synanon or the Manson Family. It is a very effective replacement for the time/space continuum. And it keeps the riff-raff off of the streets, leaving more room for us troublemakers.
Rene
August 2, 2012 - 6:37 am
“Churches are being criticized for things that, in the past, were perfectly acceptable.”
This is exactly right. And slavery was also perfectly acceptable in the past. So what is your damn point? Western society was once theocratic, and it has moved on, thank God, or better yet, no thanks to God.
Distributing Bibles is a relatively harmless activity. Personally, I have no problem with it. But I’m sure most Conservatives WOULD have a big problem with the government distributing Korans or Hubbard’s Dianetics. Most Conservatives are hypocrites.
They’re not fighting for more religion in public life, they’re fighting for more Evangelical Christianity in public life. At least be honest and admit what you’re fighting for.
I also am afraid that they wouldn’t stop at Bible distribution. Example: jerkass Evangelicals have become more common in my country too. A few Evangelical teachers in public schools (non-religious schools) include preaching and Bible study in their classes, even when they’re supposed to be history teachers or biology teachers.
By itself, this is not so offensive (even though it means losing 10 to 20 minutes per class), but then the teachers start punishing students who refuse to take part in prayer and stuff life that. When you give these people a finger, they want your whole hand. So it’s better to give them the finger, in a different way.
Mike Gold
August 2, 2012 - 7:26 am
Western society is pretty damn theocratic. We’ve got us plenty of blue laws up here, and on Christmas day the whole nation’s closed up tighter than a nun’s ass.
(Can you tell I just read Chaykin’s Black Kiss II?)
But you do raise an interesting point, Rene, as if that’s something new. I stay at a lot of hotels over the course of an average year. I should leave copies of the Koran AND Dianetics next to their King James. See how fast somebody calls DHS on me.
And maybe leave behind some nicely arranged chicken bones.
Giving ’em the finger is a nice peaceful start, but don’t be surprised if you’re asked to bend that finger into your fist.
Pennie
August 2, 2012 - 12:29 pm
So liking the chicken bones approach Mike. Gri-Gris gumbo ya-ya rises in hotel rooms across the country. Can’t you see Hucksterabee and Limberger ranting? PPV stuff.
R. Maheras
August 3, 2012 - 2:26 am
Rene — Let me get this straight. You’re equating President Roosevelt’s decision to insert an endorsement letter in pocket Bibles being distributed to some of his troops — many who were going off to war to fight, and die, to save millions from facism, murder and enslavement — with those who decided around 1620 that it was OK to own slaves?
The mind reels.
Anti-slavery Chistians were fighting against pro-slavery Christians from the very beginning, which is why the climate was such immediately following the Revolutionary War that the Northern States were able to abolish slavery almost as soon as hostilities ended.
Which is why your inference that all religious people in this country once thought it was “perfectly acceptable” to own other human beings is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of mostly Christian Union soldiers during the Civil War who, like their WW II counterparts, also fought, and died, to eliminate the evils of human enslavement.
The way I see it, religion, aethiesm or ANY philosophy can be perverted and/or exploited by people who don’t practice what they preach.
Rene
August 4, 2012 - 10:34 am
Russ –
How typical of a Conservative that doesn’t even has the gumption to call himself a Conservative, to willfully misunderstand my point.
I never said religion had anything to do with slavery, and it’s only your eagerness to paint anything a Liberal says in the worst possible colors that may explain why you thought so.
I merely said that many things that were “perfectly acceptable” in the past are not acceptable today, not that religion and slavery were linked. Things move on. So defending something just because it was perfectly acceptable in the past is, in my opinion, totally senseless.
You always try to paint yourself as the centrist, the non-partisan, while ALWAYS defending Republican positions and claiming Liberals are the ones that are intolerant.
You think there is a problem with any Democrat that will never vote Republican? But how can they, really? The Republicans have made it crystal clear that anyone not aligned with the Christian Right, and anyone that doesn’t think Ayn Rand is a saint, is not welcome at their side. They make their candidates do pledges and stuff, for God’s sake. And we’re the ones that are radical?
Tell me something, Russ. I am guy that has ALWAYS been opposed to organized religion. And in the last few years, I have been a proponent of European style mixed-economics, or social-democracy economics. How could I sympathize with the Republicans?
I am a commited secular humanist and proponent of the welfare state. The Republicans made it clear that they don’t want ANYTHING to do with people like me. While I recognize that some Republican politicians, like Romney, are not radicals, they are hostage to radicals.
So no, I don’t see why anyone not already a believer in their dogmas can possibly vote Republican nowadays.
R. Maheras
August 7, 2012 - 10:56 am
You can call me a conservative all day long, but that still won’t make it so.
I may be conservative compared to you, but if you’re a secular humanist who thinks a welfare state is desirable, or even possible, then about 95 percent of the population is conservative compared to you.
Over the years, I’ve had no problem splitting my ticket, voting for both Republicans and Democrats in the same election. That’s because I don’t automatically demonize either party.
I think the big difference between you and I when it comes to viewing Republicans is I view them realistically — just like I view Democrats. You, on the other hand, have apparently convinced yourself that all Republicans are evil and are all cut from the same cloth — which is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard of. There are honest and ethical Republicans in all classes, from rich to poor, just like there are honest and ethical Democrats in all classes, rich to poor.
Rene
August 12, 2012 - 1:08 pm
If I believed all Republicans were cut from the same cloth, I wouldn’t be saying Romney is a moderate, would I?
And I don’t remember using the word “evil” to refer to them. Not even to the more fanatical among the Tea Party. Evil is a word I reserve only to sadists who willfully cause harm to others.
I can be passionate about opposing some things, such as religion intruding on everyday life, without thinking their proponents are evil.
Even hardcore free market capitalism, I wouldn’t call evil. Selfish and heartless, perhaps. Not evil. It borders on evil territory when it becomes insincere, as it happens frequently when people opposed to the government helping other people suddenly plead for the government to help THEM when things get rough (economic bailout, anyone?)