Facebook caves to religious demands

A short time ago there was a Facebook group which advocated drawing Mohammed. It was part of a larger project to bring home the point that nothing so silly should be held sacred. (And, in fact, nothing at all should be held sacred.) In response, Pakistan blocked Facebook. They were apparently outraged at all the depictions of their prophet child rapist. In response to that, Facebook caved.

“In response to our protest, Facebook has tendered their apology and informed us that all the sacrilegious material has been removed from the URL,” said Najibullah Malik, secretary of Pakistan’s information technology ministry, referring to the technical term for a Web page.

Facebook assured the Pakistani government that “nothing of this sort will happen in the future,” Malik said.

You got that, you 500 million Facebookers? You can communicate with your friends, family, co-workers; you can share ideas, links, videos, pictures; you can discuss politics, religion, philosophy, science; you can do it all! You just have to do it within a narrow framework which gives undue respect to a murderous, misogynistic religion that advocates dogma and ideology.

The Gulf Coast

If the U.S. actually had a free market and if it actually followed the libertarian principles advocated by teabaggers*, then the government wouldn’t even be attempting to fix the Gulf of Mexico spill that is currently in the process of decimating marshland.

And that’s just one problem with ideology. Virtually no matter which one a person chooses, either consequences or intention will be largely ignored. Internet caricature feminism ignores intentions. Libertarianism says “Screw you!” to consequences; Egalitarianism does the same. Utilitarianism is the best at towing the line, but it still fails in many respects to what I think most people want in their ethics and morals. This consistency people seek so much tries to paint the world as black and white, and that just doesn’t work. The current crisis in the Gulf of Mexico would either be made worse or allowed to become far worse than it otherwise would if the U.S. applied an ideology to it.

*When I say teabaggers adhere to libertarian principles, I mean economic libertarian principles – and even then they aren’t that consistent (i.e., favoring publicly-funded roads). But I certainly do not mean social libertarian principles. They hate those.