The “Calah Alexander” debate is not the only incident of swearing being an issue in the blogosphere this week, and I suspect that’s why Patrick Madrid, in his initial Twitter and Facebook posts, spoke in general terms. The week’s other story doesn’t involve “Catholics” officially–I’m not sure what the offender’s religious denomination was–but “conservatives.” A popular conservative blog called “Chicks on the Right” almost had its Facebook page shut down for allegedly violating Facebook’s terms of service in using the “a” word about a Cabinet official.
Now, it is absolutely true that Facebook seems to have a double standard. There are tons of Facebook pages and groups with names like “$@#% Jesus Christ” and “Kill all Christians,” and “Conservatives %@#%,”etc. When these groups are reported for violating Facebook’s TOS regarding hate speech, threatening others, offensive language, etc., nothing happens but if someone “reports” a user for Christian and or conservative comments that seemingly violate the TOS, even in a relatively minor way, Facebook acts.
On the other hand, whenever I see a claim that Facebook has unfairly censored a conservative page or group, it’s almost always fairly racist, or violent, or laden with profanity.
If conservatives are about calling society to a higher standard, shouldn’t we demonstrate a higher standard?
If Facebook is known for unfairly targeting conservative sites, shouldn’t that make it imperative for conservative sites to be beyond reproach? “You let them get away with it so why not me?” is never a good defense. As a parent and as a teacher, I know how that “defense” only serves to incite the wrath of the authority figure being challenged.
As it turned out, Facebook lifted the disciplinary measures and apologized, but come on! Do people *really* need to make their points by swearing?
I referred in my previous post to a guy who said that Michael Voris’s demagoguery is more offensive than Calah Alexander’s swearing. Alexander herself said that my “scorched earth” approach to dissecting (in her words, “misconstruing”) her arguments was unloving and off-putting> Why is that?
Why is it in our society that you can use profanity in an ideological argument, and that’s OK, but if you actually lay out the points in favor of your position, or against your opponent’s position, that is somehow offensive and uncharitable? Is Aristotle offensive and uncharitable? Is Thomas Aquinas offensive and uncharitable?
What an upside down world we live in where swearing is acceptable and breaking an argument down to its first principles is considered uncharitable.