Facebook’s Community Standards

Facebook firstly told me (see image) that

“[i]t looks like something you posted doesn’t follow our Community Standards”.

They aren’t “community” standards at all because the users of Facebook don’t formulate them. Facebook itself does. (This is Facebook’s Community Standards page.)

And then Facebook stated its position this way:

“We remove posts that attack people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability.”

One can argue that one’s race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, and disability are things one simply can’t do anything about. However, that’s certainly not true of one’s “religious affiliations.” As adults, we choose (or should choose) our religious affiliations; just as we choose our politics. And that’s why — I presume — the category political affiliations isn’t included on Facebook’s list. Despite saying that, Facebook’s clause against “attacking religious affiliations” is something that most newspapers and other institutions (in the US and UK) uphold, especially if those religious affiliations are Islamic.

The other thing is that it’s simply not true that Facebook removes all the posts which “attack people based” because of their “race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability.” If they did, then huge numbers of posts would be “removed”. Indeed — depending on how words like “attack”, etc. are defined/interpreted — such a strict policy would probably put an end to political discussion on social media. This means that Facebook is in practice extremely choosy about which posts it removes and which people it bans.

For example:

i) Facebook won’t remove posts which are critical of Americans.

ii) It won’t remove posts which are critical of whites.

iii) It won’t remove posts which are critical of heterosexuality or what’s called “patriarchy”.

iv) It will rarely (if ever) remove posts which are critical of Christianity.

Thus Islam — as almost everyone who’s familiar with Facebook knows — gains extra-special protection. And this unhealthy situation is added to by the large army of Muslims (along with their left-wing foot-soldiers) who always report the most effective criticisms of Islam to Facebook… I say “the most effective criticisms” because the mindless ones (or the ones which are genuinely racist or full of swearwords) often escape scot-free. This is because they aren’t seen as being a real political threat by Muslims and their left-wing lackeys. It’s the comments which are factual and argument-based that are more quickly and most often reported to Facebook — and for obvious reasons.

To return to Farnaz Javed and the banning.

Farnaz Javed (like many other Muslims on Facebook) doesn’t really do debate at all — at least not when it comes to Islam and her fellow Muslims. She lies and does Islamic Da‘wah instead. Indeed, sometimes her lies are so brazen and obvious that one wonders why she bothers. Actually, I know why she bothers. Taqiyya is written into Islam. So too is Da‘wah. This means that every time she lies (or sells Islam) to non-Muslims, she must believe that this will take her one step closer to Islam’s Paradise.

As for some of the left-wingers helpers of Islam on this page and others like it, they won’t mind Farnaz Javed’s lies simply because they believe that by ignoring them this will help their fight against what they see as racism/Islamophobia. And like Islamic taqiyya, left-wingers also have their own notions of “lying for Justice” and “by any means necessary.”

Anyway, what Farnaz Javed is doing is what Muslim countries have been doing since the time of Muhammed: she’s attempting to enforce sharia blasphemy law.

The Comment Itself

Now let’s look at the comment which led to the banning.

The comment (see image) doesn’t uses swear words, profanities or any gratuitous insults. It may indeed be that the post is slightly rhetorical. However, there are no lies in it. In any case, rhetoric can often be fused with fact and argument.  Except that, of course, pointing these facts out will be seen — by definition — as being “offensive”, “insulting” or an “attack” — at least to Muslims; and now, it seems, to Facebook too.

In addition, the comment never says that “all” or “every” Muslim is a terrorist; or even that every Muslim is a “supporter of terrorism.” It even acknowledges the possibility of “Christian terrorists” (such words were used by Farnaz Javed and indeed others on this page) when it says, “I am prepared to accept that there been some recent Christian terrorists”. It even states that “there are WHITE/CHRISTIAN killers.”

However, I find my own statements on Christian terrorism (in retrospect) to be conceding too much.

On one hand, left-wingers and Muslims consistently and deliberately conflate the notions of killing for Christianity and killers who just happen to be Christians. On the other hand, when Muslim terrorists kill, they kill for Islam and in the name of the Prophet.

In any case, Timothy McVeigh, for example, was a self-described “agnostic” who didn’t believe in Hell and who said that science was his religion.

As for Norway’s Anders Breivik. He described himself as an “agnostic” and only a “cultural Christian.” Not only that: he also believed in abortion, prostitution, and vampires. Indeed even Andrew Brown (a writer on religion for the left-wing Guardian newspaper) said that ‘Anders Breivik is not Christian but anti-Islam’. In addition, in a Huffington Post article (‘”Is Anders Breivik a Christian Terrorist?”) there’s a quote which says that Breivik

“classed himself as a ‘cultural Christian’ with no religious feelings or views”.

That same article then quotes Anders Breivik himself saying:

“I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a mono-cultural Christian Europe.”

It can hardly be said that a Muslim killer of Western soldiers or civilians would ever come even close to saying that he’s “not an excessively religious man“; that he’s “foremost a man of logic”; and that he’s an “agnostic” who doesn’t believe in Hell.

To get back to the comment.

The point, again, is that most of the post is factual:

i) It’s a fact that “very many Muslims [not all, obviously] are terrorists and are killing on a massive scale throughout the Muslim world and even in Europe and the US”. 

ii) It’s a fact that “Muslims have killed dozens of thousands of people in the last twenty years”.

iii) Finally, it’s a fact that many of them did so “in allegiance to Islam and the life and works of the Prophet Muhammad”.

To repeat. The death, oppression and persecution of non-Muslims in the Muslim world is a factual reality — to those who care to look! And everyone knows that we have a problem with Islamic terrorism in the West.

The “removed” comment tried to account for all that.

Conclusion

As it is, we can say that there are so many Muslims on the planet – and that Islam has lasted for so long — precisely because of actions like Farnaz Javed’s. That is, for 1,350 years Islam has disallowed literally all criticism of Islam, Muhammad, and the Koran. That is truer today than it was a hundred years ago.

One other reason for Islam’s longevity and demographics is that Islam is passed on from generation to generation within this very context of complete “submission” and universal blasphemy law.

That’s why Islam has survived and has large numbers of believers.

And this censorious and oppressive Islamic reality is what Farnaz Javed wants to bring to Facebook. The big problem is, Facebook seems very happy to enable Farnaz Javed’s Islamic mission.

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy.  He’s had articles published in The Conservative Online, New English Review, Human Events, Think-Israel, Intellectual Conservative, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), etc.  His blogs are: Paul Austin Murphy’s Philosophy and Paul Austin Murphy on Politics.

A week or so ago I was banned (again!) by Facebook for critical comments I made about Islam. I was reported by a Muslim female called Farnaz Javed. This Muslimah frequently carries out Islamic Da‘wah on a Facebook discussion page called “The Great British Political Debate.” In other words, she does very little politics; and what politics she does do is always connected to Islam in some way.

I’ve been reported — and subsequently banned — by Facebook before, either by Muslims or by their left-wing enablers. Indeed, I’ve been previously banned after debating with this very woman.  I also know other people who suspect that it was this woman who reported them to Facebook. Who knows how many other people Farnaz Javed has reported over the months.

Facebook’s Community Standards

Facebook firstly told me (see image) that

“[i]t looks like something you posted doesn’t follow our Community Standards”.

They aren’t “community” standards at all because the users of Facebook don’t formulate them. Facebook itself does. (This is Facebook’s Community Standards page.)

And then Facebook stated its position this way:

“We remove posts that attack people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability.”

One can argue that one’s race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, and disability are things one simply can’t do anything about. However, that’s certainly not true of one’s “religious affiliations.” As adults, we choose (or should choose) our religious affiliations; just as we choose our politics. And that’s why — I presume — the category political affiliations isn’t included on Facebook’s list. Despite saying that, Facebook’s clause against “attacking religious affiliations” is something that most newspapers and other institutions (in the US and UK) uphold, especially if those religious affiliations are Islamic.

The other thing is that it’s simply not true that Facebook removes all the posts which “attack people based” because of their “race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability.” If they did, then huge numbers of posts would be “removed”. Indeed — depending on how words like “attack”, etc. are defined/interpreted — such a strict policy would probably put an end to political discussion on social media. This means that Facebook is in practice extremely choosy about which posts it removes and which people it bans.

For example:

i) Facebook won’t remove posts which are critical of Americans.

ii) It won’t remove posts which are critical of whites.

iii) It won’t remove posts which are critical of heterosexuality or what’s called “patriarchy”.

iv) It will rarely (if ever) remove posts which are critical of Christianity.

Thus Islam — as almost everyone who’s familiar with Facebook knows — gains extra-special protection. And this unhealthy situation is added to by the large army of Muslims (along with their left-wing foot-soldiers) who always report the most effective criticisms of Islam to Facebook… I say “the most effective criticisms” because the mindless ones (or the ones which are genuinely racist or full of swearwords) often escape scot-free. This is because they aren’t seen as being a real political threat by Muslims and their left-wing lackeys. It’s the comments which are factual and argument-based that are more quickly and most often reported to Facebook — and for obvious reasons.

To return to Farnaz Javed and the banning.

Farnaz Javed (like many other Muslims on Facebook) doesn’t really do debate at all — at least not when it comes to Islam and her fellow Muslims. She lies and does Islamic Da‘wah instead. Indeed, sometimes her lies are so brazen and obvious that one wonders why she bothers. Actually, I know why she bothers. Taqiyya is written into Islam. So too is Da‘wah. This means that every time she lies (or sells Islam) to non-Muslims, she must believe that this will take her one step closer to Islam’s Paradise.

As for some of the left-wingers helpers of Islam on this page and others like it, they won’t mind Farnaz Javed’s lies simply because they believe that by ignoring them this will help their fight against what they see as racism/Islamophobia. And like Islamic taqiyya, left-wingers also have their own notions of “lying for Justice” and “by any means necessary.”

Anyway, what Farnaz Javed is doing is what Muslim countries have been doing since the time of Muhammed: she’s attempting to enforce sharia blasphemy law.

The Comment Itself

Now let’s look at the comment which led to the banning.

The comment (see image) doesn’t uses swear words, profanities or any gratuitous insults. It may indeed be that the post is slightly rhetorical. However, there are no lies in it. In any case, rhetoric can often be fused with fact and argument.  Except that, of course, pointing these facts out will be seen — by definition — as being “offensive”, “insulting” or an “attack” — at least to Muslims; and now, it seems, to Facebook too.

In addition, the comment never says that “all” or “every” Muslim is a terrorist; or even that every Muslim is a “supporter of terrorism.” It even acknowledges the possibility of “Christian terrorists” (such words were used by Farnaz Javed and indeed others on this page) when it says, “I am prepared to accept that there been some recent Christian terrorists”. It even states that “there are WHITE/CHRISTIAN killers.”

However, I find my own statements on Christian terrorism (in retrospect) to be conceding too much.

On one hand, left-wingers and Muslims consistently and deliberately conflate the notions of killing for Christianity and killers who just happen to be Christians. On the other hand, when Muslim terrorists kill, they kill for Islam and in the name of the Prophet.

In any case, Timothy McVeigh, for example, was a self-described “agnostic” who didn’t believe in Hell and who said that science was his religion.

As for Norway’s Anders Breivik. He described himself as an “agnostic” and only a “cultural Christian.” Not only that: he also believed in abortion, prostitution, and vampires. Indeed even Andrew Brown (a writer on religion for the left-wing Guardian newspaper) said that ‘Anders Breivik is not Christian but anti-Islam’. In addition, in a Huffington Post article (‘”Is Anders Breivik a Christian Terrorist?”) there’s a quote which says that Breivik

“classed himself as a ‘cultural Christian’ with no religious feelings or views”.

That same article then quotes Anders Breivik himself saying:

“I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a mono-cultural Christian Europe.”

It can hardly be said that a Muslim killer of Western soldiers or civilians would ever come even close to saying that he’s “not an excessively religious man“; that he’s “foremost a man of logic”; and that he’s an “agnostic” who doesn’t believe in Hell.

To get back to the comment.

The point, again, is that most of the post is factual:

i) It’s a fact that “very many Muslims [not all, obviously] are terrorists and are killing on a massive scale throughout the Muslim world and even in Europe and the US”. 

ii) It’s a fact that “Muslims have killed dozens of thousands of people in the last twenty years”.

iii) Finally, it’s a fact that many of them did so “in allegiance to Islam and the life and works of the Prophet Muhammad”.

To repeat. The death, oppression and persecution of non-Muslims in the Muslim world is a factual reality — to those who care to look! And everyone knows that we have a problem with Islamic terrorism in the West.

The “removed” comment tried to account for all that.

Conclusion

As it is, we can say that there are so many Muslims on the planet – and that Islam has lasted for so long — precisely because of actions like Farnaz Javed’s. That is, for 1,350 years Islam has disallowed literally all criticism of Islam, Muhammad, and the Koran. That is truer today than it was a hundred years ago.

One other reason for Islam’s longevity and demographics is that Islam is passed on from generation to generation within this very context of complete “submission” and universal blasphemy law.

That’s why Islam has survived and has large numbers of believers.

And this censorious and oppressive Islamic reality is what Farnaz Javed wants to bring to Facebook. The big problem is, Facebook seems very happy to enable Farnaz Javed’s Islamic mission.

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy.  He’s had articles published in The Conservative Online, New English Review, Human Events, Think-Israel, Intellectual Conservative, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), etc.  His blogs are: Paul Austin Murphy’s Philosophy and Paul Austin Murphy on Politics.



Source link

About the Author:

Leave a Reply