The Guide 42's response to my critics of the former blog post

I think it's about time that I, as the only person I know 25 and under with no Facebook page, had my say. Obviously (to those who know me) I will have a bit more to say on this subject than your average bloke, but hopefully I will remain concise and you will bear with me. I would first of all like to address Jonathan the Traitor, who, driven by guilt, feels it necessary to make apology for his recent visitation to Le Bordel de Facebook. You will notice that his predecessor in treason, who will remain unnamed except for his large nose and imminent marriage, has not yet dared to show his lego face on this thread.

Dear Jonathan,

You have presented five "acceptable uses" through which Facebook may avoid being criticized by Matt's arguments. I feel that the best way to address what you have said will be to organize my rebuttal to counter each of these in my own order (an order which, as you will notice, has been shuffled to add rhetorical force, an action which I deem not only acceptable, but appropriate given the gravity of the discussion).

1) Let us begin with "finding long lost friends." To keep this pithy, allow me to simply assert that this is a contradiction in terms. It can be argued (and indeed, I am arguing it) that any friend who becomes long-lost is either better off remaining lost, or they will not in fact become long lost. In other words, I believe that Facebook is a spawning pool (and I use this term for its connotation toward an unpleasant odor) for the breeding of "acquaintances," which are in fact a harmful social engagement to invest oneself in too thoroughly because they thrive on vagueness, distance, and many other qualities which are, in fact, the very opposite of those which true friendship finds valuable, according to Aristotle and many others. While it is possible to utilize facebook for the restoration of old friendships to their previous state, I believe that the social perceptions of facebook which render it out of the ordinary to do so in a proper manner are sufficient for the condemnation of using Facebook for this purpose.

2) I will next address your sentiment that Facebook is useful for "keeping up with what people are doing." I choose to deal with this point next because it is one that I find singularly annoying about the Facebook culture, namely, that our culture as a whole has become both increasingly snoopy and increasingly exhibitionist- all without an increase in interpersonal communication. It is not uncommon for people to know things about my friends and family members before I do, simply because they take pleasure in trolling the appropriate Facebook pages. I find this to be inherently negative prima facie, but to argue as such all that I need to do is point out how this has eliminated one of the major elements of conversation- that is, what is going on in one’s life and how that makes one feel. I detest attempting such “small talk” (we call it small talk, though it is vitally important as a framework for communication) with somebody, only to find them annoyed that I am asking so many questions, when I could just as easily read it from their Facebook page. I could go on to ramifications like the way that this further suppresses free speech, but in the interest of concise discussion, I will move to usage number three.

3) The usage to be addressed next is that of “sharing meaningful thoughts in less than 420 characters.” Yes, there is value to conciseness (as I have been futilely trying to express through my actions here) and there is a place for such literary forms as epigrams and the “posts” which are now emerging in the 21^st century. However, there is a detrimental aspect to Facebook’s character limit which you, Jon, seem to have either covered up or neglected. The character limit is a kind of censorship through social contract; certainly one does not have to constrain their writings to 420 characters. However, the increasing usage of Facebook which has settled it as an important means of promulgating literature demands that certain literary works attempting to reach certain audiences relegate themselves to the Marijuanic character limit. This is comparable to the lamentable existence of certain editorial standards in book publishers in recent centuries which eliminate certain beautiful linguistic constructions from well-promulgated modern literature. For example, it has been hundreds of years since a 500- or 1000-word sentence was published and read. For shame, because such editorial constrictions have stifled the creativity of modern authorship. The same is happening in the censorship through social contract exacerbated by the popularity of Facebook.

4) Shall I address the making of jokes? Perhaps; although I think it is easy to see that if my earlier arguments are correct, and if my holistic anti-Facebook stance has any merit, the usage of something as beautiful and Godsent as a joke, when added to Facebook, would serve to further its popularity and eventuate a worse global outcome. To post jokes on Facebook is comparable to the insertion of Bible verses in a pornographic magazine; both are the careless usage of something good to add credence and value to something that is inherently negative and should be done away with. [As for the argument concerning whether Facebook is inherently evil or merely evil through usage, a fitting response would be to pose the question as to whether a pornographic magazine (or as the aforementioned “nosy” fellow put it when he still stood on the better side of this argument, a torture chamber) are inherently evil or merely evil through usage. I would argue that if anything physical can be named by us as inherently evil, which idea both Augustine and I disagree with, then these two things may be so named. However, their existence and indirect creation by God give them inherent value, which eliminates the possibility of their being completely valueless. That being said, semantically both can still be referred to as “evil in themselves” and therefore “inherently” evil.]

5) Finally and most importantly, I will address the original sin that is “sharing photos”. As everybody knows, a photograph is a work of art, and therefore a piece of intellectual property, which it is a crime to “share.” Even if the sharer is the one who originally snapped the photograph, they are not the sole owner of said photograph, because the artwork similarly belongs to whoever posed for the photograph, an exercise in acting; whoever designed the camera, an exercise in blueprinting and engineering; whoever landscaped whatever background the picture reveals, an exercise in groundskeeping; and so on. The recipient of the “shared” photograph is equally culpable, because they are participating as an accomplice in the crime of theft of somebody else’s intellectual property. That Facebook promotes this blatant crime which rots the foundation of our society, I find to be morally reprehensible.

And now that I hope Jonathan has been sufficiently trounced and reluctantly satisfied by this rebuttal in five parts, I turn to Jocelyn, who I am afraid knows no better and has likely had a Facebook page since the company’s inception. I will not address her points in any order, nor will I indeed address them at all, for due to the gender gap between us this would likely be an exercise in futility. Instead, I will merely caution her to turn from her wicked ways and cease supporting this nefarious weapon in the hands of those who would see our culture destroyed, and its people lined up in neat little uneducated and semi-conscious rows of malleability and unthinking obedience to the rapacious pseudo-intellectuals who desire knowledge as a means to power and not for its own sake. (Matt- extremely well-put comparison of lolspeak to Newspeak. I have fostered this sentiment for quite some time myself).

I will conclude by adding that although my discussion has turned out rather lengthy when I originally intended it to be short and to the point, it unfortunately only scratches the surface of all I could say on this subject. I will end, as any good rhetorician should, with a call to action. Though probably hopeless and futile, I would be remiss if I did not urge each and every one of you readers to at least examine your actions as willful participants in the detrimental Facebook culture. While you may think that your actions are not sufficient to bring about the downfall of our beloved West, I tell you that the way you live every day and the mindset that you have are intrinsically connected to the survival or destruction of our great nation, our great cultural heritage, our great human race, and indeed all of creation. You chuckle; I do not. Perhaps you would be the sort to chuckle while the Rome burned; perhaps you will be the sort to chuckle when America burns. I have spoken at times above with my tongue in cheek, but now the gnashing of my teeth is more painful because of it, and I regret having placed it there. This business is no laughing matter.

My thanks to Matt for starting this discussion, and my great thanks to you for reading my opinion; yet the highest thanks to he who examines his life in regard to this matter as Socrates, and eventually Christ himself, bade.