Charlie's Blog: SOC 22


SOC 22

We suffer more often in imagination than in reality.

I have been contemplating the idea of having comments on my blog again. Then, I do a little social media, and the impulse vanishes. The reason I miss comments is because I like commenting on other blogs. I also like responding to things on Twitter. Then, you see something like this:

I used to follow Father Martin because he always posted something worth a response usually in correction. Now, I realize that he never read those responses. That's OK because I am sure others did, and we all know we are playing to the audience on social media. But I don't follow Martin now or any other modernist heretics or progressive Marxist types. I put myself in a conservative echo chamber, and I like it there.

I spent close to a decade allowing comments on my blog, and I literally censored nothing except obvious spam. Then, I converted to Catholicism which brought a lot of hatred, but I didn't care just as I don't care now. But the comments section on the C-blog ended when people began attacking a guy who is forgotten now, Ev Bogue. I don't even know if Bogue is even alive now. But when he disappeared from the internet after screwing over some people, my one blog post about the guy became the internet forum for bashing on him. I didn't care and figured the guy deserved it. But then, some trolls starting posting telephone numbers and home addresses of his family members. That was more than I could stomach. I jettisoned my libertarianism and shut down comments entirely. Things have remained that way since.

This tactic Bogue's enemies used is called "doxxing." It is probably illegal or should be. Either way, I find it immoral and repugnant especially when the people getting doxxed are merely family members guilty of nothing except being related to the guy. For me, it showed me the danger of an unregulated forum which is what my comments section was here. Whatever gets published here is my doing now, so I have control over that. But I don't have the time or resources to monitor comments 24/7 or even once a day.

The issue of comboxes also brings up the issue of censorship. Right now, sites like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and Google are all accused of censoring content that doesn't gibe with their standards and policies. Of course, much of the censored content is right wing. What is the deal? The reality is that these sites are run by worker ants who respond to reports and alerts all day long from people who take offense at the slightest provocation. To be on the safe side, they just delete anything and everything which means that your content is at the mercy of any triggered left wing Marxist. These pinko trolls are now empowered to shut down the internet.

When a conservative sees something he doesn't like on the internet, he simply blocks that content. This is what I do. I don't spend time trying to shut it down. It's a free country, and I think people should have the right to express themselves as long as it doesn't venture into the illegal like threatening people or posting porn illegally produced. On the other hand, when a progressive sees something he doesn't like, he moves to suppress it. This is because the left wing does not believe in the First Amendment or free expression.

Social media sites are privately run enterprises, so they are not obligated to be free speech zones. The First Amendment is a restraint on government censorship and not private censorship. As such, YouTube is within its right to delete any and all content it does not like. That is something that conservatives need to reckon with. If you want to have a free press, you're going to have to buy yourself a press.

All of this discussion of censorship and comboxes and social media begs a certain question. Is debating worth it? Once upon a time, I spent a great deal of time online and in the real world debating people about politics and religion. Now, I am middle aged which is a nice way of saying that I am getting too old for this crap. I resemble Archie Bunker a little more each day.

All in the Family was a great show but not for the reasons intended. The show was produced by Norman Lear, and the actors were all liberal including Carroll O'Connor. O'Connor played the Archie Bunker role to the hilt doing his best to make him the most unlikable guy on TV. Instead, he made Archie a hero to many blue collar Americans like my dad. Meathead played by Rob Reiner was given all the intelligent dialogue while Archie was made to look like a total neanderthal. The shows always left with the leftist conclusion that Meathead was always right in his progressivism while Archie was always wrong. The reality was that all of the propaganda could not erase the fundamental conclusion you felt in your gut that Archie was right.

Archie Bunker could be a real dolt especially on issues of race. But he was a fundamentally decent guy who worked to put a roof over the heads of a family that was always contradicting him. Remember, Meathead was a lazy loafer who ended up busting up with Archie's daughter. Meathead was a loser. And for all his sophisticated views, he really was a meathead.

Archie should have put Meathead in the street. Having to work for a living is an enlightening experience for guys like that. That is a fundamental truth about leftists. They never build anything or accomplish anything. They let others do all that heavy work. They just come along later to corrupt it all. You see this in government and also in the Roman Catholic Church. Conservatives are the builders and preservers. Progressives are the destroyers.

Debating with progressive types never leads anywhere. If you can watch people starving to death in Venezuela and still think Marxism is the answer, what can I say to you that will make you think otherwise? The thing with debate is that it assumes that these differences are merely the result of lack of information or faulty logic. But we know better. I have yet to meet a progressive who ever let the facts or the truth get in their way. These people are willfully blind and ignorant.

I am not a debater. I am a preacher. What is the difference? Debaters listen or pretend to listen. I don't listen to these people. I have never given serious consideration to their views in much the same way that I have never given serious consideration to flat earth theories. Progressives are fundamentally Marxist, and Marxism is a failure by any empirical standard you care to use.

As a preacher, I simply broadcast the message. You can take it or leave it. That's it. Not everyone is going to agree or embrace what I preach about. That is fine. The message isn't for you. The message is for those with ears to hear. I don't care to waste my time on people not inclined to hear.

There are three paths you can take. You can argue and debate with fools. This doesn't get anywhere. You can give up and be silent, viz. the quietism of Rod Dreher and his Benedict Option. Or, you can preach. Preaching yields three responses. The first and most immediate response is hatred and persecution. The second is that people ignore you. The third is that people stop and listen and embrace the message. Those are the only people that matter.