In Facebook's help center data, the blue site always tells you that your account is subject to being banned if one of the many prohibitions applies to it;
Such as using a false name, or communicating with others annoying communication, or sending a large number of friendship requests in a short time, to the end of the list that can be understood and dealt with;
Until you find one of those caveats, it stands before you with three vague words that you cannot decipher: Violating community norms.
What criteria?
You will of course be asked, so Facebook answers us that it does not allow content that promotes nudity and sexual suggestion, or speeches that encourage violence, so here the words seem somewhat clear, but when you move to the next criterion, you will find "Facebook" warning you about hate speech or Attacking a person or group in some way [1], to open in front of you a wide circle of interpretation: What is hate speech?
What are its limits?
What is its evaluation standard?
Then you will remember the number of times you put a star, police, symbol or letter in English in place of the original Arabic letter to escape Facebook censorship and its strict and limitless standards, words like “homosexuality,” “atheism,” “transgender,” “Zionism.” And others, capable of suddenly banning you from the Facebook community for violating the standards, and if the violation is repeated more than once, the blue site may expel you from its paradise forever.
If we look more broadly, we will discover that Facebook is not unique to these standards. Cinema, television, and global media platforms have included these same rules before, and the global postmodern discourse - in general - has assumed the task of educating society according to its new standards. All individuals Free regardless of their success, and all orientations deserve to exist as long as there are those who adopt them, and this is the new correctness that everyone must adhere to.
So let us ask: What is this goodness that governs our worlds today?
Is its discourse based on ethical considerations from which to base the standards of new societies?
Or is it an immoral ethics that emerges from its own vocabulary that is essentially separate from the traditional motives for ethics that we have always known?
In an unsurprising update, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences - the award-winning Oscar winner - announced a set of conditions that must be met in any film to be nominated for the award [2], and among the conditions was that the film contains at least one major role that represents an ethnic group that does not enjoy With adequate representation, or that the film includes at least 30% of the secondary roles of two groups that are not adequately represented, or that the main story of the film is about one of those groups.
These groups contain everything that differs from the stereotype of regular prize winners.
People of color, people with special needs, women, gays, etc. are all minorities that must be included in the film and be included in the band of Oscar contenders.
And even further than that;
This diversity must extend to those behind the cameras as well, so the staff should not belong to one race, or one color, or even one sexual orientation.
This update was not really surprising. Half a century ago, in 1968, the United Artists Company identified 11 animated films that were released between the thirties and forties of the twentieth century by Warner Bros, including one from the famous cartoon series. Looney Tunes "(Looney Tunes) was banned from showing it or issuing new copies of it on the grounds that it is not suitable for display, and it contains a stereotype of ethnic minorities and people of color [3], or in simpler words: because it violates the criteria of political correctness.
(From the "Looney Tunes" cartoon series that was banned for violating the standards of political correctness)
And between this and that there is a history of advocating this correctness in various media outlets and political speeches, and there is even a history of its own, graded through it until it reached its current definition.
It is - according to the British Encyclopedia of Knowledge - a singular indicating the use of fluffy language in speech, which conceals the greatest possible amount of insult and prejudice, especially when describing groups of people based on factors outside their control such as race, gender, culture of origin, or sexual orientation (4) ].
But the term began in 1917, coinciding with the Bolshevik Revolution;
At the time, he was referring to adherence to the principles of the Russian Revolution and the policies of the Soviet Communist Party, but it began to develop at the end of the seventies and the beginning of the eighties by liberal politicians, to refer later to some hard-line issues on the left.
Later, the term was structured in the early nineties by American conservatives to question and oppose the curricula in universities with a liberal and leftist orientation in the United States, after which the star of the term diminished over the past two decades, before Trump's assumption of the presidency of the White House awakened him, with the mounting fear of exclusion Minorities [5].
And between supporters and opponents, comments emerge about political correctness and its impact on global trends. With their calls for rejecting racism and discrimination against ethnic minorities, they narrow - at the same time - every space to criticize the abnormal sexual and intellectual orientations that were - a while ago - criminal. Under Western laws or booed and ridiculed in artwork.
Take, for example, the famous American series "Friends", shown in the period from 1994-2004, which was recently met with a violent attack by young millennials - such as "Woke" - when it was shown on the "Netflix" platform recently, for being It contradicts the newly developed principles of political correctness. The work was accused of being masculine and racist, and that it promoted homophobia, hostility and ridicule of it [6].
As a result, many have come to see political correctness as a real restriction of freedom of expression, debate and important debates on issues affecting the whole of society.
Phrased words like "perversion" are enough to erase your existence from a social platform that claims to be made for community outreach and puts you in the sick as a homophobic.
Whatever the content of your criticism or your comment, it will not be taken into consideration as long as your expressions are outside the sacred political correctness legislation!
The defenders of political correctness are also accused of "creating a language that is more hostile than the language they are trying to criticize" [7]. According to the opponents, correctness is not different from any types of oppression and terror for each opponent;
Even the man’s initiative to help a woman carry a heavy bag has become a form of petty persecution [8];
Being in it bears a kind of discrimination against the other.
This escalation of extremism in the rightwing discourse is reflected in a survey issued in 2018, and found that 4 out of 5 Americans believe that political correctness has gone too far, and because of it, criticizing the individual in the language of others and being harmed by it in any way has become an annoying and unacceptable matter [9], which is what It prompts us to question the transformation of these artificial ethics, in which the righteous claims have arisen that are sweeping the world today.
The truth is that these new morals of today's world do not depend on any real moral reference, but rather center around individualism and support the acceptance of everything as long as it achieves happiness for its companions and matches their whims, and in return raises weapons in the face of every rejector or critic who does not praise it.
From where did these morals begin, and how did they reach this stage in which they overwhelmed all references?
In his novel "The Brothers Karamazov", "Dostoyevsky" quotes his famous phrase from "Ivan" - one of the protagonists of the novel - saying: "If God does not exist then everything is permitted."
This is the axiom on which the philosophy of morality was built in the ancient times and still persists to this day.
So long as there is a sacred, there are sacred standards, and when this sacredness disappears, the sanctity of these standards ends.
But in his book The Decline of Duty, the French philosopher Gil Lebovetsky tells us that this postulate has been frequently circumvented since the inception of the modern nation-state and the exclusion of religion from the public sphere. By the beginning of the seventeenth century AD, morals had already been liberated from religious beliefs, and the concept of duty had replaced them. That duty was not synonymous with the divine obligation that the one who does it will be rewarded and punished as in the Middle Ages, but the obligation that makes man himself the ultimate goal, and makes his rights the absolute value and nothing above it. In the second half of the eighteenth century, "Jean-Jacques Rousseau" - through his book "The Social Contract" - announced the birth of the modern civil religion. Loyalty, integrity and sincerity remained great matters as was the case in religious times, but they became so for another, different purpose: building an orderly and peaceful political system [10].
Nevertheless, the moral rules in this era were not built on the basis of the absolute reason alone, but the resonance of Christian morals and legislations remained tangible in many modern laws, but the central difference was in the disposal of these new morals - or duty - of any religious and eschatological obligations. At that time, legislative obligations were transferred from the religious sphere to the realm of individual and collective duties. What was a religious sin became disease and ugliness [11], and this is the first stage of secularization that Christian ethics went through [12].
At this stage, as "Lebovtsky" says, the West has higher than the value of democracy and the individual freedoms it contains, so that any attempt to impose moral restrictions - in the religious sense - on society has become met with severe disapproval [13]. What this means is that modernity came to place morals in a higher level than religion [14], and that was the first step in separating morality from its absolute source and replacing it in favor of another absolute, deifying the public interest instead of the Creator and expressing morality with duty and community benefit. However, because what most characterizes the Western case is the ceaseless running, morality quickly moved to its second stage of secularization. The stage of delegitimizing the idea of the moral obligation itself, so there are no longer standards for right and wrong except for the individual's vision and his will, and thus every desirable becomes permissible in some way.
In differentiating the two phases, "Lebovtsky" tells us that the stage of modernity - or the stage of the first secularization of morals - was dominated by the collective and organizational spirit, while the second stage - the stage of postmodernism - centered around the individual only, so his pursuit of personal happiness overwhelmed all values, which is what The French philosopher attributed it to two main reasons: the first is excessive rationality devoid of any religious restriction, while the second is the insatiable consumerism that raises the value of individual happiness at the expense of moral orders.
When the concern of the first human being becomes his own happiness, and he sees that things achieve this happiness for him instead of people, he will not hesitate to obtain the largest possible amount of this happiness without regard for any moral obligation towards others, and this is what is called "Lebovetsky", the post-creation stage. . He refers to his choice of the term "post-synthesis" - not "post-morality" - in order to reflect the state of chaos that the reader senses from the word "synthesis". This stage does not change the references while preserving the values as the previous ones, but rather destroys these values from the original and the "individual" places one value. Creation is like decoration, there is no morality, but Zina deludes us that there is a reference, but the truth is that passion and desire are everything.
"This transformation" penetrates indiscriminately all the circles that have some relationship to permissible, forbidden, good and evil ... Let us move within a few decades from the civilization of duty to the culture of self-happiness, leisure activities and sex: the culture of self-love is the one that governs us instead of the old system of repression and the guiding control of habits. [15th].
(Gil Lebovetsky)
According to this vision, the body has become a special right for every human being, with which he does whatever he wants: inclines to his likeness in sex, changes his sexual identity, alters his sexuality completely ... Everything is permissible as long as he achieves his happiness, and everyone must respect this happiness because this is the new creation, This is what matters. As for morals, duty has buried it before this, and we are now burying duty itself in front of self.
It is an era of victory for self-action, so it is not surprising that the situation of transgender people and homosexuals - from sinful or outcasts - has changed into a part of the fabric of society that supports their rights!
For example, the ethics of religion forbade voluntary mutilation of human organs from a clear and understandable premise of devotional commitment to God.
The same is found in the ethics of duty, but from another standpoint:
It is the non-offense of human humanity, and it is the principle for which transgender operations were prohibited - by law - in many European countries until the last century.
But in the post-synthesis era, the "ego" is above all else, so sexual transformation has not remained an act of satanism, but rather has become a wonderful human progress.
It is the era of victory to act in oneself, so it is not surprising that the situation of transgender people and homosexuals - from sinful or outcasts - has changed into a part of the fabric of society whose moral rights support - or creation - and everyone must accept and be satisfied with what they are, and even call for it as long as it is achieved. One is happy and fulfills one's own desires.
Western morals have been stripped of their context twice.
Once when it was stripped of its religious cover, it replaced its absolute authority with another reference - whatever the society agreed upon - that everyone is entitled to criticize, and again when morals were stripped of the cover of reason to replace it with the cover of passion and pleasure without any relation to any social duty.
In a context like this, we can understand the new rules that political correctness imposes on the world today, demands that everyone accept them, and even terrorizes anyone who tries to recover any absolute cover for morality.
To stand baffled - prohibited - in front of the "Facebook" message that tells you that you violate the standards of society, asking in a calmness that is not without contemplation: What standards ?!
___________________________________________________________
Sources:
Facebook standards.
? Is Political Correctness Destroying the Oscars
Hamdi has sacrificed. This is how "political correctness" changed the paths of cinema and television.
Political correctness.
Previous source.
Friends and the Hollywood Awakening, the Trap of Political Correctness.
Abdel Rahman Arafa, what is political correctness?
Things are no longer courteous to say.
Muhammad Osama, a battle of say and don't say: What is "political correctness"?
https://hiddentribes.us/
The Lebovetsky Generation, The Decline of Duty ... The Painless Ethics of New Democratic Times.
Previous source.
Gift of God Mahmoud, presentation of the book The Decline of duty.
The Lebovetsky Generation, The Decline of Duty ... The Painless Ethics of New Democratic Times.
Abd al-Samad al-Khazrouni, Ethical Awakening between the Decline of Duty and the Duty Renewal.
The Lebovetsky Generation, The Decline of Duty ... The Painless Ethics of New Democratic Times.