Would you rather argue about sex or war?

Social media was founded on the former

Would you rather argue about sex or war? Social media was founded on the former but we need it for the latter. Originally facebook was a hot-or-not clone, but it had this loophole, like playboy, in that you could read it 'for the articles' -- well today, there are no articles about Canadian news, and all the loud private voices that wouldn't shut up about your privates and private matters have nothing to say about public wars of massive death, or recent campaigns of disinformation and coercion. Why not? Because these latter actions take courage and the former faux-rebellions were ultimately rooted in fear. Where is your angst now when you could be shaming real men with real blood on their hands, feeble minions of the memepocalypse? Where is your agency you fought for when we need it in the peace movement? Your silence is someone's death. Stop playing monkey-hot-or-not and start talking.

[1] But they aren't real hands...

PS Earlier this week I remarked to a friend: "all these avid arguers when it comes to sexual identity are surprising silent when the topic isn't sexual in any way

it's ultimately masturbatory

like I was just saying where are all the loud feminists when we need anti-war voices... well those people are silent today, the people who used to be leaping on everyone, in my experience

not as fun a topic

but the bad faith is on a purely subconscious level often -- no one usually has a theory of why they find some debates engaging and others not, but I'm an equal-opportunity logician and I really notice what I can get people to argue about and what I can't -- eg compare debating polyamory vs debating polytheism

check out my substack I think it will be way healthier than facebook or twitter going forward: adamgolding.substack.com

”