Facebook Suspends Feminists for “Men are Scum” Posts, Drama Ensues

by Chris Black

If you’re not up to date with the politically correct lingo, you should know that the concept of protected classes was created by leftists and it’s pretty much similar with the notion of identity politics. Basically, a protected class, whether we’re talking about minorities (blacks, Hispanics, “people of color”) or women/transgenders/gays/lesbians/whatever sexual so-called oppressed minority by the “patriarchy” (it all relates to Marx’s class war with a twist, now it’s a gender/sex/ethnicity war but the scope is the same, divide and conquer) has immunity/protection from  “hate crime laws” which are destroying conservative movements on the Internet (Facebook, YouTube are cracking down on conservative users/groups/channels like there’s no tomorrow).
 
Now we just got word that world’s first and most famous “protected group”, i.e. feminists,  got shafted by Facebook. It seems like Mark the Zucc decided to take away the “hate speech” protection from feminists as they’re not shielded anymore from derisive comments targeted at their archenemy: men. Today’s story is about a group of “feminist” (in reality man-haters) comedians that got suspended (read Zucced) from Facebook for posting brilliant arguments on their social media accounts, the likes of “men are scum” and similar new-age feminist palaver.
 
One of Mark Zuckerberg’s victims is a comedienne named Marcia Belsky, who low and behold, got a thirty day suspension after replying to a Facebook post with the “men are scum” pearl of wisdom. Another woman-comedienne received 7 days of Facebook jail for the same crime-think,   Alison Klemp respectively. And finally, as reported by the Daily Beast, a Chicago based feminist who thinks she’s funny said she has been banned by the Zucc almost 10 times and she’s currently serving a thirty day suspension in Facebook limbo. Here’s from the Daily Beast piece:
 
“Women have posted things as bland as ‘men ain’t shit,’ ‘all men are ugly,’ and even ‘all men are allegedly ugly’ and had their posts removed. They’ve been locked out of their accounts for suggesting that, since ‘all men are ugly,’ country music star Blake Shelton ‘winning the sexiest man isn’t a triumph. In late November, after the [censorship] issue was raised in a private Facebook group of nearly 500 female comedians, women pledged to post some variation of ‘men are scum’ to Facebook on Nov. 24 in order to stage a protest. Nearly every women [sic] who carried out the pledge was banned.”
 
If you ask me, this looks like an organized effort by feminists (feminazis actually) to get banned and then play the pathetic victim-hood card, and I can definitely see a lot of cats in their future, but let that go. Obviously, the feminists complained about Facebook’s alleged double standard following the crackdown, claiming that they were only responding to people (men scum presumably) attacking them with foul language, and guess what: the “attackers” were not suspended, and that’s the power of patriarchy, or something along these lines. The feminists’ lament was heard and amplified by the New York Mag:
 
“Training documents for Facebook’s moderation team, leaked in mid-2017, show the mind-bending logic of Facebook’s moderation policies. Facebook’s ‘protected categories’ are sex, race, religious affiliation, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, and serious disability or disease. But there are ‘unprotected categories,’ which include things like social class, occupation, continental origin, political ideology, appearance, religion, age, or country. Facebook instructed moderators to ignore comments about ‘subsets’ of users in unprotected categories. This means derogatory comments about “white men” aren’t allowed on the service (as both race and gender are protected), while derogatory comments about “women drivers” and “black children” are (because occupation and age are unprotected).”
 
If you ask me, this is the left devouring its own, the revolution eating its children, or whatever you want to call it. The logic behind Facebook’s banning of angry feminazis is due to the left’s overall lack of logic and common sense. After all, it was the authoritarian left who imposed the idiotic term of “hate speech” on social media, and that’s now reflected in Facebook’s moderation policies. To make a long story short, this is commie-karma in action, just like it already happened with men now claiming woman status, thus becoming transgender and beating the crap out of women in sporting events, thus taking away athletic opportunities from real women.
 

We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Views:

10 thoughts on “Facebook Suspends Feminists for “Men are Scum” Posts, Drama Ensues”

  1. As long as they are within the First Amendment ………
    FACEBOOK, TWITTER, YOUTUBE, REDDIT, GOOGLE are PLACES OF PUBLIC GATHERING, “SOCIAL Media”, and ADVERTISE themselves as PUBLIC places.. They are also PUBLICLY TRADED CORPORATIONS, unlike the PRIVATELY owned and operated “Mom&Pop” Bakery and Party Planner SUED by homosexuals.
    FACEBOOK is a PUBLIC SPACE therefore it has no right or legal option to censor participants. FACEBOOK is a PUBLICLY TRADED company, NOT a “private entity” and it solicits PUBLIC memberships.
    Just as the “courts” say cake bakers HAVE to bake homosexual cakes, and wedding planners HAVE to “accept” homosexual weddings, ZUCKERberg has to accept opinions, videos, and pictures he does not like. These Social Media/Meeting Places must accept anything which is Permissible under the First Amendment.
    DO they say all Halal and Kosher meat butchers should be forced to process PORK?! Same religious convictions!!!
    A lowly COUNTY CLERK was jailed for refusing to “do her duty” by not issuing homosexuals marriage licenses The Baker, Planner, and Clerk SHOULD have just said: “You homosexuals VIOLATE OUR COMMUNITY GUIDELINES” !!! They advertise themselves as “Social Media & Public Spaces” so everything that is covered under the First Amendment can be posted there. A Party Planner and a Baker were successfully sued for refusing service to homosexuals ….. these “Social Media” can & should also be sued for violating People’s 1st Amendment RIGHTS to speak freely in PUBLIC SPACES.
    Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc. engaging in politically motivated censorship is like your meter reader shutting off your electricity because you have a Trump sign on your lawn. These social media have become like public utilities and therefore have no right to engage in political censorship. It is way past time to impose common carrier status on social media. Just like the phone company cannot censor your conversations there, social media should not be allowed to interfere with content there. Social media is the modern day phone company.

    Reply
  2. ZUCKerberg wants to censor who uses FACEBOOK —- but says WE CANNOT censor who comes into Our house?!
    Take the locks off his doors.
    Take those WALLS down from around ZUCKerberg’s houses.
    NEVER allow him to file a “breaking & entering” complaint because ZUCKerberg wants anyone to be able to “break & enter” America.
    By the way …..ZUCK thinks he can just “share” our house/Nation …..
    he never served in uniform so he should “share” all his money with those who were wounded saving HIS FREEDOM and PROPERTY.
    Since ZUCK does not recognize Our property rights to Our country then he has no property rights to “his” money.

    Reply
  3. Fumblebook has opened up a pandora’s box in trying to police all the world. It can’t be done and proves categorically that they are not a neutral utility service by continually interfering in their users commentary, etc.Their underlying business model will mean that they will go up their own orifice. Also large advertisers could be about to grow some balls and dump social media ads as they don’t work. The loss of revenue will be the real killer.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Zaphod Braden Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.