Dear Mr Mark Zuckerberg,

I read with interest your appeal to people not to deface the ‘black lives matter’ logo. Really interesting dilemma you face. I must be honest and upfront with you; I don’t feel sorry for you in dealing with pernicious insubordination. That is what happens when you let the #SJWs run the agenda in the work place, but this is a real interesting leadership challenge.

How do you lead when you are wrong?

I only want to address the issue a bit more philosophically because I am curious about your thinking. I can’t comprehend how a smart guy got sucked into this vortex of stupidity.

If I try and look for a single word to describe what lies at the heart of all the ‘social justice’ causes I conclude that it is the idea of tolerance. Would that be a fair conclusion? We should tolerate people who are different. We should tolerate different races and genders for instance.

‘Black lives matter’ is about fairness and justice and equality, it is about tolerating the differences. It is about not being selfish and recognising the injustices of the past and making some room in society for these injustices to be corrected.

Tolerance is supposed make society work better. I think that is a fair conclusion and I would agree that it would be a positive advance if we could be more tolerant. But here is the conundrum I want to pose to you.

Why are you and your kind so intolerant? (Especially since you claim tolerance is so important?)

Your employees are writing ‘all lives matter’ instead of the ‘black lives matter’ and you are upset and consider that malicious. Surely ‘all lives matter’ is more tolerant and more inclusive than ‘black lives matter’? Isn’t it true that when the differences (black lives only) are highlighted, we sow division rather than unity?

You want to support ‘black lives matter’ but you are caught in a bind: on what basis do you want to say that black lives matter?

They do. I agree with that. But the basis of me saying so is rooted in an absolute truth: Imago Dei.

On what do you base your argument? I found this, and assume it is true, so let me quote you:

“There are specific issues affecting the black community in the United States, coming from a history of oppression and racism. ‘Black lives matter’ doesn’t mean other lives don’t — it’s simply asking that the black community also achieves the justice they deserve,” Mark added. “We’ve never had rules around what people can write on our walls. We expect everybody to treat each other with respect.”

So your argument is one from tolerance – everybody to treat each other with respect. But yet you don’t tolerate it when someone makes an equally truthful claim that all lives matter?

You see what I am getting at here is that your argument self-defeats because you base your reason on specific, isolated personal truth. Black people believe black lives matter. White people believe white lives matter. Many black and white people believe all lives matter. Everybody believes something from their personal historical perspective.

Except the religious folk – Christians for instance – who base their perspective on an objective truth. We believe that life matters, all lives black or white, disabled or not, viable or not. Life is sacrosanct. On that basis, we should treat black people for instance with dignity and respect. It is not based on a personal belief or a personal historical perspective or a psycho-social bias. It is based on an eternal truth.

Your view is not, that is why you are faced with this conundrum. I have no way of knowing this for sure, but based on what I read, I am gathering you are Pro-Choice. It rings true because you strike me as saying all the typical things that fit a post-modern, naturalist with a humanistic view of the world.

Now we have a real hairy conundrum for someone with your intellectual stature to be saddled with an argument that goes something like this:

All lives matter, but black lives matter in a different, special way and the life of the unborn matters not at all. And most importantly, you won’t tolerate those intolerant bastards who disagree with you.

You are not alone. Most people who share your view of the world end with similar illogical, self-defeating arguments as the basis for making decisions. But I am sure you think you are right. We all do, so I am not going to get all sermon-y on you, because this is not about religion and philosophy, it is about leadership.

You as a leader want to get the whole organisation behind your cause.

But your cause is divisive and requires you to be intolerant of opposing views.

Now you can’t argue that the opposing view is wrong, because your own view is based on a subjective perspective and not an objective, universally accepted truth.

I really want to know how you are going to get out of this one?