Mark Zuckerberg is a sentient toilet brush (emphasis on 'sentient')
A lot of people have been critiquing a joke I made about an unpleasant billionaire. But I'd argue I've put more thought into it than they have.
Thanks to the fragmentation, algorithm choking, AI slop, and fascism that has afflicted social media, I didn’t think you could still ‘go viral’ these days.
But I was wrong, as it happened to me just this week, when I compared Mark Zuckerbeg to a toilet brush.
Context: according to reports, Zuckerberg speaking on Joe Rogan’s podcast, declared that companies need more “masculine energy”, and had been neutered by “feminine energy”.
This, obviously, is wrong. Which compelled me to comment on it, via my various accounts, by saying:
Even if I didn't think it was BS, I'm not being lectured on 'masculinity' by a sentient toilet brush that got rich by inventing online stalking
I contend the ‘toilet brush’ comparison is valid, due to Zuckerberg’s long white face, coiled bristly hair, and willingness to dive head-first into the worst types of human ‘output’. And it turns out, many people agree, including Irvine ‘author of actual Trainspotting’ Welsh. So, it’s… done the rounds.
However, as anyone who’s had a joke go viral before will know, one downside is having many random people telling you that your joke is wrong, in some way.
Thus far, all the critiques I’ve received about my post focus on one of three ‘flaws’.
Zuckerberg did NOT invent online stalking. He just monetised it/he stole it.
Fair enough. I’ve not seen ‘The Social Network’ movie, because I have no interest in doing so. Ergo, all I know about the origins of Facebook are gleaned from basic background chatter and ‘common knowledge’.
I did remember, seemingly correctly, that Zuckerberg’s efforts originally centred around rating women Harvard students, without their consent. But the ‘invention’ of Facebook is a bit murkier, with accusations of theft or screwing people over being muddied by misinformation and hearsay.
In my defence, I actually said he “invented online stalking”, which I felt was hyperbolic enough to be recognised as an obvious joke. Clearly, I was wrong, as many interpreted it more seriously.
Although, how much nuance am I meant to convey in FOUR WORDS!?!
Zuckerberg didn’t *actually* say companies have been neutered by feminine energy
A few have hit me with this as a sort of ‘gotcha’, or “Well, actually…” Which is always a treat.
True, the original AP Post headline/summary I referred to did apparently ‘take liberties’ when summarising Zuckerberg’s statements. According to Snopes:
Zuckerberg did not use those exact words but did call for more masculine energy in corporations, saying they are "neutered" and are "trying to get away" from masculine energy, while a culture that "celebrates the aggression" has merits. He also said "you want feminine energy, you want masculine energy," while adding "you're gonna have parts of society that have more of one or the other. I think that's all good."
Thing is, though, this doesn’t change my point at all. He’s still very much lecturing about the need for ‘masculine energy’, something he doesn’t define at all, so could justifiably be interpreted as ‘masculinity’.
I’d happily argue that 100% serious use of the terms ‘masculine/feminine energy’ warrants scorn, for deploying such overly-simplistic notions that depend entirely on wildly outdated and boneheaded gender stereotyping.
You’re wrong/too generous to call Zuckerberg ‘sentient’
This is the main one that’s been bugging me, for various reasons. People saying “Sentient? That’s pushing it!” Or similar.
This is something anyone who regularly posts (genuinely) funny things online will have experienced often, and will probably feel similarly irked by it: people saying “I see you have done a joke people like. Here, let me improve it for you”.
Certain people just can’t let a joke alone, without feeling compelled to put their own stamp/spin on it1. Presumably it’s a status thing? “That person is getting laughs! I want laughs! I must show them that I’m actually funnier!”
But that’s just a minor irritation, really. Here’s what’s actually bugged me about replies to my calling Zuckerberg a “sentient toilet brush” which say “Hmm, I think ‘sentient’ is a bit generous!” or words to that effect.
Firstly, ‘sentient’ technically means “able to feel and perceive things”. Strictly speaking, it doesn’t mean intelligent, sapient, self-aware etc. A sentient being can be intelligent, but it’s not a given. The two are not the same.
So ultimately, advising I drop the ‘sentient’ from my insistence that Zuckerberg is a sentient toilet brush doesn’t make the joke better. It’s basically telling me I should have said “Mark Zuckerberg is a literal, inanimate toilet brush”. That’s not funnier. That’s just weird.
But let’s be generous and assume the people commenting are taking ‘sentience’ to mean ‘intelligent and self-aware’. That’s not the technical meaning, but colloquially it has come to be taken as such2. So, presumably the argument is that I said “Mark Zuckerberg is a self-aware toilet brush”, and that’s wrong, because he’s evidently so dumb he lacks the intelligence to be considered self-aware.
Again, I don’t agree. Because while I appreciate that self-awareness requires a significant degree of intelligence, and most people are loathe to acknowledge that individuals they despise possess such a quality, that’s ultimately short-sighted.
Because if you’re not self-aware, you’re logically just a mindless drone, bumbling around, unthinkingly reacting to the things that happen to you. Ergo, you don’t make any decisions, and aren’t aware of the consequences of your actions and behaviours.
Crucial point: an absence of self-awareness means you’re not responsible for anything. Not for the consequences of your decisions, of the suffering they may cause, because you cannot make decisions or recognise their potential outcomes.
If you’re not self-aware, you can’t be blamed for the harm and suffering you cause, any more than Sideshow Bob could blame the rakes for his eventual concussion.
Some folk might be willing to absolve bad people of all guilt and responsibility in order to put their own stamp on a strangers joke. Personally, I’d rather not let them off the hook so readily.
You may also think this has been a needlessly long-winded response to a minor irritation that clearly doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things, and you’d be right.
But in the process of writing it, I have managed to say some variation of “Mark Zuckerberg is a toilet brush” multiple times, and maybe that’ll help it stick even more. We can but hope.
Please check out and buy my latest book, Why Your Parents Are Hung-Up on Your Phone and What To Do About It, to help me afford the upcoming legal fees.
Ironically, given the context, humorous women will know this better than anyone, as their quality output will regularly be ‘improved’ (i.e. made noticeably worse) by less-talented men who still can’t grasp the fact that women are more than capable of being funny without assistance.
I’m pretty sure Star Trek characters have used it in this way, and they live in the future!