Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Maybe there is something I am missing in this discussion, but I'm seeing somewhat of a disparity here. Facebook has implemented a policy that seems to disproportionately affect the LGBT community, in effect cutting people off from various support groups, advice pages, etc. to help and support those coming out, undergoing gender reassignment, etc. and we have posters here saying;
- "It's a private business, not some kind of mandatory government thing."
- as just a "potentially stupid business decision"
- that it's "It's their playground, it's their rules"
- that Facebook "isn't an essential service"
Yet when a baker refuses to bake a cake for this very same demographic because of genuinely held religious beliefs the cries of homophobia and discrimination start. It seems strange that the outrage over a cake far exceeds that of denying someone access to an emotional support network.

Probably because the cake thing was a result of bigotry, not a rational business decision. Also, I seem to remember that a lot of people felt the cake thing was also a non-issue.

So acting in accordance with deeply held religious beliefs is bigotry, making a decision that disproportionately affects a minority (a criteria that others would use to show sexism, racism, etc.) is a rational business decision. Yet in both cases minorities are trampled over.

The cake thing was a non-issue and was bloated up beyond imagination. Not to mention that bakery <-> Facebook is a major difference.

Secondly, the former was specifically targetted at a special group. Facebook did not purposefully target any group, they introduced the change to increase profit.

And I still don't get the problem with people who feel having to change their Facebook profile - why don't they have a fanpage again? And why do they assume that using Facebook is their given right instead of a privilege?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So acting in accordance with deeply held religious beliefs is bigotry, making a decision that disproportionately affects a minority (a criteria that others would use to show sexism, racism, etc.) is a rational business decision. Yet in both cases minorities are trampled over.

Hypothetical: Facebook makes all addresses public: Aside from the obvious bad idea this would be, this also has the result of allowing anyone to know who lives in the poor part of town. Poor people complain about this.

Did Facebook:

A) Make all addresses public, or
B) refuse to provide service to people.

I don't see the appeal of facebook at all...and I don't understand how information and photos you don't want to people to view publicly always get leaked. I have no problem not posting any photos online whatsoever. How do most photos get leaked? Do peoples computers get hacked?
The internet is a very open place, information security is extremely important, and I think everyone should be able to monitor their own privacy/security however they want on the internet.
Also, I really hate Zuckerberg...I hate him for his success, I hate him for his opinion on privacy, I hate his hair, I hate his whiteness. Well, I don't really hate his opinion on privacy...I guess you can just say his association with facebook pisses me off.

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
Do peoples computers get hacked?

Computers, phones, tablet, basically anything that can connect to the internet and also holds pictures.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Computers, phones, tablet, basically anything that can connect to the internet and also holds pictures.

Well, what about the ones who get fired from their jobs because their company or superiors find an obscene picture on facebook? Pretty sure that question has been asked hundreds of millions of times already, but why do people post pictures of themselves like the one James Franco did?

 LumenPraebeo wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Computers, phones, tablet, basically anything that can connect to the internet and also holds pictures.

Well, what about the ones who get fired from their jobs because their company or superiors find an obscene picture on facebook?

You mean that get fired because they choose to put that on their publicly accessible Facebook? A site that lets you limit who sees what?

Yes, it sucks, but it's common knowledge that bosses and companies look up employees and potential employees on Facebook and people should really post to public sites like that with that knowledge in mind.

 daedalus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So acting in accordance with deeply held religious beliefs is bigotry, making a decision that disproportionately affects a minority (a criteria that others would use to show sexism, racism, etc.) is a rational business decision. Yet in both cases minorities are trampled over.

Hypothetical: Facebook makes all addresses public: Aside from the obvious bad idea this would be, this also has the result of allowing anyone to know who lives in the poor part of town. Poor people complain about this.

Did Facebook:

A) Make all addresses public, or
B) refuse to provide service to people.

If Facebook actively post information how is that refusing to provide a service?
In your scenario are poor people a minority? Are poor people now legally a protected class? How are the poor disproportionately affected compared to other economic groups?

Of course the conclusion that is invited by Crazy_Carnifex's post is that a business can decide not to serve gays/women/Blacks/Latinos/people in wheelchairs as long as it is a rational business decision. Given that free market thinking of this caliber is usually scorned when it comes to minority rights this seems like a very strange position to take.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So acting in accordance with deeply held religious beliefs is bigotry, making a decision that disproportionately affects a minority (a criteria that others would use to show sexism, racism, etc.) is a rational business decision. Yet in both cases minorities are trampled over.

Hypothetical: Facebook makes all addresses public: Aside from the obvious bad idea this would be, this also has the result of allowing anyone to know who lives in the poor part of town. Poor people complain about this.

Did Facebook:

A) Make all addresses public, or
B) refuse to provide service to people.

If Facebook actively post information how is that refusing to provide a service?
In your scenario are poor people a minority? Are poor people now legally a protected class? How are the poor disproportionately affected compared to other economic groups?

Of course the conclusion that is invited by Crazy_Carnifex's post is that a business can decide not to serve gays/women/Blacks/Latinos/people in wheelchairs as long as it is a rational business decision. Given that free market thinking of this caliber is usually scorned when it comes to minority rights this seems like a very strange position to take.

My hypothetical suggestion was bad, admittedly, but you proved my point that your trying to draw a similarity between this and the baker incident are at least as flawed.

You're right in that "Poor" is not a protected status, as far as I can tell, but it really doesn't matter at the end of the day, because for the purposes of providing a service (at least at a cursory glance, I'm no lawyer) neither actually is sexuality in some states it seems beyond conditions of employment, and even then it's not universal. Even if it were, facebook is NOT refusing anyone service based upon what they enjoy fething, they're refusing service based upon people not providing their real names. That appears to be inconveniencing people in that particular community, but it would inconvenience me too, and I'm none of the above. Contrawise, you can still find openly gay people on facebook who use their real name. There is zero discrimination happening

Your baker argument in this case makes about as much sense as me trying to claim that a site that (for whatever reason) has a yellow text on blue color scheme is discrimination against color blind people. Providing you the same service they're providing everyone else under the same conditions you place upon everyone else isn't discrimination; it's the opposite. If it sucks and is a bad thing, don't use it. I don't and manage to survive.

 daedalus wrote:
My hypothetical suggestion was bad, admittedly, but you proved my point that your trying to draw a similarity between this and the baker incident are at least as flawed.

You're right in that "Poor" is not a protected status, as far as I can tell, but it really doesn't matter at the end of the day, because for the purposes of providing a service (at least at a cursory glance, I'm no lawyer) neither actually is sexuality in some states it seems beyond conditions of employment, and even then it's not universal. Even if it were, facebook is NOT refusing anyone service based upon what they enjoy fething, they're refusing service based upon people not providing their real names. That appears to be inconveniencing people in that particular community, but it would inconvenience me too, and I'm none of the above. Contrawise, you can still find openly gay people on facebook who use their real name. There is zero discrimination happening

Your baker argument in this case makes about as much sense as me trying to claim that a site that (for whatever reason) has a yellow text on blue color scheme is discrimination against color blind people. Providing you the same service they're providing everyone else under the same conditions you place upon everyone else isn't discrimination; it's the opposite.

It wasn't just bad, it was a completely false equivalence. To add to it when did colorblind people become a protected class?

Who said that FB were refusing service based on sexual preference? I didn't, or I would be obliged if you would point out where exactly I made such a claim so that I may make my position clearer for others on the forum.

So the LGBT community are not disproportionately affected? Did you read the OP? Or any other article that contradicts your claim?

We hear time and time again that measures which disproportionately affect minorities are discrimination, regardless of the reasons behind it. When people try to explain that the decision is based in something other than malice and that it is simply the results of economics, etc. we're told that isn't good enough.

 daedalus wrote:
If it sucks and is a bad thing, don't use it. I don't and manage to survive.

I remember this argument during the cake thread. The same people saying that people have the right to determine service didn't apply when it came to serving minorities have turned their own arguments on their head.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

It wasn't just bad, it was a completely false equivalence.

Similar to claiming a baker who directly refuses service to gay people is on par with a service requiring your real name and people being unhappy with it, yes, yes they both are.

To add to it when did colorblind people become a protected class?

It's not. Again, neither necessarily is your sexual preference in all cases. I thought we were refusing people service based upon their real names here, not on their sexuality.

Who said that FB were refusing service based on sexual preference? I didn't, or I would be obliged if you would point out where exactly I made such a claim so that I may make my position clearer for others on the forum.

So, just so I know we are on the same page, you agree then that:

Yet when a baker refuses to bake a cake for this very same demographic because of genuinely held religious beliefs the cries of homophobia and discrimination start. It seems strange that the outrage over a cake far exceeds that of denying someone access to an emotional support network.

is a baseless argument, because no one is being denied access to anything, except under condition that they provide the same information that one is expected to when applying for basically any other service on earth that doesn't accept cash and doesn't keep records?

So the LGBT community are not disproportionately affected? Did you read the OP?

The OP to this thread, right? The one where he's talking generically about anyone who might depend upon a false moniker and doesn't mention anything about sexual status?

This is important to you evidently, so I want to make sure we're on the same page again. You mean this OP:

djphranq wrote:
Any thoughts on the whole situation with Facebooks recent increase in enforcing their 'real name' policy?

I'll try to find an article to post... or maybe just cut past text from one... so far stuff I'm finding isn't too family friendly...

Personally I am angry with Facebook. Some people need the pseudonyms. They've genuinely built whole lives/livelihoods out of them. Some people need the pseudonyms to LITERALLY survive. I'm not just talking about making money to live but I'm talking about avoiding harm to live.

There is an argument that social media is free, whatever rules Facebook wants to enforce, its their right. I don't think it really is free though when you consider that they collect data from you; 'currency' isn't always dollars and cents.

Really, my eloquence with words is soooo lacking... I'll try to find a article/piece on it... maybe they can explain things better than I can (haha actually 'definitely' not 'maybe'). I did have an article the other day to share but when I looked for it today... POOF... gone...

That's the one, right? Yes. I did read it.

Or any other article that contradicts your claim?

Do you have one? One that actually shows this is an issue? Are... are there statistics showing this is a significant number of that population? I don't mind being educated if you want to show me one.

We hear time and time again that measures which disproportionately affect minorities are discrimination, regardless of the reasons behind it. When people try to explain that the decision is based in something other than malice and that it is simply the results of economics, etc. we're told that isn't good enough.

Well, with the baker, it's direct refusal of service, and I agree that it's a total dick move. Here it seems like it's a very indirect thing, if even something that exists beyond a handful of people screaming a little too loudly about it. Mind you, I really don't agree with the policy. I basically hate everything about facebook. That's why I'm not a part of that world.

 daedalus wrote:
If it sucks and is a bad thing, don't use it. I don't and manage to survive.

I remember this argument during the cake thread. The same people saying that people have the right to determine service didn't apply when it came to serving minorities have turned their own arguments on their head.

It's that awkward situation of someone being compelled to provide a service, versus someone else being refused the ability to partake of the same service. There's few easy answers for people outside of those making sophistic arguments on internet forums. (This is a dig at all of us)

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
When people try to explain that the decision is based in something other than malice and that it is simply the results of economics, etc. we're told that isn't good enough.

You're told that because those supposed "economic reasons" are almost always nothing more than a flimsy excuse to avoid admitting their real motives. This isn't true in the this case, especially given facebook's previous record of openly embracing the protected class in question.

I remember this argument during the cake thread. The same people saying that people have the right to determine service didn't apply when it came to serving minorities have turned their own arguments on their head.

That's not at all the same argument as the cake thread. You have a right to decide which services you provide, you don't have a right to decide who to provide those services to. The bakery decided to offer a service, just not to customers they didn't approve of. Facebook isn't refusing service to a minority, they're refusing service to everyone.

Pretending that providing the same service to everyone is the same as not providing the same service to everyone might win the "silliest argument made on Dakka" prize this weekend.

 d-usa wrote:
Pretending that providing the same service to everyone is the same as not providing the same service to everyone might win the "silliest argument made on Dakka" prize this weekend.

I dunno... saying to the effect "that people think Facebook is some sort of right or entitlement, it's silly and should abide by Facebook's rules." Is pretty danged silly as some folks have legit reasons for anonymnity.

And the whole Baker snafu... be consistent man.

 whembly wrote:

And the whole Baker snafu... be consistent man.

Listen, I know you guys have some sort of rage-boner for trying to catch all of us liberals in conflicting posts, so here is the deal:

If you can explain to me how the fething hell "the baker should bake a cake for the gay people because he should provide the same service for everyone" and "everybody should follow the same rules becaue Facebook is providing the same service for everyone" is inconsistent or how "the baker shouldn't have special rules to single out gay people" and "facebook shouldn't have special rules for gay people" is inconsistent then I give you an internet cookie.

There are plenty of good arguments that can be made for and against the real name policy. But going "herp derp liberals herp derp" to prove some non-existing point is, in fact, the stupidest argument of Dakka this weekend.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

And the whole Baker snafu... be consistent man.

Listen, I know you guys have some sort of rage-boner for trying to catch all of us liberals in conflicting posts, so here is the deal:

If you can explain to me how the fething hell "the baker should bake a cake for the gay people because he should provide the same service for everyone" and "everybody should follow the same rules becaue Facebook is providing the same service for everyone" is inconsistent or how "the baker shouldn't have special rules to single out gay people" and "facebook shouldn't have special rules for gay people" is inconsistent then I give you an internet cookie.

There are plenty of good arguments that can be made for and against the real name policy. But going "herp derp liberals herp derp" to prove some non-existing point is, in fact, the stupidest argument of Dakka this weekend.

Nah... nothing to do with liberals really.

It's the rationalization hamster I'm calling out.

Here... I'll break it down for you.

Baker refuses service to gay couple. Couple is adversely affected for something they cannot change.

Reason? Baker's religion.

FB forces users to disclose their name. LGBT folks who wishes anonymity is adversely affected for something they cannot change.

Reason? FB's rules, so that they can maximize their profits.

The disconnect is that both FB and the Baker's decision adversely affects those folks.

FB offers something for free, but has rules that adversely effects the LGBT community, but that's okay because it's FB's house.

A specific baker refuses to do Wedding Cakes for gay couple because of Baker's religion, but they deserve to be sued?

 d-usa wrote:
Listen, I know you guys have some sort of rage-boner for trying to catch all of us liberals in conflicting posts, so here is the deal:

If you can explain to me how the fething hell "the baker should bake a cake for the gay people because he should provide the same service for everyone" and "everybody should follow the same rules becaue Facebook is providing the same service for everyone" is inconsistent or how "the baker shouldn't have special rules to single out gay people" and "facebook shouldn't have special rules for gay people" is inconsistent then I give you an internet cookie.

There are plenty of good arguments that can be made for and against the real name policy. But going "herp derp liberals herp derp" to prove some non-existing point is, in fact, the stupidest argument of Dakka this weekend.

Who said anything about liberals, other than you? I asked how people can reconcile holding two conflicting positions simultaneously.We hear time and time again that a policy or decision that disproportionately affects a minority or protected class is sexist/racist/homophobic, that these protected classes should be protected, and that the business in question should not be able to simply claim protection from being a private business/that there is no right to a cake/their playground their rules/not an essential service.

The service being provided by both the baker and FB are provided to the general public at large. The baker has a policy which allows him to refuse service to anyone at his discretion (which was strenuously objected to). FB has a policy that allows them to refuse service to anyone they suspect of using a pseudo name. Both policies apply to the population as a whole, yet both policies affect the LGBT community to a greater extent. One was deemed suitable for outrage. The other justified.

We either accept that businesses can make decisions about who they provide services to without being legally compelled to do so where they are not an essential service, or that certain classes must be given special legal safeguards when it comes to the decisions made from these businesses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
Similar to claiming a baker who directly refuses service to gay people is on par with a service requiring your real name and people being unhappy with it, yes, yes they both are.

Both have refused service, and have a policy that disproportionately affects the LGBT community. Nope, sorry mine was pretty apt.

 daedalus wrote:
It's not. Again, neither necessarily is your sexual preference in all cases. I thought we were refusing people service based upon their real names here, not on their sexuality.

And the LGBT community, especially those in the drag community, are affected to a much greater extent than others. Sexuality is very much an issue in this case.

 daedalus wrote:
is a baseless argument, because no one is being denied access to anything, except under condition that they provide the same information that one is expected to when applying for basically any other service on earth that doesn't accept cash and doesn't keep records?

So they aren't being denied access to anything, except that they are. I'll let you work out the inherent contradiction in your own words

 daedalus wrote:
Do you have one? One that actually shows this is an issue? Are... are there statistics showing this is a significant number of that population? I don't mind being educated if you want to show me one.

http://www.towleroad.com/2014/09/facebook-begins-enforcing-real-name-policy-disproportionately-affecting-glbt-performers.html
http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/world/facebook-name-change-policy-affecting-drag-and-trans-community-15123.html
http://ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=70016
https://gigaom.com/2014/09/12/facebook-is-under-fire-from-gay-and-transgender-users-who-are-being-forced-to-use-real-names/
http://www.queerty.com/facebook-targeting-drag-queens-forcing-them-to-use-their-legal-names-20140911

 daedalus wrote:
Well, with the baker, it's direct refusal of service, and I agree that it's a total dick move. Here it seems like it's a very indirect thing, if even something that exists beyond a handful of people screaming a little too loudly about it. Mind you, I really don't agree with the policy. I basically hate everything about facebook. That's why I'm not a part of that world.

Direct or indirect this policy has a very real impact upon people's lives. Furthermore FB are aware of the issue and have met with LGBT groups and given them 2 weeks to decide if they want to change their names or not. So at this point the argument can clearly be made that this is a direct refusal of service as FB are aware of the consequences of their policy.

 daedalus wrote:
It's that awkward situation of someone being compelled to provide a service, versus someone else being refused the ability to partake of the same service. There's few easy answers for people outside of those making sophistic arguments on internet forums. (This is a dig at all of us)

So, in either event access to a service is being restricted. But someone people who complained about it in the other thread have attempted to justify it here.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Similar to claiming a baker who directly refuses service to gay people is on par with a service requiring your real name and people being unhappy with it, yes, yes they both are.

Both have refused service, and have a policy that disproportionately affects the LGBT community. Nope, sorry mine was pretty apt.

So then is any revision of terms and conditions denying service to someone? You're also still not getting the difference in magnitude here. I'll try again: The baker refused service because the people were gay. There were literally no conditions under which that they could receive service from that baker. Facebook has provided a simple, well known, and straightforward means of anyone getting service.

Here's an interesting question: If they could have required that from the beginning, do you think anyone would be making the claims they are now?

 daedalus wrote:
It's not. Again, neither necessarily is your sexual preference in all cases. I thought we were refusing people service based upon their real names here, not on their sexuality.

And the LGBT community, especially those in the drag community, are affected to a much greater extent than others. Sexuality is very much an issue in this case.

bs. Bull gak. Tell that to people being imprisioned/hanged/shot for speaking out against their government in "third world" countries who now have to use their real names or be silent. #FirstWorldProblems, bro.

 daedalus wrote:
is a baseless argument, because no one is being denied access to anything, except under condition that they provide the same information that one is expected to when applying for basically any other service on earth that doesn't accept cash and doesn't keep records?

So they aren't being denied access to anything, except that they are. I'll let you work out the inherent contradiction in your own words

"That pizza place DENIED me service because I wanted a large cheese pizza, and I wouldn't give them the money they charge everyone else for it because they raised the price two weeks ago. Those denying denyish deniers! DENY!"

There are terms and conditions for each. I can choose not to pay the increased price of the pizza, or I can choose to buy the pizza. Can I claim that the pizza place DENIED me pizza because I wanted to give them 12 bucks instead of 14? Well, I mean, I could probably organize an angry twitter mob over it nowadays. Doesn't make it any less completely silly.

(links)

Yeah... I'll look at those when I'm not at work. and get back to you here.

 daedalus wrote:
Well, with the baker, it's direct refusal of service, and I agree that it's a total dick move. Here it seems like it's a very indirect thing, if even something that exists beyond a handful of people screaming a little too loudly about it. Mind you, I really don't agree with the policy. I basically hate everything about facebook. That's why I'm not a part of that world.

Direct or indirect this policy has a very real impact upon people's lives. Furthermore FB are aware of the issue and have met with LGBT groups and given them 2 weeks to decide if they want to change their names or not. So at this point the argument can clearly be made that this is a direct refusal of service as FB are aware of the consequences of their policy.

Well, with the hoopla started over it, I'd imagine they would have to have their heads in the sand not to know about it. Did they meet with them BEFORE coming up with the policy? If not, then it sound to me like they tried to do damage control after the fact and are going through with it anyway. Still different from the baker in that he made his decision after knowing the impact it would have. Regardless, the fb thing still impacts other groups of people in ways I would argue are profoundly worse, unless we're equating people finding out you're secretly gay online to armed thugs marching into your house and killing you.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, I read all of your links. Apparently one person is leading the charge in all of them. This one Michael Williams or Sister Roma or whatever you want to call him.

My personal favorite:

"There is cyber-bullying going on," with at least one person "disproportionately" targeting drag queens, transgender people, and others.

My goodness. "At least one person". Stop the presses! Abandon real names, because at least one person is an donkey-cave!

And I was so distracted by the story of Chris Crocker's second hardcore bareback film debuting at Lucas Entertainment, I admit I forgot to read the fifth article, though I'm sure it was rife with journalistic integrity and completely explains just how many people are affected by this and why it's really a big deal and not a small handful of people exercise their right to scream and pout as loudly as they possibly can.

 daedalus wrote:
So then is any revision of terms and conditions denying service to someone? You're also still not getting the difference in magnitude here. I'll try again: The baker refused service because the people were gay. There were literally no conditions under which that they could receive service from that baker. Facebook has provided a simple, well known, and straightforward means of anyone getting service.

When does a revision of the T&C deny someone service? That should be obvious here; when those revisions prevent access to that service.

 daedalus wrote:
bs. Bull gak. Tell that to people being imprisioned/hanged/shot for speaking out against their government in "third world" countries who now have to use their real names or be silent. #FirstWorldProblems, bro.

So your argument is to resort to fallacy of relative privation?

 daedalus wrote:
"That pizza place DENIED me service because I wanted a large cheese pizza, and I wouldn't give them the money they charge everyone else for it because they raised the price two weeks ago. Those denying denyish deniers! DENY!"

There are terms and conditions for each. I can choose not to pay the increased price of the pizza, or I can choose to buy the pizza. Can I claim that the pizza place DENIED me pizza because I wanted to give them 12 bucks instead of 14? Well, I mean, I could probably organize an angry twitter mob over it nowadays. Doesn't make it any less completely silly.

More false equivalence

 daedalus wrote:
Well, with the hoopla started over it, I'd imagine they would have to have their heads in the sand not to know about it. Did they meet with them BEFORE coming up with the policy? If not, then it sound to me like they tried to do damage control after the fact and are going through with it anyway. Still different from the baker in that he made his decision after knowing the impact it would have. Regardless, the fb thing still impacts other groups of people in ways I would argue are profoundly worse, unless we're equating people finding out you're secretly gay online to armed thugs marching into your house and killing you.

By damage control I take it you mean giving them two weeks to change their name or be put back in the position they are currently in?
Did the baker meet with the people refused access to his service before he put that policy in place? If not why are you making such a distinction?
What group? How are they affected worse?

 daedalus wrote:
My goodness. "At least one person". Stop the presses! Abandon real names, because at least one person is an donkey-cave!

And I was so distracted by the story of Chris Crocker's second hardcore bareback film debuting at Lucas Entertainment, I admit I forgot to read the fifth article, though I'm sure it was rife with journalistic integrity and completely explains just how many people are affected by this and why it's really a big deal and not a small handful of people exercise their right to scream and pout as loudly as they possibly can.

So just like the baker then.
If you had read the articles it was more than just one person, they just happened to quote the most vocal. But that wouldn't suit you because that changes the narrative.
https://www.change.org/p/facebook-allow-performers-to-use-their-stage-names-on-their-facebook-accounts
So out of 3,988 signatures required at the time of writing there are now 31,012 signatories. Somewhat more than your claim that it is just one person.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
So then is any revision of terms and conditions denying service to someone? You're also still not getting the difference in magnitude here. I'll try again: The baker refused service because the people were gay. There were literally no conditions under which that they could receive service from that baker. Facebook has provided a simple, well known, and straightforward means of anyone getting service.

When does a revision of the T&C deny someone service? That should be obvious here; when those revisions prevent access to that service.

ALL terms and conditions deny service to people who do not abide by the terms and conditions, regardless of revisions. You had to agree to an initial set of T&C before you could use it to begin with. Those DENIERS!

 daedalus wrote:
bs. Bull gak. Tell that to people being imprisioned/hanged/shot for speaking out against their government in "third world" countries who now have to use their real names or be silent. #FirstWorldProblems, bro.

So your argument is to resort to fallacy of relative privation?

No, my argument is that your argument that the sexual identity population being the ones MOST AFFECTED is outright wrong, unless you're going to seriously tell me that people finding out you're gay is worse than you and your family getting killed. Nothing to do with relative privation, just pointing out how you're wrong. The way this is going, I could see that as a possibility though, so you can feel free to say that if you would like. It IS your right.

 daedalus wrote:
"That pizza place DENIED me service because I wanted a large cheese pizza, and I wouldn't give them the money they charge everyone else for it because they raised the price two weeks ago. Those denying denyish deniers! DENY!"

There are terms and conditions for each. I can choose not to pay the increased price of the pizza, or I can choose to buy the pizza. Can I claim that the pizza place DENIED me pizza because I wanted to give them 12 bucks instead of 14? Well, I mean, I could probably organize an angry twitter mob over it nowadays. Doesn't make it any less completely silly.

More false equivalence

Well, it IS somehow appropriate seeing as you started it with the baker.

 daedalus wrote:
Well, with the hoopla started over it, I'd imagine they would have to have their heads in the sand not to know about it. Did they meet with them BEFORE coming up with the policy? If not, then it sound to me like they tried to do damage control after the fact and are going through with it anyway. Still different from the baker in that he made his decision after knowing the impact it would have. Regardless, the fb thing still impacts other groups of people in ways I would argue are profoundly worse, unless we're equating people finding out you're secretly gay online to armed thugs marching into your house and killing you.

By damage control I take it you mean giving them two weeks to change their name or be put back in the position they are currently in?
Did the baker meet with the people refused access to his service before he put that policy in place? If not why are you making such a distinction?
What group? How are they affected worse?

Meeting with them was the attempt at damage control. The two weeks sounds like the two sides failed to come to a reasonable agreement. Did they meet with them before or after the creation of the policy? Metting with them before shows that they knew this was going to
The baker likely had his policy in place from the beginning. It seems like ideology seldom changes much once it is constructed in a person.
I was again referring to the group of people who are getting killed in third world countries by oppressive governments.

 daedalus wrote:
My goodness. "At least one person". Stop the presses! Abandon real names, because at least one person is an donkey-cave!

And I was so distracted by the story of Chris Crocker's second hardcore bareback film debuting at Lucas Entertainment, I admit I forgot to read the fifth article, though I'm sure it was rife with journalistic integrity and completely explains just how many people are affected by this and why it's really a big deal and not a small handful of people exercise their right to scream and pout as loudly as they possibly can.

So just like the baker then.
If you had read the articles it was more than just one person, they just happened to quote the most vocal. But that wouldn't suit you because that changes the narrative.
https://www.change.org/p/facebook-allow-performers-to-use-their-stage-names-on-their-facebook-accounts
So out of 3,988 signatures required at the time of writing there are now 31,012 signatories. Somewhat more than your claim that it is just one person.

I should have been more specific, the one person I was chuckling about is the one being the cyberbully. The presence of a single edge case isn't cause for panic.

Petitions are serious business. I just want to point out that a person who signs a petition isn't necessarily affected by it, or may be using the petition for ulterior means. SJWing IS trendy nowadays. Hell, I'd probably sign it just to give a means to keep my name off facebook, if I used facebook to begin with. Then again, maybe not, as I don't agree with "performers" being the only people who should be able to use a pseudonym on facebook.

Further, it still has fewer supporters than]the US building a freaking death star.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Something just dawned on me. I think I understand the issue now. I think you're trying to say that the actions a person takes and their motives aren't why you judge someone, but for the results those actions cause. You see no difference between the baker and facebook because they both negatively impact a group of people based upon their gender, full stop. Is that correct?

 daedalus wrote:
ALL terms and conditions deny service to people who do not abide by the terms and conditions, regardless of revisions. You had to agree to an initial set of T&C before you could use it to begin with. Those DENIERS!

Agreeing to the initial T&C is irrelevant if the revisions later result in denial of service.
In the case of the baker the terms and conditions, like every other business, were that the management had the right to refuse service. That is nothing new. There was no revision to the T&C of that business. Yet here you are still trying to excuse one business.

 daedalus wrote:
No, my argument is that your argument that the sexual identity population being the ones MOST AFFECTED is outright wrong, unless you're going to seriously tell me that people finding out you're gay is worse than you and your family getting killed. Nothing to do with relative privation, just pointing out how you're wrong. The way this is going, I could see that as a possibility though, so you can feel free to say that if you would like. It IS your right.

Your argument it textbook relative privation.
But for the sake of argument who is at risk of being killed, and having their family killed after this move by FB? Specifics please. Otherwise this is just a diversion to avoid the truth

 daedalus wrote:
Well, it IS somehow appropriate seeing as you started it with the baker.

It's about as close as coal is to diamonds, in that the only similarity is that both pizzas and cakes go in ovens. The baker and FB examples concern management policies that disproportionately affect a minority seemingly on the basis of their sexual identity. Refusing to pay the extra after a rise in the cost of pizza is in no way comparable. Again, a textbook logical fallacy on your part.

 daedalus wrote:
Meeting with them was the attempt at damage control. The two weeks sounds like the two sides failed to come to a reasonable agreement. Did they meet with them before or after the creation of the policy? Metting with them before shows that they knew this was going to

But FB didn't meet with them before to discuss their policy. Neither did the baker

 daedalus wrote:
The baker likely had his policy in place from the beginning. It seems like ideology seldom changes much once it is constructed in a person.

So, just like FB, both have policies they may apply and that the person using the service must agree to. Guess which business had more tolerance shown for their decision.

 daedalus wrote:
I was again referring to the group of people who are getting killed in third world countries by oppressive governments.

So because people in 3rd World countries are being killed people have no right to complain about anything else? You're really quite fond of resorting to relative privation aren't you. One person's suffering does not invalidate the suffering to others.

 daedalus wrote:
I should have been more specific, the one person I was chuckling about is the one being the cyberbully. The presence of a single edge case isn't cause for panic.

Petitions are serious business. I just want to point out that a person who signs a petition isn't necessarily affected by it, or may be using the petition for ulterior means. SJWing IS trendy nowadays. Hell, I'd probably sign it just to give a means to keep my name off facebook, if I used facebook to begin with. Then again, maybe not, as I don't agree with "performers" being the only people who should be able to use a pseudonym on facebook.

Further, it still has fewer supporters than]the US building a freaking death star.

If you are comparing an obvious joke petition with a serious petition I'm going to have to refer you back to your good friend false equivalence.

 daedalus wrote:
Something just dawned on me. I think I understand the issue now. I think you're trying to say that the actions a person takes and their motives aren't why you judge someone, but for the results those actions cause. You see no difference between the baker and facebook because they both negatively impact a group of people based upon their gender, full stop. Is that correct?

My issue is the cognitive dissonance that some people seem afflicted by when they can vilify a business for applying the terms and conditions that apply to his business that affect the LGBT community, then justify another business for doing the exact same thing while using the same excuses they refuted before.

Then There is cognitive dissonance thinking that people have cognitive dissonance simply because they can see the difference between policies that target people and policies that don't.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

In the case of the baker the terms and conditions, like every other business, were that the management had the right to refuse service. That is nothing new. There was no revision to the T&C of that business.

So the baker and facebook ARE dissimilar.

Your argument it textbook relative privation.
But for the sake of argument who is at risk of being killed, and having their family killed after this move by FB? Specifics please. Otherwise this is just a diversion to avoid the truth

I'm going to help you out here:

The fallacy of relative privation, or appeal to worse problems, is an informal fallacy which attempts to suggest that the opponent's argument should be ignored because there are more important problems in the world, despite the fact that these issues are often completely unrelated to the subject under discussion.

I can see where you would get confused. It IS similar. People forced to use their real name in danger from oppressive regimes are not unrelated to the subject under discussion. The OP, as I pointed out after you insisted I read it, actually never mentions any one who is a crossdresser, gay, or any other specific group by name. Also, I never suggested that we ignored any problems because of people having it worse. You established the groups MOST affected. I called bull gak on that.

As far as the specific groups I'm referring to? I'm referring to the next Egypt or Arab Springs. Uprisings have been getting organized on social media for years now.

It's about as close as coal is to diamonds, in that the only similarity is that both pizzas and cakes go in ovens. The baker and FB examples concern management policies that disproportionately affect a minority seemingly on the basis of their sexual identity. Refusing to pay the extra after a rise in the cost of pizza is in no way comparable. Again, a textbook logical fallacy on your part.

I can hand you a study showing that gay men make less than straight men on average. I know of one, and I bet I could actually hand you several if I went looking. Would that show that gay men are more negatively impacted that straight men by the increase of the cost of pizza?

 daedalus wrote:
Meeting with them was the attempt at damage control. The two weeks sounds like the two sides failed to come to a reasonable agreement. Did they meet with them before or after the creation of the policy? Metting with them before shows that they knew this was going to

But FB didn't meet with them before to discuss their policy. Neither did the baker

Okay, so there's reasonable odds FB didn't know their policy WOULD affect any group disproportionately. I wager a guess the baker did. Different.

 daedalus wrote:
The baker likely had his policy in place from the beginning. It seems like ideology seldom changes much once it is constructed in a person.

So, just like FB, both have policies they may apply and that the person using the service must agree to. Guess which business had more tolerance shown for their decision.

Just like all businesses. People didn't hate on the baker for having policies, they hated on the baker for policies SPECIFICALLY targeting gay people.

Can I get on facebook assuming I provide my real name and I am within the broad range of identifiers in the LGBT?
Can I get a cake from that baker assuming I provide my real name and I am within the broad range of identifiers in the LGBT?

It still seems pretty different to me.

So because people in 3rd World countries are being killed people have no right to complain about anything else? You're really quite fond of resorting to relative privation aren't you. One person's suffering does not invalidate the suffering to others.

See above.

If you are comparing an obvious joke petition with a serious petition I'm going to have to refer you back to your good friend false equivalence.

It mostly shows I'm just taking you about as seriously as I do internet petitions. My comment about how not everyone signing the petition is necessarily affected by this still stands.

 daedalus wrote:
Something just dawned on me. I think I understand the issue now. I think you're trying to say that the actions a person takes and their motives aren't why you judge someone, but for the results those actions cause. You see no difference between the baker and facebook because they both negatively impact a group of people based upon their gender, full stop. Is that correct?

My issue is the cognitive dissonance that some people seem afflicted by when they can vilify a business for applying the terms and conditions that apply to his business that affect the LGBT community, then justify another business for doing the exact same thing while using the same excuses they refuted before.

So then I DO understand what you're hung up on here.

 daedalus wrote:
So the baker and facebook ARE dissimilar.

This is an example of not seeing the forest for the trees

 daedalus wrote:
I'm going to help you out here:

The fallacy of relative privation, or appeal to worse problems, is an informal fallacy which attempts to suggest that the opponent's argument should be ignored because there are more important problems in the world, despite the fact that these issues are often completely unrelated to the subject under discussion.

I can see where you would get confused. It IS similar. People forced to use their real name in danger from oppressive regimes are not unrelated to the subject under discussion. The OP, as I pointed out after you insisted I read it, actually never mentions any one who is a crossdresser, gay, or any other specific group by name. Also, I never suggested that we ignored any problems because of people having it worse. You established the groups MOST affected. I called bull gak on that.

As far as the specific groups I'm referring to? I'm referring to the next Egypt or Arab Springs. Uprisings have been getting organized on social media for years now.

You are injecting topics into this discussion that are "completely unrelated to the subject under discussion" - Arab Spring, people in danger from oppressive regimes. As shown by your own link that is relative privation.

 daedalus wrote:
I can hand you a study showing that gay men make less than straight men on average. I know of one, and I bet I could actually hand you several if I went looking. Would that show that gay men are more negatively impacted that straight men by the increase of the cost of pizza?

Did the baker increase prices for the gay couple? Did FB charge a fee for using a pseudo name? No. The comparison is not apt.

 daedalus wrote:
Okay, so there's reasonable odds FB didn't know their policy WOULD affect any group disproportionately. I wager a guess the baker did. Different.

And yet after they met with groups concerned about the change in policy the only change in FB's position was that it gave them a timeframe to comply. At this juncture they knew the effect that their decision would have, and still pursued it. So very much similar to the baker.

 daedalus wrote:
Just like all businesses. People didn't hate on the baker for having policies, they hated on the baker for policies SPECIFICALLY targeting gay people.

Can I get on facebook assuming I provide my real name and I am within the broad range of identifiers in the LGBT?
Can I get a cake from that baker assuming I provide my real name and I am within the broad range of identifiers in the LGBT?

It still seems pretty different to me.

Can I get on FB by providing my real name?
Can I get a cake from a Christian baker by not telling him it is for a gay wedding?
Seems pretty similar to me

 daedalus wrote:
See above.

See above. Specifically your quote with substantiates my argument.

 daedalus wrote:
It mostly shows I'm just taking you about as seriously as I do internet petitions. My comment about how not everyone signing the petition is necessarily affected by this still stands.

So now after employing logical fallacies you're going to be willfully ignorant to evidence that contradicts your view.

 daedalus wrote:
So then I DO understand what you're hung up on here.

Given your comments so far I'm almost curious as to what your understanding is.

 d-usa wrote:
Then There is cognitive dissonance thinking that people have cognitive dissonance simply because they can see the difference between policies that target people and policies that don't.

No.
As previously mentioned other discussions (sexism/racism/homophobia) it was taken that any policy or decision that impacted a minority in a disproportionate manner was oppressive and de facto racist/sexist/etc. At no stage was intent factored in to those discussions. Do not attempt to move the goalposts.

Ignoring intent makes your whole argument even more nonsensical.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You are injecting topics into this discussion that are "completely unrelated to the subject under discussion" - Arab Spring, people in danger from oppressive regimes. As shown by your own link that is relative privation.

Sigh.

You: "Group X is the most affected by this!"
Me: "But group Y uses this and they could get killed as a result of it's use. Your claim that group x is the most affected is probably wrong."
You: "Relative privation!"
Me: "Technically this isn't relative privation because you made the argument that X was the group most affected. You opened that door. I'm not dismissing their claim as a group affected. I'm dismissing your claim that they are the most affected."
You: "RELATIVE PRIVATION RELATIVE PRIVATION ZOMG!"

Did the baker increase prices for the gay couple? Did FB charge a fee for using a pseudo name? No. The comparison is not apt.

Okay, lets go through it step by step. The "value" of facebook to the user is in the personal information the user gives up. If you don't put any information in to it at all, it's not terribly useful, because you won't have an account.. On the other extreme, if you throw every last bit of personal information into it (for now we'll say that you don't put your real name out there) and update it every minute with what you're doing, your experience is much more feature-rich. Can you agree to that? There's a minimum amount of information you have to provide to get in to the front door. That's the "entry fee". It is a cost, because it is something that can translate into monetary value, even if you don't think of it that way.

Now lets consider personal information, "private" details, as a form of currency, albeit a unconventional one. The price to be a part of the facebook club was x number of details about yourself before. Now it is x+1.

I mean, isn't giving up more personal information a price of a sort, even if it's not a tangible one? I'd consider it one.

And yet after they met with groups concerned about the change in policy the only change in FB's position was that it gave them a timeframe to comply. At this juncture they knew the effect that their decision would have, and still pursued it. So very much similar to the baker.

Obviously they couldn't come to an amicable agreement on the policy. They tried. The baker didn't. I... don't really know what you're looking for at this point.

Can I get on FB by providing my real name?
Can I get a cake from a Christian baker by not telling him it is for a gay wedding?
Seems pretty similar to me

But personal information isn't the requirement to buy a cake from a Christian baker. It is a requirement for getting on facebook. You're also really saying that providing true information is the same as either withholding true informaiton or falsifying information? Really? Are you a politician?

So now after employing logical fallacies you're going to be willfully ignorant to evidence that contradicts your view.

I'm still waiting for that evidence. You can show me that every one of those petition signers is a member of the affected party any time you want. Otherwise it's about as useful as a GW price petition.

 daedalus wrote:
Sigh.

You: "Group X is the most affected by this!"
Me: "But group Y uses this and they could get killed as a result of it's use. Your claim that group x is the most affected is probably wrong."
You: "Relative privation!"
Me: "Technically this isn't relative privation because you made the argument that X was the group most affected. You opened that door. I'm not dismissing their claim as a group affected. I'm dismissing your claim that they are the most affected."
You: "RELATIVE PRIVATION RELATIVE PRIVATION ZOMG!"

You are still injecting an outside issue into this discussion. You might not like the fact that is relative privation, but that does not change the fact that it is relative privation.
Of course it is interesting that you demanded that I quantify to an extent how many people in the LGBT community may be affected by FB's policy, and in your efforts to invoke relative privation do not provide evidence that anyone involved in the Arab Spring is at risk as a result of this shift in policy. So now we can add double standards to the list of fallacies that you have attempted to employ.

Oh, and I never said most. I said that the LGBT community was disproportionately affected. So I didn't open that door. You did.

 daedalus wrote:
Okay, lets go through it step by step. The "value" of facebook to the user is in the personal information the user gives up. If you don't put any information in to it at all, it's not terribly useful, because you won't have an account.. On the other extreme, if you throw every last bit of personal information into it (for now we'll say that you don't put your real name out there) and update it every minute with what you're doing, your experience is much more feature-rich. Can you agree to that? There's a minimum amount of information you have to provide to get in to the front door. That's the "entry fee". It is a cost, because it is something that can translate into monetary value, even if you don't think of it that way.

Now lets consider personal information, "private" details, as a form of currency, albeit a unconventional one. The price to be a part of the facebook club was x number of details about yourself before. Now it is x+1.

I mean, isn't giving up more personal information a price of a sort, even if it's not a tangible one? I'd consider it one.

Until FB charges a premium for their service, or the baker charges a premium for gay wedding cakes then the comparison is a false one.

 daedalus wrote:
Obviously they couldn't come to an amicable agreement on the policy. They tried. The baker didn't. I... don't really know what you're looking for at this point.

You were so sure you had it figured out a moment ago.

 daedalus wrote:
But personal information isn't the requirement to buy a cake from a Christian baker. It is a requirement for getting on facebook. You're also really saying that providing true information is the same as either withholding true informaiton or falsifying information? Really? Are you a politician?

Non sequitur
Strawman
Should we start tallying up all the fallacies you've used so far?

 daedalus wrote:
I'm still waiting for that evidence. You can show me that every one of those petition signers is a member of the affected party any time you want. Otherwise it's about as useful as a GW price petition.

So you've gone from wanting evidence that more than one person was affected to demanding proof that over 31,000 were affected? So now you are again shifting the goalposts and demanding impossible perfection.

At any rate, I just realized I'm in an internet argument, and this thing has gone on to pedantic sniping rather than talking about what was your original argument: Similarities between this and the baker thing.

I think we exhausted that and if you still think they're the same, then I guess that's your prerogative and we can all just be inconsistent hypocrites in your mind, and that's totally awesome.

Totally my fault and you're totally right and awesome and win the internet.

By "exhausted" do you mean you were running out of logical fallacies to use?