Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Apologizes To Drag Queens Over "Real Name" Rule
An anonymous reader writes Facebook apologized to drag queens and the LGBT community after an outcry over the social network's policy of requiring members to use real names on their accounts. While the policy itself will stay in place, Facebook says, it will be changing how the rule is enforced. In a Wednesday post, Facebook's Chief Product Officer Chris Cox apologized to "the affected community of drag queens, drag kings, transgender, and extensive community of our friends, neighbors, and members of the LGBT community for the hardship that we've put you through in dealing with your Facebook accounts over the past few weeks."
So drag queens can use fake names but the rest cant?
If fb is serious and enforcing the policy, their user count will be reduced by at least 60 percent which essentially cut the worth of the company in half.
Good to hear that they apologized.
I see no reason why any person with a private Facebook page should be given special status or exemptions from the rules just because of some arbitrary, momentarily popular PC BS category.
Drag Queens shouldn't get an extra right to use fake names just because they're Drag Queens. If an apology is in order, it's for everyone. Otherwise, tighten up the panties and use the real name - or spend the money and change the name legally if it's that big a deal.
Why would LGBT members require more of an apology than heterosexual cisgenders who desire to use another name?
The spirit of our policy is that everyone on Facebook uses the authentic name they use in real life
Note the singular. And all other names one might be using he calls "fake names". Has it ever crossed his gender-normative mind that people might be using more than one name in "real life"? And that their drag persona and their day-job/legal identity are two spheres that many people want to keep separate?
"Our policy has never been to require everyone on Facebook to use their legal name," Cox said. "The spirit of our policy is that everyone on Facebook uses the authentic name they use in real life. For Sister Roma, that's Sister Roma. For Lil Miss Hot Mess, that's Lil Miss Hot Mess."
So if Fred Phelps had gone around calling himself God's Fag Killing Machine, Facebook would obviously have let him use that name under this "understanding" of their policy. Right? Right?..
Alternative lifestyles are free to be offensive to some niches of society. Thus, neither are you, Lil Miss Hot Mess, guaranteed the right not to be offended.
Being driven by ratings based on the viewing habits of folks who have checked out, the fourth estate is there in force to address every imaginable social injustice.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
OK Facebook. Now apologize to all of the affected whistle-blowers that can't openly protest and embarrass you into action.
We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
I guess they think my account "bob disembodied brain" is a real person.
And that their drag persona and their day-job/legal identity are two spheres that many people want to keep separate?
Not everyone uses the legal identity on the day job, especially in entertainment. Consider Caryn Johnson, whose day job identity is Whoopi Goldberg. Or Paul Levesque, who goes by Hunter Hearst Helmsley professionally (or Triple H for short). Or Stefani Germanotta, who took the name Lady Gaga from a Queen song, possibly to escape No Doubt-related jokes. On the other hand, RuPaul Charles's drag name is just that: RuPaul.
Newsflash: Drag queens, drag kings, and other people in the LGBT community can often go by pseudonyms because they might happen to live with a family that would put them out on the street if they found out. Drag queens, drag kings, and especially transgendered people are subject to not just that, but downright assault as a result of their lifestyle. This isn't about people being offended, this is about the fact that Facebook's policy could cause actual, physical harm to people. Fuck you, you ignorant fuckstick.
Exactly. If you must use a real name you must use a real name. I know that Facebook has exceptions for "famous" people like authors, actors, podcasters and so on.
So I would be okay with Rue Paul getting a pass but to give it to just one group is wrong.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
So I would be okay with Rue Paul getting a pass but to give it to just one group is wrong.
It's not wrong if the one group who's getting the exception represents the group who's unfairly burdened by the original requirement. I'm not clear whether you're supporting or against the decision, but transgender people are unfairly burdened by a requirement of using their birth name when that doesn't agree with the different name they're getting most people (hoping eventually everyone) to use in the real world.
They got their panties in a wad over nothing just to make political hay. Nobody I know uses their real name in FB.
This is totally besides the point.
It's FB wanting to force people to use their real name, so they can identify you to do more stuff they shouldnt with your data.
And now that there's a giant move to Ello, or at least it's starting, they're backtracking.
They are catering to their profits, not to any subset of their users.
Lots of people use fake names, just because they dont want to use their real names. Not because we were all molested.
represents the group who's unfairly burdened by the original requirement.
I would say that the group is fairly burdened by the requirement. Burdens arent unfair just because you dont want to be burdened.
"His name was James Damore."
My understanding is famous people can't either. They are told to use fan pages.
The so-called "apology" is in itself offensive and patronizing. "Drag queens" to LGBT is what "Exotic dancers" are to being a straight woman (or a man, I suppose). The choice of names they used in the example is also not coincidental.
I wonder if reaction would have been different were facebook to require all married women to use their husbands name (Mrs Robinson), and then apologized by way by letting them keep their "Lil Miss Makemeasammich" monikers.
It's only "PC bullshit" until it's your problem.
If their birth name is that much of a burden they can legally change it. Problem solved.
I wouldn't say that. A good friend of mine is on facebook under an alias. Plus I won't admit how many facebook accounts I have.
I'm a lesbian, trapped in the body of a man.
Have gnu, will travel.
Teachers and counsellors often don't want the kids they work with to be able to easily find them on facebook, so they use fake names. I have many friends who do this. So far they haven't been affected by any rule enforcement.
You have such a fundamental misunderstanding of some very basic concepts of justice (which have been tackled over and fucking over throughout the last 100 years of jurisprudence) that I'm not sure whether to bother replying to you.
Consider the following rule: "Anyone whose hair holds a pencil when inserted into the hair is not permitted into the party."
Is it unfair?
Well, no, on the surface of it, it isn't. Pretty simple rule, really? Applies to everyone. Everyone's treated the same. If you don't like it, don't spray/curl your hair, right?
No, of course not. It's a test for blackness. A person who has black skin is way more likely to fail the test than a person who has white skin. It's inherent to black people that they have curlier, tougher hair which is more likely to hold a pencil.
Just as it's inherent to transgender people that their sex organs do not reflect their psychological gender, so there is a very high likelihood that they are misnamed at birth.
Justice does not just consider whether a rule is equally applied to everyone, but whether a rule in effect treats everyone equally. Only in exceptional circumstances do we consider as just a rule which somehow disadvantages a group because of some innate feature of that group.
Reality: deal with it.
hams can use call signs so it's not completely unique
Exactly. This is what (almost) every married woman does, and a lot of divorced women do again. All you have to do is submit paperwork with your full old name, and your full new name. It all depends on your state, and and as far as I know, as long as you're not trying to evade the law in some manner, it's possible for everyone to change their name.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
use your real name like us normal folks
Wow, I have now met the real person called "Anonymous Coward"
Is it me or is it just funny that someone posted anonymously that you should used your real name like "Normal Folks"
represents the group who's unfairly burdened by the original requirement.
I would say that the group is fairly burdened by the requirement. Burdens arent unfair just because you dont want to be burdened.
Neither are burdens fair just because they're imposed by a religiously-based conservative majority.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I think you misunderstand what it means to be transgender. Although "Drag Queens" may make a show of their situation, which might imply some degree of pretense, to be transgender in itself is not to be mentally ill nor does it generally involve any pretense (it's not "fake"). People who are transgender generally experience great emotional and psychological turmoil over their condition (which might lead to other mental illnesses) before finding out that the source of it all is a mismatch between their birth-assigned gender and their self-identified gender. But once these are aligned, they're much better off and can live much more normal lives. The transition, however, can be very difficult, especially when laws and rules don't support the transition (name change, gender change, etc).
He is saying the rule(regardless of what it is) should be evenly applied.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Which has nothing to do with a private company having a rule for a real name.
The fact that groups are given except is appalling. They should either have the rule, or remove it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
... . you mean like, "asshole."
Hey, look at me, I'm using a pseudonym.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Teachers and counsellors often don't want the kids they work with to be able to easily find them on facebook, so they use fake names. I have many friends who do this. So far they haven't been affected by any rule enforcement.
Well, that's one solution. Another is for them to use their real name on Facebook and a fake name in class... some hilarious options come to mind.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. George Orwell
represents the group who's unfairly burdened by the original requirement.
I would say that the group is fairly burdened by the requirement. Burdens arent unfair just because you dont want to be burdened.
If you actually read the news stories (it's been widely reported) you'll find out that one individual reported 200 xgenders. Sounds to me like someone who was targeting a group based on their gender expression. Facebook said they didn't catch what had happened at first because they get thousands of reports.
Facebook clarified it's policy by saying that you can go by the name you're known by to the general public. How would you like it if you couldn't go by the nickname you've been using since grade school, but had to use your "real name"? "William Robert Doe? Who the heck is that? Oh, you mean Billy-Bob?"
Transgenders who are not transsexuals generally retain their legal birth name for things such as banking, etc. However, in the context of social interactions, what is the harm in letting them use the name that their friends and the general public know them as? Isn't it supposed to be a social network, and not a courtroom?
For transsexuals, do you have any idea of how long it takes to do the paperwork in some jurisdictions? Some places will refuse to change your name without a valid reason, backed up by documentation. And what is someone supposed to do while they're transitioning? Go by their old name (one that conforms to their old gender) on Facebook when their co-workers know them by a different name and gender? The Standards of Care for transsexuals require that you live and work full-time in your target gender for at least a year. So you've got a year when you don't have that documentation, and then another year while it goes through - minimum. Sure, YMMV, but that's the way it is where I live.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Dear Facebook, All you have to do is restrict your audience to mature adults. This non-issue would no longer be an issue. Perhaps the "LGBT community" should grow up for once. There is absolutely no reason to cater to their kind (aka kids)
Seriously, that's all they're doing. Someone who wants to put on the opposite gender's clothing, make up a fake name, and act like a giant stereotype of that gender with a fake name and made up personality needs mental help, not bent Facebook rules. Did you know that every study ever has found that 80-90% of drag queen, transsexuals, etc were abused as children?
Even if we take your claim at face value, what is the percentage of adults overall who were abused as children? Depending on how you define abuse, it could also be 80-90%.
Go watch "It's A Wonderful Life" this holiday season and ask yourself if George Bailey wasn't abusive towards his wife and kids.
Also, if you're a transsexual, you'll probably get bullied by other kids because, after all, they can sense you're different. It just leaks out, and kids can be really cruel, same as adults. You're confusing cause and effect.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Maybe its because I have been in online forums since I was a teenager, but, as far as I am concerned your "real name" is exactly whatever you say it is, and, you can have as many real names as you want, because your real name is whatever you accept that people call you. Period. That is as much realness to your name as I recognize.
You tell me your name is voltron. Your name *IS* voltron as far as I am concerned. your real one.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I wouldnt be so sure about that. The whole equality thing that has been pushed over the years. We will see if equality is the real goal, if they LGBT community will stand up with the straight community to help us get to use fake names as well. If not, It shows its not about equality but about special rights.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
perhaps they should legally change their names then? no more problems!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
voter id laws are in no way racist. you need an ID to buy beer, smokes, or enter the whitehouse (legally, not just hopping the fense)
If obama requires an ID to meet the president, why is it unfair to need one to vote for him?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Perhaps they do it professionally; and since people get sick of their jobs, perhaps some don't even like doing it.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
You have such a fundamental misunderstanding of some very basic concepts of justice
... versus truly clarifying a situation.
... I change my name. Rather unlike a physical trait. I would argue that my name is not an innate trait ... it's something that can and every day for someone in the world, does, change. Should the harm I suffer by using it day in and day out be so great, the difficulties caused by changing it should pale in comparison.
This statement, followed by an analogy that creates a dotted line between the original poster and racism, and is a poor analogy to boot. Not that most analogies used in the wild are much more than poor attempts to link a statement to racism, sexism, nazis, psycopaths or something similarly "evil"
Should the use of my real name truly burden me and psychologically harm me, I have a recourse that for hundreds of years has been taken by women upon marriage
Now should I not want to change it, but still be allowed to use any name I can think of any day of the week, the fact that I identify as transgender doesn't suddenly give me more rights than someone who is not to do so. Who is anyone to say that one reason is okay and another is not? And how do we go about deciding who it is okay to be unfair to and who not? These questions usually end up falling on politicians who will ram into place something that will help them get/stay elected.
Yes, but there livelhood won't be impacted of there accounts are closed, unlike profession entertainers who don't want that chance. These specific entertainer have a grope of people who are ALWAYS trying to cause them problems, so getting reported to facebook is much more likely.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In response to this incident, I hope the Bishop of Rome will ban all catholics from using Facebook, because pandering to homosexuality and bestialism is a lethal sin. According to Law V. of Moses, the sodomite shall be punished by stoning.
", but transgender people are unfairly burdened by a requirement of using their birth name when that doesn't agree with the different name they're getting most people (hoping eventually everyone) to use in the real world."
They want people to use that name. So why doesn't everyone have the right to pick the name they want to be called on Facebook?
You allow everybody pick their name or you do not.
Or if you really do not like your name you can always have it legally changed.
In discrimination. You are saying that those people are so not like normal people that you must make a special exception for them.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Waste of a troll really, you'd be better off with "Did you know that every study ever has found that 80-90% of Linux users, paedophiles, etc were abused as children?" on slashdot.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It seems to be a running theme. If you center your life around one of your attributes then all advantages and disadvantages are a directly related to that. I wore red shoes and found a $10 bill, must be lucky shoes. I wore red shoes and the cashier was grumpy to me, he must hate red shoes. Facebook is being a shitlord because I can't be "RedShoes Webber" anymore.
X
I haven't logged onto facebook in like three, four years now?
Explain to me again why entertainers are groping people?
Kind of hard to believe Facebook really is trying to protect the integrity and reputability of its users, and applying rules to people equally. Mark Zuckerberg's dog has a fucking account -- tell me how that's ok?
What the fuck is a "real" name? All names are made up... or were, at some point in time.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
Voter ID laws shouldn't be racist. Everyone should have ID, especially if they want to vote exactly one time.
Unfortunately voter ID laws were foisted on counties and districts where those enacting them knew that it would impact urban (and thus likely democratic) voters disproportionately. It's the sort of change that you make an election or two in the future, and send a state ID team out to major polling places now, so people are prepared when your sensible change rolls around.
Its less expensive to allow them to hide their names then to have to enforce the TOS against people who would harass them. Its all about the $$$$$$$ boys and girls.
Jack of all trades,master of none
The AC you are replying to did not claim voter ID laws were racist. Since you did, though, I will answer why it is unfair to require an ID to vote. In 1965 we as a country enacted legislation to prohibit discrimination in voting. Unless the proportion of people with the required identification (which is above and beyond what we require today) is the same as the proportion of people that can vote legally today, then passing a voter ID law discriminates against that skew. That skew happens to be towards black people. Until we decide we are okay with discrimination and repeal the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we should do our best to not discriminate.
Buying beer and buying cigarettes from another person and has nothing to do with voting so I'm going to ignore it as it's not really germane here.
Look at who is pushing for voter ID laws: those getting a smaller proportion of the black vote with an interest in reducing the proportion of blacks in the voting public. Look who is pushing against voter ID laws: those getting a larger proportion of the black vote with an interest in keeping the current proportions. THAT is exactly why voter ID laws are bigotry by proxy. They are worded to sound innocuous and sold to people like you as "fair" but their entire purpose is to discriminate in a back handed way.
voter id laws are in no way racist.
Except that people at the bottom of the economic ladder, which are disproportionately minorities, are much less likely to have a valid ID. They are also much more likely to vote Democratic rather than Republican. Politicians are well aware of this, so voter ID laws are passed with Republican votes, and volunteer ballot monitors checking for compliance are nearly 100% Republican. In a theoretical perfect world, voter ID laws would not be racist. In reality they are.
Changing your legal name because you don't identify with it anymore makes sense. Many transgender people do that. Here, though we are talking about people that identify with their legal name most of the time but a different name some of the time. They want to have an online profile that represents that some-time facet of them.
A rule to force a user to always use their legal name has one purpose: to prevent people from having profiles other than their "real" self. Not everyone fits that rubric. If Facebook exempts cross dressers, what about cosplayers? What about schizophrenics? What about double agents?
They should just drop the rule.
Obviously nothing is stopping the "straight community" from using fake names on Facebook. Look at how many people have more than one account.
It's only when someone complains that Facebook gets grumpy. In this case 1 individual spent their time targeting 200 people. Sounds to me like that 1 individual has a problem.
Also, many transgenders and transsexuals are members of the "straight community." The definition of "straight", for transgenders who are not transsexual is straight-forward (pardon the pun); "straight" for a transsexual is defined by their sexual preference in their target gender. For example, a male-to-female transsexual can be either "straight, bi, or lesbian," while a male cross-dresser can be "straight, bi, or gay."
Facebook has clarified their position so that you should use the name you're known by publicly. For example, "Billy-Bob" instead of "William Robert", or "Mary-Ann" instead of "Marienka Anastasia". You legally have the right to use the name you're know as publicly. All that's happened is that Facebook has acknowledged that the same applies to LGBT as to everyone else. Sounds to me like it IS about equal rights, not "special rights."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
look, im all for making it mandatory that people can get free legal state IDs that are valid for voting and all of the above, but i see no reason whatsoever that people should not have to prove who they say they are when they are making the biggest decision for the country as you need to decide if you want an ale or a lager
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
What is it about this topic that compels certain boys to proclaim their hatred of queers, loudly and emphatically? Why so sensitive about this topic? Your insecurity is showing, kid.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
There are no "real names", all names are made up.
Ezekiel 23:20
Just how many people have the last name "420" or "Fourtwenty", or a first name like "Saskboy"? The policy is bullshit and applied on the whim of power mad Facepolice, not an *implemented* or *enforced* policy. As far as I'm concerned, the drag queens were being persecuted for their lifestyle, not because they were using "fake" names.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Is Sandnigger McSizeQueen
You seem like many other posters to have missed the actual effect of the facebook announcement. Firstly it is not about the right to use 'fake' names (i.e. ones that you do not use 'in real life'), it is about the right to use the/a name you are generally/frequently known by, which is arguably more 'real' than your so-called real name.
And secondly it appears to apply to everyone, so if you are a straight male whose parents called you 'Dick Shit' but everyone apart from your bank (say) knows you as 'Richard the third' then you have the right to be known as such on facebook. So this decision gives exactly the same rights to everybody.
And yes, I realiize you might have been misled by the fact that the facebook *apology* was directed at transgender people and drag queens/kings. But that was because these groups had been specifically targeted by one person reporting them as having 'fake names'. The actual *policy* change benefits *anyone* who in real life goes by a different name to that on their birth certificate etc. I know several male and female straight people who have gone by a 'different' name for their entire adult life, e.g. just because they have a strong dislike of their birth name and this policy should benefit them if they choose to take advantage of it.
It's their own fault for being gay.
Is it "your own fault" for being straight (assuming you are)?
Inquiring minds want to know.
BTW, most drag queens and cross-dressers are heterosexual.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The problem is that the US is behind the times.
Up here in Kanuckistan, you don't actually have to do anything to be registered to vote. It's automatic. Change your address on your driver's license? You'll get a note in the mail saying your voter's information has been updated. Same with income tax, government benefits, medicare card (pretty much everyone has one of those), etc. Change your address on any of those, and your voter's info is updated.
Somehow fell through the cracks? One piece of photo id, one piece of proof of residence, you vote.
If you had opted for a universal freely-accessible health single-payer health care system, everyone would have the necessary photo id to vote.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
No on can know what it's like to be someone else.
Exactly. They were born only knowing how to fit into society as a gender that conflicts with their anatomy. And they can't pretend that they are the gender that they were assigned at birth because they don't know how to be someone else. I know 3 transgender women, and from what I understand of their tales, their choices were basically suicide or gender transition because they simply could not live with the gender they were assigned based on their anatomy.
The obvious solution is to ensure that everyone has (or can get) an ID. It's not rocket science: most European countries do require an ID to vote, and no-one considers it discriminatory there, because the procedure of obtaining the ID is not.
It's unfair because others don't have to bear the burden of accepting a name that conflicts with their gender.
look, im all for making it mandatory that people can get free legal state IDs that are valid for voting
That will change nothing. Democrats will be less likely to acquire IDs, even if they are free, and will be more likely to lose them. Democrats just tend to be more screwed up dysfunctional people. But that is no reason to deny them their right to vote.
i see no reason whatsoever that people should not have to prove who they say they are
The reason is that laws should address actual problems, and there is no evidence that individual voter fraud is a problem.
I've heard from people in the transgender community that often times it's much harder to change your name outside the context of marriage than inside. I think this is because the process is streamlined for marriages because they are so common. The process is not at all streamlined for transgender name changes (at least in some states).
I think the point is to limit you in virtual space to the same number of identities you have in reality. You only have one body, and so Facebook wants you to have one identity with them. Even a schizophrenic has to accept the fact that their many personalities have to share the same body, and, just like their body, Facebook can't automatically adjust to their new identity as it comes forward. So they have to pick a single identity through which to present themselves to others, even if they are separate internally. Cross dressers similarly have to make a choice. You only get one identity, so make it the one you want to share with everyone. You can either be transgender or not, not both... pick one identity to share with others, and make it the one you're sharing in reality.
Changing your legal name for anything except marriage is much harder in some states than changing it for marriage. The process seems streamlined for marriage because it's so common, but is sometimes prohibitively difficult and/or expensive in other cases. I see this decision as Facebook wanting to be like one of the "easier" states and be available that way to people in all states regardless of how hard it is to change your legal name there. Kudos if they can accomplish that goal without significantly compromising the integrity of peoples' identities in other ways.
Just wondering. It seems there's all kinds of characters besides drag queens that use fake names. Plus so many entertainers use stage names, but their drivers license and passport don't have those names. I'd not be surprised there is a Randall Stevens promoting people to let him handle their investments even though he does not exist ("Shawshank Redemption").
mfwright@batnet.com
The obvious solution is to ensure that everyone has (or can get) an ID. It's not rocket science: most European countries do require an ID to vote, and no-one considers it discriminatory there, because the procedure of obtaining the ID is not.
Absolutely agree, but as it stands not everyone can get an ID easily. Giving out ID to everyone is too socialist I suppose.
People do not have one identity in the real world, they have multiple identities. With the confines of time and space one can choose which identity to present at any moment. If the point is to equate online identities with real world identities, then Facebook would have to offer multiple identities. But that is not the point, the point of Facebook is to compress all a products identities into one over-all identity that can be easily quantized to sell to users.
It depends on the definition of what "famous" really is. My friend is a musician, and well, she is famous. In Russia. But Facebook apparently does not know abou this. They forced her to change her last name in FB account to real, and the problem is, her fans do not know (or did not know) her real name.
On the other hand I see many people who are using nicknames or invented names on FB for years without problems. This could be because they are _not_ famous, and there is no way for FB to tell that "John Smith" is actually "James Kowalsky". Especially if this another name is actually is in a language other than English.
Now my neckbeard is the last remaining obstacle I have to passing fully for a woman!
I just read a story 2 days ago about a republican who got caught voting in multiple places. If it happens 1 time, its a problem IMO
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The funny part of your comment is this.
"Just as it's inherent to transgender people that their sex organs do not reflect their psychological gender"
followed by
"Reality: deal with it."
If the rule is anyone can use any name they want then fine. Maybe I do not want my name to be used on Facebook because I do not like. Maybe everyone knows me as a nickname like Slim.
This is not even about justice it is simply a rule.
I feel it is unjust to give special rights to a group that wants to use a different name than other groups that want to use a different name.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Look at those pushing for NO voter ID laws! FTFY!
voter id laws are in no way racist.
Except that people at the bottom of the economic ladder, which are disproportionately minorities, are much less likely to have a valid ID. They are also much more likely to vote Democratic rather than Republican.
Then that's a fantastic incentive for the Democrats to stage "Get your ID, get out the vote!" events, and help these disenfranchised people get their IDs. It's not like they can open a bank account, or cash a check without one, and they're more likely to be run in or hassled (at least temporarily) in any police interaction without an ID.
Unless, you know, it's not about them being disenfranchised in society - they can stay that way - as long as they can vote, then as long as they vote, to heck with all the other stuff, right?
Both political parties are only out for themselves; it'd be nice if there were rules in place that made them actually positive social forces, rather than opposing ruling classes. Voter ID requirements does that, to a degree, and addresses at least one real social issue that neither party would otherwise spend money on helping resolve otherwise.