Facebook's "new" 58 genders

[Cor Azer]

A better approach would have surely been "Female", "Male", "No Answer", or "Other" - with the last giving the user a box to write in whatever category they choose.

Money.

A large but finite list of options allows them to sell ads on keywords.

Allowing users complete freedom reduces the value of any particular keyword.

And it removes the risk of 'joke' genders.

 

[delericho]

Money.

A large but finite list of options allows them to sell ads on keywords.

Allowing users complete freedom reduces the value of any particular keyword.

Ah, yes. Of course.

 

[Kramodlog]

You read your own wrong doing into what I put,

Wut?

I did not state that there was any.

It was a general question.

[quot]I merely described what is happening and suggested why (i.e. politics are at work).[/QUOTE]How so? Who is pulling the strings? To what end exactly?

 

[kingius]

There is a general philosophy at work in the modern world that states that all people are considered equal, regardless of race, sex, colour or creed. Feminism, human rights and equal opportunities are examples of this philosophy being applied to specific areas. This philosophy stands in general opposition to religion (which is seen as being patriarchal - especially by feminists - and therefore bad and may discriminate against gay people as part of its doctrine), slavery (which is seen as being inherently racist), empire building (as historically all empires were built on the backs of slaves) and likely war in general. The philosophy ties in nicely with capitalism, which as a general rule seeks to gain more and more customers for its products and thereby increase profits. Slaves have no buying power and so are no use to capitalism, religion often states that material goods are secondary to spiritual wisdom and war reduces the number of potential customers, so the general modern philosophy finds a home amongst the 'new' elite of society from the industrial revolution onwards. So what is the ultimate aim, the ultimate goal? Decide for yourself based upon what you know. I would say, its a transformed society, globally, where everyone is a customer. After all, this is what capitalism is all about. Politicians want to rule as many people as possible... and they want these people to get on... and many think a global government is inevitable. So this seems to be another 'ultimate goal' that rises out of the systems and the dominant philosophy of the day.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

I don't really care what Facebook does. Hell, I don't care what people identify themselves as. I used to think some of it was silly but then I realized what a moronic thought that was - how the hell do I know better than someone else what they are? I can't. So overall it's a 'meh' thing for me that leans toward positive. I mean, some people are doubtlessly going to be made very happy by this and will be able to express themselves in another new way. It may be small but anything that helps someone feel a li'l more accepted is good.

Oh, one more thing: Like it or not, folks like this do exist and need to be treated as you'd treat any other human being. They were forced to hide for so long that they seem odd to many of us. The only way to fix that is education and exposure. Even something as small as this (and definitely money focused) can help in that endeavor.

 

[billd91]

I'm a little bit surprised that Facebook did this since it does make it a little harder for their customers (the people buying data about users and their likes) to slice and dice users up into tidy demographic categories for easier marketing. However, even selecting a more ambiguous gender than male/female will give some information to marketers that they will use to sling more tailored product ads.

 

[Kramodlog]

There is a general philosophy at work in the modern world that states that all people are considered equal, regardless of race, sex, colour or creed. Feminism, human rights and equal opportunities are examples of this philosophy being applied to specific areas. This philosophy stands in general opposition to religion (which is seen as being patriarchal - especially by feminists - and therefore bad and may discriminate against gay people as part of its doctrine), slavery (which is seen as being inherently racist), empire building (as historically all empires were built on the backs of slaves) and likely war in general. The philosophy ties in nicely with capitalism, which as a general rule seeks to gain more and more customers for its products and thereby increase profits. Slaves have no buying power and so are no use to capitalism, religion often states that material goods are secondary to spiritual wisdom and war reduces the number of potential customers, so the general modern philosophy finds a home amongst the 'new' elite of society from the industrial revolution onwards. So what is the ultimate aim, the ultimate goal? Decide for yourself based upon what you know. I would say, its a transformed society, globally, where everyone is a customer. After all, this is what capitalism is all about. Politicians want to rule as many people as possible... and they want these people to get on... and many think a global government is inevitable. So this seems to be another 'ultimate goal' that rises out of the systems and the dominant philosophy of the day.

Somehow I get the feeling you think equality is bad and slavery is good.

 

[kingius]

No, I obviously do not think that slavery is good. You're reading that into what I have put, possibly to try and start an argument by portraying me as some kind of right wing nutcase simply because I can take a critical look at the modern world and describe it's various parts. Nothing is all good, bear that in mind. There is plenty wrong with the modern world (such as rampant and unchecked greed, arragance from the elite and a dispassionate and uncaring public) but a lack of slavery is a good thing, not a bad one.

 

[Kramodlog]

No, I obviously do not think that slavery is good. You're reading that into what I have put, possibly to try and start an argument by portraying me as some kind of right wing nutcase simply because I can take a critical look at the modern world and describe it's various parts.

Mostly, well only, because you mentioned slavery in an ambiguous way a few times.

I also understand that equality isn't good, as you seem to avoid adress it.

 

[kingius]

Note that your quote is selective in that it deliberately avoids where I say explicitly that slavery is not good. Lifting things out of context is a fairly obvious tactic when trying to discredit someone.

To address your point about me not bringing up equality, I didn't think there was much need. You seem to be continually thinking that I am against various things that I have raised but I do not see why you think this. Look at these things critically and fairly and you'll see that, like everything else, equality is both good and bad. It's good when it raises standards for you... and bad when it lowers standards for you.

People today need to engage their critical thinking a lot more and I'm not directing this at you but as a generalisation. Too much of anything can be bad. So for example equality, while largely a good thing, can lead to positive discrimination, which is bad if you are on the receiving end of this. For example, if you didn't get a job because of a need for a company to hire a certain percentage of its employees using some form of arbitary criterial. Politicians might try to implement such a thing to reduce unemployment in the over 50s at the expense of someone who would do the job better. So it depends on how far it goes, equality.

In all things balance is key and this is what I would like the take away message to be. Modern life is fairly unbalanced in many ways (greed, self interested politicians, media not interested in the truth, a disinterested and largely ignorant public, a lack of concern for the environment, a love of money...). Old fashioned values like love, truth, honesty, justice and honour are lacking. Now, I hope you understand my position.