Discrimination and how it affects life and the net?

[Taramafor]

I'd like to talk about the treatment of furries, humans and whatever other species/group is on Second Life. Specifically I'd like to talk about how they get mistreated and unfairly banned for simply existing. And yes, up to sim owners and blah blah blah, but that attitude won't get fair treatment for all. Only by attempting to get a rule established by Linden Labs can we hope to have Second Life accept all species. There is no logical reason for furries to be banned by, say, BDSM sims or even RP sims (and there are sims like this). Don't like furries? Move on to the next human in sight. Don't have to interact with someone for being there. Going "You're not welcome here becuase you're you" on the other hand is just plain wrong. There is ZERO LOGICAL REASONING for furries to be banned from anywhere. What's more it's discrimination, plain and simple. Even if anthros aren't a IRL species (Though many certaintly consider it "internet real") this is at least the equivalent of banning someone for being into something. Like religion. It's absurd to the extreme and I'm not just going to turn a blind eye to this. There are public sims doing this where furries could be. And even though an owner and a few bigots might have a gripe with furries there, in the end just because someone's in a sim doesn't mean you have to walk up to them and engage with them. And I'm sure many in furry banned sims would be fine with furries on a whole (if not then it's whatever. Can still enjoy the environment). Making it against the rules to ban furries is ultimately a win win scenario, unless you're a judgemental bigot that looks down on others for being as they are.

Well? Do you look down on something that is different? BDSM itself was once seen in such a light. Yet here we are in that light, most of us (and I think and hope all of us concerning public places. I'd give furries flak too if they ban humans) accepting humans perfectly because we're not that low.

And I'm not going to let up on this topic. I'll go as far as taking it to court if I have too. Descrimination is against the law. It's illigal. Period. Since I'm sure simialar topics have been brought up before I thought I'd play the "Hey, at least do it for your own necks" card this time. How this has been ignored is beyond me. Does Linden Labs just not care? I'm honestly asking myself that and I wish I wasn't.

[SkillsFurrystorm]

---

Taramafor wrote:

And I'm not going to let up on this topic.

---

Lol ok.

---

Taramafor wrote:

 

I'll go as far as taking it to court if I have too.

---

Sure you will.

---

Taramafor wrote:

 

Descrimination is against the law. It's

illigal

. Period.

---

Nothing makes my furry blood boil like illigal descrimination!

[Tari Landar]

You need to red up on this topic some more, you're terribly misinformed.

There are places that ban men. There are places that ban women. There are places that ban tinies. There are places that ban large(read:huge) avatars. There are places that ban children(both avs and real life minors). There are places that ban adults. There are places that ban furries. There are places that ban vampires. There are places that ban based on what you're wearing, or not wearing. There are places that ban all sorts of things. Here's why ..

A great deal of places are RP based, and they not only want, but also need, people to be in character, and in theme. A furry doesn't likely fit in very well in a western themed sim. A child doesn't fit in well in an adult-theme based sim. Men aren't going to fit in on sims designed for women. Women won't fit in on sims designed for men. Adults aren't often welcome in sims designed for kids. The reasons will vary greatly, but more have to do with the comfort of those that actually intend to RP there. Rp is a serious thing, for some folks, and they want everything to be "in character", or "in style". There's nothing wrong with that. I don't know why on earth someone would want to go somewhere that their particular av would not likely fit in. It makes no sense to scream out injustice, when there isn't any. What's to stop people from simply getting into the proper character attire for that sim? Nothing, absolutely nothing, except unwillingness to participate. If someone isn't willing to participate, they shouldn't be on that sim in the first place. Why would you want to go somewhere that you wouldn't be in theme anyway? It makes absolutely no sense at all. People tend to AVOID places they don't fit in, not try to push their way through locked doors, lol.

I don't know what "public sim"(or sims) you're referring to, or even what you mean by public, as the vast majority of sims are actually owned by people that pay tier. Whether or not those folks *allow* the general public to use their sim, is irrelevant, they do not HAVE to. They are not considered "public" by any definition that I know of, even IF the sim owner allows just about anyone in. It's still, very much, privately "owned" land, and therefore not up to the land visitors to dictate what does and does not go on.

If your crusade here isn't going to include each and every av ever banned/disallowed from/on a sim, or even a bunch of sims, then your little crusade is not worthy of much discussion. It is clear that you haven't actually looked up any info on this topic, or seen the countless discussions we've had here.

Bottom line LL makes the rules, and they allow land owners(technically, I guess renters, we're really only renting server space, but..I digress...) to make the rules too. So, if a sim owner only wants certain avs, he/she is well within his/her right to do just that. No amount of "OMG NOOOOOO" crying you do, is going to change that.

There are sims I can't go to, as an adult female av. I'm perfectly content with that. There are also loads of sims I don't/wouldn't go to, because I don't want to go with the flow, so to speak, and be "in theme". So, guess what...I don't go. I don't get mad at them for not allowing me access. I'm nto an entitled brat that thinks I should be able to do whatever the heck I want, go where I want, when I want, and no one can say otherwise. That just sounds childish.

It is neither illegal, nor wrong. It's also not equivalent to banning something for religious beliefs, that just sounds foolish even typing it out. Threats to "take it to court" just make you sound childish and ill-prepared for a virtual world in which not everyone is going to like you, your style, your tastes, your av, etc...

Do yourself a favor, take a few minutes to do a proper search on the forums and even the web and look this topic up. read the conversations, read the commentary, understand more than just your own narrow view of "what the world should be", and you might just realize that you're going about this the wrong way(and you're not the first to do so).

Though I'm fairly certain this is going to be presented with a "stop being mean to me" or a "you use too many words" response...I surely hope I;m wrong. I'm not a mean person, but I will toss reality into a discussion now and then...so I hope it's realized that this is precisely what I am doing(if not by you, perhaps everyone else reading, since most folks know I'm not just a mean jerk that talks too much...I hope, lol)

[Pamela Galli]

Be sure and leave your RL front door open so strangers can come raid your refrigerator. Because otherwise you would be discriminating and that's illegal.

[Chaser Zaks]

I'm going to go ahead and disclose that I am indeed a furry, but there are various reasons for this:

1. Some sims such as RP sims, furries just plain out do not fit in. Imagine seeing a anthromorphic fox walking around in a wild west area RP sim, or on a historical RP sim. It just wouldn't make sense and would ruin the immersion for some people.
2. In adult areas, furries can be a turn off for some people. Sure, some people with human avatars are alright with doing it with furry avatars, BUT some people would see this as bestiality. Sometimes even the owner of the area. Some people just don't like it and just go ahead and ban it.
3. Let's face it, furries are weird. We make unrealistic anatomy that is 10 meters big or do cringy RP(EG: "/me murry purrys ur furry part XXXDDDDDDD"). While not all of furries do it, there is no denying there is this part of the fandom. Blanket bans solve this problem.
4. SL is a place of expressing yourself, EVEN IF it is the owner of the parcel/sim. They own the sim/parcel and get final say(Unless estate manager or LL steps in). Taking away their right to control how they want their sim is removal of their rights. It just wouldn't be fair.

Now, one question for you is, why would you want to be in an area where you were not excepted, even if the owner was forced to allow you? Are you sure you would want to be in an area where the owner disliked or even hated, you for your avatar? I sure wouldn't.

Best thing to do in this, is just find places where you can hang out and have fun while being accepted. There are a hand full of places that don't like furries or just outright ban them, while on the other hand there are plentiful of places that accept furries or just don't mind.

Heck, I even know of one place that only allows furries and ban human avatars. Or places than ban males and accept females and visa versa. Not once have humans avatar users complained about this(at least, to my knowledge).

As for someone complaining about furries in a public area(EG: Linden owned land, or Linden owned mainland) or on private land(Resident owned sims), they can have their opinion, but they cannot do anything about it. If they impede on this without the owner's permission, via means of griefing or something, report them to the owner of the land. If it happens on Linden owned land, report them to LL via abuse report and watch them get banned. :^)

[Amethyst Jetaime]

I have owned and also managed several so called 'public' sims.  The fact is like Tari said, all avatars don't always fit in a venue.  That is a VERY LOGICAL reason.

Even in non RP sims, such as a ballroom, when avatars show up that don't fit in the owner/manager gets IM's complaining about it from other patrons, not because they are prejudice, but because the avatar's effect on the atmosphere for them.  A child avatar in a bar for example.

While I have never out right banned any group of avatars based on species, I'll tell you my experience is that if one shows up that doesn't fit in and 10 people complain about it, several will leave and not return and not always just the complainers.  If you are trying to run a venue where traffic is important it's a tough decision.

When I owned my ballroom I didn't ban furries, who were dressed appropriately for the venue.  But I did ask any avatar that showed up in non formal attire to put some on.  Any that didn't or gave me a bad attitude about it found themselves ejected.  If they returned the same way after being warned, they were banned.  Most had the same attitude you do.  "I'll look the way I want to and too bad if you don't like it".

Like Tari said, you can always change into the appropriate avatar/outfit for the venue.  I do.  I wouldn't go to a furry only club (and they do exist) without doing so.  Changing into appropriate avatars and clothing are part of the fun of SL.

So go ahead and take it to court and give the judge a good laugh.  There is nothing in RL law that forbids what you call discrimination against people dressed as animals.

[Griffin Ceawlin]

Wow. Ok. Yeah.

---

Taramafor wrote:

... up to sim owners and blah blah blah, ...

---

Yep.

---

... get a rule established by Linden Labs can we hope to have Second Life accept all species.

---

Not gonna happen. Sorry.

---

There is no logical reason for furries to be banned by, say, BDSM sims or even RP sims...

---

Immersion. That's reason enough for some.

---

... this is at least the equivalent of banning someone for being into something. Like religion.

---

Who says an atheist has to let a Catholic/Protestant/Jew/Muslin/Hindu on their sim and vice versa? LL certainly doesn't.

---

It's absurd to the extreme and I'm not just going to turn a blind eye to this.

---

Seems quite a waste of time, and you'll find that out soon enough, but OK.

---

There are

public

sims doing this...

---

What do you mean by "public"? Mainland, which is broken up into private parcels where owners can set their own rules? Or private sims where owners can set their own rules and owners allow the public to enter as long as their rules are followed?

---

And even though an owner and a few bigots...

---

Do you really wanna go there? There are actual bigots in the world and they're not concerned at all with people who want to dress up as cartoon animals in SL. So just don't go there. Just don't

---

I'll go as far as taking it to court if I have too.

---

Are your civil rights being violated? If not (and they're not) then you don't stand a chance. No lawyer will touch it and no judge will hear it.

---

Descrimination is against the law. It's

illigal

. Period.

---

Unfortunately for you, furries are not among the protected classes. You know. Race, color, religion, national origin, sex, etc., etc., etc.

Too bad. So sad.

---

Since I'm sure simialar topics have been brought up before I thought I'd play the "Hey, at least do it for your own necks" card this time.

---

Yeah, sorry, no. I'm more concerned about my own and other's actual civil rights. I don't have time to worry about the "civil rights" of cartoon animals in a virtual world.

[Pamela Galli]

This made me LOL:

Do you really wanna go there? There are actual bigots in the world and they're not concerned at all with people who want to dress up as cartoon animals in SL. So just don't go there. Just don't

 

[Taramafor]

Thanks for the well written response, Tari (and some others). At least someone here is taking things seriously.

Now onto the actual debate itself. There is a large, large difference between a child and a furry. The two don't even compare in terms of reasons why they're banned. That's an age thing. specifically in terms of 18+ environments. Vampires are at least somewhat understandable due to turning into bats, drinking blood, etc. These things can indeed break immersion. I don't have much to say on the subject of clothes except that if it's an adult only area then people are going to get nude. Which by no means translates to public "activities".

With that out of the way can you kindly explain to me how a furry in and of itself breaks immersion? I have a cowboy outfit. I have a pistol. I draw and shoot. Other then the fact that I wouldn't be human and have a tail and claws where is the breaking of immersion in terms of abilities and actions? Being in character doesn't just mean mean "Oh look, everything has to be perfectly in line with history". It also means "Ok, people are going to get outside the box at times and there needs to be room to roleplay that out so everyone is treated fairly". A furry in and of itself does nothing to break immersion and can fit in perfectly well in any and all environments, safe for "human only" ones (would it be right to have a purely white person RP sim? I assume you'll say yes but I view it as no in my own perception). Even if a location itself leans heavily toward one species or another there's zero reason to outright disallow outside the box roleplay, which I argue tends to enhance roleplay, though that's somewhat moot. My point is there is zero logical reasoning beyond "Because a different color of skin/a few extra abilities". And I state this for anyone that would get mistreated due to simply being different, regardless of "skin color" or what they're into (did you even read my BDSM being kept hidden from the public eye in my previous post? Guess you'd say it's not wrong to ban them from places too if someone refused to remove a collar. I personally view it as wrong to ban someone from anywhere for collar reasons, IRL or otherwise (equivalent of a wedding ring, much like a cross, suit, any other really personal item/clothing/memento. etc)). So please don't make this about me. I'm making this about furries on a whole as well as anyone else that gets treated differently for simply "being there" without a good reason (while I don't judge underage or other taboo RP I can at least understand that, though maintain the stance of to each their own). And unlike vampires, a purely mythological species, furries have become something of a self identity for the most part, even IRL and without having to "suit up" (so it is much like religion TYVM. It's a self identity), baring a few cases in the case of vampires where people take it to extremes, which also matters even if it's a very minor minority (I'm not saying they are real vampires IRL of course. Simply that they really get into it). My point is furries are at this point in time a widely recognised "species" for all intensive purposes, on and off the net alike. Much like black people, who once were slaves for being different themselves. Was it seen as wrong back then? No. Is it now? Yes. Is right and wrong subjective? Damn right it is. I'll look down at anyone treating black people (or Japanese or martian) differently even if every opinion matters. But I won't shun them myself for being different or having a different perception.

As for fitting in you're making a lot of assumptions. Hi, sub. Hi, none plot heavy BDSM dream that bans furries without even a reason. And you tell me to just go "Ok, I'll deal with this and I'm not welcome just beause"? Nope, not happening. If I see any BDSM place doing this I point the finger of mistreatment because hey, BDSM is a good part of who I am too (so in that light, yes, it's a lot like religion. Lifestyle, just like furry). There's other places, sure, but what about getting to know people in this place? (note: I'm poly and by no means play favorites in terms of people, environments or whatever else. Every person and place matters). The residents may or may not be accepting of me, but until I can even GET IN THERE how can I possibly know if it's the residents on a whole or just a few bad apples? Regardless it's still an environment that could be used by furries. Regardless of what the people already there are like it can still be made use of by furries, with other furries. Your RP example holds little merit when the sim itself is not focused on purely RP (I guess such sims are more persona/ooc?). And again, in the case of when it even is a RP sim, it can still be made use of. Why, I can even think of a perfectly good compramise where both furries and humans win out, regardless of how they see each other. A simple sim rule of "Wear this human/furry only tag to make it know you want to only roleplay with your own kind". And everyone else can mingle. Is there any downside to that at all beyond "Not wanted here because different"? Personally bloodsucking isn't my thing and I heard of a bad case of something or other in the past, but I don't go judging vampires and going "Don't do that around me because I don't like it". Personality trumps out over all. I'm not into tentacels either but wouldn't avoid someone because they have them. People often claim to look past difference yet look what happens when they see something they don't like themselves in someone else. That is NEVER right or fair and it's always wrong, in my personal opinion. Just that little thing today and tomorrow families turning backs on you for being into whatever. The law exists to guide morality, so you tell me if a currently none existing rule of "Up to sim owners, we don't care enough make a SL wide rule" is fair or not. I refer not to just this case and example but on a whole. "It's a rule" is not an excuse in and of itself. What is the reason and how might it be unfair? Rules change when fact, logic and opinions are presented. This is what I'm doing at this point in time.

By public I mean where there's a sufficient number of people to be considered as such. And where the public in general is welcome.

And it's still against the law. You do know what discrimination is, right? I'll outline the key points.

In human social affairs, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.

Which contradicts with a lot really. But I imagine there's other laws to bypass such cases. Such as with children. Linden Labs rules are not laws, they're rules. Big difference. There's a difference and I'm curious as to the legality of the whole affair. Sims, while private, are still used by the public (and therefor very much social). It's not exactly the same as a house, even if it is technically private. So it all gets a little murky. If it was that simple then there wouldn't even be a child avatar rule. The very reason that is in place is because of the law. Because the internet follows the law as well (certain taboo things aside that are overlooked, presumably in the interest of preventing shunning of difference, which are probably legal anyway because "it's not real").

Law aside my only interest in in everyone being treated fairly and not being shunned from an environment for simply existing. Before even any RP occurs one can walk around and take in the sights. Observe the environment and people. Furries that simply can't change into a human skin (because they don't "believe" in being human themselves and and nor should they change who and what they are) simply don't get a chance at that.

Here's a fun little question. Would it be right and fair for a black person to be banned from a private park that is open to the public? Personally I say no, damn what laws may be in place or not. SL sims are like private parks open to the public, baring home only ones where private means exactly that (at your virtual home in other words). I would like to not use the law at all to be honest, but it is in place and so I must. But that does not mean I view "law" as "right" by its existence. What's legal can be wrong too. Case by case. individual by individual. Got to keep it all in mind.

All that said I decided to change the topic to "Discrimination and how it affects life and the Internet". I'd like to continue to discuss not just furries but every and any "differently treated" person. In the interest of fair play I'm going to inquire how humans might have suffered among furries. I myself have known someone that knows others that is "anti human". I am understanding on both sides but I also understand that being shunned only leads to being shunned back in turn (again, religion example. It never ends well. Personally I'm atheist). If that pattern does not end then there will only be a forever "shunness". is that what we want? Is it worth "a bit of pure, historical only, RP with no wiggle room for others"? That is the question I shall present. I'd much prefer "roleplay that can adapt to change and circumstance yet still remain very much in lore despite this" myself.

As for that "adult areas" quote, all I got to say is that I once saw MLP in action. Not my thing at all. But hey, their thing. I got my own group here and can interact with them a little more away. Played CAH with them after.

 

Heck, I even know of one place that only allows furries and ban human avatars.

I'm italicizing since I can't find quote. I'm actually saddened to hear this. I've seen most furry places be accepting of humans.

[Griffin Ceawlin]

---

Taramafor wrote:

Furries that simply can't change into a human skin (because they don't "believe" in being human themselves and and nor should they change who and what they are) simply don't get a chance at that.

---

Wut?

[Taramafor]

While there's suits IRL, when it comes to internet people can believe that they are as they are, regardless of their "online skin". I thought that was obvious. Not everyone goes "RL is more important". I consider both net and RL equally important myself. Since internet people are, you know, people. I'm assuming this is where your confusion lies.

That said there are also RL people that can take suit wearing personally, so I'll also say "nor should they" in this case as well. And even people that believe they are animals in spirit (think native Americans. I don't tie into this area). It all ties into self identity.

[Griffin Ceawlin]

Oh, next you'll you'll be comparing furries to transgender persons. Nope. Not buyin' it.

Laters.

[Taramafor]

Furry is more then just a suit or an online avatar you... forget it. I'm no longer wasting my time on you. Transgender. Furry. Gay yet religious. It all ends up the same. People getting turned on by their own families or having to hide in rooms. Something I have gladly been spared and never had to suffer through. But I still feel bad for anyone that has.

So yes, in many ways they are alike. I guess the concept of "self identity" is lost on you. Should have saved my breath. Whatever.

[wherorangi]

---

Taramafor wrote:

Furry is more then just a suit or an online avatar you... forget it. I'm no longer wasting my time on you. Transgender. Furry. Gay yet religious. It all ends up the same. People getting turned on by their own families or having to hide in rooms. Something I have gladly been spared and never had to suffer through. But I still feel bad for anyone that has.

So yes, in many ways they are alike. I guess the concept of "self identity" is lost on you. Should have saved my breath. Whatever.

---

this is a serious disconnect from reality. Transgender and gay {and race] is a biological fact

Furry is the same as religion. We are not born furry anymore than we are born christian or muslim or pick your belief

eta:

[and race] furry is not a race of people. Like african or caucasian, etc

[wherorangi]

ps more

i am self-identify with the tribe of SL neko. In both SL and the RL. I have neko ears I wear RL as well. I have mention this before on here. Some people in the RL supermarket can be quite discrimantory toward me. Is horrible when some people sigh at me and roll there eyes like I am some kinda weirdo or something

and sometimes also they are horrible toward this guy from Krypton, who sometimes wears his native and ethnic and cultural accoutrements. Some people even snigger at him. Not me tho. I am feel his pains

+

eta

i forgot to add a smiley. i do now just in case

(:

ps. the Krypton guy is actually a weirdo. Not like me. I am just cute (:

like who would ever believe he is actually Superman. Even when you squint your eyes and say some prayers hoping that it might be true and not look at his pot belly tummy

not like when they squint at me. Everybody will tell you that I am believeably cute. Unbelieveably cute even as well at the same time even. Like amazing cute. Can ask anyone and they will tell you the same. Is pretty embarrassing sometimes (:

 

  

[Tari Landar]

I'm goign to address this little bit by little bit, and just change text color, because it's easier for me to see (long time posters, y'all understand why, lol). I'm in blue

Now onto the actual debate itself. There is a large, large difference between a child and a furry. The two don't even compare in terms of reasons why they're banned. That's an age thing. specifically in terms of 18+ environments. Vampires are at least somewhat understandable due to turning into bats, drinking blood, etc. These things can indeed break immersion. I don't have much to say on the subject of clothes except that if it's an adult only area then people are going to get nude. Which by no means translates to public "activities".

There are vast differences between all different kinds of avatars, but that's not what I was addressing, in the least. I used children, vampires, furries, giants, humans, males, females, etc.. as examples of various different types of avatars that are "banned"(ie, not allowed, as I do differentiate between the two) on different sims. I wasn't stating that they are banned for the same reasons, or that they're even comparible. Something you are overlooking is that, just as your vampire example above, immersion is broken in a sim that does not cater to that type of avatar. The same applies to *every single other avatar out there. It(ie, disallowing), more often than not, involves nothing but immersion. Kids can break immersion in areas that cater to adults-and no, they don't have to be sexual or nude areas to cater to only adults. Adults can break immersion in sims that have only kid avs. ANY non-human avatar(regardless of the type) can *easily break immersion in a sim dedicated to, built for, and RP written around, human avatars. Whether you believe this to be true or not, doesn't change the fact. I suspect you simply haven't been in sl that long(I didn't check your rez date, so.. no real clue..but I suspect based on your posts, correct me if I am wrong please). This simply means you don't have the experience or knowledge necessary to understand the other side of the coin. So, you feel justified in your own opinion, feeling that all others are dead wrong. On this matter...it's the other way around.

With that out of the way can you kindly explain to me how a furry in and of itself breaks immersion? I have a cowboy outfit. I have a pistol. I draw and shoot. Other then the fact that I wouldn't be human and have a tail and claws where is the breaking of immersion in terms of abilities and actions? Being in character doesn't just mean mean "Oh look, everything has to be perfectly in line with history". It also means "Ok, people are going to get outside the box at times and there needs to be room to roleplay that out so everyone is treated fairly". A furry in and of itself does nothing to break immersion and can fit in perfectly well in any and all environments, safe for "human only" ones (would it be right to have a purely white person RP sim?

No, you are dead wrong here. Being in character does, very much mean everything has to fit in with character, theme, etc.. UNLESS the sim owner says otherwise. Take the wild west sim example...no, a furry cowboy avatar would absolutely NOT fit in, in most areas, unless of course the SIM OWNER dictates otherwise. There have been wild west sims that allow non-human avatars, but most that I have seen, do not. Why? Immersion, that's why. Many of those sims circle around the idea of a rl wild west, not just a fantasy wild west. So, non-human avs that would not be present in a rl wild west, would nto be present in their sl wild west, so they exclude. If a sim owner wants to say "ok, people may want to think outside of the box, that's awesome", then go for it. But, if a sim owner says "nope, I'm paying for this, it's my land, my rules, and I want everything, and everyone, in theme, so, no going outside of the box", then that is what it has to be. There are plenty who allow some "out of the box" thinking, but don't alow other..they are all well within their right. You don't get to choose what people who pay for the land get to do with it. There's loads of sims in sl that I'd like to see be something else, but, you know what...I just don't go there. Not my land, not my money, not my problem. Sl is too big to worry about such things. 

By public I mean where there's a sufficient number of people to be considered as such. And where the public in general is welcome.

Nope, unless the lab says a sim is public, you should never, ever, assume that it is. Whether or not the sim owner ALLOWS the general public on the land, does not dictate it being public. That's not how land works in sl. People pay for that land, it is their land to do as they fit within the guidelines the lab gives us. That includes excluding people from their land. DO you feel the same about people that don't let anyone on their land other than their friends/family? If not, why? THey are, after all, excluding everyone, including furries, for not fitting into the group they've described as allowed(ie, their friends/family). How about sims set up for only group access? Do you feel the same about them?

I really believe you need more experience and more knowledge about sl, the TOS, discrimination, exclusion, and RP. I don't think you have enough knowledge or experience in any of these areas to have a discussion about this, at this time. I fear I'm going to come across rude if I continue this discussion, because you're being rather insulting and I don't think it's intentional. But, knowing me, and how I tend to react to people I feel are being intentionally confrontational, or ignorant...I'll save us all the read.

I'm actually going to stop here, because, you're delving into areas that have nothing at all to do with this, and I think you recognize that and it's why you changed the title. Bets of luc to you, I do hope you decide to actually venture out into sl a bit more, you'll find far less exclusion than you assume exists, and a whole heck of a lot more possibilities  

 

 

[Taramafor]

You're missing the point. Next you'll be telling me that it's a choice to believe in a deity or not. That's not a choice, it's an uncontrolled perception. It's how you see and believe. I have no faith but I believe in things. I have a perception. Cross for one and collar for the other. For a lot of furries it might be suit. It's much more complicated then that of course, but I'm attempting to explain the basics without giving you the furry version of the bible here (which is many things. And many other things can also be varied and mean a lot personally to people). Now do you understand?

Of course there's a difference between the two, but what you and others fail to comprehend is that I'm stating that there are also similarities. Is that really a difficult concept to grasp?

I ended up posting in another thread about the topic at hand. The thread group in general relating to BDSM and SL. Here's the re-writting. Hopefully it's more applicable to everyone outside of RP.

 

I would like to talk about the mistreatment of anyone that is different. For many on SL that will be furry, or even vampire or my little pony. I once saw some MLP "in action". Not my thing at all. I was in the same sim. I simply maintained some distance and mingled with my own crowed at the point in time. Afterwards we mingled altogether and played cards against humanity and had fun. This is an example of everyone getting along. If I don't like someone or even if I wanted to "stick with my own kind" I could simply just move away and do just that *in the sim itself*.

So can someone please explain to me how furries are banned from certain BDSM sims? Pause for a moment. It's not about the people there. It's not just about the sim owner being a **bleep** banning people for no good reason (and in this case, hey, maybe the people already in the sim are ok), it's about the environment. An environment that could be made use of. And it's also about "Hey, this is a black person on a private park open to white people, let's ban him". It's about not just furries or humans (I am saddened to say some furry places ban humans and even heard of anti human furries) but about how this kind of behaviour is even allowed at all. Seriously, how? I'm honestly baffled.

Let's cover RP first. All that changes in a furry is that they have fur/scales/whatever, a tail and claws (and pointier teeth probably). Other then that? Nothing that different. And they don't even have to use them in RP. Can still be in a wild west sim in a cowboy outfit and draw a gun. Is "pure human RP" worth discrimination? Is "pure furry RP"? Is "white only RP sim"? If it was as simple as "Hey, it's up to the sim owner" then what's with the child rule? What's with the law? What is in place to define what is morally right and wrong, which is always subjective? I say to each their own. Be a **bleep** all you like but banning from a none RP BDSM sim for simply existing? That's just too much for me to bear. LL lets this happen. I will not let it slide. What's the excuse (from the sim owners)? "Because it's not kink". 1: That is both true and false. Who decides what's kinky or not for who? Personally claws and sharp teeth turn me on. Tails too. And hey, there's all the other kinky BDSM stuff I can use. Is that really so hard to understand? 2: Is "human" kinky in and of itself? Do humans get banned for being "not kink"? Am I the only one seeing a problem with this? Tags with "human/furry only" or "welcome all" or blank for all. Over peoples heads. Problem solved, no one gets left out. Everyone gets a group and not. Where is the difficulty? CARP does it easily. It WORKS.

I'd like to know how many people would be willing to voice out against Linden Labs about this. If enough people make it known that being shunned for being different *with no good reason* (and being furry/human/whatever else in a none RP sim is sure as hell no good reason in my mind. RP sims are at least understandable to a degree) is an issue then perhaps they'll place a SL rule to never let that happen. Humans don't deserve to be banned anymore then furries. It's one thing to keep people outside a private home but another to shun people from a sim altogether that is open to the public. "Furry" is like "collar". And "collar" is like "cross" to religious people. In the first two I am biased. In the third I am atheist. It's all self identity and mistreatment because of it. Which I'm pretty sure is against the law. I don't care about the law in general (what's legal can be wrong and what's illegal can be right) but I am curious about this nonetheless. Online is a place people can be themselves, no less so then IRL. Something some people fail to grasp. For some it's even more then RL (comfort zones/environments), though personally I treat both equally. People are people. Identities are identities. Does not banning furries or humans or whatever else result in breaking the discrimination law, They very law that states the following?

In human social affairs, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.

"Furry" is certainty a group if nothing else. One that exists IRL to boot, and it's a hell of a lot more then suits, events and avatars (none suiter here). It's how some people are, what they personally believe and view. But hey, banned for not removing your very identity. For not taking off an avatar. It's like going "You can never be sub/dom here, you have to take off that collar which is like a wedding ring for your owner". Or "You have to take off that cross that is the very essence of your faith". It might not be physical, but it still matters. Doesn't matter what none RP sim, doesn't matter the identity. How you are is how you are. Do you go "Let's not make the decimation law because it doesn't matter" or do you make it be know that all matter? A none attempt is a guaranteed failure. An attempt, even if failed, still carries a chance of getting results. Results for furries, results for humans, results for vampires and my little ponies and whatever else have you. Results for everyone.

On the one hand the sims are "private". On the other I think to myself "black person banned from private park open to white people". And even BDSM itself was once a shunned thing that was unwelcome to many. I'm curious about the legality, but I'm more curious about the morality. And about how LL still allows this continued mistreatment over and over and over, both with furries and with humans alike. At the very least I think there needs to be a rule in place that allows all people in none RP sims at all times, unless it's a very private residence and someones home. Surely that's fair for everyone.

Didn't mean to get quite so carried away there. ended up putting it in a SL forum post and adding somewhat. Anyway, that's my stance on discrimination on the net and SL. Hopefully I haven't made an ass of myself like I did in my original SL forum post (which I'm currently attempting to clear up). This one was much more thought out.

 

 

Please disregard my previous posts and use this post. I will address any and all concerns (and remind everyone I have said RP is at least understandable to a degree). Please have a better reason then "Because LL rules" if you're going to counter debate.

[sirhc DeSantis]

More or less anthro here, and hereby banning OP for the use of 'Whatever.' as a standalone phrase under the tone arguament clause (we are under Net Lawyer made up juridiction territory here).

Please add me to your sue list hun I could do with a day out =^^=

[Taramafor]

Please refer to my previously post, which you most likely did not see during typing of your post. I didn't explain as well as I could have before but hopefully I have corrected that.

Also, please save the sarcasm. It only encourages drama. I won't respond to posts that continue to go down that path (though if a later post by the same person is in more serious tones I will more likely address it).

 

I shall add that LL is the law in SL even if the LL has to follow the law. I am referring to private sims. A restaurant is a privately owned business. Does it get away with turning away people of a different colour? How often has that been "allowed" before people spoke up and it is no longer the case?

Think on it.

[Alwin Alcott]

---

Taramafor wrote:

 

Think on it.

---

trying.... but still can't see anything that discriminates people.

 

gay/lesbian/transgender/yellow/red/brown/white = human

furries/cartoons/dragons/werewolves ....and lots more = not

 

i don't dicriminate when i put my dog on a leash and don't do the same with my partner...you keep mixing up real and play

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

Since this means so very much to you, rent some land and make your own inclusive BDSM place. Set up the group tags exactly as you want. Put all this energy into promoting it and making it somewhere fantastic that people want to join.

You're demanding that others see things the way you do on this matter and it's not working. It is quite a leap for the majority of people to accept your claim that in your psyche you really are a different species. Telling them how to run their sims isn't the way to do it. It just brings in too many other issues.

So make your own area and use it to promote the kind of acceptance you want.

[Phil Deakins]

Quick summary of the thread so far: Nobody agrees with you. You are on your own.

Suggested action: Give it up, because you are on your own.

My opinion: I agree with everybody except you.

[Tari Landar]

When you can point to the RL law, applicable in the US, that states furries cannot, and should not be, excluded, then you can add rl law discussion to the topic. It is, however, not a law, and will never BE a law, in the US. Furries are not a protected class, regardless of how much one might identify with his or her fursona.

Private sims are just that, private. When you pay for the land, you make the rules. That is what this ALL boils down to..all of it. If you don't pay for the land, what makes you believe you have some "right" to it? LL has told you.. no, you don't. Therefore, the conclusion is...no, you don't.

Your "rights" are defined by LL, and yes even US law in some instances. When LL tells land owners they cannot exclude specific avatars, then landowners will abide by that ruling. It's not going to happen, though, I can assure you of that.
You're comparing far too many things, and although you've restated what you previously said, it still includes a lot of the same sentiment.

No avatar in sl, regardless of the type of avatar, has free reign. We are ALL limited and bound by the TOS. If we don't like it, we simply don't partake in sl. This is not rl, this is sl, and while yes sl and rl are both highly important, rl is very much MORE important. You say you don't feel that way, but I don't believe you. I don't believe you, or anyone else, would ever let an online area-be it a virtual world, social media, websites, forums, discussion places, etc...take complete precedence over their rl no matter what. Some people put a lot of importance in online "stuff"(lack of better term on my part) but rl is *always more important...always, even if just slightly.

What you're discussing, and what I believe myself and others are trying to convey is that you're not thinking about the actual immersion here. You're taking everything as a slight against your fursona, instead of thinking about the *why* behind the "rule" or exclusion. Why not ask the sim owners why they exclude, instead of assuming you know why?
It's better to find out the real answer than it is to assume, after all. You assume they just don't like "different" by the context(I nearly said tone, but that's not really applicable in text, I suppose) of your posts. You assume they are discriminatory bigots. You assume far too much, and you are absolutely dead wrong. Maybe you should stop wrongly judging other folks for a few minutes and spend some real time in sl, so you can better understand how things work...like land ownership, rights and responsibilities as a resident of sl, and other such topics, rather than just assuming this is some kind of crusade that you think folks should fall in line with.

What you're talking about, is not the same as racism, or excluding a protected class of people...keyword there being *people*. If you want people to believe you truly feel as though your fursona is you, then you would, by all definitions, be saying that you're not a person..and that would negate your entire position. There is a very good reason why even those who seem to believe, and like telling people, they are indeed the animal which they portray, are not considered an actual class of people-anywhere in the world much less the US. Odds are, you do still think you're a person, hence why you're upset about this. But, you can't have it both ways. You're either a person, and therefore have rights(some of which are very much protected by rl law) especially regarding discrimination when it involves a protected class *of people*, or you're a furry and therefore don't have those same rights. In either case..your right to go wherever you want in sl is an imagined right, not a real one. No one in sl has that "right"..human or otherwise. Even the most staunch furry avs in sl, are not likely to agree with your stance. Most seem to understand that sim owner=rule maker(aside from LL) and that's the end of that. I don't think you'll find many people that think the same things you do, merely because you're comparing furries not being allowed on a BDSM sim with blatant racism, bigotry and discrimination against certain classes of people.

Ok, now I really will shut up. It was bugging me to not include this, I even sat on it for a while. Sometimes the voices in my head do a great job of convincing me to listen...

Sometimes...they're right

Just go make an all inclusive sim..problem solved. Or, offer to pay for the land someone else pays for, and they might let you make the rules  

 

[Freya Mokusei]

I understand that you're frustrated. I would be, too - I'm not a furry (in fact, I probably fit your definition of 'BDSM person') but I advocate for acceptance for many lifestyles, kinks, subcultures, what have you (I separate this from protected status like gender identity, age, religion, for reasons explained later - although obviously I advocate for these too). I marched with a handful of anthros recently at London Pride, who stayed in their fur all day despite the wicked heat (I, lacking fur, suffered heavy sunburn).

Now, again, I would like to see as many types of people accepted at as many places as possible. The RP locations I've worked with all allow furries (namedropping: Wastelands, Doomed Ship), the kink/BDSM locations as well. If there's a place I'm involved in, it will be accepting. I probably wouldn't go to a place - and I definitely wouldn't stay or contribute - if I found they had many/any rules regarding appearance at all. I vote with my feet/wallet, I challenge policies that get in the way of a general principle of "more folks = more success", and - on occaision - I get told that I, or my varied friends, are no longer welcome (which is acceptable, though unfortunate).

To me, this approach strikes me as being useful for a few reasons:-

• It minimises opinionated bystanders (who don't matter, your issue is with specific landowners)
• It allows you to explain the positives, and challenge any perceived negatives.
• Time is your friend (opinions and perspectives change very slowly)
• When it's clear that I'm not welcome, I can use it as an opportunity to invest in new places/people.

I understand the claims of the "immersion" argument, however... it's SL. Immersion is broken every time a player gets an IM, every time they see the infinite water-plane beyond sim edges, every time someone TP's in like magic. If roleplayers are expected to ignore/not draw attention to that, it doesn't strike me as being especially difficult to accept a couple of slightly fuzzier folks.

ALL OF THAT SAID...

Subculture, lifestyle, kinks are NOT protected statuses. They are NOT the same as religion, sexual preference, gender identity. I can only think of one exception to this rule - and of course, it's not possible to say "that's how it should be" - it's a situation that's still evolving, people are learning the limitations of each approach. Nothing is perfect, no-one can be protected all of the time.

Discrimination means 'something else' online. I suppose this argument could go on forever, but to try and shorten it... discrimination in real life prevents people from getting the job they want, from being allowed to vote, from being able to walk down the street in safety. In Second Life, what do you lose? You typically lose the ability to socialise with people who probably don't like your group (for generalised, likely incorrect reasons) anyway, and very little else. It doesn't prevent you socialising elsewhere, doesn't endanger your wellbeing, and doesn't limit your growth or development.

Discrimination is a social concept as well as a legal one. Linden Lab's ToS and CS protect against 'official' discrimination, hatespeech and offensive behaviour and prejudice against individuals or by the platform itself. This won't help furfolks get access to places where furries are (politely) not welcome or discouraged from participating. Even if you could force your way into these places (this is literally what you'd have to do), how would your presence be received? Would sim owners be motivated to police their (previously happy) communities to accept change? Would other roleplayers or participants interact with you as often as they would a non-fur? Does any of this conflict help you, or the landowner?

Tolerance is hard, even when the odds of trouble are low. I wear a collar in both lives, for personal and aesthetic reasons. I'm told to remove it in plenty of spaces (my reaction to this varies) - and I've had plenty of negative confrontations, assumptions made - in both lives. I sometimes present as 'Goth', and this too gets mixed reactions - I've faced harassment, assault and plenty of verbal hassle (ditto, both lives). There's other aspects of my identity that cause friction, but... even here, I'm cautious to make myself a target. I see plenty of people every day, and 99.999% of them are great - but it only takes one person to sour a whole party, event or space that previously appeared tolerant. All you can do in these situations is find the good people, and keep trying.

We all have struggles. Acceptance is tough for everyone to find, even those who fall in 'mainstream' groups - it's still necessary to find those groups in the first place and learn where you fit. Questioning why some groups are accepted and others presently aren't (e.g. BDSM vs. Furry), IMO, creates more division than it dissolves. Everyone has a fight, sometimes groups can choose to help each other out, but alliances are hard-fought, and throwing a different group under a bus in an either/or doesn't help anyone. Embrace difference, rather than seek to make everyone the same.

This is why the approach of landowners having freedom to exclude has been accepted. It's a reality of the platform, and no-one's going to step-in to police it. You can argue that some actors COULD, or SHOULD police things, but until they do this is where we're at.

The Grid's a big place, and it's full of folks like me with some exceptions. You'll find a good place.

(Also, Tari's posts in this thread have been awesome to read. There are others too. )

[Avalyn Aviator]

I'm just going to chime in a little bit. First I really don't care what someone uses as an avatar. I run a music venue and anyone is welcomed as long as they are respectful, heck I even made a area for a dragon avi that use to come around just so he can fit and be included. I also feel that people in SL who don't try to constantly make this look like RL and understand this whole grid is a fantasy are more sane than the onestandard trying to recreate reality... unfortunately you're making me rethink that with this rant of yours. With that said... I am a avid Para roleplayer. Not no bdsm and sex rp. I mean character building, filling out applications, storyline based RP and here is where I understand how certain avatars will destroy the atmosphere. A historically correct RP sim, is not the place for a furry... and someone who is an actual die hard rper will understand. Why... because the best part of rp is the ability to create characters and live out their stories. If you were on a sim that was taking place in France in the 1700s just dressing the part is not enough. You cannot show up as a furry in period clothes. WHY it's not historically accurate and RPers react in character to an avatars appearance.... describing "the man looks over to the furry woman in the hat," doesn't sit well. Your idea that you have the right to disregard rules made to set up a atmosphere is a bit arrogant. It shows you really don't respect others reasons for being on the grid and think you must force your way of life and opinions on anyone in any setting.