Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Taramafor

Discrimination and how it affects life and the net?

Recommended Posts


Taramafor wrote:

You're missing the point

what you are doing is avoiding the point which you should have addressed and would have, had you not been all wrapped up in your indignation

the point: Is not about you. Is about the other person

+

take a sim thats into adult BDSM dungeony stuff

then you turn up in your furry, or I turn up in my neko. Sim owner goes sorry peeps we just not into animalia here ok

and I go but I am soo cute !! And the owner goes: yes you are, you the cutest thing I ever seen. Like ever !! However I dont wanna bondage a kitten, and I dont wanna bondage a furry fox wolf dog squirrel teddy bear thingy either. Now be good ok and go away please, bc I pay $295 for this dungeon, and it gives me the creeps bondaging animals

and we go: We are not animals exactly !! And sim owner goes: Since when !? You look like animals, and you sound like them as well with all them gestures and stuff. So yanno. Go away please

and I go: sorry to bother you, bye and happy bonding

and you go: Well !!! I might be a animal but is like total discrimination that I cant bondage in the presence of that sim owner or their friends and patrons. I am indignorate !!

 +

indignorate: (something about squirrelly wrath should maybe go here)

eta: or worse

indignorant (but yeah)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Taramafor wrote:

 
... 

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.

'the law'? Which law? Whose law, and in which jurisdiction?

eta: don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of unfair discrimination, but there isn't 'a law' against it worldwide, and we're talking about a worldwide community here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Taramafor wrote:

Also, please save the sarcasm. It only encourages drama.

Could we deny encouragement to Drama, despite its tragic neediness? That's cruel!

And yet, this whole thread is all about encouraging Drama. Could anyone literally believe all this bloviating butthurt ?

As an obvious parody of entitlement, it's amusing in its portrayal of utter self-obliviousness. And yet underneath just a long-winded troll.

2 stars out of 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"bloviating" ting "botthurt ?" extra ting (3 point plus)

"obvious parody of entitlement" ting bonus for fresh wording 2 points

"utter self-obliviousness" ting as I reckon you made that up

Total for this round of forum bingo - 10 points

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Taramafor wrote:

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
.
But it is a choice. Just because your parents are Christian does not mean you will be. We are allowed to choose which, if any, diety we wish to.
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, when you came across something you didn't like you left that area to "stick with my own kind" but you don't want people to be able to say "This area is for my own kind."

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.

So are you also against female only or male only sims? What about sims where you have to be nude? Or ones where all females MUST do as any male wishes?

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
non
e
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.

Thats just it, being a furry is a choice in SL. Would you honestly walk into Home Depot in a fur suit and apply for a job? Do you honestly think you would get it? Whether you like it or not, a SIM owner gets to decide who plays on their SIM.

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.

That is NOT the law. There is no Anti-Discrimination Law in the US. There are Acts that apply to very specific areas, but nothing even comes close to what you are talking about. What you posted was the definition of discrimination from Wikipedia.

"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
stop typing none when you mean non, it bugs the heck out of me.
). 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 non
e
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
.

This whole paragraph is so wrong in so many ways. A wedding ring, Subs collar or a religious icon are not the vows, submission or religion. They are items. they can be removed without changing the wearer. A fursuit makes a fur. Without it you are just another human.

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 non
e
RP sims at all times, unless it's a very private residence and someones home. Surely that's fair for everyone.

BD/SM is still a very much shunned thing. Just because there are clubs catering to it does not mean it is widely accepted. It's not mistreatment. Just like if i say my strip club only has female dancers and refuse to hire males. Or a lesbian SIM banns all male avs. It is their choice.

My RP SIM, My rules. If i decide you have to have pink skin or you dont get in, thats MY prerogative.

Didn't mean to get quite so carried away there.
Yes you did.
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.

Its not discrimination. It's their sim policy. You want everyone to be allowed everywhere in SL. What you don't understand or want to understand is that SL is just like the world, lots of little countries with their own rules. Except that SL has a supreme overlord in LL.

 

 

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linden Lab is a private company and is not bound by laws on discrimination of certain types that a government entity might have to comply with.

Anti-discrimination as a civil right and civic value doesn't trump freedom of speech and freedom of association. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also promotes the concept that you can't use one right to cancel out another. Rights exist in a balance for that reason and that's why courts adjudicate tem.

As for your demand to "point to RL law" -- here it is. Hopefully, you can reason by analogy. No, furries are not a protected class and there isn't any law protecting classes. There is equal rights, but equal rights doesn't trump everything, including other exercises of the First Amendment.

US Supreme Court precedent cases back up the idea that private clubs get to decide whom they want to have in their organizations -- it's called "freedom of association" which is a civil right enshrined in the constitution under the First Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale

That's why they could rule that the Boy Scouts are not required to have gays as members and could ban them.

That goes against civic culture for many people but it's the law. It's another matter that through public campaigns and boycotts various groups compelled the Boy Scouts to change their policy. But they couldn't use *government coercion* to do so and *that matters*.

The now theoretical (but applicable) Boy Scouts ruling doesn't mean that an employer could ban LGBT as increasingly these are viewed as equal rights issues. But that's a separate matter for having the government mandate what a club or association can do.

The Lindens aren't constitutional law experts but they are techno-libertarians, so their attitude has always been that you can do what you want on your sim. And if you want to ban child avatars, furries, BDSM or anything you like, you're entitled to do so.

In fact, imposing some "openness" and forcing private sim owners to do something politically correct only lessons freedom and human rights. Any category of persons banned from someone else's sim can of course buy and operate their own sim, or go to a public sandbox or other public Linden location like a welcome area. It's a world of plurality, not enforced political correctness.

No court in the land will ever rule that the government should force this private company to do something -- there are precedents for that as well, such as in the 2009 case of Estavillo v. Sony, when a user sued the PS3 gaming network for expelling him on free-speech grounds. The judge said the network “does not serve a substantial portion of a municipality's functions, but rather serves solely as a forum for people to interact subject to specific contractual terms."

And that's just it. You have a "contract of adhesion" as one judge described the SL TOS but so what? That's the case with most Silicon Valley social artifacts. Once you sign a TOS, you abide by it and can't expect to sue your way into changing what a private company has decided.

I personally have my rentals open to any group of people -- whether furries or elves or BDSM, a "lifestyle" I personally condemn vigorously as itself a violation of human rights. That's because I think markets have to be open and as long as any one of these categories of people obey the rules of the lease and don't bother other tenants, what they do in the privacy of their home shouldn't matter. If BDSM practitioners appear with whips and chains in public commons and make others uncomfortable, however, I'd ask them to leave because they don't get to impose their "lifestyle" RP on others.

I don't apply this concept of open doors to child avatars, however, for the simple reason that in 12 years of rentals, I have found the overwhelming number of cases of child avatars to be practicing "ageplay" and usually lying about it, or griefing in various ways and bothering elders. So the high coincidence of cases of trouble and the child avatar have made me explicitly ban them from some areas mainly because they drive others away.

As with everything else in SL, if you don't like somebody's rules, you are free to go elsewhere and make your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 anuncontrolled perception. It's how you see and believe. I have no faith but I believe in things.

This is how totalitarianism gets started, claiming a monopoly on the truth and claiming that matters that really are choices in fact are "scientifically" not at all.

Fortunately, few -- even furries -- are going to join a campaign to get LL to force BDMS sims to allow furries on to them. Or any combination of any type of avatar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely- many individuals believe that their vision of community or society is the only one valid- My partner and I own multiple properties approximatley 265,000 sq meters and each serves a different purpose- almost 2 SIMs worth are full public access to enjoy the others are specific to the people we serve, hence intrusive behavior of non- members leads to a ban--- Especially when individuals Pop In and do not even say hello when we are all standing there-- start running around-- jumping on planes or boats-- going in buildings--- In addition there are secutrity orbs out there that will give 10 sec eject times and automatically ban individuals-

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure exactly how much experience you have in Second Life, or more specifically with land ownership. A lot of points have been raised here that I won't waste your time repeating. So I'm going to try to keep this post short (in a thread that is filled with text walls that hurt my eyes). 

A landowner usually pays real money for their land. I'm not talking something like a meager $10/month. 
A private island: $600 setup fee, $295/month
A homestead: $225 setup fee, $125/month

Some do not pay cash. Some put in an initial investment and hopefully make a profit to cover their costs. (I think this is rare). 

This should hopefully shed some light on the opinion of landowners making the rules for their sims. Do you really expect someone who pays $300 a month to not have the right to make any rule they please (within TOS guidelines). 

You want free access to a place that someone is paying serious bucks for and then you expect them to follow YOUR rules. That's like being a guest at someone's house and expecting they follow YOUR rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having browsed through some of this almost tl:dr thread one thing that needs to be clarified here is this:

THERE ARE NO PUBLIC SIMS IN SECOND LIFE.

While there are SIMs (and parcels) that do allow public access, all the virtual spaces are PRIVATELY OWNED.

Another thing that needs to be unerstood is that for the purpose of Second Life, Linden Lab is your State.   LINK.  What LL says is the Law in Second life is the Law in Second Life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taramafor wrote:

"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).

If you are a non suiter in RL, why do you object so much to changing into a human avatar to go to human only sims.  You whole argument breaks down IMO with this admission.

There was recently a furry convention in the city I live in.  The newspaper interviewed a number of the furries for an in depth article it did on the convention.  Not one of the people said they think of themselves as a real furry IRL.  I'm sure if anyone had said that it would have been in the article.  All said something along the lines that it was a form of cosplay that they thought of as fun and entertaining.  During the convention I didn't see or hear of one person trying to go to another public venue such as a nightclub or restaurant in their furry costume or screaming about discrimination because they weren't allowed in a venue in their furry outfit.  The only furry people that were seen were on the way to or from the convention from their hotels or in the convention.

IRL furries are humans in costume.  There is no law in RL or even a concept against discrimination of people in costume. 

If you really think of yourself as furry rather than a person IRL, professional help is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the endgame in seeking rights for color, creed, race religion and sexual preference? Isn't the endgame freedom for everything? It can't simply be ...gays have rights, but not those people doing weird things that we don't understand. If we follow the trajectory of winning freedom for those who are outside the norm then surely the rights of furries are something that will be protected in the future?

I don't think any of us, here in the 21st century, believe that people who dress up in a fur suit, have the inalienable right to not be discrimated. I do think that maybe the next generation, or the next, having seen how freedom and priveleges were won for the disenfranchised, will take up the furry banner. Like it or not, freedom comes for all. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Bree Giffen wrote:

 

I don't think any of us, here in the 21st century, believe that people who dress up in a fur suit, have the inalienable right to not be discrimated. I do think that maybe the next generation, or the next, having seen how freedom and priveleges were won for the disenfranchised, will take up the furry banner.
Like it or not, freedom comes for all. 

 

But what does that have to do with sl?

This is, after all, a topic about sl, and furries not being allowed on some sims. In sl, freedom does not come for all, at least not when that freedom includes being able go wherever one wants, whenever one wants. Since that's the main focus of this topic(or it seems anyway) and what the OP seems to want. Not one single avatar has free reign in sl. Heck even ll employees don't, well, not most of them anyway, Ebbe probably does :P (within us law of course). The same can be said for much of rl too, no one has completely free reign there, either. 

Why should we expect to be able to do what we want, when we want, and where we want? That's never been something we've been able to have in sl, or rl. I really don't think it's something anyone with a reasonable frame of mind, would want, either. If we want to discuss rl, furries aren't allowed to dress up as furries and go wherever they want there, either. I don't see that changing even in future generations, despite other changes we might make as a society towards "allowed and disallowed" practices. Take businesses for example, they have every right to specify the dress required to enter the business. If someone comes in wearing furry attire, a business owner can, very much, tell them to leave or not offer service based on dress. One's dress is not considered who a person *is after all, and is therefore, not protected under any law, or any unwritten/unspoken "rule" either. The no shirt, no shoes, no entry rules many businesses have comes to mind here. Someone that decides he or she wants to go barefoot, or pantsless everywhere, for example, while posing no threat to anyone(in the general scheme of things, barring some current medical issue) can be told not to enter, or to leave, or that services wont be rendered until he/she can comply. 

 I'm not certain it's reasonable to compare a virtual world with the real world, in this manner, though, as there are simply different "rules", so to speak, and far too many differences between the two for an even remotely fair comparison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think on this matter, the more I agree this might be an epic troll post. 

Now, if you wanted to have a discussion about how you feel furries are unfairly treated, that might be an interesting conversation. But this post doesn't stop there. This post is about forcing land owners to do what you want. Which, isn't really as interesting. Because if I paid $200/month, or really ANY amount of money on owning a venue, that venue would be whatever I wanted it to be. 

I feel like you should pay $200 a month to run a furry BDSM venue and let everyone in. Lead by example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nalytha wrote:

The more I think on this matter, the more I agree this might be an epic troll post. 

 

Now, if you wanted to have a discussion about how you feel furries are unfairly treated, that might be an interesting conversation. But this post doesn't stop there. This post is about forcing land owners to do what you want. Which, isn't really as interesting. Because if I paid $200/month, or really ANY amount of money on owning a venue, that venue would be whatever I wanted it to be. 

 

I feel like you should pay $200 a month to run a furry BDSM venue and let everyone in. Lead by example?

 

Trolls are way outnumbered by those with entitlement mentality. Like, entitled to have or use stuff owned by others: property, time, money, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I encountered similar bigotry  - I'm a neko and I applied for inworld work in a number of restaurants and a jobsearch agency - was told that avatars had to be 'human' as this was 'realistic restaurant RP' (the chef was a robot).

One owner said "Look, you can have the job if you lose the ears and tail", I replied, "why don't you just get a pair of scissors and cut YOUR **bleep**ing ears off?"

It's a shame that these people are so narrow minded. I've never been abused by a furry but plenty of times by people who spend thousands of L$ trying to look like one of the Chippendales

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


HonieIsle wrote:

was told that avatars had to be 'human' as this was 'realistic restaurant RP'

One owner said "Look, you can have the job if you lose the ears and tail", I replied, "why don't you just get a pair of scissors and cut YOUR **bleep**ing ears off?"

 

what was so confusing that you still applied while you'r neko? it was pretty clear that wouldn't be acceptable....the owner has/had the full right to ask you to lose the tail and ears.

Even in RL, a restaurant owner can refuse a employee when he's full of tattoo;s and piercings or other body additions that may conflicting the representative character of the job.

How much the more a SL owner can do it as he isn't bond to any employee laws or rules.

Your response was totally wrong and showing you wouldn't be fitting in the job anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


HonieIsle wrote:

I encountered similar bigotry  - I'm a neko and I applied for inworld work in a number of restaurants and a jobsearch agency - was told that avatars had to be 'human' as this was 'realistic restaurant RP' (
the chef was a robot
).

One owner said "Look, you can have the job if you lose the ears and tail", I replied, "why don't you just get a pair of scissors and cut YOUR **bleep**ing ears off?"

It's a shame that these people are so narrow minded. I've never been abused by a furry but plenty of times by people who spend thousands of L$ trying to look like one of the Chippendales

The tail would be a public health issue and a hazard in a crowded kitchen. You might be able to get by if you wear a tailnet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HonieIsle wrote: "why don't you just get a pair of scissors and cut YOUR **bleep**ing ears off?"

 

Wonders how to do that with a system avatar

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:


HonieIsle wrote: "why don't you just get a pair of scissors and cut YOUR **bleep**ing ears off?"

 

Wonders how to do that with a system avatar

 

Ear alpha - it's common with certain styles of mesh hair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...