Taramafor, June 29, 2016 in General Discussion Forum
My Malamute and Australian Shepherd are accusing you of species appropriation.
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)
'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.
<Waiting for someone to come along and say how mean everyone in this thread is.>
You're all mean in this thread...
...but that doesn't make you wrong
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.
"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
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.
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.
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.
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-
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.
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.
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.
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 (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.
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 $200 a month to run a furry BDSM venue and let everyone in. Lead by example?
Trolls are way outnumbered by those with entitlement mentality. Like, entitled to have or use stuff owned by others: property, time, money, etc.
I encountered similar bigotry - I'm a neko and I applied for inworld work in a number of restaurants and a jobsearch agency - was told that avatars had to be 'human' as this was 'realistic restaurant RP' (the chef was a robot).
One owner said "Look, you can have the job if you lose the ears and tail", I replied, "why don't you just get a pair of scissors and cut YOUR **bleep**ing ears off?"
It's a shame that these people are so narrow minded. I've never been abused by a furry but plenty of times by people who spend thousands of L$ trying to look like one of the Chippendales
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.
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.
Ear alpha - it's common with certain styles of mesh hair.
I'm thinking of banning system avatars from my land.
You can post now and register later.
If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
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.