Jump to content
Scylla Rhiadra

The UnQueering of Second Life

Recommended Posts

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

see this is where our lines are getting crossed, i dont think SL is about having an alternate identity, i dont see it in terms of a fantasy, my avatar is the closest representation to me i can reasonably get to.

i am the same person in RL as SL.

i am an open book.

those that are not must be somehow dissatisfied with themselves.

i pity them.

 

Then you pity Christopher Columbus .. he was dissatisfied with sailing all that way around the world to get to China, so he set off in a new direction to find a shorter route.

You pity Thomas Edison ... he was unhappy with living in the dark and so fantasized about a way to bring light into the night.

You pity Kant because he was dissatisfied with the current state of human morality and thus sought to identify and document a more formal means to describe and influence people to do better by understanding more.

You pity anyone that isn't totally happy with where they are now? Then I pity you .. for you are locked in today and shall NEVER know the beauty of the sunrise yet to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carole has very articulately expressed my own opinions about the way SL should be used: it is primarily a place to pretend. My own less than luminous comments will only be of interest because they may be considered to come from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I'm one of those guys who pretends to be a sexy young woman. I've tried to create an avatar that resembled me in RL too, but almost every male avatar I tried was a far cry from the real me (I did have a femboy avatar I really liked, but you know where that led ... his body lies somewhere at the bottom of a slippery slope). I have transgender fantasies and I love being a girl in SL. I don't care who's at the keyboard; it's your avatar I'm interested in. And I do have my own moral idiosyncrasies: I don't go with lesbians because I feel like I'm cheating. But with guys, it's don't ask don't tell, and I do my best to allow him to believe I'm my avatar. Yes, I've made the mistake of misleading a couple of guys with whom I became involved enough to exchange glimpses of our RL's. Never would I tell an outright lie about it, but evasions and ambiguous innuendo suggested I was a RL woman. I really was half in love with those guys, but I was glad when those relationships ended (without tears, I think) and I try to avoid that scenario now. Wish I had the integrity of some people here. The minute someone asks me about RL, it should be game over, but sometimes I can't resist staying in character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

see this is where our lines are getting crossed, i dont think SL is about having an alternate identity, i dont see it in terms of a fantasy, my avatar is the closest representation to me i can reasonably get to.

i am the same person in RL as SL.

i am an open book.

those that are not must be somehow dissatisfied with themselves.

i pity them.

 

Then you pity Christopher Columbus .. he was dissatisfied with sailing all that way around the world to get to China, so he set off in a new direction to find a shorter route.

You pity Thomas Edison ... he was unhappy with living in the dark and so fantasized about a way to bring light into the night.

You pity Kant because he was dissatisfied with the current state of human morality and thus sought to identify and document a more formal means to describe and influence people to do better by understanding more.

You pity anyone that isn't totally happy with where they are now? Then I pity you .. for you are locked in today and shall NEVER know the beauty of the sunrise yet to come.

that sound of whooshing was undestanding going over your head.

 

there are better sunrises to come, not with your sort though, who want to trample on other people.

i only ask that i'm treated with decency and honesty.

i dont pity Kant Columbus or Edison, they didnt tread on other peoples ideals,they were pioneers.

i pity you and the likes of you for  your lack of comprehension  and compassion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Astringofcharacters wrote:

Carole has very articulately expressed my own opinions about the way SL should be used: it is primarily a place to pretend. My own less than luminous comments will only be of interest because they may be considered to come from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I'm one of those guys who pretends to be a sexy young woman. I've tried to create an avatar that resembled me in RL too, but almost every male avatar I tried was a far cry from the real me (I did have a femboy avatar I really liked, but you know where that led ... his body lies somewhere at the bottom of a slippery slope). I have transgender fantasies and I love being a girl in SL. I don't care who's at the keyboard; it's your avatar I'm interested in. And I do have my own moral idiosyncrasies: I don't go with lesbians because I feel like I'm cheating. But with guys, it's don't ask don't tell, and I do my best to allow him to believe I'm my avatar. Yes, I've made the mistake of misleading a couple of guys with whom I became involved enough to exchange glimpses of our RL's. Never would I tell an outright lie about it, but evasions and ambiguous innuendo suggested I was a RL woman. I really was half in love with those guys, but I was glad when those relationships ended (without tears, I think) and I try to avoid that scenario now. Wish I had the integrity of some people here. The minute someone asks me about RL, it should be game over, but sometimes I can't resist staying in character.

 

then you are part of the disease.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

that sound of whooshing was undestanding going over your head.

there are better sunrises to come, not with your sort though, who want to trample on other people.

i only ask that i'm treated with decency and honesty.

i dont pity Kant Columbus or Edison, they didnt tread on other peoples ideals,they were pioneers.

i pity you and the likes of you for  your lack of comprehension  and compassion.

ROFLMAO!! I'm the one trampling on others? Then what on EARTH does this statement mean:



then you are part of the disease. 

Dunno what you call that, but all I can hear is *STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP* all over someone that very carefully and respectfully expressed their personal opinions and beliefs.

Go find a mirror dude .. cuz that's the only one you can see .. and you DAMN sure aren't able to understand anyone else.

PS: Tell me again why you made a mistake and originally misspelled Kant as Cant? Oh .. right .. NOT your fault .. it was THE DOG did it. ROFLMAO!

Yup fail .. fail in epic ways .. FAIL beyond fail compounded ON fail .. with fail sauce on the side.

*click*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

that sound of whooshing was undestanding going over your head.

there are better sunrises to come, not with your sort though, who want to trample on other people.

i only ask that i'm treated with decency and honesty.

i dont pity Kant Columbus or Edison, they didnt tread on other peoples ideals,they were pioneers.

i pity you and the likes of you for  your lack of comprehension  and compassion.

ROFLMAO!! I'm the one trampling on others? Then what on EARTH does this statement mean:


then you are part of the disease. 

Dunno what you call that, but all I can hear is *STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP* all over someone that very carefully and respectfully expressed their personal opinions and beliefs.

Go find a mirror dude .. cuz that's the only one you can see .. and you DAMN sure aren't able to understand anyone else.

PS: Tell me again why you made a mistake and originally misspelled Kant as Cant? Oh .. right .. NOT your fault ..
. ROFLMAO!

Yup fail .. fail in epic ways .. FAIL beyond fail compounded ON fail .. with fail sauce on the side.

*click*

 

you can try to convince yourself, you dont fool me.

simple spelling mistakes happen when people are distracted.

you are low class and cant see it, neanderthal and morally bankrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

you can try to convince yourself, you dont fool me.

simple spelling mistakes happen when people are distracted.

you are low class and cant see it, neanderthal and morally bankrupt.

 

Vapid, transparent rationalizations aside .. you can't accept any responsibility for your own failings. You are so narcissistic that the mere concept of your own faults is a threat that must be obliterated under layers of purloined prose and name dropping.

Now you demand we blame all of humanity for your mistake. You cannot even say the words "oops my bad". First the dog distracted you. Now it's a problem everyone has. Well I hate to rattle your closeted little empire Dogboat, but honest people admit honest mistakes. So far, all you've done is shift blame, rationalize and cast aspersions on others.

You want a super-size Fail Soda with that fail meal?

*click*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

you can try to convince yourself, you dont fool me.

simple spelling mistakes happen when people are distracted.

you are low class and cant see it, neanderthal and morally bankrupt.

 

Vapid, transparent rationalizations aside .. you can't accept any responsibility for your own failings. You are so narcissistic that the mere concept of your own faults is a threat that must be obliterated under layers of purloined prose and name dropping.

Now you demand we blame all of humanity for your mistake. You cannot even say the words "oops my bad". First the dog distracted you. Now it's a problem everyone has. Well I hate to rattle your closeted little empire Dogboat, but honest people admit honest mistakes. So far, all you've done is shift blame, rationalize and cast aspersions on others.

You want a super-size Fail Soda with that fail meal?

*click*

 

is your only argument is a spelling mistake?

meh.

that was the truth, you dont know the difference between truth and lies, reality and fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

is your only argument is a spelling mistake?

meh.

that was the truth, you dont know the difference between truth and lies, reality and fantasy.

 

LOL You see how horrid the concept of your own faults is? You can't even bring yourself to read the words I wrote AS I wrote them. You insist I'm picking on a simple spelling mistake. Yet I have made it abundantly clear my issue is with your own overblown ego and narcissism.

I bet if you poured lemonade in your coffee instead of creamer, you'd blame the person that put the lemonade so close to the creamer in the fridge, or blame the coffee cup for daring to allow the wrong additive .. or the fact that the dog barked and made you mistake the lemonade pitcher for the creamer bottle.

Repeat after me Dogboat ... "I MADE A MISTAKE!"

No .. not "something / someone / some great evil power from beyond the universe MADE me make a mistake."

YOU made the mistake .. and you won't even face up to that simple human frailty.

LOL Okay .. I'm done pointing out your fail dude. While the fails are flying fast and furious form your fingers, the biggest fail of them all .. is the failure to be honest with yourself.

*click*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

is your only argument is a spelling mistake?

meh.

that was the truth, you dont know the difference between truth and lies, reality and fantasy.

 

LOL You see how horrid the concept of your own faults is? You can't even bring yourself to read the words I wrote AS I wrote them. You insist I'm picking on a simple spelling mistake. Yet I have made it abundantly clear my issue is with your own overblown ego and narcissism.

I bet if you poured lemonade in your coffee instead of creamer, you'd blame the person that put the lemonade so close to the creamer in the fridge, or blame the coffee cup for daring to allow the wrong additive .. or the fact that the dog barked and made you mistake the lemonade pitcher for the creamer bottle.

Repeat after me Dogboat ... "I MADE A MISTAKE!"

No .. not "something / someone / some great evil power from beyond the universe MADE me make a mistake."

YOU made the mistake .. and you won't even face up to that simple human frailty.

LOL Okay .. I'm done pointing out your fail dude. While the fails are flying fast and furious form your fingers, the biggest fail of them all .. is the failure to be honest with yourself.

*click*

 

yes i did make a mistake, the dog was being rough with my lizard and distracted me for a second.

im not perfect but im far closer then you will ever be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

yes i did make a mistake, the dog was being rough with my lizard and distracted me for a second.

im not perfect but im far closer then you will ever be.

 

You ALMOST got it right .. until you had to hide behind yet another excuse.

Seriously Dogboat, you want us to believe you are SO mindless and pathetic that a simple distraction can cause you to lose all control of your own self? Think about that for a minute. No one .. NO ONE is in control of us except .. us. What we choose to do is ultimately our only freedom. No one can hear our thoughts, no one can move our hands .. no one can express our desires and needs .. no one except US!

As long as you live your life constantly telling others "I didn't have any control over myself .. it was (fill in the blanks) that took away my own free will" then no one will ever treat your words with respect. After all, they aren't YOUR words, you're just Fate's Puppet .. and we all hear Fate's seductive song too clearly.

BE your OWN controller. BE your OWN source of action, thought and opinion ... and STOP pointing at others, blaming them for what ultimately should be .. MUST be .. yours and yours alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

yes i did make a mistake, the dog was being rough with my lizard and distracted me for a second.

im not perfect but im far closer then you will ever be.

 

You ALMOST got it right .. until you had to hide behind yet another excuse.

Seriously Dogboat, you want us to believe you are SO mindless and pathetic that a simple distraction can cause you to lose all control of your own self? Think about that for a minute. No one .. NO ONE is in control of us except .. us. What we choose to do is ultimately our only freedom. No one can hear our thoughts, no one can move our hands .. no one can express our desires and needs .. no one except US!

As long as you live your life constantly telling others "I didn't have any control over myself .. it was (fill in the blanks) that took away my own free will" then no one will ever treat your words with respect. After all, they aren't YOUR words, you're just Fate's Puppet .. and we all hear Fate's seductive song too clearly.

BE your OWN controller. BE your OWN source of action, thought and opinion ... and STOP pointing at others, blaming them for what ultimately should be .. MUST be .. yours and yours alone.

 

stop being ridiculous.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Astringofcharacters wrote:

Carole has very articulately expressed my own opinions about the way SL should be used: it is primarily a place to pretend. My own less than luminous comments will only be of interest because they may be considered to come from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I'm one of those guys who pretends to be a sexy young woman. I've tried to create an avatar that resembled me in RL too, but almost every male avatar I tried was a far cry from the real me (I did have a femboy avatar I really liked, but you know where that led ... his body lies somewhere at the bottom of a slippery slope). I have transgender fantasies and I love being a girl in SL. I don't care who's at the keyboard; it's your avatar I'm interested in. And I do have my own moral idiosyncrasies: I don't go with lesbians because I feel like I'm cheating. But with guys, it's don't ask don't tell, and I do my best to allow him to believe I'm my avatar. Yes, I've made the mistake of misleading a couple of guys with whom I became involved enough to exchange glimpses of our RL's. Never would I tell an outright lie about it, but evasions and ambiguous innuendo suggested I was a RL woman. I really was half in love with those guys, but I was glad when those relationships ended (without tears, I think) and I try to avoid that scenario now. Wish I had the integrity of some people here. The minute someone asks me about RL, it should be game over, but sometimes I can't resist staying in character.

Thanks for this . . .  do you mind if I call you "String" for short?  :smileyhappy:

 

I am struck by one thing in particular in your post . . .  you call SL "primarily a place to pretend."

I'm wondering about that word . . . "pretend."  It suggests something rather "game-like" about this kind of exploration of identity, that is much less profound than what you are describing in the balance of your post.

I think what I'd argue is that "pretend" is too weak a word to use, because, whatever identity we assume, it always speaks to something that is a part of us.  We aren't really "pretending" to be something we are not;  rather, we are giving expression to a part of us that is integral to the complexity of who we really "are."

That's most obvious when we are talking about gender-bending, but it's surely true even of more apparently "fantastic" identities, such as furries, Nekos, tinies, etc.  I'm not, obviously, suggesting that anyone who plays a cat in SL actually secretly wants to be a cat . . . but there must evidently be something -- childhood associations, cultural associations, or something -- that appeals to one person, and not another, about such identities.

This is why I think that all of our identity experiments, through alts or mains, are really "authentic" rather than "pretend":  they are all, in some way, expressing a part of ourselves.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

 
I am struck by one thing in particular in your post . . .  you call SL "primarily a place to
pretend
."

I'm wondering about that word . . . "pretend."  It suggests something rather "game-like" about this kind of exploration of identity, that is much less profound than what you are describing in the balance of your post.

I think what I'd argue is that "pretend" is too weak a word to use, because, whatever identity we assume, it always speaks to something that is a part of us.  We aren't really "pretending" to be something we are not;  rather, we are giving expression to a part of us that
is
integral to the complexity of who we really "are."

That's most obvious when we are talking about gender-bending, but it's surely true even of more apparently "fantastic" identities, such as furries, Nekos, tinies, etc.  I'm not, obviously, suggesting that anyone who plays a cat in SL actually secretly wants to be a cat . . . but there must evidently be something -- childhood associations, cultural associations, or something -- that appeals to one person, and not another, about such identities.

This is why I think that all of our identity experiments, through alts or mains, are really "authentic" rather than "pretend":  they are all, in
some
way, expressing a part of ourselves.

 

Ah... quod fere totus mundus exerceat histrionem 

Or ..."All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances;..." [William Shakespeare's As You Like It]

 

[Exit ---Stage Left~ Snagglepuss]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Astringofcharacters wrote:

Carole has very articulately expressed my own opinions about the way SL should be used: it is primarily a place to pretend. My own less than luminous comments will only be of interest because they may be considered to come from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I'm one of those guys who pretends to be a sexy young woman. I've tried to create an avatar that resembled me in RL too, but almost every male avatar I tried was a far cry from the real me (I did have a femboy avatar I really liked, but you know where that led ... his body lies somewhere at the bottom of a slippery slope). I have transgender fantasies and I love being a girl in SL. I don't care who's at the keyboard; it's your avatar I'm interested in. And I do have my own moral idiosyncrasies: I don't go with lesbians because I feel like I'm cheating. But with guys, it's don't ask don't tell, and I do my best to allow him to believe I'm my avatar. Yes, I've made the mistake of misleading a couple of guys with whom I became involved enough to exchange glimpses of our RL's. Never would I tell an outright lie about it, but evasions and ambiguous innuendo suggested I was a RL woman. I really was half in love with those guys, but I was glad when those relationships ended (without tears, I think) and I try to avoid that scenario now. Wish I had the integrity of some people here. The minute someone asks me about RL, it should be game over, but sometimes I can't resist staying in character.

 

Thank you for this - in my own very incapable way I guess this is what I have been asking. Does there come a time when people who are 'living an SL fantasy' need to consider what they are doing and the impact it has on others. In this post you have very honestly answered that question and made it clear that yes there is a time and once the consideration has been made often the person 'doing the fantasy' will still continue with it regardless. I find your honesty refreshing and your candid appraisal of what you do to be very human. You think of what you are doing and how the other person might react... imo that is a human thing to do instead of treating other people as mere pixels. What your needs/morals/whatever help you decide to do after that is your choice and decision - it was the idea that there is a 'thought' involved that I am chasing I guess - rather than the blind assumption that because we're all 'here in SL' it's not even worth the 'consideration'.

I hope I haven't taken your post out of context but without ever replying to this cranky and incoherent old boot - you have come closest to actually 'getting' what I've been talking about.

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Astringofcharacters wrote:

Carole has very articulately expressed my own opinions about the way SL should be used: it is primarily a place to pretend. My own less than luminous comments will only be of interest because they may be considered to come from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I'm one of those guys who pretends to be a sexy young woman. I've tried to create an avatar that resembled me in RL too, but almost every male avatar I tried was a far cry from the real me (I did have a femboy avatar I really liked, but you know where that led ... his body lies somewhere at the bottom of a slippery slope). I have transgender fantasies and I love being a girl in SL. I don't care who's at the keyboard; it's your avatar I'm interested in. And I do have my own moral idiosyncrasies: I don't go with lesbians because I feel like I'm cheating. But with guys, it's don't ask don't tell, and I do my best to allow him to believe I'm my avatar. Yes, I've made the mistake of misleading a couple of guys with whom I became involved enough to exchange glimpses of our RL's. Never would I tell an outright lie about it, but evasions and ambiguous innuendo suggested I was a RL woman. I really was half in love with those guys, but I was glad when those relationships ended (without tears, I think) and I try to avoid that scenario now. Wish I had the integrity of some people here.
The minute someone asks me about RL, it should be game over, but sometimes I can't resist staying in character.

 

Thank you for this *points to your contribution* - I was beginning to think I was going nuts. I honestly thought I'd done a fairly reasonable job of attempting to discuss something which in actual fact has no neat, clear formulas or easy replies. Your post is doubly precious - as mine were only based on my own empathy for others in a situation I've never experienced, and I could have, despite my good intentions, been completely off-track.

The sentence of yours which I underlined is very interesting. It sums up what I thought might be part of the explanation - for many if not all - as long as they're perceiving SL as a game, then RL "morality" becomes suspended. For some, the game will never be over and any interaction will be governed by the same ethics as if they were playing Monopoly or WoW. For others, there will be a cut-off point - which I'm guessing will be different for each individual. For some, like yourself, there will be a difficulty in giving up the fun of the "game" which is what they signed on for, after all, and voluntarily accept a "burden" of responsibilities similar to RL, in which they "owe" the other players a different level of interaction - basically renouncing their fantasy and offering up the "truth". I'm not ignoring the fact that many come in here, behaving from the very first moment exactly as they would in real-life. And the interaction of all these people with very different visions of what SL is and therefore with greatly varying "morals" will produce the confusion, upset and disappointment which is so common-place here.

Ignoring totally the "disease" comment which was thrown in your face - your way of using SL is exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote my other posts. And frankly, I have to agree with Scylla, that maybe what you do is something a great deal more important than simply playing or pretending. I can't, in all honesty, if weighing up your chance to "live", albeit virtually, in a female body against another's desire to use SL to experience a love story, state that yours is of a lesser value and that it should be suppressed in order not to step on the toes of those who require guarantees of your gender for their own personal SL purpose. Possibly quite the opposite, actually - very intrusive surgery aside, SL is giving people in your position an opportunity which in RL is simply not available.

If this is what Scylla intended by her OP - the cleaning up of SL to make it more suitable for the general public - I have to agree that, although there may be economic reasons why such a step is necessary, I feel that something very precious offered by SL - a use which may appear to be pretence or play, but in actual fact is a profound human experience, pretty much unique in its nature - would be lost. I personally would be sad to see that happen.

This is just a personal note - my own subjective opinion. It takes about 5 minutes after joining SL to figure out that avatars and operators probably don't "match", perhaps not even in gender. If that is an issue, there's a myriad of porn and dating sites out there. Log out and go to them. That's not to say I'm unsympathetic when I hear of some guy deeply involved on an emotional level with a woman who turns out to be a man in RL. That stinks. Really it does. But the sign-on page is hardly deceptive. It states very clearly the aim of the "game" - be who you want to be. It's pretty damn obvious that most will want to be younger, prettier, more muscular, sexier...and that some will want to be a different gender...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ima Rang wrote:

Is it dishonest for the individual who by appearance is a male to engage as a male with a woman when this intersex individual knows that they really identify as a female? That is complicated, yes? But that very scenario exists.  Should they disclose all of this information to you prior to say "I think I love you?"  Personally, I don't think so.  I realize that is not a popular opinion, but
why does my need, want and desire to know this information, trump their need, want and desire to love someone across the digital divide without having to acknowledge what has been a situation that has been a source of great pain all of their life?
 

 

Exactly. It's a question of my needs over yours. Everybody would like their vision of SL to be the recognised one - and their vision is totally based on how it can best serve their purpose. It sounds "nobler" to claim that you're honest and open and "exactly" like RL and have meaningful relationships here. But the fact remains - you have meaningful relationships because that's what you need. Just like the guy who uses SL for "fun". The "fun" is what he needs. Sure, it sounds tackier...but what if the guy has his fun in here because his wife's an invalid and he has no intention of leaving her or cheating on her in RL because he loves her and his morality wouldn't allow him to do either of those things. Is he a bad guy? To his SL sweetheart he probably is - when he announces that as much as he really does care for her, he has no intention of leaving his wife to hook up in real-life. But if you ask his wife, aware he "plays" on SL and fully aware of why he does it - a combination of needs and respect and love for her - she'll probably give a different answer. Sorry...getting off-track - but it was just another example of what you were illustrating but in another context.

 


Ima Rang wrote:

And what of the individual that was so badly disfigured at birth or during a formative period in their life and they have never even so much as had a RL date?  Yes, they are the actual gender that they report themselves to be.  They are a handsome or gorgeous avatar and they have the gift of charm, intelligence and kindness that oozes from their chat...they get attention for the very first time from the opposite sex and it is intoxicating and it is addicting and YES! they exclaim, finally I am appreciated for who I am and not what I look like!  They love the attention and the feelings of acceptance and affection and they make many alts, each representing a part of them that is a virtual representation of a wish or image of what they have and will never be in RL...Should they go back to living their sad, lonely and disfigured life in order that I don't get my feelings hurt?  Maybe....but I don't think so. 

No, I don't think so either.




 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

(BTW: When you reply and hit "Quote", click below the text it added and start typing there. That will fix the "having to boldface your stuff" formatting issue.)

Carole says:

It's just not working for me - or rather - sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't - in an apparently random way... what a nuisance...looks like it's not working this time and I'll have to bold. Grrr


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

was an attempt to point out that what is said in private between two people is generally of no concern to the location where that conversation takes place. I used the example of two people talking while in an auto repair shop. The content of the example conversation was not related to the auto repair shop, dealt with a situation private to the two people, and involved one person lying to the other.

It's my belief that people should be free to discuss among themselves anything they wish regardless of where those conversations take place. They should also be free to lie or tell the truth as they see fit. Just as the owner of the auto repair shop doesn't care in the slightest whether a lie is being told in his shop, Linden Lab doesn't care if people lie
to each other
within Second Life.


Carole says:

Can't have had enough coffee yet, evidently, as I'm not really seeing what point you want to make. I don't think we ever discussed the location issue. I'm not entirely convinced it's relevant. If we're discussing lying and the morals involved, I suspect it's unimportant where that conversation takes place, from a purely ethical point of view. My point was that LL has the right to specify what kind of conversations take place in
their
location (for let's not kid ourselves - our "private" conversations in here are not private and I'm assuming many if not most LL employees have access to them) and they apply that right regarding the age-play issue but not over inaccurate RL info when supplied to other players. And my initial point about that, in my ironic reply to Theia, was that if it SHOULD be enforced then LL would have enforced it. And by that I mean, "officially" there's no trace of anything which implies that SL is a place in which truthfulness is a factor required for its usage, but all indications so far support the vision of SL as a place of individual and group creativity and fantasy.

Of course, an obligatory link to FB would change LL's position on that. If that ever occurred than it would be correct to state that people SHOULD be honest - because that would reflect the company's policies at that point.

I'm well aware, however, that Theia's point of view was simply a personal one - she believes everyone should be honest - but thank you for explaining it to me again. My introduction of a hypothetical ToS clause into the conversation was me actually making that point - it is only
her
view and not anything reflected by official policy.

I've explained in various posts why I think that individual honesty that Theia and others would be happier with is neither required or desirable - no point repeating myself yet again.

ETA - think the coffee just kicked in - I suddenly remembered the post you made. If I'm wandering through a public park, stop and chat to a stranger, tell them a bunch of lies, the town council who owns the park has no control over nor responsibility for what I say. If I work for a company, sign an employee's contract, and am caught telling my colleagues that I have a Ph.d when I don't, I suspect the management would haul me up for a "chat". I've signed a contract so all aspects of my behaviour can, if the company feels it relevant, be regulated. We sign a contract to use SL and therefore LL's space. We have no private spaces here (or anywhere on the Internet I suppose). I can't be certain of the reason why LL doesn't have a clause regulating the honesty of our interactions with other players - the ToS covers age-play and disclosure of others' RL info - perhaps they deliberately left out the "honesty clause" as it goes against a company vision not so different from my own personal one. Neither you nor I will ever know. Neither of us, however, can state with certainty that it's simply because they "don't care". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:


ETA - think the coffee just kicked in - I suddenly remembered the post you made. If I'm wandering through a public park, stop and chat to a stranger, tell them a bunch of lies, the town council who owns the park has no control over nor responsibility for what I say. If I work for a company, sign an employee's contract, and am caught telling my colleagues that I have a Ph.d when I don't, I suspect the management would haul me up for a "chat". I've signed a contract so all aspects of my behaviour can, if the company feels it relevant, be regulated. We sign a contract to use SL and therefore LL's space. We have no private spaces here (or anywhere on the Internet I suppose). I can't be certain of the reason why LL doesn't have a clause regulating the honesty of our interactions with other players - the ToS covers age-play and disclosure of others' RL info - perhaps they deliberately left out the "honesty clause" as it goes against a company vision not so different from my own personal one. Neither you nor I will ever know. Neither of us, however, can state with certainty that it's simply because they "don't care". 


*smiles big* Now we're on the same page .. yes. The difference between the employee contract and the "contract" we sign with LL (which is actually more a legal agreement than contract) are vast. Employee contracts typically include clauses about proper moral conduct and they classify lying as immoral. The agreement in place to use Second Life doesn't paint with such a broad brush. It does include specific breaches of moral conduct such as age play and divulging RL info, but there's massive sections of typical moral vs. immoral activities that they expressly avoid.

As a better example, if you're having sex with your secretary at work and someone walks in on you, chances are good you're gonna get fired. But in Second Life? More than likely they'll just ask where you got those neat pose balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My frustration which I unfairly vented at Carole is at myself and my apparent inability to get across the point (if I have one) that I'm trying to form in my own mind. It's not about 'what' people do so much as 'how' they do it. SL (up until recently) has always been promoted as a place where anyone can be and do anything they want - and I not only agree with that I love it. It is such a logical and (usually) safe way for people to explore aspects of their personalities and lives that they cannot in RL.

What I'm trying to get at is... Does the fact that in doing so 'we' impact on other human beings - and sometimes in a negative and even destructive way - ever come into the equasion of the decisions we make. So many people on SL use the old - it's all about fantasy if you can't hack it don't be here 'argument'. I can't accept that - one every so often - as an adult - needs to think about the effect they/we are having on those around us. Dehumanising the other people who control avatars on this virtual grid is, in my opinion, just a way of avoiding confronting moral dilemmas - and I accept that those morals and dilemmas will be totally different for different people. The why's and wherefors are not the issue - it's the linking back to acknowledging that we do interact with 'people' and we do impact on them. After taking that into consideration people can then carry on or change course as they see fit - but somewhere along the way shouldn't one at least consider it and give it a wee bit of thought. It's called taking responsibility for one's own actions - thereafter one can't say 'I didn't realise I was just playing' they can say - 'I thought about it but still felt justified in doing so'.

I'm probably not making sense but that's my last go before I p*** everyone off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Mags Indigo wrote:

My frustration which I unfairly vented at Carole is at myself and my apparent inability to get across the point (if I have one) that I'm trying to form in my own mind. It's not about 'what' people do so much as 'how' they do it. SL (up until recently) has always been promoted as a place where anyone can be and do anything they want - and I not only agree with that I love it. It is such a logical and (usually) safe way for people to explore aspects of their personalities and lives that they cannot in RL.

What I'm trying to get at is... Does the fact that in doing so 'we' impact on other human beings - and sometimes in a negative and even destructive way - ever come into the equasion of the decisions we make. So many people on SL use the old - it's all about fantasy if you can't hack it don't be here 'argument'. I can't accept that - one every so often - as an adult - needs to think about the effect they/we are having on those around us. Dehumanising the other people who control avatars on this virtual grid is, in my opinion, just a way of avoiding confronting moral dilemmas - and I accept that those morals and dilemmas will be totally different for different people. The why's and wherefors are not the issue - it's the linking back to acknowledging that we do interact with 'people' and we do impact on them. After taking that into consideration people can then carry on or change course as they see fit - but somewhere along the way shouldn't one at least consider it and give it a wee bit of thought. It's called taking responsibility for one's own actions - thereafter one can't say 'I didn't realise I was just playing' they can say - 'I thought about it but still felt justified in doing so'.

I'm probably not making sense but that's my last go before I p*** everyone off.

 

Okay...I'm going to sprinkle salt in the wound.

You ask at what point should we take responsibility for our actions. At what point our impacting other people's lives and feelings should stop us in our tracks and make us desist from whatever we're doing. Reasonable question. What i've been saying all along is that it's impossible to give a definitive answer to - one that is universal.

You've been thinking, I assume about one-to-one romantic relationships. Lift you focus for a moment and take into account all interactions which take place online. Like in this forum for example.

I said - with a great deal of honesty - that I was aware i had a seperate set of morals for SL from those I have in RL. Do I consider fellow gamers on the same level as RL relationships? Frankly no. Not in most cases, anyway. I signed on here for entertainment and entertainment is what I want. If, on a case by case basis, an interaction becomes "complicated" by deeper feelings I'll deal with it on a case by case basis according to what I feel is a good balance between my "rights" to relax here and not be hassled in any way, and a vague sense of human duty towards others. Sounds nasty? It isn't really. You do the same. You did the same with me.

You second last post to me was highly offensive. I'm not being touchy - it really was. I'm not so thin-skinned that I take offence at everything negative said to me and I'd certainly not take offence at my ideas being challenged - attacked even - and God knows, I'm pretty straight-forward about my ideas and my opinions of other people's ideas - but your post contained elements of a personal attack.

Because you and I are not involved in a romantic sense makes any impact your post had on me a minor one - but it's still going to have some sort of effect. We're aware of that as we pen our posts, as you said, as adults, we should be aware of potential responsibilities and effects. I could be suffering from depression. Have a terminal illness. Be in an extremely fragile psychological state which made your post have devastating effects on me. Did those possibilities occur to you? Possibly they did, but only in a very vague way and anyway, not enough to supplant your own need to let off steam. And that has been my point all along. We ALL do as we please in here, driven by our own needs - and our moral fibre is very very much linked to whatever we crave in any given moment. And no, I'm not depressive/sick/on the brink of suicide - just trying to illustrate my point.

Would you have spoken to me in that way if we'd been discussing in real-life? I sincerely doubt it. Somebody you hardly know and who you've interacted with only a couple of times before, which might amount to a grand total of two hours-worth of conversation - would you accuse them of twisting words, avoiding answering and all because of some nasty hidden agenda that you perceive?? I really, really doubt it.

I think, ironically, you have in your hands, as much as anybody here, all the material necessary to answer your own question. Perhaps, concluding, as I have done, that SL (or online) morality is NOT the same as real-life morality and that we each tend to be less critical of "low moral standards" when they allow us to behave as we want.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:


ETA - think the coffee just kicked in - I suddenly remembered the post you made. If I'm wandering through a public park, stop and chat to a stranger, tell them a bunch of lies, the town council who owns the park has no control over nor responsibility for what I say. If I work for a company, sign an employee's contract, and am caught telling my colleagues that I have a Ph.d when I don't, I suspect the management would haul me up for a "chat". I've signed a contract so all aspects of my behaviour can, if the company feels it relevant, be regulated. We sign a contract to use SL and therefore LL's space. We have no private spaces here (or anywhere on the Internet I suppose). I can't be certain of the reason why LL doesn't have a clause regulating the honesty of our interactions with other players - the ToS covers age-play and disclosure of others' RL info - perhaps they deliberately left out the "honesty clause" as it goes against a company vision not so different from my own personal one. Neither you nor I will ever know. Neither of us, however, can state with certainty that it's simply because they "don't care". 


*smiles big* Now we're on the same page .. yes. The difference between the employee contract and the "contract" we sign with LL (which is actually more a legal agreement than contract) are vast. Employee contracts typically include clauses about proper moral conduct and they classify lying as immoral. The agreement in place to use Second Life doesn't paint with such a broad brush. It does include specific breaches of moral conduct such as age play and divulging RL info, but there's massive sections of typical moral vs. immoral activities that they expressly avoid.

As a better example, if you're having sex with your secretary at work and someone walks in on you, chances are good you're gonna get fired. But in Second Life? More than likely they'll just ask where you got those neat pose balls.

 

Well, I kinda thought I was always on that page...anyhoo...your example is a good one of how trying to force RL morality and what constitutes acceptable behaviour into SL is utterly ridiculous.

SL is a dreamscape...the lack of ethically-linked platform-owner rules is what makes it what it is. For good and for bad. And any attempt to clamp down on the bad will necessarily have negative repercussions on the good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SL may be a dreamscape for some, but not for all.

its your world your imagination goes the blurb, and that should include respect for others and their feelings.

Real life could be considered a dreamscape.

the wise err on the side of caution and a moral path.

PS, how long will it be until you begin to forget which is which?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 Okay...I'm going to sprinkle salt in the wound.

You ask at what point should we take responsibility for our actions. At what point our impacting other people's lives and feelings should stop us in our tracks and make us desist from whatever we're doing. Reasonable question. What i've been saying all along is that it's impossible to give a definitive answer to - one that is universal.

You've been thinking, I assume about one-to-one romantic relationships. Lift you focus for a moment and take into account all interactions which take place online. Like in this forum for example.

I said - with a great deal of honesty - that I was aware i had a seperate set of morals for SL from those I have in RL. Do I consider fellow gamers on the same level as RL relationships? Frankly no. Not in most cases, anyway. I signed on here for entertainment and entertainment is what I want. If, on a case by case basis, an interaction becomes "complicated" by deeper feelings I'll deal with it on a case by case basis according to what I feel is a good balance between my "rights" to relax here and not be hassled in any way, and a vague sense of human duty towards others. Sounds nasty? It isn't really. You do the same. You did the same with me.

You second last post to me was highly offensive. I'm not being touchy - it really was. I'm not so thin-skinned that I take offence at everything negative said to me and I'd certainly not take offence at my ideas being challenged - attacked even - and God knows, I'm pretty straight-forward about my ideas and my opinions of other people's ideas - but your post contained elements of a personal attack.

Because you and I are not involved in a romantic sense makes any impact your post had on me a minor one - but it's still going to have some sort of effect. We're aware of that as we pen our posts, as you said, as adults, we should be aware of potential responsibilities and effects. I could be suffering from depression. Have a terminal illness. Be in an extremely fragile psychological state which made your post have devastating effects on me. Did those possibilities occur to you? Possibly they did, but only in a very vague way and anyway, not enough to supplant your own need to let off steam. And that has been my point all along. We ALL do as we please in here, driven by our own needs - and our moral fibre is very very much linked to whatever we crave in any given moment. And no, I'm not depressive/sick/on the brink of suicide - just trying to illustrate my point.

Would you have spoken to me in that way if we'd been discussing in real-life? I sincerely doubt it. Somebody you hardly know and who you've interacted with only a couple of times before, which might amount to a grand total of two hours-worth of conversation - would you accuse them of twisting words, avoiding answering and all because of some nasty hidden agenda that you perceive?? I really, really doubt it.

I think, ironically, you have in your hands, as much as anybody here, all the material necessary to answer your own question. Perhaps, concluding, as I have done, that SL (or online) morality is NOT the same as real-life morality and that we each tend to be less critical of "low moral standards" when they allow us to behave as
we
want.

 

 

 

I will agree that my post was unnecessarily in the offensive - but not meant offensively. At no stage have I said that anyone should desist from doing antything - merely that some thought before doing so should be the least expected from people who are adults. The constant 'changing' in the interpretation of what I wrote made me overly defensive which is quite possibly unforgivable - hence think of the damage someone in a relationship - intense and personal - could suffer to find out that their 'amour' was a sham. Not because of deep hidden issues that they were working through on a virtual platform - but simply because the adult person behind the avi couldn't be bothered giving a thought to any effect they might have had.

We can all manouvre every situation to suit an argument, I don't expect any 'forgivness' for what you see as 'highly offensive' even though I am sorry if you took it like that. My frustration stems from people (and no not just you) constantly skipping over issues by putting up decoys. 

You and I it would seem will always disagree on this one - in my opinion presenting oneself in a virtual world as younger, more beautiful or a different gender/orientation than is RL is fine, however when one then goes to the trouble of convincing someone else that one is truly are 'like that' in RL -in my opinion - it goes from fantasy to deception. And I have never said that anyone 'should' then desist - rather that - even wondering if they should would at least acknowledge that there were human feeling other than their own involved.

Again I apologise for offending you, it was not actually my intention.

 

(Edited for typos)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

If this is what Scylla intended by her OP - the cleaning up of SL to make it more suitable for the general public - I have to agree that, although there may be economic reasons why such a step is necessary, I feel that something very precious offered by SL - a use which may appear to be pretence or play, but in actual fact is a profound human experience, pretty much unique in its nature - would be lost. I personally would be sad to see that happen.

This is just a personal note - my own subjective opinion. It takes about 5 minutes after joining SL to figure out that avatars and operators probably don't "match", perhaps not even in gender. If that is an issue, there's a myriad of porn and dating sites out there. Log out and go to them. That's not to say I'm unsympathetic when I hear of some guy deeply involved on an emotional level with a woman who turns out to be a man in RL. That stinks. Really it does. But the sign-on page is hardly deceptive. It states very clearly the aim of the "game" - be who you want to be. It's pretty damn obvious that most will want to be younger, prettier, more muscular, sexier...and that some will want to be a different gender...

 

This in many ways is what the OP is suggesting . . . but with a twist that makes it, perhaps, seem "nastier" than even your approach may seem to some, Carole.

The OP consciously looks at this same issue, not from the perspective of the ethics and motivations of "A," the person using SL to explore identity, and not, in a sympathetic manner, at the hurt feelings of "B," the one who feels "betrayed" when he or she discovers that SL is not an RL dating agency.  These are the "classic" terms in which this argument has tended to be framed.

What I am trying to suggest is that it is a good thing that "B" is knocked off balance, and finds his or her comfortable and complacent expectations about identity and role play upset.

No, I don't think that "hurting" people is good -- ideally, "B" has understood what SL is about before he or she starts getting involved here, and will temper his or her expectations about what he or she will find here accordingly.

But my central point has been that the discomfort, the insecurity, and maybe even sometimes the pain that we feel here is educative and, in the final analysis, may do more to produce an understanding of the nature of identity, and tolerance for those who don't conform to simplistic notions of gender and sexuality. 

Again, though, I'd hope that that can be accomplished without leaving someone an emotional wreck.  Maybe everyone in SL should wear a tee shirt that says "Things Are Never What They Seem."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...