Should commercial ventures and estates in SL be allowed to discriminate?

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Today we live in a world where anyone that has an imagined slight against their person is now the victim of a grevious harm and can claim victimhood and demand massive compensation.

God help us all. 

For every case you find of a more trivial nature I can supply 1000 more valid ones that deserve attention, like these:

https://76crimes.com/100s-die-in-homophobic-anti-gay-attacks-statistics-updates/

So why pay attention to the trivial ones?  What's in it for you?

[Luna Bliss]

9 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Apparently, in our modern world, anyone that doesn't parrot the proper PC line is prejudiced.

You go way beyond what's considered PC...you are downright abusive...especially with your characterization of Black people and how they should be blamed for their poverty.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

You go way beyond what's considered PC...you are downright abusive...especially with your characterization of Black people and how they should be blamed for their poverty.

Umm where did  I say that? I believe  I said there are far more middle and upper class Blacks than those that live in poverty. 

I believe  I also said that anyone can strive to rise above their present condition. I wasn't limiting it to just Blacks.

On the other hand, YOU have chosen to play the race card .

Edited January 1, 2018 by BilliJo Aldrin
changed a word

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Umm where did  I say that? I believe  I said there are far more middle and upper class Blacks than those that live in poverty. 

I also think  I said anyone can strive to rise above their present condition. I wasn't limiting it to just Blacks.

On the other hand, YOU have chosen to play the race card .

You said:
 "Those that try harder succeed, those that choose to wallow in the mire of their own existence, end up finishing there.Actually you can thank LBJ and his great society for partially destroying the black lower class and ensuring generational poverty and dependence on the government welfare state. Why marry the father of your kids when the government will give you a check."

I have no idea what you mean by 'playing the race card'.....we are discussing all types of minorities that need legal protection. The legal protection that you tend to characterize as some kind of limit to your freedom, or dismiss by saying it's just "PC".

[Janet Voxel]

Have a safe and Happy New Year everyone!

 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

You said:
 "Those that try harder succeed, those that choose to wallow in the mire of their own existence, end up finishing there.Actually you can thank LBJ and his great society for partially destroying the black lower class and ensuring generational poverty and dependence on the government welfare state. Why marry the father of your kids when the government will give you a check."

I have no idea what you mean by 'playing the race card'.....we are discussing all types of minorities that need legal protection. The legal protection that you tend to characterize as some kind of limit to your freedom, or dismiss by saying it's just "PC".

So what exactly did I say that was incorrect?  

[Paul Hexem]

... Sheesh. At least my last post tried to discuss real, potential SL consequences..

[BilliJo Aldrin]

The rise of the welfare state in the 1960s contributed greatly to the demise of the black family as a stable institution. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among African Americans today is 73%, three times higher than it was prior to the War on Poverty. Children raised in fatherless homes are far more likely to grow up poor and to eventually engage in criminal behavior, than their peers who are raised in two-parent homes. In 2010, blacks (approximately 13% of the U.S. population) accounted for 48.7% of all arrests for homicide, 31.8% of arrests for forcible rape, 33.5% of arrests for aggravated assault, and 55% of arrests for robbery. Also as of 2010, the black poverty rate was 27.4% (about 3 times higher than the white rate), meaning that 11.5 million blacks in the U.S. were living in poverty.


When President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 launched the so-called War on Poverty, which enacted an unprecedented amount of antipoverty legislationand added many new layers to the American welfare state, he explained that his objective was to reduce dependency, “break the cycle of poverty,” and make “taxpayers out of tax eaters.” Johnson further claimed that his programs would bring to an end the “conditions that breed despair and violence,” those being “ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs.” Of particular concern to Johnson was the disproportionately high rate of black poverty. In a famous June 1965 speech, the president suggested that the problems plaguing black Americans could not be solved by self-help: “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others,'” said Johnson.

Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1]  From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent on means-tested welfare programs for the poor.

The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Also as of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.


The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.
 As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

For the next few decades, means-tested welfare programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families penalized marriage. A mother generally received far more money from welfare if she was single rather than married. Once she took a husband, her benefits were instantly reduced by roughly 10 to 20 percent. As a Cato Institute study noted, welfare programs for the poor incentivize the very behaviors that are most likely to perpetuate poverty.[2]  Another Cato report observes:

“Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits.... But, by removing the economic consequences of out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out-of- wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible consequences ... she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.... Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appalling lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare.”

The marriage penalties that are embedded in welfare programs can be particularly severe if a woman on public assistance weds a man who is employed in a low-paying job. As a FamilyScholars.org report puts it: “Whena couple's income nears the limits prescribed by Medicaid, a few extra dollars in income cause thousands of dollars in benefits to be lost. What all of this means is that the two most important routes out of poverty—marriage and work—are heavily taxed under the current U.S. system.”[3] 

The aforementioned FamilyScholars.org report adds that “such a system encourages surreptitious cohabitation,” where “many low-income parents will cohabit without reporting it to the government so that their benefits won't be cut.” These couples “avoid marriage because marriage would result in a substantial loss of income for the family.”

A 2011 study conducted jointly by the Institute for American Values’ Center for Marriage and Families and the University of Virginia's National Marriage Project suggests that “the rise of cohabiting households with children is the largest unrecognized threat to the quality and stability of children’s family lives.” The researchers conclude that cohabiting relationships are highly prone to instability, and that children in such homes are consequently less likely to thrive, more likely to be abused, and more prone to suffering “serious emotional problems.”

William Galston, President Bill Clinton's Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs, estimated that the welfare system, with its economic disincentives to marriage, was responsible for at least 15% to 20% of the family disintegration in the United States. Libertarian scholar Charles Murray has placed the figure at somewhere around 50%. By Murray's reckoning, the growth and increased liberalization of the “welfare complex” have eroded the traditional ethos of working-class communities that once held people who worked at low-wage jobs, and men who married the mothers of their children, in much higher esteem than unwed parents who became wards of the state.

The phenomenon that Murray describes has been in clear evidence for decades. Consider, for instance, a Harlem-based initiative in the 1980s known as Project Redirection, whose aim was to persuade young women who had already borne one child out of wedlock to avoid repeating that mistake. According to the Manpower Development Research Corporation's evaluation report on this project: “[M]any [beneficiaries] were beginning to view getting their own welfare grants as the next stage in their careers.... t became apparent that some participants' requests for separate grants and independent households were too often a sign of manipulation by boyfriends, in whose interest it was to have a girlfriend on welfare with an apartment of her own.”

The results of welfare policies discouraging marriage and family were dramatic, as out-of-wedlock birthrates skyrocketed among all demographic groups in the U.S., but most notably African Americans. In the mid-1960s, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was scarcely 3% for whites, 7.7% for Americans overall, and 24.5% among blacks. By 1976, those figures had risen to nearly 10% for whites, 24.7% for Americans as a whole, and 50.3% for blacks in particular. In 1987, for the first time in the history of any American racial or ethnic group, the birth rate for unmarried black women surpassed that for married black women. Today the illegitimacy rates stand at 41% for the nation overall, and 73% for African Americans specifically.[4] 

Welfare not only increases illegitimacy and poverty in the short term, but it inflicts long-lasting, even permanent, handicaps on children who are raised in welfare-dependent homes. Dr. June O'Neill and Anne Hill, comparing children who were identical in terms of such social and economic factors as race, family structure, neighborhood, family income, and mothers' IQ and education, found that the more years a child spent on welfare, the lower the child's IQ. A similar study by Mary Corcoran and Roger Gordon of the University of Michigan concluded that the more welfare income a family received while a boy was growing up, the lower the boy's earnings as an adult.

The devastating societal consequences of family breakdown cannot be overstated. Father-absent families—black and white alike—generally occupy the bottom rung of America's economic ladder. According to the U.S Census, in 2008 the poverty rate for single parents with children was 35.6%; the rate for married couples with children was 6.4%. For white families in particular, the corresponding two-parent and single-parent poverty rates were 21.7% and 3.1%; for Hispanics, the figures were 37.5% and 12.8%; and for blacks, 35.3% and 6.9%. According to Robert Rector, senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, “the absence of marriage increases the frequency of child poverty 700 percent” and thus constitutes the single most reliable predictor of a self-perpetuating underclass. Articulating a similar theme many years ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Nothing is so much needed as a secure family life for a people to pull themselves out of poverty.”

Children in single-parent households are burdened not only with economic, but also profound social and psychological, disadvantages. As a Heritage Foundation analysis notes, youngsters raised by single parents, as compared to those who grow up in intact married homes, are more likely to be physically abused; to be treated for emotional and behavioral disorders; to smoke, drink, and use drugs; to perform poorly in school; to be suspended or expelled from school; to drop out of high school; to behave aggressively and violently; to be arrested for a juvenile crime; to serve jail time before age 30; and to go on to experience poverty as adults. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates are men who grew up in fatherless homes. With regard to girls in particular, those raised by single mothers are more than twice as likely to give birth out-of-wedlock, thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty for yet another generation.

The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households.
 Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%—scarcely one-fifth of the current figure.
 As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent.

During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.” Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”

Just as welfare policies discourage marriage and the formation of stable families, they also discourage the development of a healthy work ethic. As Heritage Foundation scholar Michael Franc noted in 2012: “[T]he necessity of phasing out [welfare] benefits as incomes rise brings a serious moral hazard. In many cases, economists have calculated, welfare recipients who enter the work force or receive pay raises lose a dollar or more of benefits for each additional dollar they earn. The system makes fools of those who work hard.” In testimony on Capitol Hill, Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Kentucky) concurred that although federal welfare programs “are designed to alleviate poverty while promoting work,” collectively they have “an unintended side effect of discouraging harder work and higher earnings.” “The more benefits the government provides,” he said, “the stronger the disincentive to work.” Yet another Capitol Hill witness, Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wisconsin)—herself a former welfare recipient—acknowledged in her oral testimony: “I once had a job and begged my supervisor not to give me a 50-cents-an-hour raise lest I lose Title 20 day care.” The same work disincentive came into play when Moore contemplated the health coverage she was receiving through Medicaid. “I would want to work if in fact I didn’t risk losing Medicaid,” she said.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1672

[BilliJo Aldrin]

2 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

... Sheesh. At least my last post tried to discuss real, potential SL consequences..

crap, this is a SL forum?

[BilliJo Aldrin]

for those that didn't read all of my post:

During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.” Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”

Walter Williams for President.

[Paul Hexem]

[Nalytha]

29 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

You go way beyond what's considered PC...you are downright abusive...especially with your characterization of Black people and how they should be blamed for their poverty.

I thought Billi's name looked familiar from another post about race. Then I remembered this gem. 
 

 

[LittleMe Jewell]

IBTL

[Callum Meriman]

Popcorn, yay! Or avocado donuts even.

[Hunter Stern]

4 hours ago, janetosilio said:

This painful racial discourse was brought on by a guy in his fee fees about not being able to go to a women only sim. 

Too funny. \o/

This is completely untrue and unfair in my opion infact it IS bordering attack on my account. I still went to said sim , and quite frankly , i NEVER stated on what gender I was assuming at that particular moment. It does not matter if it is a women's only venue, or a humans only store , or a furry only business, so please stop SJWing on here and stick to the topic.

Regardless, I personally feel that any company such as LL that touts inclusiveness and infact chides its own customers (yes you are a customer none the less to the service provided by LL) of the practice of exclusivity in one form or another does hold accountability  for the policy and path in which they chose to embark upon thus encouraging gray area pseudo policies on make believe land vs real life law and ethics.

The whole Black/White North/South Gay/Straight arguments are merely examples of outcomes that we are all somewhat familiar with, some of use more within than others either by choice or by force.

So again , and let me rephrase this, Should a company/business in SL with RL tax holdings and assets (whether they be virtual or tagible 3D printed accessories, or service) be allowed to practice exclusivity on what are protected categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation, political idiology etc., if said business is a real entity with the same rights and responsibilities as any other business in the real life world?

[Hunter Stern]

4 hours ago, janetosilio said:

This painful racial discourse was brought on by a guy in his fee fees about not being able to go to a women only sim. 

Too funny. \o/

This is completely untrue and unfair in my opion infact it IS bordering attack on my account. I still went to said sim , and quite frankly , i NEVER stated on what gender I was assuming at that particular moment. It does not matter if it is a women's only venue, or a humans only store , or a furry only business, so please stop SJWing on here and stick to the topic.

Regardless, I personally feel that any company such as LL that touts inclusiveness and infact chides its own customers (yes you are a customer none the less to the service provided by LL) of the practice of exclusivity in one form or another does hold accountability  for the policy and path in which they chose to embark upon thus encouraging gray area pseudo policies on make believe land vs real life law and ethics.

The whole Black/White North/South Gay/Straight arguments are merely examples of outcomes that we are all somewhat familiar with, some of use more within than others either by choice or by force.

So again , and let me rephrase this, Should a company/business in SL with RL tax holdings and assets (whether they be virtual or tagible 3D printed accessories, or service) be allowed to practice exclusivity on what are protected categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation, political idiology etc., if said business is a real entity with the same rights and responsibilities as any other business in the real life world?

[Nalytha]

Well.... the game is not strictly bound by American laws, right? I read that someone in another country could be jailed for someone in America exposing them to, say what we call a g e play. I also read that this hasn’t occurred, but that theoretically it could. So, I’m not sure how you navigate the idea of making laws based only from one state or country when Second Life is populated by people all over the world who aren’t bound by those laws 

Edited January 1, 2018 by Nalytha

[Hunter Stern]

16 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

IBTL

don't exclude the butter

[Nalytha]

The reason I don’t support this kind of censorship in SL is the same why I don’t want my internet censored — I believe both should be free. I don’t have some unailianable right to be protected from jerks online. I’d rather see some jerks and not be allowed into some SL clubs than to see the sort of censorship we are taking about.

in terms of should they be forced to offer these protections because they pay taxes in the US? I’m sure Google and every ISP pays taxes but I don’t want them censored. 

[Hunter Stern]

4 minutes ago, Nalytha said:

Well.... the game is not strictly bound by American laws, right? I read that someone in another country could be jailed for someone in America exposing them to, say what we call a g e play. I also read that this hasn’t occurred, but that theoretically it could. So, I’m not sure how you navigate the idea of making laws based only from one state or country when Second Life is populated by people all over the world who aren’t bound by those laws 

***** actually is covered under international law , iirc.

It's not so much about law either as it is policy brought to us in part by Linden Lab Research and some consistencies and some inconsistencies and we the residents are the only ones who are left to poke holes (as it were) in these inworld laws.

Also, not fully related but political entities or corporations can be recognized as a 'person'. I am curious , has the definition of an avatar from Second Life ever been deemed a non-entity? I will have to do more research on this , even though I do know the cases have arisen in the past.

I do think it's good for residents to have discource on topics regardless whether we all agree or not. Awareness and insight are not exactly bad things in virtual or real life instances.

[Pamela Galli]

15 minutes ago, Hunter Stern said:

So again , and let me rephrase this, Should a company/business in SL with RL tax holdings and assets (whether they be virtual or tagible 3D printed accessories, or service) be allowed to practice exclusivity on what are protected categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation, political idiology etc., if said business is a real entity with the same rights and responsibilities as any other business in the real life world?

 As others have pointed out, in second life we are dealing with avatars. Not the people behind the avatars but the avatars. There are no laws about discriminating against avatars. There is no way to know the race, gender, sexual orientation, or political ideology of the people behind the avatars, so it doesn’t matter how the avatar presents.  If I want certain types of avatars excluded from my store, no matter how silly that would be, it is my absolute right to do that. 

[Callum Meriman]

1 minute ago, Hunter Stern said:

***** actually is covered under international law , iirc.

No, it's not. Germany, Canadia and one state in Australia. It's banned in SL because, like the other twin evil terrorisim (depections of terrorism are also banned in SL btw) it upsets people. Nothing to do with the law, especially international.

[Nalytha]

1 minute ago, Hunter Stern said:

I do think it's good for residents to have discource on topics regardless whether we all agree or not. Awareness and insight are not exactly bad things in virtual or real life instances.

I completely agree. 

[LittleMe Jewell]

17 minutes ago, Hunter Stern said:

 I do think it's good for residents to have discource on topics regardless whether we all agree or not. Awareness and insight are not exactly bad things in virtual or real life instances.

Yes, as long as the discussions stay civil (which they don't manage to always do)

[Hunter Stern]

Is there a way to filter out such a thing in SL then? Something along the lines of Search for clothing stores but filter out any businesses that exclude for whatever reason, ? We can already filter in and filter out other items.

What if something like this in general is just distasteful for some (or many) and we could have the ability to atleast not look at Women Only, or Men Only or Furrys Only , or No Dogs allowed, etc. In the stores description/advertisement, and yes mabey the description should be considered for better overhaul in truth in advertising (you don't know how many places I see in search alone that  tout gay , lesbian , furry, etc. when they don't cater to any of those things , but simply are gaming the search feature to draw in customers, most who leave in puzzlement and annoyance, I'm sure.

That is one solution in a way but it also doesn't take into account the actual issue in some cases, no Pamela, I don't think I will be coming to dance on your store displays in giant clown shoes anytime soon, but I hope I don't have to make a whole day itinerary  just figuring out what to wear too to attend your store real time to see your wares.