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

[Paul Hexem]

Now I want a pair of clown shoes.

[Ceka Cianci]

To be totally honest,The places I usually see,men only allowed or women only allowed,are usually clubs or meeting places..

A lot of the other stuff is usually roleplay sims that I've come across..

I can't recall really ever coming passed a store that wouldn't let me shop because of what my avatar was..

Most role play places have stores on the outskirts of their roleplay areas so you can suit up before entering..some even have kits if you can't buy something right then and there but still want to jump in..

The only time I've seen something where there was a store for certain types of avatars is when they are something on the lines of a mens store where they only make mens things or fury or whatever type of avatar it is creating things for..

[Hunter Stern]

@Ceka Cianci Yes, this has been my experience as well, so I was surprised to come across a store with this policy in place. And I think it's silly in SL to put a gender rule on anything, last time i checked , a lot of items in SL don't have genitals attached either. There are plenty of instances where the 'fetish' crowd of men buy womens items some even just for photoshoots because some items are a real pain in the ass to make ones self but only offered inworld for some of the exact items one is looking for. Also, how stupid are people to cut off 50% to 70% of their potential market and sales anyways with these restrictive tactics? I know when i made and sold Drider avatars, that though they are primarily marketed in Artwork with women as the models , they are genderless , infact they originate from male drow who failed the test of Lolothe. I made much more money  (before the tax filing era) selling the units as Unisex and making sure everyone could be accommodated, choice or not you only cut you nose off to spite your face (lose money) when you cut out a group(s) from commerce of most products that is the true consequence as it stands now.

[Pamela Galli]

3 minutes ago, Hunter Stern said:

Ceka Cianci Yes, this has been my experience as well, so I was surprised to come across a store with this policy in place. And I think it's silly in SL to put a gender rule on anything, last time i checked , a lot of items in SL don't have genitals attached either. There are plenty of instances where the 'fetish' crowd of men buy womens items some even just for photoshoots because some items are a real pain in the ass to make ones self but only offered inworld for some of the exact items one is looking for. Also, how stupid are people to cut off 50% to 70% of their potential market and sales anyways with these restrictive tactics? I

We can probably all agree we don’t see many if any stores that restrict clientele in anyway, so I don’t know why you think this is an issue.

[Nalytha]

10 minutes ago, Hunter Stern said:

choice or not you only cut you nose off to spite your face (lose money) when you cut out a group(s) from commerce of most products that is the true consequence as it stands now.

It isn’t all about money. Most people probably don’t make enough to live off of in Second Life. For many, it’s probably a hobby that makes them some extra cash. With that, comes the freedom to not need every single customer you can possibly get. If you are happier not baking cakes for gays, in Second Life you can totally have that freedom. 

Something I’ve learned in my travels is that Americans tend to be very self centered and think that everyone should cater to their whims and bow to their demands. In some countries, it’s acturally rude to send your meal back in a resteraunt, no matter how bad it is. I’ve also been to countries where it’s pretty obvious that they really don’t care whether or not you are happy. They provide a service, you pay for it and leave. Your happiness isn’t a consideration. 

So,  I think it’s important to remember that Second Life is an international community with the freedom to be whoever you want — even if that’s someone who clearly doesn’t want your patronage. 

[Ceka Cianci]

26 minutes ago, Hunter Stern said:

@Ceka Cianci Yes, this has been my experience as well, so I was surprised to come across a store with this policy in place. And I think it's silly in SL to put a gender rule on anything, last time i checked , a lot of items in SL don't have genitals attached either. There are plenty of instances where the 'fetish' crowd of men buy womens items some even just for photoshoots because some items are a real pain in the ass to make ones self but only offered inworld for some of the exact items one is looking for. Also, how stupid are people to cut off 50% to 70% of their potential market and sales anyways with these restrictive tactics? I know when i made and sold Drider avatars, that though they are primarily marketed in Artwork with women as the models , they are genderless , infact they originate from male drow who failed the test of Lolothe. I made much more money  (before the tax filing era) selling the units as Unisex and making sure everyone could be accommodated, choice or not you only cut you nose off to spite your face (lose money) when you cut out a group(s) from commerce of most products that is the true consequence as it stands now.

Not sure why someone would do that really..It would be interesting to hear why..

But from outside perspective it does sound like they are hurting themselves more than anything..Who knows really the method of everyone else's madness until they give us the low down..

I have a very short attention span for places that make it hard for me to get their things..If I have to jump through hoops to earn their goods,I'll usually move on and give my money to the one that really wants it..

Edited January 1, 2018 by Ceka Cianci

[Tari Landar]

5 hours 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?

I'm ignoring all the rl aspects and debate that's been brought up since page two, because it's not a rabbit hole I want to fall down atm. I will restate what I already said on this though, and add some(though Pam did a pretty bang up job of doing so already)

This is gonna be super long...and I don't apologize in advance  

In sl, we're not talking about rl entities int he same manner. For one, you'd have to first define an actual business entity with rl tax responsibilities, and not all that own/rent parcels can be defined as such. So that already mucks up the waters a bit. The second part is that we are talking about avatars which, last I checked, are not actually defined as a protected class anywhere in the world (barring the area of a g e play, of course, and even that isn't as straight forward as most would probably prefer-despite the fact that I have no doubt the vast majority feel the same on that topic). So, it would be difficult to claim discrimination when we are discussing admission to privately owned/rented land. I say privately because all land, save for linden owned land alone, is actually private land, according to LL. Even if someone decides they want to allow public access, even if we(as individuals, not a collective) may define it(loosely) as a "public sim", it is actually still a privately owned bit of server space. LL has already defined whether or not people, landowners and renters, can allow or disallow admission at their own discretion, even going as far as saying there need not be a reason at all. We can challenge, I suppose, whether or not we agree with LL's decision on the matter, but if you're using sl at all, you've already agreed to abide by it.

As I stated earlier, I have no problem, whatsoever, with someone saying I cannot visit their land. It doesn't matter to me the purpose of said land, if a landowner has decided they do not want me there-whether it's through an outright ban or booting me after I visit, then I shall not go. I don't get angry about it, I don't feel like I am being discriminated against. I abide by the guidelines LL has already set up as far as land admission is concerned, and I am content in doing so.

I've had people "discriminate" against me for a myriad of reasons int he course of my sl life. I use quotes because within the confines of sl(only as far as admission to land is concerned-the topic of this thread) I don't believe the word is actually applicable at all-primarily because of the clear line LL has drawn in the proverbial sand on the matter. I cannot compare not being allowed onto property I am not paying for myself, to actual discrimination, well, not for me personally anyway. I have felt discrimination in my rl, more times than I care to count-both instances related to me, as well as instances related to my children..and there just is no comparison. 

Now let me tell you a little story, so I can make this super long...

I am a builder in sl. I'm not a great builder, I certainly don't have the skill sets the vast majority of creators I have seen in sl do. I am quite flawed, both in knowledge and ability, and I've no qualms admitting this. I build because I like to build. I have participated in countless different building opportunities, including contests, events, creating for charities, etc..A few years back, I wanted to participate in a contest event of sorts (it was for a charity, but not all participating were in the contest) that was listed as "open to the public". Though we did have to fill out an application of sorts, it really was open for pretty much anyone. All we had to do was be added to the group, find a spot on the sim that was open, and pay for that spot(it was like $1L just to have a spot, and $10L to enter the contest portion). On the application, we had to tell a little bit about ourselves, why we wanted to participate, how we connected(lack of better term on my part) with the cause, describe what we'd be building(give it a name, etc.. and this information was to be used later when the event opened to let people know a bit about the builder), and obviously agree to all of the rules. There were a lot of builders there, most of them were pretty damn awesome. I knew I stood no chance against their great works, but it was for charity, and I really, really love creating-even if what I end up with isn't all that great. So, I got to work, we had a week to do so. At the end of the week, a donation thing(they gave us) was to be put by every spot that was actually competing in the contest-that's how people voted. A lot of the people there knew me, from prior events. A lot of people, much like many who read here, knew of my personal limitations due to my impairments. It was even on my info card. On the day of the event-a few hours before opening to the general public, most of the builders spent time wandering around, looking at others' builds, chatting, whatever have you. Apparently, there had been some complaints made..stupid complaints, about my build and my info card. Some thought it wouldn't be fair to, and I am paraphrasing (but putting it in nicer terms than they did) "let a disabled person participate for pity points", they felt it would give me an unfair advantage(all proceeds were to go to the charity btw). Eventually, the powers that be came to me and told me that I could still participate, but not in the contest, I could merely display my work. Apparently, they agreed with whoever complained, and decided I'd have an unfair advantage. I have no clue why anyone would have thought that, my build was, well, I'll be nice to myself and say that while I worked VERY hard on it, it was far inferior compared to pretty much every other build there. I hadn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting any donations at my spot...and I knew it.  But, it bothered me, so I challenged it and was told in no uncertain terms that if I continued to have a problem with it, I could leave. So, I packed up my *****, and I left. (not because I couldn't be in the contest, but because of the way it went down and what was said, it was pretty cruel, to be honest)

Could I say that I was discriminated against because of my disability? I suppose some would think I could. But, you see, even if *I* have a disability...Tari does not. She is not a person, no matter how much I meld sl and rl together, she's not a blind woman from the midwest...I am. Could I have made a stink about it, because of anti-discrimination laws? Maybe. But what would I have accomplished? What, precisely, could I have changed? Why would i even want to change it? How would I even approach such a thing...when my avatar is not me, and I am not her. I am part of a protected class in rl...but I am NOT part of a protected class in sl...because those rl laws, do not apply here(I refer back to the first part of my post here), they do not apply to avatars. Even though rl info about me was used to prevent me from participating, it is still very much THEIR land, THEIR rules, and LL has chosen to offer them whatever discretion they so desire. Tari was the one being denied the opportunity, not me. No one said "insert my real name here, you are not allowed to participate in the contest, because you have a disability". Nope, they said Tari can't. I was pretty miffed about it, yeah, but not for the reasons some think, not because I was denied the ability to participate in something, but merely because they hurt my feelings(and yes I'm human enough to admit I have feelings that occasionally get hurt, and I get butthurt about it). 

I've been denied access to a lot of events, as a participant, for a myriad of reasons, some of which, if they had taken place in rl, would most definitely fall under anti-discrimination law territory. But, the difference is...they didn't, and don't, take place in rl. They take place in an online environment. It is not me being denied access, it is Tari. I've been denied access to loads of sims just as a guest too. Again, it is Tari being denied access...not me. I am one of those people that mixes rl and sl, sometimes quite a lot(others, not so much), so I do feel connected to Tari in the sense that we have a whole hell of a lot of similarities. We're still different entities though. I am human, I am real. Tari is pixels, she is virtual. She has one heck of a human running her..but she's still very much NOT a protected class of persons...because avatars can't be, pixels can't be.When you look at it from that point of view, rather than the "they're discriminating against ME" point of view...maybe it makes more sense. It certainly does for me.

So, yeah, if you don't want me on your land, I won't be on your land, and I respect your "right" as given by LL, to tell me I can't visit. I take no issue with it at all. I've far too many real life instances of discrimination to be angry over. Pixel discrimination is just...not a priority, and to be honest, I have to say it sometimes does make me laugh(yes, this doesn't paint the best picture of me) when people get angry over their *avatar* being discriminated against...again, because..it's pixels, no matter the level immersion, connection to one's avatar even, it's still, pixels being denied access. In most instances, merely altering those pixels regains access. Rl, isn't nearly so simple. 

[Theresa Tennyson]

10 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

On November 6, 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States -- an event that outraged southern states. The Republican party had run on an anti-slavery platform, and many southerners felt that there was no longer a place for them in the Union. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded. By Febrary 1, 1861, six more states -- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- had split from the Union. The seceded states created the Confederate States of America and elected Jefferson Davis, a Mississippi Senator, as their provisional president.

 

Didn't you say that slavery was irrelevant? If it was, why was this the reason the Southern states seceded?

[Theresa Tennyson]

9 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

The colonies chose to break away from Britain, and backed up their action by force of arms,  and they won

The Confederate states chose to break away from the United States, and backed up their action by force of arms, and they lost.

That's the only difference.

No, the "colonies" didn't, the "United States" did.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

As "free and independent states" they were able to do "do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

And in using these powers they entered a perpetual union with the other states that couldn't be dissolved without unanimous consent.

[Phil Deakins]

10 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

The colonies chose to break away from Britain, and backed up their action by force of arms,  and they won

With the help of the French   They couldn't have won without them.

[Paul Hexem]

57 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

With the help of the French   They couldn't have won without them.

The first rule about the French fighting in wars is that you don't talk about the French fighting in wars.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

3 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

The first rule about the French fighting in wars is that you don't talk about the French fighting in wars.

I guess they don't talk about Dien Bien Phu

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Didn't you say that slavery was irrelevant? If it was, why was this the reason the Southern states seceded?

I believe  I said ending slavery was irrelevant to Lincoln when he started his war.

Slavery was just one of several economic reasons that made the Southern States decide to exercise their right to secede. Trade restrictions and high tariffs were two others.

The North needed the South, the South didn't need the North.

Slavery as an institution wasn't immediately in pearl, but looking to the future, it was obvious to the South that their rights to decide for themselves if slavery would continue were threatened.

Lincoln's sole reason for the war was to preserve the union. He wanted the outcome of the war to be a restored union regardless of the status of slavery.

Edited January 1, 2018 by BilliJo Aldrin
capitalization. added a word

[BilliJo Aldrin]

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.

---------------------------------

Who said that?

[Luna Bliss]

18 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Who said that?

A Republican bigot from the South, Tennessee I believe.

[Luna Bliss]

11 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

So what exactly did I say that was incorrect?

You blamed black people, posting Alt-right drivel from an article cross-referenced on tea-party sites.

Here's a more enlightened look at the causes of poverty:

America's Poor: Blaming the Victims

Written by Tom Adams   

Saturday, 19 May 2012 01:51

The most common way of assuaging one's guilt is to project that guilt onto the victim, thereby relieving (however temporarily) the uncomfortable feelings associated with that guilt. One of the most basic human drives is to avoid pain, both physical and emotional, and the human brain is well-equipped for self-delusion in order to satisfy that drive. Blaming the victim is one way in which humans accomplish that.

For example, in this country, one of the biggest scapegoats is the poor. Rather than examine the uncomfortable truths surrounding the systemic poverty that permeates our world, many of which reveal our own complicity, we relieve our guilt by blaming the victims. It is much easier to dismiss these people as being morally inferior than it is to acknowledge the corruption, greed, selfishness, and indifference that has caused it.

To make matters worse, these myths about the poor are endlessly perpetuated in the media, which of course is controlled by those very individuals who have contributed so greatly to these conditions, and who derive such great benefit (both psychological and financial) from their perpetuation. As a result, average Americans are led to believe these myths, and because we are trained from a young age to defer to various authorities for the "truth", we assume that because it's on CNN and Fox, that it must be true. Further, often times the victims themselves are conditioned to believe that they are to blame for their circumstances, rather than being victims of institutionalized racism, sexism, and classism.

In reality, over 90% of the "lazy welfare bums" in most states are dependent children of fathers who have abandoned them and the spouses or partners of those same men. In addition, most of those men are not "lazy"; most of them earn enough income to contribute, but they don't. Also, most people who live below the poverty line receive no welfare money at all because they work full-time, but still don't make enough to pay their bills. And most food stamp recipients come from households in which at least one member works full-time, but they still don't make enough money to escape poverty.

The vast majority of people aren't lazy; they want to work and be productive members of society and facilitate happiness and stability for themselves and their families, and most of the ones who don't suffer from alcoholism, mental illness, drug addiction, and other afflictions that have resulted in their being abandoned by society, at least in this country, where the primary social safety net is the prison system. Those who suggest otherwise might examine their own reasons for ascribing such falsely cynical motives to those who have the same basic human needs and desires as themselves.

[Luna Bliss]

http://shriverreport.org/time-to-wake-up-stop-blaming-poverty-on-the-poor-barbara-ehrenreich/

[Qie Niangao]

10 hours ago, Hunter Stern said:

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.

There may be something here. I mean, most of this thread is juvenile tub-thumping, but I do think "discriminatory" venues could pose a business challenge for Second Life itself.

Years ago in some earlier incarnation of the forums, I fretted about what message it sent to newbies who found themselves kicked out of a then popular lesbian-women-only region that was included as a featured destination in whatever official listing was used at the time. I took a fresh alt to the sim to see what happened to newbies and it was well beyond mere rudeness, certainly nasty enough to discourage a real newbie from ever logging in again.

(This all assumes there are still enough "real newbies" arriving in SL to matter.)

At the time I just wanted to exclude those destinations from any guide that newbies could stumble on without warning. But now I wonder, maybe the Adult maturity rating could be used for all such specialized content. The idea is that anyone consenting to more mature content is themselves promising to accept it with a mature outlook: No pearl-clutching about pixel sex, nor about violent avatar dismemberment, virtual 1950s suburban WASP-only country clubs, antebellum Southern plantation role-play, brownshirts in the streets of historical re-enactment, etc., etc.

But maybe that's just asking for trouble, lest the RL tiki-torch brigade goose-step to Shermerville.

[Theresa Tennyson]

1 hour ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I believe  I said ending slavery was irrelevant to Lincoln when he started his war.

Slavery was just one of several economic reasons that made the Southern States decide to exercise their right to secede. Trade restrictions and high tariffs were two others.

The North needed the South, the South didn't need the North.

Slavery as an institution wasn't immediately in pearl, but looking to the future, it was obvious to the South that their rights to decide for themselves if slavery would continue were threatened.

Lincoln's sole reason for the war was to preserve the union. He wanted the outcome of the war to be a restored union regardless of the status of slavery.

If the South really wanted to "decide for themselves", why did the Confederate constitution:

1) Forbid black people from coming to any state from outside the CSA?

[Article 2] Section 9 - Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights

1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

2) Forbid Congress (i.e. the representatives of the Confederate people) to pass any law interfering with slavery?

[Article 2 Section 9 still] 4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

and...

3) Prevent the people of a territory from outlawing slavery within it?

[Article 4, Section 3] 3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

https://usconstitution.net/csa.html

[Innula Zenovka]

16 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

There may be something here. I mean, most of this thread is juvenile tub-thumping, but I do think "discriminatory" venues could pose a business challenge for Second Life itself.

Years ago in some earlier incarnation of the forums, I fretted about what message it sent to newbies who found themselves kicked out of a then popular lesbian-women-only region that was included as a featured destination in whatever official listing was used at the time. I took a fresh alt to the sim to see what happened to newbies and it was well beyond mere rudeness, certainly nasty enough to discourage a real newbie from ever logging in again.

(This all assumes there are still enough "real newbies" arriving in SL to matter.)

At the time I just wanted to exclude those destinations from any guide that newbies could stumble on without warning. But now I wonder, maybe the Adult maturity rating could be used for all such specialized content. The idea is that anyone consenting to more mature content is themselves promising to accept it with a mature outlook: No pearl-clutching about pixel sex, nor about violent avatar dismemberment, virtual 1950s suburban WASP-only country clubs, antebellum Southern plantation role-play, brownshirts in the streets of historical re-enactment, etc., etc.

But maybe that's just asking for trouble, lest the RL tiki-torch brigade goose-step to Shermerville.

Why not feature in the destination guide only regions that ask to be included, and make their being open to all members whose maturity rating allows them to access the region a condition of acceptance?   That deals with the problem of people being turned away -- whether politely or impolitely -- from destinations they've found there.

LL should also, to my mind, exercise some editorial control over what appears in the destination guide, including whether the destination is of a sufficient quality to merit inclusion and whether it's likely to prove of interest to a sufficient number of potential visitors.    That would enable them to exclude destinations they considered particularly objectionable.

The destination guide, to my mind, is both a service to residents who want to find interesting regions to visit and also a marketing tool for LL, to help new users find interesting and attractive content that persuades them to stay.   It's not  intended simply as an advertising tool for region owners. 

[Pamela Galli]

3 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.

---------------------------------

Who said that?

Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer wrote in this context about Lincoln's letter: "Unknown to Greeley, Lincoln composed this after he had already drafted a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which he had determined to issue after the next Union military victory. Therefore, this letter, was in truth, an attempt to position the impending announcement in terms of saving the Union, not freeing slaves as a humanitarian gesture. It was one of Lincoln's most skillful public relations efforts, even if it has cast longstanding doubt on his sincerity as a liberator."^[53] Historian Richard Striner argues that "for years" Lincoln's letter has been misread as "Lincoln only wanted to save the Union."^[54] However, within the context of Lincoln's entire career and pronouncements on slavery this interpretation is wrong, according to Striner. Rather, Lincoln was softening the strong Northern white supremacist opposition to his imminent emancipation by tying it to the cause of the Union. This opposition would fight for the Union but not to end slavery, so Lincoln gave them the means and motivation to do both, at the same time.^[54] In his 2014 book, Lincoln's Gamble, journalist and historian Todd Brewster asserted that Lincoln's desire to reassert the saving of the Union as his sole war goal was in fact crucial to his claim of legal authority for emancipation. Since slavery was protected by the Constitution, the only way that he could free the slaves was as a tactic of war—not as the mission itself.^[55]

[encidious Opus]

38 minutes ago, Sybaine Falconer said:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! MY FEE FEES!!!! WAAAA!!!! That's what you sound like, man.

The state of this thread is … covfefe

[Hunter Stern]

As you all can see, even bringing up anything withing context to the notion of policy that might wax or wane what some see as a convenience to themselves, whether understood or misunderstood obviously merits the a harsh and irrational reaction to help quite down any real life threat of whistle blowing. How I am a threat is beyond me. I am merely questioning some of the mechanics and pertinent turnstiles in place that make up our current experiences as directed and guided by none other than the ToS and CS and that ever so tricky, General Policy guide. Any retort against me is not going to quiet me nor make me sit down. I've been a member of SL over 13 years , and yes I do feel a bit 'entitled' to speak up once in a while.

It's interesting how some of the more loud voices against the concept of me even being offended by something are echos of a not so distant past in SL forums. Those voices were quieted too, though after we proved we have a bit more clout than just screaming and finger pointing and torch wielding at one another (Forums and policies did change).

It did occur to me that yes, I could bring my concerns before the Lab themselves, but to what end. And don't you think that regardless of what I think you do have a say and opinion on the matter? So I have brought it here for the wisdom of my fellow residents and we would know best I would think since it is our world to shape (or atleast I should hope). This isn't a protest at all, but merely a true question amongst peers. So carry on I suppose and , thanks for your insight.

[Luna Bliss]

17 minutes ago, Hunter Stern said:

I am merely questioning some of the mechanics and pertinent turnstiles in place that make up our current experiences as directed and guided by none other than the ToS and CS and that ever so tricky, General Policy guide.

You do bring up some interesting questions, and while I think they don't apply to SL so much as it's seen as a fantasy world, I do wonder if future virtual worlds and VR gathering spaces not so walled-off  would lend themselves to more RL scrutiny. For example, what would happen at Sansar if I opened a Whites Only experience. Would that fly?  In my Holiday cheer I might try opening Wimmin World.....

[Luna Bliss]

32 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

It was one of Lincoln's most skillful public relations efforts, even if it has cast longstanding doubt on his sincerity as a liberator."

Why does a certain section of the 'right' seem obsessed with denigrating Lincoln? Is it because they don't want those who are more progressive minded to venerate him, have our hero that cared about the oppressed and sought to bring about equality and justice?

Edited January 1, 2018 by Luna Bliss