Profile Pick got me banned

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 minute ago, Selene Gregoire said:

At first i was gonna post a pic of a bag lady

...perks. (Ancient history, but I was once known here as the MadBagLady).

[Madelaine McMasters]

8 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

He's free to talk like a dribbling backside about it, but nobody owes him a platform.

Sometimes the best thing you can offer such people is a platform... and enough rope to hang themselves.

[Selene Gregoire]

5 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Going back to Scylla's encounter with the Dom, there's another angle, which I might have played. Scylla mentioned that the sub IMed her a sort of apology. That's the toe-in-the-door I'd be inclined to take, engaging her rather than him. It's nefarious and has potential to backfire, but we are talking about MY angle.

It rarely works. The most common response is the sub is doing what the sub is doing because the sub wants to...

Don't get me started.

[Madelaine McMasters]

2 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

It rarely works. The most common response is the sub is doing what the sub is doing because the sub wants to...

Don't get me started.

Yeah, but the apology suggests an opening.

[Amina Sopwith]

13 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Sometimes the best thing you can offer such people is a platform... and enough rope to hang themselves.

I like your suggestion of talking to the sub, because if she stuck around after this then it's clear she didn't understand what BDSM is actually about and there was something very potentially damaging going on. An actual Dom wouldn't be involving non-consenting people like Scylla just to offend them, and nor would they be doing things to their sub that are clearly not going to leave them feeling good (I'm not talking about the leashing and humiliation, I mean involving Scylla - this clearly made the sub unhappy enough that she essentially apologised for it and felt embarrassed in the bad way over it). So yes...attempt to talk to her before she gets damaged in any way by this utter thundertw*t.

In terms of him, though, he was quite plainly an idiot on nothing but transmit. I prefer cutting off his oxygen to giving him rope. Scylla was the only person who was going to see the self-lynching and he was only going to kick her in the face while he did it, and he clearly wasn't going to realise he was dead anyway. Suffocation, so much better.


 

[Selene Gregoire]

8 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

...perks. (Ancient history, but I was once known here as the MadBagLady).

Stop twisting my arm!

[Selene Gregoire]

2 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

I like your suggestion of talking to the sub, because if she stuck around after this then it's clear she didn't understand what BDSM is actually about and there was something very potentially damaging going on. An actual Dom wouldn't be involving non-consenting people like Scylla just to offend them, and nor would they be doing things to their sub that are clearly not going to leave them feeling good (I'm not talking about the leashing and humiliation, I mean involving Scylla - this clearly made the sub unhappy enough that she essentially apologised for it and felt embarrassed in the bad way over it). So yes...attempt to talk to her before she gets damaged in any way by this utter thundertw*t.

In terms of him, though, he was quite plainly an idiot on nothing but transmit. I prefer cutting off his oxygen to giving him rope. Scylla was the only person who was going to see the self-lynching and he was only going to kick her in the face while he did it, and he clearly wasn't going to realise he was dead anyway. Suffocation, so much better.


 

I prefer to let karma catch up to them. Like it did my abusive ex. Cancer got him. Slow and painful.

[Amina Sopwith]

13 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

I prefer to let karma catch up to them. Like it did my abusive ex. Cancer got him. Slow and painful.

I'm glad you got out of that relationship, even if it did take a while. Many women never manage it at all.

Regarding talking to that sub... it's one of those things where people just have to decide for themselves whether or not they want to try. It could go either way. If I'd thought of it before I banned the abusive prat, I'd have responded to the apology with something like, "Forgive me if I'm overstepping, but actual domination is not about pulling people like me into it, who don't want to be there, just to offend and upset us. It's also not about doing things to you that leave you feeling bad afterwards, as this exchange appears to be doing. It is supposed to be about mutual satisfaction, and he is actually supposed to care about what you get out of it. What's happening here isn't BDSM, it's abuse. I'm going to ban him because I can tell there's absolutely no point in trying to make him understand power exchange, but please do keep messaging me if you want to discuss this any further. I've got all day for you."

She might have told me to get knotted, but it would be a risk I'd have been prepared to take, personally. Others would have to decide for themselves what they felt was right.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

11 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Bring it.

Brave, if foolhardy, woman.

11 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Not sure I agree on the 70s and 80s feminists thing, although in that period I either wasn't there or wasn't in any position to appreciate what was going on.

That period was, to some degree, dominated by the particular approach to pornography taken by Andrea Dworkin and, from a slightly different, legalistic perspective, Catharine MacKinnon; both argued that most existing porn was essentially a form of violence against women, and that it encouraged rape culture (they probably had a point on that one). It all played out rather ironically: a 1992 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada actually put into practice some of the anti-porn principles articulated by MacKinnon. Unfortunately, it was soon discovered that the new powers provided to customs officials and the police were being used primarily to seize lesbian and gay publications (including, but not exclusively, porn) that was crossing the border from the States. So, be carefully of what you wish for . . .

21 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Every instance of feminism in any century has been deluged by attempts to trivialise and delegitimise it as something it really isn't. Is there really anything you could have said to this plonker that would have left him with a positive impression of you and your sim? Ok, so perhaps he couldn't have claimed you were censoring him, but he'd still have been able to call you sexually repressive, irrational, all the rest. There's an anti-feminist stereotype for every occasion. 

I am glad that there are people like you because you're clearly fighting the good fight better than I am. I do agree with discourse and communication being the only ways to really effect any change. But there's got to be some receptive channel, however small or weirdly shaped, and in this case it was just so obvious that the only way to win with this halfwit was not to play. One of the advantages of SL is that there's a perfect mute switch for hateful idiots on nothing but transmit.

I think everything you say here is correct. Usually, as you say, engaging is pointless, and I generally do reach a point where I just say "goodbye," and walk away. I just find it easiest, and least problematic, from my own perspective to simply ignore people. Had they been harassing someone else on the sim who didn't have my admin powers to ban, I might have acted differently?

On occasion, I have found that engaging is, well, useful. When I was researching an exhibit on representations of violence in SL, I found myself in two different extended conversations with people who were into the Dolcett scene. I'm not going to pretend that I was able to change their minds, but I learned an awful lot.

26 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

I don't think banning from a privately owned sim counts as censorship anyway. He's free to leash his sub, he's free to talk like a dribbling backside about it, but nobody owes him a platform.

THIS is a really good point, and one that is sometimes lost on people arguing for what they think of as "free speech." Someone's rights to be offensive don't imply a right to use any venue that you want to do so. This is an issue that is somewhat front-and-centre where I am in RL right now, as right-wing and ant-trans activists associated with Jordan Peterson and others insist upon their right to use university venues as platforms for their views.

[Amina Sopwith]

14 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

THIS is a really good point, and one that is sometimes lost on people arguing for what they think of as "free speech." Someone's rights to be offensive don't imply a right to use any venue that you want to do so. This is an issue that is somewhat front-and-centre where I am in RL right now, as right-wing and ant-trans activists associated with Jordan Peterson and others insist upon their right to use university venues as platforms for their views.

Surely you've seen this..




It never fails to amaze me how many people are very clear on their right to be offensive and stupid, yet get all precious about other people's right to tell them they're offensive and stupid...or simply refuse to listen to their offensive stupidity.

[Madelaine McMasters]

Just now, Amina Sopwith said:

I'm glad you got out of that relationship, even if it did take a while. Many women never manage it at all.

Regarding talking to that sub... it's one of those things where people just have to decide for themselves whether or not they want to try. It could go either way. If I'd thought of it before I banned the abusive prat, I'd have responded to the apology with something like, "Forgive me if I'm overstepping, but actual domination is not about pulling people like me into it, who don't want to be there, just to offend and upset us. It's also not about doing things to you that leave you feeling bad afterwards, as this exchange appears to be doing. It is supposed to be about mutual satisfaction, and he is actually supposed to care about what you get out of it. What's happening here isn't BDSM, it's abuse. I'm going to ban him because I can tell there's absolutely no point in trying to make him understand power exchange, but please do keep messaging me if you want to discuss this any further. I've got all day for you."

She might have told me to get knotted, but it would be a risk I'd have been prepared to take, personally. Others would have to decide for themselves what they felt was right.

I was working up a response for your previous post, but I'll put it here, since you're heading in my direction. Banning the Dom would risk slamming the IM door with the sub on my own foot. Instead, and at some risk (as you've noted), I might have engaged in public discourse with the Dom, hoping to further illuminate his behavior as abusive, all while supportively engaging the sub in IM. Debate is not entirely about convincing your opponent of the correctness of your argument. It's mostly about convincing the audience.

And... I'm not above driving wedges.

[Selene Gregoire]

Just now, Amina Sopwith said:

I'm glad you got out of that relationship, even if it did take a while. Many women never manage it at all.

Regarding talking to that sub... it's one of those things where people just have to decide for themselves whether or not they want to try. It could go either way. If I'd thought of it before I banned the abusive prat, I'd have responded to the apology with something like, "Forgive me if I'm overstepping, but actual domination is not about pulling people like me into it, who don't want to be there, just to offend and upset us. It's also not about doing things to you that leave you feeling bad afterwards, as this exchange appears to be doing. It is supposed to be about mutual satisfaction, and he is actually supposed to care about what you get out of it. What's happening here isn't BDSM, it's abuse. I'm going to ban him because I can tell there's absolutely no point in trying to make him understand power exchange, but please do keep messaging me if you want to discuss this any further. I've got all day for you."

She might have told me to get knotted, but it would be a risk I'd have been prepared to take, personally. Others would have to decide for themselves what they felt was right.

It took him going to Camp Fed on drug charges. That was the only way short of death. In Texas.

I'm not into BDSM (sort of obvious) so I can't speak to that aspect but I do see the abuse in SL all the time. Our time of trying to helps subs like that one, from Active Worlds into SL, finally came to an end when it became obvious our own relationship was suffering badly for it. That ultimatum I came out with might have had something to do with it.

What I'm saying is, my time for fighting the good fight had to end. I'm getting too old for it. I'm just glad there are others to pick up where we left off.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

26 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

That was the scary one.  We put the focus on runaways and undocumented women, who are particularly vulnerable.  We had to put a warning at the entrance to let people know that some of it was pretty intense.  I don't know that I would ever do that again.  Even with the warning it was hard to deal with.

You are braver than I. I've done three exhibits on feminism for SL (four, if you count a "crisis resource centre" I once built), but I've never tried to exhibit about RL issues like that directly.

It can be done really well: I remember thinking that yours was, and there was also the RAWA exhibit on women in Afghanistan that you may remember. I've always been very leery about using SL to address real life issues directly, because I'm worried that I wouldn't do it well; the dreadful example of "Virtual Darfur" always comes to mind. I had some similar issues, on a lesser scale, with One Billion Rising in SL in 2014, as well (and blogged about it at the time).

Part of the problem is, as you note, the trigger issues. Even dealing with virtual representations of violence in SL involved those. But the danger of seeming to trivialize a horrific RL situation by presenting it in what most people see as an online "entertainment" is something that weighs on me.

It can be done, as I said, really well. But I'd want to be soooooo careful were I to try that.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

26 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

"Forgive me if I'm overstepping, but actual domination is not about pulling people like me into it, who don't want to be there, just to offend and upset us. It's also not about doing things to you that leave you feeling bad afterwards, as this exchange appears to be doing. It is supposed to be about mutual satisfaction, and he is actually supposed to care about what you get out of it. What's happening here isn't BDSM, it's abuse. I'm going to ban him because I can tell there's absolutely no point in trying to make him understand power exchange, but please do keep messaging me if you want to discuss this any further. I've got all day for you."

Wow.

Can I cut and paste this for future use?

I did have a very brief back-and-forth with the sub, but it was mostly pretty light-hearted. She explained that he was "just like this, sometimes," and a few things of that ilk that suggested she wasn't very comfortable with what he was doing. I told her it was ok, that I could handle it, and wasn't particularly put out by what he was saying.

He was being abusive, and he was clearly putting his sub through something that she wasn't comfortable with, but she also was clearly not comfortable with telling him so. And, to round out this session of feeling mutually uncomfortable, I didn't, and don't, feel comfortable telling another woman how to manage her consensual relationship.

Not being into BDSM myself, I'm a bit wary about intruding into such relationships when I see them; I have to say, however, that your response is pretty much perfect.

Edited July 28, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Rolig Loon]

32 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Part of the problem is, as you note, the trigger issues. Even dealing with virtual representations of violence in SL involved those. But the danger of seeming to trivialize a horrific RL situation by presenting it in what most people see as an online "entertainment" is something that weighs on me.

Yes, I was disappointed at first when the 2014 exhibit didn't draw many visitors, but then quietly relieved.  An exhibit on hot button issues can easily offend some people by making them relive their own terrifying experiences and it can offend others by seeming to trivialize them. It's also the case that exhibits like that are often either preaching to the choir or falling on deaf ears.  There's blessed little neutral ground.  I am torn between wanting to do something and being reluctant to do anything, at least anything public. In retrospect, regardless of how important those issues are to me, I felt most comfortable (and competent) making our exhibits about "safe" topics like Am/Brit novels of the 1930s, chemical thermodynamics, and studio glassblowing.  I'm a wimpy activist.

[kiramanell]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I think this is a fascinating question; it's one I've never really thought about.

I spend a good deal of my time in a group-owned mainland parcel that is explicitly, both in search and on the map, "feminist": it's in the name of the parcel. And, not too often but maybe 3 or 4 times a year, I'll be busy doing whatever there and will be approached by one or more people who have clearly dropped by to bait and/or argue with me about feminism. On one particularly memorable occasion, maybe 6 months ago, a male Dom showed up with his female sub on a leash, and treated me to an explicit account of all of the utterly degrading things he planned to do to her. (She seemed a little embarrassed about it, and actually IMed me a sort of apology.)

I have the ability to ban such people from the parcel, but I don't: instead, I try to engage them until it becomes obvious (which it almost invariably does) that it's pointless doing so. Then I just ignore them, and they usually just wander off. The only people I've ever banned were a couple who were indisputably griefers, and who had shown up merely to disrupt public events with chat spam or noise on voice.

So, I'd be in my "rights" to ban someone who had something particularly hateful in the picks, or even in their groups. And, in some instances, I'd be justified by a need to keep people safe: events and meetings we've held there have often included women who have been abused or sexually assaulted in RL, and who are suffering, in effect, from PTSD as a result. I've never done it, and I'm not sure I would, but I can actually see a legitimate argument for banning people for certain kinds of profile content -- not, I think, merely sexually explicit stuff, but actually hateful things.

I'll have to give this some more thought. To be honest, I hate bans, but this is a public sim, and maybe I have a responsibility for others who also use it?

 

Hate fawning all over you again, LOL, but I really *do* enjoy reading your stimulating posts.  

Outside of outright banishable behavior, I can certainly see legitimate reasons for banning ppl -- and pretty much for all the balanced reasons you mentioned. Especially in the realm of women who were abused in their lives. I'm not unfamilar with the subject, so I can smell a potential trigger a mile wide. Even if I had already decided I wanted them off my sim, I think I would still try and talk to them first, though; if for nothing else, just to say "Look, this isn't going to work out; I think your presence and/or stuff in your Profile will be disruptive here. So, I feel I need to ask you to leave." I mean, I can always ban after that, should talking fail.

Reason I thought that outright banning the OP felt a bit over-the-top, is precisely because no one tried to communicate with her first. I usually only check people's Profile for support of their product. I'm not a content creator myself, so I don't think I even have Picks; or if I do, very old ones. Point is just, like me, someone might have something in their Picks they completely forgot about. Like maybe a slurl to an art gallery (which might even have erotic content in it too). In those cases, I might still ask them to remove that stuff; but outright ban?! That doesn't feel like something I would resort to. Unlike, you say, there was clear, unredeemable hatespeech in their Profile or something.

When I talked about fair, I meant it in the sense of ' treating someone in a way that is right or reasonable.' And having the right, doesn't necessary mean it's the right thing to do. In Law, we have what's called the Principle of Legality. In its strictest form, it's implemented the way our Penal Code is set up, effectively stating nothing is punishable which isn't explicitely mentioned as punishable by the Penal Code. Seen looser, you could think about a TOS: a set of rules you need to abide by, and, if not, you're in violation. And it's kinda customary not to punish ppl, unless they violated a rule. Linden Lab, for instance, could ban any of us, at any time, for any reason, because they 'reserve the right.' Doesn't mean they do so haphazardly, though. As a matter of practicality, they mostly really only do so if you broke a rule. And that makes perfect sense (otherwise, why even have a lenghty Code of Conduct you need to adhere to?).

I'm landing this plane, honestly. 😜 My point just is, that yes, while sim owners can ban whoever they see fit, I still hope they are guided by some localized version of the Principle of Legality, and really only ban ppl when they violated a clearly spelled-out rule. Or, that if they do so for others reasons, that they will at least tell you. The latter really also helps ppl improve their behavior: you can't quite remedy your errors, when you didn't even know where you went wrong.

[Amina Sopwith]

36 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

She explained that he was "just like this, sometimes"

I've never known a woman in an abusive relationship who didn't say this at some point. Ever. I've had it said to me while my lip was still bleeding.

I'm sorry to say that since becoming a parent, I've come across more of them than I ever have before - not mine, but those of my "mum friends", as abuse is known often to start in pregnancy or shortly afterwards. "He's a great dad" is another one you hear a lot. 

By all means use my response if you like it. Perhaps add that he's also gendering BDSM, which, as you've pointed out previously, isn't supposed to happen. It's not about subjugation of women, or men. It's a dynamic between individuals that expresses itself in many different ways, but ultimately the combination of genders involved doesn't actually matter, unless of course you're a sexist bumwipe.

[Madelaine McMasters]

4 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

Yes, I was disappointed at first when the 2014 exhibit didn't draw many visitors, but then quietly relieved.  An exhibit on hot button issues can easily offend some people by making them relive their own terrifying experiences and it can offend others by seeming to trivialize them. It's also the case that exhibits like that are often either preaching to the choir or falling on deaf ears.  There's blessed little neutral ground.  I am torn between wanting to do something and being reluctant to do anything, at least anything public. In retrospect, regardless of how important those issues are to me, I felt most comfortable (and competent) making our exhibits about "safe" topics like Am/Brit novels of the 1930s, chemical thermodynamics, and studio glassblowing.  I'm a wimpy activist.

This, and my natural introversion, is what makes me more observer than activist. The Law of Unintended Consequences is compounded by crowds, creating the negative corollary to "Safety in Numbers".

[Paul Hexem]

1 hour ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Surely you've seen this..




It never fails to amaze me how many people are very clear on their right to be offensive and stupid, yet get all precious about other people's right to tell them they're offensive and stupid...or simply refuse to listen to their offensive stupidity.

On the other hand!

There's a fine line between not wanting to hear someone's BS, and trying to prevent them from saying it at all. 

[Lindal Kidd]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'll have to give this some more thought. To be honest, I hate bans, but this is a public sim, and maybe I have a responsibility for others who also use it?

No.  Well, you can accept that burden if you want to, but it's YOUR sim and you can do with it what you want.  Ban, don't ban.  Allow, don't allow.  Be as arbitrary and capricious as you want.  It's YOURS.

The rules are very simple at Masocado:  Be nice, and don't annoy the landlady.

[Amina Sopwith]

22 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

On the other hand!

There's a fine line between not wanting to hear someone's BS, and trying to prevent them from saying it at all. 

Indeed, but in my experience at least, such cases are comparatively rare. 

For example, I have never called for Gor books or RP sims to be banned. But I will never host them on any platform of mine, and I will rip the ever living pish out of them from arseholes to breakfast time, as is my six-foot-tall-psychotic-golden-alien-grasshopper-given right.

[Amina Sopwith]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

the dreadful example of "Virtual Darfur" always comes to mind.

I don't know about this. Dare I ask?

[Paul Hexem]

4 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Indeed, but in my experience at least, such cases are comparatively rare. 

Rare for you, maybe. 

[Amina Sopwith]

14 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

Rare for you, maybe. 

Clearly I move in charmed circles.

I do know of some cases where Person A thought that censorship was taking place, but to me it simply looked as though Platform B was being denied to them. There was nothing I could see in the argument to suggest that Person A couldn't express their views in other places (owner of Platform B couldn't have prevented it even if they'd wanted to), but Person A did not seem to see it that way.

Also, Gor sucks.

[kiramanell]

14 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

On the other hand!

There's a fine line between not wanting to hear someone's BS, and trying to prevent them from saying it at all. 

 

That's actually a complex matter. Like in the above picture "Or host you when you share it." Sounds reasonable, until you scale matters up a bit.

Like when becomes 'not hosting' infringing on your 1st Amendment rights? Not being allowed to write in the school paper? LOL, no. But how about, say, an Iranian journalist, whose Goverment has barred him from using any and all news outlets? Or, a little closer to home, what when Facebook prevents you from speaking? I mean, at some point, the medium you try and use becomes so vast an earth-encompassing, that the question arises whether perhaps not letting you speak on their platform, whist everyone else can, starts becoming impeding on your rights to express your opinion.