"Share" is taken out of the viewer completely?

[Seicher Rae]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Those moments when life's awful little moments (and Prok's awful little posts) outpace the capacity of remedial drinking . . . are always a little sad.

Yebbit, don't short change my abilities! I can quickly catch up.

[Prokofy Neva]

9 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Did you really just trivialize date rape by comparing it to the expectation of privacy in public places?

Yes. Yes you did.

Maybe the best way to prevent date rapes is to teach "boys" not to rape women?

Just a thought.

I realize that reasoning by analogy can fly over people's heads but I don't worry about trivializing anything because it's more important that you think about what is true here.

What is true is that if a woman does not get irresponsibly drunk, she has a far less chance of being raped.

Teach boys not to rape all you like. That's fine.

But teach both girls and boys not to get out-of-control drunk if they don't want to get raped or be charged with rape.

That remains the root of the problem and the rest is so much posturing.

[Prokofy Neva]

9 hours ago, Desiree Moonwinder said:

 

You're still having trouble a) admitting what you said which we can all read here, which is that you believe sharing photographs outside of SL is unethical and b) focusing on what you said about sharing outside of SL, and repeatedly responding even in red and all caps about what the TOS says about *inside* SL. 

[Prokofy Neva]

8 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

screams into the void 

Scream all you like, but do try to reason by analogy, it's useful.

Indeed what is at issue here in both the setting of date rape and the outrage about sharing photos is a substrate of maximalizing freedom and even licentiousness with the expectation that you will prevent crime by "education" or prosecution -- and on the way violate due process and suspects' rights all too often.

So the girl at the frat house both wants to get irresponsibly drunk and flirt with boys AND have somebody or something restrain the boys so that she can have maximum freedom -- and be able to prosecute them and ruin their lives without any due process on her say-so.

But there's another way to have freedom, which is not to become irresponsibly drunk so that you can avoid such situations or even not go to such frat parties in the first place. This was considered normal common sense even 25 years ago, let alone 50 or 100, yet nowadays we are supposed to live in this absurd world of maximalized licentiousness with no personal responsibility whatsoever to prevent crime, and with the only measure for preventing the crime of rape to somehow "educate" boys -- which may not even be possible. Certainly prosecuting them hasn't worked.

In the same way -- this is an ANALOGY but not a moral equivocation, although that may be lost on you -- people want the maximum freedom to fly around SL dressed in any way they wish, they want to strut around in their fashionable costumes they've paid a fortune for (and who can blame them!) in public places, but they want to restrain people who photograph them and share it outside of SL.

Machinima policy on private islands is not the issue (it doesn't apply on the Mainland).

The issue is the idea that you can make other people do what you want to create totalitarianism for them but hedonistic freedom for yourself. This recipe all too often reoccurs in SL, freedom for me and banning for thee. But in reality, rights must be balanced and prevention rather than prosecution has to achieve the goals sought. If you don't want to be photographed, don't go to public places or better yet, stop caring so inappropriately about someone blogging your costume at a public event.

 

[Desiree Moonwinder]

10 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

You're still having trouble a) admitting what you said which we can all read here, which is that you believe sharing photographs outside of SL is unethical and b) focusing on what you said about sharing outside of SL, and repeatedly responding even in red and all caps about what the TOS says about *inside* SL. 

I admit that my text Posted Friday at 12:37 PM does leave open the misinterpretation of my intent that you keep making, but I clarified Friday at 06:20 PM making it no longer reasonable for you to misconstrue, which you keep doing over and over again.  

[Prokofy Neva]

Just now, Desiree Moonwinder said:

I admit that my text Posted Friday at 12:37 PM does leave open the misinterpretation of my intent that you keep making, but I clarified Friday at 06:20 PM making it no longer reasonable for you to misconstrue, which you keep doing over and over again.  

Maybe it's because you respond by saying "nobody said that" when...you said that LOL.

Have fun on your alt.

[Qie Niangao]

Rape is like lynching: neither can be used in an analogy.

(Y'all see what I did there, right?)

[Desiree Moonwinder]

3 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Maybe it's because you respond by saying "nobody said that" when...you said that LOL.

I admit to having used the word "that" numerous times in my life. 

10 hours ago, Desiree Moonwinder said:

10 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

@Desiree Moonwinder, citing the TOS which -- for the third time -- only applies inside of Second Life -- does not explain where you get the idea that it is "unethical" to share photos outside of SL.

No one ever said that.  

I do not have that idea. I admit that my text Posted Friday at 12:37 PM does leave open the misinterpretation of my intent that you keep making, but I clarified Friday at 06:20 PM making it no longer reasonable for you to misconstrue, which you keep doing over and over again.  

[Beth Macbain]

10 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

...words...

I've learned that having a discussion with you is utterly impossible because you are far more concerned with your own words and being as sanctimonious as possible rather than opening your mind and your ears and possibly learning something. 

I'm not going to spend my Sunday trying to make you understand why what you call common sense 25, 50, or 100 years ago is a bunch of crap. Trying to make you see a point other than your own truly is like screaming into a void. 

Also, I'm not the one who thinks posting material from inside SL outside of SL is unethical. 

[Prokofy Neva]

1 minute ago, Beth Macbain said:

I've learned that having a discussion with you is utterly impossible because you are far more concerned with your own words and being as sanctimonious as possible rather than opening your mind and your ears and possibly learning something. 

I'm not going to spend my Sunday trying to make you understand why what you call common sense 25, 50, or 100 years ago is a bunch of crap. Trying to make you see a point other than your own truly is like screaming into a void. 

Also, I'm not the one who thinks posting material from inside SL outside of SL is unethical. 

Instead of posturing senselessly about date-rape in the misguided belief that you are saving feminism's soul, what you and Scylla and other ladies should do, rather than getting outraged about common-sense advice for college women to avoid assault, is to go after the capture roleplay sites in SL. They are an abomination. Your fellow board regulars frequent them. They should suffer only social ostracism and there should be a campaign with the Lab to stop this simulation of crime which only creates a climate of impunity. 

[Beth Macbain]

14 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

...more words...

[Orwar]

2 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

   Bwaha. First time that rolled, I thought for a split second that the folder coming into screen was someone trying to shove a Twinkie into her face.

[Solar Legion]

Ah yes, railing against the removal of a feature that had adequate explanation given that then morphs into railing against a singular poster - even after they added clarification - for daring to use a word/concept in a way you don't agree with while making an "analogy" that not only does not work/fit whatsoever but allows you to segue into railing against an activity you yourself find "distasteful" and utterly fail to understand whatsoever - all because it falls under a Role Play element of a larger form of play/lifestyle you disdain and fail to understand ....

Otherwise known as Tuesday/just another day ....

As long as they retain the ability to share via e-mail, I'll be happy. Services like Snapzilla use that protocol and it is by far more reliable.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Instead of posturing senselessly about date-rape in the misguided belief that you are saving feminism's soul, what you and Scylla and other ladies should do, rather than getting outraged about common-sense advice for college women to avoid assault, is to go after the capture roleplay sites in SL.

There are so many things wrong with your original analogy -- logically ,analogically, rhetorically, factually, and ethically -- that I'd have to sacrifice most of my Sunday to responding to it in any sort of detail. Suffice it to say that the logical extension of your argument is that the very best way to protect women against date rape is just to sequester them from public life in the first place. Victim-blaming tends to lead to that kind of reductio ad absurdum because its premises are so completely off-base.

It's not feminism you're threatening: it's basic logic. You're debasing the currency of intelligent discussion, and making us all a little stupider as a result. Please don't.

[Selene Gregoire]

Prok has always been and always will be a victim blamer. I know it won't make any difference in Prok's mind and will likely lead to the usual wall of text because Harvard. At least there is hope for the rest of the world.

https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/halt/how-to-avoid-victim-blaming/

[Prokofy Neva]

6 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

There are so many things wrong with your original analogy -- logically ,analogically, rhetorically, factually, and ethically -- that I'd have to sacrifice most of my Sunday to responding to it in any sort of detail. Suffice it to say that the logical extension of your argument is that the very best way to protect women against date rape is just to sequester them from public life in the first place. Victim-blaming tends to lead to that kind of reductio ad absurdum because its premises are so completely off-base.

It's not feminism you're threatening: it's basic logic. You're debasing the currency of intelligent discussion, and making us all a little stupider as a result. Please don't.

I realize it's *hard* to reason by analogy and to think conceptually, and that's why you reach for insults and a superiority complex instead of *thinking*. There is no "logic" that comes out of the *prevention* of a situation by common sense -- not getting drunk -- that leads to "sequestering" women. That's absurd on the face of it. A lot of so-called "critical thinking" (Marxism) on campus has given us all this nonsense.

A woman need not be *sequestered* but can go to a party -- and by the way, dressed as she pleases -- and *not get plastered* so that she does not wind up a victim. The logic of not getting drunk is pretty basic -- it's protective action, not DELIBERATELY rendering yourself infantile and vulnerable, you know, like not crossing against the light in traffic. So that you can MINIMIZE the damage from the boys getting drunk and attacking you.

The logic of the camera-shy in SL could by YOUR analogy lead to someone never coming out in public but staying on their land. But there's another thing they can do: not care. Stop obsessively trying to control other people who in fact are not doing you harm.

There's nothing *factually* wrong about my original analogy because indeed a majority of date rape cases occur because the parties are intoxicated, and it's reasonable to suggest that women not become so drunk as to not recognize they don't want to be in a situation they might not be able to get out of. That this is seen as absolving the male rapist is part of what is so insane about college-dictated "logic" and "philosophy".

And BTW, it's a tip-off to the totalitarian agenda lurking within radical feminism like other forms of radicalism: rather than counsel prevention and caution, extremists imagine they can both re-educate and prosecute to the hilt so many men that they will never pose a threat again, and their due process rights be damned. They imagine they will have the power to make other people change dramatically in ways they themselves would never want to change. Since this will indeed prove elusive, they will console themselves with browbeating and even harassing anyone who disagrees with them and try to name and shame them as siding with rapists if they counsel prevention and caution. Along the way, they will remain indifferent if not hostile to the idea that prevention is any kind of solution, thus in fact enabling more of the same crime they seek to eradicate by radical means, unjustly prosecuting the many in the hopes that the actual guilty parties will thus be put out of business. It's really a nasty business so I will go on calling it out.

There's nothing *ethically* wrong with urging college women not to become drunk at parties. In general it's a good piece of advice -- if they want to avoid hangovers and sickness the next day; if they want to focus on their studies, which is why they are in college, and so on.

Prevention of drunkenness isn't victim-blaming; it's prevention of drunkeness, which is a good societal goal. That you imagine that it is irrelevant, or need not be invoked, or somehow blames the victim is EXACTLY what is wrong with college political correctness. It is exactly that insanity that has led to our current terrible president. Thank you.

P.S. Thanks for conceding that you are happy to give Capture Roleplay horror in SL a pass on your way to being politically correct on RL subjects.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Prokofy Neva

[Prokofy Neva]

5 hours ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Prok has always been and always will be a victim blamer. I know it won't make any difference in Prok's mind and will likely lead to the usual wall of text because Harvard. At least there is hope for the rest of the world.

https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/halt/how-to-avoid-victim-blaming/

This is irrelevant to the current debate, and BTW not exactly a sterling legal reference.

The rape myths listed in that piece are all good -- but note that among them you will NOT find "she was drunk". Because "she was drunk" is a factual -- and avoidable -- situation. It's a way to PREVENT rape given that the feminist goal of re-educating and re-fashioning men may be awfully slow in coming for all kinds of reasons.

It's also in general a good thing not to be a drunk, for all kinds of other reasons.

Let's take another current tragedy in the news, the murder of the promising young white Barnard student by black teen-age thugs who robbed her in Morningside Park. There's been an enormous amount of horrible commentary on all sides -- racists on Reddit and PC lawyers imagining that the death of a student by murder is the equivalent of the loss of a teenager to jail because he committed murder. In their zeal to prevent a replay of the Central Park Jogger saga, journalists, lawyers and even policemen are leaning over backwards, and now today's story is that this young woman was seeking to buy weed in the park which is how she fell prey to muggers. This is based on sheer hearsay and not corroborated by anything but it helps disparage her as a victim, which is needed by some, since she was so pristine otherwise -- an eager, smart, talented young woman from the provincial south coming to the big city.

Some people will draw the lesson that you need to legalize marijuana, although the killer's own apparent weed-smoking in fact may have made them violent, as doctors and researchers are now explaining in a lot of cases, though it flies against the received wisdom about pot. Others will draw the lesson that the park has to be put on lock-down with heavy police patrols that will make miserable all the blacks who live around there as they endure endless suspicions and even unlawful searches.

But there are simpler, less political or racist messages to take home: if you are going to buy weed, don't buy it at night in that park where crime has doubled in the last year. If you are going to still go buy weed at night in that park, do not struggle with any assailant and instantly hand over all your  money.

In the same way -- analogy, not moral equivalence, if you don't think having someone share a picture of you outside of SL is "ethical," then you could have a range of reactions -- never go outside of your bunker sim; ask someone who has snapped your picture not to post it because it bothers you -- a personal interaction instead of a blanket suppression of free expression -- or develop a thicker skin and not care about such trivial matters. 

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Prokofy Neva

[Luna Bliss]

Prok are you doing some AvatarMan Splainin' ?   I should probably stop drinking this wine and read the thread, but so much text!    

[Selene Gregoire]

52 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

This is irrelevant to the current debate, and BTW not exactly a sterling legal reference.

The rape myths listed in that piece are all good -- but note that among them you will NOT find "she was drunk". Because "she was drunk" is a factual -- and avoidable -- situation. It's a way to PREVENT rape given that the feminist goal of re-educating and re-fashioning men may be awfully slow in coming for all kinds of reasons.

It's also in general a good thing not to be a drunk, for all kinds of other reasons.

Let's take another current tragedy in the news, the murder of the promising young white Barnard student by black teen-age thugs who robbed her in Morningside Park. There's been an enormous amount of horrible commentary on all sides -- racists on Reddit and PC lawyers imagining that the death of a student by murder is the equivalent of the loss of a teenager to jail because he committed murder. In their zeal to prevent a replay of the Central Park Jogger saga, journalists, lawyers and even policemen are leaning over backwards, and now today's story is that this young woman was seeking to buy weed in the park which is how she fell prey to muggers. This is based on sheer hearsay and not corroborated by anything but it helps disparage her as a victim, which is needed by some, since she was so pristine otherwise -- an eager, smart, talented young woman from the provincial south coming to the big city.

Some people will draw the lesson that you need to legalize marijuana, although the killer's own apparent weed-smoking in fact may have made them violent, as doctors and researchers are now explaining in a lot of cases, though it flies against the received wisdom about pot. Others will draw the lesson that the park has to be put on lock-down with heavy police patrols that will make miserable all the blacks who live around there as they endure endless suspicions and even unlawful searches.

But there are simpler, less political or racist messages to take home: if you are going to buy weed, don't buy it at night in that park where crime has doubled in the last year. If you are going to still go buy weed at night in that park, do not struggle with any assailant and instantly hand over all your  money.

In the same way -- analogy, not moral equivalence, if you don't think having someone share a picture of you outside of SL is "ethical," then you could have a range of reactions -- never go outside of your bunker sim; ask someone who has snapped your picture not to post it because it bothers you -- a personal interaction instead of a blanket suppression of free expression -- or develop a thicker skin and not care about such trivial matters. 

 

So predictable. Sometimes it's fun being right. This isn't one of them.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

A woman need not be *sequestered* but can go to a party -- and by the way, dressed as she pleases -- and *not get plastered* so that she does not wind up a victim. The logic of not getting drunk is pretty basic -- it's protective action, not DELIBERATELY rendering yourself infantile and vulnerable, you know, like not crossing against the light in traffic. So that you can MINIMIZE the damage from the boys getting drunk and attacking you.

The logic of the camera-shy in SL could by YOUR analogy lead to someone never coming out in public but staying on their land. But there's another thing they can do: not care. Stop obsessively trying to control other people who in fact are not doing you harm.

There's nothing *factually* wrong about my original analogy because indeed a majority of date rape cases occur because the parties are intoxicated, and it's reasonable to suggest that women not become so drunk as to not recognize they don't want to be in a situation they might not be able to get out of. That this is seen as absolving the male rapist is part of what is so insane about college-dictated "logic" and "philosophy".

No one is going to argue that getting drunk is a good thing, or that putting oneself in dangerous situations is not unwise. Are there really any women out there who are NOT made aware of this every time they are at a bar, on a first date, or walking a quiet street at night?

Your characterization of alcohol consumption and its relationship to date rape falls into a highly recognizable pattern associated with sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape: the tendency to suggest that the best remedy is one that involves the victims surrendering rights, rather than the perpetrators correcting their behaviour. Getting harassed in the street? Maybe you shouldn't be wearing such "provocative" clothing! Did you get assaulted while out one night? Well, clearly there are places that you, as a woman, shouldn't go. Did you get beaten or raped by your spouse? Well, you knew he was violent: why didn't YOU leave him? Etc., etc., etc.

In this way, addressing the very real and pressing issues of harassment and sexual assault becomes -- surprise! -- just another mechanism to restrict the freedom of women, and control THEIR behaviour. If that succeeds, we needn't even bother addressing the criminality of the perpetrators; if we keep the candy safely out of sight, they won't even be tempted.

Alcohol is probably involved in about 50% of date rape cases, but the most important determinant is not, in fact, the intoxication of the victim, but rather that of the perpetrator. And in many cases, the alcohol or drug consumption of the victim has been engineered (including through the use of date rape drugs) by the perpetrator.

Yet your analogy has almost nothing to say about the alcohol consumption of the rapist: instead, you choose to focus on the drinking of the victim. Why choose this particular analogy, which in practical and rhetorical terms suggests that the origin of the crime is in the woman's behaviour? Here are your exact words (emphasis added):

21 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

The problem begins with her failure to assume responsibility for her own incapacitation. That's truly the story.

Yeah, no. This is not "truly the story." The "story" is that we, as a culture, would rather reduce the liberty of women to make exactly the same kinds of lifestyle choice these men are making, than address the way in which those men sometimes abuse their own freedom.

2 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

P.S. Thanks for conceding that you are happy to give Capture Roleplay horror in SL a pass on your way to being politically correct on RL subjects.

My issues with and reservations about representations of sexual violence in SL have been a matter of public record here, in-world, and on the blogosphere for over 11 years now. I even produced an exhibit on the subject in 2010 that is still up. I'd be delighted to give you a personal tour.

You and I differ in our views on this subject in at least 3 ways:

• I respect women's right to choose their own mode of sexual expression, even if I personally dislike or disagree with it.
   
• I don't believe that these representations should be banned, for a number of reasons, not least of which is 1) above.
   
• I distinguish between representations of gendered sexual violence (e.g., Gor) which are premised upon repressive assumptions about the power imbalances between men and women, and BDSM, which, properly understood anyway, is not gendered, and has nothing to say intrinsically about women's supposed "inferiority" or "natural" submissiveness.

I'm not on board with you on your crusade because your views on this are reductive, oppressive, and retrograde. But don't accuse me of having nothing to say on the subject. And I certainly don't need your guidance on how to approach it.

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Lindal Kidd]

20 hours ago, Seicher Rae said:

The walls of text and conspiracy theories are daunting, 'tis true. But in Firestorm this is what I see for sharing photos. I don't think it has changed:

 

Did you try saving a snapshot to anything but disk or inventory?  Betcha a linden they don't work.  (I haven't tried either, so it's an honest wager)

[Lindal Kidd]

20 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Those moments when life's awful little moments (and Prok's awful little posts) outpace the capacity of remedial drinking . . . are always a little sad.

You know I'm always a big fan of offering solutions to problems, Scylla...here's my fix for this:

MOAR WINE.

[Theresa Tennyson]

11 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

But there's another way to have freedom, which is not to become irresponsibly drunk so that you can avoid such situations or even not go to such frat parties in the first place. This was considered normal common sense even 25 years ago, let alone 50 or 100, yet nowadays we are supposed to live in this absurd world of maximalized licentiousness with no personal responsibility whatsoever to prevent crime, and with the only measure for preventing the crime of rape to somehow "educate" boys -- which may not even be possible. Certainly prosecuting them hasn't worked.

In the same way -- this is an ANALOGY but not a moral equivocation, although that may be lost on you -- people want the maximum freedom to fly around SL dressed in any way they wish, they want to strut around in their fashionable costumes they've paid a fortune for (and who can blame them!) in public places, but they want to restrain people who photograph them and share it outside of SL.

 

Would another example of lack of common sense be when someone who regularly makes wild accusations and personal attacks and generally acts like some sort of amusing cartoon character when griefed not only complains about the griefing and yells for more enforcement, but demands technical "solutions" which they don't understand and can easily be circumvented?

Edited December 16, 2019 by Theresa Tennyson

[Beth Macbain]

From photo sharing to blaming rape victims for having the audacity to have a cocktail and get raped.

...

...

I have many words to describe Prok. Predictable is one of the nicer ones. 

 

[Prokofy Neva]

7 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Would another example of lack of common sense be when someone who regularly makes wild accusations and personal attacks and generally acts like some sort of amusing cartoon character when griefed not only complains about the griefing and yells for more enforcement, but demands technical "solutions" which they don't understand and can easily be circumvented?

No, because the accusations I have made about the griefing of a notorious "educational institution" for example are not "wild" and not "personal attacks" but valid and to the point, which is why they and their alts are banned from SL, and not me. They involve crashing their own sims, not just other people's, with rogue scripts and stealing with rogue viewers. Nothing wrong with complaining about this, and I do, and that's a good thing. The real issue is why you exonerate and even celebrate these criminals.

I think it's fine, in fact, to "yell" about technical solutions for griefing and it is not necessary at all to "understand" them as a non-technical person because that's how life works. Most people use computers and have no idea how to program or fix them or even how they work. That's the nature of modern society and to pretend there is something "wrong" with this is merely to reveal oneself to be a member of a tech cult.

But where do you imagine this "yelling" happens? On my blog, where I might put one post that is read by 300 people? Um, in my backyard or something? Ridiculous. I think what you mean to say that ANY exposure and reporting of griefing -- which you think is precious and interesting, evidently -- is somehow objectionable and a target for ridicule. That says more about you than it does about me.

It also doesn't matter if a solution can be circumvented. Most cant. That doesn't mean you don't try. And in fact the Lindens do a lot more trying than their fanboyz are prepared to admit because their business and their customers are at stake.