Jump to content

When Did it Become Acceptable to Bring Politic of Hate into SL?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 279 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 618
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Politics in general has always been present within Second Life and like it or not, if it does not violate the ToS or CS then they will not take any action whatsoever. Furthermore even if they do take

I'm more suprised that you ever thought people would leave their opinions (and therefore also their political views) 'at the door' when entering SL. Why should they do that? You sound like someone won

In these last two days, I had encounters with Trump supporters who filled their profiles with hateful messages. Specifically, profile pictures showing gun violence, groups promoting lies that were dis

Posted Images



It's about money and power and who controls it.  That's it, and that's all.
With money comes power, with power comes money.

That being said, do you want the power and the money in the hands of the people, or do you want the money and the power in the hands of the rich, corporate shareholders, and lobbyists?

It's really that simple.

If you lay out one issue after another, healthcare, welfare, foreign policy, people do agree on it about 70+% of the time.  If you THEN labeled the results, the people would prefer a social democracy.

As for Bernie Sanders, I'm all in.  Call me a communist (my family does) call me a socialist (i'm alright with that).
Just don't call me lacking understanding or empathy for humans or the earth we live on.

If you're interested in learning more, I suggest looking at each politician, their policy, and then their fundraising.



 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Beachy Piers said:

... call me a socialist (i'm alright with that).

Just don't call me lacking understanding or empathy for humans or the earth we live on.
 

Funny you know, that definition used to be meant for an a-socialist.

Edited by TDD123
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

left is the moral high ground

We are. Moral, ethical, intellectual. We’re more attractive, too. We dance better, drive better, cook better. And a leftie is waaaaaaaaay better at sex than anyone on the right.

We’re absolute crap at modesty, though.

Edited by Beth Macbain
  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

For awhile the US became more progressive and it was working better for the average person.  We got Medicare and Social Security -- the New Deal.  The wealthy paid far more taxes then.  The economy was good. People could afford homes. One salary was enough to support a household.  In the 70's though, as the right took power the middle class has increasingly been hollowed out...and money sent to the top in society -- multinational corporations.

The marginal tax rate at the time was 70%(up to 90%) tax for the wealthy.  It built and sustained the middle class.  Now, the working class is paying more in taxes than giant multinational corporations.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Beth Macbain said:

We’re more attractive, too. And a leftie is waaaaaaaaay better at sex than anyone on the right.

Speak for yourself, please.  :P

( I know I'm unattractive )

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Beachy Piers said:



It's about money and power and who controls it.  That's it, and that's all.
With money comes power, with power comes money.

That being said, do you want the power and the money in the hands of the people, or do you want the money and the power in the hands of the rich, corporate shareholders, and lobbyists?

It's really that simple.

If you lay out one issue after another, healthcare, welfare, foreign policy, people do agree on it about 70+% of the time.  If you THEN labeled the results, the people would prefer a social democracy.

As for Bernie Sanders, I'm all in.  Call me a communist (my family does) call me a socialist (i'm alright with that).
Just don't call me lacking understanding or empathy for humans or the earth we live on.

If you're interested in learning more, I suggest looking at each politician, their policy, and then their fundraising.



 

Right, This is NOT about right vs left. There are plenty of prominent conservatives who have joined the resistance. This is about fighting the dismantling of our democratic institutions, the laws and institutions that protect everyone.
 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KanryDrago said:

Most of europe however has been a lot further left than people like obama, not extremist etc in the last 20 years and in that time inequality has grown, wages have stagnated and living standards have dropped. This is why most european countries are moving to the right electorally. The left simply does not work no matter how mild. Even sweden has lurched signifigantly to the right in its electoral patterns. No one who has lived under an extreme left government will vote for one, those that have lived under soft left governments are increasingly voting for more right wing ones as they realise the left simply doesnt work

this is a pretty wack understanding of economics and political history

the reason why significant numbers of the population in the first-world countries are worse off than they were 20/30 years ago isn't because of socialism. Its because of global free trade - which is a tenet of capitalism economically and a tenet of libertarianism politically

production of many goods and services has moved to the lowest labour and regulatory cost centres - second and third world countries. Leading to first-world populations now having to compete with lower cost centres on wages and conditions. The effect is the current decline in the standard of living of significant numbers of the first-world population. The standard of living in the second and third world countries is rising

the global free trade theory outcome is: At some point the standard of living for the world population will reach equilibrium. A person at the bottom of society in Europe or USA will be no better or worse off than a person at the bottom in Africa or Asia. For an individual to not be in the bottom anywhere in the world then is up to them individually. Don't like being in the bottom sector then educate/work your way up the ladder

what we are seeing in the first-world countries, among those most affected by global free trade is their political embrace of Authoritariansm - which is the opposite of Libertarianism.  Economic authoritarianism is using the power of the State to erect a fence around the affected country and control/subdue the free movement of goods and services across the fence

the EU and USA today are not socialist. They are economically and politically libertarian (right wing). And as you say, the people in the first-world countries most adversely affected by global free trade are kicking back against this. These people are not actually moving Right on economics. They are moving left, back toward the historical Center. Politically they are also moving left, back toward the historical Center.  Where State regulatory intervention in the market place (trade), in the immediate interests of its own citizens, is politically acceptable to these people

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KanryDrago said:

The left never worked, many communities were ***** holes and elected left wing representatives since world war 2....they are still ***** holes because the left arent interested in fixing them. The left have a vested interest in inequality as its their core point of existence...elect us and we will cure it....for some reason they never do I wonder why

Maybe for the same reason(s) the right never does either. At least in the US the right never does. Every time they come into power (like now) they (the right in the US) destroys anything that is already in place and far better than what the right offers those of us who are "have nots". Then when they are no longer in power, we have to start all over again because they set us back 100 years.

"Socialism" worked for First Nations people for more than 40,000 years. Not because of the relatively small population size but because people knew that was the best way to stay alive. Everyone had food in the belly, clothing on their backs, shelter from the weather because they worked for everyone, not just themselves and/or their families. 

Frankly, people who can trace their ancestry back to Eurasia have their way of thinking so ingrained that I don't think they can change it. Which means nothing will ever change. Not really. Certainly not for the better or for the good of the people as a whole. 

I don't except you to understand where I'm coming from but maybe what I have said will allow you to change your perspective a little bit.

Edited by Selene Gregoire
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Sneaks in... 

RUNS...

while you are running, contemplate that the countries of  Nazi Europe were held together by force. The European Union countries are held together by mutual agreement. An agreement which allows a country to withdraw from the agreement and leave peacefully.  Britain being the current example of this.  Unlike in Nazi Europe where leaving peacefully was not available to those countries wanting to withdraw

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

how so ?

It took Britain 3 years to come to an agreement, reluctantly I might also add. That said it was peaceful, though if you listen to recordings of EU parliament sittings, many are hostile to the British representatives etc. Whilst yes some of that falls on UK parliament, the EU from memory refused a proposal taking 1 year to draft and vote on, reduced timeframe requests, blocked various trade negotiations and possible deals. Made the Ireland - Britain border a contentious issue that could have ramifications on England's security etc. Basically the EU wanted to keep its second-largest economy, the country with the third-largest population and its second-largest net contributor to the EU budget.

Just because they allow the peaceful withdrawal, doesn't mean they will make it easy in an effort to keep what they have. There are always other ways to apply 'force' that doesn't involve violence.

Edited by Drayke Newall
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Just because they allow the peaceful withdrawal, doesn't mean they will make it easy in an effort to keep what they have. There are always other ways to apply 'force' that doesn't involve violence.

going thru a difficult divorce seperation, is not in any way equivalent to there being tanks in the streets

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2020 at 8:09 AM, Blaise Glendevon said:

1. Colleges.

2. Are you even familiar with the concept as it's actually applied in academia? Not what you hear on Fox News or the mad man-baby Youtube channels. 

Um... yeah I am and the majority of the people those are for are drowned out by the Minority.  A VERY LOUD Minority the majority of which are TERFs. The same people who ask for these are the same people who think JK Rowling is in the right for Defending a Transphobe. 


Thanks but No thanks.  Fact is expecting SL to ban Polictical talk is just as stupid as expecting the RL world to protect you from triggers. 

Fact is everyone is a ***** ( and has one ) the world doesn't give any *****s about your trauma. I'm sorry but that is true. Not everyone who is opposed to those things is a over grown 60 year old Conservative Man child who still thinks Sky Daddy is going to save us all if we all follow the gazillion rules that are in a book written thousands of years ago.  The World is cruel how you deal with that world is on you it is not on the world to deal with you? Get it? Your either strong and cope and thrive despite it or you aren't. 

I realize my opinon is not popular but I'm kinda out of *****s to give tonight. 

Point is making SL a "Safe space" would also again as I pointed out make it impossible to discuss the following

Transphobia 

Homophobia

Gay rights 

Trans Rights 

Religious Freedom ( or freedom of lack of Religion ) 

Womens Rights 

Imiagration Rights 

Racism 

and anything under the sun that I'm sure you are on the side of. Forgive me but I'm for the freedom of speech even if that speech is inflammatory.  Just because it offends you doesn't mean it should be banned from SL 


Now..... that is said there is the other side of that coin. 


You want to be able to talk about things that probably effect you ( everyone is white on SL so forgive me ) Then as hurtful as it maybe the biggots have to keep their right to be well bigots but what you can do and society can do is make sure the bigots have a price for being bigots. 


MEANING. SAY SOMETHING. IF SOMEONE IS SAYING DISHONEST ***** ABOUT A GROUP OR BEING A HATEFUL ***** THEN YOU... YES YOU GET TO POINT OUT THEY ARE A ***** AND CORRECT THEM. 

That right now is the model we are on I'm not for at all restricting speech even hurtful speech because doing that takes our ability away to counter it and the hate and rage these trumpsters feel still remains.  Just then you can't see it...... till its too late.  Honestly if I'm hated by someone as scary as it is.... I'd rather them do it openly a stab in the back is a hell of a lot more hurtful and does more damage than one done openly 

- mic drop-  Or you can just.... block them.... and move the hell on its SL they can't do ***** to you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

. . .I don't know where to start reacting to this. Lord. 

The part that gets me is the "everyone is white on SL". What a load of bullcrap and just so wrong on so many levels. I have no words but I sure do have a sudden desire to punch someone's teeth so far down their throat, they'd be picking them out of their ass for a month.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

The part that gets me is the "everyone is white on SL". What a load of bullcrap and just so wrong on so many levels. I have no words but I sure do have a sudden desire to punch someone's teeth so far down their throat, they'd be picking them out of their ass for a month.

 

I'm wondering it that is like a reference to people seeing things in black and white,rather than them actually all being white.. only seeing one side,kind of thing.

Edited by Ceka Cianci
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mollymews said:

going thru a difficult divorce seperation, is not in any way equivalent to there being tanks in the streets

Hold your breath. The EU is NOT the agglomeration of democracies it is trying present itself as, but rather a federal government pushed down on the population that never voted for it.  It's a capitalist regime. The EU council is despotic yet veils that in 'negotiations'. Sounds familiar ?

The EU is planning an army as we speak.

Edited by TDD123
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I'm wondering it that is like a reference to people seeing things in black and white,rather than them actually all being white.. only seeing one side,kind of thing.

I don't see how.

15 hours ago, SeikariTheMierianShadow said:

everyone is white on SL

Looks pretty cut and dried to me. IF that is what they meant then why not just say "everyone sees things in black and white on SL" instead of making such a blatant racist statement. Neither statement is true.

 

Edited to correct pronoun.  Again, I apologize for the error. It was not intentional. 

 

Edited by Selene Gregoire
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The EUs systems are based on either direct vote or appointments of their respective democratic Parliament's. Words like despotic and comparisons with Naziism seem pretty ridiculous and frankly obnoxious in equal measure, but not so uncommon in English\Welsh politics. This fervent desire for self determination will whether they like it or not ultimately see to the break up of the UK. Scotland and Northern Ireland both have the same rights to self determination, and they are clear that their interests lie within Europe not outside it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

The EUs systems are based on either direct vote or appointments of their respective democratic Parliament's.

Wrong. You forgot one thing : My people ( the Dutch ) had a specific referendum ( people' vote ) explicitely  saying "NO!" to the Euro, the EU and us joining in it.

It was simply neglected and referenda have been abolished since then, because they don't want the people to have a voice.

 

What's NOT despotic about that ?

 

Edited by TDD123
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 279 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...