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 253 days.

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

Recommended Posts

/me widens his eyes, raises his hands to his shoulders and slowly tip toes backwards to the exit. Shutting the door behind him and teleporting away instantly.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

Jordan Peterson doesn't seem to understand the ways in which we form identity and self-acceptance (at least according to certain well-accepted theories in Psychology today).  Also, he has an excessive fear of being 'taken over' by political systems.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

It is difficult to address another correctly in some instances, yes. Ideally, the transgender individual would respond graciously (and generally a transgender person is gracious when others misgender them).  But if I DO encounter anger from them, I consider it my responsibility to let them know I understand their anger and it's okay with me.

I'd like to expand though:  I think we are a society that doesn't introduce others very well.  Sometimes, people say this is ____________ (fill in the blank) without any further information.  And then, five months later, I'm like that is your son?  

We have become a society that has forgotten the formal introduction.  It is important to let others know and not expect mind reading either though.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Merriam-Webster added a singular nonbinary sense of "they" to the dictionary in September 2019.  

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they

Quote

Singular 'They'

Though singular 'they' is old, 'they' as a nonbinary pronoun is new—and useful

Update: This sense was added in September 2019

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:
13 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

It is difficult to address another correctly in some instances, yes. Ideally, the transgender individual would respond graciously (and generally a transgender person is gracious when others misgender them).  But if I DO encounter anger from them, I consider it my responsibility to let them know I understand their anger and it's okay with me.

I'd like to expand though:  I think we are a society that doesn't introduce others very well.  Sometimes, people say this is ____________ (fill in the blank) without any further information.  And then, five months later, I'm like that is your son?  

We have become a society that has forgotten the formal introduction.  It is important to let others know and not expect mind reading either though.  

That would of course be nice....more info given during introductions.

Were you chastised for misgendering in this instance?

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Desiree Moonwinder said:

I am the first to admit that I can't stay completely up to date on luxury belief systems; doubtless I'll err in some detail.  My understanding is that the new definition of "hate speech" is anything that the political right says.  Likewise, the new definition of "violence" includes "hate speech."  This too will pass.  Luxury belief systems must evolve when the masses adopt them.  If the term "luxury belief" isn't familiar, use your search engine for keywords such as: "luxury beliefs" 

Correct.  In general, if the Right says it, the default is to call it hate speech, and the speaker is a racist misogynistic homophobic bigot, and anyone who doesn't like what was said is to take it to be a violent attack.  Simple being in the same zip code with such a person is a violent affront on dignity.  Anything said by someone on the Left is by default tolerant and enlightened, and regardless of what they say or do, it's never to be considered violent, or at least it is to be considered justifiable.  Anyone who says anything contrary to them should be shouted down and silenced, in the name of free speech. 

This convenient generalization relieves us of the burden of actively listening and reasoning through what is said, so we can go back to sipping our coffee/tea (free trade, of course) concoction of the day while looking at the latest cat videos on "smart" phones made by poor (by Western standards anyway) 3rd world folks at the behest of the progressive people at Apple and posted on the platform of the tolerant folks at Facebook, then go and use Google, brought to us by people who actively work to persuade people to vote for the party of their (Google executives, that is) choice, and then hop in our Volkswagen and drive 4 blocks home, complaining about climate change the whole way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

That would of course be nice....more info given during introductions.

Were you chastised for misgendering in this instance?

No, I'm just using that as an example...although it happens a lot.  I kind of get a half introduction.  I cannot mind read that was her son.  She would need to tell me that.

As far as misgendering.  It has not occurred in my real life.  Though if someone is named Cindy or Samuel I'm going to assume they are female or male.  It shouldn't be something to hide if the other person needs to know because oh say for example they will be seeing each other a lot because I am friends with one of their parents.  Perhaps a person could adopt a nickname that isn't so gender specific.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

I looked up the TOS.  Yes, hate speech is against the TOS.  It's part of the "community standards" we all agree too.  Here is part of it:

(v) Post, display, or transmit Content that is obscene, hateful, involves terrorism, or is racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; or

 

 

In all fairness, their definition of "obscene" is beyond idiotic, when it includes clinical terms for body parts and pieces of words that, taken separately have been on television for decades and often have non-vulgar meanings as well.  Such an asinine approach to "moderation" makes taking the rest of their community standards seriously difficult.  In a world in which 8 year olds can conveniently access obscene videos on their smart phones, being reduced to using infantile euphemisms such as "pee pee" (let's see if that gets censored) is truly hateful.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2020 at 1:58 PM, Samie Bagley said:

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 discredit by US and UK intelligence, and groups promoting violence toward others. All were reported to LL.

 

16 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Correct.  In general, if the Right says it, the default is to call it hate speech, and the speaker is a racist misogynistic homophobic bigot, and anyone who doesn't like what was said is to take it to be a violent attack.  Simple being in the same zip code with such a person is a violent affront on dignity.  Anything said by someone on the Left is by default tolerant and enlightened, and regardless of what they say or do, it's never to be considered violent, or at least it is to be considered justifiable.  Anyone who says anything contrary to them should be shouted down and silenced, in the name of free speech. 

This convenient generalization relieves us of the burden of actively listening and reasoning through what is said, so we can go back to sipping our coffee/tea (free trade, of course) concoction of the day while looking at the latest cat videos on "smart" phones made by poor (by Western standards anyway) 3rd world folks at the behest of the progressive people at Apple and posted on the platform of the tolerant folks at Facebook, then go and use Google, brought to us by people who actively work to persuade people to vote for the party of their (Google executives, that is) choice, and then hop in our Volkswagen and drive 4 blocks home, complaining about climate change the whole way.

 

I'm satisfied to let LL's AR team do what they do.  There are two sides to every story.  I only hear one side, but the one side I hear sounds like hyperbole.  If it were  ban'able "hateful" behavior to be a member of any group that ever told a lie, we would have to abolish all leading political parties, and ban everyone who ever joined or gave a donation to one. 

Edited by Desiree Moonwinder
Correction; changed "every" to "ever"
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

In all fairness, their definition of "obscene" is beyond idiotic, when it includes clinical terms for body parts and pieces of words that, taken separately have been on television for decades and often have non-vulgar meanings as well.  Such an asinine approach to "moderation" makes taking the rest of their community standards seriously difficult.  In a world in which 8 year olds can conveniently access obscene videos on their smart phones, being reduced to using infantile euphemisms such as "pee pee" (let's see if that gets censored) is truly hateful.

Yeah I know...that's more or less why I put community standards in parenthesis.  It's not too well written as far as what obscene is.  I'm generally into General and PG environments anyways.  I am a Dinkie in SL; a cat with human characteristics...and we are mostly G or PG.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Yeah I know...that's more or less why I put community standards in parenthesis.  It's not too well written as far as what obscene is.  I'm generally into General and PG environments anyways.  I am a Dinkie in SL; a cat with human characteristics...and we are mostly G or PG.

So the spectrum is human, neko, Dinkie, cat?

And, how did they come up with "Dinkie".  Honestly I'm surprised the "dink" part of that gets through the obscenometer, given that's what we called weiners in like 3rd grade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:
1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:

I looked up the TOS.  Yes, hate speech is against the TOS.  It's part of the "community standards" we all agree too.  Here is part of it:

(v) Post, display, or transmit Content that is obscene, hateful, involves terrorism, or is racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; or

 

 

In all fairness, their definition of "obscene" is beyond idiotic, when it includes clinical terms for body parts and pieces of words that, taken separately have been on television for decades and often have non-vulgar meanings as well.  Such an asinine approach to "moderation" makes taking the rest of their community standards seriously difficult.  In a world in which 8 year olds can conveniently access obscene videos on their smart phones, being reduced to using infantile euphemisms such as "pee pee" (let's see if that gets censored) is truly hateful.

I had a recent example of some of the idiocy here in the Forums. I wanted to type the word bas*ards, which of course would have been bleeped out. So I put a space between the s and the t. I had a complaint for using hate speech, ie the *ard* . There was a lot of head shaking and outright laughter on this side of the monitor at that one. I would never use "that word" to describe someone (other than myself), nor did the truncated noun as typed even remotely fit a slur in context, but there you have it. This wasn't an automatic bleeping either , this was a fully fledged someone-had-to-make-the-decision and send the letter reprimand for using hate speech. It brings to mind the uproar that happened in the Washington DC area DECADES ago when an educator used the word "*****rdly" in the correct context and I believe was fired for it. (And like Tolya, I'm wondering if that is going to fly... smh.)  (It's an adjective meaning stingy, folks.)

ETA: Nope, it didn't fly. And it isn't even spelled the same as the racial slur, which has an e, not an A. The word is nig*ardly, ffs.

Edited by Seicher Rae
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

I had a recent example of some of the idiocy here in the Forums. I wanted to type the word bas*ards, which of course would have been bleeped out. So I put a space between the s and the t. I had a complaint for using hate speech, ie the *ard* . There was a lot of head shaking and outright laughter on this side of the monitor at that one. I would never use "that word" to describe someone (other than myself), nor did the truncated noun as typed even remotely fit a slur in context, but there you have it. This wasn't an automatic bleeping either , this was a fully fledged someone-had-to-make-the-decision and send the letter reprimand for using hate speech. It brings to mind the uproar that happened in the Washington DC area DECADES ago when an educator used the word "*****rdly" in the correct context and I believe was fired for it. (And like Tolya, I'm wondering if that is going to fly... smh.)  (It's an adjective meaning stingy, folks.)

ETA: Nope, it didn't fly. And it isn't even spelled the same as the racial slur, which has an e, not an A. The word is nig*ardly, ffs.

I always use Roman Moroni speak,when using any words like that..Mostly for giggles..

Like Bastages or Fargin Icehole.. hehehehe

For an older movie it was funny and that guy just always made me laugh every time..

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Correct.  In general, if the Right says it, the default is to call it hate speech, and the speaker is a racist misogynistic homophobic bigot, and anyone who doesn't like what was said is to take it to be a violent attack.  Simple being in the same zip code with such a person is a violent affront on dignity.  Anything said by someone on the Left is by default tolerant and enlightened, and regardless of what they say or do, it's never to be considered violent, or at least it is to be considered justifiable.  Anyone who says anything contrary to them should be shouted down and silenced, in the name of free speech. 

This convenient generalization relieves us of the burden of actively listening and reasoning through what is said, so we can go back to sipping our coffee/tea (free trade, of course) concoction of the day while looking at the latest cat videos on "smart" phones made by poor (by Western standards anyway) 3rd world folks at the behest of the progressive people at Apple and posted on the platform of the tolerant folks at Facebook, then go and use Google, brought to us by people who actively work to persuade people to vote for the party of their (Google executives, that is) choice, and then hop in our Volkswagen and drive 4 blocks home, complaining about climate change the whole way.

Ok, you said "in general" which does mitigate things. But majority of the liberals I know do not call everything said by the right as hate speech, or racist, or misogynistic, etc. Yes, we have our tender flowers who have hissy fits at every imagined slight. I have found those on the right, too. What you are describing above is a huge, huge stereotype, painted with a wide brush. There is an element of truth in it, but it is not The Truth. I have absolutely called Trump a racist, misogynist, etc. and can point to specifics to make those points. By the very nature of the word "supporters" it is easy to infer that Trump supporters also share the same views. 100%? Probably not, but anecdotal information says, "yeah, pretty much." Not everyone on the right supports Trump. Some of those folks are not racist, etc. Some are. People, amirite?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

I had a recent example of some of the idiocy here in the Forums. I wanted to type the word bas*ards, which of course would have been bleeped out. So I put a space between the s and the t. I had a complaint for using hate speech, ie the *ard* . There was a lot of head shaking and outright laughter on this side of the monitor at that one. I would never use "that word" to describe someone (other than myself), nor did the truncated noun as typed even remotely fit a slur in context, but there you have it. This wasn't an automatic bleeping either , this was a fully fledged someone-had-to-make-the-decision and send the letter reprimand for using hate speech. It brings to mind the uproar that happened in the Washington DC area DECADES ago when an educator used the word "*****rdly" in the correct context and I believe was fired for it. (And like Tolya, I'm wondering if that is going to fly... smh.)  (It's an adjective meaning stingy, folks.)

ETA: Nope, it didn't fly. And it isn't even spelled the same as the racial slur, which has an e, not an A. The word is nig*ardly, ffs.

lol I'm actually glad you got bleeped, because until your edit, I actually thought you'd mispelled "R-word-edly",  Now I remember the incident you're referencing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LexxiXhan said:

Hi, I'm Lexxi and my pronouns are they/them or she/her, in case anyone needs to know.

Have we got past the 1980s yet?

Girl you sound too demanding, so I'm gonna call you IT!    ;0

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Girl you sound too demanding, so I'm gonna call you IT!    ;0

/me runs back into the room and stands before Luna.

finger.thumb.jpg.e4e6708b9fc08e44f48fbeba13bc26cd.jpg

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Luna Bliss said:

Girl you sound too demanding, so I'm gonna call you IT!

How dare you!

Wait...does that stand for 'irresistable trans'?

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2020 at 12:16 PM, Drayke Newall said:

I couldn't resist... Even more controversial free will doesn't exist if God is Omniscient.

You meant to say omnipotent.  Read Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology, especially Volume Two.  He deals with it rather well.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Desiree Moonwinder said:

I am the first to admit that I can't stay completely up to date on luxury belief systems; doubtless I'll err in some detail.  My understanding is that the new definition of "hate speech" is anything that the political right says.  Likewise, the new definition of "violence" includes "hate speech."  This too will pass.  Luxury belief systems must evolve when the masses adopt them.  If the term "luxury belief" isn't familiar, use your search engine for keywords such as: "luxury beliefs" 

Thanks for introducing me to a new right-wing talking point --  "luxury beliefs".....I had not heard of this...but then I seldom make it over to the Twitter madness posts..

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

Ok, you said "in general" which does mitigate things. But majority of the liberals I know do not call everything said by the right as hate speech, or racist, or misogynistic, etc. Yes, we have our tender flowers who have hissy fits at every imagined slight. I have found those on the right, too. What you are describing above is a huge, huge stereotype, painted with a wide brush. There is an element of truth in it, but it is not The Truth. I have absolutely called Trump a racist, misogynist, etc. and can point to specifics to make those points. By the very nature of the word "supporters" it is easy to infer that Trump supporters also share the same views. 100%? Probably not, but anecdotal information says, "yeah, pretty much." Not everyone on the right supports Trump. Some of those folks are not racist, etc. Some are. People, amirite?

The fun part with the people on the Right who engage in that behavior is they almost always doing it in a situation which paints them as stellar hypocrites.

Most of the liberals I actually speak on a regular basis (outside the Forums, which, coming back to, has been both interesting and tedious) about political and social issues are Canadians, and Canadians don't seem to get as uptight as Americans about such things.

I was actually was being somewhat sarcastic - but that is indeed what some on the Right believe today.  I do wonder, sometimes, how much of the stereotypes that have developed in political conversation these days are the result of russian bots.  Some of the posts I see on Fakebook...surely no real person really thinks that way, and Lord knows there are plenty of parody accounts (like mini-AOC, who was hilarious).  Russia was, more than trying to elect Trump (which I still don't buy, as Putin is a smart guy and smart guys prefer a known quantity like Clinton over a loose canon like Trump), trying to stir up discord in the US, and they succeeded.

I'm not so sure I believe Trump is all the things people say he is.  I tend to think he's just a jackdonkey horndog with no filter who enjoys stirring things up and who can't be troubled to be "presidential".  But, certainly he does attract and stir up the disreputable elements of society.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually still coming to grips with labelling myself as a liberal. :/  Way back when I self-identified as a centrist Republican. My political views have not changed, other than to become a little more honed, a little more nuanced. The old saw used to be that people get more conservative as they get older. Apparently, even though I'm kind of inert, I'm bucking that situation. So while I sat still the world moved and I am now a "wild-eyed" liberal. Go figger.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

So the spectrum is human, neko, Dinkie, cat?

And, how did they come up with "Dinkie".  Honestly I'm surprised the "dink" part of that gets through the obscenometer, given that's what we called weiners in like 3rd grade.

Dinky (not spelled Dinkie as our spelling actually is) just means "small" to us.  In America, we use the slang would dinkie or dinky to mean small.  

As far as obscenities, what's obscene one day may not be the next.  For the times they are a changin' - Bob Dylan

Dinkie's in SL are cats with human characteristics and asexual...so not like Neko's.  We are little tiny cats and part human.  Kind of like Mickey Mouse is a mouse but part human.  It's one of the cutest things I've ever seen in my entire life.  Would make an adorable TV show - The Dinkies, Tinies and Titchies all so adorable and way, way cuter than 'Hello Kitty' ever could be.  

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

I am the first to admit that I can't stay completely up to date on luxury belief systems; doubtless I'll err in some detail.  My understanding is that the new definition of "hate speech" is anything that the political right says.  Likewise, the new definition of "violence" includes "hate speech."  This too will pass.  Luxury belief systems must evolve when the masses adopt them.  If the term "luxury belief" isn't familiar, use your search engine for keywords such as: "luxury beliefs" 

Have you considered not pitching a hissy fit when bigotry is pointed out, though?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 253 days.

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...