Jump to content

Are You Showing Support for Black Lives Matter in Second Life?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 588 days.

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

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

Well, I DO read.

 

2 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

"Oh look at those poor people. They can't help themselves. We are so benevolent in our largesse that we will excuse anything on their behalf because the poor dears can't help it. It is in their nature. We will allow it." Fornicate that. Talk about speaking from a position of white privilege. That's pretty damn lily white.

Apparently with an intense bias.

This was your put down. I hope you're happy now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CoffeeDujour said:

 

Apparently with an intense bias.

This was your put down. I hope you're happy now. 

I don't know what your problem is with me, or what I said, but I'm really sick of this holier than thou, I'm more liberal than you, BS. 

And no, I'm not happy. And no, that is not "intense bias" to point out the patronizing irony of the group think. It is a realistic view from outside the Official Kumbahya tent.

ETA> Your original (a few posts ago) response to my comments about setting fire to a Target store was hostile, wrong, intentionally misrepresenting what I said (and think). It was uncalled for. Full stop.

Edited by Gatogateau
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When i think about it,  I'm surprised really, that Blacks & Natives haven't burned up and looted half of America.  Perhaps they are more saintly than we typically imagine them to be.

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When faced with the sad fact that You Were Wrong in what you wrote, how it came across, why it was wrong, why it was uncalled for... the scorn laugh is about the least mature thing you can sling. It lets me know that you are not someone worth bothering with in any type of serious discussion. Carry on. I'm sure you are just the Exact Perfect Amount of Liberal and therefore can be sanctimonious and as dismissive as can be. Make sure you keep to the talking points and the approved words in the approved order.

image.thumb.png.83d5de1b76f9fb6f965729be01c92921.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Innula you meaaanie!  I actually thought there would be some interesting detailed article to study when I clicked to view! lol

No point in asking me to predict the future -- I got the Brexit referendum and the 2016 US presidential election wrong, and completely misjudged the outcome of the 2019 British general election, so I've permanently unplugged my crystal ball, and that was before Covid-19 came along, bringing about all manner of as yet unknowable social and economic consequences.   And then, of course, there's the US elections to look forward to, so heaven knows what things will look like this time next year.

All I was trying to say with the NI example is that certain situations have their own internal logic, and that trying to treat rioting and looting in a situation like this primarily as a public order problem is likely to make a bad situation worse.   

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Innula Zenovka I just wanted to say that I love your sig line. :D I've been meaning to comment upon it but keep getting sidelined.

image.png.1f9251e77cbbd33104199e4327ee8211.png

I don't remember the website and I can't be bothered to look it up, but it was similar with Buddha quotes and was hilarious AND informative

image.png.b0fd86427940361e3735832667aa69ac.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I remain absolutely committed to non-violent action. But I'm also not going to bring to bear against those who have been ruthlessly excluded and oppressed the harshest judgements about the sanctity of property that actually emanate from a system that has demonstrated over and over again that it doesn't care about black poverty, violence against blacks, exploitative labour practices that victimize black and brown skinned people (consider why Target and Walmart can offer such "cheap" goods), etc.

 

I agree.

One cannot esscape the irony of the white man crying foul over his property, when lack of property, aka poverty among black people, as a result of literally hundreds of years of racism/discrimination against them, is readily ignored.

I too remain absolutely committed to non-violent action. And looting should not occur; but, like with All Lives Matter, the auspicious timing and focus on bringing up the white man's property loss, as the thing to walk away with from these riots, is equally demonstrative of choosing to focus on the wrong part of what's happening. It's all just a form of deflection.

Edited by kiramanell
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:
59 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Innula you meaaanie!  I actually thought there would be some interesting detailed article to study when I clicked to view! lol

No point in asking me to predict the future -- I got the Brexit referendum and the 2016 US presidential election wrong, and completely misjudged the outcome of the 2019 British general election, so I've permanently unplugged my crystal ball, and that was before Covid-19 came along, bringing about all manner of as yet unknowable social and economic consequences.   And then, of course, there's the US elections to look forward to, so heaven knows what things will look like this time next year.

All I was trying to say with the NI example is that certain situations have their own internal logic, and that trying to treat rioting and looting in a situation like this primarily as a public order problem is likely to make a bad situation worse. 

Your last point is a good one!  Even if you are no fortune teller.    :)

But mainly, I was just excited about a piece of text that flowed out of me so effortlessly (not easy for my often ill, foggy, and right-brained mind), and I wanted to direct it to someone who I though might have good ideas on the matter.  Here, again, is the amazing paragraph...lol :

Is it the last gasp of the patriarchy where the cruelty and injustice of our stratified society will be revealed?  A cruel society which allows those at the bottom layer to exist without adequate health care and food?  Or is it the beginning of an implosion of monumental proportions that will not resolve and will bring us nothing, the likes of which we've only begun to see?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

When faced with the sad fact that You Were Wrong in what you wrote, how it came across, why it was wrong, why it was uncalled for... the scorn laugh is about the least mature thing you can sling. It lets me know that you are not someone worth bothering with in any type of serious discussion. Carry on. I'm sure you are just the Exact Perfect Amount of Liberal and therefore can be sanctimonious and as dismissive as can be. Make sure you keep to the talking points and the approved words in the approved order.

image.thumb.png.83d5de1b76f9fb6f965729be01c92921.png

Is this really important in light of what is being discussed here? Sincere question. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gatogateau said:

Excuse me?

Riots are a symptom, not the disease, don't let bad actors trick you into talking about the symptom instead of the disease.

38 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

"concern troll In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with "concerns". The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you're an ally."

Had to look it up to get the full meaning.  So you're saying they aren't really on our side at all...

That's a bingo.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:
45 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

"concern troll In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with "concerns". The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you're an ally."

Had to look it up to get the full meaning.  So you're saying they aren't really on our side at all...

That's a bingo.

Yes, and thank you for pointing me to that term so that I could look it up and understand it more fully.

However, I think there may be more at play here, for some people. A kind of disordered thinking.

And I have a question.... must one be conscious of what they're doing to be a concern troll?  I imagine some are and some aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't see it as justification for their acts.  I just understand it and have some sympathy. For them, the social contract was broken long ago (being treated with respect has been lacking, to say the least) and so why would they care about protecting the goods of society? A society that has never honored them? (A society, and its goods, that has never belonged to them).

You don't see WHAT (it?) as justification for their acts (what acts?). (Literally not sure which of the many nuances you are describing.)

 Can't say it any clearer than I already have: I get the frustration. I get the motivation. I get why someone WANTS to lash out. I've experienced and continue to experience it DAILY, without the racial bias. Wanting to do something, thinking about doing something, justifying something is extremely understandable. Acting upon it is wrong. And ffs, I am not going to waver from that statement.

And I cannot say it any clearer than I have been post after post: I do not believe the looting/violence is the same thing as the protesting. I do not believe that the looting/violence should be the focus of the discussion, change, whatever. It is the fingernails to the crushed elbow analogy I made last night.

But, ya know, words don't matter, unless they are buzz words. [dripping sarcasm]

If someone is specifically talking about looting/violence AS SCYLLA WAS AND I REPLIED SPECIFICALLY TO HER POINTS ON THAT TOPIC then it is not an attempt to conflate the two matters, it is not a racist dodge to obscure the topic of systemic racism. 

And ffs, when your response is more reasoned than others, it is time for me to ... do something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:
44 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't see it as justification for their acts.  I just understand it and have some sympathy. For them, the social contract was broken long ago (being treated with respect has been lacking, to say the least) and so why would they care about protecting the goods of society? A society that has never honored them? (A society, and its goods, that has never belonged to them).

You don't see WHAT (it?) as justification for their acts (what acts?). (Literally not sure which of the many nuances you are describing.)

 Can't say it any clearer than I already have: I get the frustration. I get the motivation. I get why someone WANTS to lash out. I've experienced and continue to experience it DAILY, without the racial bias. Wanting to do something, thinking about doing something, justifying something is extremely understandable. Acting upon it is wrong. And ffs, I am not going to waver from that statement.

And I cannot say it any clearer than I have been post after post: I do not believe the looting/violence is the same thing as the protesting. I do not believe that the looting/violence should be the focus of the discussion, change, whatever. It is the fingernails to the crushed elbow analogy I made last night.

But, ya know, words don't matter, unless they are buzz words. [dripping sarcasm]

If someone is specifically talking about looting/violence AS SCYLLA WAS AND I REPLIED SPECIFICALLY TO HER POINTS ON THAT TOPIC then it is not an attempt to conflate the two matters, it is not a racist dodge to obscure the topic of systemic racism. 

And ffs, when your response is more reasoned than others, it is time for me to ... do something.

We have had more than a few people enter this thread with what might be described as 'concern trolling', a few of them related to the issue of looting, and so that's why it's being discussed.

Not sure why you're saying it's a racist dodge to obscure the topic of systemic racism, as it's actually the concern trolls doing that, and so we have been trying to explain why the looting happens, and why others might be so concerned with looting (Lyssa via her concern trolling info).

I certainly don't believe looting is a good thing...I've only said I understand and have sympathy for why it does occur.

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't see it as justification for their acts.  I just understand it and have some sympathy. For them, the social contract was broken long ago (being treated with respect has been lacking, to say the least) and so why would they care about protecting the goods of society? A society that has never honored them? (A society, and its goods, that has never belonged to them).

 

Very well put.

You cannot sanctimoniously advocate that one party in the social contract uphold their end of the bargain, so to speak, when said party (= black people) have de facto never really been part of the benevolent social contract to begin with. Black Lives matter economically too: not as someone to be exploited as cheap labor, to amass even more white property, but as ppl who should be able to share in society's wealth with equal opportunity.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

Riots are a symptom, not the disease, don't let bad actors trick you into talking about the symptom instead of the disease.

That's a bingo.

(To my saying "excuse me" about Lyssa's remark about talking about looting is a racist dodge after I spoke to Syclla about burning down a Target after she was discussing it... just to be clear (?) )

For the 412th time: I am not equating looting with protesting. Scylla was talking about looting. I responded. I then proceeded to get crap because I dared say that while I got the motivation for wanting to lash out, the action is wrong.

I'm not letting bad actors trick me into anything. I am using my brain and my words to say fairly clearly what I think. I think acting upon the totally understandable impulse to lash out is wrong. 

Some of us can carry on two, separate thoughts at one time. Maybe even three. There's the whole, systemic, ingrained racism that is currently being protested, and more power to 'em (literally). There's the subject of looting, while concurrent and has some overlap to the current situation of the systemic racism, is something different from the protests. The "who" of the lootings varies, as does the motivations behind them.

Scylla was discussing the lootings. I wrote a reasoned response to her comment, discussing lootings. I don't see where either of us said or implied it was a discussion of anything other than lootings.

People talking "at" me like I'm some kind of simple child who has to have obvious things explained to me is: baffling, insulting, slightly humorous but mostly annoying. Having my words so taken out of context as to be unrecognizable is... something else.

AND, Lyssa, not all of the above was directed AT YOU. It is my general frustration, which is growing by the minute.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

Is this really important in light of what is being discussed here? Sincere question. 

Yes. For a variety of reasons, including what is being "discussed" (poorly, and only within approved format). Sincere answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:
29 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

Is this really important in light of what is being discussed here? Sincere question. 

Yes. For a variety of reasons, including what is being "discussed" (poorly, and only within approved format). Sincere answer.

There can be no real communication if you believe others are discussing "poorly", and if you believe answers that differ from yours are because of some "approved format" or groupthink.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Gatogateau said:

Looting is wrong. Destroying property is wrong  People's lives are hurt, some badly, by these things. So... where's the argument?

I don't think anyone here is saying "Go Looters!" (or I missed that sub thread).

The protests are one thing.

The looting and vandalism are another.

The reasons for the protests are pretty clear. (I didn't say simple.)  Looting/vandalism less so. Can't rule out the outside agitators who ARE there.

The fact of looting/vandalism by some does not negate the reasons and need for the protests, and should not affect their efficacy.

When I fell and broke my left arm all to pieces, I also broke all the fingernails on the left hand. The two things happened at the same time, because of the same incident, but they were two different things. Luckily, my surgeons paid attention to my elbow and didn't call in a nail tech first. And yes, that's not a perfect metaphor, but it isn't lousy either. And yes, people who had businesses and finances affected are more important than my fingernails. But the protesters and all the reasons swirling behind that, and the need for change? That's the real topic.

 

 

To recap:

Looting is wrong. Destroying property is wrong. The rational is understandable, the act is wrong. Burning down a Target is wrong. Burning down a mom & pop is wrong. Whatever the underlying reason... it is wrong. Saying it is justifiable damage because "poor people" doesn't make it right and is patronizing.

The protests are one thing.

The looting and vandalism are another.

Yup, none of that has changed in 24 hours.

FFS.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

Yes. For a variety of reasons, including what is being "discussed" (poorly, and only within approved format). Sincere answer.

It reads like you are making it all about yourself, which detracts from the discussion. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

It reads like you are making it all about yourself, which detracts from the discussion. 

Well, that's an interesting take.

Aren't we ALL typing from our OWN PERSPECTIVES? So, therefore we are all talking about ourselves in one way or another?

Or does that mean that it is OK for The Troops to rally around Obvious Trolls, like "I'm ex military" guy, but it isn't ok to get peeved when honest discussions are being taken out of context? I can talk "not about me" a lot, have done, often do. When I am personally attacked and misrepresented, guess what? I react personally. Concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

Looting is wrong. Destroying property is wrong. The rational is understandable, the act is wrong. Burning down a Target is wrong. Burning down a mom & pop is wrong. Whatever the underlying reason... it is wrong. Saying it is justifiable damage because "poor people" doesn't make it right and is patronizing.

Having some sympathy for why someone does something, or acts a certain way, does not mean I'm agreeing with the act or patronizing them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

Well, that's an interesting take.

Aren't we ALL typing from our OWN PERSPECTIVES? So, therefore we are all talking about ourselves in one way or another?

Or does that mean that it is OK for The Troops to rally around Obvious Trolls, like "I'm ex military" guy, but it isn't ok to get peeved when honest discussions are being taken out of context? I can talk "not about me" a lot, have done, often do. When I am personally attacked and misrepresented, guess what? I react personally. Concept.

OK, I can see you have dug in and won't listen to someone trying to help. Carry on (but I think you'd do better to cool off a bit...)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 588 days.

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...