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 530 days.

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

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, kali Wylder said:

/me scoops the frustrated, scratching, biting ball of fluff in a towel and holds her close to my heart, murmuring soothingly and just holding her til she quiets.

555079 best OUR PETS (group board) images on Pinterest | Fluffy pets, Doggies and Pets

Which one am I....?  But seriously, if possibly rhetorically... I'm slammed personally, several times, and... I'm being "unreasonable" for standing up and saying "No!"? Interesting.

 

67ee170ee6ac62d731a38dae2100c7db.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

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...)

Ugh. If by "dug in" you mean not letting people twist my words out of context and all meaning, and also insulting my intelligence in the process, then yeah. I guess I'm dug in. I don't know why I need rescuing from that. Honest, if rhetorical question, similar to the one I just typed at Kali... why is saying "NO!" to being slammed MY problem and not the ones doing the slamming and misrepresentation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gatogateau said:

Ugh. If by "dug in" you mean not letting people twist my words out of context and all meaning, and also insulting my intelligence in the process, then yeah. I guess I'm dug in. I don't know why I need rescuing from that. Honest, if rhetorical question, similar to the one I just typed at Kali... why is saying "NO!" to being slammed MY problem and not the ones doing the slamming and misrepresentation?

If you will look at my post again, I was questioning the necessity of posting diagrams of "scorn laughs" complete with a big red circle. My thought is that in the big scheme of what is being discussed in this thread, a "scorn laugh" is really a very minor concern. I was trying to point this out, and that is all.

I'm going to leave it at that and eat some lunch now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, CoffeeDujour said:

There is no discussion when someone takes everything as an affront, but I guess the pot won't stir itself.

I do not take "everything" as an affront. 

Not even close. Have a long posting history to prove it.

I took what YOU said as an affront. I took HOW you said it as an affront. I'm taking people who are piling on as an affront.

I said why I took it as affront. I got push back plus a scorn laugh from you...talk about "discussion."

The pot won't stir itself, nor does a pot get stirred in isolation of the pot, the contents, the spoon, and the arm. Pick one to represent yourself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

Which one am I....?  But seriously, if possibly rhetorically... I'm slammed personally, several times, and... I'm being "unreasonable" for standing up and saying "No!"? Interesting.

 

67ee170ee6ac62d731a38dae2100c7db.gif

I see you.  I see your buttons got pushed.  I see you. I care. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In times of stress people demonstrate their real character or their lack thereof.

I will not riot.  I will not demonstrate.  I will protect my family.

As I do every year I will vote this November. Proud to be an American and share in this wonderful American dream. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

If you will look at my post again, I was questioning the necessity of posting diagrams of "scorn laughs" complete with a big red circle. My thought is that in the big scheme of what is being discussed in this thread, a "scorn laugh" is really a very minor concern. I was trying to point this out, and that is all.

I'm going to leave it at that and eat some lunch now. 

OK. As to the screenshot: People change their posts and their reactions all of the time. I rarely get even mildly miffed at scorn laughs, we've had many discussions, you and I and others, about the general stupidity of getting miffed about scorn laughs. THAT scorn laugh peeved me off. A lot. As it was intended to do. Like stir things up. 

Edited by Gatogateau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

(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 (?) )

It wasn't meant as a direct response to you, and I don't recall you being one of the people who was bringing up looting and rioting as if it was some kind of valid argument.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

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.

Fair enough,  but what, if anything, do you say should happen as a result of these insights?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Are there any non-whites, other than myself, still participating in the thread?

Not only that, but non-white Americans???

Anyway. Can you and I, here, have a conversation about what I said earlier about "allowing people to loot because they are oppressed" being an example of white patronization? I'd really, truly, like to hear your thoughts on that. 

ETA The quote from above that I'm talking about so you don't have to wade through stuff:

I find this whole thing about "justifiable damages" as patronizing to the very groups you are claiming to be concerned about.

"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.

Edited by Gatogateau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

It wasn't meant as a direct response to you, and I don't recall you being one of the people who was bringing up looting and rioting as if it was some kind of valid argument.

Thank you for clarifying. Then it was a case of poor timing of cross posting, because your remark came *right after* my remark about looting. Which is why I said "excuse me?" because it did seem like a direct response.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't go back and change my posts or reactions.

Screen capping for proof ... really ... exactly when we're you supposing that proof might be needed, whom would require such evidence, what retaliatory actions would be permitted or defensible as a result of saving it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the looters and the protesters should not be lumped together.  They are not the same people. I think property theft is  wrong. But it's a minor wrong compared to killing.  I don't think I'm patronizing anyone for thinking that. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

"allowing people to loot because they are oppressed" being an example of white patronization?

Nobody said they want to allow people to loot. They've only said they understand why some do.

There are mitigating circumstances by which we judge criminal acts, so we give differing sentences in our judicial system.  It doesn't mean we say what they did is right or that we wouldn't imprison them according to their sentence.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CoffeeDujour said:

I don't go back and change my posts or reactions.

Screen capping for proof ... really ... exactly when we're you supposing that proof might be needed, whom would require such evidence, what retaliatory actions would be permitted or defensible as a result of saving it.

Oh FFS. Just... ffs. It happens. A lot. Not a noob to the forum. People change their posts All of the Time. Which is a nice deflection of you still not owning up to being a jerk, but continuing to comment on everything other than your own actions, I don't know to what end other than to, shall we say, stir the pot? I get that some people are inherently unable to say "I was wrong" and since that is the case with you, why don't you just drop it for everyone's sake.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

Not only that, but non-white Americans???

Anyway. Can you and I, here, have a conversation about what I said earlier about "allowing people to loot because they are oppressed" being an example of white patronization? I'd really, truly, like to hear your thoughts on that.



Define "white patronization" in your terms.

Are we discussing looting or raiding? Looting are random acts whereas raiding is pre-planned as in a "war" party (we never fought wars, only skirmishes) raiding another tribe's (or clan's) camp for food, clothing, shelter and other things of value to survival, such as bows, arrows, knives, and horses (eta: and even people).

I can turn a blind eye to raiding. I cannot turn a blind eye to malicious looting or destruction. 

 

Edited by Selene Gregoire
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:



Define "white patronization" in your terms.

Are we discussing looting or raiding? Looting are random acts whereas raiding is pre-planned as in a "war" party (we never fought wars, only skirmishes) raiding another tribe's (or clan's) camp for food, clothing, shelter and other things of value to survival, such as bows, arrows, knives, and horses.

I can turn a blind eye to raiding. I cannot turn a blind eye to malicious looting or destruction. 

 

I just added this to the comment you replied to, too late it seems. My original comment that I want to discuss with you as a non-white person was this:

I find this whole thing about "justifiable damages" as patronizing to the very groups you are claiming to be concerned about.

"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.

I don't know if that clarifies what I mean by white patronization?

Looting/vandalism as it applies to the current BLM and "things."

I've been saying that while I *fully* understand the *wanting* to loot/etc out of pent up frustration of oppression (I wrote a few pages back about living in extreme poverty and my very real understanding of wanting to lash out, and I've only been experiencing my poverty and oppression for about ten years without the racial discrimination on top of it.) Wanting to do it is justifiable and understandable (well, depending upon individual motivation). Acting upon it is just wrong. For white people to sit back and say "Well, the damages, while regrettable are justifiable because those people have been discriminitated against" seems to me to be patronizing, as above.

Edited by Gatogateau
removed two words for clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe that riots are part of protesting. I believe riots are people taking advantage of protests to act how they want and then try and excuse or validate it because of the protest going on.

protesting is fine.. riots are not...looting is not...damaging others property is not... none of that is part of protesting.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The position of de-funding the police will only make the police state stronger!  Don't you see how that pendulum swings?  

Look how strong 'they' thought they were in an attempted coup against the President.  We have the police where they are accountable for their actions - thank goodness!  It took some 40 years of my life to see this happen. 

    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

I just added this to the comment you replied to, too late it seems. My original comment that I want to discuss with you as a non-white person was this:

I find this whole thing about "justifiable damages" as patronizing to the very groups you are claiming to be concerned about.

"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.

I don't know if that clarifies what I mean by white patronization?

Looting/vandalism as it applies to the current BLM and "things."

I've been saying that while I *fully* understand the *wanting* to loot/etc out of pent up frustration of oppression (I wrote a few pages back about living in extreme poverty and my very real understanding of wanting to lash out, and I've only been experiencing my poverty and oppression for about ten years without the racial discrimination on top of it. Wanting to do it is justifiable and understandable (well, depending upon individual motivation). Acting upon it is just wrong. For white people to sit back and say "Well, the damages, while regrettable are justifiable because those people have been discriminitated against" seems to me to be patronizing, as above.

I don't know that I would call it patronizing but I can see where it looks that way to others. To me, personally, it comes off as condescending more than patronizing. Both are wrong.

I can't justify the looting or destruction because that is just outright theft and unnecessary, unlawful violence perpetrated by those who want nothing more than for the ones protesting to be blamed for. The raiding that is also going on at the same time? I'm not going to condemn someone for trying to keep their selves or families fed, clothed and/or sheltered in the middle of a pandemic when the economy is tanking and unemployment at a nationwide all time high. 

I can't help but sit here and shake my head thinking, "You idiots (white) created this mess, now you have to get ALL of us out of it."

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 530 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...