Jump to content

Morality is different in SL vs RL


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 78 days.

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

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I trust nothing from people who misinterpreted her and piled on her from day one. She's become a scapegoat -- an unjustified one. You know how these things operate...surely you've seen them before....the ball gets rolling and more pile on. So what if she imagines she's helping others who could be disabled or need her in other ways -- no need to demonize her for it.  There's much worse in the world we could pick on. 

No-one has demonised her or made her a scapegoat for anything.  What we have done is say "we don't like what you are saying, it's offensive, please stop."  It only got to the "piling" stage because she didn't stop.

Personally I don't care who she is fornicating with.  Not me, not my concern.  And as it turns out, she is not fornicating with anyone disabled, simply trotting out opinions and second hand info from friends and online sources.  Need a towel for that egg on your face?

Edited by Jordan Whitt
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Wait....what in the actual hell? Do you know what narcissism actually is? How on earth does narcissism in sl, which is more likely to be a projection of the exact same trait in a person in rl (whether

I think you mean vanity instead of narcissism. Vanity can be a bad thing in RL but in SL it drives the economy. Lust is another vice.... drives the SL economy again.

This is probably the worst thing I have read on the forums for a long time.   Why on earth would having sexual fantasies with a disabled person in RL be considered immoral?  Why on earth imply that di

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Maitimo said:
10 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I trust nothing from people who misinterpreted her and piled on her from day one. She's become a scapegoat -- an unjustified one. You know how these things operate...surely you've seen them before....the ball gets rolling and more pile on. So what if she imagines she's helping others who could be disabled or need her in other ways -- no need to demonize her for it.  There's much worse in the world we could pick on. 

But the thing is, when people say offensive things, and someone else feels sorry for them and says "it's okay, you didn't mean it", it just perpetuates the offense by reinforcing the attitude that being offensive to people with disabilities is acceptable behaviour in society.

I'm a champion for all oppressed groups, including the disabled. In fact, disabled people were a special focus in my Social Work classes, and I've worked with disabled people in the field (autistic adults).  I've simply never viewed what Pearl said as being offensive to disabled people, because some people with disabilities do indeed feel 'alive' from regaining experiences they've lost in RL.  And I don't take those who are disabled speaking in this thread as representative of all disabled people -- I've encountered too many disabled people in SL outside of this thread who would not feel the same as those speaking for disabled people here.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

We posted at the same time and then my post is after yours asking if they told you they were disabled.

So, you made it up in your mind or are repeating a type of myth or rumor.

Then, I will ask too, please don't do it anymore.  It doesn't have anything to do with your SL or your profession.  

I was trying to be supportive of everyone, and it backfired on me because I chose the wrong words, I truly apologize to any I have offended!!!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

Need a towel for that egg on your face?

No thanks, I'll let it drip.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

Egos are definitely flying high right now.. and  narcissistic misogynistic people calling others what they are themselves.. is it  tragic comedy day or something?

I don't consider myself narcissistic or misogynistic...and really don't have much of an ego.  But okay!

Side note, can women be misogynistic?  🤨  

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

I'm a champion for all oppressed groups, including the disabled. In fact, disabled people were a special focus in my Social Work classes, and I've worked with disabled people in the field (autistic adults).  I've simply never viewed what Pearl said as being offensive to disabled people, because some people with disabilities do indeed feel 'alive' from regaining experiences they've lost in RL.  And I don't take those who are disabled speaking in this thread as representative of all disabled people -- I've encountered too many disabled people in SL outside of this thread who would not feel the same as those speaking for disabled people here.

I gave my opinion on it as "a line" coming from the clients.  At first, it sounded like it because as I've said I have encountered it in real life as a way to manipulate me or string me along.

However, my ex-husband used to say similar things to me and I believed he was telling the truth about out relationship and I've known my ex-husband for 29 years, although we were not married for 29 years.  My ex-husband told a lie once in a while although extremely rare and it may have been more just not telling me rather than a lie and usually was about his daughter which I allowed their to be privacy about because that's his kid and may have been about money he was loaning her for example, but there was no need to string me along about making him feel "human or alive" so I believe HE was telling the truth.

I asked my best male friend once these questions.  "What do hetero men want most from women?"  His answer was "sex".  Then I asked him "What do you think hetero women want most from men?"  His answer was "to be admired".  Women do want to be admired.  This is how that manipulation happens by hetero men "you make me feel human"....blah, blah, blah.

I don't think she should bring up disabled people because she has had no real experience with it...it's presumed and not authentic.  

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

There are those who are so "woke" they'll excuse anything, and those who see your constant need to draw attention to your chosen profession as nothing more than the attention seeking ego stroking of an immature narcissist.

I don't excuse people who are deliberately cruel, call people names, and get off on scapegoating.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

Side note, can women be misogynistic?  🤨  

Only an 'unwoke' person could ask such a question.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Evidence, please?

The evidence surrounds you, envelops you. It is the fabric of reality itself. Much has been written about these rights, which are abstract rather than mere material measurable things. You can learn more about natural rights and the essential Enlightenment Age philosophy upon which liberal democracy and the west are well-founded over there on wikipedia and elsewhere.

Edited by Chromal Brodsky
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't excuse people who are deliberately cruel, call people names, and get off on scapegoating.

I have not, nor am ever, deliberately cruel to anyone.  And if Bagnu thinks I have been, she is more than welcome to call me out on it publicly or privately.  She does not seem to have a problem speaking for herself.  I have also not called anyone names.  I said what she was doing can be seen as being the actions of an immature narcissist.  

I really think your use of the term "scapegoating" is wrong.  Scapegoating is blaming others for actions you yourself are doing.  I haven't been running around proclaiming my sexual habits to the boards.  Okay mainly cos I don't have any...but still, you get my point.  

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

I don't think she should bring up disabled people because she has had no real experience with it...it's presumed and not authentic. 

I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing the effect you might be having on other people.  I've seen this scenario many times across various forums.  There's no law that says we must only discuss our verified experience -- we can imagine for the sake of discussion.  However I'd give more credence to those with the actual experience, depending on the person and what I've observed about them.  

Besides, it's very likely she's had disabled people as clients, as there simply are a high number of disabled people in RL & SL.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

Side note, can women be misogynistic?  🤨  

Of course they can, i suppose you are not married.

tenor.gif?itemid=8697558

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

I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing the effect you might be having on other people.  I've seen this scenario many times across various forums.  There's no law that says we must only discuss our verified experience -- we can imagine for the sake of discussion.  However I'd give more credence to those with the actual experience, depending on the person and what I've observed about them.  

Besides, it's very likely she's had disabled people as clients, as there simply are a high number of disabled people in RL & SL.

Yeah, but with repeated-ness of it, she was almost saying she was coming from a position of expertise which she wasn't.  

I know some of us may have said "I've had others tell me...(fill in the blank)"...and then realized it is really not something we should speak about.  

Anyhow, again, she was repeating it, so I assumed she was told it personally.  

I'm bowing out of the thread now as I've said all I need to say and I think so have others and it's becoming "drama" now.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:
14 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't excuse people who are deliberately cruel, call people names, and get off on scapegoating.

I have not, nor am ever, deliberately cruel to anyone.  And if Bagnu thinks I have been, she is more than welcome to call me out on it publicly or privately.  She does not seem to have a problem speaking for herself.  I have also not called anyone names.  I said what she was doing can be seen as being the actions of an immature narcissist.  

I really think your use of the term "scapegoating" is wrong.  Scapegoating is blaming others for actions you yourself are doing.  I haven't been running around proclaiming my sexual habits to the boards.  Okay mainly cos I don't have any...but still, you get my point.  

There's a lot of insult in what you said:

"There are those who are so "woke" they'll excuse anything, and those who see your constant need to draw attention to your chosen profession as nothing more than the attention seeking ego stroking of an immature narcissist.  Just some friendly advice you are welcome to ignore."

Scapegoating is when someone is singled out as being 'the bad one', with nearly everything they say being twisted and distorted to fit this narrative. It often happens in a thread where tensions are high & issues are unresolved, and the 'bad one' is singled out to be the scapegoat or representative of all the 'badness' we don't want to accept in ourselves. We then feel like we are 'the good one', which is usually the purpose of scapegoating.

I mean really, she has said some things that are questionable, yes, but we don't need to crucify her do we?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Chromal Brodsky said:

The evidence surrounds you, envelops you. It is the fabric of reality itself. Much has been written about these rights, which are abstract rather than mere material measurable things. You can learn more about natural rights and the essential Enlightenment Age philosophy upon which liberal democracy and the west are well-founded over there on wikipedia and elsewhere.

There are no natural rights or universal rights. That is a human created fallacy. 

Plus using wiki as any sort of creditable research resource is laughable. 

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

Why do you think there's so much inequality and a tendency to take away others' freedom in the world?   I'm just wondering if you have an explanation for the sake of discussion -- I'm not challenging your assertion that "living in liberty and equality are a natural state of being".

It's one of humanity's oldest pathologies, cultivated by a succession of cults that learned they could benefit from its effects and then proceeded to exploit humanity with this system again and again, and now once more they make their earnest push to enslave and debase everything with breathtaking cognitive dissonance and confusion of tongues/minds at a scale the western world has not witnessed recently.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Chromal Brodsky said:

The evidence surrounds you, envelops you. It is the fabric of reality itself. Much has been written about these rights, which are abstract rather than mere material measurable things. You can learn more about natural rights and the essential Enlightenment Age philosophy upon which liberal democracy and the west are well-founded over there on wikipedia and elsewhere.

The evidence absolutely surrounds me, and refutes your claim that freedom and equality are natural.

31 minutes ago, Chromal Brodsky said:

In Secondlife, some even imagine living without arbitrary moral frameworks in a free and equitable spiritual culture, one with room for plurality.

So you cite a wiki page about moral frameworks that support freedom and equitability (the entire idea of "rights" as espoused by Epicurianism, Stoicism, Catholicism, etc) while insinuating that moral frameworks are arbitrary and perhaps in conflict with the things they promote?

The irony is strong in you, Chromal.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 78 days.

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...