Jump to content

acceptable forms of discrimination


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 280 days.

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

Recommended Posts

I have a question about acceptable forms of discrimination that might be allowed here in SL.

Are we allowed to ban avatars from a sim, based on sexual orientation, race, age, or gender?

In other words, in an otherwise public sim, can I ban all gay? or all trans people, or all women,  solely based on their orientation, or gender?

The question is this:  Is this behavior allowed, and if not where is that stated?

-Dillin

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Dillin Woodward said:

The question is this:  Is this behavior allowed, and if not where is that stated?

 

yes it's allowed, a regionowner can ban anyone he likes or dislikes, for any reason o no reason at all.
The access can be set to "anyone can enter", but that doesn't make it a public region.
The question should be; is it ethical.

Edited by Alwin Alcott
  • Like 12
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Dillin Woodward said:

I have a question about acceptable forms of discrimination that might be allowed here in SL.

Are we allowed to ban avatars from a sim, based on sexual orientation, race, age, or gender?

In other words, in an otherwise public sim, can I ban all gay? or all trans people, or all women,  solely based on their orientation, or gender?

The question is this:  Is this behavior allowed, and if not where is that stated?

-Dillin

 How would you even know unless it's stated somewhere in their profile or they told you specifically?  Do you mean gender in RL or gender in SL?  Sexual orientation in RL or SL?  As Alwin said, people can ban anyone they choose for any reason or no reason.  Also, they don't even need to tell the banned person why they were banned.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes of course you can do that. You can ban people for simply not liking their nose or no reason at all. No sim in SL (unless its owned by LL directly) is truely "public". Actually, not allowing certain avatars based on sex is super common: Many lesbian and gay clubs don't allow visitors of the opposite sex.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Syo Emerald said:

Yes of course you can do that. You can ban people for simply not liking their nose or no reason at all. No sim in SL (unless its owned by LL directly) is truely "public". Actually, not allowing certain avatars based on sex is super common: Many lesbian and gay clubs don't allow visitors of the opposite sex.

There used to be a club that didn't allow white men.  I did notice a lot of 'new' black men showing up though.  Coincidence?  Probably not.

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dillin Woodward said:

I'm just amazed that in 2020, this sort of hateful and discriminatory, racist, sexist behavior is still allowed to exist here in SL.

Now you know why Trump will most likely be elected again...

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dillin Woodward said:

I have a question about acceptable forms of discrimination that might be allowed here in SL.

Are we allowed to ban avatars from a sim, based on sexual orientation, race, age, or gender?

In other words, in an otherwise public sim, can I ban all gay? or all trans people, or all women,  solely based on their orientation, or gender?

The question is this:  Is this behavior allowed, and if not where is that stated?

-Dillin

You probably should tell us the story of what happened first, because your open ended question could turn into something you might not have intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Syo Emerald said:

Listen: There is no differentiation made in SL on how a land owner decides to use their space. You pay the bill, you decide how the land is used and who is allowed to visit you. You can build a giant pool and invite the entire grid to a pool party today and close your sim off for anyone the next day. Nobody can demand that you open your private place to anyone. If you are so generous and open your place to the public and establish something for others to enjoy, you are not suddenly burdend by additional, new rules by the TOS.

You asked, we answered, based on the TOS. You don't like the answer? Well... thats up to you. People are not entitled to haveing acess to privately owned land and I'm saying that as someone who would need to change her avatar to visit more places.

You certainly did answer.  

And I'm a bit shocked and stunned. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Community Standards states this:

Quote

 The use of derogatory or demeaning language or images based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation is prohibited. 

Which means, I guess, that while it's permissible to ban people from your region based on gender, sexuality or anything else, you (generic you, not the OP specifically) can't use derogatory language in doing so, for example in the land description or in notecards etc. 

There are a lot of places that restrict access to avatars of a particular gender, that's not unusual at all.

But if they are spouting off hate speech against a particular group, that's an AR-able offence.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Syo Emerald said:

How so?

I mean, would you demand acess to everybodies land? Because that is basically what you are asking for.

No, I am asking that one's race, gender, or orientation not be the sole reason for being banned. 
I mean, I get that anyone can be an ass, and we should be able to ban them, but solely on race, gender, or orientation?  Seems odd  that this is allowed. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dillin Woodward said:

 I am asking that one's race, gender, or orientation not be the sole reason for being banned.

in my experience it's indeed often not solely, i seen cases where everybody is welcome, but where activism in any form and explicit expressions of fetishes aren't appreciated.
For example, my land is open, but when there are people active in a sexual setting or white knighting, it's exit... to keep it in balance.. women with their goodies on the table are too...

Edited by Alwin Alcott
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dillin Woodward said:

No, I am asking that one's race, gender, or orientation not be the sole reason for being banned. 
I mean, I get that anyone can be an ass, and we should be able to ban them, but solely on race, gender, or orientation?  Seems odd  that this is allowed. 

Well, you do ask for a restriction on the freedom of landowners to restrict acess to their land freely. A landowner would not even need to have a reason at all and is not obligated to give one to you. And I think that is fair. They pay for this place and they shouldn't be forced to let people be there. At the same time I am free to tell them their rules are stupid and I have done so (as well as many others on the forum) quite vocal in the past.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dillin Woodward said:

No, I am asking that one's race, gender, or orientation not be the sole reason for being banned. 
I mean, I get that anyone can be an ass, and we should be able to ban them, but solely on race, gender, or orientation?  Seems odd  that this is allowed. 

Well if you really think about it, it's not that odd. Imagine if those types of banning weren't allowed. How would that be enforceable? It's not like people need to admit to banning because of x reasons. A lot of the times when people are banned, no reasons are given at all. So in this imaginary scenario if someone AR'd discrimination, LL would have to deal with a lot of he said, she said.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lewis Luminos said:

But if they are spouting off hate speech against a particular group, that's an AR-able offence.

In theory . . . allow me to show you screenshots of a few (hundred) groups I've collected.

Actually, I can't. The software here "hid" my last post when I attempted to do that.

And, of course, you can say whatever the hell you want about women. That's a freebie.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

In theory . . . allow me to show you screenshots of a few (hundred) groups I've collected.

Actually, I can't. The software here "hid" my last post when I attempted to do that.

And, of course, you can say whatever the hell you want about women. That's a freebie.

Yes, I've noticed groups seem to be exempt from hate speech as far as their name/charter go.  I'll admit, I don't run around ARing them but maybe we all should start.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dillin Woodward said:

No, I am asking that one's race, gender, or orientation not be the sole reason for being banned. 
I mean, I get that anyone can be an ass, and we should be able to ban them, but solely on race, gender, or orientation?  Seems odd  that this is allowed. 

Let me say this again . . . there are some seriously problematic aspects to asking LL to "ban" things on the basis of what they, or you, or I, or Alwin, or whoever want to see banned.

But there is nothing to prevent you from protesting, by way of a public information campaign, against people who are discriminatory. The point would not, should not, be to ask for the banning of something, but rather to educate people and raise awareness of bigotry and discriminatory attitudes and behaviours.

If you do so intelligently and respectfully of the rights of others, you actually can make a difference, one person at a time.

So do it. Stop griping that LL won't do it for you: make your voice heard.

Be a little courageous.

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RowanMinx said:

Yes, I've noticed groups seem to be exempt from hate speech as far as their name/charter go.  I'll admit, I don't run around ARing them but maybe we all should start.

I don't AR them out of principle; it's not how I think we should handle this sort of BS?

But I've held information pickets, blogged, built exhibits . . . there are ways to fight back.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 280 days.

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...