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

33 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

It appears to be a mindset some humans fall prey to when times are tough, and though we are often able to fight back the manifestations of authoritarianism when it rears its ugly head the psychological tendency to fall victim to the dynamic always remains. So it's a never-ending battle. I agree, it's scary what has been happening all over the world, and we are on a dangerous precipice in the US.

Democracy is fragile. As John Quincy Adams wrote in 1814, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/23/trump-america-authoritarianism-420681

He had so much more to say when he said that..

“I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

He had so much more to say when he said that..

Well yes, his commentary is interesting, and debated by many as to the exact meaning (and includes a bit more context than what you've quoted). But what are you trying to say with the quote...what is your interpretation?

The usage in my comment was pretty clear...that the fight for democracy has always failed at some point, and the struggle is ongoing...and that we are in danger of falling into an authoritarian society where a minority decides our rights and diversity is severely limited because of undue discrimination, as opposed to the majority of people haggling it all out, albeit with the struggles and failings a democracy entails.

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well yes, his commentary is interesting, and debated by many as to the exact meaning (and includes a bit more context than what you've quoted). But what are you trying to say with the quote...what is your interpretation?

The usage in my comment was pretty clear...that the fight for democracy has always failed at some point, and the struggle is ongoing...and that we are in danger of falling into an authoritarian society where a minority decides our rights and diversity is severely limited due to undue discrimination, as opposed to the majority of people haggling it all out, albeit with all the struggles and failings this entails.  

The main reason I guess is, I'm just so used to people doing that with the bible and wanted to post the whole quote.. plus I just like the way he talks..hehehe

I've been watching bits and pieces of that movie they did on him and it's really good..

 

Aaaanyways,

It was from part of a letter from him to John Taylor.. It was about true democracy not a  democratic republic..

The U.S. is not a true democracy.. We have a constitution that limits the power of the government..

Edited by Ceka Cianci
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

John Quincy Adams

i think he would be quite pleased that the USA has survived as a democratic republic as long as it has. The USA has had its moments, where at the time it might have seemed to the people involved that it was all over

so far tho, since Mr Adams time 200 or so years, each time the USA people have found it themselves to reassert the ideals on which their society is founded

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought the meek shall inherit the earth was a dumb phrase , I am beginning to wonder though because the media loves loud people they are underestimating the vast numbers who are to busy with a living to worry about Crusades (for want of a better word) .

The righteous whatever podium they choose to preach from will not be influenced or herded , and so they will never accept that they fight for globalization and vilify any opposed to it . Divide and conquer under a save the planet banner , individual identity is a hindrance to commerce and a one size fits all solution works well for the tiny minority .

Global Wealth Inequality

According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report, the world's richest 1 percent, those with more than $1 million, own 44 percent of the world's wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2020 at 6:38 AM, Caroline Takeda said:

A private estate is just that: A private estate. It is your virtual world within a virtual world. Your money, your rules. Your the Gouvernor so to speak. Period. End of Story.

yes, except the TOS still applies in all cases.  So, its not really the "End of Story".  

I understand that land owners can ban whomever they want.  For any reason. Or  for no reason.  That I get.

But to ban an entire class of people, like all women, or all black, or all gay people, just because you don't like that class.. 

I was just a bit surprised how much support there is for this.  

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

5 minutes ago, Dillin Woodward said:

yes, except the TOS still applies in all cases.  So, its not really the "End of Story".  

I understand that land owners can ban whomever they want.  For any reason. Or  for no reason.  That I get.

But to ban an entire class of people, like all women, or all black, or all gay people, just because you don't like that class.. 

I was just a bit surprised how much support there is for this.  

I think when you see like , men only or women only or furry only allowed sims.. It's just because they are avatars..

It's the environment the owner or parcel owner wants on their sim..

You wouldn't want a bunch of furriers running around a Gorean sim or a bunch of cyborgs in a 1920's  sim and so on..

 

As far as if you mean in RL people.. I'm not sure how they would know if someone was really any of those anyways, unless the person told them..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Dillin Woodward said:

But to ban an entire class of people, like all women, or all black, or all gay people, just because you don't like that class.. 

That's not the same thing as restricting avatars to match the theme of a place. I can only think of a handful of places I've been to who have arbitrarily banned people on those grounds. Whether or not those places are okay with the TOS, I'm not really okay with them and I don't go to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2020 at 5:23 PM, Mollymews said:
On 9/26/2020 at 12:30 PM, Luna Bliss said:

John Quincy Adams

i think he would be quite pleased that the USA has survived as a democratic republic as long as it has. The USA has had its moments, where at the time it might have seemed to the people involved that it was all over

so far tho, since Mr Adams time 200 or so years, each time the USA people have found it themselves to reassert the ideals on which their society is founded

Well Molly I'd like to feel reassured by your faith in America, and for a few seconds I even did as I'd like to believe we aren't in any danger over here. But my cousin is a respected judge on the west coast, and while specializing more in criminal law than constitutional law some of his colleagues are specialists in constitutional law, and they are worried about what they see unfolding in the US today.

Many imagine fascism or authoritarianism as Hitler marching through the streets and murdering those who don't fit its paradigm for humanity, but fascism can take on more covert forms. What we're talking about is an excessive concentration of power which oppresses through discrimination, and this is happening now in the courts, leading to what some fear could be a kind of joined authoritarianism with theocracy if it continues.

While the Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of minorities it has done a piss poor job of it, so while you praise the ideals of "justice and liberty for all" in 'Murica  I remember women dying from botched back-alley abortions, LGBTQI citizens receiving shock treatment to "cure" them, and blacks with a noose around their necks as they hung from trees during a Sunday city celebration.

Sure, we have mostly moved away from such overt acts of power abuse, but quietly and out of awareness for most, minority rights have been slowly eroded via packing the courts with right-wingers and evangelicals in partnership with neoliberal facilitators.

I don't know if you've read about Dominion Theology and what the evangelicals in the US have been up to over the last decades? The recent death of RBG and placing Amy Coney Barrett on the supreme court, causing a clear conservative majority, is the most striking culmination of efforts being applied for many years. Trump is using them to achieve his authoritarian goals.
  
Soon abortion will be illegal again and women will again die from back-alley abortions (always the poor women, the same as in the past where the wealthy will find ways to buy them).
Soon after the election a vote will be cast on the demolition of the Affordable Care Act, and with a clear conservative majority in the Supreme Court we're in serious danger of losing the ACA, causing millions to be without health insurance again. Many deaths would be the result. I would have died myself without access to the ACA and the expensive medication it purchased.
No doubt rights for LGBTQI citizens will be on the chopping block next.
Do I even need to go into climate change denial and what leaving the Paris Climate Accord and the continued deregulation of environmental protections will cause?

The worst fascists are those who disown the word ‘fascism’ and preach enslavement to capitalism under the style of constitutional and traditional American liberty.

So what's the solution?  I don't know, but touting the great virtues of the US and asking capitalism to be the organizing principle of the world it ruined is like asking the fire that burned down your house to rebuild it. Yes you can ask, but the fire will laugh, and just keep on burning you right down into dust.

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2020 at 5:23 PM, Mollymews said:
On 9/26/2020 at 12:30 PM, Luna Bliss said:

John Quincy Adams

i think he would be quite pleased that the USA has survived as a democratic republic as long as it has.

I think the poor Adams family would take one look at Trump and not just turn around in their graves but dive deep into the earth hoping to never surface again.   :)   Both the father and the son hated showmanship in politics and despised the party system that was developing at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dillin Woodward said:

yes, except the TOS still applies in all cases.  So, its not really the "End of Story".  

I understand that land owners can ban whomever they want.  For any reason. Or  for no reason.  That I get.

But to ban an entire class of people, like all women, or all black, or all gay people, just because you don't like that class.. 

I was just a bit surprised how much support there is for this.  

How much support there is for it?

Are you kidding me?

No one has shown any support whatsoever for the sort of banning you have described. No one. At all.

Telling you how things are/operate is not the same thing as showing support.

Edited by Solar Legion
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No one has shown any support whatsoever for the sort of banning you have described. No one. At all."

Not gonna sit down.  Thanks though for the offer though.

If you read through the posts here, people have supported this.  

And in fact, some have gone so far as to say its needed.

So,  I get your point.  Differentiating between allowed, and supported. 

My point here is that this behavior seems to be allowed overall, tolerated by many, and supported by some.

And frankly that surprises me.  That's all.

Thanks again for the offer of a seat.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Dillin Woodward
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dillin Woodward said:

If you read through the posts here, people have supported this. 

I've had a hard time with this too, both on the forum and inworld -- there are far too many who see no problem with the type of discrimination you are referring to (women, LGBTQI, race).  They don't actually understand power abuse dynamics and place no value in notions of equality.  Many conservatives, especially, see nothing wrong with a 'might makes right' attitude and feel a prohibition on discrimination, be it through rules or verbal protest, violates their personal liberty.

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dillin Woodward said:

"No one has shown any support whatsoever for the sort of banning you have described. No one. At all."

Not gonna sit down.  Thanks though for the offer though.

If you read through the posts here, people have supported this.  

And in fact, some have gone so far as to say its needed.

So,  I get your point.  Differentiating between allowed, and supported. 

My point here is that this behavior seems to be allowed overall, tolerated by many, and supported by some.

And frankly that surprises me.  That's all.

Thanks again for the offer of a seat.

 

 

 

 

 

That's nice. We as end users have little to no say in what the ToS and CS allows. Again, telling you what is, is not supporting it nor is it "tolerating" it - you can stop right there with those goal posts.

The only examples I have seen of anyone showing a "need" for such a practice have been those using safe spaces for varied demographics that are usually trodden upon. But hey, maybe I missed the responses where someone supported a White, Cis, Male, Perfectly Functional (insert other limiters here that follow the same pattern) only parcel/region. Perhaps you'd like to share that instance?

I'd say that I'll wait but really ... No, I won't.

That wasn't an offer by the by.

Have a nice day.

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

10 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

You mean like they do now?

Give me a break ....

ETA: And yes, that question is sarcastic.

If users get barred from half the grid because their avatar is too heavy, yeah.

Right now it's just who gives them the most shiny for the cheapest because that's the only important metric.

Edited by Kyrah Abattoir
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dillin Woodward said:

My point here is that this behavior seems to be allowed overall

Would you PM me the regions where owners are banning others based on hating women, gays, or POC?  I'm in an activist mode...lol.

I did run across this region owner on another grid who wouldn't allow gay people to get married in public on his sims, whereas straight people could have lavish ceremonies. He made a lot of bigoted statements in the grid forum too.  Boy did I stir up a stink...  :)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

If users get barred from half the grid because their avatar is too heavy, yeah.

I think it could work, but would only matter to user experience if it penalized total texture resolution, too, not merely geometry and scripts... and only if the destination's criteria for avatar weights were applied before teleport begins -- which means it can't be a script function, only a built-in Lab feature. And, of course, it has to provide details of what caused the request to be rejected: what measure exceeded threshold along with a list of attachments that contributed most to that rejection.

To the actual topic of the thread: I do think that "newcomer friendly" venues, identified as such in the Destination Guide (or really anywhere such recommendations are made) should scrupulously omit all regions that exercise any exclusivity at all. Newbies can discover on their own the Gor regions and lesbian "no man's lands" and "furries forbidden" sims, without them being served-up as if they're standard fare for Second Life. That's not to demonstrate corporate wokeness, but rather as a sensible business working to expand its customer base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

But hey, maybe I missed the responses where someone supported a White, Cis, Male, Perfectly Functional (insert other limiters here that follow the same pattern) only parcel/region. Perhaps you'd like to share that instance?

 

Interesting choice of example demographics. Perhaps we all have our prejudices?

I dunno.   

All I can say was that in all my years of SL,  I never expected to find this much; indifference, tolerance, acceptance, justification, I dunno, call it what you will..  of discrimination.

(to be clear, this is not the banning of an individual, this is the banning of a CLASS)   

Again, I'm somewhat stunned.

Edited by Dillin Woodward
  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

for complaints about the TOS and Guidelines:

893d560b8805ceeb4f76ef81032fa184.png

Not sure what to do with this.  

This sounds like one of those, "If you don't like, it, take up it up with these guys" sort of responses.

Which makes me believe that you support the status quo.

Which (as I've come to understand) tolerates this level of discrimination.

 

So, can I put you down as a supporter of SL discrimination?  I mean, is that the message here?

Help me (us?) all understand this..

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is almost like the OP does not understand the concepts they are pretending to rail against ....

I mean, having a space in Second Life set aside for a normally marginalized demographic is not some big problem. Not for anyone who understands that actual discrimination goes the other way around for the most part.

The creation of a Safe Space (of any sort) is not a bad thing.

Grow up, deal with it.

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

Just now, Solar Legion said:

It is almost like the OP does not understand the concepts they are pretending to rail against ....

I mean, having a space in Second Life set aside for a normally marginalized demographic is not some big problem. Not for anyone who understands that actual discrimination goes the other way around for the most part.

The creation of a Safe Space (of any sort) is not a bad thing.

Grow up, deal with it.

I never mentioned who or what my original complaint was about.

Its just the concept in general.

I'll put you down as a supporter...

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
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...