The Second Life Mission Discussion

[Kiera Clutterbuck]

5 hours ago, cunomar said:

Patricia overcame prejudice in spectacular fashion as have many others throughout the centuries though its unlikely to be taught in schools .

 

So you are implying the woman removed prejudice toward her and the laws against stripping by encouraging the police officers to enjoy her talents at the station?

I'd venture to say they always liked seeing a woman remove her clothes anywhere, but a woman expressing a more free sexuality out in the wild was not under societal control, and once they brought her into their control at the police station all was fine (or at the men's club often ignored by police).
Same with all women who exhibit freedom regarding their sexuality in various ways. If not under men's control, especially as part of the nuclear family, it tends to becomes either illegal or looked down on by society.
Moral justification, through religion, is often used to achieve the goal of controlling women. 

[Love Zhaoying]

5 hours ago, cunomar said:

Its difficult to explain coherently but i feel outlawing prejudice is in itself prejudice .

"he called me a four eyed git and punched me" ....  so he is charged with assault and duly sentenced .

Versus "he called me gay/black/insert whatever and punched me" .... so he is charged with a racially homophobic incited assault and unduly sentenced .

Theres no extra charge for calling someone white before you punch them or gingernut , and failing though it may be we all say things we shouldn't when angered - the whole point is to be insulting .

OK a premeditated assault on someone aimed specifically because of whatever difference they present is entirely different ,  however the law already deals more severely with the premeditated ,  so why differentiate , it simply entrenches prejudice .

 

Criminy! Guess we have to outlaw "Hate Crimes". But wait, then won't only outlaws perform "Hate Crimes"?

[Da5id Weatherwax]

We are SO going to get the thread locked, but anyway...

In my experience - as an admittedly-privileged white male - anyone throwing out the straw man of "forbidding prejudice" or "how is it not a hate crime if I'm attacked because I'm white/male/whatever" is being dishonest, refusing to admit that they already are in (some kind of perceived) privileged position and are reluctant to allow others to reach that same level of privilege because they see it as somehow dragging them down. They can't admit that they actually aren't "inherently better" than any other person, including the ones that don't look like them or that go to a different church, came from a different background etc. They delude themselves that they "earned" all they got and that removing barriers that others face in having the same opportunity to "earn" it is some sort of handout to the people who have been beating their faces against those barriers for generations.

It's "F you, Jack, I got mine" played on a very specific dogwhistle.

[Coffee Pancake]

1 minute ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

We are SO going to get the thread locked, but anyway...

Watch the person saying words are harmless report the thread.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

4 minutes ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

We are SO going to get the thread locked, but anyway...

Watch the person saying words are harmless report the thread.

"We are SO going to get the thread locked, but [I'm going to say stuff I shouldn't] anyway.."

Translation: "Hold my beer."

[Kiera Clutterbuck]

48 minutes ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

We are SO going to get the thread locked, but anyway...

In my experience - as an admittedly-privileged white male - anyone throwing out the straw man of "forbidding prejudice" or "how is it not a hate crime if I'm attacked because I'm white/male/whatever" is being dishonest, refusing to admit that they already are in (some kind of perceived) privileged position and are reluctant to allow others to reach that same level of privilege because they see it as somehow dragging them down. They can't admit that they actually aren't "inherently better" than any other person, including the ones that don't look like them or that go to a different church, came from a different background etc. They delude themselves that they "earned" all they got and that removing barriers that others face in having the same opportunity to "earn" it is some sort of handout to the people who have been beating their faces against those barriers for generations.

It's "F you, Jack, I got mine" played on a very specific dogwhistle.

I haven't seen name-calling or people in direct conflict with another, so I think we're safe so far as we try to discuss what equality is and why it's so hard to achieve.

I agree, there are some who know they have privilege but won't admit it, and they seek to keep others down, but there are many who simply can't see the disadvantages others have. If they didn't experience it directly it doesn't exist to them. Citing studies and books means little. Others relating their stories of oppression doesn't count. Honestly, I don't know what to do about them. They can't be reached.

We have many stories of those prejudiced against the LGBTQ+ crowd until a beloved family member comes out. And stories of those disbelieving that women encounter disadvantage until they see a daughter encountering it.

The "forbidding prejudice" thing, not sure what to think about that. It seems some think of freedom only in absolute terms, that there must not be any restrictions. Are they anarchists who have no respect for any sort of law? Or is it just an excuse to do whatever they want, as you say?

I'm not sure what good "rainbow corporations" serve, whether authentic or not. Many do develop their standards according to what is advertised and popular, so perhaps in that way corporations can help.

Edited July 3, 2022 by Kiera Clutterbuck

[Da5id Weatherwax]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

"We are SO going to get the thread locked, but [I'm going to say stuff I shouldn't] anyway.."

Translation: "Hold my beer."

Trust you lot with my beer? You're kidding - it would be supped and gone before the page had a chance to refresh.

[Solo Alpha]

4 minutes ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

Trust you lot with my beer? You're kidding - it would be supped and gone before the page had a chance to refresh.

You're not talking premium European lagers here , are you ?

Your beer would remain as stale as ever with each page refresh. Don't worry. 😁

 

[Love Zhaoying]

20 minutes ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

Trust you lot with my beer? You're kidding - it would be supped and gone before the page had a chance to refresh.

It's not like the beer's going to get any warmer..

 

[cunomar]

Lol 10 notifications , funny what prompts conversation huh .

Ever watch the movie four weddings and a funeral ?

Entertaining privileged toffs , I found myself wondering if any of the characters actually had a job or indeed ever would .

Patricia's story makes me smile because it makes a mockery of social restraint . 

If we trawled through history researching, I wonder how many unlikely success stories would come to light such as the wealthiest black man in 1800ad or wealthiest woman . Was Julius Ceaser ever refused at a cake shop because he was bisexual, lol .

We ain't so different you and me we all eat , sleep and s**t the same .

[Scylla Rhiadra]

10 minutes ago, cunomar said:

Lol 10 notifications , funny what prompts conversation huh

Are you familiar with the term "ratioed"?

[Silent Mistwalker]

8 hours ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

Archie Bunker

Even Archie managed to get over his prejudice, with a lot of hard work on himself. At least he had by the time he bought Archie's Place. He still struggled with it, but he at least made the effort.

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

Trust you lot with my beer? You're kidding - it would be supped and gone before the page had a chance to refresh.

 I said I'd buy you another six pack! 

Geez.. try to make some people happy...

 

[Krystina Ferraris]

1 hour ago, cunomar said:

Entertaining privileged toffs , I found myself wondering if any of the characters actually had a job or indeed ever would .

 

Of course they’d have a job, as a lifestyle influencer or a party bag designer 

[cunomar]

5 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Serious "But MOOOM I wanna say the N word" vibes.

 

Paint me any way you want Pancake , if it helps you believe in your own perfection then I'm happy for you . And good luck with convincing anyone else of the same .

[Persephone Emerald]

32 minutes ago, cunomar said:

 

Paint me any way you want Pancake , if it helps you believe in your own perfection then I'm happy for you . And good luck with convincing anyone else of the same .

I've never seen anyone on this forum proclaim perfection or infallibility. Most of us are kind of set in our beliefs, but I think it's good that we're willing to discuss and debate them. 

Edited July 3, 2022 by Persephone Emerald

[Kiera Clutterbuck]

21 hours ago, cunomar said:

If we trawled through history researching, I wonder how many unlikely success stories would come to light such as the wealthiest black man in 1800ad or wealthiest woman . Was Julius Ceaser ever refused at a cake shop because he was bisexual, lol .

ikr, and some children weren't abused in the 1800's and so none are abused in the 21st century.

[Persephone Emerald]

On 7/3/2022 at 11:11 AM, cunomar said:

Was Julius Ceaser ever refused at a cake shop because he was bisexual, lol .

The classical Romans had a different definition of homosexuality than we do. To them being like a woman was one of the worst things a man could be, so being the passive/ receptive partner in sex was what constituted being homosexual. It was perfectly socially acceptable to them if a man was the active/ dominant person in sex, even if that was having sex with a teenage boy or a household slave. Sexual relations between two men of relatively equal social standing was also socially acceptable as long as one was not the receptive partner for penetrative sex. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, Persephone Emerald said:

The classical Romans had a different definition of homosexuality than we do. To them being like a woman was one of the worst things a man could be, so being the passive/ receptive partner in sex was what constituted being homosexual. It was perfectly socially acceptable to them if a man was the active/ dominant person in sex, even if that was having sex with a teenage boy or a household slave. Sexual relations between two men of relatively equal social standing was also socially acceptable as long as one was not the receptive partner for penetrative sex. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome

Alexander III and Hephaestion

 

at Tanagra

[cunomar]

The point i'm trying to make is , what i will call "taboo"  because i can't presently think of a better word has always been generally accepted .

Old Nelly grumbled about Patricia while everybody cheered because old Nelly though she would never admit it deep down wish she had Patricia's courage .

It came as no surprise to any who knew Alan Turing during his lifetime that he was homosexual which implies implicit acceptance . And so it has always been .

Outdated laws can and have been changed, and so it will and should continue  .

So i don't understand the war on individual opinion ? the banner toting argumentative "you will see things my way" passive aggressive assault on all that makes us human .

I'm happy for those who have time to block traffic chanting save the planet , I might have even agreed with them once . But I have work to do if i'm to pay my rent and by preventing me from doing that you made me deaf to your cause - you made an enemy of a potential  ally .

I'd not be at all surprised to learn that repeats of the TV show "Till death do us part" have been banned though Alf Garnett's script was genius at bringing general acceptance with a smile to millions at home with innuendo .

Is there a Carry on film that doesn't feature crossdressing lol

Wage war against someone who doesn't want to fight and you can bet your bottom dollar they will eventually turn against you .

Edited July 5, 2022 by cunomar

[Da5id Weatherwax]

On 7/3/2022 at 8:04 PM, Silent Mistwalker said:

 I said I'd buy you another six pack! 

Geez.. try to make some people happy...

 

That's not exactly a bad 4th of July beer to have around in copious quantities to keep the swarm of thirsty locusts extended family out of some of my own better brews. Back over here in Scotland I now have slightly different concerns of course.

[Da5id Weatherwax]

6 hours ago, cunomar said:

I'm happy for those who have time to block traffic chanting save the planet , I might have even agreed with them once . But I have work to do if i'm to pay my rent and by preventing me from doing that you made me deaf to your cause - you made an enemy of a potential  ally .

Many people feel so strongly on an issue that they go to considerable personal inconvenience to protest. You can't dismiss them as "people who have the time to..."

And is not the whole point of effective protest to be inconvenient to society at large? To cause a sharp enough itch that folks have to wake up and scratch?

I'm sorry you were inconvenienced by the protest, but to turn round and say "because it caused inconvenience to me, I wont care about your cause" seems a little telling to me - if you react like that to the protest I think I can make a pretty fair guess as to how you'd react to any solution to the problem that required the slightest sacrifice on your part. Which actually, now I think about it, would make you a legitimate target of the protest, wouldn't it?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

57 minutes ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

I'm sorry you were inconvenienced by the protest, but to turn round and say "because it caused inconvenience to me, I wont care about your cause" seems a little telling to me - if you react like that to the protest I think I can make a pretty fair guess as to how you'd react to any solution to the problem that required the slightest sacrifice on your part. Which actually, now I think about it, would make you a legitimate target of the protest, wouldn't it?

This.

If you're so shallow as to abandon or dismiss a worthwhile and just cause because it makes you a little late for work, you're saying a great deal more about your own ethics and your commitment to the principles of justice than about the "tactics" of protestors.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra
EEK!

[Love Zhaoying]

7 hours ago, cunomar said:

Old Nelly grumbled about Patricia while everybody cheered because old Nelly though she would never admit it deep down wish she had Patricia's courage .

I give up trying to guess, what's the reference here?  (Maybe I missed it in previous posts?)

[Kiera Clutterbuck]

7 hours ago, cunomar said:

The point i'm trying to make is , what i will call "taboo"  because i can't presently think of a better word has always been generally accepted .

Old Nelly grumbled about Patricia while everybody cheered because old Nelly though she would never admit it deep down wish she had Patricia's courage .

It came as no surprise to any who knew Alan Turing during his lifetime that he was homosexual which implies implicit acceptance . And so it has always been .

Outdated laws can and have been changed, and so it will and should continue  .

So i don't understand the war on individual opinion ? the banner toting argumentative "you will see things my way" passive aggressive assault on all that makes us human .

These "taboos" were not generally accepted though (even if you discover a few outliers such as a gay person with a circle of friends, or the wealthy black person or woman you noted). Outliers only prove one or a few escaped prejudice, and says nothing about the pervasive climate and all the others who could not escape prejudice.
And outdated laws do change, I agree, but not without pressure against them (pushback against "opinions" and laws; they don't magically change over time and we sometimes have to fight hard to win human rights).

While it's true that sometimes the law differs from the opinion of the general public this was not true in the case of homosexuality in the time-frame you reference; there was no "implicit" or "general acceptance" of homosexuality for Alan Turing overall; although I'm sure some knew and accepted him or others like him this was the minority position, and so little power was available to prevent oppression.

Even as late as 1987 75% of the population thought homosexuality was "always wrong".

"The change toward acceptance of homosexuality began in the late 1980s after years of remaining relatively constant. In 1973, 70 percent of people felt same-sex relations are “always wrong,” and in 1987, 75 percent held that view. By 2000, however, that number dropped to 54 percent and by 2010 was down to 43.5 percent".

https://www.norc.org/NewsEventsPublications/PressReleases/Pages/american-acceptance-of-homosexuality-gss-report.aspx

What you are calling "taboos" or cultural beliefs and stereotypes are difficult to remove from anyone's mind and they don't simply drift away as the years march on.
Actions were taken throughout history to achieve human rights, protests and a pressure for equal/human rights were necessary, and this eventually changed attitudes toward homosexuality for many. 

The nonacceptance from society (not only from the law) and chemical castration inflicted upon Alan Turing caused him to commit suicide. It is because of this atrocity, and the other injustices levied against scapegoats with less power in society, that we fight for equality.