I see the SecondLife Thought Police have arrived.

[Sid Nagy]

5 hours ago, bigmoe Whitfield said:

what lots of us have done is make a off-topic members section where people can go nuts within reason,  not sure why LL has not done this.  but it's their call not mine.

Yes, it is a big shortcoming of the LL forums and now they even seem to make it even stricter as it was.
One thing I know for sure, If they start to enforce it the way they describe it now in the general discussions forum guidelines, I'm out again.

Edited July 30, 2022 by Sid Nagy

[Sid Nagy]

50 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Ah yes, more hyperbole/utter ridiculousness ...

With a community comes a certain degree of socialization and empathy.
Otherwise one better reads the wiki and blog pages (with respond possibilities locked) only.
No need for forums than at all.

Edited July 30, 2022 by Sid Nagy

[Coffee Pancake]

They really are leaving us nothing to do but hold their feet to the fire.

Not as residents.

But as paying customers.

[Brightstar7777]

Second LIfe is a microcosm, a virtual demiurge, and as such it contains a little of everything and has been organically grown together into beautiful and unexpected digital permutations of life. We're The Internet's metaverse, not some mere MMO, information service, or social media. We've taken on a life of our own. Hopefully our range and gamut of self-expression will grow. The forum is a heart and mind of our community; this is a way we confabulate and deliberate, where the thoughts of our collective society crystallize. There's no in-world equivalent venue to this.

With so few posts appearing here per day, sometimes it feels like we're the fire-tenders around here; we users are the the ones keeping things lively. It's really strange given the actual realities to wonder if kaleidoscopic murals are being painted over with beige little by little. I'm just wondering what audience it's expected this will pull in, and who is that target audience, anyway? Cyberpunks, gamers, freaks, geeks, furries, philosophers, artists, visionaries as fitting the Internet's best on the Metaverse, or it some other demographic? Did the venue change? Where do we go to mix virtually with those people according to artistic and divine standards of expressive freedom?

All I can say is that more new moderation makes us feel less secure than before, and not more secure. At some point, be careful that the ethos of the shields meant to protect the vulnerable finest spirits of life are not in time repurposed to betray, assault, cow, imprison, and/or crucify them.

Edited July 30, 2022 by Brightstar7777

[Akane Nacht]

2 hours ago, Sid Nagy said:

We need such an coffee machine area too, if we want to stay a forum community with regulars returning and contributing regularly.
Even if they don't have a question or matter that is SL related most of the time. It keeps them here, to help others when needed for instance.

That's how I always thought of the forums. Maybe half the stuff I post/read here is about SL directly, but I also enjoy the jokes and randomness.  

[Persephone Emerald]

1 hour ago, Brightstar7777 said:

Second LIfe is a microcosm, a virtual demiurge, and as such it contains a little of everything and has been organically grown together into beautiful and unexpected digital permutations of life. We're The Internet's metaverse, not some mere MMO, information service, or social media. We've taken on a life of our own. Hopefully our range and gamut of self-expression will grow. The forum is a heart and mind of our community; this is a way we confabulate and deliberate, where the thoughts of our collective society crystallize. There's no in-world equivalent venue to this.

With so few posts appearing here per day, sometimes it feels like we're the fire-tenders around here; we users are the the ones keeping things lively. It's really strange given the actual realities to wonder if kaleidoscopic murals are being painted over with beige little by little. I'm just wondering what audience it's expected this will pull in, and who is that target audience, anyway? Cyberpunks, gamers, freaks, geeks, furries, philosophers, artists, visionaries as fitting the Internet's best on the Metaverse, or it some other demographic? Did the venue change? Where do we go to mix virtually with those people according to artistic and divine standards of expressive freedom?

All I can say is that more new moderation makes us feel less secure than before, and not more secure. At some point, be careful that the ethos of the shields meant to protect the vulnerable finest spirits of life are not in time repurposed to betray, assault, cow, imprison, and/or crucify them.

I love your metaphor here. Good points!

[skepwith]

The forums population primarily consists of a few dozen people with thousands of posts each, so anything LL can do to shake things up a bit if they want this to be a place where they can actually engage with their customers is probably good and necessary.

As much as I've enjoyed posting here a bit recently, if I were them I'd probably just delete this as a waste of time and money, so seeing them actually get engaged with the forums a bit is probably a good sign.

[Rowan Amore]

12 minutes ago, skepwith said:

if they want this to be a place where they can actually engage with their customers is probably good and necessary.

It's never been a place for THEM to engage with US.  They rarely even bother unless someone is tagged specifically, they receive a bunch of ARs or, in my opinion, when a topic shows as "HOT".

If they actually wanted to engage with us, they'd allow comments on their very own blog posts, which AFAIK, they do not.

Edited July 30, 2022 by Rowan Amore

[LittleMe Jewell]

6 hours ago, Extrude Ragu said:

If Linden Labs considers Social Justice Issues inflammatory, why is it that they post about those topics on their blog every week?

This strikes me as a case of 'do as we say, not as we do' or perhaps 'rules for thee, not for me'

Folks cannot comment on their blog posts, so there is no chance of arguing and slamming folks.  It is the bickering that they don't want here.

[Miguel Rowley]

7 hours ago, Chaser Zaks said:

Personally I am kinda glad they brought down the hammer on political stuff. Political threads have always ended up heated with name calling, or just echo chambers because anyone with a disagreeing opinion would get dominated out of the thread(or too worried/scared to get engaged in the thread due to this). As a result, it presented a hostile environment to new combers who may have differing view points. My understanding is Second Life is for everyone, and political threads have kind of shown otherwise(at least, in the eyes of a new resident. Regulars would know that "that's how the forums have been").
Political threads have done nothing but cause drama and further a divide between residents on the forum. So I say good riddance to them.

I'm also glad about it.

I don't think the problem was with people having opposing takes on X political subject, and more because of the extremists cults making dumb and fake Ad Hominem attacks on how the person who is making the opposing opinion is a white straight male racist supremicist , or other kinds of shenanigans they would come up with, when the actual argument had NO REMARKS on the said person being that.

I bet if everyone had friendly discussions on those topics, we wouldn't have these new rules to begin with.

Edited July 30, 2022 by IGarrett
Removing confusion about my post

[Lindal Kidd]

...haz a sad.

[Brightstar7777]

1 hour ago, IGarrett said:

I bet if everyone had friendly discussions on those topics, we wouldn't have these new rules to begin with.

I don't think that's it. I think they're in the awkward position of trying to maintain service in venues that are increasingly more illiberal than was the cosmopolitan norm eighteen years ago. They represent the ethos of California and the west coast spirit, but now they have to pretend to be respectful of voices that say women don't have basic reproductive health rights, that say that it's questionable that same sex people should marry and it's offensive to God that transgender people exist at all. They have to respect apartheid if they want to operate in a nation that has that. They have to respect war, and nuclear proliferation, and the most withering destructive failings and excesses of capitalism. Even meaning itself isn't safe, and every defense of it is a controversy, but they want silence, not controversy, in the face of a changing world amidst timeless immortal standards of human equality and justice.  To operate a global Internet multiuser service, they now have to respect even the most depraved demands of theocracy as implemented by men who care little about life, love, light, or Earth. They have to respect every tin despot whose jurisdiction they intend to operate in, whether it's in Tehran, Tel Aviv, or Toledo. In some venues, things are proceeding to get unthinkably ugly. Just look at what's happening to Disney! Linden Lab doesn't have Disney's clout, they're little people. What can they do to protect the vulnerable? Perhaps they have now decided that it's better to ignore the inequity grinding down the lives of some of our users rather than operate an underground press or railroad. If our governments can't protect us, isn't it folly to expect more from Linden Lab or the spirits of this place? And yet there are spirits, and a legacy worn deep into the meta associated with this place.  I don't need to wonder how they feel about it.

Edited July 30, 2022 by Brightstar7777

[blissfulbreeze]

I agree with the new rules. If people want to talk about things other than Second Life, there's tons of forums and groups out there. While I do enjoy discussing other topics, LL has a right to narrow down the forums. It's become a food flinging talk show at times. It's not LL's responsibility to babysit and separate people from each other. 

TLDR: Find a way to whine and tantrum elsewhere. 

[skepwith]

56 minutes ago, IGarrett said:

 ...because of the extremists cults making dumb, low IQ, and fake Ad Hominem attacks on how the person who is making the opposing opinion is a white straight male racist supremicist , or other kinds of shenanigans...

I bet if everyone had friendly discussions on those topics...

Sounds like the thought police need to call in the irony police for backup.

[blissfulbreeze]

54 minutes ago, IGarrett said:

 

I bet if everyone had friendly discussions on those topics, we wouldn't have these new rules to begin with.

For years LL allowed so much on these forums. People had so many chances to try to get along and compromise. It hasn't happened because too many want to use the forums as their soapbox. 

Let Second Life be a fantasy world as it should be. An escape from RL. A place of creativity, fun, and so much more. ❤️

[Luna Bliss]

[LittleMe Jewell]

11 minutes ago, blissfulbreeze said:

too many want to use the forums as their soapbox.

That pretty much describes every online platform that people join.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

24 minutes ago, Brightstar7777 said:

They represent the ethos of California and the west coast spirit, but now they have to pretend to be respectful of voices that say women don't have basic reproductive health rights, that say that it's questionable that same sex people should marry and it's offensive to God that transgender people exist at all. They have to respect apartheid if they want to operate in a nation that has that. They have to respect war, and nuclear proliferation, and the most withering destructive failings and excesses of capitalism. Even meaning itself isn't safe, and every defense of it is a controversy, but they want silence, not controversy, in the face of a changing world amidst timeless immortal standards of equality and justice. They have to respect theocracy, even if it's instituted by a bunch of insanely immoral demon-possed men who care little about life, love, light, or Earth. They have to respect have every tin despot whose jurisdiction they intend to operate in, whether it's in Tehran, Tel Aviv, or Toledo. In some venues, things are proceeding to get unthinkably ugly.

This. Eloquently put.

You can see it in some of the responses here that equate "politics" with "social justice" (which, I'll remind everyone again, is the only "political" stance actually prohibited by name in the new guidelines). Being "political" now means, apparently, drawing attention to implicit inequities and assumptions behind blandly-expressed misogyny, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. in a statement. We are to let those "stand," because challenging their premises would constitute "politics."

We are, in other words, to "tolerate the intolerant," as Karl Popper would have it.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise."

The latter is no longer an option on this forum.

"Politics" isn't going to disappear. It's going to remain seething and bubbling in its corrosive manner just below the surface, where it will do its harm unseen and unchecked.

And this forum is going to become a much less "tolerant," welcoming, and inclusive community as a result.

[Luna Bliss]

I've had varied experiences during my time in Social Work and with friends who stayed in the profession vented about their challenging days , and during my time as a teenage runaway.
I saw a baby living in poverty, asleep on a cold floor with a plastic bag inches from its head.  I can't unsee that.
I saw a big burly black man cry because women grabbed their purses tighter when he approached, assuming he was a criminal.
I saw study after study after study verifying that we have hate in our hearts for those who are different from ourselves.

Social Justice is what love looks like in public, someone much wiser than myself said.
How the hell did social justice (HUMAN RIGHTS) ever become something to fight over, or just a "difference of opinion"?

Edited July 30, 2022 by Luna Bliss

[Miguel Rowley]

21 minutes ago, skepwith said:

Sounds like the thought police need to call in the irony police for backup.

There is no irony in calling slander accusations instead of addressing the actual argument of "Dumb"

But nice try though.

Edited July 30, 2022 by IGarrett

[Arielle Popstar]

[Luna Bliss]

8 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

This. Eloquently put.

You can see it in some of the responses here that equate "politics" with "social justice" (which, I'll remind everyone again, is the only "political" stance actually prohibited by name in the new guidelines). Being "political" now means, apparently, drawing attention to implicit inequities and assumptions behind blandly-expressed misogyny, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. in a statement. We are to let those "stand," because challenging their premises would constitute "politics."

We are, in other words, to "tolerate the intolerant," as Karl Popper would have it.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise."

The latter is no longer an option on this forum.

"Politics" isn't going to disappear. It's going to remain seething and bubbling in its corrosive manner just below the surface, where it will do its harm unseen and unchecked.

And this forum is going to become a much less "tolerant," welcoming, and inclusive community as a result.

If I can't confront social injustice when I see it I'd rather not be here.  Too painful.

[blissfulbreeze]

2 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

That pretty much describes every online platform that people join.

I agree. I'm an admin for an author that has 2 FB pages and 2 groups. One page has over 2 million likes. The rules for his pages and groups is to stay on topic. An excerpt is posted and we discuss it in the groups. I have to heavily moderate due to people trying to slide in off topic comments. Yes, it's human nature but it creates chaos for the members who are trying to focus. We have to run a tight ship to keep things running smoothly and focused. It's a pleasant and safe place.

[Brightstar7777]

10 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I saw study after study after study verifying that we have hate in our hearts for those who are different from ourselves.

Social Justice is what love looks like in public, someone much wiser than myself said.
How the hell did social justice (HUMAN RIGHTS) ever become something to fight over, or just a "difference of opinion"?

I think it's fear, not hate. Nobody (or very few) set out to be hateful, but what fear calcifies into is itself quite spiteful when it's connected to a fear that was centrally authored and mass distributed as a weapon of control deployed into civilian society.

What do people fear? Ultimately, they fear themselves because they contain the entire experience. The idea that someone uses this fear as a garden in which to cultivate hate is troubling, and yet that describes succinctly the relationship between the new fashionable authorities and the peoples of this world as has lately arisen to new prominence. 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Brightstar7777

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, IGarrett said:

There is no irony in calling false slander accusations instead of addressing the actual argument of "Dumb"

And if that is all you had done, I doubt you'd have been called out on it.

Instead, this is what you said:

1 hour ago, IGarrett said:

the extremists cults making dumb, low IQ, and fake Ad Hominem attacks on how the person who is making the opposing opinion is a white straight male racist supremicist

You don't think that this is a "political" statement? You want to argue that there are no implicit assumptions about the origin of what you view as "dumb" attacks here?

This is precisely what I meant by the implicit assumption that "politics" means "Left" here. You apparently don't see labeling anyone calling out "white straight male racist supremacists" as "political," right? There is absolutely no ideological foundation to the fact that you have singled out "social justice warriors" or whatever you call us for scorn, correct?

But I bet you see my criticism of your assumptions as "political."