I see the SecondLife Thought Police have arrived.

[Arielle Popstar]

44 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

"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."

If one is intolerant of the intolerant, where is the win? One has only justified intolerance by example. Doesn't it say somewhere that by loving the enemy, one pours hot coals upon their heads (meant figurative)? Loving the enemy regardless of their hate, goes some way to make that one question their own intolerance when they see you at peace and disaffected by their tirade.

[Luna Bliss]

9 minutes ago, blissfulbreeze said:

LL is a for profit business. They have a right to want to focus on their business plans and goals. 

I agree up to a point, bliss (like your name btw..lol)....but...I'm not sure their decision will actually improve their business. People have stated a lot of reasons why these changes might hurt rather than help them. It's a more complicated equation than the money spent for moderators.

I'm not championing for anything ad hominem, of course, or extensive political debate. But to wipe out all of real life is Draconian and unnecessary and stifles discussion. RL & SL are very intertwined, so the separation even feels bizarre to me.

Edited July 30, 2022 by Luna Bliss

[Innula Zenovka]

9 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

And yet there are literally hundreds of threads that relate directly to secondlife itself and yet some seem to have a need to delve into the threads they hate. Why is that? 

It's not that I'm not interested in the topics.    I'm not interested, though, in reading posts putting forward views I consider completely wrong and unacceptable,  and I don't want to get into acrimonious debates with people whose minds I have no chance of changing.     They presumably feel the same way about me,  which is why, when I read the threads to see what people in whose views I'm interested have to say, I try (not always successfully) not to engage with the other side unless it's to correct an obvious misrepresentation of the facts or a glaring error in their logic.

Unfortunately, some variant of Gresham's law seems to apply in most cases, and bad posts and posters rapidly drive out the good ones from a thread, at least in my experience.

[skepwith]

41 minutes ago, IGarrett said:

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

But nice try though.

You're the one who threw a bunch of aggressive, attacking statements out there and then complained how we can't have friendly discussion. You are actively inciting people to not have friendly discussions with you. You are completely unselfaware and that is extremely hilarious to me.

[Miguel Rowley]

1 minute ago, skepwith said:

You're the one who threw a bunch of aggressive, attacking statements out there and then complained how we can't have friendly discussion. You are actively inciting people to not have friendly discussions with you. You are completely unselfaware and that is extremely hilarious to me.

Me saying that statements of people who attack other persons characters because they have different points of views than them "dumb" and explaining why it's dumb  "bunch of aggressive, attacking statements"?

Talk about unselfaware.

[Theresa Tennyson]

6 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

If one is intolerant of the intolerant, where is the win? One has only justified intolerance by example.

Is "not extending unlimited tolerance" the same as being "intolerant"? Because those were the words Scylla used.

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, IGarrett said:

unselfaware

I don't mean to be picky, but are you aware that is not a word  😝

[Sorciaa]

just reading some of the comments here its not one bit surprising they are clamping down.

[Persephone Emerald]

5 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

It's not that I'm not interested in the topics.    I'm not interested, though, in reading posts putting forward views I consider completely wrong and unacceptable,  and I don't want to get into acrimonious debates with people whose minds I have no chance of changing.     They presumably feel the same way about me,  which is why, when I read the threads to see what people in whose views I'm interested have to say, I try (not always successfully) not to engage with the other side unless it's to correct an obvious misrepresentation of the facts or a glaring error in their logic.

Unfortunately, some variant of Gresham's law seems to apply in most cases, and bad posts and posters rapidly drive out the good ones from a thread, at least in my experience.

I don't like some of the fashion styles in SL, yet I will defend the right of others to wear them. When I see those people in SL, I may think negative things about them to myself, but I don't stop going to events or stores because people there might dress in a way I don't like. I let it go and keep walking. I can stand to see some things I don't like because their world is their world, and their differences don't infringe on my right to have my own views and tastes.

[Miguel Rowley]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

I don't mean to be picky, but are you aware that is not a word  😝

 

9 minutes ago, skepwith said:

. You are completely unselfaware and that is extremely hilarious to me.

I just copied her word, so my bad if that's not a word haha

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

If one is intolerant of the intolerant, where is the win? One has only justified intolerance by example. Doesn't it say somewhere that by loving the enemy, one pours hot coals upon their heads (meant figurative)? Loving the enemy regardless of their hate, goes some way to make that one question their own intolerance when they see you at peace and disaffected by their tirade.

Well, Popper goes on in some detail about why intolerance is intolerable. And, it's called the "Paradox of Tolerance" for a reason, because it is, of course, apparently paradoxical.

To keep it short and sweet, "tolerating the intolerant" ultimately leads to the destruction of tolerance itself, because there is an imbalance: the tolerant may choose to tolerate the intolerant, and allow them equal voice, but those on the other side -- the intolerant -- are, by definition, under no such obligation. It is literally their aim to destroy tolerance.

I should note that this argument is not directed against Left or Right: it applies equally to both. Popper himself supported an open, liberal democracy, and his political views ranged widely across the spectrum. He was a pluralist, and he believed in a pluralist culture. (As do I.)

[skepwith]

Just now, IGarrett said:

Me saying that statements of people who attack other persons characters because they have different points of views than them "dumb" and explaining why it's dumb  "bunch of aggressive, attacking statements"?

Talk about unselfaware.

But that's not what you said. Here's what you said:

2 hours ago, IGarrett said:

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, 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 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.

I mean, I know you can't see it, so I'm not going to step through it, but lmao

[Scylla Rhiadra]

6 minutes ago, IGarrett said:

Me saying that statements of people who attack other persons characters because they have different points of views than them "dumb" and explaining why it's dumb  "bunch of aggressive, attacking statements"?

Talk about unselfaware.

What exactly do you mean by "cancel culture," Garrett? Can you explain?

This isn't by any chance a dog whistle used on the Right to characterize social justice, is it?

Because that would be political, you know.

[blissfulbreeze]

9 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I agree up to a point, bliss (like your name btw..lol)....but...I'm not sure their decision will actually improve their business. People have stated a lot of reasons why these changes might hurt rather than help them. It's a more complicated equation than the money spent for moderators.

I'm not championing for anything ad hominem, of course, or extensive political debate. But to wipe out all of real life is Draconian and unnecessary and stifles discussion. RL & SL are very intertwined, so the separation even feels bizarre to me.

The thing is, heavy RL topics don't belong here.

[Persephone Emerald]

4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't mean to be picky, but are you aware that is not a word  😝

It's ok. English is good at making up new words. Most of our "un" words were invented by William Shakespeare and now we consider them proper English.

[Arielle Popstar]

7 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

It's not that I'm not interested in the topics.    I'm not interested, though, in reading posts putting forward views I consider completely wrong and unacceptable,  and I don't want to get into acrimonious debates with people whose minds I have no chance of changing.     They presumably feel the same way about me,  which is why, when I read the threads to see what people in whose views I'm interested have to say, I try (not always successfully) not to engage with the other side unless it's to correct an obvious misrepresentation of the facts or a glaring error in their logic.

Unfortunately, some variant of Gresham's law seems to apply in most cases, and bad posts and posters rapidly drive out the good ones from a thread, at least in my experience.

Well I don't disagree with anything you said there and do some aspects myself regularly but likely on different topics as I usually stick to only a few that I am interested in and pass over the hundreds of others. There are posters who for the most part don't often say anything that resonates with me but mostly still read their posts in a thread I am interested in because sometimes I do find a tidbit in one that is valuable. Everyone has something of value to say but yes, for some it is harder to find.

[skepwith]

7 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't mean to be picky, but are you aware that is not a word  😝

Please don't make me defend I guy I just added to my ignore list but I'd say it's used enough to merit being called a word. Lexical items get added to dictionaries after they're in use, not the other way around.

[Persephone Emerald]

10 minutes ago, skepwith said:

 

I mean, I know you can't see it, so I'm not going to step through in it, but lmao

Fixed it for you.

Edited July 30, 2022 by Persephone Emerald

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, blissfulbreeze said:

The thing is, heavy RL topics don't belong here.

Inworld we have a myriad of groups pertaining to very heavy RL topics. I would think that by referencing such topics here on the forum those visiting the forum would see we have an intelligent, multi-faceted, engaged community in Second Life.  That they would understand SL is not just a fantasy, roleplaying game.

Perhaps LL wants to get away from anything real now, and be 'just a game'.  I don't think that's a good move.

[Miguel Rowley]

4 minutes ago, skepwith said:

But that's not what you said. Here's what you said:

I mean, I know you can't see it, so I'm not going to step through it, but lmao

Well, In my point of view, I just explained it on a better detail why do I think slander statements like I was mentioning are dumb,

But if you think I made a mistake or I was "mean" like you said be free to explain that better to me then.

[Luna Bliss]

5 minutes ago, skepwith said:

14 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't mean to be picky, but are you aware that is not a word  😝

Please don't make me defend I guy I just added to my ignore list but I'd say it's used enough to merit being called a word. Lexical items get added to dictionaries after they're in use, not the other way around.

Truthfully I just wanted to pick on him ever so slightly because he used that egregious term "cancel culture".  LOL

[Scylla Rhiadra]

This conversation has, predictably, become "political" in pretty much exactly the way one might have assumed it would. Someone has blandly made a statement employing dog whistles and unspoken but clearly implied ethical judgements about "one side," and that has been challenged.

As indeed, I believe it should. And as I hope that unsupportable statements that I make would be, because that is how I learn.

But that's precisely what is no longer permitted here. It's not merely that I can no longer comfortably challenge questionable assumptions, dog whistles, and so forth. I can't learn anything here without vigorous but civil discussion about it. And such discussion is literally no longer allowed here.

Most of this discussion will shortly, I'm sure, be nuked.

So, I'm leaving for a while. We'll see how this pans out, but I'm not going to be posting in a place where I feel I have to tiptoe quietly around the articulation of intolerant or misinformed ideas for fear of being sanctioned and disciplined.

I have made an enormous number of friends here over the years, people who I love and respect and whose goodwill I value, regardless of their position on the "political spectrum." So, I don't plan to disappear entirely. And I'll be keeping an eye on the place to see how this pans out in practice.

Love to you all.

[Persephone Emerald]

6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Perhaps LL wants to get away from anything real now, and be 'just a game'.  I don't think that's a good move.

Given the state of the RL world, it might be what many people want now though.

Edited July 30, 2022 by Persephone Emerald

[Miguel Rowley]

37 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

I can accept that you might think a post is dumb, but a post has no IQ. A post is just words. Only a person can have an IQ, so by referring to a post as "low IQ", you're actually saying it's a post made by a person with a low IQ.

This is similar to my housemate saying that she thinks SL is delusional. Only a person can be delusional, so what that statement is really saying is either that SL is full delusional people or that anyone enjoying a virtual platform is delusional.

Words have mutually accepted meanings. Connotations have meanings too, even if they might be a bit more fuzzy than the explicit dictionary definitions of words.

I've seen a lot of people calling statements "low IQ" as another form to say that the statement was dumb, that's why I used these 2 forms to begin with it, to "reinforce" that idea, and also, if you see my post about it, I think it's clear that the "low IQ" was directed to the statements itself, and not the actual person.

However, I do see your point on why people can think that, so I guess I can refrain saying that to avoid confusion.

[Katherine Heartsong]

19 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, Popper goes on in some detail about why intolerance is intolerable. And, it's called the "Paradox of Tolerance" for a reason, because it is, of course, apparently paradoxical.

To keep it short and sweet, "tolerating the intolerant" ultimately leads to the destruction of tolerance itself, because there is an imbalance: the tolerant may choose to tolerate the intolerant, and allow them equal voice, but those on the other side -- the intolerant -- are, by definition, under no such obligation. It is literally their aim to destroy tolerance.

I should note that this argument is not directed against Left or Right: it applies equally to both. Popper himself supported an open, liberal democracy, and his political views ranged widely across the spectrum. He was a pluralist, and he believed in a pluralist culture. (As do I.)

Anyone who is familiar with the work of Karl Popper gets a huge thumbs up from me.