Is Second Life more toxic than other games in general?

[BilliJo Aldrin]

49 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

There is also point of view, personally the most toxic person I know in sl I have met in forums only. I never read their posts anymore. They however regard themselves as one of the non toxic nice people. Ironically they have even posted in this thread about the toxicity of others

It's probably one of the people I have blocked 😁

[Robberinthemuseum]

2 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

It's probably one of the people I have blocked 😁

I was just thinking that 😆

[Prokofy Neva]

On 12/29/2023 at 5:07 PM, Arielle Popstar said:

Sure but it should lead me to ask myself what it is about me that attracts people like that.

No, it doesn't, because that is some warmed-over 1960s or 1970s pop psych paperback thesis which has no validity.

Worse, it's truly a ghastly thesis for society, because it means that little children playing in their schoolyard who now have no legs after a Russian bombing "deserved it" because of some conflict about which they could understand nothing. That little children in their cribs in Gaza bombed by Israel "had it coming" because of something their rulers did. 

It's about as far away as you can get from any notion of civil society and the rule of law -- and just law in a liberal democratic society.

It leads to "might makes right," because at any time, a vicious griefer, like a terrorist, can say they were "smashing capitalism," or "evil land barons exploit the people" and should have their sim crashed. Or whatever. 

In fact, this is the key to understanding the griefers' success in society -- that people like you enable them, by thinking that the targets somehow "attract it" or "deserve it" by either "bad karma" or unspecified "bad deeds" -- even if the punishment isn't commensurate with the alleged crime.

Thanks for illustrating this principle so nicely. It explains a lot.

That you get a bunch of yahoos on the forums to nod and smirk and likey-like means nothing because this principle is NOT one you actually ever want applied to you.

Let's say you put out 500 prims in a 70 prim rental, deliberately. The landlord returns all the prims and evicts you. Did you have this coming? What about you made this happen? Were your actions in fact to blame, not "something about you"? Was the landlord fair? Did he have a rule like this? Etc. 

When you get in a car accident in RL, or even you just lose your expensive virtual car in a crash in SL, you don't say to yourself, "I shouldn't have put out those 500 prims." 

 

[Persephone Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

No, it doesn't, because that is some warmed-over 1960s or 1970s pop psych paperback thesis which has no validity.

Worse, it's truly a ghastly thesis for society, because it means that little children playing in their schoolyard who now have no legs after a Russian bombing "deserved it" because of some conflict about which they could understand nothing. That little children in their cribs in Gaza bombed by Israel "had it coming" because of something their rulers did. 

It's about as far away as you can get from any notion of civil society and the rule of law -- and just law in a liberal democratic society.

It leads to "might makes right," because at any time, a vicious griefer, like a terrorist, can say they were "smashing capitalism," or "evil land barons exploit the people" and should have their sim crashed. Or whatever. 

In fact, this is the key to understanding the griefers' success in society -- that people like you enable them, by thinking that the targets somehow "attract it" or "deserve it" by either "bad karma" or unspecified "bad deeds" -- even if the punishment isn't commensurate with the alleged crime.

Thanks for illustrating this principle so nicely. It explains a lot.

That you get a bunch of yahoos on the forums to nod and smirk and likey-like means nothing because this principle is NOT one you actually ever want applied to you.

Let's say you put out 500 prims in a 70 prim rental, deliberately. The landlord returns all the prims and evicts you. Did you have this coming? What about you made this happen? Were your actions in fact to blame, not "something about you"? Was the landlord fair? Did he have a rule like this? Etc. 

When you get in a car accident in RL, or even you just lose your expensive virtual car in a crash in SL, you don't say to yourself, "I shouldn't have put out those 500 prims." 

You're stretching what Arielle said to include a bunch of things she didn't say. I agree that the "Everything happens for a reason" idea can be widely overused to blame victims for things that happened to them, but in this case she specifically asked if there might be a reason you attracted griefers who would go so far out of their way as to call your RL home.

Maybe it's just the price of doing business in SL when some people are bound to be jerks? 

[Prokofy Neva]

12 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

You're stretching what Arielle said to include a bunch of things she didn't say. I agree that the "Everything happens for a reason" idea can be widely overused to blame victims for things that happened to them, but in this case she specifically asked if there might be a reason you attracted griefers who would go so far out of their way as to call your RL home.

Maybe it's just the price of doing business in SL when some people are bound to be jerks? 

Go back and read what I just wrote. It applies. In spades.

I don't accept the thesis that "there could be a reason..."

I COMPLETELY reject that thesis because it is a criminal thesis. It means that outlaws get to mete out "justice" to people they think "deserve it."

There is nothing that anyone does anywhere -- their lifestyle, their beliefs, their blogs, their business in SL -- NOTHING in RL or SL that "deserves" griefing or "attracts it" in some way -- which is always and everywhere blaming the victim.

I reject the concept of "blaming the victim."

I reject the idea that someone should examine their conscience or reflect on their behaviour to see how they may have "attracted griefing" because griefing is wrong, and nothing anyone does anywhere should attract it -- because it is wrong, and unlawful.

This seems to be hard for you to grasp, and that's a big problem in SL.

Taylor Lorenz doesn't deserve to be ridiculed and hounded and misrepresented because she has an immune disease and doesn't choose to have a party at her house in the holiday. She's an outspoken public figure but there is no need for her to reflect what she might have done or said to "attract the hate" because...the haters are wrong to start with.

If someone shoots at an intruder in a safe zone and griefs them back, that may be another story. 

But just because someone is an outspoken public figure -- that's what you mean, isn't it -- doesn't mean they "attract griefing" -- and by implication then must shut up, stand down, "not feed the trolls" and blah blah blah.

Again, I reject all of those theses as utterly unsound.

Some GOP Congressman in Upstate New York who I wouldn't vote for and don't agree with does not "deserve" to be swatted. Swatting is wrong. Swatting can cost lives. He gets to be an unmolested public figure if people voted for him. 

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by Prokofy Neva

[Luna Bliss]

[Luna Bliss]

Yes laugh, Arielle...having sooo much fun  

[Prokofy Neva]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

You might like to visit my installation where I have a card "Why Twelve-Step Programs Doesn't Work".

Basically, it's about infantilization.

 

[Arielle Popstar]

On 12/29/2023 at 5:07 PM, Arielle Popstar said:

Sure but it should lead me to ask myself what it is about me that attracts people like that.

2 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

No, it doesn't, because that is some warmed-over 1960s or 1970s pop psych paperback thesis which has no validity.

Worse, it's truly a ghastly thesis for society, because it means that little children playing in their schoolyard who now have no legs after a Russian bombing "deserved it" because of some conflict about which they could understand nothing. That little children in their cribs in Gaza bombed by Israel "had it coming" because of something their rulers did. 

It's about as far away as you can get from any notion of civil society and the rule of law -- and just law in a liberal democratic society.

It leads to "might makes right," because at any time, a vicious griefer, like a terrorist, can say they were "smashing capitalism," or "evil land barons exploit the people" and should have their sim crashed. Or whatever. 

In fact, this is the key to understanding the griefers' success in society -- that people like you enable them, by thinking that the targets somehow "attract it" or "deserve it" by either "bad karma" or unspecified "bad deeds" -- even if the punishment isn't commensurate with the alleged crime.

Thanks for illustrating this principle so nicely. It explains a lot.

That you get a bunch of yahoos on the forums to nod and smirk and likey-like means nothing because this principle is NOT one you actually ever want applied to you.

Let's say you put out 500 prims in a 70 prim rental, deliberately. The landlord returns all the prims and evicts you. Did you have this coming? What about you made this happen? Were your actions in fact to blame, not "something about you"? Was the landlord fair? Did he have a rule like this? Etc. 

When you get in a car accident in RL, or even you just lose your expensive virtual car in a crash in SL, you don't say to yourself, "I shouldn't have put out those 500 prims." 

 

 

It is nothing more then a reinterpretation of the maxim's to "know thyself" and how the "unexamined life is not worth living" which predate pop psychology by a few thousand years. It is also based somewhat on the idea that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

Trying to use one time victimization events as a basis for not having to look at habitual victimization scenerios is a weak argument and it surprises me to see you attempt it.

The business man who continually suffers from losses which others do not or the man or woman who continually gets into abusive relationships would do well to ask themselves what it is that attracts those sort of things if they wish it to stop. You can only blame others for one's bad luck for so long before it starts becoming obvious that maybe there is something I do or be that brings this on myself.

[Luna Bliss]

4 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

You might like to visit my installation where I have a card "Why Twelve-Step Programs Doesn't Work".

Basically, it's about infantilization.

I will check it out...have not heard that.

I remember some feminists getting upset about the philosophy....felt they did not want to hand over their power to another (I guess they mean God?).

[Luna Bliss]

4 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Trying to use one time victimization events as a basis for not having to look at habitual victimization scenerios is a weak argument and it surprises me to see you attempt it.

I think Prok was harassed by some group of griefers if I remember right...some faux college...they caused a lot of trouble for many...not just Prok.  And you know how it goes...you stand up to bullies and they double down.

The rest of the stuff...we're heading into an analysis of how society in general handles the abused vs the abusers. I don't believe those who have been abused attracted the abuse in any way, and to claim so is perpetuating the abuse for them.

As I said earlier, regarding the OP, we don't know what happened to her that caused her to feel so negative about SL. Could very well be something extreme happened, and that takes time to get over and develop a clearer perspective (and not blame the entire game or believe it to be totally toxic).

[Prokofy Neva]

4 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

It is nothing more then a reinterpretation of the maxim's to "know thyself" and how the "unexamined life is not worth living" which predate pop psychology by a few thousand years. It is also based somewhat on the idea that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

Trying to use one time victimization events as a basis for not having to look at habitual victimization scenerios is a weak argument and it surprises me to see you attempt it.

The business man who continually suffers from losses which others do not or the man or woman who continually gets into abusive relationships would do well to ask themselves what it is that attracts those sort of things if they wish it to stop. You can only blame others for one's bad luck for so long before it starts becoming obvious that maybe there is something I do or be that brings this on myself.

No, like I said, it's rewarmed 1970s pop psych.

Knowing yourself is a noble and valid exercise -- it doesn't involve validating griefers who commit crimes, which you seem to want it to do.

It's not insane to live your Second Life using the available land tools and hope for harmony and happiness. The good news, most people are decent, and most of the time, you do not have adverse results by leaving groups open to join without fuss and leaving land to rez on immediately without waiting for an absentee landlord to show up. Most of the time. Imagine that. I don't think I should warp my SL around the tiny percent of miscreants and change my use of the affordances of SL; the Lindens should instead ban obvious recidivists so it sticks and stop listening to word salad.

No, no, no. No woman deserves to be beaten by her partner, end of story. You don't say "was it your short skirt?" or "was it your pushy attitude?" Because beating is wrong. She doesn't "bring it on herself" -- the abusive man is wrong, full stop.

These are basics, and it truly is a shame that Internet-bred youth have a different notion of all this, in part based on magical thinking.

 

[Luna Bliss]

4 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

It is also based somewhat on the idea that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

I might agree with this as it pertains to being a landlord.  I'd be on serious meds if I'd continued to be a landlord for all the years Prok has, or possibly locked up somewhere. So kudos to Prok for tolerating the public as well as she does.

[Arielle Popstar]

14 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

You might like to visit my installation where I have a card "Why Twelve-Step Programs Doesn't Work".

Basically, it's about infantilization.

 

As of today for me it is 30 years of life I wouldn't have had as a direct result of how 12 Step programs  DO Work for those who work them.

[Persephone Emerald]

14 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

You might like to visit my installation where I have a card "Why Twelve-Step Programs Doesn't Work".

Basically, it's about infantilization.

B.S.

12 step programs do work for many people. They just aren't a good fit for everyone.

Hypnotherapy, acupuncture, and any number of other types of therapy or treatments also don't work for everyone, yet show proven results for many people.

- This discussion has nothing to do with whether SL is toxic or not, though derailment of threads might be considered part of the toxicity of the forums.

Edited January 1 by Persephone Emerald

[Luna Bliss]

22 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

14 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

You might like to visit my installation where I have a card "Why Twelve-Step Programs Doesn't Work".

Basically, it's about infantilization.

 

As of today for me it is 30 years of life I wouldn't have had as a direct result of how 12 Step programs  DO Work for those who work them.

Congrats~!    I've known many who were helped by AA.  This is an interesting read on the 12-steps, tracing its origins to Gnosticism, a philosophy I very much like:

https://www.veronicavalli.com/blog/2020/1/12/the-misinformation-about-alcoholics-anonymous-and-sobriety-1

However part of the 12-steps awareness one seeks would be to not assume one knows what another has gone through and blame them for the situation...most especially when all the details are not known.

 

Edited January 1 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

22 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

15 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

You might like to visit my installation where I have a card "Why Twelve-Step Programs Doesn't Work".

Basically, it's about infantilization.

B.S.

12 step programs do work for many people. They just aren't a good fit for everyone.

Hypnotherapy, acupuncture, and any number of other types of therapy or treatments also don't work for everyone, yet show proven results for many people.

- This discussion has nothing to do with whether SL is toxic or not, though derailment of threads might be considered part of the toxicity of the forums.

Arielle started the derailment though by claiming Prok's estimation of what is toxic in SL is not valid, and she based this evaluation on how she interprets what the 12-steps proposes.

Unfortunately, our personal beliefs will influence whether we think SL is toxic.  They should not used to devalue another person however, assuming we know their motives and the details of their experience.

[Solar Legion]

Well that was only a matter of time ....

Since no one else seems to have said it quite as bluntly, I'll be the "villain" here - News Flash: Like it or not, not every single "victim" is in fact, a victim. This is a very harsh truth that complicates matters quite a bit.

Others have already chimed in on the absolute BS statement that certain things do not work (globally/as a rule).

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Since no one else seems to have said it quite as bluntly, I'll be the "villain" here - News Flash: Like it or not, not every single "victim" is in fact, a victim. This is a very harsh truth that complicates matters quite a bit.

I agree.

Did somebody say that everyone who claims to be a "victim" is in fact a victim though?

[Luna Bliss]

11 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

No, no, no. No woman deserves to be beaten by her partner, end of story. You don't say "was it your short skirt?" or "was it your pushy attitude?" Because beating is wrong. She doesn't "bring it on herself" -- the abusive man is wrong, full stop.

These are basics, and it truly is a shame that Internet-bred youth have a different notion of all this, in part based on magical thinking.

This is interesting to consider -- why there is so much blaming of the victim in situations where it's very clear who the perpetrator is.

My take on it -- for years and years certain degrees of violence against those thought to be lesser in society was acceptable (the beating of children and wives, a husband was allowed to r*pe his wife, much of the sexual abuse against women and children was not generally believed, many thought all kinds of minorities did not deserve equal rights, the poor were thought to be totally responsible for their plight...on and on).

But now..in the last few decades...the oppressed have come forth to seek their rights.   Many don't like this, as they want to keep their advantages and keep others down.  Hence, this victimization of the victim through blaming them for their plight is a kind of backlash.

I consider the blaming of victims to be very toxic, and don't like seeing such toxicity on the forum or inworld.

Edited January 1 by Luna Bliss

[Love Zhaoying]

If only we could find an example of a toxic discussion..

If only..

 

[Persephone Emerald]

45 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

This is interesting to consider -- why there is so much blaming of the victim in situations where it's very clear who the perpetrator is.

Another example, blaming Linden Lab for toxicity inworld or in the forums, when it is clearly the users who are to blame.

 

[Arielle Popstar]

11 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

No, like I said, it's rewarmed 1970s pop psych.

Knowing yourself is a noble and valid exercise -- it doesn't involve validating griefers who commit crimes, which you seem to want it to do.

Forgiving and letting go off the negative behaviours and toxicity of others is not a validation but a releasing the hold it has on the victim of them. The former victim will no longer feel the emotional impact of that event and is free to to be happy and peaceful in spite of those who are toxic. Forgiveness is for the benefit of the victim, not the perpetrators. Do you have some sort of issue with former victims feeling good and no longer being haunted by negative people and the actions they perpetrated? Seems that way with how you and some are carrying on.

Quote

No, no, no. No woman deserves to be beaten by her partner, end of story. You don't say "was it your short skirt?" or "was it your pushy attitude?" Because beating is wrong. She doesn't "bring it on herself" -- the abusive man is wrong, full stop.

Well to be honest when one wishes to dress for "success" whether in business or relationships, then one will use that sort of fashion to attract the sort of person desired. So if I want a strong, assertive partner then the short miniskirt along with the leather vest, unbuttoned to show lots of cleavage and no bra will doubtlessly lead me to find a kind, caring, sensitive soul at the local biker bar ready to hook up for a match made in heaven. What could go wrong?

 

Quote

These are basics, and it truly is a shame that Internet-bred youth have a different notion of all this, in part based on magical thinking.

I suspect the real problem is that some don't understand that forgiveness is about freeing the victim from allowing a past incident to dictate the quality of their life, long after the incident is past.

Edited January 1 by Arielle Popstar
cleanup

[Love Zhaoying]

. Wrong thread!

 

Edited January 1 by Love Zhaoying

[Rowan Amore]

23 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Forgiving and letting go off the negative behaviours and toxicity of others is not a validation but a releasing the hold it has on the victim of them. The former victim will no longer feel the emotional impact of that event and is free to to be happy and peaceful in spite of those who are toxic. Forgiveness is for the benefit of the victim, not the perpetrators. Do you have some sort of issue with former victims feeling good and no longer being haunted by negative people and the actions they perpetrated? Seems that way with how you and some are carrying on.

Well to be honest when one wishes to dress for "success" whether in business or relationships, then one will use that sort of fashion to attract the sort of person desired. So if I want a strong, assertive partner then the short miniskirt along with the leather vest, unbuttoned to show lots of cleavage and no bra will doubtlessly lead me to find a kind, caring, sensitive soul at the local biker bar ready to hook up for a match made in heaven. What could go wrong?

 

I suspect the real problem is that some don't understand that forgiveness is about freeing the victim from allowing a past incident to dictate the quality of their life, long after the incident is past.

I've seen friends exhibit the same patterns of behavior time and again in RL which often leads them to the same outcome, the same.choices in partners.  Until that friend changes their behavior or figures out WHY they keep choosing the same type, they are doomed.  That's not victim blaming, IMO.  They don't DESERVE that type of treatment but they do need to be responsible for their choices.