Jump to content

AyelaNewLife

Resident
  • Content Count

    730
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,959 Excellent

1 Follower

About AyelaNewLife

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

795 profile views
  1. It's hard to truly comprehend just how varied people's approaches to RL and SL, and the divide (if any) between the two. Not only does every individual player/user have their own general approach to that divide, but they'll usually draw the line in a different place (to a greater or lesser extent) depending on who they are engaging with, and that in turn is not static but evolves and changes over time. Some people insist upon identical reciprocation of whatever that line is, others have more of a "you can share whatever you want but this is my line" approach, with countless variations between the two. It's a full spectrum like that of colour, and while we can just about define arbitrary groups (with fuzzy edges), that's about it. Because of that, little notes in profiles should not be treated as gospel. They signal a direction of travel, rather than a comprehensive set of rigid regulations. You shouldn't expect any significant deviation from that, but be open to the possibility of change, or of unexpected nuance kicking in. Being able to handle that like an adult is key. That means not compromising on your own integrity while also not robbing other people of their own agency. Avoid making assumptions and cutting off contact over an assumed incompatibility, yet never budging on your own "red lines" simply to placate another. And, as always, communication is key. And as a side note, I detest the use of the word "lying" or "dishonest" to describe some of those who make a conscious decision to withhold elements of their personal information from those they engage with SL. It's the polar opposite of dishonesty. There is nothing even remotely deceptive about presenting a character/avatar in a virtual world to another character/avatar simply because that character/avatar varies from the physical you in arbitrarily-defined "unapproved" ways, and to claim otherwise (intentionally or unintentionally) is utterly ridiculous. Such an approach to language reveals just how narrow a mindset some people have, with a total disregard for any alternative angle that people might legitimately have. (Note: I'm aware OP was approaching this from a detached, "let's discuss this" approach; so I'm mostly ranting into the wind at the great many other people that do fall into this category. I imagine all of us here have seen and heard this attitude countless times, over the months and years.) I would however say that there is a minority trend that can be described as dishonest; those that invent an entire fake RL persona to couple with their SL persona. A person pretending to be a person pretending to be an avatar, as you will. Rather than drawing the line somewhere between SL and RL, they fabricate and offer up false RL information, while claiming it to be genuine... and I do think you'd be justified in feeling aggrieved if you're on the receiving end of that. Depending on how severe those fabrications are, of course; I frequently "smudge" what little RL info I give out, changing my age/vague location/job/etc a couple of degrees, and keeping most things intentionally vague, but I don't view that as the same thing as an outright invention. As with most things on this topic, mileage will vary and each to their own, and all that.
  2. As someone who did a boatload of sound tech stuff in my youth - the overwhelming majority of people haven't got the faintest idea how to use a microphone. Basic lessons in mic positioning, push-to-talk keys and reducing noise pollution would go a hell of a long way to making the voicing community in SL even remotely tolerable. Not that I'd voice myself; it ruins the immersion for me personally, and as I've had recordings of my voice leaked before, people I meet over the internet will have to make do with my typing or find someone else. And I fully agree with the comments about majority-voice groups being incredibly exclusionary, even if unintentionally. I've tried listening and typing, but it's honestly a horrible experience, and not something I have any desire to repeat.
  3. At the risk of sounding a little too conspiracy theory, Piers Morgan and Greggs share a publicity company (or parent company of said publicity companies), and a Piers Morgan freakout is some of the best advertising you can get Also, while I'm perfectly happy with people cutting some/all meat out of their diet for environmental reasons - watch what you replace it with. Heavily processed soy imported a significant difference can be on par and even worse than meat, in ecological terms - the footprint of meat varies wildly though, so it depends. Where I used to live, local beef and lamb raised on the hills and moors (not suitable for arable crops) is on par or better than many meat-replacement-heavy vegan diets, in purely eco terms. Where your food comes from and what has been done to it matters almost as much as what it actually is. (You can eat whatever the heck you want privately, of course; but if people are going to preach about their food habits, it helps if their diet is actually better)
  4. Honest answer is I'm not doing so hot. And I don't think there's a fix for that. Sorry.
  5. I finally caught up with the other posts I missed over the last few hours.
  6. I guess this all boils down to where you draw the line. If, as I have claimed, his actions and lack of care over this actions have inadvertently fueled transphobic hate but he himself is not a hatefilled bigot, I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. If, as Scylla has claimed, he has demonstrated genuine hate and discrimination in his actions, that pushes me the other side of the line. If that makes any sense? Edit: Just to repeat what I said earlier; I think it's very possible for your actions to cause discriminatory harm without there being any intent or malice behind said actions. And while you should be called out in that instance, that doesn't automatically make you a bigot. It makes you an idiot, or a jerk. And just to springboard off another point you made; he's an "evolutionary psychologist", his academic work is mostly around macro-level psychology and trends. Another major flaw of his is that he assumes everyone knows this. He has a tendency to go into interviews and make comments regarding gender equality, feminism and men/women at the population level; while they are both logical and outright correct at that statistical level, when applied to an individual those statements are ludicrous and offensive. He's therefore earned himself a reputation as a misogynist which is both unfair and at least partially his own fault. Hanlon's Razor in action. And thank you! I'm also supposed to be doing productive things... oops!
  7. Emphasis mine. This is a very new phenomenon, and not one most of society actually agrees with. Most major inspirational figures have a dark side. Gandhi was a racist who has been repeatedly quoted complaining that the British were treating the Indians as if they were black. Mandela founded a terror cell and beat his first wife. Dr King was a hypocritical philanderer. These men are (rightly) looked up to as iconic role models, because the balance of their actions is clearly weighted towards the good of society. I'm not claiming for one moment that Peterson has anywhere near the good side of those three pioneers and champions; because he doesn't. But as a concept, it's clear that actually society does look at the balance of actions, and it's only a small vocal minority which takes a zero tolerance stance on such things.
  8. I'm just going to skip the next half dozen posts and throw in this one early:
  9. I grew up in that late-millennial cohort where the transition happened during my childhood and teen years. Gameboys and other consoles were around from about when I started school, but the internet wasn't really a part of my childhood. Whereas it was a massive part of my teen years, with social media taking off as I hit puberty and mobiles evolving from black-and-white to smartphones during my schooling. Everything was new and unexplored, and innocent in a way. "Don't meet people off the internet" was about as far as safety and wellbeing concerns went. While the pace of change hasn't really let up, I do think there's an awareness now that there are risks and harmful consequences to all this innovation, even if we're largely unsure as to exactly what those consequences are. Progress, but still with much progress to go.
  10. I also have read the scientific journal titled "John Carter of Mars" (You're completely right, of course.)
  11. SL may or may not be a video game, but this is one of those cases where it can be treated as one regardless. Just as with any MMO, there's a small subset of the userbase with... less than pure intentions. SL may have fewer protections in place against that than most platforms, but the core danger is the same; bad word censors don't really stop the manipulation of the vulnerable and the naive. So when/if any hypothetical children are at the age and maturity where they can handle such problem players/residents, if/when they rear their ugly head, I would have no issue with them playing SL or whatever else they might be interested in. And I wish my parents had the experience necessary to make that judgement when I was growing up.
  12. Just to swing things back on topic; There seems to be a widespread lack of men that know how to respond to my answer to "what are you up to?". I tend to get two types of responses: I know you just explained how you are doing something inworld that requires your attention but my brain does not compute words that aren't references to body parts therefore I shall continue with my planned followup of "tp me?" I know you just mentioned how you're procrastinating while idling at home but I shall pretend you've just said "go forth and multiply" and so excuse myself from this conversation while groveling profusely So in order to make SL more welcoming to men, there should be a default autoresponse for women which says "The garbage mindgames only start a month into a relationship, so respond to what I say and not what you think I'm saying."
  13. It's 1am so I don't have the time/energy/attention span to write up a full reply, so you're getting bulletpoints (sorry): He's not refused to call his students by their preferred gender. If you have a quote or clip of him directly saying otherwise, I'd love to see it - no one I've challenged about this has been able to, but I'd prefer to know if I'm actually wrong on this one. When giving verbal evidence to said committee he referenced studies that demonstrated that the brain chemistry of transpeople often matched their gender, rather than their birth sex. He is not talking about a juvenile "hurr durr chromosomes" biological basis for gender. The problem with C-16 wasn't the bill itself, but with the secondary legislation it relied upon. The vagueness in those regulations means the remit of the bill covered more than just misgendering, especially in the absence of definitive case law. And as a civil servant, open-ended secondary legislation is the work of the devil. I agree that the "free speech" argument is usually an excuse for stirring up hate; see also, human refuse like M*lo. Dagger emoji. Legitimately curious about Lindsay Shepherd, I've barely heard her name since the suspension situation. He's turned his 'fame' into a career, and does interviews all the time with all sorts of people - he's probably done more UK interviews than half our Cabinet. His naive-academic approach of "I'll be interviewed by anyone" is why he's in various videos with some nasty people, even if it's a small chunk of his activities. My views on him have admittedly been shaped by 'that' interview with Cathy Newman, which is honestly the worst example of journalism I've ever seen. I fully admit that colours my perception on things. I'd compare him to Jeremy Corbyn; his complacency regarding the impact his words and actions have has caused a great deal of harm, and he's in denial about the damage that does. And he deserves to be called out for that. But that makes him an idiot, not a bigot. In short, I am a firm believer in Hanlon's Razor, and while his actions have caused harm (I wouldn't even consider contesting that point) I'm not convinced by the argument that he's legitimately transphobic. Even if he is still problematic.
  14. Eh.... Jordan Peterson knows how to pick his battles about as well as I know how to pick men, and his actions have undoubtedly fueled hateful transphobia... but the man himself is not a transphobe, nor does he refuse to use people's chosen pronouns. He chose to make a stand on a point of philosophical principle regarding the role of governments with regard to personal speech, and the differences between banning certain speech and enforcing certain speech. If you strip out the pronoun context, it's a principle that only the most authoritarian of fascists would disagree with. Unfortunately we live in an age where nuance is dead and opinions only exist if written in crayon on post-it notes; thus his reputation is that of a transphobe. And a Nazi, somehow. Sigh.
×
×
  • Create New...