Jump to content

Kiera Clutterbuck

Resident
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    427

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Kiera Clutterbuck

  1. Kiera Clutterbuck
    If you saw someone hitting your child wouldn't you try to get them to see things your way, get them to understand it's wrong to strike someone, especially a child. That's all that's going on here; there's no assault on anything that "makes us human", rather it's people who fight for equality denouncing abuse where those with the most power are taking advantage of others with less power. I'm not sure you understand how change happens in a society. Protests have been a major impetus for changing laws and people's minds. For example: Women got tired not being able to vote and protested for years, finally achieving their goal. Gays protested and stood up to the police at the Stonewall riot, and this was a major incident causing society to change attitudes toward them. Medication for AIDS was finally developed because gay people protested and demanded that the issue be addressed seriously. The protests of the Civil Rights era in the US ushered in great gains for the rights of black people. War protests helped end the Viet Nam war. I could go on and on with examples, but the point is that change doesn't just happen automatically; there must be pushback against forms of oppression because those in power want to keep their advantages.
  2. Kiera Clutterbuck
    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 And outdated laws do change, I agree, but not without pressure against them (pushback against "opinions" and laws; they don't magically change over time and we sometimes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.
  3. Kiera Clutterbuck
    So far there are 6 dead from the Chicago July 4th parade mass shooting a few hours ago. I hope your video has some answers
  4. Kiera Clutterbuck
    I would feel safe to call the police then, as it would be doubtful they'd feel threatened responding to a burglary that happened in the past.
  5. Kiera Clutterbuck
    Maybe that's why it feels so stressful to me, and I have to take breaks. Somehow my brain is fighting against something that's just not right! I've heard you can adjust to it, but I've never experimented to see if that would be true for me.
  6. Kiera Clutterbuck
    The screen doesn't automatically move a lot in VR, not in all games anyway. You can sit perfectly still and do something like fire an arrow at targets, so there is more control than some imagine. When you see people film their VR experience on YouTube they're often simply moving their head a lot to change their view, but you don't have to do that.
  7. Kiera Clutterbuck
    Some series are filmed that way too and are jarring to watch. I don't feel nausea from them but begin to feel so irritated from the scenes switching back and forth so abruptly that I decide to stop watching.
  8. Kiera Clutterbuck
    ikr, and some children weren't abused in the 1800's and so none are abused in the 21st century.
  9. Kiera Clutterbuck
    I looked him up. That was hard to watch. 60 bullets fired into one guy, even as he was flat on the ground??! Thing is, likely he fled in the first place so he wouldn't end up with a possible knee to the neck like Floyd did. Peeve: The police in America
  10. Kiera Clutterbuck
    Both VR and Mouselook have the same camera view, as you're looking out at the world through your eyes instead of looking at yourself from above, but VR tricks your brain into believing you're really there. No way to describe that really because it's something you sense. You could try it at like a Best Buy. If you're easily dizzy I suspect you would experience nausea.
  11. Kiera Clutterbuck
    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.
  12. Kiera Clutterbuck
    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.
  13. Kiera Clutterbuck
    One would not be charged with a hate crime if they issued racial slurs to someone they angrily assaulted for other obvious reasons (for example, cutting them off in traffic or trying to take their seat in a bar). To charge anyone with a racial hate crime there must be hatred of the individual due to their race as the motivating factor. As Da5id pointed out, in all crimes there are mitigating circumstances where lesser punishment is received and greater infractions where punishment is more severe. "Hatred" as a motivating factor should surely be in the equation. I take your point, that we can't actually legislate against hate and prejudice, but we can legislate against committing crimes because of that hate. Laws against hate can lessen the effects of that hate to a degree as well, as some use existing laws as justification to harm others; if the country says certain people are bad and not deserving of rights and respect then they imagine it must be okay to harm them. In their mind it's okay to punish bad people. "The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. § 994 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person". The fact that you bring up the unfairness of whites not being victims of hate crimes makes me think you don't understand that some groups are more vulnerable than others and this is why we offer greater protection for them under the law via hate crime statutes. In predominately white countries the greater number of whites gives them an unfair advantage as they tend to skew situations to their advantage. Think of what happened during 9-11 in America when Arabian people flew planes into the Twin Towers; suddenly there was deep suspicion toward Arabs, and some were treated unfairly and even murdered. Likewise in WW2 when Japanese-Americans were treated unfairly, rounded up and placed in camps. And in more recent times, Chinese-Americans have been targets of hate because of the Coronavirus origin. Blacks have been targeted again in recent years as they gained more rights. More vulnerable groups, those who are the "out group" due to being less in number and easily identifiable because of darker skin, are easily stereotyped as being "all bad" due to the way we psychologically process the characteristics of "out groups". They are then punched down on; scapegoating is a prominent way some deal with anger. This is why we need to offer protection to those who are not part of the "in group". White people, as part of the "in group" don't need this protection in predominately white countries. And strangely, though women are the majority they have always been the "out group"; men have been the default.
  14. Kiera Clutterbuck
    Or in our wombs, either, for that matter. Got a peeve about these people:
  15. Kiera Clutterbuck
    Somebody like him needs to send a memo to the present supreme court in America! 😡
  16. Kiera Clutterbuck
  17. Kiera Clutterbuck
    We all have a mix of masculine and feminine energy.
  18. Kiera Clutterbuck
    But why does something that an individual enjoys, have to be beneficial to society? I mean I don't see a problem with the dom and sub community. They aren't hurting themselves or hurting others. I mean besides enjoying pain a bit too much. I didn't say beneficial to "society", I only said "beneficial". Enjoyment is beneficial because most humans need enjoyment in their lives. I don't see anything wrong with the Dom/sub community. We would have to evaluate each couple to determine if allowing this power dynamic in their lives is beneficial for them, so I could never make a statement about all who are in this lifestyle. My personal feelings are that an unbalanced power dynamic is only destructive if one stays stuck in it, so there must be movement or growth so that a sub increases their self-determination or sense of control over their life and doesn't need another to control them as much, and for a Dom to learn to let go of power and share it, and get in touch with their more vulnerable side. This is not a value judgement at all, but only a reflection of how I understand power and how humans function better when in balance. I've had good friends in the lifestyle, and only see a problem if people stay stuck in patterns. Identity (personality) is not fixed when one is growing; change is the nature of life. When I said "One could be make the case that this unbalanced dynamic is the source of all war, of capitalists dominating the environment to the point of climate collapse, of all abuse that exists" I was not referring to D's, but to an imbalance of power in a broader sense.
  19. Kiera Clutterbuck
    Well yes, there are many other characteristics which are not included in that list but those as the rest of the article goes on to say, are the ones studies have found to be important for the Leader/Alpha person, whatever gender. I didn't make a judgement whether it was good or bad or whether I was personally attracted to it. Many are however. That is easily seen in many profiles in-world for those looking for a Dom or Domme. And without a doubt, Alpha's are challenging to live and be in relationship with but still beta's overwhelming seek out Alpha's to be with and then complain when they get what they thought they wanted. Not sure of the point you're trying to make. There are those who dominate and those who like to be dominated, yes, but just because it exists doesn't prove it's beneficial. We'd need further evidence to make that claim. One could be make the case that this unbalanced dynamic is the source of all war, of capitalists dominating the environment to the point of climate collapse, of all abuse that exists. Once again, these dominating aspects without the other important aspects needed for survival means nothing but destruction to me. For any person, for any society. Pet Peeve: The devaluing of the feminine qualities of the world.
  20. Kiera Clutterbuck
    Peeve : needy preachers keeping lists .. Creating music is a spiritual pursuit, is it not? Or should I say it can be.
  21. Kiera Clutterbuck
    Dog does yoga:
  22. Kiera Clutterbuck
    The nice thing about SL is that quite a few of the disadvantages women have are minimized so I don't think we'll need to worry about equality being "forced" in SL since our genders are hidden for the most part. But I don't understand your perspective on "forced equality". Why is forced inequality fine yet forcing equality is not? Because this is how we arrived at the state we are in today; those who were more powerful forced others (through laws, social pressure, and sometimes war), to accept their inequality and bend to the will of the more powerful. By "forced equality" do you mean changing laws to allow for more equality? What would be wrong with this? Like I said, those with less equality were forced into their plight by the more powerful, and often in ways far more appalling than simply changing laws to reflect more equality. I do take your point with the Johnny Cash song about love being a better answer than force (or I would say any type of control), but unfortunately many choose power over love in ways that cause grave harm to those they rule over. So preventing suffering, through creating more just laws as much as possible, is also love. Likely you've heard the saying that "power does not give up power willingly", and I believe that's true. People tend to justify what's best for them and hold on to their advantages, and lack empathy for those whose needs they cannot fathom. Anyway, I think I'll change this Beatles song "All You Need Is Love" to "All You Need Is Love And The Law".
  23. Kiera Clutterbuck
    While many of the traits described in the alpha male chart you posted can be desirable there are no traits demonstrating any caring for others, or any qualities needed to join with others and create a beneficial world for others outside his own realm. I see no traits like empathy, the ability to cooperate with others, or an ability to understand one is not always right and so needs to accept a degree of criticism. Sure, he is successful when achieving his personal goals, but at what cost to others? Not all of these types of people have poor self-esteem they are compensating for with pronounced individualism. Some are just excessively self-centered with little empathy for others. Taken to extreme they are called psychopaths. At the website you took your graphic from they list ten problems for women in relationships with alpha males, and list an example of one such male: Powerful Alphas Currently Donald Trump is the classic example of a powerful, dominating alpha male. https://thepleasantpersonality.com/alpha-male/ Pet Peeve: Too many people like this run the world.
  24. Kiera Clutterbuck
    It appears the NRLA you mentioned (National Labor relations Act, https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/national-labor-relations-act) is from 1935, and did not cover federal contractors until Obama signed an executive order in 2014. Because it only mentioned federal contractors in the 2014 executive order I thought the law only applied to federal contractors (and not private ones), but it's actually federal contractors who had been exempt and so needed an executive order from Obama to rectify the situation. Somehow, federal contractors were able to skirt the 1935 law saying it was illegal for everyone, until the 2014 executive order. "This year, President Obama issued an executive order preventing businesses that are awarded federal contracts from retaliating against employees who discuss their wages with each other. Prior to this executive order prohibiting retaliation for employees being transparent regarding their pay, an employer (that has more than $10,000 in annual federal contract work) could prohibit employees from discussing their wages with each other". Obama's executive order in 2014: https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/small-business/what-you-need-to-know-about-obamas-pay-transparency-executive-order/ https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/alerts/2014/april/9/president-obama-signs-two-more-orders-aimed-at-federal-contractor-pay-practices https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/pay-transparency https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-41/subtitle-B/chapter-60/part-60-1 **** However, it gets even more complicated (doesn't everything! ) and appears not everyone is covered! "Employers not covered by the NLRA or the Federal contractor executive order include municipal governments and religious schools. Workers in those institutions are subject to the policies of their respective employers and may be unable to discuss pay levels". https://www.govdocs.com/can-employees-discuss-pay-salaries/
  25. Kiera Clutterbuck
    I like this team approach. Is it used much in the US do you know?
×
×
  • Create New...