[How does your avatar look today ?]

[How does your avatar look today ?]

 

 

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

1 hour ago, Ayeleeon said:

Right here, where she said it, She says "Do not censor" then makes an exception, but has no clue as to why, or even what makes one thing wrong and another ok.

 

1 hour ago, Ayeleeon said:

DO NOT censor what I can and cannot do in SL[,] other then the things that is wrong, such as pedophilia

I just wanted to come back and point this out, as I think and feel that it is extremely important: I am pretty sure that Annie is saying that pedophilia is wrong. Everyone here knows that it is. 

I hope this will be put to rest.

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

1 minute ago, Chris Nova said:

No. There is no reason, no excuse that exists, to say what he said. He couldn't have said it any more blunt.

 

I understood perfectly and was freaking horrified as was everyone else with a functioning brain.

Yeah, sure.

I won't be commenting any further. As I see no reason to carry on a conversation with people that are literally insane. 

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

2 minutes ago, Moondira said:

Yes, I've been insulting. It was time. I came in to defend xLunaae and Ayeleon against all the insults hurled against them.

Really, scroll up. Even accusations of pedophelia.

These people have very terrible reading comprehension... 

3 minutes ago, Chris Nova said:

And I stand by every word I said. Every. Single. Word.

And you misunderstood every. single. word. that he said. So quick to demonize someone, not able to think just a little harder.

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

Just now, Jordan Whitt said:

Uncalled for.  Just because opinions differ from yours, that does not make anyone victimized, nor a loser.

You're going to get upset at me by saying "victimized losers," when another guy just called someone "stupid" for their own opinion? Lol, yeah, okay. So uncalled for.

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

55 minutes ago, Chris Nova said:

This is coming from someone who gets bent out of shape over a virtual avatar smoking a virtual cig. You're really not as intelligent as you think you are. 

No intelligent person throws around 3rd grade insults.

I was never "bent out of shape." That's also what's so funny. I am being accused of something I'm not, by a bunch of victimized losers.  Keep getting "bent out of shape" as you just said, though.

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

23 minutes ago, Chris Nova said:

We understand that, we just don't care. Get over it. Move on. Go outside. Stare at grass.

You and others cared enough to reply. If you didn't, you would have moved on a long time a go and this thread would have died. Instead, you choose to act like a bunch of victimized losers pointing fingers, rather than considering other people's perspectives. And you can't even see that, which is honestly hilarious. It shows just how "intelligent" most of you are. I think the term "special snowflake" needs to be re-introduced. 

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

29 minutes ago, Annie Nova said:

and YOU are responsible as to whether you look at said picture. Either scroll past it, block the person who is posting the picture or stop coming to the forums if so many  things offend you. I'm done. 

This has been said multiple times, and I am not offended. The people who are offended are the ones that are being accusatory, such as yourself. Get a life. All I did was try to point out that people's content can and will influence someone. But too many of you are incapable of grasping that.

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

Just now, Rowan Amore said:

Not at all the same thing.

And I am making the point that certain things should be censored. If you censor one thing, that does not necessarily mean that everything in that category also should be censored.

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

1 minute ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

You really can't pick and choose what depictions of smoking is bad or not though. As with censorship, if you censor one depiction, you have to censor them all. 

That is flawed logic. That is like saying, "You can't choose what depictions of sexual content is bad or not though." Even though pedophilia is a huge problem.

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

11 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Luna was promoting the idea of censorship, hence the longish thread even though most others are in disagreement with her.

"Nobody said you must censor your content.

The only suggestion is that it's beneficial to imagine how what you choose to do could affect others.  It's within our power to make the world a better place by considering how our choices influence others.

Like I said, if I'm trying to create something beautiful it would not include an aspect that has caused such harm to others.  A dystopian scene might be different."

Doesn't sound like she was advocating for censorship at all. She has said that she self-censors though, for her own personal opinions. Nothing wrong with that.

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

2 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

Let me try to word this right. By telling people they are influecing someone to do something, IE gluttony, addiction through art. You are practically telling them that they shouldn't put it in there. Then to top it all off, by saying we shouldn't glamorize smoking. Basically it means take all that out of your picture or that you need to somehow give warning to what is in the picture and explain why it is bad. So either we censor ourselves or we put a warning label. 

I understand what you are trying to convey. I just simply do not agree with your perspective. To take accountability for your content being able to influence someone is not telling someone that they shouldn't do something. That is your interpretation (and the interpretation that others unfortunately have as well). But, maybe we can just agree to disagree. We don't agree with each other's perspectives, so I don't really see a point in arguing.

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

1 minute ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

The topic is literally about self censorship in art. She just used that persons smoking quote as an example. 

 

And I think that, before this really devolved, everyone was in agreement that censorship isn't a good thing. Maybe I am missing a few comments that I did not see. But I did see quite a few say that censorship is not good. 

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

14 minutes ago, Catrie said:

Oh. so now we're taking sides here? Nope. I don't play that game.  I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the person who originally started the original discussion and how smoking is where the line seems to be drawn.  Especially since the original post in this thread states " The question isn’t so much should the creative use of smoking in an artistic image be restricted, as whether the audience here is so programmable we should infringe on the artist’s freedom of expression? " 

I bolded that part, because it clearly leads the question further.   It's not just about smoking, it's about everything else as well.

All I'm getting, when asking why the other vices aren't covered is "Because."  "Because" isn't a valid answer.  It's what a parent tells a 5 year old when they want candy right before bedtime. 

Because The topic is about smoking.

Also, taking sides is stupid. People need to stop being sassy towards one another, and that includes me. I don't think any one of us needs to be "enemies" over a discussion like this. Which is what it feels like. This was supposed to be a discussion, nothing more. 

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

8 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Are you another alt of the person that made the original comment?  If not, how do you know that your interpretation is the correct one?'

 

I am myself, thank you very much. And he can correct me if I am wrong about my interpretation.

9 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

To me, that implies that we should self-censor and not post such pictures.

 

And to me, that is just another question to gage people's thoughts.

Might as well not argue, considering that we both interpret this differently. 

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Nalates opened this thread and thus provide the topic of this thread.  Yes, it is based on the comments by Ayeeleon, but for THIS THREAD, the topic is as stated by Nalates.  

Well, no one wants their freedom of expression infringed upon. I think we can all agree with that. Censorship is a big no no.

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

 

Actually, in this particular thread, the question was:

 

That is what Nalates said. Not Ayeeleon. And still that is a question. That everyone, including me, disagreed with.

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

Just now, LittleMe Jewell said:

While you might not advocate for censorship, the comment that all of this was based on did imply that people should self-censor and not post pictures with smoking in them because of how it might influence someone.

That is not what was implied, that was what you and others wrongfully assumed. It was just a question. That is all it was.

Lol, ughhh....

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

1 minute ago, Catrie said:

Why? so we can say the same thing in a multiple threads?  Also, highlighting stuff doesn't make it any more important. 

 

I don't care what you think of my highlighting? And I made it very clear as to why.

1 minute ago, Catrie said:

that's very adult of you. lol 

And it was also very adult of Rowan to say "dear?" Women say that to be sassy, which she is obviously being. Lol

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

Just now, Catrie said:

Again. Why are we focused just on smoking? If you're going to talk about the influence of smoking in pictures, you might as well cover the rest of the vices too.  And I don't see that as going off-topic.  It's all about the same thing.

Because the topic is about smoking. Not about alcohol, drugs, sex, etc. Save those topics for a different discussion. Not everything needs to be brought up all at once, that just creates chaos. Better to address one thing at a time.

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

3 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

But I think what she was getting at, is why are other vices not demonized as much as smoking? I mean people are okay with sex, alcohol and drugs. But smoking, oh no that is a problem and artists need to take responsibility for what they put in their art. But it was only focussed on smoking, and the picture was actually of a chick smoking pot. 

Again, the topic was about smoking. It was not about alcohol, drugs, sex, etc. Those are entirely different topics. So talking about any of those things is just going off-topic, IMO. Those are obviously important discussions to have as well.

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

1 minute ago, Catrie said:

But why are we limiting it to smoking?  Why aren't all the other vices being called out too?  If you're going to try to limit one, in what is essentially an art form, then we need to discuss why we aren't all the others. 

Because the question was about smoking, not everything else.

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

This was just supposed to be a discussion about the influence of smoking, and just smoking. I smoke IRL and still posted a picture of my character smoking a joint in the avatar thread, despite what we are talking about. *shrugs* I don't advocate for censorship and never will. But I won't deny that what people portray (including myself) can't influence someone in some way. Everyone should still obviously take accountability for their own actions, I know I do. And I'll never disagree with that.

[Smoking: Influencing vs Programmability]

Just now, LittleMe Jewell said:

Then again, maybe I give people way too much credit for not being easily influenced by pictures of cartoon characters doing things in a make believe world.

You are giving people too much credit, considering that people are influenced by anime. You haven't heard of boys being stabbed nearly to death by their girlfriends and being okay with it? Lol, we live in crazy times.