Scylla Rhiadra

Can I suggest a quick course in Public Relations 100? Your tone and language here is not making you someone I'd particularly want to patronize with my business, to be honest. Perhaps you can lower the temperature a bit? I haven't seen anyone -- and especially neither Kimmi or Rowan -- who have said anything to merit this level of vituperation.

I get it, Pam, I do. But it's not about "appeasement" -- it's about maintaining, or even just trying to achieve, a culture in which the exchange of ideas isn't actually nothing more than firing of nukes at each other. You can't have a vibrant and healthy political culture which sees the working out of problems as a form of ongoing and continual warfare unto the death. If "winning" means simply sitting on and silencing of the significant proportion of the population who disagree with you, you haven't really "won" -- you've merely achieved supremacy, and possibly at the cost of your own soul. How "democratic" is it to simply shut out other voices? And, of course, it is about ideas. The poster in question was unwilling to engage in an actual dialogue about the assertion she made. That's going to happen, on both sides of the divide. But we need other voices, and other ideas, not only to keep us honest, but to help us see issues from other, alien angles. That's how change happens -- not by a rigid adherence to assumptions, but by a continual, annoying, difficult process of self-questioning. There is a significant proportion of America that holds what I see to be incorrect or even abhorrent views because they feel powerless and disenfranchised. Is it better to address the root causes of those feelings of being unheard -- or merely to prove them justified by ignoring or suppressing them?

See? Isn't constructive and engaged dialogue across ideological boundaries a wonderful thing? /me facepalms

Gracie Kendal? I don't think there was ever a book, but the project is on her blog. https://www.kristineschomaker.net/1000-avatarsproject

So, just a bit over two years ago, @Coby Fodenposted a pic on this thread of The Italian Village of Ciampi, a very pretty and utterly charming little village with a small attached port. I went to visit, and it quickly became one of my favourite little corners of the mainland. Not only is it lovely, but it features a great community, and the owner (as I observed in my original post on the place here in January of 2019) is a sweetheart, and never fails to extend a cheerful wave (and often a longer chat) whenever I pop in. (In fact, he seems to greet personally nearly everyone who visits there). Over the 2 years since, I've stopped by Ciampi many times, and have taken a pretty large number of pictures there. Viggen, the proprietor, has been extending the place, and has just added parkland, with rezzable horses and riding trails. It seemed a good opportunity to pose with this very unimpressed looking fellow. http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Bouraq/234/162/33 I know there are others here who have visited Ciampi. If you haven't, stop by. And say hi to Viggen for me.

Of course it's real, Brittany.

Try being a short avatar. I need a ladder just to get INTO my bed.

I think . . . I hope . . . that everyone wished that. Which is why it's so important, I think, to keep talking to each other. If we can't leave party behind (and I myself am not a member of any particular party), at least we can engage with each other in a way that, hopefully, ensures we're not all trapped within our own little ideological cages. And, ultimately, maybe that's how we solve things. Not by the intervention of "great minds," but by floating ideas, accepting criticism, recalibrating our thinking, and finally achieving something like consensus about how to proceed?

That would be Evil Scylla. The one who eats sailors. Thanks, Laurel. 🙂

I get what you're saying. And the Perfect can indeed be the enemy of the Good sometimes. I'm not an ideologue, nor a believer in "ideological purity": I think it's possible, and even necessary, to simultaneously work with what we have, and still fight to correct the underlying abuses that necessitate this kind of queasy compromise. If Bezos, or Soros, or the Kochs for that matter, are helping rather than hindering, I'm not going to suggest refusing their "dirty money." The stakes are too important right now to afford the luxury of purity. Tomorrow the future -- today the struggle. "To-morrow, perhaps the future. The research on fatigue And the movements of packers; the gradual exploring of all the Octaves of radiation; To-morrow the enlarging of consciousness by diet and breathing. To-morrow the rediscovery of romantic love, the photographing of ravens; all the fun under Liberty's masterful shadow; To-morrow the hour of the pageant-master and the musician, The beautiful roar of the chorus under the dome; To-morrow the exchanging of tips on the breeding of terriers, The eager election of chairmen By the sudden forest of hands. But to-day the struggle. To-morrow for the young the poets exploding like bombs, The walks by the lake, the weeks of perfect communion; To-morrow the bicycle races Through the suburbs on summer evenings. But to-day the struggle."

As a sidebar, maybe, I'm still giggling a little at the idea that I love Big Pharma, Jeff Bezos, et al. It's the fuzziest of thinking that lumps everyone to the left of Mitt Romney into one big, happy Joe Biden-loving, Google-worshipping family. And it always reminds me of this classic clip, in which Piers Morgan gets taken apart by a young woman whom he seems to have thought was an Obama supporter. "I'm not pro-Obama. I've been a critic of Obama, I am a critic of the Democratic party. Because I am literally a communist." Not a communist myself, but I try not to get too insulted when someone confuses me with a "liberal."

Fair enough. It wasn't intended to sound snarky -- just literally a reflection of the difference. But I'll edit it to change the tone. Tone is so difficult. To be clear, I don't at all dislike Arielle, and, to repeat something I've said before, it's important to acknowledge that she is engaging here, and not just posting nonsense without comment or discussion.

Worried by you expounding theories and facts about something as important as the pandemic without presenting so much as a shred of actual evidence? Well, yes . . . a bit. Here's a thought . . . how about providing some information about the "dots" that you are connecting? The only time I can remember rebutting your sources was when I offered a point-by-point refutation, which included actual citations and quotes, of two sources you'd cited. The abstracts you quoted were poorly constructed research questions -- I pointed out exactly why. And you had frankly misused them, quoting out of context, which I also noted with citations. I don't recall dismissing you because you were a "right wing crank." And, in fact, on one occasion, I've defended your participation here in this discussion against those who have. Overall, this may be somewhat true, but it varies by discipline. The humanities and maybe social sciences? Perhaps (although there are lots of conservatives in both -- Jordan Peterson is a psychologist, and although he's a bit far out in right field, he's far from alone). Business and the sciences? These tend to veer rather in the other direction. Even the overtly progressive ones provide documented sources that can be examined and critiqued. And that's why it's important, if you want to make a real point, that you do the same. Oh, but I do hate them, and many others besides. Big Pharma, to cite but two examples, is steadfast in its opposition to pharmacare, and the licensing of generic drugs. I despise George Soros, and even more so Jeff Bezos: their deployment of money and heft to get what they want is an absolute anathema to everything I believe in. They actually epitomize in that respect precisely what is wrong with modern day liberal capitalism. i think you're painting with rather too broad a brush here. I am sure that there are lots of centrists and wishy-washy liberals who think Bezos is great. So far as real progressives are concerned, they are the enemy. . . . is based on science. And we have well-documented, repeatable peer reviewed studies to back it up. Do you? If so, can you show them to us? ETA: Edited to remove a bit of (mostly) unintentional snark. Here, have a flower, and a cookie, and a cup of tea.

Well, I'm going to begin by noting that you have not-so-adroitly dodged my question, which asked you for sources. You appear to have none that are reliable enough to post here? I'm going to agree that a) ideology is never completely absent from even an academic setting (although most of the science people I know tend to lean a bit towards the conservative side), and that b) corporate funding of research is always an issue. Which is why critical thinking is always a good thing, even when reading science journals. There are, however, a lot of safeguards in place in academic research to prevent overt corporatization and politicization of research projects and results. Corporate donations are always vetted carefully before being accepted, and, at reputable research institutions, an arms-length relationship with the funder is always in place. No one is going to accept grant money that is awarded only on the proviso that certain kinds of results are produced. That's just not how it's done. We also have REBs -- research ethics boards -- that are involved in vetting most research proposals, and most especially those involving human subjects. And there are lots of funding sources that are not corporate or private. In Canada, for instance, we have the Tri-Council government granting agencies which are, again, at arms-length from actual policy makers, and where proposals are vetted through peer review. I've actually served on vetting committees for such grants -- no one who is approving grants is doing so because they don't want to lose corporate money, I can assure you, because those who are involved in the approval process aren't administrators or corporate and government agents -- they are ordinary faculty who are protected by tenure. Finally, the publication process involves double-blind peer review -- and publication of results that are at all contentious almost always produces papers that raise objections, question research methods, etc. None of which ensures that bias and ideology does not sometimes slip into research, and most particularly, the choice of research project. But it does make the process a LOT more reliable than that employed by the "alternative media." As a sidenote, I find your association of a reliance on corporate funding -- "Big Pharma," i.e., big corporations -- and "left leaning publication" kind of hilarious. You do realize that the left doesn't like big corporations, right? And that we have lots of reasons to despise Big Pharma in particular? And what exactly are these "left leaning publications" of which you speak? Lancet, which is owned by Elsevier, one of the largest corporate academic publishers in world? The idea that most academic journals are "left leaning" is kind of a hoot, actually.

Thank you, Doc! What a lovely thing to say!

I suspect that this is automated, using "keywords" or something, but it would take some experimentation that likely wouldn't go over well with the mods to be certain. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "awaiting moderation"? Also, these posts seem to get hidden at literally the moment they are posted -- at least mine have been. Which means that either there is an automated function at work, or (tin foil hat time!) the mods are reading our posts as we compose them!!!!!! Yeah, no. So, it would seem that some of us are just more likely to use words or combinations of words that have been flagged.

Yes, there's even a thread here on the subject! Amina and Luna have had the issue too. It's still a bit of a mystery . . . a kind of Bermuda Triangle for posts!

Sorry? Sources for this? No one is less trusting of Big Pharma -- or any other "Big" corporate sector, for that matter -- than I am, but we have public universities stocked full of independent scholars who have been studying this for over a year. What have they had to say about the "proven effectiveness as a cure" of these?

Last night I put SL to good use, visiting Portofino in Soul2Soul. I've always enjoyed visiting sims that represent RL places -- or places that sufficiently resemble RL places that they are evocative of them. Now, with the pandemic, it's twice as appealing, as I slowly go nuts from a year of having been more or less confined to a couple of square miles of my city. Last week, I had to visit the doctor for a checkup, and I was excited because it was several miles away! Anyway, I love Italy and I miss it, and last night I got a virtual taste of it. http://maps.secondlife/ISLE OF LOVE/232/56/34

Awwww! Well, that's kind of adorable! Really lovely pic, Krash! Thank you for sharing!!

Great shot! The colours are perfect. I haven't bought that dress yet . . . and now it's too late, cuz everyone else is already looking so perfect in it. /me sighs

What was it supposed to be that it is not???

Glorious shot, Rowan! I love how warm it is.

And the colour version

I did two versions of this shot, and am undecided about which I like best -- in part because they came out looking very different. So, I'll post both! This is the black and white