Jump to content

Scylla Rhiadra

Resident
  • Posts

    20,321
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    185

Everything posted by Scylla Rhiadra

  1. You do realize that you responded to my post, in a somewhat similar fashion, on April 22 of last year, right? It's no biggie -- you say some interesting things here. I learned stuff! But I did have a sort of weird deja vu moment when I saw it, and had to go back into the thread to make sure I wasn't imagining things. I'll need to give some consideration, I guess, to how much of my dislike of gachas is the result of ideology, of a kind of visceral dislike of gambling, or of my embarrassed memories of that one time I really lost it on a gacha machine (the folder in my inventory containing those items is labelled "WTF Was I Thinking?" Seriously.)
  2. You can -- or at least could, as of a few months ago -- upload a temporary animation onto the main grid. The main problem with Qavimator is that it doesn't do Bento. So . . . splay hands.
  3. I'm pretty sure that, were we to ask your cat, it would explain to us (with a sort of world-weary patience) that it, in fact, has a human who insists upon lying beneath it.
  4. /me grabs her trusty laser cutter and crowbar, and heads purposefully over to Lindal's Protection Box. NO ONE IS EXEMPT, Lindal. Even you must suffer.
  5. Oh, I don't know that I disagree with much of what you've said here, except . . . . . . I don't really think of the vast majority of SL enterprises as "capitalism," because they lack some of the most fundamental features of that system, not only in the modern sense of that term, but even at the most fundamental level. "Capital" really isn't a big thing in SL, is it? Nor for that matter are labour costs. While we are undoubtedly operating under a largely deregulated, free market system here, almost all of the merchants and creators I know are really much more like small independent craftspeople, artisans who produce what they sell themselves, rather than relying upon hired labour. Although they may well be buying mesh off-world, most of that is probably similarly produced. Are there sweatshops for the production of mesh? I think not. Nor does money produce more money here -- any "capital outlay" here almost always goes towards overhead (land, a shop, a modest advertising budget) and raw materials (texture and mesh uploads). And that's not much different than it was in RL under feudalism or mercantilism. The exception to this may be, or perhaps in the past was, land speculation. Is there much of that here anymore, though?
  6. @Seicher Rae, you see how you're missed? Don't go breaking our hearts . . . or however the song lyric goes.
  7. Lol You're really not getting it, are you? Have a lovely evening Wili.
  8. Ummmm . . . Perhaps this one should have been captioned "Another Satisfied Customer!" rather than "Chest Out"? Here's just one of a number featuring "backsides" . . . Honestly, Wili . . . this isn't about "immorality" or sexism (although it wouldn't be too difficult to make a case for the latter). It's about professionalism, and your apparent lack of judgement. Assuming you've got the permission of the women involved (which you say you did), I couldn't care less how many pics like this you take, or even post. But this was a commercial event, associated with your business. And your decision to publish pics of your customers like this, whether to promote your business or not, speaks volumes about your lack of judgement. And on the basis of that obvious lack of judgement, well, I wouldn't do business with you. In fact, I wouldn't patronize your business as a customer, yet alone associate with you in something like a partnership. And that, and the reaction of some others here, should tell you that, hey, maybe posting these wasn't such good business practice? You've heard of public relations? Can I strongly suggest that you study up on it a bit more?
  9. Soooo . . . you're using pics of scantily clad women as a way of promoting your business? Well, ok, you'd hardly be the first. But I'd have thought that, as a modern businessman, you'd recognize that half naked women as advertising props tends now to be frowned upon by a fairly large proportion of your potential market. It is, after all, 2021, and not 1951. And it would appear that you have, indeed, lost at least one customer because of it. Wait, I thought this was "art"?
  10. No, not generally. But it depends upon context. And the permission of those whose pics you've published, which may not be a legal requirement, or necessitated by the ToS, but is certainly ethical practice. I'll take your word for it that these women agreed to you posting these. You are suggesting you thought about getting into "erotic art" -- with respect, I have both studied art, and am a photographer in SL, and these ain't really "art" by any very recognizable definition. They are small resolution, amateurish shots of butts and boobs, and all taken, moreover, at an event associated with your business. How do you suppose it would go over if a RL business held an event, the the CEO ran around taking pics of boobs? Sorry, in RL I'd think twice about wanting to do business with someone whose social media accounts were packed with pics of half naked women's breasts and behinds. You've got a right to your own particular turn ons. I have a right to question your sense of judgement for publishing them, particularly in association with your business. What this suggests to me is that Fish Hunt is all about ogling women.
  11. I think I found them. There is indeed a fair display of T&A, so to speak. I wonder if all of those women are aware that he's posted pics of them publicly?
  12. Well, depending upon what you mean by "griefing," you might possibly have a case. But slander, name-calling, and so forth won't do it. Try an AR -- you've got nothing to lose. And possibly tell them that you will if they continue; it might convince them to leave you alone.
  13. You can AR them in-world, but it doesn't (to me) sound as though you have sufficient grounds. For good or ill, "saying bad things" about someone is not in itself enough to trigger action from LL. If, on the other hand, you are personally being targeted -- in the sense that you are being griefed, spammed, followed, etc., then you might have some basis for an AR. But if it's just occurring in group chat? Probably not. LL will also not get involved in any sort of dispute between you and this group. I can't imagine what sort of basis you might have for legal action, but I suppose you could consult a lawyer? The initial consultation, however, is likely to cost you nearly as much as you've wasted in donations to the group's Patreon. It would be nice if there were a reliable, transparent, and just way (i.e., one that didn't itself run the risk of functioning as a griefing tool, or merely feeding petty drama and disputes) to deal with nastiness. But there isn't really one in RL, and such a mechanism certainly doesn't exist in SL. And being a jerk is, within limits, pretty much everyone's right. I'm afraid your only options are probably to mute, block . . . and move on.
  14. "We" only know about it because the poster thought fit -- for, I think, highly suspect reasons -- to tell us. (ETA: the point Rowan makes above, that her trans identity is of importance only to those attacking her -- is entirely to the point.) There is, in any case, no connection between her identity -- or her pride in and willingness to share it -- and her stance on censorship. Again. Trans people can certainly be hypocritical, just as cis people frequently are, but unless that hypocrisy is about transgender issues -- which this is not -- her status as trans is just not relevant, and mentioning it to imply that it is, is transphobic. I don't follow this logic at all. What does the fact that she's openly trans have to do with her stance on censorship? Please explain. ETA: Let me make this very clear. If her reasons for wanting to ban SL are due to the "adult content" of this platform, this has nothing to do with her identity, or with how our community here welcomes trans people. Because being trans does not make you "adult content."
  15. I hadn't myself made the connection directly with Babylon Berlin (which is a fabulous series) in this picture, although I did, I'm pretty sure, have it in mind for another, older photo of me wearing the same suit I posted almost exactly 2 years ago: In this pic, I was, I suppose, specifically referencing the Nazi campaign in the late 20s and 30s against "degenerate" Modernist art (Entartete Kunst) -- they even staged an exhibit attacking it in 1937. Modernism, whether "degenerate" or not, did represent an astonishing post-war breaking of the boundaries of art, literature, and music. It brought jazz into the mainstream, and liberated the creativity of everyone from Virginia Woolf and James Joyce to Pablo Picasso. And, for women, it represented at least a brief moment of freedom from the social constraints imposed upon their gender.
  16. Hypocrisy there may well be, but it has nothing to do with the person in question being trans, which is an utterly irrelevant red herring. The implication is that someone who is trans is, almost by definition, someone who is more "sexually engaged" than cis people -- and hence her identity as trans is additional evidence of her hypocrisy. That's the only possible justification for mentioning her gender identity -- and it's nonsense. Her identity as a trans person is as relevant as her hair colour. And that's why this is transphobic.
×
×
  • Create New...