Scylla Rhiadra

I owe it all to be a slightly pathetic waif whom people just feel compelled to help. (You should try it: it works wonders.)

What do Canadians call you? (ETA: On Halloween -- need to keep this on topic!)

We should probably stop this derail now, however, before we annoy too many people. Thanks for the engagement, Phorumities. ?

Well, yes. But the conditions that make poverty so endemic in those nations (including paying pennies a day, instead of a living wage, to third world labourers) did not themselves spring into being out of nowhere: they are a function, at least in part, of colonialism, capitalism, and neoliberalism. And others here have recently pointed out to you that there is in fact starvation and malnutrition in the west, although there is no question of course that it is less prevalent here than in many other places. And, again, there are historical and economic reasons for that.

Oh!! I seem to have just passed 600 reputation points. Go figure, eh? ?

To begin with, I reject your insistence that this is a pure binary. The world is waaaaay more complicated than that. I also dislike the term "superior": it has a rather ugly history. But are there ways in which western culture is "better" than some others? Well, duh. Yes. But remember that being "better" is often a function of wealth and power: it's relatively easy to be "better" when you are top of the heap. And the foundations for that wealth and power, both historical and contemporary, are themselves highly suspect. For instance, it is relatively easier to live "well" and cheaply in the west, because we have inexpensive goods, such as food and clothing, more readily available for those living in, or near the level of poverty. And one of the reasons for that is because our corporations are not shy about exploiting sweatshop labour in other nations.

I'm not sure if I qualify as "trendy" or not -- I doubt that I've been that for at least a decade -- but I can tell you that I, along with most of the progressives I know, are very interested in human rights abuses around the world. Most (myself included) are members of Amnesty International, or PEN, or similar organizations that are very much focused upon human rights in the so-called "developing nations." And the feminists I know, and with whom I work, are very much exercised about the status of women in places like Saudi Arabia and India.

I take it that you're not really criticizing Kwanzaa, and so I'm not posting this to "correct" you in any way. But I do think that calling it a "synthetic" holiday implicitly imposes a value judgement that suggests that it is "artificial" and hence maybe a little "fake," where others aren't. Arguably, though, nearly all holidays are "synthetic" in this way, at least to some degree. Christmas and Easter, for instance, may "mark" something, but those "somethings" are hardly verifiably historical "fact," and even if they were, the dates chosen to mark them were quite arbitrarily picked by the Church for reasons that actually have nothing to do with "fact." I'm not a Christian: i don't believe in the resurrection of Christ, and so Easter Sunday is completely synthetic so far as I'm concerned. What separates most holidays from Kwanzaa is mostly the length of historical time that they've been observed (and even that is frequently less, with regard to many holidays, than many of us think). As for "self-love" . . . well, most holidays are at least implicitly designed to support, cement, and entrench a particular culture/religion/ideology. Columbus Day, which is (so far as I know) recognized only in the US, "celebrates" the so-called "discovery" of the Americas by one particular ethnic/geographical group: it is very explicitly an imposition of a Eurocentric view of the relationship between cultures and ethnicities. And, to many First Nations people, it's not merely "synthetic": it's an outright unethical lie, and pure propaganda.

Wow, yes. That is gluttony! Or masochism! I imagine that you have the tech background necessary to get back up to speed pretty quickly. In my case, it's much simpler (and therefore maybe more embarrassing). There's a lot I still don't entirely get about mesh (especially fitted mesh), but really quite shameful are the simple things I should know, like how to order tattoo layers on a system head (which I'm still using). BTW I'm back on Firestorm, which is much better. And I haven't noticed any performance issues or differences yet, so yay for that!

There's something to be said for that! On my own behalf, I should note that I've been away so long that I actually feel like a pathetic n00b, especially in-world! (This is me trying to get the best of both worlds: wise and ancient, but also fresh and new! Is it working?)

I knew you'd come around eventually! ?

I thought I should add a post here with an update on my jeans and boots progress, and to thank everyone, again, for their help. I've been collecting boots (of various kinds) and jeans and experimenting with some mix-and-match, but below is an image of me in *Just BECAUSE* Kaylah Jeans (courtesy of Rhonda!) and Maya Thigh Sock Boots (minus the socks). (BTW, the shopfront in the pic is the new location of my soon-to-be-reopened bookstore!)

Garnet, are there celebrations of Guy Fawkes Day in SL? I'd actually pay an entrance fee to attend a bonfire night. I might even give a penny for the Guy.

I think Skell dealt with this same issue quite well. It's probably not possible to plan ahead for every eventuality, but when something has been explicitly added to an experience (such as horrifying imagery or a collapsing bridge) that is actually intended to shock and surprise, then it should be pretty simple to provide at least a general warning that such things are part of the experience. In 2011, I put together an exhibit on representations of sexual violence in SL (to which Maddy alludes, above). It was (indeed, is: to my surprise, it's still there) intended to shock, and includes a great deal of extremely explicit imagery and language, as well as one potentially upsetting interactive element. For that reason, there is a very prominent trigger warning at the entrance to the exhibit. Were I to create such an exhibit now, in 2018, I would, I suppose, be tempted to use an "Experience" for it: I can imagine all sorts of ways in which this could be employed to make the exhibit more powerful and emotionally affecting than it already is. I don't think I'd do so, though, precisely because that would likely be overkill, and it would reduce the "distance" required for critical appraisal and thinking which was actually the main point of the exhibit. As I note above, somewhere, emotional manipulation is the easiest, and ultimately most dangerous kind of audience manipulation. But if I *did* use an experience, it would 1) have a very clear trigger warning, and 2) offer the option of seeing the exhibit without using the experience. An "experience" should never be emotionally damaging, nor should it be so overwhelming that it essentially drowns out thought.

Well, "folks" in this case is *cough cough* me. This non-techie is pretty much ready to trust both you and Innula implicitly with regard to the relative "safety" of Experiences (although I'll still, on the whole, avoid providing more information about myself than is necessary, where I am aware of options available to avoid doing so). I had forgotten (along with, clearly, much else) that the security hole that RedZone used was in the SL Parcel Media. Back in the day, I disabled automatic media playback (or whatever the tech term is) for precisely that reason. Since returning, and having reinstalled my viewers, I've neglected to do this, and will do so. That said, of course, it's difficult to avoid using if one is at a club or music event, so . . . well, you pays your money, and you takes your chances, I suppose. Thanks to both you and Innula for the info!

Thanks, Innula. As always, your expertise (and, apparently, superior powers of memory!) are a useful corrective. I'm sure -- or at least, very much hope -- that Experiences are as safe as you suggest. I'm not particularly paranoid about them myself, despite my invocation of RedZone, although it does seem to me that the sheer breadth of perms that they grant might, possibly, provide some enterprising fraudster with ammunition in the future. It's not something, however, that is leaving me sleepless at night. I don't really have much objection to Experiences themselves (although I say this as someone who has yet to actually try one): like the OP and others here, I just prefer to be given more choice, rather than less. I'll doubtless try one soonish, probably at an art installation. I will not, however, be compelled to use on at an in-world store: I don't think merchants can justify the need for the granting of those kinds of perms, and my main response would likely be the kind of resentment that I feel at RL stores that are overly pushy and manipulative.

This is actually a pretty accurate visual representation of how I respond to "boops." ?

Well, speaking purely of myself . . . nah. Not popular, just a bit noisy. I'm just a visitor here now, really, and a bit of a novelty. And I have some lovely old friends who have made me feel very welcome. But this is your forum and your community. And I'd say that what the numbers show, long term, is how integral you are to it. ?

Not to belittle your fears but you do realize rape jokes are a thing right? The world is heinously cruel. Yes, sometimes it is. And for that reason, it is all the more vital that we not participate in that cruelty, but strive instead as much as we can to redress it. And that very much includes trying our best (even if imperfectly) to anticipate and address the things we do, however inadvertently, that cause distress and pain. Shrugging it off with a platitude about how cruel the world can be merely means that you have accepted and become complicit in that cruelty. You don't need to do that: you can listen, you can care, you can try to accommodate. The tools to achieve this are at hand: things like trigger warnings and opt-out buttons make you part of the solution, rather than a willing accomplice. I honestly can't understand why you would not choose to care.

Well, ok. But you're generalizing from your own experience and self-knowledge, Maddy. Most of us aren't you. When I was a teen, I was taken to see a production of Les Miserables. I hated every damned moment of it -- not because it was poorly performed, staged, or written, but because it was so blatantly manipulative. By the end of the play, I was positively sobbing, and cursing the playwrights with every heave. I don't want to be manipulated (and emotional manipulation is the easiest, and most potentially abusive kind): I want to be challenged. Well, yes. Neither I, nor the OP (I think -- she can weigh in if I'm wrong) are calling for an end to Experiences. We're asking for more and better choices. And transparency is one very important way to accomplish that: I can't make a real choice unless it's an informed one. True, but also not really relevant. The fact that one form of threat is more prevalent doesn't obviate the need to respond to another, less common, one.

Yes yes yes to pretty much everything here.

Grrr. Typical. I'll have to have a word with Snugs!

Just one more note, based somewhat on personal experience and first-hand knowledge of people for whom this is an issue: "blocking" an Experience (both upper- and lower-case) after it has happened is probably more than adequate for most people. But for some, it really isn't. PTSD is a very real thing. Trigger warnings aren't actually about "censoring" material: they are about ensuring that we don't expose vulnerable people to experiences that are likely to cause real pain and trauma. And yes, that includes the immersive experiences of SL, which can certainly operate as triggers. (If they weren't emotionally impactful, we wouldn't bother with them in the first place.) At the very least, Experiences need to be pretty explicit about the kinds of things they'll be exposing people to.

Yes, I do, and probably shouldn't. I don't use Facebook very much at all, however, and partly for this reason. And I've never even installed FB Messenger precisely because it is so intrusive. It's certainly true that the harvesting of my data, and the provision of targeted ads, customized search results, etc., are closely connected: one obviously enables the other. But I was really focusing less upon the vulnerability of my data than upon the insistent bleating of the Machine that, no, THIS is what I really want to buy/see/read etc.

No, I am giving up certain kinds of choices. Yes, I can block ("forgetting" is rather more problematic, surely?). But an Experience by definition limits the ways that I can exert control. I have been waiting for this to appear in the "Most Embarrassing Moments" thread. I considered adding it there myself; it probably IS just about my most embarrassing experience. (Followed somewhat closely by your recounting of it here. ?)