Scylla Rhiadra

Josephina Bonetto wrote: It's not just sexuality or sexual identity, I am "out" as Bipolar 2 Rapid Cycling as my avatar but it's on a need-to-know basis in RL. If I was outed in RL my world wouldn't end. While I want to tell people in RL there is never really a right time for that conversation, and I have no real patience for other peoples prejudices. My sexuality and gender are the same in both lives. I think that this is every bit as relevant as the issues surrounding sexuality and gender. Again, I see SL as a place where we can confront the prejudices that are inherent in the act of "naming" and categorizing, and foster tolerance and understanding. In large measure, the very indeterminacy of SL has an active role in that. Someone who has known you here forever without knowing you were bipolar might well be astonished to find out. The effect would surely be to educate that person about the nature of the condition?

Ima Rang wrote: Scylla Rhiadra wrote: Ima, I judge the merits of a person's sensitivities and ability to empathize according to how well they demonstrate those qualities, rather than prejudge them merely because they are called one thing in RL, and another in SL. I've known men who were among the most intelligent and sensitive feminists I've ever met; I've known women whose lack of empathy for the plight of other women was appalling. It's one's performance, not one's labels, that interest me. Understood. While I may be able to empathize and demonstrate my ability to emapathize (perform) via an "imagination" of what it must be like to suffer through the plights of others, the very real and pertinent fact is, I will still have absolutely no real idea what it is like to actually "live" through the plight itself. This blogger wanted RL acceptance from a community "living" through the plights because through his avatar, he could "imagination" the plights. Blech! Anyway, the discussion will probably progress better for those who are not familiar with the actual post in question. I will look forward to reading said progression. Oh well . . . This thread is most definitely NOT a "defence" of said blogger, who has demonstrated his unwillingness to extend to others the same right he demands for himself. I am far more interested in the general principle. It would probably, in hindsight, have been best not to have alluded to that particular post at all.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Scylla Rhiadra wrote: It's one's performance, not one's labels, that interest me. Yep but, as in the Olympics, shouldn't degree of difficulty figure into the score? lol Only if we are intent upon measuring people's right to self-fashion against the right of our culture, and our language, to do it for them. It's a crazy thought, but what if one's sexuality or gender were about as culturally "meaningful" as hair or eye colour? In such a world, the "score" would be largely academic, wouldn't it?

Dogboat Taurog wrote: i'm not interested in peoples supposed sexuality either and i often get misunderstood, by the PC brigade, ill try to explain it again.. we are not just a sexuality unless we just want to be just a sexuality, i find that attitude very shallow. hey im gay, hey im transexual, hey so what who cares i like big boobs but i dont go round telling the world about it, snore. In some ways, Dogboat, I don't entirely disagree. Again, if we are simply accepting of each other's self-definition, it ceases to be an issue. If people seem overly-assertive about things like sexuality now, it is surely in large measure a response to the general unwillingness to be tolerant and accepting?

Sy Beck wrote: Hi Scylla, You seem to have started with a question and ended with a conclusion so I hope there's room for debate. And I'm sorry, but after all your well thought out and expressed argument I can't get this out of my head. :matte-motes-bashful-cute-2: But to start you off. If the LL quote, “Your World, Your Imagination,” is one you agree with and support and said person is here to live that quote, is happy and not unduly bothering other people inworld then what is the problem? If the Lab were about to assert that said person could not be addressed in that person's preferred pronoun then there's a legitimate debate. SL people though arguing about the rights and wrongs of SL gender definition in a real world forum seems devoid of any reality in either world. What's next on the agenda? People who portray themselves as animals can't do so unless they are one in real life? I do hope as well that you are not suggesting that the freedom to choose what we are in SL could easily be transposed to real life if only their was the will to do so because that is very vast and grey area and in extremis leads to the glib video I linked. Anyhoos, good to see you are still contributing, but I'm led to believe that we are now denied the pleasure of Pep and yourself locking horns with each other. :matte-motes-crying: Hey Sy! Nice to hear from you again! Well, there's ALWAYS room for debate! And sometimes it's useful to establish a strong position, if only so others have something to joust against. I will fully acknowledge the humour and partially concede the validity of the Python sketch. And I'll agree that this becomes a non-issue if one's self-definition is not challenged. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, that's the ideal situation. I don't think that this freedom is "easily" transposed into RL at all. But, to be honest, I'd like to see more of that freedom in the real world too, even if it is always problematized by our conditioned acceptance of the idea that gender and sexuality are somehow inherently and essential "vital" components of who we are. It's my belief that gender and sexuality are "important" in terms of how we read, judge, or understand each other largely because we, as a culture, have decided that they are. That's not to say that there aren't important differences, just that we have greatly over-determined these. I've always kind of thought of SL as a place where we can learn more tolerance and empathy, and apply that to our "real" lives. This is an instance of that, I think.

Oh, and I should probably note that, while I defend the right of said well-known blogger to represent however he chooses, I find the vast majority of his own characterizations of the LGBT community utter anathema.

Ima, I judge the merits of a person's sensitivities and ability to empathize according to how well they demonstrate those qualities, rather than prejudge them merely because they are called one thing in RL, and another in SL. I've known men who were among the most intelligent and sensitive feminists I've ever met; I've known women whose lack of empathy for the plight of other women was appalling. It's one's performance, not one's labels, that interest me.

Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; Our meddling intellect Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:-- We murder to dissect. (William Wordsworth) It is no exaggeration to say that that one of the most contentious and long-seated debates within the Second Life community has centred on the nature of identity, and in particular, sexual identity. Of late something of a new chapter in this ongoing discussion has been opened on a number of Second Life related forums and blogs, with regard to the related issues of self-definition and “sexual politics.” Who decides who is “transgendered” in Second Life? Or who is “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual,” “queer,” or (for that matter) “cisgendered” or “straight”? The origins of the debate lie in the assertion, made by a well-known SL blogger, that he is “transgendered” because he represents as a male, while being biologically female in RL. To this, some have responded that only those who are transgendered in RL merit this name. So, what’s in a name? Well, a great deal actually. The power inherent in “naming” others, and in so doing, defining and asserting control over who or what they “are,” has long been recognized. The archetype of this power appears in Chapter 2 of the Book of Genesis, when Adam asserts his dominion over God’s Creation by naming the animals, and his power over woman by naming Eve. Human culture has applied this same lesson with all too much effectiveness: our racist, patriarchal, and heterosexist societies have always established their hegemony by “naming” the “other,” and defining them in this way: “barbarian,” “the gentle sex,” “homosexual,” to name only the least offensive of these, have been terms employed to pin those on the margins of power down, identifying and establishing them as both inferiors, and potential threats. In our own century, we have seen totalitarian regimes the world over similarly “name” their enemies, dehumanizing them in the process so as to make it morally more palatable to eliminate them. Our own democratic states are not immune to such linguistic manoeuvres: how often has our own military adventurism resulted in “collateral damage,” rather than the less marketable broken and bleeding civilian bodies that are the true legacy of war? And this is how we “murder to dissect”: we impose, analyze, define, delimit, and ultimately deprive of choice, power, and even humanity all that we would categorize. The oft-cited old advertising slogan of Second Life – “Your World, Your Imagination,” successfully captured the essence of the power of this virtual world, to permit one to construct one’s own reality here. That power extends particularly over our identities, and our ability to represent here as whatever we choose. The key word here may be “represent,” for we establish who we are here through both visual self-presentation and, ultimately, language. This is why names and labels are so important in Second Life: here, in contradistinction to “real life,” we can name ourselves, and make of ourselves what we wish. And to accede to the demands of others who would label us as they might wish – in compliance with our RL identities, or in line with their own presumptions about gender and sexual identity – is to surrender our right to choose who we are for ourselves. So, if someone represents themselves as female in SL, even if it is known that she is biologically male in RL, she is owed the right to have that confirmed by use of the female pronouns “she” or “her.” If someone else believes that he or she is “transgendered” because of how he or she represents, he or she is similarly owed that right. This is more than a mere courtesy: it is an acknowledgement of his or her right to “name” and therefore define herself or himself. Second Wave Feminism once argued that “the personal is political”: that understanding and ultimately asserting control over one’s own life and identity was as important, in its own way, as fighting the big battles in the political arena. And, in fact, sometimes the big battles are won through the cumulative effect of small or local victories. Be personal, and be political. Your name is who you are; don’t let others decide that for you.

Pep wrote: A third option, as I have occasionally done in the past, is to write in a sufficiently complex style using sophisticated language, that neither those who I am berating nor those supposed to be moderating according to the Guidelines, are capable of grasping the extent to which the Guidelines may or may not have been broached. Pep (It rarely worked; my antagonists assumed they had been insulted on the basis of hyperemotional irrational reactions, and the mods agreed with them out of ignorance and faineance, offering supposed rationales for action that bore no resemblance to the transgressions which may or may not have taken place.) And therein lies the rub. This is why irony doesn't "work" here either: there seems to be a tendency (based on concern for the "sensitivities" of those who might not be capable of understanding irony, perhaps?) to take the "safe" course, and simply delete where there is any question. This is why an ironic "attack" on furries that was actually satirizing those who attacked that community could be removed for "intolerance," and a light-hearted attempt to defuse an ongoing flame war humorously employing McCarthyism to suggest that the fight was overblown drama could be deleted as "contributing" to the flaming.

Mickey Vandeverre wrote: I don't care too much for your voice some days (as you well know)....but they take that away...they take away all the others, and they just ditched the virtual world for what it is....and replaced it with a Pollyanna Farmville that Breeds on Fake BS. might as well just plug the whole thing into Facebook and Google+ and get it over with. I don't disagree -- in fact, my Milton quote above says pretty much the same thing (minus the FB and Google+ reference, of course).

Mickey Vandeverre wrote: well...not clear on what the options are. was told in another thread basically not to question the moderators, not to derail....and to play the game. tried that...and it ended up worse. there is a third option? If I knew of another solution, I'd have advocated it long ago. But given the limited range of options, you might instead choose one that at least does no harm? RICing, particularly when the system is so opaque that there is no way of knowing if you are targeting an actual malefactor or not, just adds to the carnage and confusion.

Mickey, I have no difficulty believing that you haven't in the past flagged posts. Please don't start doing so now in order to "play the game." That contributes nothing but turning this into a wide open gunfight, made the worse by the fact that you are shooting blindly: you have no way of knowing who may or may not be RICing your threads and posts.

I've received notification from Lexie that one of my posts here was accidentally removed, and invited to repost it. First, thank you Lexie. And here is the content of the removed post, reposted: ____________________ I think we need to toss the misapprehension that all threads and posts that are pulled have been RICed. I don't, of course, have any actual data to back this up, but I am pretty sure that much of what is disappearing is being pulled on the judgement of the moderators themselves. If so, that is very sad, because it means that standards are being imposed from the top down, rather than being determined by the forum community itself. 

Fair enough, Mickey. Tone is one of the major problems here, I think. Many people seem to find irony (and in this case, that might include me) almost impossible to grasp. Most of the threads I've had pulled employed irony extensively, most often as an overarching framework. I suppose it could simply be that some of the mods here are utterly tone-deaf, but there is a sort of Newspeakish aspect to it: words on this forum aren't permitted to be multivalent, or have both ironic and "serious" significations. We must, apparently, at all times speak in utter seriousness, and employ only denotation rather than connotation. Like Ishy's example of the "Simple English Wikipedia," it's about an impoverishment of the language, and a de facto limitation of what we can or cannot say that has nothing to do with propriety or "PG" ratings.

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Mickey Vandeverre wrote: I don't feel like looking up the word "castigated" if you have something on your mind, spell it out normally Just to illustrate my above point: I'm an ESLer, and I didn't have to look it up. There is no need to treat ESLers with silk gloves. You are clearly not "normal" then, Ishy.

If we think to regulate printing, thereby to rectify manners, we must regulate all recreations and pastimes, all that is delightful to man. No music must be heard, no song be set or sung, but what is grave and Doric. There must be licensing of dancers, that no gesture, motion, or deportment be taught our youth, but what by their allowance shall be thought honest; for such Plato was provided of. It will ask more than the work of twenty licensers to examine all the lutes, the violins, and the guitars in every house; they must not be suffered to prattle as they do, but must be licensed what they may say. And who shall silence all the airs and madrigals that whisper softness in chambers? [...] I fear yet this iron yoke of outward conformity hath left a slavish print upon our necks; the ghost of a linen decency yet haunts us.  John Milton, The Areopagitica (1644) Let the music be heard, Lexie. All of it.

Mickey Vandeverre wrote: I don't feel like looking up the word "castigated" if you have something on your mind, spell it out normally Spell it out "normally"????? LOL First I'll have to find my "normal person" dictionary.

Storm Clarence wrote: Scylla Rhiadra wrote: Oh, I don't know, Storm. Maybe that I've been castigated, by no less in fact than the current OP, for making similar complaints in the past? *shrugs* Ther'e's no news like old news. I never knew you to sit down when the time to stand up would have been the 'right' thing to do. Oh well, we all change. Who said I was sitting down? Do my comments sound like those of someone who is happy with the current state of affairs? I've had as many, perhaps more, OPs pulled from this forum for no good reason than anyone here. I have been accused of "intolerance" over a satirical thread that was actually attacking intolerance, and have had more than one merely playful thread yanked under god-only-knows-what justification. I have a dog in this fight too. Don't mistake war-weariness and a certain relishing of irony, for submission or complacency.

Oh, I don't know, Storm. Maybe that I've been castigated, by no less in fact than the current OP, for making similar complaints in the past? *shrugs* Ther'e's no news like old news.

Well, Peggy doesn't seem to be around at the moment, so . . . Wow. Threads being pulled for no good reason? People gaming the RIC system to delete content they don't like? Say it ain't so!!! O tempora, O mores!

kattatonia Wickentower wrote: Oh Scylla, Don't be afraid to tell us what you really think! Some are gonna love you no matter what, others are going to disagree with you no matter what. But personally, I'd rather read a forum that allows your point of view, no matter what. Thanks Katt! I'll make this my credo, then. :matte-motes-grin:

"Then I thought maybe I'd better not say these things, because I'll get accused of being a 'net nanny,' and maybe disliked by everyone, and excoriated by one or two others for really being a sneaky and slippery manipulator." Just thought I'd point out that your coming was foretold. Anyway, I only said I'd maybe say those things.

Yeah. Don't think I didn't think of that.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: Maybe you should just gtfo... lol. ...Dres ETA: Or just be quite. Yeah. Prolly, eh?

Ok, so first I thought . . . I should say something about the sniping and nasty stuff going on here. And how no one is improving the image of their "group" by including damning quotes in their signature, or saying overtly nasty things to each other. And how, at the same time, saving the really nasty stuff that you say for a third party blog, rather than saying it here, isn't really an improvement, and is maybe even a bit cowardly, even if it means that, for most people, you seem to be playing nice, when you are really just being nasty elsewhere. And then I thought maybe I'd say that the best kind of lunch is an open, inclusive affair, where everyone is invited. And that a true PICard always says "Engage" to the helmsman, because "engaging" with others, rather than attacking them is what one should do. Then I thought maybe I'd better not say these things, because I'll get accused of being a "net nanny," and maybe disliked by everyone, and excoriated by one or two others for really being a sneaky and slippery manipulator. So, after that, it occurred to me that maybe I shouldn't care if people think or do those things. And then I thought, but I sort of do care. So maybe I won't say any of those things, even though I'd like to. Maybe.