Scylla Rhiadra

Thanks Snugs. It's frightening, sometimes, how close satire sails to reality. *shudders*

In memory of all of those hundreds of millions -- soldiers and civilians -- who have perished in the last century through the all-too-human illusion that anything is ever solved by war. Time to put the "same old lie" to rest. This is by Wilfred Owen, who died in action on the Western Front on November 4, 1918, "Dulce Et Decorum Est" Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots, But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind. Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling, Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; But someone still was yelling out and stumbling And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . . Dim through the misty panes and thick green light, As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. In all my dreams before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning. If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, – My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.

You guys all kinda rock. :matte-motes-smile:

This issue, of course, has come up before. The last time we kicked up a fuss, Rodvik did pop in. More to the point, we saw a sudden increase in participation within the threads here of Linden staff generally. Dear Rodvik. Please Phone Home. The rules have changed here somewhat since then, but maybe it's time that LL started to reassert a more visible and transparent presence here again? ETA. I think Rodvik is responsive, even if he sometimes needs a bit of goading. I expect him to reply, if not here (where it might be seen as undercutting his own staff), then in his profile feed.

Far from being a "spammer," Celestiall is an articulate and intelligent regular poster (with whom I happen to disagree on just about . . . everything!). One can't discuss this issue very safely here, but you can get a pretty good picture by reading the recent posts -- several dozen of them -- on Rodvik's online profile feed: Rodvik Linden

People complain uselessly about this place -- and lord knows I've been one of them -- because they care about it, and about the community that we've created here. You know that, Peggy: you're an integral part of it. Frankly, companies shell out big bucks to nurture the kind of thing that SL residents have created gratis here. LL is nuts not to recognize the value of this kind of place: it represents the sort of social media environment that they are so desperately attempting to foster using the newish online profiles. Killing it through poor moderation, whatever its origin, is just dumb.

I suppose mine will probably be removed as well. But they have to read it to whack it, and that's something.

If I had a Twitter account, I'd post to Rod there. I have however posted to his online profile about this, which is perhaps almost as public. This is all beginning to make the dire predictions of many who left these forums come true: it is evidently hazardous to venture an opinion here. If SL has ANY regard or concern for the well-being of these forums -- not to mention any interest in integrity and fair-dealing -- they will reinstate Celestiall immediately.

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: I think the TV documentaries that featured Stroker and the adult-rated side of SL have lured more people here than art and culture could ever hope to accomplish. Anyway, the "repulsive crap" is only repulsive if you mistakenly assume that his "SL daughters" were, or represented, legal minors . There is nothing legally wrong with incest RP between consenting adults with adult-shaped avatars. I had a friend RP my twin sister for a while, because there is nothing more attractive to me than my own avatar. Incest is a very common erotic fantasy in SL. Besides, even in RL, the social taboo against consensual adult incest no longer makes any rational sense in the age of birth control, especially not if both participants have the same gender. RL anti-incest laws that don't seek to protect minors are just another example of a moralizing government that tries to control what consenting adults get to do in their bedrooms. I didn't say that such RP was "wrong" -- I wasn't making a moral judgement about it. I suggested it was "repulsive," a personal and partially aesthetic judgement that I stand by, and that would, I suspect, be shared with the vast majority of people watching said documentaries. A simulation in SL of sexual torture, rape, and mutilation would also not necessarily be "wrong" in the sense that it does "harm," but it would still be repulsive -- at least to me and most people I know. And the fact that Stroker's self-aggrandizing characterizations of Second Life as a sort of giant orgy room have undoubtedly attracted a great many people to Second Life is precisely my complaint. It is to such publicity that we owe the fact that a great many people who MIGHT be interested in the art, culture, and creativity here won't touch it with a barge pole. Instead, thanks in some measure to Stroker, we are the destination of choice for those who wander around asking all and sundry if they want to have "the secks." I have no reason to dislike Stroker personally. He could be a saint for all I know in RL (although I wonder if his wife would think so?). But I'm delighted to see him gone. Now, if he could only take his arch nemesis, Jumpy, with him. ETA: This is fairly simply, Ishy, and needn't involve huge debates about the morality of certain types of role play, the presence of sex in SL, or anything like that. This is about personal preferences, and what we most value about Second Life. You see Second Life primarily in terms of sex. I value it for other reasons. I have nothing in particular against a virtual world that is primarily about sex -- I just don't want to see Second Life go that way, at the expense of the things that I, personally, value here. If Second Life *does* became a larger more sophisticated version of RLC, I won't be morally outraged. But I will cease to be interested, and will leave. Really, it's as simple as that.

I don't know . . . and really don't much care . . . what sort of impact the free SexGen beds will have on the sex toy industry in SL. Not much, I'd bet. On the other hand, without Stroker spewing repulsive crap about having sex with his "SL daughters" to documentary filmmakers, perhaps Second Life might be able to recover from its reputation as a haven for repellant porn addicts. Perhaps, just maybe, someone will want to talk instead about the art, the culture, and the creativity that SL features? Nah, you're right. Ain't gonna happen.

Hmm. From the sound of it, I may be the only person posting here who actually has read Boellstorff's book. I'll just say a few things about, and maybe you can determine for yourself if it's worth reading -- although I gather you've already ordered a copy? Oh well. Ka-ching! 1) Coming of Age in Second Life is not a quickie make-a-buck book: it is a highly regarded and oft-cited work of legitimate anthropology. It won at least one award, I think. (I'd check, but my copy is in a box somewhere, and I can't find it offhand.) 2) Although it comes under the larger rubric of "anthropology," that is a rather large and diverse field. The primary academic framework for Boellstorff's study is actually ethnology. His introduction relates his study to Bronisław Malinowski's famous study of the culture of the Trobriand Islanders; his title is a tip of the hat to Margaret Mead's influential work of cultural anthropology, Coming of Age in Samoa. 3) The development of a distinctive culture within virtual worlds is an entirely legitimate subject of study for an ethnologist, as indeed is nearly any aspect of human culture. And yes, there are anthropological studies of World of Warcraft already in existence, as a Google search will probably show you. 4) Boellstorff is no tourist in SL: he spent extensive amounts of time in SL, and engaged intimately with the various communities he found. The book is worthwhile for, if nothing else, the sheer amount of primary source material it contains: he interviewed and interacted with hundreds of people here. It also employs extensive citations and includes an impressive bibliography of secondary source materials. 5) While it is already "out of date," so is any ethnographic study of contemporary culture, generally within a few years of its publication. That's the nature of the beast. That said, it doesn't feel out of date. Indeed, my initial feeling while reading it was one of familiarity: it described an SL that was extremely recognizable. 6) It is surprisingly readable, and manages to avoid any long passages of academese. He uses a very loose narrative framework for most of his discussions that makes it very easy to follow, and gives the whole thing a sort of anecdotal quality. I found it quite entertaining. Overall, I enjoyed the book. I didn't "learn" much from it: I already knew of most of the aspects of SL culture that he was discussing. But some of his insights about these things were very interesting. And it was, as I said, also well-written and largely entertaining. Hope that helps!

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.