Scylla Rhiadra

Well, maybe I like to complicate things! And unless it's got a fancy-smanshy academic term associated with it, it can't possibly be accurate? Right? Amirite? Of course what you say is true . . . but the fact is that, despite your tongue-in-cheek(?) comment about your persona elsewhere, not everyone responds to the lure of anonymity and transience the way that you describe. You don't. I like to think that I don't. Most people on this forum don't. And I think it has something to do, obviously, with the personalities involved, but also with how we understand identity in an online context. My online persona, here ("Scylla") and elsewhere, is meaningful and important to me, and my reputation matters, even if it is not associated with RL me. So, when is that true, and when isn't it? Anyway, I'm working on an incomprehensible and overly-complicated bit of scholarly jargon to describe this: I'll get back to you soon!

I completely agree -- which is part of why I was somewhat concerned about the apparently uncritical use of "normies" as a means of dividing the population neatly and reductively into halves. The tendency of the left to engage in this kind of dismissive "lump 'em all in the same basket" approach is, as I suspect you know, a central point of Angela Nagle's book Kill All Normies. It's also why Dale Beran's otherwise worthwhile piece on the role of 4chan in the rise of Trumpism received a fair amount of criticism: he tends to argue for a single direct line of descent, and papers over the variants and diversity. No one who has any familiarity with, for instance, the many faces and ideologies of hactivism should make that kind of mistake. A parallel is the whole "basket of deplorables" thing: it's really unhelpful to paint a complicated scene with a very very broad brush. If we're to address the variety of causes and expressions of these particular cultures, we need an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the kinds of range of view that you describe.

I am entirely willing to believe that you didn't use the term with a pejorative intent. Unfortunately, that's not the way that language works, and I don't think there is any doubt that the term is used, overwhelmingly, as an insult. What's more worrisome, maybe, is that, because of its origins, its use tends naturally to identify the user with an admittedly complicated bundle of attitudes and assumptions that include some of the most ugly corners of the internet. I am absolutely sure that was not your intention, but its a sort of inescapable consequence. I can't imagine using it without framing it very clearly in quotation marks. Someone above said something like this, I think. Or maybe it was another thread. Anyway, for whatever reason, online discussions just tend to encourage the articulation of extreme positions, and turn into flame wars more quickly. I've never really read a convincing analysis of why that should be. Thanks for your response!

This is a really interesting perspective, but you break it down into a simple binary between "normies" (a term that is a very clear pejorative) and what you call "those well-versed in internet culture." The word "normies" implies that you mean by the latter the culture of 4chan, Something Awful, the Alt-Right, certain corners of Reddit, etc. (I think I'd also like to suggest that there is more than one kind of "internet culture," and that the elements that spawned the term "normie" are just one part of a much more diverse picture?) Serious question: has not a great deal of the most vociferous hatred towards furries come precisely from that part of "internet culture"? Am I wrong in thinking that an awful lot of those most likely to employ the insult "normies" are also those most likely attack furries?

Hello Squirrel! (Another attempt to get this "portrait" thing down! Given that I'm snowed in at work by a blizzard, the subject matter seemed appropriate!)

Awwww! This is absolutely adorab . . . Oh. Wait . . .

Don't worry about "trying": you are totally succeeding. These are great shots! And your avatar is really adorable (in a sort of, "I-wouldn't-want-to-mess-with-her" way).

Ok, so maybe it wasn't such a good idea to drop those moisturizer packets into my purse.

So, it's been a while since I did a portrait/head shot, and I thought maybe I should focus on getting back to some basics that I've never actually entirely mastered. This is ok, I think, but I still honestly don't really know what I'm doing with these.

Clever you! I've used this essential technique for "adding myself" to a picture -- which is to say, employing myself sort of like an alt as an "extra" in a picture -- but it hadn't occurred to me to use it to fix clipping in clothes!

"How could Wodewick be such an awful beast? And I had the most wonderful dwess alweady picked out! Mumsy is going to be so vewy disappointed. And Poppa is going to be fuwious!" "Oh well twa la la, twa la la! Whateveh shall I weah to the Duchess's tomowow night?"

Maddy's been flouncing since the day she first posted.

i can't agree. A really award-winning flounce is sort of awe-inspiring and possessed of a certain kind of dramatic flair and elegance. Phil's just has me drumming my fingers on the desk. Waiting. And waiting. Although I would like to see him in that dress. (Although, I'll actually miss Phil. He's been a consistent presence on the forums for my entire time here. He's a fixture, sort of like that weird background buzzing you sometimes get in your ears.)

Yes, exactly. The toxicity ca. 2010-2012 was lethal. I had details about my personal life in SL being tossed around in posts here, and gossiped about on third party web sites. It was pretty horrible. The ideal, of course, is a middle ground, with sufficiently strong and engaged moderation to ensure that actual trolling and flaming are discouraged, but with a greater license for real and legitimate critical discussion and fruitful (and fun) derails. The problem is that that would require a greater expenditure of resources on moderation here than is, I suspect, currently the case. And, of course, it would also necessitate more transparent and engaged moderation. In the old days, as I recall, one got actual, personalized DMs from mods about pulled threads and posts, and not just boilerplate emails that frequently make no real sense in the context of the pulled post. Another option would be to go back to resident mods, although we'd need mechanisms to ensure that the moderation was not being controlled by particular cliques. None of that is going to happen, though. More specifically . . . I've thought the same thing, and been equally puzzled, since at least 2014, which was the last time (previous to this last half year) that I was active here. Part of it might be the interface? But surely the biggest thing that has changed is the moderation. ETA: I have, I have to say, some sympathy for the mods. Pulling forum duty must be about as popular as lunch room monitor is for elementary school teachers!

What sort of a body are you wearing, Eanna? The initial OP was about a system avatar; I'm pretty sure physics works differently for mesh bodies. Of you're wearing a mesh body, what make and type? (For my Slink body, jiggle is produced by a separate attachment, for instance.)

It sounds as though maybe I just need to call her "cute" often enough, and she'll be begging for mercy in no time.

Many people have made great points here, but I'm too lazy to search through and quote them all. So, with apologies to those with whom I'm agreeing, or whose points I'm cribbing without attribution . . . I'm not very likely to start a thread here on a subject that is completely unrelated to SL. There are exceptions, but for the most part, there are better places to have those kinds of discussions, and I'm already reasonably active on some of them. I wouldn't post something about alpha cuts on mesh avatars in a discussion group devoted to feminist activism, and I'm equally unlikely to post here about reproductive rights in RL. That said, any attempt to make a cut-and-dry distinction between "RL" and "SL" is pointless. SL is part of our RL, and, however we may represent here, we bring with us all of the assumptions, beliefs, prejudices, and perspectives that RL has given us. My feminism, progressive political views, etc., are much more relevant in a RL context, but of course they colour what I say and do here. To suggest that we can partition one off from another is silly. Point 2 means that it is inevitable that RL topics, such as politics and ideologies, or even just interests and experiences, are going to be a potential part of even the most SL-specific topics. That said, I myself try to avoid (I'm not sure how successfully) derails that veer away from the overlap between SL and RL concerns, and become solely about RL. Again, I have other, better places to discuss those things, except where they do impact on SL. Sasy's broader point about community, and about broadening one's perspective, knowledge, and interests, is really well taken. I have never understood why SL doesn't seem to get how important these forums could be in helping to generate a sense of community and connection more widely through SL. The point that others have made about SL's interest in keeping this place orderly, and PR-friendly is also important, however: unlike, say, Reddit, the forums, insofar as LL cares about them at all (other than as a cheap way of outsourcing user support), seem to be seen not positively, but rather as a potential liability. That's understandable, in the circumstances, but it also means that, so long as LL sees the forums as a potential public embarrassment, we're never going to get free-wheeling discussions here. The result is that the moderation here seems (to me) to be rather corporate and PR-oriented. LL really isn't going to want an all-out debate on abortion access, or immigration, here, because it does nothing to forward the product's public image, and is, if anything, likely to cause embarrassment or frighten people away. What could they possibly have to gain, as a business, by allowing free rein in discussions? Speaking from the perspective now as a forum participant, I appreciate how well the moderation here has "tamed" and made much less toxic what could sometimes be a pretty scary place, particularly for new people. On the whole, this is a friendlier, safer environment than it used to be. The downside of that, however, is that the moderation sometimes seems arbitrary, heavy-handed, and opaque. My own single experience of being moderated here since I returned has left me confused and upset and, moreover, really uncertain about how safe it is to engage in discussions that, even while explicitly about Second Life, might be viewed as in any way controversial or tendentious. I am now frankly pretty reluctant to do so. So, I don't think I'll be likely to expose myself to possible sanction by discussing really controversial (but important) RL issues: I just don't have sufficient faith in the consistency and logic of the moderation. So, to sum up: I don't personally think that a subforum about RL only would contribute much, nor can I imagine any reason why LL would permit it. Nor, given how little I seem to understand the rules for moderation here, would I be comfortable posting there. I think it would make a lot more sense to use the GD forum better, as a means of community-building, and exploring what SL "means" and what it might be capable of. I don't see that happening, though, at least not as the place currently works.

Amazing. (Except that no dog would let you sleep like that, ever.)

I've got bug spray . . . . but does it work on cute little demons??? (Oh, and EWWWWWWWWWW . . .)

Reason #546 that I love Ceka. That's pretty much exactly the effect I wanted! The premise was that, as the subway train pulls out, a solitary woman who is dancing for herself, oblivious to others and her incongruous surroundings, is sort of unveiled to those on the other platform. I wanted to catch a sense of unguarded intimacy with strangers. Seriously, I could just hug you!

You know that smoking is bad for you, right? So are really tight undies. I think you should probably give up both.

She's probably grumpy that I set fire to the powder room without asking for her help. Thanks! With hindsight, I should possibly have used a wider angle lens setting, so that the train was more obviously . . . a train. Maybe I'll try a retake, and do that.

Maddy dropped by while I was setting it up. She thought I was squishing bugs.

With thanks to Taya (@Angelina String), who found me the perfect subway station . . . but couldn't get me there in time to catch the train.

Sometimes posts get deleted if they quote another post that was removed -- in which case, you won't get notification, because yours was not the "offending" post. You'll only get a notification if you've actually received a warning or sanctions.