• Announcements

    • Xiola Linden

      The New Community Platform   03/21/2017

      We are still working on making adjustments and changes to the new platform. Thanks  to everyone who has been sending in feedback and filing any bugs you've encountered! 

Luna Bliss

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Luna Bliss

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Marigold Devin wrote: Luna Bliss wrote: I have lots of strange squatter bots on my sim. What does this mean? I don't really mind them being there -- I just don't want people to think I'm trying to increase traffic. Do their groups give any clues? Could they be Tiny Empires players who decided your land looks a nice place to be? Well atm there are only two - Parahsalin has nothing in her profile, and another bot has a short Arabic sentence in hers. Sometimes there are up to 10 or 15 just parked on a couple of floating islands in my store.
  2. Klytyna wrote: Luna Bliss wrote: I'm embarrassed to be an Amercian. Pretend you are Canadian... Then you can indulge in those amazing Canadian only things, like, proper bacon, better beer, and of course, their unique hobby. Did you know Canadians keep French people as pets and train them to play icehockey? Something to respect about Canada because it's more than anyone else has ever been able to do... Yes believe me, there are quite a few Americans dreaming of moving to Canada!
  3. ChinRey wrote: Luna Bliss wrote: I'm embarrassed to be an Amercian. It goes like this: some Americans are criminals, therefore all Americans are criminals. That's the kind of stereotyping this is all about of course. The one thing all nations in the world have in common, is that the vast majority of the citizens are just ordinary people, neither particularly good nor particularly bad. Unless you deliberately chose to be born in a specific country so that you could grow up to become a terrorist, don't be ashamed of it. Yeah, it's not really rational. But I feel connected to/feel a part of my country.
  4. Devriv wrote: "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist." Amethyst, the poem you quote is a fabrication. The actual poem, safe from “tweeting” Brown Shirt and Black Shirt opportunists, can be read here, posted in the Holocaust Memorial Day website. What are "Brown Shirt and Black Shirt opportunists"? I don't believe I've heard this particular turn of phrase before...
  5. Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Luna Bliss wrote: Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Luna Bliss wrote: It's a difficult dilemma - how abusive does a friend/family member have to be before one should/could/would cross them off their 'list'. I think when they can't show they respect you anymore is the point where they aren't your friend anymore. People don't have to agree with you but can still respect you and your opinions. With our votes we are deciding matters of life and death and immense suffering for people as the goods of society are divided. Access to medical care, food, shelter, and basic rights come to mind. The problem for me, Amethyst, is that I don't respect nor do I want to befriend anyone who is racist or who votes in ways that cause harm to disenfranchised or marginalized people. It goes way beyond just not accepting a difference of opinion (which is easy for me to do in most matters). I consider these people as abusers and I would no more want to be friends or just "agree to disagree" with them than I would want to befriend a pedophile or child beater. ... Luna, I make a distinction between those who have political views different than mine and those that are racist, or bigoted against any group of people, due to religion, sexual orientation or nationality. The latter people I never befriended and if I did and find them out later, my first reaction is to try to change their minds. If I find that is hopeless, then I no longer consider them friends and tell them in no uncertain terms why. While I try to show respect to everyone, I am very choosy when it comes to picking my friends. That sounds like a good way to handle it, Amethyst, regarding those who are "bigoted against any group of people, due to religion, sexual orientation or nationality". But taking this a bit further and addressing attitudes toward the poor and disenfranchised, what if someone's 'political view' causes suffering and death of disenfranchised people? (I'm thinking here about the Republican notion of reducing taxes on the wealthy while cutting aid to the poor, as well as the deceptive ruse of 'trickle down economics'). What would you do if you encountered a friend who was aware of the abusive policies (not simply ignorant of the ramifications of these policies) and thought it was simply okay for a society to funnel money to the wealthy while murdering the poor? Or that the dynamic should simply 'play out' in the free market due to their paranoia of anything in society being 'forced' (a libertarian)?
  6. ChinRey wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Which do you think make up the majority of people in SL? Ummmm... Non-Americans actually. I'm embarrassed to be an Amercian. From here on out I'm from...India ;0
  7. You didn't answer my question....what proof do you have that the ban is aimed at stemming terrorism? I answer your questions but you never or seldom answer mine.
  8. Maelstrom Janus wrote: Like I said hypocrite ....Boundaries which suit you.... Do you allow people to barge into your house or apartment whenever they want? Do you feel we have a right to discriminate against others based on race, gender, or sexual orientation?
  9. Maelstrom Janus wrote: You cant set up boundaries aimed at stemming very real terrorism but a barrier to protect the privacy of an animated figure is okay... talk about warped logic lol What proof do you have that the boundaries are aimed at stemming terrorism?
  10. Maelstrom Janus wrote: So whats the basis of ban lines in sl then ? Presumably no one who objects to Donny's tactics is going to object if Lindens set the standard by switching off ban lines and cancelling the useof security drones etc in scond life. After all Donalds talking terrorism...I dont see the majority of those factors coming into it all all.....whats the reason for ban lines in sl ?? Privacy is one of the good boundaries. I don't want people to come into my house uninvited, or for someone to barge into my dressing stall as I try on a new outfit when out shopping. And in SL I'd like to be able to choose to talk to someone in privacy, or build in privacy so I am not distracted. These are rights I believe all people should have. But to create a boundary that causes undue hardship on someone based on the color of their skin, their religion, or their sexual preference is unfair and demonstrates prejudice. They should not be discriminated against and have less rights simply because they were born as a darker person, a woman, or a gay person. Of course we can always choose not be around anyone we don't like, but we should not have the right to create rules/laws that steal from them what we freely give to others.
  11. Maelstrom Janus wrote: I dont - Im not the hypocrite condeming peoples boundaries while setting up my own... So you mean you think we should treat people unfairly or differently based on the color of their skin, or their gender identity/sextual preference, or their religion?
  12. Maelstrom Janus wrote: Of course Lindens is barriers free all all... assuming you have the cash and youre prepared to pay it in dollars..... Maelstrom, how do you define the difference between a good boundary/barrier vs a bad one?
  13. Medhue Simoni wrote: Devriv wrote: Perhaps you misunderstood Medhue’s statement. He asks a very important question, one which, remarkably, despite the presence and abundance of assertive commenters in this thread, remains glaringly unanswered. With Medhue’s permission I’ll reword it only slightly: “How about people stand against the [destruction] of these nations, instead of [standing against] a ban on immigration?” The question is so simple, basic and reasonable that it would require a very good education not to ask it. In a free society, it is just the question asked by informed citizens and political commentators. Here, in this thread, it has remained unanswered because the media has not yet provided an answer that someone could safely regurgitate. Thank you, Devriv! I sit here and read all this outrage, over an immigration "ban". Where was and is the outrage over real people dying, on almost a daily basis? Getting blown to bits? This has gone on for well over a decade. Please people, direct your outrage to the bad policies that created this situation. I'm sure that Trump will likely continue this same program that Obama expanded on. Let's stop the cause, and there need not be any bans. Back in the day, we got nations to cooperate and love us with trade, and exporting our products. We did it with voluntary solutions, not with using force. Force and aggression is the problem. Instead, we see people on the left arguing whether it is OK to sucker punch those that they don't agree with. Yet, these same people want to project moral superiority on the topic of immigration. That is just crazy! Medhue, I think that LL took the right stance and at the right time. All wars/bombings can be traced back to one fundamental cause -- the objectification of the "other" and the subsequent justification to demonize and do whatever we want with that "other". For the first time in a long while there is an attempt to codify, to bring to the forefront and legitimize, to sanction, to make a law regarding our right to demonize a group of people in this way. There is no greater danger than demonizing others, as all war springs from it. There is an attempt to set a dangerous precedent in the US (in modern times). I totally agree that the US has been paramount in the conflict in the Middle East, and that the bombings are egregious and should be ceased. But LL can't go around taking a political stance on every conflict in the world -- it would never cease and they are not a political organization anyway. I feel that had we attempted to ban those from another country outside the US they would have taken the same stance, so the bombing in the Middle East is a moot point from this perspective. It makes sense that they would take a stance on the core root of the problem that is now surfacing and so threatening to the peace of the entire world, and that they would focus on their 'family' -- those employees affected by the current climate.
  14. Aislin Ceawlin wrote: A sense of what? I've exaggerated nothing. I think you must be pretty sheltered if you honestly believe that. I've literally "heard" (read, etc) hundreds of people from both sides discussing this exact topic. The friends that I have lost have revealed themselves to be many types of "phobic" and even racist when they had never made those sorts of comments before (at least not in my company).ETA I also still have many friends who didn't vote the same as I did, but we respect each other and consider each others beliefs and feelings. It's almost as if (in their mind) Trump has given them the license to be racist isn't it?