Luna Bliss

There are many things we can't do in our own RL homes, most especially if it affects the public in a harmful way.

When defining 'contract' here I am meaning this definition in Dictionary.com: 1.an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified. So I am referring to something else...not a legal contract on paper. What is this something else? I could call it 'fairness', and perhaps this is even specified in the constitution with all it's talk of 'justice'. I am not a scholar of ethics or the constitution, and don't need to be...but, I really don't want to debate over the legalities of this 'contract'...what I'm speaking to is the aversion someone would feel if they, for example, saw an adult stroll up to a baby carriage and grab the candy right out of the little babes hands and start chowing down on it. As far as I know there is no legal document that states we cannot take candy from a baby (although of course ownership legalities would apply), but most of society does indeed believe this is a kind of unconscious law that is in place (and not 'just because' it is individual ownership) -- they see the power imbalance and feel it is not 'a fair fight'. I think the problem may lie in the fact that you (as an assumed seller to the public) do not recognize being in a position of power in relationship to those you sell to -- it's certainly not as clear as taking candy from a baby, but sellers are indeed in a position of power. As a seller of goods, society needs us (when someone needs they have less power), plus we could do all kinds of nasty things to our buyer without regulation, and most would say we have an obligation to consider their needs, to be fair -- yes when we decided to have a relationship with society via selling our wares we have entered into a kind of contract (or should have). This power, through CHOOSING to sell to the public via our own, owned private space....these considerations trump the "right of association" you mentioned. I'm not saying the seller has no rights whatsoever, but when a seller decides to interact with the public they MUST consider the needs of that public too, and not claim they have all the rights just because they own the house where these goods are being produced.

Thanks for the suggestion, Luna, but if I could think seriously for a moment the negative outweigh the positive. I don't know how old you are, or what stage you are at in your life, so I can't say where you 'should' be at right now. But I'm happy you're at least acknowledging SL has not been ALL bad since you are now saying there has been more bad than good. There are sooo many things people learn over the years that can make it easier to deal with people. The sad truth is that most people will push in on you if you let them -- yeah they really can be rude and petty. Maybe you don't know how to defend yourself appropriately and so let people run over yourself too easily, or maybe you are overly sensitive and interpret a person as rude when another is simply stating their boundaries/preferences/options. We can't really know unless you're more specific. I'm not really sure this is the place to go into your dynamics in detail though -- I just hope you glean some things from what people have written and take advantage of the fact that there's much we can learn to make life easier.

It's more complex than that, or no woman would have a second child, and those of us who learn by observation wouldn't have a first. ;-). Memories of pain can protect, paralyze or prime us. If you're excessively prone to remember pain, you're also excessively prone to perceive it. I wear rose colored glasses not so much to forget pain, but to prime me for new experiences. I trust that any pain I encounter as a result will be quickly forgotten. I did not come by this way of thinking through hard work, nor has my way of thinking been severely challenged (or if it has, I've forgotten ;-). This is just the way I am, so I can't really offer instruction on how to do it, though there shelves at the bookstore filled with attempts. Happiness is about expectation and gratitude. I don't expect life to give me more than I give it, and I'm grateful for what I get. I've lived a charmed life and have much to be grateful for, yet I see people around me who have much more and are still unhappy. You'll never catch me complaining about how the world treats me. It has no obligation to make me happy. That's my job. I don't think one example (childbirth) where pain is forgotten should be extrapolated to all experiences of pain/pleasure. There may be unique conditions that occur with childbirth since the reproductive process is important for survival to say the least, and our mind would likely do some pretty good tricks to keep that going. But current studies are saying that painful experiences force a greater imprint on the brain mainly due to the intensity of them, among other reasons: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1817329,00.html Who knows for sure...in 10 years social scientists may decide something else is true. Anyway, I totally agree with your thinking on the 'half glass full vs half glass empty' type of coping mechanisms, and I'm glad you are able to do that. I try to do the same. The book on my nightstand for years has been the book Simple Abundance'. And when I get down I 'remember love' and suddenly the world looks different. Through the years I've experienced that if I want to be happy it's my responsibility to make myself so. I try to abide by the motto "it's not the experience that makes us unhappy, but how we react to it". This seems to prove there is at least the possibility of overcoming the deeper imprints pain makes (if those theories are even true).

One thing I did in the past was to keep two note cards in SL, writing down positive experiences in one and negative in the other. There was always far, far more positive....but if I try to think back and determine the reality I usually remember the most negative ones! I remember a study some years back that theorized our minds more easily remember the difficult or painful experiences so that we're less likely to repeat them in the future. So just a suggestion Ashlyn.....it really helped me.

I should have been more explicit -- by "here", I meant SL. The OP has been in SL for 10 years and in all that time, she claims to have not encountered "one decent person". If that is her true feelings, then I'm curious as to why she is still in SL. IMO, the OP is actually just making extreme statements, but by doing so, the OP is blocking herself from seeing any positive. Ohh...I'm sorry...I don't think I had a very good grasp of the issues when I responded...

I agree, that sounds very much like discrimination. It should also target everyone, even people who won't bake cakes. No Callum, I'm afraid this was a very bad octupus as it only went after avatars with protected status. And I forgot to reveal that it also mansplained incessantly, adding an even more torturous level to the display

Well it looks to me like she had some bad experiences with SL....and that she came to a different space to get some support regarding it. So far I don't think she's accused the forum of being mean.

Why do we have to , or should, make anyone feel at home? Are we bound or obligated or given a tangible incentive to do so? I do not think so. Well that's a good question -- why should we try to make anyone feel at home? I think it's because they're new and at a disadvantage -- they have less of an idea what's going on here, and we might misinterpret them because we don't know them well. So yeah, we have more power and so offer a bit of protection toward the new people, or should. Like in RL...a group meeting where a new person arrives...so you say "hi, pull up a chair...and the like".

I think that was its name alright...Dave. I'm sorry to report this. Little did I know I would meet its mother all these years later...

Are you quite certain it isn't a "tentacle monster"? I have several of those. I don't know What it was...but it disturbed my canvas and peaceful intent of the space However, that reminds me I am making a kind of semi-Lovecraftian sim atm...i should get back to it.

I have too, though I'm still angry that someone placed a huge octopus that rapes women in one of the most beautiful custom caves I ever created...

I would not discriminate...I would slice 'em up and throw them in my virtual oven just like any other RL animal....

That was a silly, hyperbolic comparison yes, but your lack of awareness as to what takes place during discrimination by labeling it as "hey, I don't want you on my property, you have to leave, so sale for you" is equally silly, and abusive due to your lack of empathy for people who are discriminated against.

As a side note, it looks like there are some avenues one could pursue: Federal Law Although federal laws protect people from workplace discrimination on the basis of sex, race, national origin, religion, age, and disability, there is no federal law that specifically outlaws workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the private sector. (Federal government workers are protected from such discrimination.) In recent years, however, some courts have been willing to extend protection to gay and lesbian employees by holding that they were victims of illegal "sex" discrimination for not living up to gender-based stereotypes. Based on these cases, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—the agency that enforces federal antidiscrimination laws—has taken the position that sexual orientation discrimination is necessarily a form of sex discrimination because it involves gender-based stereotypes of how men and women should behave and with whom they should be in romantic relationships. The EEOC is accepting and processing sexual orientation discrimination claims from employees, and in 2016, it filed its first two sexual orientation discrimination lawsuits on behalf of LGBT employees. Whether sexual orientation is protected under federal law is a complicated and unsettled area of the law, which will ultimately be up to the courts to decide. For now, however, the EEOC is accepting and pursuing sexual orientation discrimination claims. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sexual-orientation-discrimination-rights-29541.html

That's a silly comparison though. Poisoning people is very different than saying "Hey, I don't want you on my property, you have to leave, no sale for you." Regulating safety is fine, but once you start telling people who they need to allow on their property, you're starting to violate their rights. Whether we like it or not, commercial/business property is private property. Private property does not/should not trump every consideration. I know Libertardians think it should, but they're wrong. Once an individual or business decides to use their property to benefit from society they need to be subject to SOME control from that society. The issue is not about an individual they may hate 'standing' on their property and whether they have the right to remove them from said property -- the issue is about the goods and services society needs. They made a choice to enter into this contract with society when they decided to sell to it, and yes they then need to give up some of their freedom due to that choice.

When they decided to sell their goods from a private home/place of business they entered into a contract with society, and so society should have some say in what they are doing. For example, would you allow them to put poison into their goods just because they're doing it from a place they own? Of course not...because when they decide to sell and benefit from society they need to accept some regulation from that society, because this is the fair thing to do -- both parties need some control here.

You obviously haven't looked too deeply at the origins of religions. They are seldom new ways of looking at anything, and 'loving' is hardly a word to use of most of them, and in 5 decades, I've still never seen anything beneficial about any of them, unless you happen to be an official member of the cults clergy, when you are usually good for free meals for life. What about the very beginnings of Christianity?

I probably go through periods of thinking too much, but I have to say I have never thought of this....;0

I'm curious.. do you think whites are the only race to have abused "others"? Or are all races guilty of racism and abusing people that are different? All races can be guilty of discrimination and racism. As whites though we are a majority and have more power and can therefor do more damage. A majority or group with more power can slant situations their way much more easily, and this has been the case in the US since its beginning. Unfortunately many whites don't recognize their power...their privilege...nor do they recognize the disadvantages of minorities. I think if many could be aware of it they would not minimize minority complaints by calling it "PC".

I brought up this experience from a meeting for songwriters at a women's festival to illustrate a unique learning experience for me -- being excluded as a white person by blacks. The issue was never whether it was okay for them to exclude me (until you brought it up). I never made it sound like I was "an ally" (I was simply attending a class on songwriting), nor was I "loitering" without purpose (as I was talking to 2 black women about the songwriting class as the class was ending and another class/meeting beginning. But...it's an interesting topic....were they 100% right in asking me to leave? I'd say they were, but we probably differ on the reasons. Oppressed groups need to bond together and receive support for each other in order to combat the destructive forces of discrimination. A white person among them would disturb the solidarity. So when they ask a white person to leave it's fine by me. I'm kind of surprised you didn't see this as blacks discriminating against whites. You didn't because you thought I was pretending to be an ally or loitering?

Almost everyone else. I could do without Maddy. Wow I just had major awarenesses from that...maybe I don't even need to meditate today

Religions are a way of perceiving reality? I'd laugh if that wasn't so pathetically sad. Can you give a single example of a "reality" that's been perceived? Some amazing factual, tangiable thing religions have discovered that we faithless can't perceive? Some medical drug that only works if you lick a statue of Koomi, God of Toaster Ovens on that most Holy of Days, Tuesday. An extra 10 miles to the gallon in your car's fuel consumption if you wear Muslim prayer beads and chant in Arabic. Religions are more about perceiving the UNREAL than the real. I said religions are a way of perceiving reality - their way of making sense of it - I did not say they perceived it in any way that could be objectively true. Big difference. I think religions and movements start out as way to make sense of the world and one's place in it, and often have a spark in the beginning (a new way of seeing something, more alive, a better or more loving way that's beneficial to many), but unfortunately they become stale after time and decompose to habitual ways of being, patterns, & laws. Unfortunately, Klytyna, I think that's what you're encountering -- especially on certain forums where people have no desire to seek truth, but instead their only motivation is to win an argument in an attempt to feel a surge of power. I go more for the spirituality that involves Mysticism (the core or essence), and there are elements of Mysticism in most religions, accepted or rejected in varying degrees. I've learned various things from orienting myself in this way, but someone you're labeling as "faithless" can just as easily perceive these things because nobody is excluded from a journey of growth or evolution in consciousness. It has nothing to do with 'gods' that are outside the Universe, and is more of an inward journey so that one sees oneself and the perceived outside world in a new way. One begins to see 'the big picture' -- it's more about personal evolution and connecting to society in a better, more loving way. Nobody cares how you conceptualize the Universe, whether this Universe is seen very personally as a particular person or saint, or whether it's seen as 'abstract light' BECAUSE THIS IS ONLY A CONCEPTUALIZATION, ONLY A SYMBOL to hold in one's mind as an anchor toward a new way of being -- the important part is to attempt to connect in a more expansive way with WHAT IS NOT YET SEEN OR KNOWN - what has not yet manifested in one's life. Mysticism with its focus on love is just a way to tune into what is unknown and make it known to yourself, personally. You BECOME IT -- it is not an abstract conceptualization, it is a revelation, a new way of being in the world. I share your disdain for religious people that think they have the one true way and fight with everyone else who does not share their conceptualizations, and cause harm to others in the process. But if you examine the mystical dimensions of all religions they speak of 'love' and changing oneself into a new person -- this is what lies underneath religion at its core, and not the forms people fight over.

Religions are just a way of perceiving reality. Atheism has it's own way of perceiving reality, and so I consider it a religion too. It's pretty insulting to think your religion is 'the way' while other people's perceptions of reality are delusional.

lol I never thought of it that way