Luna Bliss

You know what, go tell all that to a successful black person. Ask him if he succeeded because of the handouts he was given to assuage white guilt. I would say any person succeeds due to a supportive community and a determination not to give up. But even this determination not to give up was probably learned/enhanced/encouraged from a strong parent. Identity formation is a complex topic, and confused by the fact that each individual is usually not aware of its development while forming.

It's easy to judge others when you have no ability to empathize. But reality is so much more complex than your simplistic assessments. I guess it gives you a sense of power huh...to believe you're so special that you could handle anything that comes your way, and that those who are unable to are, as you say "choosing to wallow in the mire of their own existence because they haven't tried harder to succeed". Abuse, neglect, forced slavery, prejudice...this causes damage in the Psyche that is immensely difficult to overcome, and has damaging effects even across generations. Some people do overcome, but it's almost always because they were lucky enough to find a supportive environment to help them. We are who we are because of the wings others have given us. We still have a choice to fly or not, but the flight is 100% easier when given a base to take off from. You were given a base, but you're spoiled and just don't know it, and think it's all down to 'special strong you'. Check your privilege. I really wouldn't mind if it was just you and your delusions, but your attitude is so blaming and abusive to others who have had to endure such pain AT OUR HANDS, and so I have to confront you. PS -- Generational poverty in the black community was not caused by LBJ...it was caused by slavery.

Yes, there's always going to be a few who abuse their newly discovered power. But I'd venture to say there are far, far more in a protected class who are genuinely discriminated against even now. And so it's ridiculous to bring up the example you have really. What's next...the welfare queen story?

Fact check needed.

It's only extreme if you live in a city with many choices. I can't remember the percentage, but a significant number of people live outside big cities and have limited services/retail choices. And history is replete with examples of prejudice against all types of marginalized people that simply would not change until we forced government to do something about it.

I'm not talking about vital services here, I'm talking about a retail store. Repeat: Any time we contribute to society we have a certain amount of power within our particular role. Take for example, a hospital (many if not most are privatized by now). Now if there are many hospitals within a town the hospital doesn't have as much power over us if we need their services, as we can usually go to one of the other available hospitals. But what if you live where there's only one hospital within miles -- that hospital has a lot of power. What if they decided not to allow you to visit your dying partner/child/whoever because you're a Sufi, or black, or gay? (has already happened to many gay spouses who have been banned from visiting a sick partner because they aren't considered 'family'). Or, another example, what if you live in Podunk, USA and there's only one grocery store there, and you have no car to drive X miles to another town for food. And the owner of the grocery store doesn't like blacks, poor people, Muslims, or whatever you happen to be? Or maybe you need clothes and the only clothes store in town won't serve you. The list could go on and on.

What power? The power to decide who your customers are going to be? Any time we contribute to society we have a certain amount of power within our particular role. Take for example, a hospital (many if not most are privatized by now). Now if there are many hospitals within a town the hospital doesn't have as much power over us if we need their services, as we can usually go to one of the other available hospitals. But what if you live where there's only one hospital within miles -- that hospital has a lot of power. What if they decided not to allow you to visit your dying partner/child/whoever because you're a Sufi, or black, or gay? (has already happened to many gay spouses who have been banned from visiting a sick partner because they aren't considered 'family'). Or, another example, what if you live in Podunk, USA and there's only one grocery store there, and you have no car to drive X miles to another town for food. And the owner of the grocery store doesn't like blacks, poor people, Muslims, or whatever you happen to be? Or maybe you need clothes and the only clothes store in town won't serve you. The list could go on and on.

Government services are being privatized at an alarming rate, so where can the line be drawn so that vital services are not denied to minorities or those less accepted by the majority?

Thanks to "government interference", prejudice against people of color is less accepted now and so a prejudiced restaurant in most parts of the country would not do as well financially. Studying History, I see that generally people do not generally give up a power without pressure/force/rules.

Full sim available for rent: 15,000 L$/Week 20000 Prims 65536 Square Meters ** Ocean on all sides ** Estate manager rights Contact Luna Bliss

Most notably, in relation to this debate, her assertion that only a few people have only one choice of broadband internet. There are maps showing coverage, and I believe it's 61% in the US that have only one choice, and a good percentage more have only 2 choices....and even with 2 choices that is not competition. Many of the poor have no broadband connection choice at all: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/05/12/19659/rich-people-have-access-high-speed-internet-many-poor-people-still-dont

Without proof, I wouldn't put too much store in what Prok writes. Even in this thread, she's been shown to be completely wrong in what she stated as fact. Yes, I have found her to be wrong many times, and I will be fact-checking.

I really like this excerpt from an article by Caitlin Johnstone: "People are right to be extremely guarded about internet regulations. Throughout the history of human civilization access to information has been controlled and manipulated by those in power, countless generations of which have given rise to the profoundly sick power-serving society we find ourselves in today. The invention of the internet gave humanity its first ever access to widespread unhindered democratization of ideas and information, and if we’re ever to overthrow the pernicious power structures which perpetuate the continual omnicidal trend toward war and ecocide which threatens us our species with extinction, widespread internet access will surely play a role in that effort. America’s unelected power establishment is acutely aware of this, which is why attempts to censor the internet on a large scale are becoming increasingly common. So it’s perfectly understandable that when a former Verizon lawyer becomes Chairman of the FCC and begins aggressively spearheading a crusade to fix a problem Americans didn’t even see as a problem, people will be suspicious. It is the duty of Ajit Pai to win Americans over to his position, not force it down their throats and then whine when he receives death threats for it. FCC Commissioner Says Internet Access Is "Not a Necessity" Here is what FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly had to say during the debate about net neutrality in 2015: “It is important to note that Internet access is not a necessity in the day-to-day lives of Americans and doesn’t even come close to the threshold to be considered a basic human right… People do a disservice by overstating its relevancy or stature in people’s lives. People can and do live without Internet access, and many lead very successful lives.” Do those sound like the words of someone who is trying to ensure that humanity has widespread internet access to you? This man cast the third and final vote to repeal net neutrality today. The internet is the frontier of humanity’s development as a species. Three unelected bureaucrats have no business manipulating it in a way the overwhelming majority of Americans do not want. Regardless of whether they feel internet access should be a human right or not, defending that access undeniably is. People are aware of this. Their rulers’ contempt for them is showing clear as day, and people are becoming aware that they must defend themselves from unelected corporatists who do not serve their interests."

If you have to ask that question after being inside Second Life for so many years and experiencing many of the negative features of Silicon Valley yourself, I don't know where to start. But read my blog Wired State. I was simply early with my critique, it's now all over the place. I think your hatred of "geeks" is blinding you to the realities of the other side. Yes, tech needs to be reeled in a bit and be governed by the same laws everyone else is, but this corporate takeover now underway has much worse ramifications. I did enjoy reading your Wired State blog though, as it made me see a few things I wasn't aware of regarding 'the left'.

Can't get more back on track than this, happening now: https://www.fcc.gov/general/live

Maybe she means the ISP's feud/compete with each other over trying to secure various sites/content. The more I dig into this the less confident I am the internet will remain free http://www.zdnet.com/article/net-neutrality-key-zero-rating-decision-made-by-germany/

British accents are so cute...when talking to someone on the phone from the UK I can't even understand what they're saying...all I can think about is how cute they sound But cockney....wow people can say several sentences and I can't comprehend anything.

Why do you think big corporations are so moral? They sell everything out for some $, controlling the government basically. What business that made America great...do you mean the colonization of other countries and claiming their resources?

One ISP slowed speeds for Netflix, and I think it was Comcast that tried to block voice over internet, and I read about several others feuds. Even in Sweden a big telecom company offered free streaming of their preferred sites (was a mobile plan)...which is an underhanded way to segment the internet ...in this way the internet could end up looking more like our TV packages.

Why do you dislike Silicon Valley so much?

I forgot to mention possible life without Youtube:

The problem with corporations is they jack up prices arbitrarily and often when there is no need (after all, their goal is to make money for CEO's and shareholders vs receiving adequate profit to maintain the service). It's simply not true that there will be a guard against this happening because everyone can 'vote with their feet' -- where I live there is only one broadband provider (well there's one other but with deplorable speeds). So with net neutrality removed I will be making CEO's and shareholders more wealthy if I choose to access the internet. And that's what I think the removal of net neutrality basically is -- a way to raise internet prices, as well as a way for the general population to be manipulated and controlled, as the removal of net neutrality will enable the blocking of websites, allow companies to throttle speeds, and limit access to those without considerable funds. Trump is for the removal of net neutrality, and most Republicans are -- given all their recent attempts to change policies in recent months it's very obvious what is behind the removal and who will benefit. All their policies disproportionately affect the poor. If data caps go into place SL would be very expensive for US residents to access. I checked into this when I considered going mobile and getting a capped plan, and I was shocked at the data usage of even 45 minutes in SL. I wouldn't mind paying somewhat more, after all it's only fair when using more data. But the mobile data plans are very restrictive -- even paying for the $100 per month data plan would not allow much access to SL.

oh yes we in Europe, or the rest of the world, are really waiting for this kind of comments, we can be patronizing perfectly well ourself, don't need yours. And 'your" spam with benefits? Keep it. Seems like you and the OP have a very strong 'country against country' type of mentality going on...

Does it really matter if there are/aren't other places to 'play in'. It appears that you, me, and the OP choose/want to be here in SL at the present time. Not 'playing some card' in my response to the OP...was simply trying to get him to see he's more connected to the US and its politics than he might think. And that I don't think he should be whining about a freaking popup that actually benefits him. Sorry don't understand your Almighty Market respone in relation to my comment.