Jump to content

Naming Ourselves: Who Will Decide Who YOU Are?

Scylla Rhiadra

By Scylla Rhiadra,
in General Discussion Forum

 Share
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 4581 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Ima Rang

Ima Rang

Posted
Posted

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Ima Rang wrote:

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Ima:
Cute twist, but no.

Me: Cute? Hey, if you find this going round in endless circles, repeating the same stuff, over and over, cute, who am I to judge? Different strokes and all that, right?

Ima Response: Right.

Ima:
I said I don't spend enough time online to state that I have seen evidence of individuals posing as real life doctors and putting individuals into dangerous situations…

Me: But nobody asked you to give evidence, Ima. Are we
really
still doing the courtroom role-play? May I be so bold as to point out that, in order for one human being to personally witness every single event occurring within SL, he would require the gift of omnipresence, which is, as far as I know, still the domain of the Almighty.

Ima Response: Are you learning disabled? I did not indcate that anyone was asking me for evidence. I made a simple statement that was only meant to mean- I can't agree or disagree with you as I don't apparently spend enough time online to have encountered such. Why is that so **bleep**ing hard for you to understand?

Ima:
…as you stated it to be "the most dangerous" thing occurring in SL.

Me: Actually I didn’t. Since you’re a stickler for correct quoting and have low tolerance for sloppy paraphrasing, I feel sure you will appreciate me pointing out that I actually said, “The truly dangerous down-side of believing claims to credentials is when they say they’re doctors, counsellors, etc.”.

Ima: I stand corrected.

Re: the rest of your post. Just let me recap the situation to date, so I’m sure I have it straight in my head - you, in your series of posts, cumulatively communicate the following:

a) You have never witnessed, first-hand, fake professionals operating in SL, hence would be unable to bear witness regarding the matter;

Ima Rang: Correct, because I'm not online frequently.

b) you have encountered two people who
claim
e
d
to have witnessed such episodes but you have chosen to disregard such claims, as your stance is, like mine, in line with the Pep directive XXIV section 4iii, paragraph 9, “Believe nothing unless you, yourself, personally, in the flesh witness it”;

Ima Rang: No, I said that I saw one instance within the 3 threads that you provided me of an individual stating they had encountered a supposed RL therapist who they eventually determined was just a life coach. I was simply pointing out that directly after you stated that you follow Pep's stance to believe nothing, you provide me with threads:

Carole Franizzi wrote:

No darlin’ – fearful of the damage somebody posing as a RL medical professional could do when he/she hands out medical advice in SL. There’s that too in SL…

------------------------------------------------------

Ima Rang wrote:

I guess I just don't spend enough time online. I have not seen evidence ot this happening.

Carole Fanizzi wrote:

Have a peek at these then....if you have time:

...

...

Just ironic...that's all.

c) you object to my belief that fake professionals operate within SL, even though I am one of the afore-mentioned persons who witnessed one such episode first-hand, on the basis of the fact it was
me
and not
you
witnessing it, and thus you are over-riding the Pep directive with “Nobody may believe anything unless witnessed by Ima Rang first-hand”;

Ha! You stated that you did not know if you witnessing RP or not. You may have eye witnessed a cartoon based soap opera...the horror. I hope you are writing the networks because they slammed a fake epi syringe into the heart of a fake patient on a real TV show just last week! Can you believe that mess?

d) you do not care what topics I post about

No.

e) you have no objection to me opening a thread about the odour of my faeces (though you expressed the concept in a more lady-like way, using asterisks);

No.

f) despite having no interest in the issue, no first hand experience in the matter and limited on-line time, you make posts which you, yourself, define as a “statement that did not serve to invalidate or validate the discussions”;

Yep. See above.

g) on the combined basis of the amended Pep directive, “Nobody may believe anything unless witnessed by Ima Rang first-hand” and on the principle that it is impossible for fellow residents to distinguish between role-play and actual criminal intent behind certain actions, you are communicating your disapproval of the AR function which would allow LL to investigate and attempt to verify the actual nature of such episodes, as, in your opinion, the risk of suspension or closure of an SL account is of greater import than the prevention and/or curtailment of criminal behaviour.

I don't require proof of anything, from anyone. I have proper perspective when engaging in a cartoon world. I'm sure that my "don't believe anything" even if Carole saw the RP with her own eyes and insists that it is the damn truth will probably cause the world to fold in on me, but, hey, it is a risk I'm willing to take.

I don't disapprove of you AR'ing anyone you damn well please for any reason you please. You are very good about putting a lot of words out that I have never stated or even implied. Some people investigate first and take action, and some take action and apologize if they are mistaken. I would have made inquiry before reporting....so what? I'm over it, I hope you make it past it.

In light of the above, in future, if ever again I am recipient of a post from you which states, “I don't spend enough time online to state that I have seen evidence of_______”, I will never again erroneously assume that you mean “Oh, really? Never heard of that. Fill me in”, but will be sure to apply the correct interpretation: “Insomuch as I have never been an eye-witness to such an occurrence, I am unable to bear witness either for the prosecution or in defence of the accused”. Good to know.

Awesome. I hope that you stick to that.

Ima:
BTW, I heard and read that LL is going to get rid of accounts that have not logged on in the last 60 days.

Me: This must be an in-joke comprehensible only to those who have limited on-line time.

Nope, a thread, right here in the Forums. But, it was discussed and turns out it was just a rumor.

If capitals in Netiquette amount to shouting, what does blood-red font indicate? An apoplectic fit?

Seriously, Ima – all these pages just to say, “I don’t know anything about that”?

You declaring, in this very thread, that you “don’t believe anything” makes interesting reading – does that mean that when, in the past, although you were exhorting others to believe that you knew the truth about another person’s life, “knowing” it to be in total opposition to what they claimed, you simultaneously held the firm belief that they should not have believed a word you said? Again, good to know.

I enjoy debate. Always have done. The challenge of formulating persuasive arguments is a pleasure to me. If the opponent makes the task even harder because clever, sharper, quicker, better educated than me, I enjoy it even more. Insults have no place in debate. Resorting to them is the act of a desperate loser, and of one who is wholly uninterested in discussion for discussion’s sake, but participates merely as a pretext to express pent-up aggression. However, since you stated in a previous post that you do not troll, I will accept the following as a genuine enquiry: 
Are you learning disabled?

The answer is - no, I am not. I will, however, AR you without hesitation if I ever “witness” you asking me or anybody else that question again
.

The red, in this case, was for ease in recognizing my responses within your wall of text.

There is a very distinct difference Carole between stating that you do not believe the claims of an individual and stating that you know the exact truth about that person.  I stated, and still state with conviction, that I don't believe the story(s) that the person in questioned tells.  I'm not legally nor morally obligated to do so.

Yes, your "Did too happen cause I saw the RP with my own eyes!" is so incredibly persuasive and no doubt the result of years and years of concentrated training...It is a wonder that you have not a statue erected in your likeness at every university the world over. 

Ah...when you insulted me by insisting that I was trolling you because you do not agree that I have the right not to believe something just because it is written in this forum and you saw it with your own eyes inworld could as well be considered the actions of a loser.  I will not AR you for it though. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carole Franizzi

Carole Franizzi

Posted
Posted

"There is a very distinct difference Carole between stating that you do not believe the claims of an individual and stating that you know the exact truth about that person.  I stated, and still state with conviction, that I don't believe the story(s) that the person in questioned tells.  I'm not legally nor morally obligated to do so."

Ima. In writing, over and over and over, in various venues, you supplied anyone who happened to be reading with your own “truthful and accurate” version of a person’s entire life experience, labelling (Yay! On-theme again!) them a liar! I already got the message many posts ago - only you know the truth.

 

"Yes, your "Did too happen cause I saw the RP with my own eyes!" is so incredibly persuasive and no doubt the result of years and years of concentrated training...It is a wonder that you have not a statue erected in your likeness at every university the world over." 

Erm…yes…

 

"Ah...when you insulted me by insisting that I was trolling you because you do not agree that I have the right not to believe something just because it is written in this forum and you saw it with your own eyes inworld could as well be considered the actions of a loser.  I will not AR you for it though." 

Uhm. Right.

Ima, if you’re finished with that rope now, maybe you could give me it back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ima Rang

Ima Rang

Posted
Posted

Carole Franizzi wrote:

"There is a very distinct difference Carole between stating that you do not believe the claims of an individual and stating that you know the exact truth about that person.  I stated, and still state with conviction, that I don't believe the story(s) that the person in questioned tells.  I'm not legally nor morally obligated to do so."

Ima. In writing, over and over and over, in various venues, you supplied anyone who happened to be reading with your own “truthful and accurate” version of a person’s entire life experience,
labelling
(Yay! On-theme again!) them a liar! I already got the message many posts ago - only you know the truth.

 

"Yes, your "Did too happen cause I saw the RP with my own eyes!" is so incredibly persuasive and no doubt the result of years and years of concentrated training...It is a wonder that you have not a statue erected in your likeness at every university the world over." 

Erm…yes…

 

"
Ah...when you insulted me by insisting that I was trolling you because you do not agree that I have the right not to believe something just because it is written in this forum and you saw it with your own eyes inworld could as well be considered the actions of a loser.  I will not AR you for it though." 

Uhm. Right.

Ima
, if
you’re
finished with
that rope
now,
maybe you
could
give
me it
back
.

Haha! Nice try Carole, but not a speck of truth in what you state.  I made a list of the various catastrophies that said individual had stated burdened her the last two years.  She then expanded the list and added additional details.  I simply stated that I did not believe some of her stories.  Still my right to do so.  

If you are talking about the accusation of sockpuppeting, yes, I made those and still stand by them.  Those took place on the old GDF.  But that has nothing to do with RL.

You have the wrong rope holder, I'm not into BDSM, .  I'm sure your BFF SR will be glad to let you borrow hers. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celestiall Nightfire

Celestiall Nightfire

Posted
Posted

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

.... is a person only way too eager to ascribe all sorts of negative descriptions onto others....

It is a person who goes to extremes to be negative towards others and label them with derogations ......

Hmm, I can think of someone else who does this.  (and it's not Prok)   ; )

 

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Such a person does not deserve the respect of being able to define themself virtually, if they cannot afford that respect to other's RL aspects, let alone virtual ones.

So, tit for tat..and so on?  I strongly disagree. 

 A verbal or metaphorical "eye for an eye" accomplishes nothing, except producing even more people that are not allowing other's to define themselves. One, does not affect change, by emulating the very behavior that one wishes to change.

Instead, set the example of the correct behavior.   I think the correct way to handle someone such as the "blogger" is afford them the same courtesy that would be afforded anyone.  The Golden Rule is the standard of how all people should be treated...not just those you agree with.  

So, regardless of how that particular person labels people, if the "blogger" wants to be identified in a certain way...then that is how I would identify them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ishtara Rothschild

Ishtara Rothschild

Posted
Posted

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

So, tit for tat..and so on?  I strongly disagree. 

 A verbal or metaphorical "eye for an eye" accomplishes nothing, except producing
even more
people that are not allowing other's to define themselves. One, does not affect change, by emulating the very behavior that one wishes
to
change.

Tit for tat? That reminds me of biological game theory :) So why not try to assess the problem from this angle.

You are correct that "tit for tat" is not an ideal strategy, although it used to be the undefeated champion in the iterated prisoner's dilemma competition for a while. Until "forgiving tit for tat" a.k.a. "tit for two tat" came along, that is. Forgiving TFT is probably the strategy that humans most commonly employ in their often dead-serious games of social interaction.

Just like TFT players, FTFT players are nice and cooperative in their opening move, but they are also willing to forgive one single offense if the other person turns out to be a tat. The rationale behind the FTFT strategy is not so much setting a better example or giving the other a second chance, it's rather allowing room for error and doubt. The offense could always have been a misunderstanding, or the other person might just have had a bad day.

As soon as the the other party repeats the same uncooperative behavior (or "defects" as it's called in b. game theory), they remove all doubt that they are not a particularly nice person and it is time to retaliate until the other starts cooperating again or stops playing altogether. Anything else has been mathematically proven to be an inferior strategy. "Always cooperate", a.k.a. the golden rule, only lasted for a few iterations before being b!tchslapped into oblivion by players using "always defect", i.e. liars, cheats and con artists who were uncooperative by default. Only TFT and FTFT players are equipped to deal with those types.

(The golden rule has other flaws too. For example, you wouldn't want a masochist to do unto you as he wishes to be done by :) One should rather treat others the way they want to be treated instead of self-projecting onto others. And only until they kick you in the kneecap two times, then it's time to do unto them as they most definitely not want to be done by. But I digress).

The blogger in question is such a person who plays "always defect", meaning that she's abrasive and offensive no matter what. If you're going to play social games with her, you'll have to retaliate at some point, otherwise you'll only get slapped in the face time and time again. But I think it's best to simply don't play with her at all, because she has also proven to have no learning capability in the social department. She even seems to enjoy making enemies, and if you get close to her, you will inevitably become one in her perception. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carole Franizzi

Carole Franizzi

Posted
Posted

"Haha! Nice try Carole, but not a speck of truth in what you state." 

The only things I stated were my views regarding the activity of debating and my own personal enjoyment of it, the fact that I would AR you if I saw you use such offensive language again to me or others, and that I would consider your enquiry into the state of my intellect a genuine enquiry. Everything else in my post was a question. Questions cannot be lies. So, which of my statements do you consider to be a lie?

 

"I made a list of the various catastrophies that said individual had stated burdened her the last two years." 

Aww. That was good of you. Warms the cockle of me ole ‘eart, it does.

 

“I simply stated that I did not believe some of her stories.” 

This has to rank as SL understatement of the decade (beating even Joe “Fatman” Slugsworth, 82 year operator of LovelyLezzie21, who wrote to her soon-to-be-met-in RL girlfriend, “I might not be exactly how you imagined me”).

 

“Still my right to do so.”  

Since you did what you did on the Internet, the logistics are dramatically complicated, and I have no idea what a person could actually do if they cared to take legal action, but I’m pretty sure that, had you published the same sentiments in a RL paper or similar, you’d have been too busy looking for a lawyer to defend you in a libel/harassment case to make all these posts now.

 

“If you are talking about the accusation of sockpuppeting, yes, I made those and still stand by them.  Those took place on the old GDF.  But that has nothing to do with RL.”

Actually, I’d totally forgotten about your noble crusade against alts and the labels you affixed on various people - “You are X! Don’t deny it! I know!!! I KNOW!!!!!” - but thank you for reminding me.

 

"You have the wrong rope holder, I'm not into BDSM, .  I'm sure your BFF SR will be glad to let you borrow hers." 

Oh no. Absolutely and undeniably not. It was most definitely you who took the rope and used it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ima Rang

Ima Rang

Posted
Posted

Carole Franizzi wrote:

"Haha! Nice try Carole, but not a speck of truth in what you state." 

The only things I
stated
were my views regarding the activity of debating and my own personal enjoyment of it, the fact that I would AR you if I saw you use such offensive language again to me or others, and that I would consider your enquiry into the state of my intellect a genuine enquiry. Everything else in my post was a question. Questions cannot be lies. So, which of my statements do you consider to be a lie?

 

"I made a list of the various catastrophies that said individual had stated burdened her the last two years." 

Aww. That was good of you. Warms the cockle of me ole ‘eart, it does.

 

“I simply stated that I did not believe some of her stories.” 

This has to rank as SL understatement of the decade (beating even Joe “Fatman” Slugsworth, 82 year operator of LovelyLezzie21, who wrote to her soon-to-be-met-in RL girlfriend, “I might not be
exactly
how you imagined me”).

 

“Still my right to do so.”
  

Since you did what you did on the Internet, the logistics are dramatically complicated, and I have no idea what a person could actually do if they cared to take legal action, but I’m pretty sure that, had you published the same sentiments in a RL paper or similar, you’d have been too busy looking for a lawyer to defend you in a libel/harassment case to make all these posts now.

 

“If you are talking about the accusation of sockpuppeting, yes, I made those and still stand by them.  Those took place on the old GDF.  But that has nothing to do with RL.”

Actually, I’d totally forgotten about your noble crusade against alts and the labels you affixed on various people - “You are X! Don’t deny it! I
know
!!!
I KNOW!!!!!
” - but thank you for reminding me.

 

"
You have the wrong rope holder, I'm not into BDSM, .  I'm sure your BFF SR will be glad to let you borrow hers." 

Oh no. Absolutely and undeniably not. It was most definitely
you
who took the rope and used it.

Since you did what you did on the Internet, the logistics are dramatically complicated, and I have no idea what a person could actually do if they cared to take legal action, but I’m pretty sure that, had you published the same sentiments in a RL paper or similar, you’d have been too busy looking for a lawyer to defend you in a libel/harassment case to make all these posts now.

What sentiments?  Are you saying that individuals can be sued or held libel for their opinions?  Who would publish in a RL paper the story of an anonymous avatar? 

Yes, well, her declarative statement that my father killed himself due to the shame of his child would probably not work out at all well for her.  I will give what you say some consideration, perhaps that and publicizing my real life location is unlawful.  I'm not sure if wishing someone be burdened with thoughts of worms invading the corpse of their dead sibling would be considered harassment or not.  Like she said, he is dead and you can't hurt them.  I'm not sure if publicizing a declarative statement that my child should be taken away by child protective services, since I am anonymous, would be harassment or libel either...I just don't know Carole.  You may be on to something though, I will look into it.

Actually, I’d totally forgotten about your noble crusade against alts and the labels you affixed on various people - “You are X! Don’t deny it! I know!!! I KNOW!!!!!” - but thank you for reminding me.

You are so welcome.  I love sitemeter :)

Oh no. Absolutely and undeniably not. It was most definitely you who took the rope and used it.

No, you are mistaken.  Understandable.  You are clearly blinded by the glow of your BFF's halo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celestiall Nightfire

Celestiall Nightfire

Posted
Posted

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Tit for tat? That reminds me of biological game theory
:)
So why not try to assess the problem from this angle.

You are correct that "tit for tat" is not an ideal strategy, although it used to be the undefeated champion in the 
 for a while. Until "forgiving tit for tat" a.k.a. "tit for two tat" came along, that is. Forgiving TFT is probably the strategy that humans most commonly employ in their often dead-serious games of social interaction.

Ishy, thanks for a good reply!  I so love your rational mind...even when I disagree.  hehe :  )

You're putting the situation into a "box"...a game box, with no variables other that those allowed by the ones who set up the "game". 

Only this situation is not a game, and the variables are many and every changing.   For instance, in my situation, the prisoner's dilemma is not a good model as there are no negative consequence to me, regardless of how I choose to address or recognize the blogger.  (no consequences regardless of how I choose to play the game)    It's quite irrelevant. 

I can choose to "label" said blogger as male, as female, as transgender, as cross-dressing-in SL..whatever.  But, none of it has any bearing on me, or my life.  There simply are no consequences.  So, the win-win, or win-lose, or lose-lose results of the "game"...does not actually happen. 

Since there are no actual consequences to me, regardless of what I choose,  why would I just not go ahead and use the preferred name that the blogger wants?  The Golden Rule does apply in this situation, and aptly so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ishtara Rothschild

Ishtara Rothschild

Posted
Posted

The prisoner's dilemma is not really a game (only insofar that all social interactions are games of strategy in which we can either gain or lose something). It is a model to understand cooperative versus selfish behavior, the reason that cooperation can be beneficial for individuals even though it seems that they have more to gain by being selfish, and ultimately the selective mechanisms behind the origin and evolution of cooperation.

A practical example would be the social grooming behavior of various bird species. It has lots of health benefits for a bird to keep its plumage clean and free from parasites. But birds can't groom their own heads, which makes the head area a breeding ground for mites, ticks and skin diseases. They depend on the help of their conspecifics to deal with this problem, and invest time and energy into the seemingly selfless grooming of others in the hope that the favor will be returned.

The problem is that due to phenotypic variation, not all birds employ the same strategy when playing the social grooming game. Some birds wait to get serviced and never return the favor (an "always defect" strategy). Combine those with the poor suckers who play "always cooperate", and you can sit back and watch the latter exhaust themselves cleaning others while being riddled with mites and skin conditions themselves. Which makes it quite hard to see how this altruistic social behavior could have evolved in the first place, because the selfish phenotypes would have a huge selective advantage and ruin it for everybody else.

Ethologists and evolutionary biologists / psychologists had to find a strategy that makes altruistic behavior beneficial when paired with another altruistic player, but without being disadvantageous when paired with selfish types. That's where "games" like the prisoner's dilemma come in. In simulations that ran different strategies against one another in endless iterations, altruistic strategies did indeed come out as winners, but not the always altruistic strategies without an option for retaliation against uncooperative players. Those were extremely disadvantageous.

 

Of course this particular case (I'm referring to the thread topic, not the above example) is not a life and death scenario. You have nothing to gain but the basic respect and courtesy of another person. Still, the same principles apply here. If you are consistently nice and respectful to somebody who does not extend the same courtesy to you, you are emotionally rewarding them with your behavior while they will only emotionally hurt you.

In other words, when I treat another person with respect and courtesy, I expect the same in return. But if they consistently bash M2F transgender people and SL gender-benders, thereby inflicting negative and hurtful emotional states onto me, I stand nothing to gain anymore by being polite and respectful. I can either stop interacting with this person altogether or retaliate in order to show them that this behavior has consequences. Continuing to be friendly while suffering their insults would be irrational self-abuse. (Not to mention that it has negative consequences for all of society if abusive types get away with their behavior).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celestiall Nightfire

Celestiall Nightfire

Posted
Posted
Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

In other words, when I treat another person with respect and courtesy, I expect the same in return. But if they consistently bash M2F transgender people and SL gender-benders, thereby inflicting negative and hurtful emotional states onto me, I stand nothing to gain anymore by being polite and respectful. I can either stop interacting with this person altogether or retaliate in order to show them that this behavior has consequences. Continuing to be friendly while suffering their insults would be irrational self-abuse. (Not to mention that it has negative consequences for all of society if abusive types get away with their behavior).

That's just it Ishy.  I've never had a negative interaction with that blogger.  I've exchanged IMs inworld and posted on her blog, and have never had anything but a cordial interaction.  So, why would I want to insult someone who has not done that to me? 

 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

In other words, when I treat another person with respect and courtesy, I expect the same in return. But if they consistently bash M2F transgender people and SL gender-benders, thereby inflicting negative and hurtful emotional states onto me, I stand nothing to gain anymore by being polite and respectful. I can either stop interacting with this person altogether or retaliate in order to show them that this behavior has consequences. Continuing to be friendly while suffering their insults would be irrational self-abuse. (Not to mention that it has negative consequences for all of society if abusive types get away with their behavior).

Ishy, can you provide an example of this:  "consistently bash M2F transgender people and SL gender-benders"?  

I have yet to see consistent bashing of that sub-group by the blogger.  As far as I can tell, she bashes individuals and organized groups that she perceives to be her enemies.  I don't sense hostility toward people in general from her, but more hostility toward those who have decided to try and make her life hell.  (And, yes, I realize she's often abrasive, profane, and argumentative...I do read her blog)



Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

But if they consistently bash M2F transgender people and SL gender-benders,
thereby inflicting negative and hurtful emotional states onto me,
I stand nothing to gain anymore by being polite and respectful.

 

One last thing Ishy, I highlighted the words that I wish to discuss.  I personally do not think that others have the power to "inflict negative and hurtful emotional states onto me".   Feeling emotionally hurt is not something that is "inflicted" upon one, it's something that arises from within and is our own mental "reaction".     If I do suffer from a negative and hurtful emotional state, it's brought about by my reaction to either the other person or their words. 

So, it is within my control to decide whether I suffer an emotional hurt or not.  Now, that's not to say it's easy to control one's own emotions, but it is within one's control.  

I also know that if someone insults me due my political affiliations, or my sexual preferences, or even what clothing I wear, that they are doing so out of ignorance, prejudice and perhaps even insecurity.   The best way to fight that is not to escalate (or lower myself to their level) but, to ignore it and continue to set the higher standard.



Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ishtara Rothschild

Ishtara Rothschild

Posted
Posted
Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

That's just it Ishy.  I've never had a negative interaction with that blogger.  I've exchanged IMs inworld and posted on her blog, and have never had anything but a cordial interaction.  So, why would I want to insult someone who has not done that to me? 

I didn't know that she was capable of having something like a cordial interaction :matte-motes-bored: I've found myself in agreement with her in a few forum dicussions (scary, I know), but even then she seems to disagree on principle. 

 

Ishy, can you provide an example of this:  "
consistently bash M2F transgender people and SL gender-benders"
?  



She used to refer to people whom she suspected to be gender-benders as "manginas". Here is one of many examples:

"More and more, I'm leaning to the opinion that [name omitted] must be another one of those nasty little manginas -- males crossing to females in SL but without telling anyone."

Or take a look at her delightful post in the comments under this blog post, where she even bashes the author's RL appearance:

"... you don’t get to behave like a f****** mangina [...] Grow the f*** up. Your boobs look like fakes. I think I’m on to something here."

She does the same in forum discussions, where she never gets tired of pointing out that known, self-admitted gender-benders are "middle-aged men". You should see some of the verbal abuse that she hauls in Immy's direction, for example.

As of yet, she has not targeted me personally in this way (only with accusations of me being a pedophile, which is another frequently used tool in her toolbox of insults and libel), but neither has Fred Phelps personally bashed every gay person on the planet. If she targets individuals for being members of a minority group, she insults the entire minority group by proxy.

 

One last thing Ishy, I highlighted the words that I wish to discuss.  I personally do not think that others have the power to "
inflict negative and hurtful emotional states onto me"
.   Feeling emotionally hurt is not something that is "inflicted" upon one, it's something that arises from within and is our own mental "reaction".     If I
do
suffer from a negative and hurtful emotional state, it's brought about by my
reaction
to either the other person or their words. 

So, it is
within my control
to decide whether I suffer an emotional hurt or not.  Now, that's not to say it's easy to control one's own emotions, but it
is
within one's control.  



Yeah, that's what I always try to tell myself too. Because otherwise, I'd have to hate a great number of people in RL and hold them responsible for my reclusive lifestyle and social phobia, and I don't like hating people. But as you say yourself, it's not that easy to control one's emotions and not let anything get to oneself. And the bullies know that. They know full well what they are able to inflict onto others, which is why they so enjoy the power that it gives them over other people's emotions.

Just yesterday, I read that yet another gay teenager has committed suicide. The poor boy previously gained some youTube fame with a video titled "It gets better, I promise", so he evidently did try to cope with the massive peer abuse and keep a positive attitude. It wasn't enough though. In the end, his bullies won. After reading something like this, I can't tell myself that it was merely his own choice to feel harrassed and bullied. And it's certainly not something that I would tell the kid's grieving parents.  

I think it's about time that society bullies back. Freedom of speech and opinion is all nice and well, but neither bullies nor the people who publicly target minority groups and incite this kind of hatred that causes others to harrass people to death or make their lives a living hell should get away with it scot-free. I mean, we might as well say that sexual harrassment of women in the workplace is no big deal, because it is the victims' choice to feel harrassed or to be hurt by sexist remarks. Certain things simply shouldn't be tolerated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celestiall Nightfire

Celestiall Nightfire

Posted
Posted

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

I didn't know that she was capable of having something like a cordial interaction :matte-motes-bored: I've found myself in agreement with her in a few forum dicussions (scary, I know), but even then she seems to disagree on principle. 

 

You know Ishy, it so happens that most people are cordial until their buttons are pushed.   In your previous comment you used several paragraphs to layout social interaction dynamics.   Yet, you yourself have written that you do not have a history of successful social interaction with people in RL.  Well, I do.  In RL, I'm an extrovert, and social interactions are my forte. In RL I use my verbal skills, voice, presence, and yes, even my looks, to my advantage. It's actually much harder for me to successfully leverage those assets here in a written format.  But, my years of social experience mean that, unless I run into a rare psycho or choose to be confrontational, I can almost bet that my interactions will be cordial. 

 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:
She used to refer to people whom she suspected to be gender-benders as "manginas".
is one of many examples:

"More and more, I'm leaning to the opinion that
[name omitted]
must be another one of those nasty little manginas -- males crossing to females in SL but without telling anyone."

I've never heard of the term "mangians" before.  So I Googled it.  Urban dictionary says is' "gay slang".  So it appears that the gay community coined that term.   : )    It does not appear to be a derogatory term per se, so other than her injecting the adjective "nasty",  I think she is just insulting that one person, not all people who are cross-overs.   Here are links to sites all over the web, including YouTube, Facebook, and Myspace pages where the word "mangina" is used.  None seem derogatory: 

http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/manginas-are-my-hero/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Manginas/50667845115

http://goodmenproject.com/good-is-good/good-discussion-men-manginas-and-cleavage/

http://www.myspace.com/bloodymanginas

(that last one is actually a band called "The Manginas")

Here's a blog post where someone discusses whether the word "mangina" is a pejorative, and concludes that the term, associated with female characteristics, does not have a negative connotation:

http://www.freedomtwentyfive.com/?p=826

So, it does not appear that the blogger was using a term that insulted a group of people, but instead was trying to insult one particular person that pissed her off. 

 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Or take a look at her delightful post in the comments under this
, where she even bashes the author's RL appearance:

"... you don’t get to behave like a f****** mangina [...] Grow the f*** up. Your boobs look like fakes. I think I’m on to something here."

Here's the first quote that comes upon that page from the blogger, and it's quoted by the person in question:

"XXXX, are you a male originally in real life, either cross-dressing in that rather ambiguous photo you put up here on your website under “about me,” or perhaps in the process of transgendering? Nothing wrong with that, but I find ambivalence about such a status often does often explain the particular obsessiveness and viciousness with which some SL types like yourself begin hysterically hating me, putting up hate pages about me, whiting out my comments like Orwell’s 1984, etc. etc. So, you know, just sayin’. Say, has anybody actually seen the real XXXX XXXXX in RL, and can they comment on his/her real or presented gender? 

The blogger clearly states that "there is nothing wrong with that", and also mentions that the other person had started "putting up hate pages" about her.  The comment you quoted in way down in the blog comments, and only appears after multiple people insulted the blogger saying she's crazy, etc. 

Plus, Ishy, I have to agree with her assessment of that photo...the person looks like they could be either a male or a female.  Surely, you of all people, can see the sexual ambiguity in how that person looks? 

So, this incident fits my description of the blogger bashing individuals who have bashed her first.  Also, she, the blogger, obviously agrees with your strategy and pushes back. 

 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

She does the same in forum discussions, where she never gets tired of pointing out that known, self-admitted gender-benders are "middle-aged men". You should see some of the verbal abuse that she hauls in Immy's direction, for example.

Ishy, my very first interaction with that blogger was back on the old SLX-XStreet foums.  She posted a comment about men posing as women, etc.  I replied to that comment, and stated in no uncertain terms, that I was indeed a RL woman, and that she'd better not try that crap with me.  She backed off.  She never insulted me, or even did sly little veiled insults likeso many on that forum practiced.  

Now, as to the "middle-aged men" playing female avatars...there are a ton of them!  You know this.  It so happens that today I watched videos of the 2011 SLCC conference, and some videos of back years too.  Guess what?!   A bunch of the females in SL, are "middle-aged men" running female avatars.   Some of them are creepy!  One guy created his female avatar just to mess with people, and then used her to continue to mess with people.  He now has outed himself, but his explanation as to why he used a female avatar sounded like someone who delights in deliberately messing with other people, just for the sake of doing it.   It was very disheartening to see that.  

 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

You should see some of the verbal abuse that she hauls in Immy's direction, for example.

I don't know "Immy" at all, but if you're suggesting that the person who posts as "Immy" is indeed a "middle-aged man", then it would be disingenuous of me to not mention that I too find that creepy.  A middle-aged man creating an avatar that looks like a teen-age girl, and clearly uses that in a sexual manner in SL, uh..yeah...not good.  Is this the same "Immy" who posted this? 

http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/general-sl-discussion/50043-too-little-too-late.html#post1040005

Clearly someone who, if they are an adult man, and is having cyber-sex with minors, is engaging in behavior that is not only illegal, but violates LL's TOS.   I think that someone who deliberately dresses themselves as a teen-age-looking female, and deliberately makes their avatar "small"...and deliberately goes to great lengths to point that out to other people (as that person has done in countless thread even here on the SL forms) how small and "cute" they are...is courting trouble.   It does not take much to realize that. 

See the picture that person posts?  http://www.blogger.com/profile/12296216339322995752

Here are the groups that person says they are in:

"Yes, I am in the Woodbury University group.

Yes, I am in the NCI group.

 

In addition, I'm in Second Life Mentors, The Forum Cartel, Jumpman's **bleep** Magazine, and Second Life Children. ( I'm going to beat myself up for saying "**bleep**"... I don't cuss... (T_T) )"



**bleep** Magazine and Second Life Children.  Uh...yeah...

As a parent, I find that behavior (if that person is actually an adult man) very troubling, and I think it's that type of behavior that is continuing to give SL a black eye in the eyes of the public.  Any behavior that courts pseudo-sexual-age play is against the TOS for a reason...and that is legal.  But, the ultimate goal is to protect RL underage individuals.   So, based upon that person's actions, (and underage looking avatar)  I'd say that they have brought it upon themselves if said blogger has posted negative things about them. 

 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

As of yet, she has not targeted me personally in this way (only with accusations of me being a pedophile, which is another frequently used tool in her toolbox of insults and libel), .....

Ishy, you yourself stated in the forums and off the forms that you were in a SL "relationship" with someone.  Then that same someone (who unfortunately was an experienced liar) turned out to have lied about her age.  Now, since I was familiar with that person's antics and lack of ethics, I personally do not think that implicates you as a "pedophile".   I think instead, that in this particular instance, you were actually the victim of someone who was a slick and experienced liar.   But, I can see how someone, who was not familiar with the circumstances, might conclude otherwise.  

 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

....but neither has Fred Phelps personally bashed every gay person on the planet. If she targets individuals for being members of a minority group, she insults the entire minority group by proxy.

I don't think she targets individual because of the minority group they are in.  I think she targets individuals for either their actual actions or her perception of their actions.   Each time there is a predicating factor, an action.  Most commonly it is one where the other person launched insults directed at her.  So, again, she is taking a page out of your play-book, and pushing back,   That she then uses whatever ammunition she can find, including group that the person belongs to is no surprise. 

 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Yeah, that's what I always try to tell myself too........ Certain things simply shouldn't be tolerated. 

I truncated your last paragraph to save space.   

Ishy, have you ever gotten into a physical fight?  An actual RL physical altercation?  I have.  My first early one was in first grade.  On the playground with other children who were pushing and shoving this pathetic little girl who's family was very poor, and they seemed to lack a basic understanding of personal hygiene.   It so incensed me even as a child, that I shoved my way in between that girl and the other children and pushed them back, along with admonishing them.  

You know what happened?  That pack of child-bullies then turned on me.   Started calling me names and shoving me.  I was shocked.  In my little child's brain, I somehow had envisioned that the pack-of-wild-child-bullies would back off!   *laughing* 

Years later I told that story to my youngest son, the one who has Asperger's Syndrome.  He asked me, if I knew then, what I know now, would I have acted the same?    He wanted to know, that if I had known that the pack of bullies was going to turn on me, would I have behaved differently. 

I said, yes.  I would have pushed and shoved a hell of a lot harder then I did. 

If you're suggesting that society should not tolerate bullies then you're preaching to the choir.  But, I think that the contrariety and pugilistic nature of the blogger we are discussing, stems from her desire to achieve social justice.  She deliberately provokes and brings on situations whereby others attack her, insult her, and generally make life hard for her.  I truly believe that she does so out of her sense of right and wrong.   I do not think her actions are predicated by bully-tendencies.   Does this mean I agree with her actions on all fronts?  Certainly not.  I also disagree with some of the conclusions she reaches on her blog posts.    But, I don't see her as a bully, instead, I see her as someone who has chosen to be the conduit of what she thinks is justice.  I do not see maliciousness behind her actions or words, but instead see someone who has spent a lifetime doing battles and knows no other way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ishtara Rothschild

Ishtara Rothschild

Posted
Posted
Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

You know Ishy, it so happens that most people are cordial until their buttons are pushed.   In your previous comment you used several paragraphs to layout social interaction dynamics.   Yet, you yourself have written that you do not have a history of successful social interaction with people in RL.  Well, I do. [...]

True, I'm not exaxtly an expert when it comes to social interaction, and I never claimed to be. My social life is limited to SL and a few online forums. I could make up an elaborate RL backstory to hide this fact, but I don't. Anyway, I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand. 

 

I've never heard of the term "mangians" before.  So I Googled it.  Urban dictionary says is' "gay slang".  So it appears that the gay community coined that term.   : )    It does not appear to be a derogatory term per se, so other than her injecting the adjective "nasty",  I think she is just insulting that one person, not all people who are cross-overs.   Here are links to sites all over the web, including YouTube, Facebook, and Myspace pages where the word "mangina" is used.  None seem derogatory: [...]

Yes, and black people sometimes refer to each other with the n-word. You might want to look that word up on the Urban Dictionary too, that might give you an idea how accurate, trustworthy and politically correct this website really is.

The term mangina is a portmanteau of man and va**bleep**, and P. clearly uses this word as an insult for SL residents with female avatars who happen to disagree with her. By calling alleged gender benders manginas, P. disrespects their chosen SL gender, attempts to out them as RL men, and basically calls them fakes who are less than real women. You can't possibly tell me that you can't see how derogatory and insulting this is, especially if the abuse victim happens to be transgender in RL.

 

Here's the first quote that comes upon that page from the blogger, and it's quoted by the person in question:

"XXXX, are you a male originally in real life, either cross-dressing in that rather ambiguous photo you put up here on your website under “about me,” or perhaps in the process of transgendering?
Nothing wrong with that,
but I find ambivalence about such a status often does often explain the particular obsessiveness and viciousness with which some SL types like yourself
begin hysterically hating me, putting up hate pages about me, whiting out my comments like Orwell’s 1984,
etc. etc. So, you know, just sayin’. Say, has anybody actually seen the real XXXX XXXXX in RL, and can they comment on his/her real or presented gender? 

The blogger clearly states that "
there is nothing wrong with that
", and also mentions that the other person had started "putting up hate pages" about her.  The comment you quoted in way down in the blog comments, and only appears after multiple people insulted the blogger saying she's crazy, etc.

Again, you cannot tell me that you don't see the insults here. P. questions the RL gender of a female blogger (that alone is insulting). In response, this woman posts a photo of her very feminine self on her blog. P. again calls her a male and asks her if she's crossdressing or transgendered. And that is supposed to be just peachy because P. also states that there is nothing wrong with that? Please.

Aside from that, P. feels bullied and persecuted by pretty much everyone. She rabidly attacks others and then paints herself as the victim who was only defending herself against the evil trolls and haters. I know that she really has been targeted by some groups in the past and I'm not trying to defend the griefers. But this doesn't make her derogatory remarks any less insulting, nor does it change the fact that she constantly attacks others who previously had no beef with her and persistently picks the most unpopular and close-minded points of view, as if she was trying to maximize the number of her enemies. 

 

I don't know "Immy" at all, but if you're suggesting that the person who posts as "Immy" is indeed a "middle-aged man", then it would be disingenuous of me to not mention that I too find that creepy.  A middle-aged man creating an avatar that looks like a teen-age girl, and clearly uses that in a sexual manner in SL, uh..yeah...not good.  Is this the same "Immy" who posted this? 



Clearly someone who, if they are an adult man, and is having cyber-sex with minors, is engaging in behavior that is not only illegal, but violates LL's TOS.   I think that someone who deliberately dresses themselves as a teen-age-looking female, and deliberately makes their avatar "small"...and deliberately goes to great lengths to point that out to other people (as that person has done in countless thread even here on the SL forms) how small and "cute" they are...is courting trouble.   It does not take much to realize that. 

See the picture that person posts? 


 

It is P. who called Immy a middle-aged man (which again shoes how she goes out of her way to try and insult people). I have no idea who Immy is in RL, but I doubt that she's middle-aged.

Anyway, I'm quite shocked by your post, and not for the reason you might think. This attempt to dig up dirt on Immy is... well, it's prok-esque for the lack of a better adjective. Not that I see any dirt in the above quote, mind you. The thread that you linked to is about a hypothetical case in which an adult had no idea that s/he was being tricked by a minor. What you are trying to make out of this comes dangerously close to libel. 

And what is wrong with the picture on Immy's blogger profile? I always thought you were a libertarian. I also thought you were better than this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celestiall Nightfire

Celestiall Nightfire

Posted
Posted

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

True, I'm not exaxtly an expert when it comes to social interaction, and I never claimed to be......... Anyway, I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand. 

 

Uh, you wrote four paragraphs on social interactions in your previous comment.  It started like this:

"Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

The prisoner's dilemma is not really a game (only insofar that all social interactions are games of strategy in which we can either gain or lose something)......A practical example would be the social grooming behavior of various bird species...." 

Since you seemed to think that it was necessary to explain to me how social interactions work, I thought I'd let you know, that between the two of us, I have more experience in that field. 

But, next time I see you mention birds and such, I'll just say, "Anyway, I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand. "   



 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Anyway, I'm quite shocked by your post, and not for the reason you might think. This attempt to dig up dirt on Immy is... well, it's prok-esque for the lack of a better adjective.

 

Oh,  please.  I reposted a link that someone else had posted on P's blog comments.  Here is the link to that comment, scroll and it's the third comment.

http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2011/09/chasing-their-tails.html#comments

Until, *you* mentioned that person I had not given it any thought.

 

 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:.

Not that I see any dirt in the above quote, mind you.

 

Yet, you jumped right in and accused me of "digging up" dirt?   You did that without knowing the facts, and even after you aknowledge that there is no dirt?  *shakes head*

 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

The thread that you linked to is about a hypothetical case in which an adult had no idea that s/he was being tricked by a minor.

 

Where are you getting "hypothetical" from?  That person clearly states that the incident happened.

 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

What you are trying to make out of this comes dangerously close to libel. 

 

That person stated the incident happened.   I have done nothing wrong by discussing their post.  If someone does not want their behavior discussed, then they should not post it on a public forum for the whole internet to see. 



 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

And what is wrong with the picture on Immy's blogger profile?

 

That person has written that they are in "child" groups.  They have created an avatar that looks underage.  That picture shows that the avatar is being sexualized.   Are you incapable of seeing how that and courts trouble?  Sexualized activity from avatars that appear underage and are in “child” groups is the very activity that can bring down SL. 



 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

I always thought you were a libertarian.

 

Being a Libertarian does not mean I'm an anarchist.  It's not "anything" goes.   There are rules in place to protect vulnerable members of our society.   Children and teenagers are part of that vulnerable group.  Any activity, that promotes and indeed does, break the rules set up to protect that vulnerable group, are not going to be approved by me.  



 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

I also thought you were better than this. 

 

Well, with that comment, we are done here Ishy.   I don't want to engage in hostile interactions with you, as I like you.  So, for my part, this discussion is closed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ishtara Rothschild

Ishtara Rothschild

Posted
Posted

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

Uh, you wrote four paragraphs on social interactions in your previous comment.  It started like this:

"Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

The prisoner's dilemma is not really a game (
only insofar that all social interactions are games
of strategy in which we can either gain or lose something)......A practical example would be the social grooming behavior of various bird species...." 

Since you seemed to think that it was necessary to explain to me how social interactions work, I thought I'd let you know, that between the two of us, I have more experience in that field. 

But, next time I see you mention birds and such, I'll just say, "
Anyway, I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand
. "  

So because I'm not good at the practice, I should drop the theory? An anorexic vegan nutritional biologist probably knows more about food than an obese gourmet who simply enjoys eating. People who are good at something and enjoy doing it often fly by instinct and have no idea what exactly it is that they're doing.

Besides, self-perception is a funny thing. RL skills don't necessarily translate into a forum environment, and the people who think the highest of themselves might be devastated if they knew how others perceive them. 

 

Where are you getting "hypothetical" from?  That person clearly states that the incident happened.

 

I didn't read the entire thread, because the witch hunts over at SLU are not a pretty sight. So she was really deceived by a minor. Big deal. Something similar happened to me once.

LL's age verification has never been foolproof, some 17 year olds act very mature, and no judge would convict a person for having what amounts to an erotic chat with a near-adult person who could legally have sex in 31 U.S. states. 

 

That person has written that they are in "child" groups.  They have created an avatar that looks underage.  That picture shows that the avatar is being sexualized.   Are you incapable of seeing how that and courts trouble?  Sexualized activity from avatars that appear underage and are in “child” groups is the very activity that can bring down SL. 

 

I disagree that her avatar looks underage. It clearly has a sexually mature look, and beyond that, it is pretty much impossible and nonsensical to try and assign an age to a cartoon polygon figure. The RL laws that are the reason for this overblown paranoia, a paranoia that sensationalists like P. are only too eager to perpepuate, are only concerned with virtual depictions of pre-pubescent children, and Immy's blogger avatar is clearly not a child avatar.

As for child avatar groups, it is entirely possible to have more than one avatar and participate in a wide range of activities in SL, always with an avatar that is appropriate for such an activity.

 

Anyway, you should really leave these nasty witch hunts to P. That's her speciality. She is not some poor and pathetic little girl (to paraphrase your previous post) who needs your help. Instead, she is an adult person who is perfectly capable of fighting her own battles in the most vicious way, and she picks a great many of them. Often with people who haven't done anything to her, as well as with the communists under her bed and the shadows on her walls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 4581 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...