Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

Proposed Ban on Hateful Diatribes

Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
09-25-2005 16:01
From: Nolan Nash
Actually, a better question would be, before we take this further, are you being genuine?
Yes I am. I am very serious. :(

After taking a break from the forums and thinking about things, I realize the primary reason I feel so disturbed by that post is that it is so similar to Nazi-era anti-Semitic diatribes. It's a giant rhetorical piece that serves no other purpose than to dehumanize a group of people that the author agrees with. It has absolutely no merit. It exists only to hurt a group of people. Philosophically speaking, it is the definition of where free speech should stop, where it exists as a serious threat to the autonomy of other individuals.

While I don't worry about the rhetorical rubber bands we snap each other with, I see this post as the rhetorical equivalent of a shot gun.

~Ulrika~
_____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
Satchmo Prototype
eSheep
Join date: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1,323
09-25-2005 16:02
From: Gabrielle Assia
And some might view THAT as a personal attack on Prok !?


I've always wondered why people think it's ok to violate the TOS if you are referring to Prok.
_____________________

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Electric Sheep Company
Satchmo Blogs: The Daily Graze
Satchmo del.icio.us
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
09-25-2005 16:06
From: Gabrielle Assia
If TOS was going to be strictly held to, I'd say that deserves a reprimand on first offense and a few days suspension on next, and so on.
That's what's precisely wrong with the ToS and is exactly what I'm trying to address here. It is a trivially verifiable fact that Prokofy has posted worse. I can dig up some hideous posts up or you could simply accept the logical argument that they are worse, because if they weren't he wouldn't have been banned.

The problem with the ToS is that it puts an unusual emphasis on naming names. The diatribe to which I'm referring is orders of magnitude worse than mentioning Prok's name but is deemed permissible because it doesn't name names.

One can murder as long as they don't name names but one cannot litter if they name names.

~Ulrika~
_____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
Jauani Wu
pancake rabbit
Join date: 7 Apr 2003
Posts: 3,835
09-25-2005 16:18
:confused: :confused: :confused:
is this thread making character attacks against an undefined group of players for making character attack against an undefined group of players? is this thread performance art? a forum installation expressing the inherent paradox of forum reformation?
:confused: :confused: :confused:
_____________________
http://wu-had.blogspot.com/
read my blog

Mecha
Jauani Wu
hero of justice
__________________________________________________
"Oh Jauani, you're terrible." - khamon fate


Nolan Nash
Frischer Frosch
Join date: 15 May 2003
Posts: 7,141
09-25-2005 16:23
From: Ulrika Zugzwang
That's what's precisely wrong with the ToS and is exactly what I'm trying to address here. It is a trivially verifiable fact that Prokofy has posted worse. I can dig up some hideous posts up or you could simply accept the logical argument that they are worse, because if they weren't he wouldn't have been banned.

The problem with the ToS is that it puts an unusual emphasis on naming names. The diatribe to which I'm referring is orders of magnitude worse than mentioning Prok's name but is deemed permissible because it doesn't name names.

One can murder as long as they don't name names but one cannot litter if they name names.

~Ulrika~

You did earlier by attacking Suezanne's character in the post I quoted several posts above..

:confused:

You have made some nameless (and long as well - some might even call them diatribes unto themselves) posts recently, which basically boil down to: "If you don't agree with me, you're an illogical person."

I am not looking to argue with you Ulrika, but rather trying to understand.
_____________________
“Time's fun when you're having flies.” ~Kermit
Weedy Herbst
Too many parameters
Join date: 5 Aug 2004
Posts: 2,255
09-25-2005 16:23
From: Ulrika Zugzwang
That's what's precisely wrong with the ToS and is exactly what I'm trying to address here. It is a trivially verifiable fact that Prokofy has posted worse. I can dig up some hideous posts up or you could simply accept the logical argument that they are worse, because if they weren't he wouldn't have been banned.

The problem with the ToS is that it puts an unusual emphasis on naming names. The diatribe to which I'm referring is orders of magnitude worse than mentioning Prok's name but is deemed permissible because it doesn't name names.

One can murder as long as they don't name names but one cannot litter if they name names.

~Ulrika~


Befitting you compare yourself to Prok and murderers.

Afterall, Scott Peterson only killed 2 people, whereas Chairman Mao killed 50 million.

You won me over. Scott is now excused for his behavior.
_____________________
Alexin Bismark
Annoying Bastard
Join date: 7 May 2004
Posts: 208
Hmmmm
09-25-2005 16:26
From: Ulrika Zugzwang
In my life I have never been so criminal or hateful as to craft a forceful and bitter verbal attack that ascribes animal traits to a group of human beings. That two-page lesson in hatred is in a league all its own. Only Prokofy has posted worse.

~Ulrika~


To me, the technique of visual imagry (in this particular case seemingly animal traits), is just another means some people use to make emotional appeal in laying out their opinions. Not unlike ascribing Nazi-like propaganda machinations and equivalency to anti-semitism to people who have not expressed sympathy or ideology even close to that of Nazis or anti-semites. Ascribing animal traits has LONG been a technique of visual imagery used in political parody, satire and critique. Revolutionary America, Revolutionary France, criticisms of the Catholic Church, even back to Republican and Imperial Rome. Perhaps you've heard Animal Farm?? The technique is NOT Nazi specific or even anti-semitic specific.

Of the two, I personally think dragging Nazis and anti-semitism into a discussion as a means of painting a negative image on your opponent is personally the more hateful and offensive than animal imagery. Several million people died on the spearpoint of Nazism and anti-semitism. Personally I think you should show them a little more respect IMO than to trivialize the monsterous horrors of the Nazis and anti-semitism by even drawing the HINT of any equivalence or similarity to something someone said in the forum.



Alexin
Nolan Nash
Frischer Frosch
Join date: 15 May 2003
Posts: 7,141
09-25-2005 16:29
From: Alexin Bismark
To me, the technique of visual imagry (in this particular case seemingly animal traits), is just another means some people use to make emotional appeal in laying out their opinions. Not unlike ascribing Nazi-like propaganda machinations and equivalency to anti-semitism to people who have not expressed sympathy or ideology even close to that of Nazis or anti-semites. Ascribing animal traits has LONG been a technique of visual imagery used in political parody, satire and critique. Revolutionary America, Revolutionary France, criticisms of the Catholic Church, even back to Republican and Imperial Rome. Perhaps you've heard Animal Farm?? The technique is NOT Nazi specific or even anti-semitic specific.

Of the two, I personally think dragging Nazis and anti-semitism into a discussion as a means of painting a negative image on your opponent is personally the more hateful and offensive than animal imagery. Several million people died on the spearpoint of Nazism and anti-semitism. Personally I think you should show them a little more respect IMO than to trivialize the monsterous horrors of the Nazis and anti-semitism by even drawing the HINT of any equivalence or similarity to something someone said in the forum.



Alexin

I am inclined to agree with this post.
_____________________
“Time's fun when you're having flies.” ~Kermit
Goyan Luchador
Carbon Based Humanoid
Join date: 23 May 2004
Posts: 218
09-25-2005 16:29
The post seemed to eloquently capture a real negative side of the forums. Some of the adjectives and metaphors used, appear caustic, and provacative, but the author I think is merely using them as a painter uses light and color to reveal ambient truth. As always, some people are taken aback, or repulsed when true light is focused on a thing.
_____________________
"Perfect order is the forerunner of perfect horror." Carlos Fuentes
Gabrielle Assia
Mostly Ignorant
Join date: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 262
09-25-2005 16:34
From: Ulrika Zugzwang
That's what's precisely wrong with the ToS and is exactly what I'm trying to address here. It is a trivially verifiable fact that Prokofy has posted worse. I can dig up some hideous posts up or you could simply accept the logical argument that they are worse, because if they weren't he wouldn't have been banned.

The problem with the ToS is that it puts an unusual emphasis on naming names. The diatribe to which I'm referring is orders of magnitude worse than mentioning Prok's name but is deemed permissible because it doesn't name names.

One can murder as long as they don't name names but one cannot litter if they name names.

~Ulrika~


Well, I DO totally agree with you on that point!
The inability to name names is over the top.

If someone's being a jerk I think we should be able to
point that person out. Others have pointed out that
they feel Prok is a jerk, but actually there are many of
us that like him. In fact it's BECAUSE of the posts where
his name is named that I ended up meeting him!

People should be given the freedom to post their feelings
and others should be given the freedom to make up their
own minds about people being talked about AND about the
people posting such mindless dribble.

On that same note.... the people griefing in that thread
you mentioned should have the freedom to post their
rants, and I'm glad I've exercised my freedom to totally
ignore it after reading the first page.

I can only slightly see your call for censorship being a
good thing. If you don't like what's being said there,
then join me and avoid the thread. But is it REALLY
necessary for us to force our standards on others?

What if someone with stricter standards than you
began enforcing radically religeous right morality and
ethics on YOUR posts?! You'd probably feel a bit
upset as your posts are being censored and threads
deleted.

I think a better solution than to set up Forum Police
who may (or may not) be rooted in some suspected FIC
who swoop in and delete threads on THEIR perceptions
of "decency" ... would be to keep the forums a place
known the acceptance of free speech (without moderator
bias).... and empower each individual to decide for
themselves which threads they want to continue
to follow or ignore.

Gabrielle
Selador Cellardoor
Registered User
Join date: 16 Nov 2003
Posts: 3,082
09-25-2005 16:43
From: Ulrika Zugzwang
That's my point precisely. That a group can fabricate a forceful and bitter verbal attack by simply keeping the target ambiguous, is a loophole. I would also suggest that hateful attacks are by definition immoral regardless of whether or not they specifically include you as a target. Is an anti-Semitic diatribe not inherently immoral or must one be Jewish before they are allowed to feel anger?

~Ulrika~


But Ulrika, an anti-Semitic diatribe is directed at a specific group of people who are readily identified. If an unpleasant and offensive diatribe was directed against people who had - what - shoplifted in the past, that would be a self-defining group. Only those who had been shoplifters would know that it was directed at them.

This situation is even more vague than that. The diatribe is directed at those who have bullied. Only the bullies will feel the start of self-recognition. Well, not even that. Only those who actually recognise the fact that they have bullied.

The language was extreme, I will grant you. Had the comments been directed at a named individual, or a group of named individuals, I would be as indignant as you. But if you attack, say, miserable old bastards as a whole, only those who know themselves to be miserable old bastards will feel themselves attacked. And perhaps they might then be inspired to improve their disposition.
_____________________
Gabrielle Assia
Mostly Ignorant
Join date: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 262
09-25-2005 16:49
From: Selador Cellardoor

But if you attack, say, miserable old bastards as a whole, only those who know themselves to be miserable old bastards will feel themselves attacked. And perhaps they might then be inspired to improve their disposition.


BAHAhaa...

I'm pulling out my box of Green Slime,
now let's go hunt some of them Miserable Old Bastards!

.. and make them PAY!

(for whatever it is we feel they did wrong)


...(I'm sure it musta been something)...

Angel Coral
Otherworldly
Join date: 12 Dec 2003
Posts: 224
/clap
09-25-2005 16:50
Bravo, Selador!

angel
Michi Lumin
Sharp and Pointy
Join date: 14 Oct 2003
Posts: 1,793
09-25-2005 16:54
From: Ulrika Zugzwang
In my life I have never been so criminal or hateful as to craft a forceful and bitter verbal attack that ascribes animal traits to a group of human beings. That two-page lesson in hatred is in a league all its own.


Oh? You called me an object, compared me to a "vehicle and/or gun", and you basically said in past threads that because I had a dragon for an avatar, I was not a person, I was a 'thing'.

And you also called me a "little purple turtle".

Fortunately for you, those threads have long since been purged (when the forums 'went from black and gray to white and blue') so you'll probably rely on that to say you never did any such thing.

But you did. It's almost become a meme. Some of the Lindens even ribbingly still joke to me about it, "So, how's my favorite vehicle and/or gun?"

Why is it okay when you do it, but very wrong when others do it to you? You had no problems whatsoever being ascerbic to those who simply disagreed with you when you first came on to SL. Have you turned over a new leaf since then?

For someone who champions the ideas of logic and rationality and respecting others opinions, your foundation here was forged in doing nothing of the sort.

The only reason I still have problems with you, Ulrika, is because of how unabashedly and ruthlessly nasty you treated me when I first dared disagree with you in the forums here back in the day. And you wiped me all over the map with no remorse and a hell of a lot of pride in the fact that you could take your opponents apart. You seemed to almost get some sense of glee from doing it. (Remember "ZING!!!!"? That means 'I got you!', Ulrika. Not, "Ah, we are having a rational and friendly discourse!)

Are you suddenly concerned with people getting hurt, or unduly steamrolled on the forums now? If so, is this a new thing, or just a hat that fits for now?

You're clever, Ulrika, and dare I say smart - (If I didn't say that, I'd probably have a posse after me.)

You're also popular and well spoken.

But from what I've seen, being decent to other individuals - especially those who disagree with you - is not very high on your list of priorities. You're *excellent* at destroying your opponents. And I suppose that's something to be proud of. I know damn well that I'm never going to win a 'tete-a-tete' with you. I'll always come out looking the lesser. You've proved your mettle there, as I said, ruthlessly.

But don't try to be mistaken for a nice person. You can't have that cake while you're eating all of the others.
Ingrid Ingersoll
Archived
Join date: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 4,601
09-25-2005 17:02
Belt buckle, motel 6.
_____________________
Snowcrash Hoffman
Digital mind virus
Join date: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 282
09-25-2005 17:10
From: Alexin Bismark

Of the two, I personally think dragging Nazis and anti-semitism into a discussion as a means of painting a negative image on your opponent is personally the more hateful and offensive than animal imagery. Several million people died on the spearpoint of Nazism and anti-semitism. Personally I think you should show them a little more respect IMO than to trivialize the monsterous horrors of the Nazis and anti-semitism by even drawing the HINT of any equivalence or similarity to something someone said in the forum.


While Ulrika's post made me look at the original thread in a completely opposite view, I also agree with the above opinion that, one should refrain at all cost in dragging Nazism into these discussion. I can understand the subhuman imagery was abhorent to Ulrika as it reminded her anti-semitism of Nazi era, but it would be worse hatred to try to paint the original poster with those intentions.

It is also very difficult to decide what is hateful diatribe what is not. This particular case of Cienna's post is very interesting because for example when I first read it I thought it was fantastically written and praised it. I didn't pay attention to the details pointed out by Ulrika. When I read her post, it completely changed my perspective and agreed on Ulrika's analysis. The reverse could have happenned too. That is why freedom of speech is such a great thing.

As such, I would oppose to any kind of ban on any ideology. Bans should be reserved to individuals not to ideas, however despicable they may seem.
Martin Magpie
Catherine Cotton
Join date: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 1,826
09-25-2005 17:18
pffft if it writes like a nazi, talks like a nazi, walks like a nazi then it must be a nazi.

lets not get to fooking liberal here ok.

nazi's can suck my ass. lol

mar
Ingrid Ingersoll
Archived
Join date: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 4,601
09-25-2005 17:21
I give this thread 10 stars for hypocrisy! And another 10 stars go to me for having spelled hypocrisy correctly!
_____________________
Enabran Templar
Capitalist Pig
Join date: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 4,506
09-25-2005 17:28
I'm afraid I can't see the similarity between Cienna's post and the anti-Semetic rhetoric you descrivbe.

Most importantly, the hate speech you're talking about is directed at a group of individuals who cannot change the cultural, religious and ethnic heritage with which they were born. This hate speech is vile and unacceptable because it targets individuals who have committed no crimes -- only the crime of existence within a needlessly despised ethnicity or religion.

Conversely, Cienna's assault was on those who exist within a group she defines because of their choices, attitudes and behavior. Ultimately the indictment was against not a group of people, but against a specific pattern of behavior and attitude that, it so happens, a small group of people enjoy promoting.

I was born hispanic. I was not born an asshole, a whiner, a kindly person, a patient man. These are all choices of behavior and attitude. Choices I am free to make each and every day.

Is it okay to call me an asshole because of my actions? It is necessary -- without such freedom, many would be oblivious to their poor actions. Is it okay to call me an asshole because I'm hispanic? Certainly not. My ethnicity is not my choosing, nor does it speak to the quality of my person. My actions do -- and I accept all judgments for them. So should all other participants in human discourse.

People make choices of attitude and behavior every day. Those who make good ones should be rewarded. Those who make poor ones should know their choices are not helpful to the community they wish to enjoy. There should be no pass handed out because a small group enjoys the same destructive behavior. Without observation such as that rendered by Cienna, how will those who engage in these senseless behaviors ever see themselves from a new perspective?

As for the descriptive animal language? It has been pointed out in this thread previously that comparison to animal behavior is not the exclusive pleasure of the Nazi party. Indeed, open your newspaper and peruse the political cartoons to discover a wealth of zoological parallels drawn to many of today's current events, figures and follies.

It's effective rhetoric. You don't ban swords simply because of their potential be sharpened.
_____________________
From: Hiro Pendragon
Furthermore, as Second Life goes to the Metaverse, and this becomes an open platform, Linden Lab risks lawsuit in court and [attachment culling] will, I repeat WILL be reverse in court.


Second Life Forums: Who needs Reason when you can use bold tags?
Cocoanut Koala
Coco's Cottages
Join date: 7 Feb 2005
Posts: 7,903
09-25-2005 17:35
How anyone can admire such a post as the one we are discussing here is beyond me.

coco
_____________________
VALENTINE BOUTIQUE
at Coco's Cottages

http://slurl.com/secondlife/Rosieri/85/166/87
Nolan Nash
Frischer Frosch
Join date: 15 May 2003
Posts: 7,141
09-25-2005 17:37
From: Cocoanut Koala
How anyone can admire such a post as the one we are discussing here is beyond me.

coco

That's how I feel and felt about the posts of he who shall not be named.

*Shrug*
_____________________
“Time's fun when you're having flies.” ~Kermit
Sarendale Parvenu
Registered User
Join date: 16 May 2005
Posts: 75
part of a plan
09-25-2005 17:39
From: Eboni Khan
I know you just like to stir the shit, so I am going to assume this is just another shit stirring post.

Sometimes people might be setting the stage for things to come, for future attempts to promote changes that will enable them to work the system to their advantage.
Sarendale Parvenu
Registered User
Join date: 16 May 2005
Posts: 75
09-25-2005 17:44
From: someone
The only reason I still have problems with you, Ulrika, is because of how unabashedly and ruthlessly nasty you treated me when I first dared disagree with you in the forums here back in the day. And you wiped me all over the map with no remorse and a hell of a lot of pride in the fact that you could take your opponents apart. You seemed to almost get some sense of glee from doing it. (Remember "ZING!!!!"? That means 'I got you!', Ulrika. Not, "Ah, we are having a rational and friendly discourse!)


Some things never change. Not for the better.
Surreal Farber
Cat Herder
Join date: 5 Feb 2004
Posts: 2,059
09-25-2005 18:17
1. Ulrika this thread is pure hypocrisy.. Practice what you preach.

2. I support everyone's freedom to mute, ignore, and not respond to rants. If you don't respond, asshats will go away. They want attention.

3. Goes back to lurker mode.
_____________________
Surreal

Phobos 3d Design - putting the hot in psychotic since 2004

Come see our whole line of clothing, animations and accessories in Chaos (37, 198, 43)
Sarendale Parvenu
Registered User
Join date: 16 May 2005
Posts: 75
Animal Farm
09-25-2005 18:29
Anyone recall that old book Animal Farm? That had all sorts of depictions of of people as animals, but that was an anti big government book wasn't it?

When you say someone is as sly as a fox that's a compliment, right?

As graceful as a cat, as playful as a kitten. These are examples of humans being described as animals, they aren't demeaning at all.

Far more of an insult to attribute the properties of certain humans to animals. Insulting to the animals.

"Our dog has been so ill-tempered lately we decided to take it to the vet and have it put to sleep. It bit through it's leash and the cage bars, killed the vet and ran off and hid in the SL general forum. " I said. "Oh, don't worry about it then", my friend replied, "It will probably stay there and be happy now that it's with it's own kind."

"Anyone seen my pet rattlesnake?" "It got lonely and went looking for it's own kind. Ended up in the SL General forum." "OMG! They'll chew it up and spit it out in an instant."
1 2 3 4 5 6 7