Can we get some clarification here?

HI everyone, thanks for keeping me interested for the last two or three hours reading this thread. This is my first post although I have been lurking for some time.

I have to beg forgiveness from Zaphod, as I am guilty of having had a (near) nude pic on my profile and by not knowing that it could contravene the CS, and I only found out by reading Colette's post. It's not that I didn't care, but really that I didn't know. Also, every other classified advert, profile and pic in SL tended to be something similar. Possibly I am at fault as I have not read the entire CS and TOS - I admit I rarely do as they all tend to say similar things and, at the age of 36, if I had read every bit of small print that had come my way, would have wasted several months of my life - I assumed (maybe wrongly and without thought) that community standards would be similiar to my own standards. I obviously still have to come to terms with the widespread nature of the Web!

But because people are from different communities and have different values and standards, it must be important for the standards wanted by LL to be transparent and made availiable to all, and if breached - fair warning should be given for the offender to clean up their act.

Within minutes of reading the post I had relogged in to the game and changed my profile picture. I had no problem with the original one but chose to do this in order to avoid any punitive action from LL - I was suspended from Ebay for a number of days a year or two ago and that severely pi**ed me off.

There is a big difference to those being offensive to purposely annoy others, and those who slip up.

Keep on discussing ...........

thank you Beki,

I was mainly trying to say that everyone who's profile is not "PG" is doing so becuase theres been lax enforcement and they dont care about others.

You make my point better than I did

Just because someone hijacks a quote or an emblem doesn't undermine the original intention. Take away the Hitlerian connotations now associated with "Arbeit Macht Frei" (work makes you free) and there is a very interesting parallel in a predating, benign culture...the Franciscan Monks. They believed that only through hard physical labour could a person's mind be "free" to worship.

And if you're ever wondering where you may have seen the Swastika before...look very closely at buddha...it is quite often engraved onto statues of him, and was a symbol, again, for inner peace.

And interesting as this is...it doesn't address my original point...is it necessarily racist to promote white culture? If so, is it therefore racist to promote black culture? It's just another facet of the "slippery slope" argument - positions and boundaries on what is "offensive" are very personal - and so having someone ELSE draw those boundaries on your behalf is always a worrying thing.

OK - stuff I found;

Black Brotherhood Unite - "Protecting blackness anytime, anywhere"

Black gurls 'R' us - "For Black Gurls and their friends to party"

Black Panther Party - "To Fight For BLack Rights, end racism againist blacks and Islam."

BLACKS IN WHITES - "This is group for white women who love to serve black men. To be used like sex toys, and to be abused by all the brothers at large, and all the large brothers. Married white women in rl is the group favorite, so all you dirty cheatin ho's line up for some good hard abuse by a heard of wild monsterous dirty black beasts."

And, for reference...

14 words - "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children"

If the above is offensive, why isn't the "Black Panther Party"? In fact, in any of the "pro-black" examples given...if I just exchange the word "black" for "white" or "Islam" for "Christianity";

Protecting whiteness anytime, anywhere
For White Gurls and their friends to party
To Fight For White Rights, end racism againist Whites and Christianity.
"This is group for black women who love to serve white men..."

...would I somehow change an acceptable group into an unacceptable one?

Don't get me wrong - some of those "translated" statements DO make me cringe...but I'm questioning my own reaction to it, as well as the community's as a whole...

On a side note from the racial portions of this description.

Theres no way this one is PG in my opinion.

On the racial side - I dont know what the group founder is trying to accomplish. However, It sounds like a porn catagory as opposed to a racial themes group.

Personally, all of those groups seem silly to me. I'm not saying that I think they are indecent (other than the Blacks In Whites description which to me is borderline). Let's say I am a Smurf in real life. I want to start a group for Smurfs and their friends. The part about the friends seems to be inviting and not some kind of racial restriction. To me that part says this is the theme of the group; let's all be social. On the other hand, if my group said "Smurf Rights - A Stand Against Antismurfdom", it is kind of an invitation to be griefed. It sort of defeats the purpose of maintaining rights if they weren't being violated in SL in the first place. While I would have every right to make such a group name, I think it would be asking for trouble. That's not to say someone wouldn't grief me just for being a Smurf, but at least I wouldn't be accused of being an aggressor.

I understand what you're saying, but there are some things that can't be taken out of context.

No, I don't see anything wrong with a club for Italian-Americans, German-Americans or other groups such as we have in my hometown. They mainly exist to perpetuate the language and culture of family heritage.

However, none of those groups, as far as I know, have signed onto the 14-word philosophy. Only one group of people has. Racists.

Groups like the KKK know that culture has shifted, and lynchings aren't the cause for a picnic anymore. People don't really like hearing others being called the n-word. They've deliberately toned down their rhetoric and tried to sound more palatable to the mainstream.

How do I know? I had lunch once with the "national director" of the Knights of the KKK. Talk about a maroon. Anyway, he very much said that was his goal - to make people see the KKK as a group not about racism, but about promoting "European culture." (Whatever that may be. I've been to Europe several times, and I never heard anyone there talking about it.)

So, OK, you can think that if you want, but I think you're being manipulated.

while the 14 words only seem to promote the white race - a simple google search will show it is an often used slogan for many racists groups.

So no - I do not think they should get a pass.

would a Heil! group be accepted?

I doubt it.

Or a group named "Mein Kamph"?

Just becuase many of us (including me) didnt know what "14 words" meant, doesnt mean its fundamentally different than those two slogans.

Robins words are EXACTLY what the Linden Notecard Said, and exactly what I have been saying ALL ALONG.
The Target was the Explicit publicly viewable materials and Nothing Else.
It was in Plain English in the Original Note, and Robin has reiterated it here Point by Point in even Plainer English. The only other way to say it is Monosylables, and big colourful pictures.
It is VERY possible to live an Alternative Lifestyle in SL, and Live it Openly Without Violating TOS/CS. I've been doing it for years, as have others. the Only reason the Lindens stepped in on some of the Age Players was they were Crossing the Line. They Did not respect the sensabilities of others in SL. One Cannot Demand respect for ones self while denying it for others, It just doesn't work that way.

Angel.

That misses my point entirely. Both the Swastika AND the "work makes you free" statement WERE taken out of context - by Hitler. He did a damned good job of turning them into something objectionable. Why is it so much harder to do it again, but in reverse?

Your Italian American etc groups...are their any for the traditional White Anglo Saxon Protestants? I'm guessing not...

Gaybot - If your groups said "Smurfs Only"...would it still be acceptable?

This reminds me of the argument about BET when it first came out.
"It makes me so mad," they said, "What if we were to make a WET, White Entertainment Television?"
"Well, first off," I replied sweetly, "WET is a terribly name for a network. Secondly... they DO have all white networks. Their names are ABC, CBS and NBC."

Are there any WASP groups? Um... yeah. The Republican Party.

But seriously, folks.

There ARE groups out there that are proud of their English (Anglo-Saxon) roots.
You're confusing race (White Anglo Saxon Protestants) with culture (Italian).

White Anglo-Saxon is just redundant. It's like saying a Black Zulu. One can safely assume that an Anglo-Saxon is white.

And, I think you'll find that groups that put "White" (when referring to race) in their title are generally at the least, just a little bit racist.

So, yes, there are groups out there that celebrate their Anglo Saxon Roots and there are Protestant groups out there, just like there are Italian American groups and catholic groups.

Wet might be a good name for a Pr0n network

but yeah White entertainment television is stupid. The Majority doesnt need minority protections. Its simply a way to undermine what support/rights groups do. Like the NAACP, etc.

Theres a pretty big difference between cultural groups and racist groups.

A group using a well known racist slogan isnt a cultural group.

As far as symbols and slogans twisted by the Nazis; the place to re-legitamize any use of those things surely isnt Second Life. Someone figure out how to seperate the symbols from Nazi Iconagraphy in First Life first.

HA!
Some Hindu groups are trying to take back the swastika, as are one or two Native American groups, from what I hear. And they're doing it right, from what I can see, with education and a full recognising of the negative stigma of the symbol, rather than using the "F.U." factor so prevalent today.

Interesting-

so someday maybe the Hindu style swastika will have a place in SL. As acceptance grows. But its a long road to make people forget the largest war ever fought and the evils associated with it.

till it becomes accepted - its Nazi Iconography.

When I checked this morning, the 14 Words group had changed it's name to 14 Worms.

As Colette says, the wording of the group charter and symbols on their own does not seem to indicate anything other than the promotion of the White Race, and its right to survive along with other races. However, there are severe racist connatations in the origin of the quote.

How many of the members are aware of the exact meaning of the quote and are racist? If they keep their views amongst themselves, should the group be banned? I don't think so - ("we believe in free expression". If they go out of their way to inflict their views on others in an intolerant manner, should they be banned? Yes, I think they should - ("compassion and tiolerance". The words in brackets are words from the mission statement on the Second Life community web page.

There is a culture in the UK that it is racist to promote "specifically" white groups - I see Mickey's quotes regarding ABC & CBS etc, but that doesn't seem to be the same. Here, you can label a group for example - National Black Police Officers but not White...... It would be interesting to see whether the 14 words/worms and say, the Black Panthers would get banned for the same offence.? (If LL was situated in the UK i can tell you they wouldn't) I am not sure if this is what Griffin is getting at, I'm not even sure if Griffin is from the UK!!!

Personally, everyone is entitled to their own views, if it is kept between themselves no problem. The minute it surfaces with chat comments and actions in front of the public, then it should be stopped. Whether it is from Black, White, or Smurf extremists.

Somehow this strikes me as appropriate.

thought someone would like it.

And all the above "white" groups are constantly being lambasted to increase their NON-white membership. I don't see anyone telling BET to play more Vanilla Ice. I'm going to take flames for this, so I want to state in advance that I don't hold ANY racist views at all...the only thing I'm intolerant of is arseholes, and no one racial group has a monopoly on those...

...but...

...since all white groups are petitioned to accept more black members, yet no black groups are petitioned to accept white members, is anyone actually surprised that more white people take solace in those 14 words?

Anglo Saxon is very DEFINITELY a culture however. Italian as a culture is inseparable from it's Catholic faith roots. It's not so easy to draw lines like that.

I wouldn't disagree - that's my own reaction too...I just wonder how far down the "equalisation" road we have to go before groups with "Black" in their title are ASLO seen as racist.

Which starts to drift away form the point...I'm not disputing they exist...I'm asking why is one side of the coin viewed as acceptable, and the other as racist?

Edit: As to those 14 words...from what I infer (and I never heard of them prior to reading this post either) they are viewed as racist not becuase of what they say, but because of who said them, the actions that they took, and the beliefs that they held. I get kind of annoyed by this. Occasionally, a total idiot will say something that is very profound, or a giant intellect will spout utter garbage. Are we to discount both utterances equally, in favour of their previous "reputation" (be it good or bad).

I wish words stood for what they said and no more and were taken at face value, instead of carrying all this baggage with them. If that makes me naive, so be it.

Just a thought...

If y'haven't heard of it, check out the concept of "White Privilege". When I first read it, it kinda blew me away.

The reason that "White" groups are generally considered... less than savoury, shall we say... is that traditionally, it can be generally accepted that most organized groups are white, or at least accept whites, or are tolerant of whites, if not sharing the exact same views, hence my comments about the TV channels.
As a white person, I can be pretty well assured that when I turn on one of the major networks, I will see my race and culture represented there and represented in a good light. This is true for most things in our world. Stores, magazines, movies,

This isn't so for other races and cultures, which is why they create groups where they WILL be represented.

Argh, I hate double posting but Colette addressed a very specific point.

Again, I'm not arguing with you...I just want to put the shoe on the other foot, but I don't have the historical/cultural knowledge to quote examples...

...what I mean is...if there were organisations that were the opposite point of view...would they be allowed...the trouble is the only example I can readily think of is SO extreme, i don't think anyone would defend it (Al Quaeda)...like I said I don't have the knowledge to search...but I'd bet Lindens that there are extremist Muslim groups represented in SL...

...in fact, just doid a quick Google search and I think I proved my point...the Black Panthers are a real world organisation...



Above website is I accept perhaps not the most independent of sources...

So Colette - you've given your opinion on 14 words...how about the Black Panthers?

Racism is inextricably bound to power, and who has it. If blacks held the lion's share of the power in the US, then it would make sense to argue that the NAACP is a racist group. But blacks don't hold the lion's share of the power, so it's a stupid argument.

And I don't have a problem with that. But they ALSO press for WHITE groups to accept NON-white members. If we take this to it's logical conclusion, we will have mixed race groups, and exclusively black groups...but no exclusively white groups. No wonder white people start to feel under threat. White culture is diluted, black culture is reinforced. Personally, I think this current situation is CREATING racists.

the 14 words are a slogan used by White supremacist groups. Therefore a group using the name 14 words is making a reference back to those groups.

I dont think what the words have to say have anything to do with it.

The reason minority support groups are present is becuase there has been a significant racial equality struggle, especially in the US.

Therefore a need for such groups. As long as its advantagous to be the majority (basically the entire forseeable future) people will see a need for them.

Most of those groups you mentioned were not racially based support groups. They were social groups. The Black Panthers are a politically motivated group but the actual Black Panthers was a movement in the 60's. How much the Black Panthers were a racist group is difficult to determine becuase of law enforcement crack downs at the time.

Italy has a rich secular culture. To dismiss it as meshed only with the Catholic Church I imagine would offend a lot of Italians.

Im not sure "Anglo-Saxon" is still an active culture - it has derivitive cultures. Such as White America, English Cluture, Irish Culture, etc. Of course these play a major impact in modern Western Culture.

When white americans are a minority, Then racial support groups will be better received. Until such time they literally have the feel of turning a Majority to an attempt at regianing "supremacy".

Gee, and I thought I was being naive. So when the Sunni's and the Shi'a are going at it hammer and tongs in Iraq, who holds the power? Which side is the racist?

It's nothing to do with power, it's do with hatred, ignorance and intolerance.

True, and I apologise to any Italian I may have offended. However it's still true that no tourist goes to Rome WITHOUT visiting Vatican City.

I find this statement very frightening. Is that what it's going to take? For every white majority democracy in the world to surrender power to the non-white minority? Or do we have to go all the way and submit ourselves to slavery to the non-white races to prove how sorry we are for something that happened 200 years ago?

Can't you see that this position is EXACTLY the environment that I said is creating racists...and the true racists KNOW that, and exaggerate that fear at every opportunity. A recent survey in the UK showed that a high percentage (I forget the xact figure, and I'm not about to make one up) of muslims who described themselves as "moderate" would like to see Sharia Law introduced to the UK...yet to ask for a secular law system to be introduced in a Muslim country would be seen as racist...and probably result in your execution under said Sharia Law.

No, we don't have equality. That I will grant you. But there is CERTAINLY a lot more protection in place if you are NOT white than if you are.