Intolerance...

Actually, I am going to come to Chris's defence here. We've had some heated exchanges here in the past few weeks, and much of what he believes I find anathema. But his discourse has always been civil . . . if anything, it has been I who have occasionally (and regrettably) slipped into sarcasm. I think Chris actually practices what he preaches, in terms of this idea of "anarchic discourse."

That said, there is a tendency here for some to come down hard, and with some pretty nasty ad hominem attacks, on posters with whose opinions they disagree. In some cases, one has the sense of a kind preemptive attack, designed to kill the thread early, and in others, there is a very conscious, deliberate, and even open attempt to simply derail the thread.

It's worrisome because it DOES create a kind of "chill." Posting something on these fora with a bit more substance than "Where can I get good dance balls" is not for the faint of heart. And I for one don't think that's a good thing.

That doesn't tally with my experience

LOL


And here we have a complete representation of intolerance. What exactly do we define tolerance as in this context? Or intolerance? It boils down to each individuals perspective and willingness to accept that others are different. On the other hand.....if we're talking about LL's intolerance of bad behavior......excuse me while I giggle for a moment..... How effectively is ANY organized society actually policed? And if it IS shown to be 100% effective.....then we're probably looking at an opressed people.

Tolerance is a pretty word.....but beyond our scope at this stage in our human evolution. We carry sooooo much baggage as individuals, and as a species. I don't really notice much of what goes on in SL beyond the areas that I tend to frequent. And, because I don't get involved heavily in social groups or RP or anything that means conforming to a particular groups ideals.....I don't find tolerance or intolerance to be an issue in SL at all. But I'm in it for my own creative purposes....I steer clear of drama.....and I don't envy LL's position of trying to 'manage' such a rapidly growing cyber community. Mistakes will be made......tolerance will rise and fall as a result.....and WE, will either hang on for the ride...or ditch out. All depends on how much we can tolerate.

I think tolerance is extraordinarily DIFFICULT, but I'd very much like to think that it is possible, at least in some sense.

Part of the problem, of course, is that sometimes we tend to think of "tolerance" as something that really only should apply to ourselves. It's also true that we run into problems when asked to tolerate something that seems an assault upon our own cherished belief systems, or that is itself intolerant. I am very aware that I have this problem myself: I find it difficult (as may have been evident from previous threads) to "tolerate" sexualities that employ real violence, or simulated violence when done so in such a way as to constitute what I think of as a "hate message." I struggle with this, because I WANT to be tolerant. But it's difficult.

And maybe that's the point. Tolerance isn't a THING, or a state, it's a PROCESS. We are never going to reach a point of equilibrium, where everyone is beautifully tolerant of everyone else. Tolerance for this reason is WORK, it's an ongoing thing, a grappling with difficulties such as I have described above. And even if our discourse is not always very tolerant, the very fact that we are engaged in it at all is part of that process.

Seems to me that LL itself has "marginalized" a very large sector of the SL community with all these AO changes. No doubt SL as a whole is diminished for those people. Anything now that even hints at more freedoms removed, like the recent spat of morality cops banging the drumhead to get more things banned, is met with a good share of pre-fueled nasty IMO. I'm guilty of it I admit. Once bitten, twice FU! I can at least excercise my right to pass on the opportunity to fuel the BS here.. that is, until someone comes along and decides for me that I shouldn't have that right either

The LL quote in the OP is fine, and such intolerance is wrong. But intolerance itself is not wrong. For instance, I won't tolerate anyone posting lies about me. I won't tolerate anyone posting insults about me. That kind of intolerance is not wrong at all. On the other hand, there are those who are intolerant of perfectly legitimate things that other people do, just because they don't agree with them. That kind of intolerance is wrong. That's the kind where someone posted to leave that part of SL alone and go somewhere else instead.

I don't disagree in principle, Phil. But who decides what is "legitimate"? If a group decides that homosexuality is evil, do we simply "leave that part of SL alone," knowing that this group may be proselytizing or actively recruiting, and fostering an intolerance of others?

I don't have a simple answer to that question, but my instinct is that our toleration should not be extended to views that themselves encourage intolerance, even if we have the option of TPing away . . .

But then, of course, the problem is defining that which encourages intolerance.

The ToS that was quoted in the OP answers that one. LL already decided that intolerance of sexual preferences is out. When I read it in the OP, I saw that it wasn't complete, due to sexual activities by child avs, but they covered that later by outlawing sexual ageplay. Intolerance of other people's sexual ageplay is another case of intolerance being good, but intolerance of other people's legitimate sexual preferences is wrong.

There are perfectly legitimate sexual preferences that I dislike enormously (I have no time for them), so I don't go near them. I don't post about them, to shove my preferences down other people's throats, or it would be a case a wrong kind of intolerance.

This should be very interesting! LOL

I can't even submit a few sentences on Tolerance....because I am Intolerant of the Intolerant....and a few other behaviors....preaching Tolerance at length would be hypocritical.

Perhaps a sister thread on Hypocrisy is in order.

Sometimes I think we confuse tolerance with acceptance. Some people think Homosexuality is wrong. It is a lifestyle they don't agree with, and perhaps may not wish to associate with gay people at all. If they do not actively persecute gays, harass them or otherwise act against them, they are unaccepting, but are they intolerant?

As long as people don't act negatively on their beliefs, I don't think any action should be taken against them. We have the right not to like someone for whatever reason, even voice that dislike, in my opinion. People should not be punished for their thoughts or words, but for their actions. in the end WE are responsible for what we do, no one else. We look for all sorts of places to place the blame for our misdeeds, when all we really have to do is look in the mirror.

I also want to chime in in defense of my dear friend Chris Norse. He is rude, crude, arrogant, opionated, and will stomp on opinions he disagrees with mercilessly. But he is also kind, generous, loyal, and staunch in his beliefs. he stands by what he says, like it or not. Some don't like it, including a few who seem to only wish to snipe at him personally in their disagreements, as they accuse him of doing the same. Those of us who know him , know he is above personal attacks, those that don't can look at his posting history.

Why shouldn't we tolerate intolerance?

Nice point. I agree entirely with what you say about groups that do not ACTIVELY persecute those that they don't accept.

To restate it somewhat in a way (that you may or may not agree with), one can't force acceptance on people, but we should insist upon tolerance. I can't, and shouldn't, insist that someone who believes otherwise concede that homosexuality is a legitimate expression of sexuality, etc. (as much as I might want to), but I think that we, as a society, DO have the right to prevent them from actively persecuting, harassing, or "otherwise act[ing] against them."

That's not what I've found. He is one of two people in the forum who I've found tend to dash into a thread where the topic is something they have a strong opinion about, post a few insults, and dash out again. I can't say that he is a bad person, but that particular pattern is something that I've noticed here - because it's a pattern. I've found it in bots threads, of course.

I don't disagree with you often, Phil, but this is one of those times. I'll tolerate it. We all have a pattern in our postings. You for example, like to engage fully on a topic, continually bantering the points back and forth. Chris prefers to make his point and diengage. But when he posts, he isn't insulting or attacking anyone personally, at least from what I can see. He may attack an idea or belief ruthlessly, but if one can't take having their beliefs and ideas challenged, then perhaps an internet forum isn't for them.

I am not saying he is always right or sometimes goes at it a bit too harshly, but to say he makes personal attacks is disingenuous. I will leave it at that, it could be said my objectivity is influenced by wanting to defend my friend, and that may be the case. Besides, he doesn't need anyone to fight his battle for him, he's quite capable of that himself.

I don't disagree with that at all. Only, what constitutes "actively persecuting"? To some, merely expressing those thoughts is cause to want them to be silenced.

^^ This. (^_^)

Gladly I rarely ever have to respond to someone saying I'm doing wrong. But, I'll gladly type my fingers to the bone to defend inclusive content on the grid. People rarely see the chilling effect that comes as a result of their desire to censor or remove people, places, and things remote to their every day experience. (>_<

I know this post of yours isn't ironic, but it's irony's cousin, whatever that is.

.

Yes, this is indeed the crux of the problem, and why I think that, as I have said, we will never achieve a static, utopian state of tolerance.

The line between legitimate expression of ideas, and "actively persecuting" is an awfully fuzzy one, and I'm not going to claim that I have anything like a perfect way of discerning it. Is someone standing on a soapbox in a public space and declaiming against homosexuality merely expressing her/his own opinion? Or is this a case of "actively persecuting" through the communication of something that might be construed as hate? It will probably depend on precisely what is being said, and other contextual elements. Is the speaker holding a baseball bat? Or wearing a Nazi armband? Is she/he urging that "something be done" about homosexuality, or merely expressing the viewpoint that it is wrong?

I don't think this is cut and dry at all, because words ARE actions too.

That said, I would never censor writing, or art, because these are about the discussion of ideas, however hateful: they are a vital part of making society work. And I do think that it IS possible to discern between legitimate literary or polemical writing (or art) and other forms of discourse. But, again, it's never easy.

And I reject black-and-white responses on both sides of the question: neither the "everything goes" or the "anything that might hurt someone's feelings is bad" approach is very satisfactory.

Since the previous post, it had occured to me that other people may not see the pattern because they are not the target of it. It's a lot easier to see when you are the target.

This is true.

It's not beliefs or ideas being challenged, Brenda - not in this case. Chris intentionally throws insults, and then goes away. I've been on the receiving end enough times to have recognised the pattern. He's one of two people here who do it. The other one hasn't posted for a while, and I can't bring his name to mind, but all the regulars know him.

Chris may be an absolutely wonderful person in all other ways, but he isn't in that particular way.

Phil, I think highly of you and I think I know you well enough to not challenge your assertion on this matter. We all can only speak for what we witness and experience.

There goes what could have been a perfectly good full out argument, with total intolerance all round






j/k

In the beginning of this thread some folks mentioned how sl and the forums have changed. In the two years i have been here i have not seen them change.

my very first question on this forum resulted in me being heavy attacked and chastised and i didnt post again for quite some time. so for me, these forums have always been rough...lol. in world, i find that when i hang around like minded people, things are fine, but i have encountered some truly nasty people from the beginning...for me it has gotten better over time as i have learned where to go and where not to go both in the forums and in world. so my overall experience is much more even without spikes of upset as much.

This.
And I'm guilty too.
Bluddy LL!


Scylla, I am genuinely impressed

Now ...

... if you go through this paragraph and replace the word "homosexuality" with the word "masochism", perhaps you can understand why I have felt attacked enough to retaliate on occasion. Actually, re-reading your previous post (quoted above) I think you do get this. It isn't easy. It's been very difficult for me to come to terms with my sexuality and feel proud of who I am (and I do ). Hate really doesn't come into it, and I'd be happy to talk to you in-world about it, away from the hurly-burly of the forum.

One last thought ...

It could be argued that all of SL is art: one huge collaborative artwork. I don't necessarily agree with this, I'm not sure, I'm just throwing it out as an idea.

Oh and another last thought ... I think Chris is OK too, but then I'm not Phil.

Half of this was answered quite accurately and simply:



When I started posting to forums here, they were monitored. There were still flame wars, but on a much lesser scale. Then Strife stopped monitoring, and the forum devolved.

And only a small part of the effectiveness of monitoring a forum is enforcing rules. If the rules are monitored and enforced enough, then many people actually comply with the rules voluntarily. The fact that rules are monitored and enforced indicate to people that the rules are important. When the authority stops caring about the rules, that sends the signal that the rules are not important.

Saying that one wants to combat intolerance is a lot different than actually combating intolerance. The latter, at the minimum, requires time and effort. Linden Lab doesn't care enough about combating intolerance to devote time and effort.

Add to that the fact that there are no means of conflict resolution within Second Life at all. There are no means that residents have in Second Life to resolve disputes; they are left to griefing it out. There is no effective means of participating in the "governing" of Second Life, since Linden Lab provides to effective mechanisms for residents to not just communicate, but feel like they are making an impact. All those frustrations that do not get resolved elsewhere find their way into this forum, which is the closely thing we have to a Town Square.

Finally, I think we are beyond the newness of thinking we are part of the beginning of some great utopia in Second Life. Two years ago, I looked at Second Life as a place of great potential. After two years, I look at it as one of the worst wastes of potential I have ever seen. When Second Life was new, I'm sure it enjoyed a lot of goodwill from the positive hopes that new residents had. After years of failing to live up to those hopes, Second Life has squandered a lot of that goodwill.

Good thread. Lots of good discussion. I have enjoyed reading it. I still think SL's TOS is a great foundation. I still have hope.