Intolerance...

C'mon, now!

Isn't this the way it seems to be with just about everyone in here.

If you are indeed correct, it might well mean tolerance is accepting human nature rather than human idealism.

Just be "Politically Correct" in what you have to say and you're in. Say what everyone else in here says. Agree with whatever the rest say even if you yourself don't believe it. Do this long enough and you can earn your very own forum's Howdy Doody merit badge.

Now, don't ever go against the forums norm or speak your mind cause then you're just being "intolerant" of whatever the issue may be.



Color me intolerant any day of the week.

Yeah, I think I do get it, spinster; the substitution you suggest is a legitimate one, and one that I have wrestled with before, on a personal level. And if YOU, as someone who identifies with this particular sexuality, have felt attacked, I apologize; it has never been my intention to sound like someone carrying a baseball bat . . .

I an entirely willing to accept that "Hate really doesn't come into it" as a motivating force; this is why I have said that I concede that M/s relationships and the like are consensual. My real problem with depictions of VAW has always been with how they are READ from without because of the meanings inherently embedded in the very notion of "violence," rather than with what they REALLY mean to the participants; I would never presume to pretend to know the latter. Nor, for this reason, and notwithstanding what has been said of my approach, would I call for the banning BDSM or Gor.

I don't know if you and I are ever likely to "agree" entirely on this; I am too fretful, perhaps, about the embedded connotations of depictions of violence against women to ever likely feel entirely comfortable with their PUBLIC (please note the emphasis) expression. But I entirely get why you feel that even this could be said to represent a form of intolerance, and I concede, again, that my position places me in murky and problematic waters. For what it's worth, I think nearly every ethical and ideological stance is "murky and problematic" by nature.

Yes, I would be delighted to discuss this with you, in-world or out, and I thank you for the invitation. It's all part of the messy business of trying to muddle through to something like toleration and consensus.

I see exactly what you're doing, and I feel the same way. There are things that I find distasteful, and prefer not to see. If I do see it somewhere, I either move my camera away so it's not visible, or go elsewhere. If some moral crusaders try to get it banned or outlawed because they don't like it, that's where I jump in on the defense. I've done it before, earning myself some 'bad press', but I recognize the danger to the rest of the 'questionable' SL activities if that defense isn't made.

Now, if I were of the kind that wanted to see SL really kill itself, I'd turn fervently to the moral crusader side and be the most vocal of the outspoken. Further, I'd be able to back up what I said with realworld examples. Think SL's getting bad now? After my 'intolerant' self got done with it, there wouldn't be any distinctions between the real world and this one...

PC? everyone?
are you a sim owner?

do you realize the person you are defending wants sim owners to stuff their rights up their ass so she can walk into their sim and not be offended by the content a sim owner puts in a their sim that they pay for..a private sim open to share with the rest of sl?

you want Politically Correct?? you chose it..

I'm not sure whether there was ever a golden age but a quick glance through the old archived forum finds this thread about hateful diatribes:

/120/86/63008/1.html

Arrrrgggg...I keep getting that stupid 404 error whenever I want to reply to Phil's post. For goodness sake, the reply was only two lousy words, I just don't get it


Anyway, @Phil...I think I know the other poster you are talking about, perhaps Conan?

Ceka, do you acknowledge any limits at all to the rights of sim owners to the content they choose to place upon their land? Or do you think that there are things that should not be permitted?

Would you for example support the RIGHT of another sim owner (I am not suggesting that you would want to feature these things yourself) to present sexualized age play on her or his sim? A recreation of Southern lynch mobs? A sim where you could play Nazi concentration camp guard? One where you could fly a jet into a recreation of the World Trade Centre?

Or do you concede that there are some things that should just be "no go"? And how would you justify banning some types of content, but not others?

It's an important question, because, if your answer is that ANY of the above should not be allowed, you are acknowledging that there ARE limits to the rights of a sim owner over the content of her or his sim. And if that is the case, the differences between our positions are not nearly so dramatic as you make them out to be. The real issue would be where to draw the line between permissible and prohibited content. And my guess is that your justification for prohibiting certain things would be pretty close to the ones that underlie my opposition to depictions of violence against women.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the rights of a sim owner are absolute, and that there should be NO limits whatsoever on what is permissible on his or her land, the difference in our views is a lot more fundamental than whether or not you should be able to have a whipping post available on publicly-accessible land.

Finally, a clarification of your characterization of my views. I do not seek to ban, prohibit, or otherwise impede content that I find "offensive," because "offensiveness" is a purely subjective judgment. SL is chock FULL of stuff I find distasteful or offensive -- furry sex, age play of almost any kind, the SL Republican Party headquarters -- but I don't AR these or oppose their existence. On the contrary, I fully acknowledge their equal rights to exist in SL.

What I DO oppose is content for which there is, I believe, objective evidence proving social, cultural, or personal HARM. I think this is an important distinction.

Keeps happening to me as well. I found though if you hit the second submit reply button down instead of the one directly under the smilies,it goes through

if it is allowed in SL i support the right for it to be here..you want to break it down to little pieces to corner people into guilt then you are looking to hamper SL..if you feel offended TP away if you can't handle it..you can't do that though..you have to save us all..


i wouldn't come into your house telling you to put your pants on or take down a picture or pull out your poseballs..but you would mine if you didn't like them..
you feel PRIVATE sim owners should respect your rights while you disrespect theirs while you are in their house is all this is about..label it how you wish..use the harshest examples you wish..that trick doesn't work on someone seeing the whole picture of what movements like yours are doing to Second life.

if i feel offended i don't start a movement or bring in a movement to kill off anyones freedoms because something may make my tummy curl..
if it is allowed in sl i'll respect that persons right to have it here ..especially if i am in someone elses house..I'll move on and not look back..
i don't rebuild their house to my liking if i don't live there..

the bottom line is this..there are over 20,000 servers with a minimum of 4 sims per server not counting the homestead that have 8 sims per server and you can't find a place clean enough for your liking because some of those don't fit your wholesome life style ..
why not do the saving where it counts??the real world..

all this content you don't like is getting moved so that you don't have to accidentally land in the wrong sim anymore..thanks to people that love to infringe on others..
problem solved right?or still not satisfied??


lets play your trap game for a second ..
if you disagree with this post then you are against sim owners rights that are within community standards and the TOS and want to remold second life..

I find someone recreating the 9-11 attacks for recreational purposes a lot less repugnant than denying someone a basic Constitutional right. I may despise what someone is saying; but I will defend to the death that person's right to say it.

Depicting sexual acts with minors is illegal and, therefore, indefensible. Your inclusion of it in your argument is just a straw man.

That's the problem. vBulletin has the ability to reject posts that have too few characters. The vB default is <10 characters.

The problem is, LL has so severely gutted and hobbled these forums that they even stripped much of vBulletin's error-trapping, so instead of a polite message directing you to type more characters, you get the 404 error.

Edit: Apparently it also happens in response to certain keywords that show up in the post. Again, the result of zealous stripping of basic vB functions. This sort of thing NEVER happens on properly-maintained vBulletin-based forums!

This wasn't a "trap"; it was, I think, a straight-forward and legitimate question. You can ignore the examples if you like; they were JUST examples. The question is simply this: do you believe that sim owners should have completely unrestricted rights to show whatever content they want?

Your answer SEEMS to be contained here:


Does this mean that you think sim owners should be limited by SL policy? But an SL blog announcement of policy in 2007 prohibited "real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of sexual violence including rape," as well as "real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of extreme or graphic violence." I'm sure you have seen this, but in case you haven't:

https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/features/blog/2007/06/01/keeping-second-life-safe-together

So, you would agree, then, that depictions of things listed above should NOT be within the purview of the sim owner, as SL has banned them? Or not? In any case, if I am indeed opposed to "depictions of sexual violence including rape," it should be clear that I am NOT in fact trying to "remold second life," as this is already SL policy.

Again, I am not trying to trap you here. I am trying to determine the criteria you use, if any, to determine what a sim owner should or should not be allowed to do on their land. Do you think they should abide by SL policy? Or do you think SL policy is TOO restrictive?

With regard to your other comments . . .


Well, no, actually, I wouldn't come into your house to tell you what to do in either RL or SL. I think I have been clear, in this thread and elsewhere, that my concern is with PUBLIC depictions. If it's in your skybox or SL house, I am certainly not going to tell you not to do it. But if it is on a sim, privately owned or not, that is open to the general public, then, yes, I may have objections. Your front yard in RL is also "private property," but you would hardly engage in BDSM there, would you? Now, if your sim restricted access to, say, group members, that would be another matter entirely.


As I say in my thread, none of this has anything to do with curly tummies. This isn't about what "offends" me. If it was, I would be opposed to a great deal more than I actually am. My concern is with things, as I've said, that constitute a threat of HARM. And there is enough evidence about the impact of extreme pornography to suggest that a PUBLIC depiction of violence against women may in fact do just that. Go ahead and be as offensive to my personal sensibilities as you want: I am not going to try to stop you. That IS your right.


I don't suddenly become a feminist when I log in to SL; I am not role playing it, I live it in RL, where I am also an activist. My interest in SL in this context derives from the fact that it, like ANY media, has a potential impact on RL.


What in GOD'S name makes you think I have a "wholesome lifestyle"????

No, not Conan, unless that's a clue that's gone over my head. I don't remember a Conan here.

I'm not trying to remember the name though.

Katheryne, the examples I gave were just that: examples. Ignore them if you wish. The question I asked was, what ARE the limits that should be placed upon the sim owner.

Your response indicates that illegality is the criterion you would use? I think the problem with that is that it is not nearly as clear cut as it sounds. I don't believe, for example, that animated depictions of underage sex ARE illegal in the US; as I understand them, the laws cover only the employment of REAL minors in child porn.

And what of other countries? Would you, and SL, be willing to lose residents from the UK (as has been threatened), because the laws there against certain kinds of pornography are stricter than in the US?

What if the law changes? One of the putative reasons cited for SL's new AO policy is legislative scrutiny, prompted by the Federal Trade Commission. Do you agree, then, that such changes to SL policy are right, because they are in keeping with trends in government policy? You talk about constitutional rights, but any prohibitions against porn aren't coming from the Constitution, they are coming from lawmakers. Do you WANT the likes of Rep. Mark Kirk determining content here? Wouldn't it be better to produce our OWN policies, establish our OWN consensus, from within SL?

I think, ironically, that the "law" is a pretty shaky stick upon which to lean here, for these reasons and others. One other reason I believe this is because I think current laws are not very adequate. And where a law is bad, it SHOULD be changed. I really believe we need better criteria. You concede that certain kinds of things . . . sexualized age play . . . should not be allowed, for whatever reason. Can we find a better way to determine this sort of exclusion?

The government, media and corporations came in and said "we don't like that, remove it or hide it"
And Linden Lab though, "Ok, we were going to have to to open the grid to kids later anyway"

SL policies are to flexable to trust a post from 2007, afterall early 2007 the policy on sexual ageplay was that it is ok as long as it is not adverticed in any way, before that it was ok to advertise, same with gambling, first it was alowed, then you could not advertice and finaly it was banned.

the only persons that know the current policy (I sould say make it up) are the current governance team members and they have shown that something was ok one day was not ok the next (case in point the skin venders of robin's yummy kids skins wich where aproved by a linden and later had to be changed to only show the face eventho the models had underwear on)

Avatar portrayals and other depictions of sexual violence including rape, are NOT TOS violations in SL. Linden Lab themselves have made this official policy by opting to move such activites to the adult continent or to private estates. No Internet hosting company such as Linden Lab would ever knowingly countenance any content being provided on their servers that violates their own policies, after all. By deciding that such activities belong on the adult continent, they clearly do belong in Second Life, and they do not violate Linden Lab policies. That comes straight from Linden Lab's own decisions.

So anybody who promotes the idea that SL sim owners should not allow such activities to occur, is in themselves far more offensive than the activities they wish to be silenced. If people are to be silenced for their conduct, it can start with people advocating such silencing in the first place. Number one thing that is broadly offensive: THOUGHT POLICE.

Can someone summarize this thread for me? I keep trying to read it and go into ferret-shock.

OK, here goes: "Some people are intolerant of other people. Other people are intolerant of people who are intolerant of other people. Even more people are intolerant of people who are intolerant of people who are intolerant of other people."

Pep (Some don't care though.)

Summary-mean people suck and if they don't agree with me they suck even more.


Such a cute Ferrett pic.

This is a dangerous, slippery slope. Should people's freedom of expression be curtailed because some other country may have laws against free expression? Yes, we may lose some UK residents because SL may not fully comply with their laws, nor should it. SL is a product of the United States, bound by the laws of the United States and the State of California. UK laws have no bearing here. By your logic, women should not be allowed to speak, and must remain covered and with a male escort at all times when out in public within SL in order to comply with Middle-Eastern laws and customs. I am NOT comfortable with the notion of surrendering my constitutional rights to a foreign interest.If I'm not mistaken, Linden Labs has already stated that this Adult Content (not to be confused with animation overriders) policy is NOT legislatively-driven. The motives behind this change are entirely internal to Linden Labs. There are no lawmakers breathing down LL's neck, nor will there ever be unless LL succeeds in shooting itself in the foot by overstepping its safe harbor protections. There are no prohibitions against porn in the US beyond its 18+ requirement; and SL is an 18+ world. Rep. Mark Kirk can try to legislate content in SL; but if he values his political future, he won't try.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Ben Franklin

Unfortunately many appear to be more than willing to do just that, including many of our so called "leaders".

That was a wonderful post, I agree with it in it's entirety.

Official policy seems to be that the 2007 announcement is still in effect; it was actually a direct response to the "sexual age play crisis." Insofar as sexualized age play is STILL banned in SL, and is nowhere else explicitly prohibited, I take it that the 2007 announcement still applies in practice too. I do also know for certain that particular products (skins and animations) associated with rape RP have been removed in the not-too-distant past by LL.

That said, you are of course right: the sticky issue is enforcement, which is, to put it mildly, uneven. LL is trying to cater to a number of different constituencies, all of which are pulling it in different directions, so, yeah, they are pretty fuzzy in terms of what ACTUALLY is allowed or not. It seems to sort of depend on who is asking.

All of which suggests to me that relying upon what LL to set our standards for us is a very bad idea indeed.