Intolerance...

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.

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

There's a lot of vague talk about freedom of expression, and so forth. Is such freedom absolutely without limits in your view?

What activities, R&R? Any activities? Can you be more precise in what you mean? Does ANYTHING go? Is there a "line" not to be crossed, and if so, where is it? There's a lot of vague talk about freedom of expression, and so forth. Is such freedom absolutely without limits in your view?

This is a dangerous, slippery slope. Should people's freedom of expression be curtailed because some other country may have laws against free expression?

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.

What activities, R&R? Any activities? Can you be more precise in what you mean? Does ANYTHING go? Is there a "line" not to be crossed, and if so, where is it? There's a lot of vague talk about freedom of expression, and so forth. Is such freedom absolutely without limits in your view?

Yes, with the qualifier that a private property owner can always limit expression on his property.

As far as SL goes ,yes. Whatever limits the property owner wishes to impose or not impose are acceptable to me.

SL is a product of the United States, bound by the laws of the United States and the State of California.

the things you yourself claim cause harm have already been debunked, Scylla

Levi's jeans is a big one. I haven't bought a Levi's product in over 20 years, simply because they give money to gun control efforts.

I don't give my money to companies that espouse views I don't agree with or views that will harm me. Levi's jeans is a big one. I haven't bought a Levi's product in over 20 years, simply because they give money to gun control efforts.

That sounds like an excellent reason to support the company.

Your money.

Well, this is sort of what I suspected. And I thank you for NOT hiding behind the pretense that it is the ToS, or RL law, that guides your approach.

If this is so then, as I suggested in a response to Ceka, the gulf separating us is a lot wider than is suggested by any disagreement over the sorts of animations that should be allowed. It is a fundamental one of ideologies and values.

In a way, of course, your laissez-faire, libertarian approach corresponds with the everyday reality in SL: sim owners DO have the power here. Money here, even funny money, IS power.

At the same time, there is, perhaps, a contradiction here? If I must not question the choices made by a sim owner, surely the same principle applies at a macro level to SL itself? This is, after all, a business: LL is the owner of the application itself, of the servers that host the sims, etc., etc. They are making their decisions based on their own reading of the business climate right now (whether they are good decisions or no).

Tentatively, I ask . . . are complaints against LL for the decisions it makes about SL policy not attempts to infringe on THEIR freedom of expression and free choice? If I must accept what you as a sim owner choose to do, should the same not apply to you, with regard to LL's decisions? In a laissez-faire, free market system, you, as a consumer, have no more rights than I, as an avatar, have: if you don't like it, TP out.

Without for a moment suggesting that this issue has been - or indeed, probably ever will be - conclusively decided one way or another, I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you here, I'm afraid. There is a veritable mountain of scholarly evidence that suggests otherwise, and, I can assure you, there is more being produced all the time. There is more than enough, at the very least, to invalidate the notion that the evidence can simply be dismissed with a wave of the hand. Agree with it or not, you have to account for it.

I salute your debating style, you do remind me of a college instructer in "Women's Studies" back in the 90's. We banged heads often in pretty much similar ways.

And just as much eveidence can be trotted out to debunk your debunkment. It's the same with many hot topics these days, from global warming on down. we can only look at it all and make up our own minds. That seems to be an issue with a lot of idealogues, on both sides. Not wanting people to make up their own minds, that it should be done for us because we aren't capable of understanding.

Yep, agreed, but with this proviso (which I think is implied in what you say): we have to rely to some degree on scholarly studies because, flawed as they may often be, they provide access to information and analysis that most of us simply don't have the time, training, or resources to acquire for ourselves.

That's not to say, of course, that we shouldn't be ultra-critical and skeptical when we read them. But I think too many people "make up their own minds" (again, on both sides of the issue) from a position of utter ignorance.

"I don't know human sexuality, but I know what I like" doesn't cut it in this kind of debate.

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"????

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?

I don't give my money to companies that espouse views I don't agree with or views that will harm me. Levi's jeans is a big one. I haven't bought a Levi's product in over 20 years, simply because they give money to gun control efforts.

There are many that say we should do things like this, but then they themselves don't. I also have not bought Levi's for years because of this reason.