Inclusive Communities and Representations of Violence against Women

Unfortunately Firefox ate my umlaut, so it wasn't a proper Godwin-by-poet-reference. Maybe just socks, in case Argent stops in for brunch.

Rock's defense of his style of RP reminds me of a movie line:

"I do not force you to stand, I allow you to kneel."

Eta:

Suddenly he should realize just how slippery a slope he is using propaganda research and shows to back up his arguments is..

But I doubt it, I sense blinders on the man.

So...how about that last minute shot LeBron made? Awesome.

I hate to jump into this thread, but you might look at my profile. Being or having a pet can be an extraordinarily liberating experience for both people, and I can guarantee that the RP in many cases in no way reflects the real life attitudes of the players. To take this particular "kink" and generalize it into a "world view" is a bit narrow, in my opinion.

/me gently closes the door on his way out of this thread

Another excellent way to "rally others to your cause" is to impute to them motives and intentions that they no where assert, support, or even imply. Why bother addressing what was actually said, including statements that EXPLICITLY deny such motivations or intentions, when you can just fictionalize your opponent by turning her into something she is not?

I think you're right on top of this Jezebella. Thank god there's someone out there who can see through these vile attempts at compromise, consensus, and rapprochement. A suggestion, however: why wait for a REAL OP next time, whose statements may include annoying details such as these, when you can truly demonize other viewpoints by simply making up a fictional OP? Why not just create a caricature that you can attack?

<snip> Oh please tell me what this is from! I really want the context of the line- Googled it but did not find it.

300

it's a quote from Xerxes the god king of the persians

Ephraim, since this is your first post (under this av at least) especially, I'm having trouble discerning exactly who you are criticising. A bit TOO occluded for me.

Are you saying that people here somehow demonised and misrepresented the OP? Made up a 'caricature' of her?

I think her posts do that without any help from anyone else - I especially disliked her "ah the party is still going" remark and the various sneering jabs she took at others. I say, don't punch someone in the eye then cry about your hand hurting.

Wonder why people are coming in with such low post counts to 'defend her honor' though. Kind of reminds me of the guys who'd join women's groups just to get laid.

Damn - and to think I made it thru an entire day of not paying atention to all this. Jackie- you are wasting your breath- there will always be someone trying to 'save' those that have no desire to be saved. Some concepts, too, are much to complex to be explained and must instead be felt. How do you tell someone there can be such freedom in one's chains? The discovery alone is worth the experience. (Hera should have posted this, but I am feeling much too lazy to switch back and forth).

Thanks! I have not seen it- I will make a point of it.

What compromise?
What Consensus?
What rapprochement?

The only consensus is that there is an an organized attack on a type of rp people chose to enjoy.

Maybe we should allow the removal of violent role-play if all books and literature depicting violence is removed.

That would be a nice compromise.

fictional op? There is an original poster, just click the page 1 up at the top.

No need to make a caricature, the op has made the same mistake your group owner made.

They assumed they were right and all would agree.

You seem to know the OP better than she does herself, Ian.

Ephraim, their mission statement as well as blog denounces BDSM.

guess none looked at my profile

Or in rock's case he may have, since I do go female and could be considered in internet speak "a trap"

But if he has to voice verify his playmates in a roleplay situation... might be more there he don't like.


<snip personal rant>

Melita, I have not read the "mission statement" or the blog. I HAVE read the OPs postings. What gives you the right to insist she is saying things that she explicitly does not?

Given that her position here, as I understand it, has from the beginning been to create a "consensus" and compromise, does it not occur to you that maybe that is why her stance here is more moderate than that found in these other documents? Compromise is about moderating, shifting towards common ground. I have seen no evidence that she is not trying to do exactly that.

She made the posts on the blog, so she made the statements

It's called looking behind the curtain

I have seen no evidence she has shifted at all.

She has forgotten the number one compromise: Let others do as they want as long as it harms none.

Edit: One of the biggest ways propaganda works is by folks not looking behind the curtain and seeing the man pulling the strings...

Shane - do you mean because the officer did not believe a man could be raped (highly ignorant of them, if so)? And what, if you will, about the thread reminds you of that incident?

BTW anyone - did the OP *ever* answer such questions (which more than one person asked more than once) as:

1. How exactly did she just 'stumble into' Gor?

2. What exactly did she witness there?

3. How exactly did she just 'stumble into' a club with "depictions of violence against women" on the walls? What type of club was it? Mature land or PG? Was it a BDSM place which also has dancing? (I know of one such and it is very clear what type place it is before you click teleport.) It is against forum rules to name specifically. But she can certainly say the above info.

4. What link has she found to prove some correlation/causation between consensual roleplay - in which women CHOOSE TO buy props, type text, click animations, teleport to the sim, etc. - and real life crimes against women?

5. Which women does she feel are being "silenced" exactly - and HOW, exactly?

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

For Posonby: An opinion - especially one meant in a sarcastic/facetious manner - is not a 'claim.' It is based upon something subjective. A subjective collection of responses, basically.

If the OP had kept the above things as personal opinion those would also be subjective and not necessarily subject to 'proofs'. (at least, the opinion/perception part - not things like 'how', or even 'what' as much) But once she began a thread, organised and/or joined a concentrated EFFORT TO BAN such things totally - based upon those flimsy experiences she 'claims' (to use Posonby's word) to have had, then it's time to find out what exactly she saw. And how much of it was her own projection.

I'm getting to know her and her mates and her groups ideas, yes.

But the quote above is the more important part of my post, Ephraim, what do you say to these questions?

Oh by the way, welcome to another new alt, Ephraim Dalglish.

LOL. Yet you come in here to lecture us about how 'unfairly' we are treating her!? Give me a freaking break.

If all of these defenders are her alts, that is really, really sad.

What gives YOU the right to pop into a discussion without having read at least as much as the people in it have, and chastise them like you're our nanny and we're your little snot nosed charges?



Your understanding and mine differ wildly.

First of all - no one WANTS to compromise. And our consensus is that we like things as they are already. Thank you very much.

The way the op and her supporters use people they don't know to further their desires for removing stuff they dislike.

the one it reminds me of wasn't me... but a friend who had been raped by her ex bf.

I overheard the PHD and the assistant DA talking like she was some thing in there and how it would be good copy in the news and an example for pushing an anti-porn ordnance on the city...

They were going to use her as nothing but a mascot, no real compassion... just saw her as a tool for what they wanted.

Shane - ugh, that is disgusting. *shudders.*

It doesn't seem as if the OP and her pack realise how patronising their tone is.

Ephraim, that type of thing 'I have come here to create compromise and common ground' is indicative of either a. a serious ego problem or even b. a messianic complex. It's how preachers and politicians talk.**

Thing that's strange is a. there was no need, no one crying out for a 'fix' let alone for her to fix it and b. well, again, no one asked or 'voted' for or chose her to be our leader and organise some sort of change let alone compromise what we keep TELLING her we don't want to give up ANY ground on.

Presumptive, patronising, agenda-grinding, and obtuse do not speak well for her cause. Sorry.

**N.B. I am not saying all preachers/politicians are those things. Just those who behave like them but are not. In other words, Obama acting like President is one thing but don't order me if I didn't elect you. (And don't preach at me if I am not sitting in your pew.) Most people would not welcome an uninvited 'invitation' to give up some of what they want to keep, or an uninvited sermon/lecture of why they should. Same way most people want to relax on a Sat. morning with their bathrobe and a cup of tea rather than have someone ring their doorbell and try to 'save' them.

I have the same "right" than any visitor to these forums does. As you clearly have no problems with saying whatever you want about the OP without bothering with her ACTUAL words, I can't imagine why you should object. Particularly as you are "all about" free speech, no?

As for the alt comment . . . can you spell "P A R A N O I A"?

I do in fact KNOW the OP, somewhat, but not well. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of her group, nor do I know the other OP to whom this thread has been referring. I don't even think I have a particular opinion, one way or the other, about her stance (or yours, for that matter). I was informed by a mutual friend about this thread and the interesting way in which you had entirely misrepresented Scylla's argument, motives, and indeed character, and thought I'd check it out to see if she had been exaggerating. She had not. Frankly, I've seen enough to convince me that there is not much point in wasting more time in this mutual admiration society than I already have.

a) people don't care about women
b) sl is full of wannabe "libertarians"

I'm a little tea pot,
short and stout.
Here is my handle.
Here is my spout.
When I get all steamed up,
hear me shout!
Just
tip me over, and
pour
me
out.

^ Ooh, look. It's mad. ^

"Informed by a friend." *rolls laughing*

Posonby is STILL obsessing about that one comment which by the way was a J O K E?

Can either of you spell *that* word? How about F A C E T I O U S? (The alt comment was a bit of both.)

How about O P I N I O N? *rolls eyes* thanks for continuing the patronising tone your pack is so fond of.

I turned your "what right do you have" statement right around on you. Do you not realise you've just spoken to your own statement as well?