Inclusive Communities and Representations of Violence against Women

Most nonfiction books aren't propaganda of one kind or another?

You have some good points there, I remember reading some of those posts as they came up in this thread.

Unless it is dissent you think is racist or sexist or what ever "ist" you are against that day.

This is an incorrect reading of what the other poster asserted.

The other poster asserted

*****those who are paedophiles said something about ageplay*

This is not equivalent to your reading of what was asserted:

*****those who said something about ageplay are paedophiles


You have given the converse of what the other poster gave.


*The 'something' is contained in the post that 424 was a reply for. It was a claim to the effect that 'SL is pretend not real and therefore nothing that happens in SL can hurt anyone'.

Now you imply that any woman who disagrees with you is not a "real woman". And preemptively mock anyone who is not comfortable disclosing personal information.

Well--I'm not a woman, but I'm happy to stand behind what I say with my RL identity:

Carl Henderson
[email]j.carl.henderson@gmail.com[/email]
214-417-7045

You--on the other hand--have a promising future in cable news.



May I present the "slippery slope" in action. Be on notice; they are coming for the furries next.

Seems to be implying all that defended the right for consenting adults to do something that was the digital equivalent of dressing up were in fact guilty of doing it... and being pedophiles

Just like in every other point it was raised up as a statement.

They have been trying that since the first one showed up... you think the uproar now is bad...

they have no idea how tight knit and accepting the furry fandom is... and how sharp those teeth can be when threatened.

I really love Robert Crumb, he's a sexist prick they say too. Maybe he is, I dunno or care, it's comics. I unashamedly love the arses on his women.

An accurate description of the tactic of choice for many here.

(In reading this thread I've found new respect for that tiny handful of posters who've been able to express their reservations about the OP's position without resorting to the tactic you expose so clearly in your post.)

It's called research, when you do research and find the same person posting an agenda and then denying it...

You call them out on it.

edit:

much like researchers being called out for sloppy or outright biased research in papers. Like only talking to niche fetish street hookers, and then using that as representative of all sex workers.

Oddly, this doesn't seem to bother the "furry gorean" community.

I might, and I have certainly been in medieval role-playing sims as a ferret, despite the fact that there is a distinct lack of historical documentation of four foot tall bipedal ferrets. I have been in historical Roman sims without a problem. I put on a historically accurate tunica, no problem, but I didn't have to wear a human masque.

Too bad, furries: no more cross-species yiffing--it's *unnatural*. And heaven forfend if one of those species might be a furless human--then it would be *illegal*.

Cripes. Can we please catch up with the last slide before we're pushed even further down the slope?

On the contrary, I don't think there was even the thinnest veiling of the implication that anyone who might stand up against the ageplay ban would be accused of pedophilia within a post or two--with the clear implication that there was something not quite right about anyone who might oppose banning any other fantasy of which the poster does not approve.

Bloody oath they will, they have fur, this logic dictates they therefore must be havin' sex with other furry things!

Dunno how they will fix that with the r/l furrys I know, who don't usually have fur.

English is not formal logic. "That's what the paedophiles said about their ageplay" carries a distinct implication that the speaker believes (or wants you to believe) the people who were saying X were paedophiles. I certainly saw that implication in it... it's a textbook example of innuendo.

If that referred to my term - I did not mean "pack" in that way. I also did not 'stereotype' anyone. Pack is a group - and a group did come in here, members of SLLU.

Some of the group members did sound amazingly alike, but that's as much as I 'stereotyped' anyone. It was an observation, not a statement that "all liberal feminists are like ____" (fill in the blank) which would be a blanket statement/stereotyping. I spoke about four or five screen names posting in these two 'SLLU agenda' threads.

Well, I made a post in response to that suggesting that ageplay was less harmful than paedophilia. I don't know if he came back and accused me of being a paedophile... as I said I've missed a lot of messages in this thread.

Ashamed to admit that I missed your post. You're a braver ferret than I.

In response to Lindal's quite reasonable post:



What do *women in this thread* being on mic or not, or being 'real women' or not, have to do with the price of beans? People here are talking about roleplay in Second Life, although you have a way of turning it round to all number of irrelevant and unrelated topics and 'studies'.

And for what it's worth any of those reasons you just ridiculed are perfectly reasonable and others have every right to voice or not to voice. Or are you just generally judgmental and intolerant?

And before you insult me too I am 'really female' and will voice if you insist upon it. Are you going to go to that ridiculous length? Especially as it has *nothing to do with the topic at hand*?

Now if you had said that most of the 'women avatars' are not real life women that would be a tad more relevant, although it still has nothing to do with proving the correlation/causation between consensual VIRTUAL roleplay and real life "silencing of women." And isn't that SLLU's claim? So isn't that the thread topic or core topic at least?

I'm not even going to read your post beyond the first paragraph. I think you have lost the plot (in this thread).

regarding 'anti furry avatars' in Gor sims:



*quiet voice* But...that isn't...racism.

How easily you dismiss the value of using logic to facilitate clear communication!

So can we take it that you have no problem with anyone taking the converse of any statement you've ever made----anywhere on these Forums or in life for that matter----and publicly claiming that you said that converse and stand by that converse? Since, here, you defend such an action?

(This could be interesting!)

Fritz the Cat, no. Maus? I believe I have all of Art Spiegelman's books (even ones he edited), and they are all also signed - in person. "Who Killed Roger Rabbit," yes.

Those are analogies, though, Argent. (And works of art, especially "Maus."

Someone else named Robert Crumb. I love him too (although Max creeps a bit), and have many of his comics also, and one signed collection. Bring on the subversives and artists, I say.

But those examples you named of 'funny animals' are analogies or rather, used as analogies to human behavior.

Someone excluding a furry or animal (some Gor sims do not allow animals of the four legged kind either, even Gorean ones; I've visited a variety of Gor sims as OOC observer) is not 'racist' - it's an animal so it is another species not another race of human.

Also I believe to be 'racist' one must believe one's own race is superior, though I'm not completely sure on that definition and it's not really pertinent to the thread...Some allying with the OP(s) opinions have chosen to sandbag with emotional examples such as racism, but it isn't relevant to their main assertion, in my opinion.

/me shuts off the computer for now. Happy Holiday Weekend everyone.

"Do we have special places in RL where it is "ok" to be a racist?"

Yes, the privacy of your home and land.

Also:

"In a rare 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court extended the full protection of the First Amendment to the Internet in Reno v. ACLU, a decision which struck down portions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a law intended to outlaw so-called "indecent" online communication (that is, non-obscene material protected by the First Amendment.) The court's decision extended the same Constitutional protections given to books, magazines, films, and spoken expression to materials published on the Internet. Congress tried a second time to regulate the content of the Internet with the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The Court again ruled that any limitations on the internet were unconstitutional in American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (2002)."

While the Politically Correct crowd would like to curtail everyone elses actions and speech, who is it that gets to decide what is right, moral, wrong, immoral?

Thus, if you don't like what goes on at someone's private land and they are not breaking the law, then stay away from them.

The problem with your tireless defense is that she made statements and then denies that her agenda is the same still.

She has had the proof found that she had the agenda, she claims it's not relevant...

So show us where her stated aim on the blog and such is the false reason, because she is asking for something to be banned from SL while posting from the get go she has no agenda...

Which is immediately suspect. Because if she did not have one she wouldn't have had to claim not to have one... or she knew that her agenda would be found and sought to try and prevent it from being brought up.

It's not a very successful tactic to try in this age of google where any and everything you have about yourself online will come back to get you.

So show us where her stated agenda is magically voided by claiming she has none in this thread?

@ Jackie and Amarinthim

Sorry, but I think you have misunderstood where I am coming from. I can see that this post, on its own, could give the wrong impression. Perhaps a little context might help ...


I absolutely agree.

Exactly.

Couldn't agree more. Yet this is what Rock is doing. He sees women, ALL women, as vulnerable creatures in need of protection from themselves. He puts us all in the same category as children...

and ...


If you are still unsure where I am coming from, please look over my posting history in both of these threads (among many others), but perhaps especially this one:


this is from p.7 of the other thread and was, incidentally, the first alarm call sounded about this misguided campaign (just saying).

hope you get my drift ... I AM ON YOUR SIDE
Sorry to drag up stuff from many pages back but I felt this needed saying.
Thank you for listening.

p.s. if you really want to know, and missed it the first time round ...

but I have a splendid RL thing going on

Interesting reasoning.


Assistant D.A.: This new puppy mill is the fifth we've found this week. It was really horrendous. The dogs were being bred for fighting and treated with extreme sadism to make them aggressive, and those that didn't perform well were shot. Dogs considered no longer useful were being starved and...it was unbelievable. The disease, the sadism.

D.A.: Yes, but if we mention these dogs in our campaign to get a law against such puppy mills, we'll be using them as nothing but mascots.

Assistant D.A.: Obviously we can't mention them, then.

D.A.: I'm afraid not. The puppy mills must be allowed to operate unimpeaded, because it would be just plain WRONG to use the dead, starving and diseased dogs as mascots for our campaign.

Assistant D.A.: Yes, it would certainly be a failure of compassion if we mentioned them.

Gor seems ideally suited for confusing any argument. There may possibly be Goreans who are genuinely anti-furry, but I'd be very surprised if it's at all common.

It's rather my impression that Goreans are just hyper-strict about the roleplay environment. It's not just furries who are commonly banned from Gorean sims, but also nekos, elves, vampires, mechs, winged humans--even humans wearing zippered clothing (which technology never made it to the other side of the sun... or something like that). There are some pretty fanatical Gor "lifestylers", but I doubt many of them are actively prejudiced against people with zippers, and I'm stumped what would be the analog in a zipper-wearer allegory.

It may not be especially smart to have such strict rules about the roleplay environment. It can't help with recruitment, being anything but an "inclusive community" (remember the purported topic of this thread?). But considering what goes on in Gor, inclusiveness wouldn't really seem the biggest problem. I mean, if the visitor to Gor has a problem shedding the fur, wings, and robot prims, probably the mountains full of secret giant golden insect overlords will be a bigger problem. Or the slavery. Or the emoting houseplants.