Inclusive Communities and Representations of Violence against Women

First: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/effects_pornography.htm
Table 1.

Second: Yes, I do know but there are lots of Google hits for that story, that one was just near the top.

If you prefer, the same story by the Daily telegraph in England:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/4611161/Rapelay-virtual-rape-game-banned-by-Amazon.html

More info here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/02/23/2009-02-23_christine_quinn_rips_horrifying_rape_gam.html

Thank god both Amazon and eBay did the right thing in banning this.

Rock

can anyone not see the double jabber that is going on here?

1.they are not looking at SL's images or rp or pose balls anything that depicts RL rape. so they say

2.they agree that SL rape is simulated and not real..

3.that in most cases it is more than likely both parties choice but not always..that sometimes someone actually gets raped in SL. but thats not the problem or concern Oo

4.they are only concerned about the representation of rape.not the depiction
de·pict (d-pkt)
tr.v. de·pict·ed, de·pict·ing, de·picts
1. To represent in a picture or sculpture.
2. To represent in words; describe.

and not that it may or may not actually be happening ..Oo


it's not pro-censorship..it is only about CERTAIN types of self-expressions (you know,the types that were not fit into the bill of rights) that are the concern and EXPLICIT THREAT of violence and hate..
but lets remember .it's not about actual violence and hate because that would include Real rape which is not the subject here..and also not the depiction of SL and RL rape being the same thing..because SL Rape is most times consensual maybe
all in all that makes them feel as though they are not welcomed..Oo

they are not the thought police and have no interest in anyones private fantasies or fetishes or prejudices..only when sim owners decide to make places that make them feel unwelcome because of it's fantasies or fetishes or prejudices...

today it is This that is the cause of their uncomfort in the sim you own and pay for.. tomorrow it may be your club and the dancer on stage with her top off or an outfit you wear or nipples on an avatar..
maybe if we all walked like robots dressed in pure white with blond hair and blue eyes and all looked the same and our thoughts monitored we may please the few..

there is a choice for those that are not able to live in a virtual world with a wide variety for EVERYONE..and that is what it is about..choices..not demands..
it's called Sony home..

this is not some drive for a better SL or to help in the violence against women or anyone else..
it is to take out anything that may be offensive in the peripheral vision of or the back of someones mind that has the freedom of choice to avoid the things we see differently..just like the rest of the in world..

if it were actually about violence against women i'm sure this thread would be different..
it's not..it is about rights and the abuse of them..and about some trying to take away from the many so the few can have more rights than the many..

all bullshit aside it is against everything that is SL..i don't care what brand of butter they use on their bread..it's still stale bread.

Then I don't believe you and my assessment of you was correct.

Btw, if it was what Rock said - about a guy pretending to be a female - it doesn't qualify as an insult. I looked at your profile and I was actually amazed to see a female shape there.

You might want to revisit some of your posts in early May, you let your veil slip once or twice there buddy

Rock

[Originally Posted by Ponsonby Low in #1068

So you decline to answer whether or not you consider a labeling of any proposed change as 'slippery slope' to be equivalent to 'this may no longer be discussed'....?






You've made a claim that I was "playing semantic games to defend", etc.

Please back up your claim with evidence. (A cut-and-paste from any post in which you allege I was doing this would be sufficient.)

Back up your claim with evidence or be revealed as a liar.

Might want to quote the full chart...



Odd that the numbers show a huge decrease in numbers of offenders, but an increase in multiple assaults by the same offenders. along with a major decrease in all areas even as the population increased

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponsonby Low
"The community"???? Really???????

Twenty or twenty-five* people? Out of the tens of thousands who spend time in SL each day?








How would you know?

I agree, and that's why arguments based on 'this proposed action is the beginning of a slippery slope and that's why it should not be implemented' seem so weak, when unaccompanied by any unassailable premises.

Yet many seem to use 'this is the beginning of a slippery slope' as sole support for their position.

In this particular case, the groundwork (of giving evidence that placing restrictions on depictions of violence in SL will inevitably lead to all the awful things that have been claimed) has simply not been laid.








How could ANY course of action undertaken by Linden Lab lead to prohibition on fantasizing?

How would Linden Lab acquire this control over thoughts?

Actually LL laid the first stone in the path... with the content segregation... next step is elimination

Why stop at eliminating one type of adult rp when someone else may find something else distasteful.

Stop and think: one day you ban what you consider violent sex... it becomes a ban on rough or hard sex... then all forms of bondage or slavery (oops no more BDSM) then why not just ban it all together and make it a family friendly wasteland.

In case you didn't get it (again), he isn't debating with you. He is mocking you.

Now, your debating skills are (pardon the pun) up for debate though because you simply... well, don't do it? By ignoring half the posts directed at you (interestingly the ones that are uncomfortable) you show even less debating skill than the average politician.

With that said, good night, forum.

Extreme violence towards anyone is illegal. However imaginary depictions of extreme violence are legal in the US. I don't know the ins and outs of the various European legal codes, but I would hope that their governments are capable of distinguishing between fiction and reality.

I answered that, explicitly, in the message you partially quoted.

As for calling me a liar, go ahead: you know what you wrote, I know what you wrote, I never imagined you'd deny it instead of waffling on about the value of logic again.

First off, I condensed to a brief fragment one way of putting what I think Argent is talking about. So take it with a grain of salt, and please try not to get hung up on my exact choice of words.

Now substitute "playing out fantasies in a virtual world" for "fantasizing", that's more precisely what I meant. The former being a subset of the latter, the subset that relates to SL and this thread. I was trying to be brief, not vague or overly broad. I thought you'd get it in the context of the thread, but either I need to be more precise in my choice of words or you're doing one of those internet debate thingies I whined about in that other entertaining thread.

I don't see it as a problem. Racists and bigots have the same free speech rights as anyone else. It's not free speech if the people in authority get to pick and choose who gets it.

The proposed action is *part of* an avalanche down a slippery slope that started with the criminalization of certain depictions of underage sex not involving any actual human beings. This avalanche has already led to the conviction of people over jokes involving cartoon characters that don't look even vaguely human. We're not just looking at the slope ahead of us, we're trying to put the brakes on something that's well under way. The time any rational person should have put their foot down and said "no further" is long past.

Are you attempting to ferret out the truth?

Logic is not for everyone, and requires focus and discipline:

From Principia Mathematica, Vol. I

"From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1+1=2."

Took 379 pages, of logic, to arrive at that result. What the trolls here would have us believe is that their arguments are logical because they say they are without offering any proofs as to the logic of their thought processes.

We are all at the mercy of Linden Lab's decisions on what content they will permit.

I can understand the fears of those who feel they've found a place to act out certain practices, that the situation may change and they will have to find somewhere else to go.

For some of those dealing with such fear, I have sympathy. I might not feel a personal admiration for those who enjoy certain practices, but I can understand how they might feel rejected in RL and grateful for a safe harbor in a virtual world.

But two facts remain:

One: every human being has a dividing line between 'I don't really respect this but as long as it's consenting adults and you keep it relatively private, I won't protest' and 'this is simply not permissible'. (For me, for instance, that line includes any use made of children on the 'not permissible' side.)'

Two: the dividing lines of those who make the decisions for LL are the ONLY ONES THAT COUNT in SL.


Actually I should add a third fact:

Three: The probability that the decisions made in this regard by LL will please everyone is zero.









(BTW, I respect the fact that you wrote a post, the one I quote here, that contained no insults.)

It is telling that you have been reduced to claiming that people who disagree with you are alts, and that women who disagree with you are men.

I've been here since July 2005. This is my primary account. I've posted my RL name, email, and phone number.

And I stand with those who defend freedom of expression. How do you discount me?

I prefer Knuth's "Surreal Numbers". Of course he was building on Conway's work, and they had centuries of advances in set theory to help him find a few shortcuts old Ike never knew about.

No. But if you can't, you can't.






You made a claim about me.

You can't back it up.

This makes you a liar.

You are not characterizing the people opposing the OP's goals anywhere near accurately.

I'm also a weasel.



But I'm moderately successful in avoiding ad-hominem attacks.

(or is that ad-furretem?)

But this is not a trivial distinction.

In fact, in some ways, it's at the root of all this controversy.

There are those who claim that every single act anyone can think up should be permitted to be staged inside SL, as publicly as those involved wish---lynching blacks, raping two-year-olds---anything.

And their rationale: 'it's not real...it's fantasy'.

(((If you want a drinking game that will make you very drunk very quickly, have someone read from virtually any RA thread involving sex or violence, and take a big gulp each time 'GET A LIFE, IT'S NOT REAL!!!!' or variants are read.)))

These folks would be outraged at the idea that, for instance, a newly hired worker who was gay might protest at finding photos of the strung up Matthew Shepard on his locker; or that a five-year-old might be disturbed by seeing pictures of men sodomizing kindergartners on his father's computer.

What is WRONG with those people, would be the cry, don't they know those are just IMAGES and therefore NOT REAL!?!?!?!?!?


Others believe that 'fantasy' is what happens inside a person's own skull. The minute it leaves that skull---as words, as images, as an avatar on a screen---it has left 'fantasy' and is now real.


And this disagreement, this distinction, is important. So that's why I picked up on it in your post. I accept that you weren't arguing on the 'it's not REAL' side, but instead were simply typing briefly.

I'm just saying that clarity about our terms and assumptions is worth pursuing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponsonby Low
I can understand the fears of those who feel they've found a place to act out certain practices, that the situation may change and they will have to find somewhere else to go.




I wasn't attempting to characterize all those who oppose the OP's goals.

If you'll look at the post that elicited my response as well as at my response, you'll note that neither contains anything about creating a characterization for all opponents of the OP's goals.

I was expressing sympathy (conditional, admittedly) for that group of people who enjoy BDSM practices inside SL and fear losing their privilege to continue enjoying them.