Blondin, you have some Esplanin to do.

well, you alleged that Ian was touting conspiracy theories..

People, glasshouses, stones...

Not for nothin' - Ian is a card-carrying member of a group entitled ROUGH SEX - partial charter reads Comparing book burning to rape is an amazing analogy. When it comes to Ian, just say no.

A lot closer than comparing voluntarily sitting on a poseball on a computer screen and rape.

Has anyone here made such a facile comparison? The issue is about representations of violence against women, not simplistic comparisons of real rape and simulations in world.

So what? Are you calling me a rapist?

Representation and the real thing are not the same and should not be treated as the same. What is a simulation if not a representation? If a book has a depiction of rape would you favor burning it? Personally I see no difference in anything in SL and a written work.

So do we burn the proofs and copies of the movie Death Wish? How about Deliverance? The Accused?

I've been thinking about this, and what I can't understand is, if any of these private sims are encroaching on Bay City expansion, why can't the private sims simply be moved to another spot on the map? A few changed numbers in the database should be all that's required. If I'm not mistaken, private sims are surrounded by void, and as far as I know, one cannot fly, sail, or swim across the void to access another sim, so one private sim's placement with relation to other non-continuous sims seems irrelevant.

Now, I acknowledge that, in theory, one could purchase enough openspace sims to fill in the void between sims, which would make sim placement in relation to each other relevant -- but, in reality, who is going to spend that kind of money to do something like this?

No, the issue was about what parcel owners got free land in Zindra. How did we get here, and how do we make it stop?

I love it sometimes when a thread takes a good ramble through the weeds, but when someone takes one over just to flex their political argument muscle, I find myself wishing we had more moderators.

Here's a forum dedicated to "Politics, Religion and Society". Have fun.
http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/politics-religion-society/
.

Do you REALLY want to push the comparison between a work of literature or art, on the one hand, and in-world game played for the purposes of wanking off? You have either a very lowly opinion of art, or an absurdly exalted opinion of jacking off.

True point considering it wouldn't even break the landmarks......but really it's been over a year since bay city has opened and hasn't expanded......doubt it ever will

Speech is speech, I do not make any exceptions. I have a very high opinion of free expression.

Organized? Probably not. There certainly is no formalized vigilante group in existence, with group charter and all that. However, griefers aren't organized either, nor do they need to be do inflict their damage. And if you don't think vigilantes don't exist, just do a keyword search here in the forums for "Nany Kayo", who seems unstable enough to consider it; or "Cato Badger", who has already demonstrated vigilantism here in this forum; and -- who was it who made that statement of intent to deliberately place sex objects around every child avatar she saw on Zindra and AR them?

There may not be organized "vigilante squads" in SL. But vigilantes operating independently from one another can be just as dangerous - and there are plenty of *those* running around.

Is there any reason for it to expand yet?

In principle, I agree, although I'd like to see more evidence of such supposed individual vigilantes in action. The police blotter, which I do look at on occasion, has never shown much.

Well if bay city is not due for expansion becuase of the demand/supply ratio then Zindra never will be

Zindra has built-in demand which Bay City does not in the form of the requirement that adult businesses locate there if they want to operate on mainland.

and that will force LL to keep enough land about to maintain a fair price? And what would a fair L/sqm price point to maintain?

The desire to sell more land and collect more tier. I have no idea what a price point LL has in mind as fair.

Yeah, I think that's right. I suppose a few things may use global X,Y coordinates (scripts could, for example, although I can't think why they'd be written in such a way as to break if an island moved). I would think that landmarks and Search links and all that would be based on region name, not grid coordinates, so it shouldn't really matter to the sim owners--it's not as if they could fly to the Mainland across the void anyway.

I popped in-world long enough to look, and now that I see what they are, I'm pretty sure some of those sims (e.g., Siggy's "Waterworks" have existed longer than Bay City, presumably in the same spot. It seems unlikely that LL would have trouble moving them out of the way if Bay City needed the space.

funny enough between this and the opensim fiasco I find it really hard to belive that LL wants more money and teir...seems to me they are trying to hide it away and shrink it other wise anyone wanting a swap would of got it.

Not to pick at nits here, but... Regardless of what words the hovertext over the balls use, there is still nothing "forced" about it. With certain extreme griefer exceptions, everything in SL is consentual. Everything. Nobody is forcing *anyone* to sit on those pose balls. It is done by personal choice. I'm rather certain that if someone were morally or principally opposed to the actions depicted by the balls, that someone would simply refuse to use it.

To be quite honest, I find *ANY* equating of virtual-world actions - particularly those that are consentual - to real-world rape to be absolutely repugnant and disgusting! All it really accomplishes is to cheapen and minimize the full reality of rape to even attempt to compare the two!Really? Really really???

Have you ever been AR'd? Have you ever been *falsely* AR'd? If you had, you could in no way be so naive as to believe what you just wrote! Maybe the majority of them die without action, but there is enough documented evidence floating around in-world and in these forums to suggest that enough of them remain to make the accused' lives miserable - and only a few of them are ever exonerated!

Unless you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is against the ToS or CS, then your hitting the AR button amounts to nothing more than an attempt to *force* your views on someone else.... And isn't that one of the premises behind rape?

I don't disagree with most of what you say here. Indeed, as I have said on this thread, and in many others, I am not making a simplistic equation of the simulated rape with the RL crime. A "virtual rape" would not be a real one, even were consent NOT obtained. And yes, an equation of the two that suggests that they are somehow similar would be repugnant.

What I am arguing, and will continue to argue, is that rape simulations in SL reinforce harmful attitudes about violence against women that have an impact on RL. I am sure that the majority of men who are engaged in the role of "rapist" are fully aware that to fantasize about rape is not the same as wanting to BE raped, but I am equally certain that there are men who watch their consenting partner "accept" the animation, and conclude that, yes indeed, women are turned on by violence, and want to be dominated, brutalized, etc.

There is a growing amount of evidence, amassed since at least the 1980s, and very much ongoing, that strongly suggests that exposure to pornography, and particularly violent pornography, reinforces negative stereotypes about women and violence. (I would be happy to point you towards some of that evidence, if you would like). My own suspicion is that rape animations, being not merely interactive but actually interpersonal, may actually have an even stronger impact in this regard than print or film porn.

I am VERY aware that many BDSM relationships are loving, supportive, and fully consensual. I also think it is foolish and pointless to try to legislate sexual fantasy. But I do think that PUBLIC displays (as opposed to what you and your partner choose to fantasize about in the privacy of your house or skybox) constitute extreme pornography, and, in fact, a form of hate message directed particularly against women.

I don't want anything banned; that is using a bludgeon where, I hope, dialogue and mutual respect should instead prevail. I WOULD like to see the practitioners of this sort of simulated violence exercise a sense of social responsibility, and restrict their activities to private areas, whether these are "group only" dungeons, private skyboxes, or what-have-you. By all means, let people express their sexuality. But just as in RL, the flip side of RIGHTS is RESPONSIBILITIES. To exercise the one, without engaging the other, is not liberty: it is mere licence. If you simulate a rape of a woman in public, you are making a public statement, even if an unintentional one, just as surely as if you scrawled "Women are bitches" on a public wall.

With regard to ARs . . . I am sure they are vulnerable to abuse, both ways, just as are our legal systems. But I believe the animations that I ARed were in violation of LL policies. I don't run around indiscriminately ARing things that I "don't like"; the objects I reported were among the most horrifyingly violent, graphic and misogynistic animations I have ever seen in SL . . . and that's saying a lot. I considered carefully before I sent in the ARs. And I'm pretty sure that, faced with these, I would do so again.

Again, please stop co-opting threads about, for example, LAND POLICY, to advance your group's advocacy of censorship.
.

There is a different thread talking about some Dutch sims which recently closed, and how the financial costs sooner or later take its toll on content. While these things may offend you, they are locations operated by people who still have to pay tier. That means they have to have whatever means necessary; malls, stalls with BDSM balls etc. in order to make ends meet. You don't find new members by closing yourself off, you cannot make sales by closing yourself off...

Why should only the people who make such items available be responsible for their actions? Your predictability is another persons censorship.



The flipside of rights is responsibility. The responsibility to think for yourself. The freedom of expression means that even what you most disagree with still has the right to be expressed.



You were in a sim with content you found objectionable. Nobody forced you to stay. You also passed judgment on the person who tp'd you to there that they should not have been there either. It certainly sounds like the start of a vigilante squad. We all have the ability to tp AWAY.

It's funny, every time the thought police start up, they claim that there are anonymous others who hold the same views as they are posting. But suddenly, it's only an individuals actions when painted as a vigilante squad.

Oh, and in case you forgot, this topic was covered here:

/327/96/321867/1.html