Second Life in the News, Again!

My life will not be affected by it, it just means I'll teleport away from somewhere I don't want to be, instead of seeing clearly from the "Search Places" option that it's not somewhere I want to be.

Lewis

These aren't your words?



If they are (and hint they are) I'm not wrong it is a broadly offensive ill-qualified bigoted statement.

You said you clarified but not till tweleve pages later with this:



Which is entirely different than what you said which is what people became offended at and rightly so was this:



No twisting of words, no qualifier of offensive, broad or otherwise, no mention of sexually explicit, just that all gay communities should identify themselves as such so they would be easier to avoid (i.e. discriminated against).



Exactly. Which your statement:



...fails to take into account and why people whom have read said reacted to it as bigoted because it flatly is.

What you are failing to comprehend is that it is purely YOUR opinion and YOUR interpretation that you are objecting to. If you had bothered to read the many, many posts I have made, you would understand where I am coming from.

If communities label themselves to make it easier for other people to find them, that's perfectly acceptable... but the same thing so that others who aren't interested can avoid them is discrimination?

Please, clarify, how am I discriminating against anyone, by somehow denying them the right to express themselves how they choose, by asking simply for it to be made clearer when I am visiting a property what I am likely to expect there?

Why don't you turn your hatred to those who grief gay clubs in SL, instead of someone like me who has done absolutely NOTHING?

Lewis

Will you label your land as someone who immediately associates a homosexual with a rabbit?

I am sure a lot of homosexuals and rabbits would like to know before accidentally stumbling across your land.

(sarcasm)All British folk should have little green dots painted upon their foreheads, y'know cause I think its great that they can be in SL and everything but I really don't want to associate with those shifty limeys. In fact all British SL residents should have the fact that they are british residents clearly delineated in their parcel descriptors in addition to the green dots on their AV's foreheads so it'll be easier for me to avoid them, but mind I'm not a bigot, this is nothing like segregation or apartheid, or sewing lil' yellow stars on jewish folk's clothing. (/sarcasm)

I'd have as much issue with the above as I do with your statement:

You know what? From reading the article, I think I found an excerpt that makes me understand Lewis's stance more clearly:



Having been to South Beach, Greenwich Village, and Boston's South End, I totally forgot about all of the signs that I saw that said:

WARNING: GAY PEOPLE ARE HERE AND MAY ACT GAY!

Could we mark all religious fuddy duddy owned land with a picture of a cross and a sad face? I wouldn't want to run into one unknowingly.

Kthx.

Really? That's quite pathetic if you think about it.

I have not said that all gays/furries/vampires/whatever should be tagged and labelled as their avatars (although many choose to state such things clearly through choice of avatar and profile description)

All I have said is that certain gathering places should be clearly identified in some way, generally through the property description, so that those of us who do find the behaviour that might go on there offensive, can be aware not to go there.

If somewhere advertises themselves as a 'gay club', then they are doing so out of choice in order to attract people looking for that environment to be in. That same advertising can be used to help people who choose *not* to go there.

So your objection is based on a simple request from me for people to do something that the vast majority already do by choice?

Lewis

An interesting concept.

So those who are gay are perfectly allowed to act out their lifestyle and beliefs openly, yet as a Christian I am not allowed to?

I have never asked for people to just stop "being gay" in SL. Yet it seems that there are many who are asking me to stop living up to my Christian beliefs on the issue of homosexuality.

Lewis

Oh, I finally saw Lord of the Rings over the weekend, so now I understand your point.

Not pathetic at all really. Tell me how much thought did it take to retact your previous statement? Only about 12 pages, thats pretty pathetic yes.




No thats not at all what you said, and as you keep forgetting this is what you said:



You did not qualify it with 'only' sex clubs and you didn't leave it as a choice for individuals. You demanded that if they existed in SL they needed to be labeled (without qualifier) so that you could avoid them. That is discriminatory, and bigoted.

Do you like being proven wrong by pushing a point? This was my words:



Doesn't the word "somewhere" and a reference to "it" make it clearly obvious I am referring to places?

Now if I had said "All gays should be clearly marked so I don't stumble across them", then you have a valid point. But I didn't, so you don't.

Lewis

I think Lordfly was making a point, one that you seemed to miss, though you must be quite busy playing martyr all the time.

When you do I'll be happy to consider it.



And how is it less discrimatory to have all gay owned/operated/or co mangaged places labeled as 'gay' so you could avoid them. It is the exact same bigoted mind set and just as discrimintory to force all places that are owned/co-owned or managed by homosexual women or men to self-identify. So I should go to Abbotts now and toss up a big warning sign for your benifit then Lewis? (We're shareholders in it) Phase 5 Airfield? Any of a thousand other places in SL? Becuase you intial statement didn't differentiate between 'sexual' or non-sexual, just all gay places. Thats the issue, thats the discrimnation.

I have to say I am enjoying this thread very much. It's very interesting to see someone paint themselves in a corner.


I want to congratulate everyone who has participated in this thread for not sinking to any low brow name calling.

I would like to thank all of you who responded to Lewis with good point to ponit references. I would have loved to have to the time to do so and I thank you all for taking up the slack.

And Lordfly, you are, as always, a sane haven in a time of chaos.

I thought the distinction was very clear, and has been clarified on several occasions.

I don't care if someone is gay, furry, vampire, gorean, or a gay gorean vampire furry. I don't care one jot about the builder of a place I am visiting.

I just don't want to see stuff of a sexual nature, and as the community standards identify, I should be able to clearly make that choice whether or not to experience it.

Lewis

What is preventing you now and how is knowing the orientation of the builders, owners or managers going to help you in that choice?

DON'T GO TO "M" RATED SIMS.

You can go to"PG" sims, or "I" (Immature) sims in your case.

Exactly my point!

Unless something is of a sexual nature, it doesn't matter to me who built it, it will be good, indifferent or crap depending on the skill of the builder

I'm talking about the content of the place, and if something is sexual in nature - which, by homosexuality being a choice of sexual orientation is sexual in nature - then it should be clearly defined in its parcel description.

Lewis

Unfortunately "M" rated sims are by far the majority in Second Life, simply because it is clearly a major focus in Linden Lab advertising - and because it is so common, it is what the media tend to pick up on.

Which brings us back to the nature of the article that started this whole argument.

If there was more land available in SL that was PG, I would gladly buy a decent plot, but sadly it is few and far between.

Would people be objecting so much if Linden Lab bought in an "X" rated land category, and anything of a directly sexual nature (rather than just 'mature themes' and looser standards of behaviour) had to move there?

Lewis

Wait I don't get it. You want all gay people to lable their land as owned by gay people or that gay people might gather there so that you can avoid it because they MIGHT be having sex (not will... but MIGHT... because we all know that gay people cannot gather w/o having sex) but when asked that homophobic chrisitain hatemongers label their land and selves as such, (because we all know that homophobic christian hatemongers cannot gather without trying to force their viewpoints on others) then we are asking that you 'not live up to your Christian beliefs'?


How's that work again?

Seems like you aren't the only one, despite many attempts by me to clarify using simpler and simpler examples.

Lewis

Hmm, that works both ways (if you pardon the pun). Change the word "homosexuality" to "heterosexuality" in the above sentence, and tell me why the same rule shouldn't apply to the other side.

And no, by the way, not all gay establishments are about sex. Neither in RL nor SL.

Clarify? Everything you say makes the water more muddy. Nor did you reply to the main point of my post. Why? Could it be cause you are dead wrong?

When was the last time you saw a "straight bar" in meatspace?

Lewis