Calling for a Boycott of the fundamentalist State of South Dakota

I guess it is my turn in the circle today. The current SCOTUS agrees with you, it does not mean it will remain that way. I think that those who are opposed to abortion are trying to stop the murder of a child. It is an issue full of grey areas, being supported by a giant grey area of the constitution - that is why it will remain under siege. I am not a conservative at all - I just happen not to be pro-choice. Most people don't fall so cleanly into the labels levelled at them.

In a bold move, Magnum has called for a boycott of this thread...

...and Flame Death upon all who dare blaspheme the Priest Kings..

-Kiamat Dusk
...couldn't resist...

Please report this to the Star Chamber immediately

Yup, that's what their propaganda tells us. Which TV ad does that come from?


It will remain under seige until the anti-choice people move on to their next little project. Then they'll start trying to restrict something else. Never fails.

My GOD ! She knows all our plans!!! Quick! Plan B! Plan B!!!!!!!

-Kiamat Dusk

Wait, you mean you guys have plans?

okay THAT was funny

They are trying to restrict the death of children. It is interesting how you try to paint anyone against abortion as some kind of zealot - the same could be said for those in favor of it. Propoganda is also in the eye of the beholder.

That's blatantly false, both in legal terms and medical ones. Either you didn't know that, or you are trying to ellicit an emotional response.


Funny, you're painting the anti-choice people as holy crusaders against child deaths, and I'm the one calling people zealots? You people twists reality like nobody's business.
I don't paint anyone as a zealot at all. All I wrote was that I didn't feel anyone trying to restrict rights was trustworthy - that if they succeeded here, they'd probably keep going. I think that's perfectly logical.
I'm not *crazy* just because I disagree with you, Cristiano - I'm being reasonable. Many a dictatorship has started in democracy, and usually that begins by edging in on people's rights.

You know, I could hardly resist this.

So... if I and another woman are beaten up for being together, that's a hate crime (lesbians are covered, and bisexuals in same-sex relationships)

but... if the motive for the attack was because I'm her Mistress, that is NOT covered (lifestyle issue)

exactly how is this going to make a difference to me?

but... if I belonged to some traditional religion in which men lord it over women without consent, I have moved back into a protected category again? Lifestyle Goreans in general show much more respect for the consent of a submissive woman than many religions.

Adding gays to the protected category was done with the best of intentions, but it's easy for religions to hijack the whole idea of a protected category, and I have come to profoundly resent the way anyone can call themselves a religion and automatically get a privileged position in American society. Because of this, I think the idea of "hate crime" has led to bad law, and as much I very much would like a legal tool to fight gay bashing, I don't think creating a laundry list of protected categories is the way to go.

Respecting everyone's rights regardless of their category is the only way out. That, and demanding that any religion that gets involved in politics in any way lose its non-profit status for good.

And for what it's worth, I should add there are many people in Second Life who are not "rich." Certainly it's a large sacrifice for me to pay Roadrunner every month for broadband just so I can log in here at all. I have heard it said there are a substantial number of disabled folks in SL, who tend not to be "rich."

Please check your assumptions before posting.

SL is not real. Thanks for posting.

Shucks, I must have missed the part of this thread where someone dragged a Gorean into the street and tied them to the back of a moving truck. No one here has even tried to exhort people to commit violence against Goreans.

Questioning someone's beliefs is not an attack. If I ask a Muslim what the Quran says to do to a woman caught cheating... I'm not accusing them of stoning women. If I ask a Christian what exactly the OT God commands be done with the babies in a town they conquor, I'm accusing them of running out, grabing the nearest iraqi baby and smacking it into a stone. If I ask a Scientologist about something their belief dictates, it's a legit question (which I know pretty much nothing about, so can't think of an example). Indeed, it's part of the US's first amendment that you can argue that gays are going to hell and that it's a horrible gross thing to be. Heck, the KKK are allowed to spew out their stuff. You can indeed argue that homosexuality is a 'invalid' belief, same with any of the religions.

But heaven forbid someone bring up that yes, the Gor books involve the rape of women.

Groups are protected from descrimination, not from criticism. (otherwise I'd like to declare FIC accused groups a 'life style choice' and demand that no one ever criticize them again)

I'd also like to declare myself a lifestyle choice and demand that no one ever criticize me again. If anyone else wants to join my lifestyle, let me know and I'll send you a guide.

Why do us Scientologists keep getting dragged into this? There's like, four, in South Dakota. And asking what our belief dictates is liable to earn a blank stare, it's such a nonsensical question.

Now if South Dakota was to make a law allowing UFO's free reign in their anal probing we might have something to do with this.

So why exactly did you bring up gay-bashing? Which in a negative way is about as real as it gets. Certainly it's had a more profound influence on my life, and the lives of the people I care about, than Second Life has.

If you need a laundry list of protected categories to know who you're allowed to be mean to, you have missed the point. If you think the things we say to each other here in an Internet space don't have any real world consequences (sooner or later), you have missed the point.

It's not that some things are not bigger than others in their impact. It's that it's depressingly obvious that almost all forms of prejudice are variations on a single theme, repetitive to the point of monotony.

Including, to get back to the original point of this thread, the obnoxious idea that a rape victim should be forced to carry her pregnancy to term.

Did anyone actually give a f*ck about South Dakota before? No? Good. Just checking.

The only reason I can see for government to want to have an influence on our body and what we do with it is this:

A dead person can't pay taxes.
A person that is never born can't pay taxes.
A person that is institutionalised justifies governemnt tax spending.

I could go on forever, but they really don't care what "we the people" think. its the good ole $$ that is at issue......anytime a law is passed.

So yea, Fk you the good ole Gov't of SD and any other state that tells me wtf to do with our bodies.....stay the hell off.

This is whre do it yourself comes into play....

Amen! You've got my vote, Charlie! (Not sure what for, but you've got it!)

Thanks, I just sent this info out to the 35,000 on my pro-life list. And mailed a fat check. Woohooo

Someone criticized Magnum's SL lifestyle which is some fake bullshit and he called it hate speech which it clearly was not. He is belittling real life serious issues by misusing a term meant to represent the most heinous crimes, just because his Gorean Master Ego can't take a little heat. He could have just said, "Shut up and leave my SL lifestyle choices out of this, how I spend my time and money is my business. Go get laid Kaimet!", and left it at that, instead he went off on a weak limb and I decided to take a chainsaw to it.


Criticism is not a crime, and it is certainly not a hate crime.

You're still not really answering my question: why would you bring up gay bashing?

Can you or can you not see why condemning people for freely chosen consensual relationships (of whatever type) takes us down a road similar in every way to the one that leads to gay-bashing? If it is the victims of a crime who have the right to define the politics around it, then homophobia is my issue to define.

Who the hell gets to be the authority that determines what is a valid relationship and what isn't? For that matter, who gets to determine what is a protected category and what isn't? Today's traditions were yesterday's innovations. People continue to experiment and evolve new forms whenever authority gives them the slightest bit of breathing space.

Or do you think that gay-bashing could somehow exist outside of the ideologies which encourage it? These ideologies are often tolerated under the protected category of religion.

Sometimes I'm in a space where gay is okay, and sometimes I'm not, over the course of a normal day. I am acutely aware of the fact that ideologies govern the difference between such spaces, and that these ideologies have no business getting enshrined in law.

I am extremely aware that the proponents of ideologies which are homophobic are also trying to shut down equality for women in the U.S. One of the first things these ideologues would like to take away is the opportunity for women to choose, leave and modify the conditions of marriage as they and their partners see fit. Alternative lifestyles with small numbers of practitioners would provide the test cases for making nonconformity criminal. It's been done before.

If we don't develop a concept of respect for self-determination, if we have to childishly rely on laundry lists of protected categories because we can't give up authoritarian ideologies which refuse human rights to some scapegoated group or another, we're going to hell in a handbasket. God save us.