Height Discrimination in Second Life

This "discrimination" is being forced upon people by the laws of their own countries. In Germany, if you download a picture of two avatars having sex, you can go to jail if the avatars are childlike but you will not do so if the avatars are adults.

To say that in spite of this, German users should treat childlike and adult avatars equally, is just unreasonable - they have to protect their own freedom. If there is a Neo-Nazi stalking me, who is threatening to shoot me if I talk to any black people, and therefore I don't until I can get the police to arrest the stalker, does that make _me_ a racist?

Also I'm sure you've seen South Park "Toleration" is not the same thing as "acceptance". Someone who chooses not to allow child avatars onto their own land is refusing to _accept_ them. But unless they are actually trying to get all child avatars banned from Second Life, they ARE _tolerating_ them.

Then that would make you intolerant.

Be realistic. The only way discrimination goes away is when it's power is taken away. The only way it's power is taken away is when people ignore it or otherwise move on.

People get so stuck on being victims so they seek out this negative attention...i.e. posting about when someone decided not to let them into their club for pretending to be short. Now other short people will be weary of any similar situation and looking for the slightest sign of "height discrimination". Too much of that and the rest of us will start thinking the shorter people are touchy jerks that want to ruin everyone's good time by starting pseudo-civil rights drama.

I just get annoyed when everyone runs around looking for reasons to feel persecuted when there's real persecution going on that they pay little or no mind to. Any homosexual person or non-white American or European reading these posts should be either laughing at you people or becoming offended that you're trivializing REAL discrimination.

Odd that you bring up Neo Nazis in Germany considering how little freedom their citizens get in terms of expression compared to most other first world nations though it's not surprising that SL is getting das boot from the germans considering what they've forced Yahoo, Google, and eBay to do in the name of protecting their citizens from the crimes and evil acts of their still moderately recent history.

I didn't bring up Neo Nazis in Germany.

I used a Neo-Nazi as an example of someone who would object to me associating with black people. I was actually more thinking of _British_ Neo-Nazis when I wrote that.

This was entirely unrelated to the fact that a German Second Life user may object to associating with child avatars because of the extra risk they take due to their local child pornography laws.

I did not intend any association between German users and Neo-Nazis and I apologise to anyone who thought that I did.

It must be weird to live in a country where the government has such wide-reaching guilt written into their laws. It's probably a lot like being Catholic.

I'm a member of more than one RL persecuted group. Does that mean I can now inform you that you're in no position to speak for me, that I think you couldn't be more wrong if being wrong were your actual goal, and all you've done is basically jam your foot in your mouth without even realizing it?

I am neither German or Catholic so I wouldn't know though in regards to the Germans I agree though I don't think this is the time or the place to get into geo-political-historical discussions.

...and yet here you are, proving my point.

Also, just about EVERYONE is a member of some sort of persecuted group to some extent. It's just that some people don't choose to use it as a social crutch. I see having a short or child av as turning into that just as being a furry is for many people. But I digress...

The most evident RL persecution situation to talk about is women...

How annoying is it when you have to watch every little thing you say around someone because they're liable to turn it into an issue of sexism even when no one is actually treating them as anything but an equal? There are many women that find that annoying or even offensive.

If you were truly ever personally persecuted for being whatever you may be then how could you take "someone wouldn't let me in their video game club because I pretend to be short in a video game" seriously?? I just don't get it...

Before we veer further into flame war:

Discrimination (meaning arbitrary hostile or harmful actions) against people for reasons of race, gender, appearance, ethnicity or other characteristics that have no bearing on their real value or lack thereof is dumb; and the world has become too small a place, and the technology of mass slaughter has become too cheap and available, for the world to be able to afford it any more. That is the underlying issue, not Political Correctness per se, or this or that country's arbitrary laws, but the plain facts of life in the 21st Century.

Here in SL, we have reflections of that RL reality. It comes to include avatars of short stature in the discrimination roster. SL and the avs are all just bits and bytes, but we are all perfectly real people behind the avs, and it is the same destructive habit of mind we are dealing with. All that is required is common civility. You don't want to associate with this or that sort of av, fine. Refuse sex with a short av or avoid same because you think your country has some laws even stupider than ones they had in previous generations, sure. Want to run them off your land, fine, your land your rules. It's coming after them and harrassing them that is the problem at issue here - phony ARs, unwarranted orbiting, verbal abuse, etc.

That behavior makes you a griefer - a person who unprovokedly engages in deliberate, systematic antisocial or disruptive behavior in SL. If you think you are justified in griefing anyone in SL (other than defending yourself or SL against a griefer, which is fighting fire with fire), tell you what. YOU leave. We don't want your kind around here.

I agree. Actively seeking out someone to harass is completely different from not letting that person in your club because you don't want to take a "percieved" chance of getting in trouble. Looking for trouble of that magnitude in general can't be tolerated if there is to be some semblance of order in the general community. That's what ARs are for!

As far as I know there are no anti-child av death squads roming around the grid as of yet. As creepy as child avs are to me I still don't see how anyone could bring themselves to shoot a child even in "fun" like that...but then again I also don't see how anyone could have pretend sex with one, either...

As one who has been targeted for such, an who has friends who have been, I can assure that while "death squad" is a rather dramatic term, there have been individuals and groups who target child avvies for griefing.

Mari

The simple way to deal with them is to turn regular sized if you see them coming, then turn back when they leave. If everyone does this they will eventually think there are no more child avs left and decided to grief another kind of person.

Also, I don't think these "child av griefer groups" are doing what they do because of the new ageplay taboo so much as they just want a type of person to hunt and targeting furries is pretty much played out these days...plus furries shoot back!

Why oh why should we have to change our av?

BTW, this is my last reply to one of your posts here Squeezy.... you may now win the thread by posting last!! hehe

Look at him go, folks! He's spinning like a top! Backpeddle, Squeeze, backpeddle! Gooooo!



I love how you've dodged away from "people who suffer RL persecution should be offended" to "people complain too much about being persecuted" all in one fluid motion. I can almost see the afterimage left by your passage!

Of course, you're just displaying this aspect of yourself: http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm



Strawman. That's not what's being said. What's being said is that people are being excluded from social aspects of Second Life, a social platform, due to characteristics of their avatars that correspond directly to real life characteristics on a human body. I wonder if you'd defend a "video game club" that refused access to people with dark-skinned avatars, too ...?

Get over yourself, Alex.

Yes, I would defend their right to refuse access to anyone they so chose for what ever reason they choose. For the right of free association to mean anything it must also include the right not to associate.

You don't have that right here, so its meaning or lack thereof is moot. This is Second Life, and certain things, such as actions (judged by Linden Labs to be) based on intolerance, are violations of the Terms of Service.

Choosing who to associate with is not intolerance. There are many groups that are for a specific target membership. Some are geared for women only. Some are for a variety of RL occupations. They should be allowed to decide who joins or doesn't join their group. But they should not be allowed to harass ,humiliate or otherwise hamper anyone else's enjoyment of the game. There is a difference.

Etc.

True, but there's also a subtle but important difference between groups being exclusive as a direct result of their specific purposes and groups excluding certain classes of people for no better reason than those people ARE those classes of people.

If I say, "I'm sorry, 20-year-old male, but we don't really have a place for you in the Red Hat Society because it's a group designed specifically for 50-year-old and older women to get together with one another," that's one thing.

If I say, "I'm sorry, hispanic person, but you can't eat here because this restaurant only serves white people," that's another entirely.

Well ya know, you can just change your avatar's skin file if someone is giving you trouble... :-/

Mari

I can ban you from my land for what ever reason I so desire.

Oh ok, so some forms of discrimination are ok in your book but others aren't. I see.

You are right. One is a PRIVATE group having exclusive membership. The second is a business excluding customers solely on their race, A BIG difference. That's discriminatory action. And while distasteful to do..I wonder if they can legally "Reserve the Right to Refuse Service" as many do post in their establishments.

...I can't believe that this silly arguement has gotten to the point where appearing short in a non-existent world is equated with racial discrimination in the real world. You're trivializing the ACTUAL tribulations of people that have been victims of real discrimination. It's insulting.

It's probably more accurate to equate avatar shapes and types to a dresscode situation than a racial situation because face it; there is no race in SL. You all start out as the same new guy/girl when you first log on. Race isn't a characteristic that can be adjusted with a slide or toggle button since it's an RL characteristic.

In RL any institution has the right to enforce a dresscode to maintain a certain image or atmosphere. What Alex is getting over-worked about is the equivalent to "sorry you can't come into this club with a sideways hat on, baggy jeans with one pant leg rolled up and tennis shoes."

The rejected person has the option of either finding a place that WILL accept them dressed like that OR they can conform to the dresscode and subsequently be accepted into said establishment. It's quite simple and quite legal.

It's the same thing in SL. There are no furry zones, no child av zones, etc. in various RP sims. The context of the story doesn't allow for furries or children or whatever so it is against the rules. It's perfectly acceptable based on the TOS and has been since before Alex was here to champion the cause of the pretend downtrodden!

Your dresscode analogy isn't bad. But in the end, for me, is how Chris stated it. A property owner has the right to ban anyone they want , for any reason. I have no problem with that.