Outrage Over W-Hat Twin Towers Meets PoMoBabble Defense
by Alphaville Herald on 10/02/05 at 9:38 pm
by Brody MacDonald and Walker Spaight
New controversy erupted recently over a W-Hat build in Baku sim depicting New York City’s World Trade Center towers under attack, as they were on September 11, 2001. But in addition to questions of taste, both the build and the community’s reaction to it also raise questions about just how much free expression Linden Lab would like to see in a place where LL “does not exercise editorial control over the content of Second Life” (as the somewhat schizophrenic Community Standards document puts it).
Several SL residents were dismayed to see such a violent depiction of the towers on the grid, complete with flames, planes and crashing trucks. “I had been in the Twin Towers on 9/11,” says Gina Fatale. “I don’t find any humor in their display at all.”
Fatale says she visited Baku sim with an SL resident who in RL is in the military. When the W-Hats in attendance refused to see things their way, her friend opened fire, eventually resulting in his being banned. “I do believe we all deserve to express our views, but not when it comes to racism, or finding humor in something where thousands died,” Fatale says. “I don’t believe it is moral, making fun of the dead.”
But several W-Hats and friends said outraged avatars were simply taking the build too seriously. “Don’t try to read a Russian novel’s worth of intentions into why the towers are there,” said Huns Valen. “The towers are a jab at all those jingoistic idiots that plastered their cars with American flags, when they didn’t feel a whit of patriotism the day before.”
“When is it going to be okay to make jokes about it?” asked Alexandra DeFarge. “Are we going to get an official memo from the Department of Homeland Security?”
Some residents felt the build went further, actually promoting terrorism rather than simply making a crude joke at the expense of the dead. (Some simply felt is was a crude bid for attention.)
“Once the act of violence itself is glorified in any way, it makes people believe that it is okay to do it again and again,” says Mystique Suavage. “It truly offends me. I have a lot of friends and relatives that are in the military. I have seen the effects on their lives, reserves that have been recalled, some that wound up losing their jobs [because their tours of duty were extended]. To have someone recreate a tragedy of such magnitude is truly distressing. There is a line where their freedom infringes upon mine. This not only infringes on mine but upon all of those innocent lives that were lost that cannot defend themselves, and the family members of those victims that are not here to defend their loss.”
The W-Hats remain convinced that free speech is better than none at all. “Living in fear supports terrorism more than some pixels,” Alexandra DeFarge said.
“It’s an example of the absurdity of life,” put in Cromulence DeGroot, attempting to clear up the issue once and for all. “Superimposing pop culture over tragedy shows how we manufacture our national outlook through the media,” he said (in a fitting example of the absurdity of post-modern commentary).
Bakuzelas Khan, a W-Hat officer, pointed out that no one had come to complain directly to him. And in any case, “I can’t take this place too seriously. I dont think people should,” he said. “It’s not real. It’s a fantasy place. So many people get so serious in it, they can’t play anymore. I have seen a lot of friends leave because it gets too uptight in here. If the community wants people to STAY, we have to be accepting.”
The outrage is all relative, according to the W-Hats. “There are far more disgusting things out there than some people who choose to make fun of knee-jerk patriotism,” said Alexandra DeFarge. “Apparently it’s okay to make balls that put your avatars into sexual positions or a prosthetic orgasming penis, but it’s not okay to write the word FUCK on something in a mature sim.”
Nor is it okay to depict a statuary nipple in a PG sim, as Stormy Roentgen found out recently.
This is perfectly in keeping with the Community Standards, which state, “Content, communication, or behavior which involves intense strong language or expletives, nudity or sexual content, the depiction of sex or strong violence, or anything else broadly offensive must be contained within private land in areas rated Mature (M).”
It’s not known whether Stormy’s stone nipples raised much of an outcry — certainly no complaints reached the Herald. But in a place that’s supposed to be a virtual society shaped by its residents, it seems odd that a piece of art that seems to have offended no one would be removed, while one that ruffled many feathers would be left to stand. Perhaps one day, SL’s Community Standards will be just that: standards set by the community, fulfilling the bottom-up promise of interconnective worlds like SL, rather than something dictated from on high that ignores the distributed power that makes places like SL great.
Jhanniss Fairlight
Feb 11th, 2005
While not exactly in the best of taste it speaks some truth. People didnt have a lick of patriotism the day before. The day it happened suddenly EVERYONE found “God” and religion was ‘ok’. Notice how things are going back to normal now? People seem anxious to forget the twin towers existed, erasing them from games, movies, and other media expressions. Why erase when you can remember. Twin Towers were not a disease. So why treat it like such. People who want to erase the twin towers from memory can shut up and take a seat about the lives lost from it too then.
Typhaeon
Feb 11th, 2005
First, concerning the final paragraph: The author’s advocation of “standards set by the community” could better be described as unchecked majoritarianism at the expense of people’s civil liberties, as certain opponents of the towers would impose.
This article, albeit less overtly than some of the other anti-W-Hat yellow sheets paraded around at this site, also advocates this Conservative view of community superceding the rights of the individual, especially in cases of dissent or unpopular opinion.
I find pandering, moralistic attitudes like those exhibited in the article disgusting and reprehensible, but unlike the Communitarians I do not advocate censorship of these ideas. I instead counter them with speech and argumentation of my own.
You would do well to do a little reading in the realm of classical Liberalism, particularly John Stuart Mill and de Tocqueville. In Second Life more than anywhere else, such perspectives are needed.
Eata Kitty
Feb 11th, 2005
I like how underplayed the fact your military friend totally wigged out and started screaming insults, threats and then attacked anyone around with a cage gun. He got a two day (Or was it three?) ban.
ZUG ZUG
Feb 11th, 2005
WOOOOOOO GO TEAM
Masakazu Kojima
Feb 11th, 2005
I own the actual tower buildings, and since the original creator has been harassed, I am now the creator of them too. To date, I have received exactly ZERO complaints about the towers. We have been attacked at least twice over them. Most of the victims of the attacks had nothing to do with the towers.
I think that says a lot.
Shei Domino
Feb 11th, 2005
But in a place that’s supposed to be a virtual society shaped by its residents, it seems odd that a piece of art that seems to have offended no one would be removed, while one that ruffled many feathers would be left to stand.
Wow, that IS odd. That someone broke the stated rules and got in trouble, and then someone else didn’t break the rules and didn’t get in trouble. W-hat a concept. (get it)
As far as this being a “virtual society shaped by its residents,” I don’t know about you, but I think the 150+ members of W-Hat are SL residents, and what they do on their private land is their business moreso than the community at large’s. You “SL is Serious Business” types are NOT the entire society of Second Life, despite the fact that you’d like to believe you are the only ones whose opinions count. People often hide their hypocrisies behind statements like “I think we all deserve free speech, but not this kind of thing, this shouldn’t be allowed.” This amounts to saying “free speech is okay as long as it doesn’t offend my sensibilities.” You might try to justify the disallowance of things like this by saying “There is a line where their freedom infringes upon mine.” I ask, then, what freedom? What freedom is being robbed from you? The “freedom” to not have to be exposed to things you don’t like? No one forced you to go to W-Hat and if you don’t like what’s there, then don’t go. If W-Hat isn’t allowed to build whatever kind of thing suits them because it might offend someone’s sensibilities, then it’s only fair that the same treatment be applied to anyone who wants to build anything. Why not have LL set up a system where anyone’s land could be cleared by majority vote? That would serve your “society shaped by its
residentsbullying majority” philosophy quite well, don’t you think?blow me
Feb 11th, 2005
I’ve had many a good laugh at sick jokes and I’ll admit they are sick, but I’ll never be two faced and talk pseudo intellectual crap to defend my bad taste!! Get a grip and be honest, you are doing it to upset people. Freedom of Speech my ass! I’ve never heard such long winded shit outside late night
art programs. Tell it like it is and you’ll get more respect.
Alexandra DeFarge
Feb 11th, 2005
I find it quite amusing that so many people who get up in arms about our build continually play the “I’ve got millitary friends!!” card.
Well, so do I. A close friend of mine ships out to Iraq this weekend. However, he recognizes the fact that Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the WTC and 9/11.
I also have a friend who lived in NYC at the time of the attacks – who watched people jump off of the towers, who was there for all the things we watched OVER AND OVER on TV until we were desensitised to it, who is still in therapy twice a week for the trauma.
She’s seen the piece in question – I expected her to be offended – but instead she laughed. She laughed and said ‘That’s awesome’. She gets it.
It isn’t pseudo intellectual garbage in an attempt to diffuse the situation – it’s honest social commentary. Call it smoke-and-mirrors if you want, it’s common practice for people to only listen to messages that reinforce their own. If we were out to offend the community at large… well, you’d know.
Taste is taste, everyone has their own. It’s much the same reason we have all of these problems with the FCC and indecency (was anyone really *harmed* by Janet Jackson’s boobie?). You can’t legislate or make rules about morality/free-speech without becoming authoritarian.
The First Amendment is not there to protect the speech you like, it’s there to protect the unpopular speech.
Typhaeon
Feb 12th, 2005
Yeah, you sure have us figured out “blow me”. How much did you buy your “jump to conclusions” mat for? Was it secondhand from George W. Bush?
Vincenzo
Feb 12th, 2005
That shi is not funny dumb fucks
blow me harder
Feb 13th, 2005
“Was it secondhand from George W. Bush?”
lol I’m not American and don’t give a shit about your American ‘politics’. I would say the same if you had a joke recreation of Tsunami disaster or something else that dealt with extreme loss of life. I don’t care about the build, it’s the silly reasons that you gave for doing it that I had to reply to. Stop kidding yourselves and admit you’re having fun annoying people!
montserrat
Feb 14th, 2005
the fuss over the towers is interesting. it does not seem troublesome that the towers exist in second life. it does not seem troublesome that people were upset by them or not upset by them.
what seems troublesome, and also seems in line with present meatbody government styles in the US, is that a person feels entitled to decide what someone else should or should not see, say, or do, and that the person making the judgement makes that call pretty much entirely based upon how they feel about the matter in question.
it reminds me very much of the fuss around andre serrano’s piss-christ. serrano took a crucifix and put it into a container of urine. in many cases, people who saw this work were offended, and they tried to prevent the work from being seen. in many of those same cases, the people who were emoting instead of thinking did not take the time to learn about the work or the artist’s intent — serrano created the work as a comment about television evangelists. but most people being blockheads, very few people went out and tried to understand what he did or why. they just thought that nobody should see the work, and tried to prevent it being seen.
the twin towers is a dark moment in world history. people are going to try to make comments about it, express things about it, try to make sense of it, etc. people who want to comment and make art about it ought to be able to do that without other people trying to shut them up. talking about stuff is a way of working through it.
regarding the stone nipples — given the amount of sexual activity either performed, suggested, and/or implied in the second life world, it seems to me that shutting down the stone nipple sculpture is an insanely ridiculous act of hypocrisy.
Cocoanut
Feb 14th, 2005
Well, my original comment got erased somehow, Uri says, so I will try to remember it:
Although I have not seen this Twin Towers display, and although the original article above seems very well-written and well balanced, I still can’t tell what the point of the work was supposed to be.
Clearly, though, it is in extremely poor taste. Even this long after the Holocaust, it would still be in extrremely poor taste to depict the suffering of those victims in graphic form on a game such as this, for whatever purported pseudo-intellectual reason.
And if the point was, “The towers are a jab at all those jingoistic idiots that plastered their cars with American flags, when they didn’t feel a whit of patriotism the day before” – then the whole thing is based on a faulty premise anyway.
So I totally agree with blow me.
Masakazu Kojima
Feb 15th, 2005
None of the people interviewed for this article had anything to do with the creation or placement of the towers or any of the things “added” to them.
montserrat
Feb 15th, 2005
excuse me coco, but if you read into the serrano thing more deeply than you apparently have, you will recall that the serrano work, along with the mapplethorpe photographs (a very few of which were homoerotic) caused at least one curator of a major museum to be fired, other museums to lose promised gifts of works and/or collections etc.
NEA money was a VERY small part of that moment.
Typhaeon
Feb 15th, 2005
“lol I’m not American and don’t give a shit about your American ‘politics’.”
This is a pretty ignorant comment from someone claiming to “tell it like it is”, seeing as how American national politics define the international realm because of America and its MNCs’ clout.
Cocoanut
Feb 16th, 2005
I recall that, now that you mention it. So?
coco
blow me harder
Feb 17th, 2005
” “lol I’m not American and don’t give a shit about your American ‘politics’.”
This is a pretty ignorant comment from someone claiming to “tell it like it is”, seeing as how American national politics define the international realm because of America and its MNCs’ clout. ”
Oh the arogance! you surely are the stereotype that the world thinks American’s are! You want fries with that? Still think the build is a sick joke though… nothing more. Now if you burned a few flags, or maybe even your bra’s that would be different.
Bill Boffin
Feb 18th, 2005
The right of free speech allows anyone to utter any opinion or say anything that doesn’t “frighten the horses” or cause “panic in crowded auditorium”. Slander and libel have their own remedies.
Free speech which offends is protected. Who knows what will offend or will not offend? The taking offence at something is a purely personal choice. Beware of people trying to make empirical truths out of their own peeve agendas.
Cocoanut
Feb 19th, 2005
The right of free speech doesn’t include freedom from the consequences of what you say. The right of free speech also doesn’t include the right to a guaranteed audience.
coco
Baphemetis
Feb 21st, 2007
I’m personally offended by every single human being in my RL experience, I believe that every single one of you should personally remove yourselves so as not to offend me. Oh and if W-hat wanted to get really constructive, you could make a inside tour on how 911 was an inside job, and if my saying that offends you, well I am offended so please remove yourself immediately.
It is quite obvious that I am incapable of averting my eyes turning the knob, or changing the channel, much like similar AS-shats are incapable of teleporting to an area in SL that dosn’t offended them. So I will continue to be here and flinging mud until I get my way in this here sandbox. It would seem there is a simpler solution here to keep me from being offended, like realizing I’m not the only one with an opinion, but since I hate to recognize that, and the fact that people have freedom of speech, I guess the next best thing to do would be to collect all potential AS-shats into two very large buildings and fly planes into them.
If at any point in my rant you were personally offended, please buy a plane and fly it into your grave.
Something in the room smells Awful
Aug 29th, 2007
Of course it was fun annoying people, and of course that’s the reason for doing it. Citing the first amendment only supports the right to do it, not the reason. Get over yourselves people and move on with your lives.
Jolene
Nov 9th, 2007
Oh hey. It’s fun to piss people off? Let’s see someone recreate Pearl Harbor, or the A bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or maybe even the death camps of Germany or Stalin’s gulags.
It went too far, period.
nevar4get
Nov 15th, 2007
nice work on the post there jolene. nearly 3 years after the fact you had to throw your 2 cents worth in.
congratulations, you officially failed the internet. please return your computer to the point of purchase, and sign the declaration of stupidity, stating that you are hereby banned from the internet.
It’s satire. It’s making light of something, that was a tragedy. Dredging up 60 year old events in order to try and make some kind of point over the internet makes you a failure. They did something you didnt like. Tough.
You’re just like those fat middle aged cheeto consuming self proclaimed ‘watchdogs’ that picket tv stations for showing “questionable” programming, instead of exercising your choice and changing the channel.
Vote 1, and move along. Thats all you need to do. Anything more than that is just futile, and only goes to highlight your ineptitude.
And yes, it would appear i’m being contradictory in replying to this article, but i’m replying to jolene here specifically, not towards the article as a whole.
donkeylol
Sep 24th, 2010
So.. what about donkeys then? Are they with no blame in all this too??
PFFF….
long live llamas!
this might or mightnot have been Seran