No, I have not changed my view that BDSM, Gor, or other similar behaviours should NOT be banned. I would like to see such behaviours better managed, however, ideally through discussion, consensus, and ultimately, self-governance of these communities. And, as I’ve said before, my notion of “better managed” really just means that they should not be “public” — again, with the understanding that we need to negotiate exactly what “public” means.

My comments were in direct response to lol’s about libertarianism vs. Conservatism. I was arguing, in a fairly general sense (and not necessarily with specific reference to depictions of violence against women, etc.) that the freedom/tyranny dichotomy that he(?) was trying to establish was a gross simplification. I don’t see that this is a contradiction. The fact that I believe that there IS a necessity for some laws does not imply that I think we should be slapping restrictions on everything. Conversely, while I don’t believe that BDSM, Gor, rape sims, and the like should be banned, it doesn’t follow that I believe that RL or SL should be “lawless.” Do you?

It’s that kind of thinking, precisely, that I was criticizing lol for.

One of the “laws” of SL, for example, is that minors are not permitted on the main grid. I think that is a good law. Another is that you should not be able to publish RL information about someone in-world without their permission. This I think is also a good law. But I actually sincerely believe that BDSM, for instance, serves a need for some people. And that, when practiced correctly and safely, it is essentially benign. So I see no need to slap a law on it.

As I am sure I’ve said before, the issue, I think, is not about whether or not to impose “laws”; again, do we REALLY want an entirely lawless culture? It’s about where we draw the line separating the prohibited from the permitted, between community safety and individual freedoms. In other words, it is about those “grey areas” of the spectrum. In this regard, SL is no different from RL. I don’t have a perfect answer to that myself, but then even if I thought I did, I wouldn’t want to impose it: I would want to establish it through dialogue.

As for the “harm” that may or may not come from public depictions of violence against women, that is (I will freely admit) a matter of debate. Of course it needs to be established, by the COMMUNITY, that it is harmful before any action, voluntary or legislated, need be taken. And, again, that will take discussion. I certainly have my own views, some very strongly held, but I don’t think I’ve anywhere said that I want to impose them on the community by divine fiat.

Your argument has come back around again to what people are criticizing you for. You said that you are not for “banning” or “making illegal.” “As for “interfering” with your life by means of legislation, if it stops you, or anyone else, from arbitrarily harming someone else, then I’d say there is sufficient merit in it to at least warrant discussion” is how you ended your last post.

So lets assume for this argument that adult content harms people. What you have shown me previously does not show that.

If it creates harm, you have to ask what do you do to stop the harm. You have argued against making it a criminal act. You can’t possibly mean that you want adult content to be a civil wrong, similar to suing your neighbor for cutting down your tree. But it sounds like you want it more than something that’s looked down upon and placed behind high fences.

You seem to imagine a rather narrow political spectrum. There are libertarians . . . and everyone else is a “Conservative,” because “only Conservatives would try to pass laws and interfer[sic] with other people’s lives”?

I’ve already responded to this kind of reductive black/white argument, above:

“[I]ntelligent and reasonable people understand that the world isn’t merely black and white: it consists of a broad spectrum of grey. This is the great challenge of being human: avoiding the knee-jerk facile absolutist perspective that divides the world arbitrarily into “good” and “bad,” “right” and “wrong,” and instead endeavouring to BALANCE the rights of the individual with the well-being of the community.”

There is more to heaven and earth than is apparently imagined in YOUR political philosophy, lol.

And yep, sometimes that means passing laws. ALL laws interfere with people’s lives: we generally don’t try to legislate chipmunks. There are good laws, and there are bad laws. The best way to produce good ones is research, consult, and discuss.

As for “interfering” with your life by means of legislation, if it stops you, or anyone else, from arbitrarily harming someone else, then I’d say there is sufficient merit in it to at least warrant discussion.

Sounds like your a Conservative,because only Conservatives would try to pass laws and interfer with other people’s lives.

“Isn’t SL supposed to be Libertarian …?”

According to whom? Philip Linden, for all his own libertarian tendencies, never mandated it as such. It doesn’t say so in the ToS, and large parts of the CS weaken the tendency to libertarianism. As the 2007 crackdown on sexualized ageplay also most certainly did. Would a truly libertarian society have an AR mechanism at all?

And while it HAS been the playground of many libertarians, they are very far from the only people, and only viewpoints, represented here. What is more, they are increasingly on the descendant: as SL becomes more and more diverse, we are seeing LL respond with (admittedly largely inept) attempts to impose a cultural view that blends tolerance with an awareness of the importance of community. The Zindra debacle, and the new Community Partnership initiative are all evidence of that.

I think you are correct insofar as the application itself is set up in such a way as to favour a libertarian approach. I think I would suggest that, in so doing, it has done a fine job of highlighting many of the more important weaknesses of such a system.

I have nothing against “Your imagination,” or anyone else’s . . . unless it starts to cause harm to others.

Isn’t SL supposed to be Libertarian and isn’t the motto,Your world,Your imagination?

“Well, first they took away the right to blow up schools and government buildings, but I didn’t get involved because I don’t do that. Then they took away the right to shoot people who are annoying, but I didn’t get involved, because I’ve never shot anyone. Then they insisted I shouldn’t be able to stick a knife into people I don’t like. Oh, it’s a terribly slippy slope: how long before they ban plastic utensils!?!?!?”

Oh, this is such a tiresome and fallacious argument. So, we allow EVERYTHING, because it’s ALL a “slippery slope”?

In civilized societies we make rules to limit the harm that people can do to each other. There is, and should be, debate about what constitutes “harm,” and where we draw the line, but then intelligent and reasonable people understand that the world isn’t merely black and white: it consists of a broad spectrum of grey. This is the great challenge of being human: avoiding the knee-jerk facile absolutist perspective that divides the world arbitrarily into “good” and “bad,” “right” and “wrong,” and instead endeavouring to BALANCE the rights of the individual with the well-being of the community.

Read some Thomas Hobbes, Orion. I’m sure the world you envision would work too . . . at least for the last man left standing.

You’re correct,because that is what is happening in SL now,with the Zindra stuff and whatnot. I believe it’s the same as the famous WW2 quote of “They’re coming for me.”

first they came for the child avatars,but i didn’t get involved because i wasn’t a child avatar,then they came for the adult content,but i didn’t get involved because i wasn’t adult content,then they came for me,but there was no one to speak up for me.

Anyone who can be bothered to remember my fat ass remembers I’ma real life rape survivor, and I run a rape counselling centre on SL. I despise rape, and am personally disgusted by rape fantasy, but I will always support the right of consenting adults to do whatever they bloody please in private as long as no one gets hurt.

I just hate the ones who go out of their way to advertise that particular fetish. Do whatever you like in private. Just don’t foist it on the rest of us.

I was a short-lived member of Stop Violence Against Women because I couldn’t believe that members could defend the censorship of Words. Because what people seem to forget in SL, over and over again, is that the entire thing is basically an interactive novel. Words, spoken and answered. There is no difference from banning a person who’s exploring their fantasies of rape and torture to banning a novel that depicts such a thing.

The key issue is that everyone on SL is an adult, and everything they participate in is 100 percent consensual. (No matter how many women want to claim that they’ve been “emotionally raped” in Second Life.) No one should have a right to infringe on people’s *written* or spoken fantasies, no matter what they may involve. Censorship of words is always wrong.