1. Heh. Well, Moral Majority is more of a tongue in cheek joke. The idea is that the group will vote on issues and be able to say, "the Moral Majority Decided..."

Moral Majority isn't a protest group. It is a subversive group that can outlast the present issues. I'd love to hear the Moral Majority growing into its own entity and weighing in on things. That would take a lot more than how it started... but it certainly is catchy. :-)

Remember, the Moral Majority said so. ;-)

Posted at 2:29AM on Jun 9th 2007 by Nobody Fugazi

2. "First they came for...
69 members

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... First they came for the ageplayers, & I didn't speak up, cuz I wasn't ageplaying. Then they came for the rape roleplayers, & I didn't speak up, cuz I wasn't roleplaying. Then they came for the furries, & I didn't speak up, cuz I wasn't furry. Then they came for the Goreans, the combat players, the BDSMers, the necros, the vampires, the gangsters, & I didn't speak up... Then they came for me, & there was no one left to speak up for me."

This is nauseating, a parody of the poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller about the persecution of Jews, communists, trade unionists and others by the Nazis. Wikipedia has an entry on the various versions of the poem.

Really, your soul has to be utterly deadened by the nihilistic 'culture' of Second Life not to find this odious and utterly reprehensible. To compare the (long overdue) ban on ageplay i.e. simulating child rape with the suffering of people murdered by the Nazis is horrific. I can't conceive of a worse insult to the memory of those slaughtered in the Holocaust than this.

The instigators of this group should hang their heads in shame.

Posted at 4:41AM on Jun 9th 2007 by Patroklus Murakami

3. Patroklus - I don't think anyone in any of these groups is saying that they support pedophilia, in much the people who were against the invasion of Iraq were not unpatriotic.

What a lot of people find broadly offensive is the lack of definition of 'broadly offensive'.

As far as the 'misuse' of the quote - given the context, it does fit. No one had a problem with pedophilia being a bannable offense. What people have a problem with is the lack of definition in what comes next, where the line was drawn. People have a lot of time, energy and even money invested in SecondLife and don't wish to lose that because some obscure rule is arbitrarily called out. You cannot fault people for that.

How can Linden Lab be accused of being visionary when it lacks the intestinal fortitude to be clear? No, they are being conservative. They are afraid, but in being afraid they unwittingly put everyone on the block. You may not think it is you, and yet... maybe one day it will be you.

The poem was not about Nazis and Jews. It was about people having rights, and how people stand shoulder to shoulder to defend those rights. I don't have to *like* you, or *like* what you do - but if I do not defend your right to do as you please as long as it doesn't affect people adversely (in their opinion, not yours), then I should expect to lose my rights.

So - go ahead, sound off. But expect others to do so as well. :-)

Posted at 5:09AM on Jun 9th 2007 by Nobody Fugazi

4. "The poem was not about Nazis and Jews." That's *exactly* what it was about! It was about the failure of people to act when groups were being victimised, when those groups were being rounded up and jailed and worse. To compare that with some supposed 'victimisation' of paedophile role players in SL is sick, obscene; an insult to the memory of millions of people who really suffered, out there in the real world where pain, slavery and genocide are felt by actual living, breathing human beings. I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't feel utter revulsion at the misuse of this poem and what that represents. You would have to be dead inside not to be sickened.

Does the 'hounding' and 'victimisation' of paedophiles in the real world mean that "next it's the bdsm crowd, then the polyamorous, then the gays?" Does it hell as like! Paedophilia is legislated against for good reason - people with a sexual interest in children are a danger to them. Drawing the line there does not represent 'the thin end of the wedge' ending in concentration camps for anyone not in a monogamous heterosexual marriage. To suggest something like that is ridiculous and would be seen for the hyperbole that it is in the real world.

The Lindens have introduced a degree of ambiguity by their reference to what is 'broadly offensive' but the bdsm crowd et al have gone overboard in their hysterical overreaction to this. Do we really believe the Lindens intend to stop people from playing at Gor or bdsm on their own land, on private islands away from prying eyes? I doubt it, they don't have the resources to police such a ban for starters. But here's a tip - you don't help to build a coalition for the rights of sexual minorities by drawing some sick, spurious analogy between a firm stand against people playacting child rape and the Holocaust. That's disgusting, that's wrong and it should be condemned.

Posted at 6:40AM on Jun 9th 2007 by Patroklus Murakami

5. If that's how you feel about it, you should probably talk to the group's creator/officers about it.

Posted at 8:43AM on Jun 9th 2007 by Tateru Nino

6. I think it is worthwhile pointing out that Patroklus is one of the chief reasons why I am now an ex-member of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators. He has gone on public record stating that BDSM is not a 'sexual orientation' but a mere 'lifestyle choice' and as such not protected by Community Standard 1.'Intolerance.'http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=782&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
http://secure-web2.secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php
In other words, look past his huffing and puffing about the Holocaust and paedophilia, and you'll find that he believes any sort of discrimination against BDSM is fine and he would very probably support it.

Posted at 9:07AM on Jun 9th 2007 by Carolyn Saarinen

7. Some people expect LL to do something which is quite obviously impossible: come up with a common definition of morality that will adhere to every legal jurisdiction on the planet. Well, maybe not every jurisdiction for some people because it goes against their own personal morality so only jurisdictions then with similar values, whatever these similar values may be (and thus arbitrary).

Why aren't these same people seeking clarification from their own governments as it is their governments which have created and administer said laws in the first place. If you have a serious legal question or issue, why not contact your Justice ministry or get an opinion of the Court? Indeed, people should be pressing their RL governments with the same vitriol to change the actual laws themselves if these laws are unclear or inapplicable in the virtual world; not demanding a list from LL of what vague or unreasonable laws from around the world they will or will not enforce.

While the dynamics and situations sometimes appear different, SL shares the principle social behavioral norms of RL. It is reprehensible for a user to try and abdicate their social responsibility by trying to hide behind the Terms of Service. "LL let me do it" is not a court defense nor the TOS a shield from impunity.

That said, and aside from the tenor of entitlement which permeates many people's criticism of LL's position, there is something to the concept of a virtual federal government, which is what some people seem to be asking for, as more and more people enter virtual worlds. However, once SL's server is open-sourced, such a Utopian vision will be completely unattainable for Second Life.

Also, in modern governments, the rule makers cannot also be the administrators of said rules, which is exactly what many seem to asking for here. This dilemma speaks to Robin Linden's premise that the residents should primarily determine the social rules.

Posted at 10:58AM on Jun 9th 2007 by HatHead Rickenbacker

8. ...prokofy posts to the insider hiding behind an alt?..

Posted at 12:00PM on Jun 9th 2007 by Myrrh Massiel

9. Carolyn Saarinen made the following accusation against me in these comments: "he believes any sort of discrimination against BDSM is fine and he would very probably support it."
If you read the thread that Carolyn linked to, you'll find that I argue nothing of the sort. But I do resist the attempts of intolerant types like Carolyn who try to stifle debate and silence anyone critical of bdsm and the ideology some bdsm types espouse. It's vital for a free society that we are able to handle dissent, disagreement and discussion.

Posted at 12:07PM on Jun 9th 2007 by Patroklus Murakami

10. As long as the discussion remains civil, yes. If it becomes otherwise, the the situation will be dealt with. People are free to argue, disagree, dispute and discuss. We only require that it be done so civilly.

Nonetheless, we do seem to have strayed from the main point here which is the options available to those who feel they wish their opposition to the governance policies to be noted.

Posted at 12:11PM on Jun 9th 2007 by Tateru Nino

11. I don't think LL wants to be involved with any of this. I think they are being forced to through government laws around the world putting pressure on them. They want it out of their hands. They aren't in the business of building a moral standard for this world. They are developers, hoping to build a mainstream VR platform. Their being broad because that's the best they can do to keep this somewhat low key. They'd like to please everyone but they can't.

When the server code is opened up, then this can be ironed out by private groups and governments for different served worlds. That's a separate debate in and of itself. And how it pans out, who knows.

But personally, I believe there is a moral law. I am not one to measure it on to others in knowing that I have not lived up to it myself and that God is the ultimate judge. But many of these things that we say we should be free to do are in truth making us slaves to a false since of pleasure that leaves us empty and useless. And I think it's meaningless to protest over something that only serves ourselves.

In the end, the greatest thing we have is love. Ought that be what we promote in the world? Is that not worth our time and organization? Like many though, I have ignored that before at the cost of others and myself. I'm grateful that love forgives.

Thanks.

Posted at 11:39PM on Jun 9th 2007 by DJ Cure

12. Patroklus, my attempt to 'stifle debate' consisted of a verbatim quote of item one of the Community Standards. Your response was to introduce the undefined distinction of 'lifestyle choice' versus 'sexual orientation' for no other purpose than to exclude BDSM from the protection of item one. Your attitude, and those of your friends, have forced me to sell my property and leave the CDS sims. I will leave it to others to decide which of us is 'intolerant'.

Posted at 7:35AM on Jun 10th 2007 by Carolyn Saarinen

13. This dispute is now off-topic. Carolyn Saarinen, and Patroklus Murakami, you can argue about this inworld or in any forum whose rules permit it, but this is not the place.

Posted at 8:03AM on Jun 10th 2007 by Tateru Nino

14. I thought I was offering an explanation of why I'm a member of United Protest and Patroklus was doing a good job of showing why the movement is necessary, but it's your blog.

Posted at 9:06AM on Jun 10th 2007 by Carolyn Saarinen