The challenge on the challenge blog hasn't been updated. Does that mean we're all off the hook?
In other news...SL7B. And already major controversy concerning an artist named Misprint Thursday.
I present to you from Joonie's blog (linked above), the start of what I think is a terrifying exchange that actually took place:
SHAWN Masters: you do have pedifiles
Misprint Thursday: that has nothing to do with these pictures
Mr. Masters is a moderator for SL7B. First of all, even with all the controversy and drama, remember last year? SL6B? Where we heard about the upcoming birthday celebration from March on? Off and on, little bits here and there, and then May and BAM, everyone you knew was planning an exhibit?
Or at least me; half my friends applied, it seemed, a third got approved, and there it was.
The seventh anniversary of Second Life? A blip. Didn't even know it had started, frankly, until I logged in a couple days back (before the hard drive bottomed out) and saw a brief mention on the log-in screen. That's how underplayed the whole thing has been.
So this guy who wants to shout his name to all and sundry, because he was too stupid to take his capslock off when he created his avatar that first day, comes up to Thursday and essentially, accuses an artist of encouraging pedophiles (which name he misspells) on the grid.
Let that sink in.
Blondin Linden, by the way? Standing around. Never said a word to Thursday during the whole of the pedophile conversation by report. Not. One. Word. While Masters is haranguing Thursday, likely publically, a Linden who could have been giving out accurate information is...standing around. Silent.
Gosh, doesn't that just sound like the employees that are left.
SHAWN Masters: there are on average....20 pedifiles within a 50 mile square
Misprint Thursday: listen
SHAWN Masters: SL is a breeding ground
Misprint Thursday: that has nothing to do with this
You'd expect to get this sort of reaction from the public, who never bother to come in to SL; especially from the Germans, who've apparently done little else but news blurbs since "The Incident" pondering if SL has changed from being that horrible little place that did those horrible little things to those virtual children...
...but from someone who's gained enough power and trust to be a moderator for SL7B? You'd like to think those people have more than two braincells to smash together, wouldn't you?
Mr. Masters, not that I expect you to know how to web-surf from this, but if you do happen to trip over this blog entry, I would be remiss ("re·miss", it means 'failing to do your duty) if I didn't tell you a few things. Namely:
1. It's more properly spelt "pedophiles", taken from "pedophilia", id est, from the Greek "παιδοφιλια" or paidophilia; most precisely it refers to the love for boy children, but it's been expanded upon being named a mental disorder to mean any love or adoration (sexual or emotional) for underage partners, typically children. It is not, and never has been, "pedifiles".
2. A naked image of a Barbie (TM) doll is nothing most children (of at least Western industrialized countries) have not already been exposed to; lacking nipples, genital definition and even a belly-button, she can't be said to be an adult image, in any sense of the word. Period. End of discussion.
Now, can Barbies (TM) be made to be adult images? Oh, sure. It's all in the poses, really (though that's not a doll, that's a digitally altered human made to resemble a doll...obviously). And it's not like even most of those feature really outre subject matter, for the most part. Remove the adult understanding of the sexual component and what are you left with? The little girl who makes her dolls kiss. The children who undress their dolls before bed, bathe them, then dress them in night clothes. Without context, where is the problem?
In other words, Mr. Masters, if you're not obsessing about pedophilia, thinking about it, to the exclusion of all else...you wouldn't have seen that as harmful, I think.
Now, I do know the Lindens are insisting--foolishly--on the PG rating for the whole of the birthday sims; it was stupid when it was first introduced, it's stupid now, it's not going to change; I get that, fine. And considering avatars can have extremely realistic--in fact, even sculpted and primmed out carefully--sexual characteristics, I get that some things would automatically be considered beyond the pale.
In fact, I'd be willing to argue the point that the Susa Bubble art installation might be beyond that line, because it deals with avatar nudity, which is the state of affairs the Lindens are trying to push to the side.
But a flat-prim picture of a naked Barbie (TM)? Seriously? That was considered so shocking, so horrifying, that the artist was bounced from the sim, bounced from the exhibitors' group, and not allowed to return to pick up what remained of her installation?
I don't know if the Lindens actually realize this, but that rather is the textbook definition of artistic censorship--agreeing to host a work of art, then removing the bits one doesn't approve of, and showing it anyway. And that is why museums and galleries who engage in such practices are so universally loathed as the Quislings they are.
The entirety of the Susa Bubble installation, as I understand it, was returned, or never allowed in in the first place; I can't argue with that, per se, because of that whole PG rating, and how narrowly the Lindens define "PG".
But the single texture of the naked Barbie (TM) doll? Seriously? THAT image. That image made Blondin Linden ban her from the SL7B sims.
Linden Labs have lost their minds. I know, I seem to say that a great deal, but this time? I can't see any other way to take this decision.
Oh, and Philip Linden also made a speech, wherein he said that SL wasn't becoming the next FaceBook, just the next MySpace. And that SL is a medieval town and we need to attack the fortifications until there are no walls and everyone can just walk right in and enjoy the magnificence and creative freedom that is SL.
Yeah. Unless, you know, you want to do art that's not completely and totally safe, that challenges no existing status quo.
I guess it's all in what the Labs want. Because, you know the saying...Their world. Their imagination.
But a flat-prim picture of a naked Barbie (TM)? Seriously? That was considered so shocking, so horrifying, that the artist was bounced from the sim, bounced from the exhibitors' group, and not allowed to return to pick up what remained of her installation?
I don't know if the Lindens actually realize this, but that rather is the textbook definition of artistic censorship--agreeing to host a work of art, then removing the bits one doesn't approve of, and showing it anyway. And that is why museums and galleries who engage in such practices are so universally loathed as the Quislings they are.
The entirety of the Susa Bubble installation, as I understand it, was returned, or never allowed in in the first place; I can't argue with that, per se, because of that whole PG rating, and how narrowly the Lindens define "PG".
But the single texture of the naked Barbie (TM) doll? Seriously? THAT image. That image made Blondin Linden ban her from the SL7B sims.
Linden Labs have lost their minds. I know, I seem to say that a great deal, but this time? I can't see any other way to take this decision.
Oh, and Philip Linden also made a speech, wherein he said that SL wasn't becoming the next FaceBook, just the next MySpace. And that SL is a medieval town and we need to attack the fortifications until there are no walls and everyone can just walk right in and enjoy the magnificence and creative freedom that is SL.
Yeah. Unless, you know, you want to do art that's not completely and totally safe, that challenges no existing status quo.
I guess it's all in what the Labs want. Because, you know the saying...Their world. Their imagination.