For One Second Lifer, Virtual Activism Transfers to the Real World

September 2, 2009 -

Social activism in virtual venues may indeed transfer to the real world.

New World Notes reports on such a transition by Second Lifer KallfuNahuel Matador, who in 2006 helped protect an SL African genocide awareness site from griefers.

Turn the clock ahead three years, however, and the flesh-and-blood man behind the Matador avatar is in the real Africa, doing backbreaking volunteer work (see pic). He told NWN's Wagner James Au:

The friends I made in the [SL] Virtual Camp Darfur are heavily involved in humanitarian activities in their first lives. Better World and Camp Darfur were extensions of their work and attempts to spread the word of the causes they stood for...

We discussed telling [their African hosts] we'd met in SL, but the idea of a virtual world where we interact but not in our own bodies? Difficult to convey...

 

[SL users should] really get to know the people you're working with in SL, research their [real-life] projects. Get to know them, talk to them, see if there's a 'fit' for you in their cause... Or, And if you aren't lucky enough to be able to travel far and wide, then find a way to help the cause locally.


Comments

Re: For One Second Lifer, Virtual Activism Transfers to the ...

Wouldn't it have been better for him to help IRL the whole time, instead of yelling at people via the internet?  I mean, yeah, it's great that he's actually helping out, but the need for the help has been there for a long time.  Wouldn't him helping IRL before actually been a greater boon to the cause than shouting at people online, in Second Life no less?

---

He was dead when I got here.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: For One Second Lifer, Virtual Activism Transfers to the ...

Neat.

I am reminded of the whole 'Project Chanology" thing though.

"
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will we ever get Half-Life 3?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sleaker@prh99 - the ZQ stuff was a catalyst, but GG didn't explode until the Gamers are dead articles popped up everywhere, see article 3 in the link I posted.10/02/2014 - 9:04am
prh99The articles by Leigh Alexander and others were in response to what happened to Anita and Quinn and this toxic subset of gamers. 10/02/2014 - 9:02am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, My timeline puts events in the order that prh99 just laid out. Had Quinn's ex-boyfriend not been an incredible douchebag, we might not be where we are.10/02/2014 - 9:00am
prh99The blog post by Quinn's exboyfriend suggesting she slept with journalists to get favorable reviews was the impetus for #gamergate.10/02/2014 - 8:54am
SleakerTechRaptor seems to do a decent job of breaking down things in it's currently 6-part series: http://techraptor.net/2014/09/23/good-morning-orthodoxy-1/ - and why atleast for him, the whole Media-thing is offensive.10/02/2014 - 8:53am
SleakerSo from all of the articles I've read that give timelines and show tag trends, there's nothing to support GG being about AS or Quinn. These were a minority of people harassing.. The large portion of GG started when the 'Gamers are dead' articles started.10/02/2014 - 8:45am
prh99Btw apparently they've gone as far as creating a GitHub for this Operation Disrespectful Nod. http://bit.ly/1qsbWcq10/02/2014 - 8:44am
Sleakerthey don't consider the issue. This is the consumeristic nature of a market.10/02/2014 - 8:41am
prh99Attacking their integrity and now getting advertisers to pull their ads from those sites.10/02/2014 - 8:40am
Sleaker@EZK - Telling a company you disagree with the nature of a news sites methodology and feel it negatively impacts the ad-running company as a supporter of said articles is not censorship. It's voicing your opinion that you will vote with your wallet if10/02/2014 - 8:38am
prh99I don't think they have any interested in debate. They scared Anita and Quinn with threats of violence, now they are going to try and damage organizations who called them their behavior.10/02/2014 - 8:36am
E. Zachary KnightWhat I can't understand is why gamergate supporters feel the need to silence their critics. Why can't they simply fight free speech with free speech.10/02/2014 - 8:23am
E. Zachary KnightSo what I am saying is that since gamergate failed to force Gamasutra to retract their editorial directly, they are now going the starvation route.10/02/2014 - 8:22am
E. Zachary KnightAs an illustration, you can kill someone by shooting them in the head, or you can starve them to death. The means don't matter, just the ends.10/02/2014 - 8:18am
E. Zachary Knightquiknkold, I can't speak for James, but trying to silence a critic by blocking its financial supporters is a censorious activity. It may not be the same as direct censoring, but its ends are the same.10/02/2014 - 8:18am
E. Zachary KnightMecha, I found neither the title nor the content of Gamasutra's Gamers are Dead article inflammatory. But I guess that just means I was the target audience for it.10/02/2014 - 8:16am
prh99@james_fudge Agreed, but then again this group doesn't exactly have high ethical standards or even a grasp of hypocrisy. They do pretty much anything to damage their targets.10/02/2014 - 8:14am
MechaTama31Are... Are you guys suggesting that the content of the "Gamers are over" article is *less* inflammatory than the title?10/02/2014 - 7:58am
quiknkoldhey James, Boycotts are not Censorship. Supreme Court NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982)10/02/2014 - 7:37am
Michael ChandraWhat's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. That said, the name says it all.10/02/2014 - 7:34am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician