TSR Giantlands

[TechOgre2000]

Why are we using so many duck metaphors? Poor ducks, why do we malign them so much?

Ducks... natures most flammable birds. Those feathery monsters caused two oven fires, cost me one oven, and, here's the kicker, didn't taste that great.

That's why we oppress ducks! For culinary purity!

My crusade is welcome to all foodies!

 

[Bolares]

Ducks... natures most flammable birds. Those feathery monsters caused two oven fires, cost me one oven, and, here's the kicker, didn't taste that great.

That's why we oppress ducks! For culinary purity!

My crusade is welcome to all foodies!

Kids, this is why you don't let your ducks cook on your ovens...

 

[TechOgre2000]

Kids, this is why you don't let your ducks cook on your ovens...

Yeah, I leave duck cooking to the experts now.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Weirdly, I saw this posted this morning-

Why is it so hard to forgive?

Elizabeth Bruenig on forgiveness and the performative cruelty of the digital age.

www.vox.com

Which dovetails into some of the things you've been saying.

Good article.

 

[Mistwell]

Yeah. I can't say you don't have a right to judge the man as you choose, other than to note that saints are hard to find these days.



And that is an incredibly low bar for being a decent human being. Maybe we should raise the expectations a tad, hm?

You folks seem to have each set standards the other isn't going to find acceptable. So, from the outside, it doesn't look like either of you are going to budge. Please ask yourselves if you really want to do this dance before you continue. Thanks.

Of note, that's not the standard I set. I was responding to that comparison from someone else.

 

[Mistwell]

At some point, you have to accept that the schtick is him. And if it’s not him, but he keeps sticking to it, he‘d rather be known for it than being himself. Either way, it’s pretty damning.

Fun fact: Pundit has other youtube channels under entirely different schtick which have nothing to do with RPGs. No, I will not out those other channels because that's his business. But yeah, he's TRYING to be controversial for that persona, akin to Wally George. I am not defending his schtick - it's incredibly annoying, and wrong, and I tell that to him directly on a regular basis and refute the nonsense he posts under tha persona very often.

But the claim was made (and I think it was a very lazy level of claim) that he's the equivalent of David Duke or HP Lovecraft. That's not true. It's an extreme exaggeration in a situation which doesn't call for exaggeration. Pundits flaws stand on their own without the need to pretend they are something they're not.

And the reason I think people exaggerate like that is so they can raise the "It's OK to be intolerant of the intolerant" Popper's Paradox justification for their dehumanizing someone else. But you can only use that paradox to justify your own authoritarian behavior in the extreme cases - Popper himself said, even in the footnote where the paradox is stated, that most of the time the right and ethical thing to do is to simply carefully and persuasively refute the positions which we disagree with. Which of course takes work, and includes (if you're going to be persuasive) acknowledging the humanity of the person you're refuting.

By exaggerating Pundit to extreme levels, I think people think it's OK to behave in an authoritarian manner towards him. To extend that authoritarian attitude to even anyone who comes in contact with him.

That's, at best, lazy. At worst, it becomes a witch hunt based on new orthodoxy where anyone tainted by exposure to bad beliefs must be purged.

Wherever it lands on that spectrum, I think it shouldn't be done. Pundit's not David Duke or HP Lovecraft, so just refute the things he says which are wrong. It's not that hard - I do it all the time. I've had success with that. Others would too if they took the effort. And if you think his views are not worth the effort that's fine - but then don't say anyone who does an interview with him is somehow tainted by his views when you're not even willing to discuss and refute those views yourself without being incredibly dismissive and hand waving the entire issue as "bad man."

 

[Mistwell]

Not only that, but he keeps welcoming people into his home who are avowed racists, right wing extremists who have espoused support for violence against people of different ideologies, and other people who if you keep inviting into your home, people are gonna assume you agree with them. Not to mention his own awful stuff he's said over the years.

So no, I don't think any self respecting person would do an interview with them, whether it's an act or not. Alex Jones said it was all an act in his court appearance, but no reasonable person would do an interview with him.

Woah wait a second. Am I mistaken in recalling that you posted there for years, and had direct conversations with him for years? That he'd sometimes ask you questions which you would answer?

 

[Steampunkette]

Fun fact: Pundit has other youtube channels under entirely different schtick which have nothing to do with RPGs. No, I will not out those other channels because that's his business. But yeah, he's TRYING to be controversial for that persona, akin to Wally George. I am not defending his schtick - it's incredibly annoying, and wrong, and I tell that to him directly on a regular basis and refute the nonsense he posts under tha persona very often.

But the claim was made (and I think it was a very lazy level of claim) that he's the equivalent of David Duke or HP Lovecraft. That's not true. It's an extreme exaggeration in a situation which doesn't call for exaggeration. Pundits flaws stand on their own without the need to pretend they are something they're not.

And the reason I think people exaggerate like that is so they can raise the "It's OK to be intolerant of the intolerant" Popper's Paradox justification for their dehumanizing someone else. But you can only use that paradox to justify your own authoritarian behavior in the extreme cases - Popper himself said, even in the footnote where the paradox is stated, that most of the time the right and ethical thing to do is to simply carefully and persuasively refute the positions which we disagree with. Which of course takes work, and includes (if you're going to be persuasive) acknowledging the humanity of the person you're refuting.

By exaggerating Pundit to extreme levels, I think people think it's OK to behave in an authoritarian manner towards him. To extend that authoritarian attitude to even anyone who comes in contact with him.

That's, at best, lazy. At worst, it becomes a witch hunt based on new orthodoxy where anyone tainted by exposure to bad beliefs must be purged.

Wherever it lands on that spectrum, I think it shouldn't be done. Pundit's not David Duke or HP Lovecraft, so just refute the things he says which are wrong. It's not that hard - I do it all the time. I've had success with that. Others would too if they took the effort. And if you think his views are not worth the effort that's fine - but then don't say anyone who does an interview with him is somehow tainted by his views when you're not even willing to discuss and refute those views yourself without being incredibly dismissive and hand waving the entire issue as "bad man."

With the corollary of...

And, of course, as simply as possible:

You cannot argue with a bigot. The bigot has no interest in being reasonable. The bigot has no interest in being fair.

Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man. You step forward. He steps back. Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.

 

[billd91]

Fun fact: Pundit has other youtube channels under entirely different schtick which have nothing to do with RPGs. No, I will not out those other channels because that's his business. But yeah, he's TRYING to be controversial for that persona, akin to Wally George. I am not defending his schtick - it's incredibly annoying, and wrong, and I tell that to him directly on a regular basis and refute the nonsense he posts under tha persona very often.

But the claim was made (and I think it was a very lazy level of claim) that he's the equivalent of David Duke or HP Lovecraft. That's not true. It's an extreme exaggeration in a situation which doesn't call for exaggeration. Pundits flaws stand on their own without the need to pretend they are something they're not.

No, he’s not a David Duke, he’s a Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson. He’s a media manipulator carrying water for the likes of the David Dukes in the world. And that still makes him scum.

 

[Mistwell]

“Careful what you pretend to be because you are what you pretend to be.” Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Oh the irony of this statement, which only those who know which other personas that person pretends to have will understand.

With the corollary of...

And, of course, as simply as possible:

You cannot argue with a bigot. The bigot has no interest in being reasonable. The bigot has no interest in being fair.

Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man. You step forward. He steps back. Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.

First, that's the very paradox cartoon which I am saying IS NOT WHAT POPPER SAYS IN THAT VERY FOOTNOTE. In fact it's the opposite of what he says for most "intolerant" positions. The entire theme of the books that comes from is him arguing with bigots. That's EVERYTHING Popper was doing - arguing with bigots. Successfully I might add. From the very footnote where he describes this paradox, "In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. " His whole set of books is doing just that!

Posting memes and one-line Tweets, that's lazy too. None of what you just responded with is your own words, it's just you parroting back stock answers without the need for you to actually address the specific points being made.