TSR Giantlands

[Gradine]

Giving their position Respect and Debating it Reasonably offers it legitimacy.

No. Bologna. Bigots don't win by being shut down in public discourse. Bigots win by spreading their bigotry and harming people. By manipulating people's perceptions to support their disgusting causes.

Shutting them down shuts them down. Nothing more.

Once more for the folx in the back

 

[Umbran]

Agreed.

It's just hard work. And education in rhetoric, in being persuasive and informative, can help. And practice helps. It's like any skill - a combination of learning about how to do it, and then doing it over and over again, to get better at it.

Folks have been trying this for centuries, and still bigotry is strong in the world. Sure, there are examples of this working with individuals. But, by your own description, this does not scale due to the amount of work involved.

There is a point where you can no longer afford to engage in bespoke, artisanal, small-batch conversion of bigots. You are, in essence, chastising people for failing to choose an inefficient, error-prone path that will not get the job done on the scale necessary at this time.

 

[Gradine]

You appear to be arguing with yourself.

How is "there is no degree of acceptable bigotry" meaningfully different than "any level of toxicity is all levels of toxicity because the well is poisoned now." How is what I said in any way a strawman of your position?

Because you are dodging the issue on bigotry by referring to it as anything (dissent, toxicity, etc.) but bigotry. Because those concepts (even toxicity) are a lot more palatable to defend than "bigotry". So you do that, instead of openly defending bigotry, as a legitimate belief structure owed respect, which is exactly what you are actually doing.

 

[Remathilis]

Agreed.

It's just hard work. And education in rhetoric, in being persuasive and informative, can help. And practice helps. It's like any skill - a combination of learning about how to do it, and then doing it over and over again, to get better at it.

The most persuasive person I've ever met is Gloria Steinem. That's not me trying to name drop - I do not know her, and she wouldn't know me to look at me. I am not even speaking to her views (though I like many of her views) I am purely speaking to her ability to change people's minds, directly. I saw it in person, in a relatively small group. And it was incredible. To put it in gaming terms, she was the highest level bard I've ever seen. Nobody could stand up to her mind and tongue. The worst bigot would wither to confront her, no matter how confident they were going in. Any audience that was on the fence about a variety of questionable views would lean her way at the end of a direct conversation about those views. It was truly an inspirational moment, to see what the best of persuasion can look like.

I dunno. People call my generation X lazy. And OK, that's a fair knock, a lot of us can be lazy. But I feel like this laziness has extended into further generations but was just rebranded with a thin sheen of righteousness. Like "We don't call it laziness, we call it shunning." As if "not engaging in the hard work of persuasion" is somehow a morally good thing when really it's just the same "I don't want to do that hard work I'd rather just be patted on the back a lot by like minded individuals" repackaged and rebranded for a new era.

Think about a food you absolutely despise. What could I say, argue, or cite use to prove to you that you should have it for dinner tonight?

Here, I'll let you try. I can't stand eggs. Scrambled, fried, hard boiled, over easy, none of them. Use your rhetoric to convince me that I should have an omelette tonight. I'll help you out in that my dislike doesn't have to do with any allergies, moral objections or dietary restriction, I just don't like eggs.

If you have neither the time, patience or energy to convince me to eat eggs, imagine trying to convince people constantly of things like "trans women are women" or "black people have a right not to be killed by the police".

Anyway, dinner is in two hours...

 

[Bolares]

Well, if I argue with myself, the only possible result is that I'll win...

 

[Gradine]

That doesn't make bigoted beliefs acceptable - but it does make someone human, and it does make it OK to accept people with some degrees of bigotry in our lives because we all have some degrees of bigotry in us.

You are confusing bigotry and bias. Everyone has some degrees of bias within ourselves. However, most of us manage to make it through our lives without making a hobby/career out of attacking the minoritized and disenfranchized for online bigotry brownie points. Therein lies the distinction.

 

[Mistwell]

Authoritarianism has nothing to do with people shaming you for interacting with someone, or even discouraging it. It's entirely about the state exercising unchecked power.

Oh no, that is not authoritarianism. It starts with the people. It ALWAYS starts with people. Struggle Sessions in Maoist China happened from the bottom up - with ordinary people shaming those who had unacceptable views. And then moved to throwing rocks at them. And then moved to hanging them in public. Same in Stalinist Russia - it took people turning in their neighbors. Authoritarianism is a movement which usually happens from the people to the people. The Government tries to control it but it gets out of hand - which is what caused Mao to eventually send all the young people to the rural areas to do farming, where they'd do the least harm and maybe stop hanging all the college professors for not saying the right-enough things.

I'm pointing this out because for someone who's interested in people avoiding the extreme poles of discourse you're repurposing some of the worst examples of bad faith, both-sides rhetoric.

You think the people I talk to suck? Well you must be an Authoritarian,

No, that is not at all what I am saying and I am unsure how you could have in good faith drawn that conclusion from what I am saying. I think the people he talked to suck as well (or at least one of them - I do not know the others). I don't think it's authoritarian to say he sucks. Not at all.

I think it's authoritarian to say anyone who speaks to him must, by that association alone, agree with his views. And that we should therefore shun anyone who speaks to those whose views we find unacceptable. That is classic authoritarianism. That is what leads to blacklisting anyone who ever attended a socialist or communist meeting once in their lives. Or listening to the speech of someone who ends up expressing views we deeply disagree with.

cause...those are, like, bad people, right? And apparently when a private citizen who isn't in government tells another private citizen to shut up that's about free speech? Let's just cut the chase and rail against the dreaded Woke Mob!

I've never said it's about the first amendment, and I've never mentioned any "Woke Mob." Please don't put words in my mouth. There is no reason for that strawmanning. My ideas stand on their own just fine without you changing them into something you find easier to knock down.

Only other thing I'd note is that just as you've thrown yourself into a one-person-vs.-everyone-else battle royale (and one that has the unfortunate requirement that you keep saying you don't like all of this guy's opinions...) consider the fact that being the lone voice of reason among Pundit's fans is not necessarily helping anything. More grist for the mill, more reasons to keep them animated and assured that their positions are worth arguing for.

You keep acting like I am defending Pundit by saying he's not David Duke. But that's not a fair characterization. I say he is not David Duke to explain why engaging with him to refute his ideas is not a bad thing. In no world can one fairly say that engaging with someone to refute their ideas is defending that person.

And yes, these things do help. Drawing clear lines that talking to those we disagree with to try and change minds is a good thing does help many people do the same in their lives. If it doesn't help you, that's OK. But, I don't think you can speak for everyone on who is or is not helped by this conversation.

 

[Mistwell]

IF Steampunkette were a ruler or governmental authority, or if Steampunkette were prompting the government to force you and RPGPundit into compliance, you might be right. As it is, it seems to me that Steampunkette is exhorting the rest of us who agree that bigots are a problem as to how we should individually freely choose to react to bigots. There is no compulsion here.

Authoritarianism is usually ordinary people acting in an authoritarian manner. I don't know where this idea that it has to be the Government doing it is coming from, but "Punch a Nazi" never meant "But only if they work for the Government." You know, I know, everyone knows that ordinary people can and do behave in authoritarian manners. And views can be authoritarian views. What Steampunkette wrote is a classic authoritarian view. A Maoist would be proud of Steampunkette's views. A liberal from the 1960s would picket Stempunkette as "the Man."

 

[Bolares]

Oh no, that is not authoritarianism. It starts with the people. It ALWAYS starts with people.

Comming from a country where there's a histpry of military regimes taking over, and having a president that is viewed as authoritharian by most of the population and international media... no it doesn't.

 

[Riley]

Authoritarianism is usually ordinary people acting in an authoritarian manner. I don't know where this idea that it has to be the Government doing it is coming from, but "Punch a Nazi" never meant "But only if they work for the Government." You know, I know, everyone knows that ordinary people can and do behave in authoritarian manners. And views can be authoritarian views. What Steampunkette wrote is a classic authoritarian view. A Maoist would be proud of Steampunkette's views. A liberal from the 1960s would picket Stempunkette as "the Man."

Uh, yeah. No. “You know, I know, everyone knows” is not a definition. “Authoritarianism is usually ordinary people acting in an authoritarian manner” is a tautology. What definition are you using, from where?