D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Mercurius]

I just...it's not...what the quote means, though. It doesn't suggest that one thing can lead to worse things. It states quite clearly that ignoring harm done to your neighbor is short sighted and foolish. It is not suggesting that had the Nazis changed the order of who they came for things would have gone differently. It is not a slippery slope.

This is probably getting tedious for both of us, not to mention others in the thread. I will only re-state what I've already said: I know that the quote isn't exactly the same thing, but it illustrates a phenomena whereby people are willing to stand by and do nothing as long as it isn't them, but that may lead to it ending up being them. I'm applying that logic to de-platforming, censorship, etc. One might be OK what is done today because it doesn't effect them or they don't like the thing, but what about tomorrow? It is like that old saying, "I might not agree with your opinion but I'll defend your right to express it." Or somesuch.

Well, to be fair, i find very nearly all arguments for the validity of the slippery slope to be laughable, so I'm not sure there is much discussion to be had, there.

Yeah. If you find it laughable, then there's no discussion - as I'm not interested in trying to convince you that it is a real thing.

Disclaimers on music albums didn't lead to increased censorship of music, and indeed music has become more and more widely blatant in discussion of sex, drugs, violence, and other once verboten topics in the years since those disclaimers were introduced.

Which is why I'm not in full opposition of disclaimers only. I think they're a decent middle ground that only a small minority will feel is too much or too little.

But even if we ignore that, and look at actual cases of escalating action, which is the closest thing I can think of to a non-absurd slippery slope, like the Nazi Bar Rule, or how the nazis took the Rhineland and then looked around furtively to see if they'd get stomped on for it, and then escalated when nothing happened, the idea of comparing any such case to the topic at hand is just....wildly out of proportion. There is no similarity.

Again, I'm not comparing this to that, but again, let's not go there.

 

[Mercurius]

I think the disagreements in this thread can be boiled down thusly:

Some people believe predominantly in a positive moral duty, (You ought to do this. We ought to reduce racism)
Some people believe predominantly in a negative moral duty, (you ought not to do this. We ought not to be racist)

I'm not sure this is quite right. Some, such as myself, feel that we should reduce racism, but disagree with or question some of the suggestions.

And of course, not being racist oneself reduces racism, so it isn't in-action.

But I don't think anyone here has argued that racism is good. HPL was a great author in spite of his staggering racism, not because of it.

Yes, exactly. I'm sure there are some folks that think that, but they're a small minority and I've seen no signs of it here, or anywhere actually, but I don't hang out in such circles!

BUT ALSO... You could reach Clark Ashton Smith - another great but lesser known author of short story format weird fiction. His work "The Devotee of Evil" clearly inspired lore/aesthetic elements of "The Lost Temple of Tharizdune".

He's great. The Zothique stories, perhaps in particular.

 

[Mind of tempest]

This is probably getting tedious for both of us, not to mention others in the thread. I will only re-state what I've already said: I know that the quote isn't exactly the same thing, but it illustrates a phenomena whereby people are willing to stand by and do nothing as long as it isn't them, but that may lead to it ending up being them. I'm applying that logic to de-platforming, censorship, etc. One might be OK what is done today because it doesn't effect them or they don't like the thing, but what about tomorrow? It is like that old saying, "I might not agree with your opinion but I'll defend your right to express it." Or somesuch.

Yeah. If you find it laughable, then there's no discussion - as I'm not interested in trying to convince you that it is a real thing.

Which is why I'm not in full opposition of disclaimers only. I think they're a decent middle ground that only a small minority will feel is too much or too little.

Again, I'm not comparing this to that, but again, let's not go there.

that does run into the problem of how do you stop rotten opinions from just gathering together and making themselves the definition of good, you can't ask for people to fight forever so something has to be done about them?

 

[Filthy Lucre]

that does run into the problem of how do you stop rotten opinions from just gathering together and making themselves the definition of good

You don't

you can't ask for people to fight forever

You can

 

[Mercurius]

that does run into the problem of how do you stop rotten opinions from just gathering together and making themselves the definition of good, you can't ask for people to fight forever so something has to be done about them?

I have found that suppressing something generally causes more harm than good, especially when you're talking about opinions.

And of course it depends upon what you mean by "rotten opinions."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

t is like that old saying, "I might not agree with your opinion but I'll defend your right to express it." Or somesuch.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Famously, and incorrectly, attributed to Voltaire.

See also, "95% of quotes on the internet are made up." -Abraham Lincoln

 

[Filthy Lucre]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

A sentiment that has fallen out of fashion.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I have found that suppressing something generally causes more harm than good, especially when you're talking about opinions.

And of course it depends upon what you mean by "rotten opinions."

what is racism other than a pointless and fundamentally rotten opinion?

 

[Mercurius]

what is racism other than a pointless and fundamentally rotten opinion?

Of course. But even so, I don't think suppressing such opinions is the way to go, and no one is advocating for supporting such opinions.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

that does run into the problem of how do you stop rotten opinions from just gathering together and making themselves the definition of good, you can't ask for people to fight forever so something has to be done about them?

This isn't a new issue; "Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it." was stated by Jonathan Swift in the 1700s (and, I am sure, similar sentiments were expressed long before that).

It's like anything else- you just have to trust that, in the long run, the truth will win out. It will not be easy, it will not be costless, and it will not always be pretty. But you can't sacrifice the principles of open discourse when it is convenient ... if you do, why did you bother with the fight in the first place?

After all, the truth that racism is a bad thing ... eventually won out (or, at a minimum, is winning ...). And that was not easy, or costless.

(IMO, etc.)