M.A.R. Barker, author of Tekumel, also author of Neo-Nazi book?

[MGibster]

In other similar contexts, I’ve made the point that the person may be entitled to a living, but it may not be the kind of living he would otherwise choose.

I want to stay away from actual criminals for a moment, lest I run afoul of any political discussions that are beyond the scope of this board's purpose. But at least here in the United States, that's a pretty common attitude that makes it hard for people who have done wrong in the past to integrate successfully back into society. In the case of people like Barker and Lovecraft, they're dead and there is no path for them to come back into society. At least not without the right incantations. While I don't mind purchasing something with Lovecraft's name on it today, I wouldn't purchase anything if he were still alive and held fast to his odious beliefs (see JK Rowling & Bill Cosby). I do think it's in our best interest to make sure people have a path to return to polite society once they've stopped the offensive behavior.

 

[Parmandur]

I want to stay away from actual criminals for a moment, lest I run afoul of any political discussions that are beyond the scope of this board's purpose. But at least here in the United States, that's a pretty common attitude that makes it hard for people who have done wrong in the past to integrate successfully back into society. In the case of people like Barker and Lovecraft, they're dead and there is no path for them to come back into society. At least not without the right incantations. While I don't mind purchasing something with Lovecraft's name on it today, I wouldn't purchase anything if he were still alive and held fast to his odious beliefs (see JK Rowling & Bill Cosby). I do think it's in our best interest to make sure people have a path to return to polite society once they've stopped the offensive behavior.

There are a couple big differences between Lovecraft and Barker here for me.

The first and big one us...Lovecraft slipped into Public Domain, so there is no Lovecraft Estate that benefits financially if I read q story of His, or watch a show that makes use of his aesthetic. With Barker, there are living people who knew he had Nazi sympathies, and swept it under a rug whole they continued to profit from his work.

Secondly, Lovecraft never hid any of his bigotry. It's all spelled out explicitly all over his work, easy to see and address critically in the open. Barker was clever enough to hide what he thought, even going to the trouble of using a pseudonym for his explicit Nazi novel. This makes the potential Nazi content of his other work more fraught, and may involve subtler nefarious elements thst would require careful energy to dissect, and who has the time.

 

[dragoner]

I think a lot of what is happening is like the quote from the movie Jacob's Ladder:
"If you're afraid of dying, and you're holdin' on, you'll see devils tearin' your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freein' you from the world. It all depends on how you look at it."

With other forum posters being the devils here. People want to hold onto that setting, not for itself, instead as it represents that time of their life they invested in it. Nevertheless, the reality is that it is only another form of denial, as it is not other people, except the author themself that has betrayed the fans. Similar to Rowling and the Potter-verse.

The Adam and Eve moment has passed, however, the knowledge of what Barker has done will always be there in people's minds, no external process can change that.

 

[overgeeked]

The first and big one us...Lovecraft slipped into Public Domain, so there is no Lovecraft Estate that benefits financially if I read q story of His, or watch a show that makes use of his aesthetic

Tell that to Arkham House, Chaosium, S.T. Joshi, and the Lovecraft literary estate run by Robert C. Harrall. The best article that I’ve found on this is:

The Black Seas of Copyright: Home

www.aetherial.net

 

[Parmandur]

Tell that to Arkham House, Chaosium, S.T. Joshi, and the Lovecraft literary estate run by Robert C. Harrall. The best article that I’ve found on this is:

The Black Seas of Copyright: Home

www.aetherial.net

Yeah, well, it's complicated.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But at least here in the United States, that's a pretty common attitude that makes it hard for people who have done wrong in the past to integrate successfully back into society.

It’s not just the USA, and it happens for reasons.

In the hypothetical, the person’s #1 skillset was also related to the crime they committed. Hiring past known offenders whose criminality is related to a particular job is a legal liability. Look in any country, and you’ll see certain crimes will bar you from certain kinds of employment. Forgers won’t be able to be bank tellers, people with drug convictions won’t be hired in the medical field. Violent behavior towards children will effectively bar you from working as a teacher, Commit a crime with a gun, forget about a career in law enforcement.

I was investigated by the FBI before being allowed to attend law school. Certain crimes would have gotten me booted. Not only that, those same crimes can get me permanently disbarred.

Going further, in one of the actual cases in particular, the lead singer of a Christian metal band tried to hire someone to kill his wife, but he was caught and did his time. He reunited with his band- with his wife’s blessings- and his return was embraced by his fanbase.…but a lot of other bands refused to be on tour or festival bands with him. He and his band may be able to record music and sell it, but they’re currently cut off from one of the biggest streams of potential income.

In some countries, if you lose your driver’s license for certain reasons, it’s permanently revoked- you cannot get it back. If your job involved driving, you’re out of luck.

In none of those cases is there any sense in which a person could reasonably claim to be entitled to have a particular form of employment. The reality is, in every society, some punishments exist that go beyond mere fines or jail time. Certain crimes have lifetime repercussions. If you can’t handle that, don’t do those crimes.

 

[MGibster]

In the hypothetical, the person’s #1 skillset was also related to the crime they committed. Hiring past known offenders whose criminality is related to a particular job is a legal liability.

I was trying to avoid bringing up crime because I was afraid it would stray into political territory beyond the scope of gaming. Barker and Lovecraft committed no crimes that I'm aware of. But I get where you're coming from, and I largely agree. When it's relevant to the job, it makes sense that past actions might bar one from holding that position. I work in a highly regulated industry myself, and when screening candidates, even misdemeanor convictions of fraud or theft will disqualify a person for whatever position they're applying for.

But we often wish to continue punishing someone even after they served their time. Michael Vick was convicted for his involvement in running a dog fighting ring, which had nothing to do with his NFL career, and when he got out of prison he resumed his career with the Eagles which upset a lot of people who argued "He doesn't have a right to have the career he wants." Which is true, but should we have continued to punish him by barring him from being a football player?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I was trying to avoid bringing up crime because I was afraid it would stray into political territory beyond the scope of gaming. Barker and Lovecraft committed no crimes that I'm aware of. But I get where you're coming from, and I largely agree. When it's relevant to the job, it makes sense that past actions might bar one from holding that position. I work in a highly regulated industry myself, and when screening candidates, even misdemeanor convictions of fraud or theft will disqualify a person for whatever position they're applying for.

But we often wish to continue punishing someone even after they served their time. Michael Vick was convicted for his involvement in running a dog fighting ring, which had nothing to do with his NFL career, and when he got out of prison he resumed his career with the Eagles which upset a lot of people who argued "He doesn't have a right to have the career he wants." Which is true, but should we have continued to punish him by barring him from being a football player?

In Vick’s case, I agree somewhat and disagree somewhat. His crimes had zero relevance to his preferred employment on the surface.

However, the NFL is “family entertainment”. There were a lot of parents who had a difficult time explaining why a “dog-killer” was on TV to their kids.

And remember, all of the major professional sports leagues have had enough problems with scandals involving on-field talent, so that most leagues or team contracts have had “morals” or “personal conduct” clauses for 30+ years. So when someone gets caught for an offense involving violence or drugs, it’s very difficult to distinguish why one athlete gets a slap on the wrist and others get blackballed. (Especially when some of the blackballed talent didn’t actually commit a crime.)

 

[MGibster]

The first and big one us...Lovecraft slipped into Public Domain, so there is no Lovecraft Estate that benefits financially if I read q story of His, or watch a show that makes use of his aesthetic. With Barker, there are living people who knew he had Nazi sympathies, and swept it under a rug whole they continued to profit from his work.

I wouldn't care if there was a Lovecraft estate that benefitted financially from his work so long as they didn't try to hide his bigotry. What would be the purpose of punishing the estate? And I don't really have any strong feelings that some people knew about Barker's NAZI sympathies though I can see why others might. It's just not an issue to me.

Secondly, Lovecraft never hid any of his bigotry. It's all spelled out explicitly all over his work, easy to see and address critically in the open. Barker was clever enough to hide what he thought, even going to the trouble of using a pseudonym for his explicit Nazi novel

In Lovecraft's case it wasn't a matter of not being clever enough to hide his attitudes. He didn't have to hide them because millions of Americans shared his sentiments. i.e. His bigotry towards immigrants and African Americans were well within mainstream standards. But Barker had to hide it, because at the time, Nazi sympathies were very much out of vogue.

This makes the potential Nazi content of his other work more fraught, and may involve subtler nefarious elements thst would require careful energy to dissect, and who has the time.

Does it really though? Human beings have an amazing ability to see patterns were there are none. This is like Ted Cruz being worried that "woke" Disney is going to have Mickey and Goofy going at it.

 

[MGibster]

However, the NFL is “family entertainment”. There were a lot of parents who had a difficult time explaining why a “dog-killer” was on TV to their kids.

Heaven forbid we expect parents to do a little parenting. This is a remarkably similar argument to those who don't want to see gay characters on television. How do I explain that to my children? I don't have kids, but it seems trivially easy to explain Vick: Michael Vick did a bad thing and he was punished for it. But now that his punishment is over, as long as he continues to behave himself he's free to live his life. Just because you've done something bad, doesn't mean we have to keep punishing someone forever.