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.

 

[Dire Bare]

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."

Pundit may be, in his secret heart-of-hearts, not all that bad of a guy. I suppose. He may be simply pandering to horrible people to boost his channels and earnings. Lots of politicians and talking-heads on the right do that too, pretend to be even farther to the right of issues than they truly believe.

So what?

In my view, those who pander to the worst elements in society are WORSE than folks who actually believe the toxicity they espouse. Pundit doesn't get any forgiveness points from me for his pandering or for having other not-so-bad channels.

I agree with you that some folks in this thread are unnecessarily comparing Pundit, Gygax, and other toxic voices in our community to the worst of humanity (Duke, Lovecraft) . . . but we're arguing over degrees of toxicity here, I'm not overly concerned that Pundit is somewhat unfairly compared to David Duke, although I think the Lovecraft comparison is more apt.

But the idea that there is a witch hunt going on, that folks are getting all "authoritarian" towards Pundit, Gygax, et al, is pretty off base, IMO. Folks are reacting to the words and actions of these toxic men, with justified and righteous anger and disgust. For all of the torches-and-pitchforks you're worried about . . . it amounts to folks deciding not to support RPGPundit's channels, TSR3/Wonderfilled, the Giantlands RPG, and a list of toxic creators . . . that's about it. Nobody is chasing these asshats down with threats of violence, or incarceration, or even trying to shut down their ability to exist within our hobby and community. We are just choosing to not patronize or associate with them.

Like most in this discussion . . . I'm simply not giving these toxic fools my money. And I will continue to speak out against their bigotry. That's about as "authoritarian" as this issue has become.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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?

I have no problem answering that. First, I didn't post there for years. Secondly, if you remember I was very explicit in the reason I quit posting there years ago was because he and others seemed to be intent on defending bigotry. Even me from from almost ten years ago, who was flat out wrong on some of my own beliefs, couldn't stomach what it was becoming. Onehorsetown, a mod at the time, asked me to stay to act as a counter voice but it was getting really bad. It's exponentially worse since then.
So unlike you, I actually refused to be part of a group that welcomes blatant white nationalism and misogyny and I left. There are posters there now who flat out take pride in being a bigot as a badge of honor. I want no part of that.

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

All those lazy folks expressing their upset over toxic, racist, and sexist words and actions! This is a message-board discussion, posting angry thoughts, memes, and tweets is what we do. There's been plenty of more meaningful discussion in all of these TSR threads too, in case you somehow missed it all.

Those who choose to go into the lion's den and directly confront the toxic elements in our fandom within their own dank corners of the intertubes . . . well, more power to them I suppose, but judging those who choose to stay away from all that toxicity is pretty misplaced.

I'll keep my judgement on those who are actually spewing hate and toxicity, not those who are disgusted by it and want nothing to do with it.

 

[Umbran]

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

Who cares who set it? It is still an incredibly low bar.

 

[Steampunkette]

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

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.

Sometimes other people say things better than I might. And why should I bother wasting time writing a big dissertation to say the exact same thing?

Especially when devil's advocates sea lions are just going to keep ignoring it in order to support some mythical marketplace of ideas wherein terrible bigotry must be treated as equal to all other positions.

I get that for you this is an interesting philosophical discussion on how people should treat each other and how even the worst of us deserve some measure of respect, for the rest of us it's just a person defending bigots and bigotry.

No one here I was calling for the pundit to be killed. We're not calling for violence against him or bloodshed. The people that he supports on the other hand... The people who you continually defend... The issues that you continually attempt to conflate...

Your equivocation is misguided at best.

 

[Steampunkette]

Oh. And as to Popper?

Dude was right about the Tolerance of Intolerance. Dude was wrong about constantly debating fascists and bigots, though. You can't debate them any more than you can talk someone out of a cult. Giving them a platform to make baseless claims and bad faith arguments just gets their message out.

Never debate a Bigot. He'll probably never concede and no matter how ridiculous his positions are, he'll still manage to convince a part of the audience of his claims. Especially since you're giving him a position of presented equal authority and reasonability.

You cannot accept Intolerance in a Tolerant society. Not in a political space, not in a public space. It must be shunned and silenced with no quarter given. No measure of debate, no line of reasoning, no moment's hesitation. Savagely curtailed, and shamed for it's temerity, is the only way to defeat it.

Anything else gives it soil to grow in.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

IDK. There ARE people who have talked people out of their long-held bigoted beliefs. But it IS a rare talent requiring extraordinary patience and a thick skin.

 

[Umbran]

Pundit may be, in his secret heart-of-hearts, not all that bad of a guy. I suppose. He may be simply pandering to horrible people to boost his channels and earnings. Lots of politicians and talking-heads on the right do that too, pretend to be even farther to the right of issues than they truly believe.

So what?

In my view, those who pander to the worst elements in society are WORSE than folks who actually believe the toxicity they espouse. Pundit doesn't get any forgiveness points from me for his pandering or for having other not-so-bad channels.

Yah. Whether it is persona or not, it is publicly espousing some really ugly stuff. The fact that he may be insincere about it doesn't absolve him of public acts, and it does not reduce the harm done.

 

[Umbran]

IDK. There ARE people who have talked people out of their long-held bigoted beliefs. But it IS a rare talent requiring extraordinary patience and a thick skin.

And, I think it is important to note that they are not argued out of their beliefs. They are talked out of them.

The basic technique, as I understand it, can be outlined (and oversimplified) thusly - you talk with the person until you actually understand a lot of where they are coming from. Then you carefully bring them into a state of cognitive dissonance, in which their bigoted beliefs are in conflict with something they actually care about and cannot discard out of hand. Then, if you are really skilled, you guide them to resolution of that dissonance by discarding the beliefs, rather than the thing they actually care about.

And note that "bring them into a state" is not "tell them flatly" - because then they just decide you are playing tricks on them, and they discard you as the source of the dissonance. It is more talking to them about things until they realize on their own that they have an internal conflict. Hopefully, in this process, you build enough trust with them that they then ask you to help them resolve it.

Any hint of confrontation or insincerity from you, and the effort is ruined. So, unless you are a world-best actor, you usually have to care about them, as a person, to pull this off. Bringing people to epiphany is hard.

 

[overgeeked]

Never mind.