TSR Giantlands

[darjr]

What nonsense. He’s not an actor playing a part in a movie. He’s espousing horrible crap and furthering a horrible agenda.

This is the “it’s what my character would do” defense and it’s bull. Mistwell stop carrying his water, he’s laughing at you.

 

[Thaumaturge]

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.

Okay. Good. We can agree that he’s wrong and that you’re not defending him. Good.

Pundits flaws stand on their own without the need to pretend they are something they're not.

Agreed.

Which of course takes work, and includes (if you're going to be persuasive) acknowledging the humanity of the person you're refuting.

This is where I both agree and put a huge caveat. Dehumanizing people is always bad. Dehumanizing people only ever takes us to a bad place. The difficulty is when one side agrees with what I just said, and the other side doesn’t. The side that disagrees, shouldn’t be dehumanized, but they don’t mind dehumanizing others. That tension is really, really difficult to hold.

“I won’t dehumanize this person who is exactly dehumanizing me in this moment.” Well, that’s a difficult sentence. And it gets more difficult each, and every, time one is dehumanized. Every time. What ends up happening, eventually, is the people who aren’t dehumanizing are doing all of the work, and the people who are dehumanizing are the sole benefactors.

That’s tough. You can see how tough that is, right?

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.

I, too, have concerns about a “new orthodoxy”. Orthodoxy, as a concept, concerns me. We can’t all have the right beliefs. Orthopraxy (right action) is much more my jam.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

The two I’m most familiar with are Daryl Davis (personally convinced 200 klansmen +/- to quit the group) and a Rabbi (whose name I forget) who convinced a NeoNazi Skinhead who was harassing him and his family to abandon the ideology. In the latter case, the Rabbi even took the man (and his Latina girlfriend!) in when he was ill.

It‘s an extraordinary ability. In a different context, some might call that “saintly.”

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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."

Nah, calling out bigots and questioning the character of thier associates isn’t authoritarian behavior, and the ridiculous hyperbole you’re spouting here is directly and meaningfully deleterious to discussion.

You seem to have an interest in defending him, it sounds like you either know him directly, or are a fan of soemthing he does/makes, or run in the same circles.

Here’s the thing. The fact that it’s “shtick” doesn’t matter. He gets clicks by saying bigoted crap. That’s it. That makes him a bigot, even if he doesn’t believe in the stuff he is saying.

 

[Gradine]

Bigots GTFO our hobby.

And the same goes for their enablers and defenders

 

[Azzy]

Silly names for Game Masters is always the cringiest thing I encounter in games.

The most non-silly names I've seen for Game Master (including Game Master itself) is Referee.

 

[Azzy]

Bigots GTFO our hobby.

And the same goes for their enablers and defenders

Exactly. We have to let them know that they are not welcome in our hobbies and in our lives.

 

[Bolares]

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.

If you use a bigot "persona" to profit.... you are a bigot.

 

[Gradine]

Also, quibbling over degrees of bigotry is insulting. That way lies Godwin's Law.

Pundit is a bigot with a platform that he uses to spread bigotry. Full stop. He is a significant problem within our community, as are all those who enable him

 

[Remathilis]

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.

"Bob's a great guy if you ignore the six people he murdered..."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Best spin: Pundit‘s “persona“ is an unfunny joke. Read the room and let it die.

 

[Ancalagon]

Best spin: Pundit‘s “personal“ is an unfunny joke. Read the room and let it die.

... personal or persona?

 

[Bolares]

Also, quibbling over degrees of bigotry is insulting. That way lies Godwin's Law

yeah, saying "pundit is a bigot, but comparing him to Duke is absurd!" is kind of pointless, there is no degree of acceptable bigotry...

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Sure. But scu [Edit - I had a sentence here, and I must have accidentally erased it during an edit and I don't recall what it was. So I didn't just want to let that half-sentence hang there without some explanation. ]

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.

NOBODY is asking you to cut him any breaks or give him forgiveness points. I have no idea how you could get that impression from the post you were responding to. I don't know how much more clear I can make "Pundit is wrong about most things" that you'd think I am asking you to somehow cut him some special slack?

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.

I think arguing over degrees of how bad someone is really super important though. For the reasons I gave.

We cannot get to the point where, if someone at some point in their life says something we deeply disagree with, that's it for all of eternity and they're written off as the worst of the worst of human beings.

And not because we feel bad for THEM. But because of the very reasons Popper was writing about - you hurt your cause, the issues you believe in deeply, when you do that. You fail to counter bad arguments with good arguments. The bad arguments then find their audience and grow and grow, because you've "excommunicated" them from having to respond to reasoned discourse directly about their ideas. And more importantly, you've written off massive swaths of humanity who become those audiences. You've basically removed yourself from the marketplace of ideas because you're "too good" to be seen discussing ideas with someone who you wrote off as "too bad" to talk to.

We're circling smaller and smaller niche circles of communication these days. And you can never persuade someone to see things the way you see them if you don't bother to even try to communicate with them (and by "them" I do not mean Pundit - I mean all the people who will listen to the things Pundit has to say, though they likely do not agree with all the things Pundit says.)

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.

Yes, they're being authoritarian. Any time you dismiss dissent, and try to silence dissent, it's an authoritarian act. That doesn't mean all authoritarian acts are wrong - but it does mean the wisdom of Popper's Paradox is that MOST of the time it's wrong except in only the most dire cases. And expanding the definition of "dire cases" to include just about any real dissent isn't what Popper meant.

As for anger being righteous - that's itself a bit dangerous. It's OK to be angry with views you disagree with of course, and we all get angry. But all orthodoxies think of themselves and their positions as righteous. The people we're arguing with think of their views as righteous. There could be no better argument for "there is a new orthodoxy" than thinking our views are the one true righteous views. That makes this akin to a religious fight. And dehumanizing people becomes much easier if you think you're the righteous one.

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.

Who has argued that anyone should support those things? I certainly have not. I thought it was hilarious that someone chided me for not watching the video, while arguing we shouldn't support that interview show. As if "support" wasn't "watching." I've never encouraged anyone to support those shows - I've said don't paint person A's views with those of person B purely because those two people have a public conversation. THAT to me is a toxic approach to communication. That was the heart of, "Were you see at a meeting with..." type questions.

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.

None of that has anything to do with what I was advocating though. The authoritarianism is the "toxic by association" accusation and the "any level of toxicity is all levels of toxicity because the well is poisoned now" claims. Those are clearly established authoritarian beliefs throughout history and not justified by Popper's Paradox except in the most extreme cases, and even then only after every direct attempt is made to refute those beliefs (even if it's over and over again.)

 

[Sacrosanct]

yeah, saying "pundit is a bigot, but comparing him to Duke is absurd!" is kind of pointless, there is no degree of acceptable bigotry...

Are you seriously drinking that glass of spoiled milk?
What? It's not like I'm drinking a gallon of it.

More to the point, and I won't use any analogies because that gets into politics (I don't need to because you all probably know anyway), but it's been proven that it doesn't matter if someone is playing a persona to foster and encourage toxic beliefs, because it has happened, more than once, when people believing those beliefs have engaged in actual harming of others.

And it is of my opinion that the person who fosters and encourages that behavior is at some point culpable. I do not buy into the "I was just playing a personality" or "We're entertainment, not news, and any reasonable person should know what we say is so outrageous it shouldn't be believed" defenses.

I.e., even if Pundit is playing a character, he is fostering and creating an environment that encourages harmful behavior. Not just outright bigotry, but actual calls of violence against liberal gamers. And that, IMO, is something he has culpability for because he owns and runs the platform they are saying this, and encourages it with his "persona".

 

[Bolares]

Any time you dismiss dissent, and try to silence dissent, it's an authoritarian act.

Bigotry is not dissent

 

[Gradine]

I think arguing over degrees of how bad someone is really super important though. For the reasons I gave.

We cannot get to the point where, if someone at some point in their life says something we deeply disagree with, that's it for all of eternity and they're written off as the worst of the worst of human beings.

This is a strawman; nobody is arguing this. Of course bigots can reform. But making space for bigots to spread their bigotry on the off chance they'll just... reform themselves is both (a) a plan that is never going to work and (b) allows them to continue to harm their target marginalized victims.

This last point is what every bad "it's the wokescold mobs that are the real problem!" take seems to forget/dismiss/just not care about. Bigotry isn't a bad thing just because; it's not just something that's morally objectionable by default. That's a complete tautology. Bigotry is bad because it harms people, oftentimes people who already more vulnerable for a host of other reasons.

If you want to know what it looks like when bigots are given space to have their views shared and legitimized as "dissent", ask a trans woman in the UK how things are going in their country right now.

 

[Gradine]

Incredibly important point:

Bigotry is not dissent

Bigotry is not dissent

Bigotry is not dissent

Bigotry is not dissent

Bigotry is not dissent

Bigotry is not dissent

Bigotry is not dissent

 

[Bolares]

"any level of toxicity is all levels of toxicity because the well is poisoned now"

Another strawman, we are not saying that, we are saying any level of bigotry is all levels of bigotry, please stop calling bigotry other things.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Yes, they're being authoritarian. Any time you dismiss dissent, and try to silence dissent, it's an authoritarian act. That doesn't mean all authoritarian acts are wrong - but it does mean the wisdom of Popper's Paradox is that MOST of the time it's wrong except in only the most dire cases. And expanding the definition of "dire cases" to include just about any real dissent isn't what Popper meant.

While Pundit may be an outcast in the insular community of TTRPG creators and designers, the views he boosts (whether sincerely or not) are unfortunately still very common and vocal in wider nerd culture. The targets of his bigotry, people outside the "White allocishet male" demographic that remains the unspoken default both in nerd culture and in Western society at large, are thankfully gaining more representation in the RPG field, but in real life their demographics continue to remain underrepresented and marginalized. Pundit's rhetoric may fail to convince dedicated RPG designers who have long since learned that he has nothing of value to contribute to the hobby, but dedicated RPG designers aren't who he's speaking to. He's speaking to bitter, entitled, and privileged men who don't know a d20 from a d12 and yet yearn for the "good ol' days" when there weren't so many "minorities" fouling up "their" hobby. They flock to him as a rallying point, to justify and strengthen their own hatred. And that has real world consequences. Working to counteract that isn't "authoritarian"; in fact, what's "authoritarian" is Pundit's own attempts to boost the status quo or even retrogression within the hobby. He is in the dominant position, and his victims are not.