TSR Giantlands

[Mistwell]

I have no problem answering that. First, I didn't post there for years.

Surely it was more than one year you were posting there, wasn't it?

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 you communicated back and forth with him, even when you already knew he was behaving that way, for a time. And it got to the point where you couldn't do that anymore, but it took quite a while. Certainly it was many months.

But you will judge others who have not gotten to that point, though they've been communicating with him less than you did so far, because....?

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.

I am not "part of a group" by staying there and refuting what they say when they say it. THAT is the authoritarianism I was talking to Dire Bare about. That implication right there, that by staying and fighting for what I think is right somehow taints me with their views, is toxic. That is not what Popper advocated, that is not how the marketplace of ideas works, that's not what freedom of association means, and that is not a "righteous" position. I am not calling you a coward for quitting - we all have our limits. But I have not reached my limit yet and that should be fine by you and not something you're implying makes me "part of a group" that you were "part of" for quite some time yourself.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Naw you seem to be conflating social media with this message board. Memes and tweets isn't that common here. We discuss things, even things we disagree about. Usually civilly and usually in depth and even point by point. It's the advantage message boards have over some other social media platforms.

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 am not judging anyone for staying away. I am pissed that people are saying or implying that engaging somehow taints them with the toxicity merely for engaging.

 

[Mistwell]

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

I care who set it when you outright claim to me about me quoting me that I am the one who set the bar that low and then are unwilling to correct the error when it's pointed out.

 

[Bolares]

Naw you seem to be conflating social media with this message board.

this message board is literally social media

 

[Mistwell]

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?

That's fair. Just don't ding the people who are saying those things better than you might. It's hard enough to fight the good fight when the people on your own side give you crap for supposedly "joining that group" or "knowingly being around those toxic people" as if fighting the fight is the same as joining the other side.

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.

The marketplace of ideas isn't mythical. It's what actually changes minds. NOBODY is advocating that terribly bigotry be treated as "equal to all other positions." I don't put the same effort into refuting "all other positions" as I do to refuting "terrible bigotry." It's the backing out from refuting them, and acting like they should simply be dismissed and anyone who comes anywhere close to them should be dismissed, that's treating them special. Refuting "terrible bigotry" requires more hard work and effort, not less. Hand waiving it as "well that's toxic so I will let someone else deal with that, and might make their lives harder for even trying to deal with that" is more akin to treating it 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, they don't "deserve" respect, the argument deserves respect because of the people watching it. Because the only way to make things better is to engage, and not with anger and dismissiveness and righteousness (though I feel those things plenty) but with reasoned discourse.

The idea that we shouldn't even talk to bigots is toxic. That's how bigots win. That's how you cede the ability to communicate to those who are open to being persuaded, to the worst messages.

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.

I have not "defended" the people he "supports" and I challenge you to find one single quote from me backing up that accusation. YOU are conflating my engaging with them, and my saying that association with a person does not taint you with the views of that person, with somehow supporting those views. And I am saying that is toxic. Your refusal to make a distinction between a person with bad views, and a person communicating with them, is as you put it "misguided at best." Though I prefer the term lazy.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Surely it was more than one year you were posting there, wasn't it?



So you communicated back and forth with him, even when you already knew he was behaving that way, for a time. And it got to the point where you couldn't do that anymore, but it took quite a while. Certainly it was many months.

But you will judge others who have not gotten to that point, though they've been communicating with him less than you did so far, because....?

Two points. Back then, it wasn't nearly as bad, and there were many posters (and even mods, like the aforementioned OHT) we did not subscribe to his message. It started getting worse and worse, which is what drove most of us out who didn't want to be part of that. Even me, who held on to some questionable beliefs myself back then*. That was more than 5 years ago. In that five years, it's escalated exponentially, to the point where posters are bragging about being bigots, and others have called for the eradication and violence towards the "mentally ill woke leftists out to ruin the game". I could give you a perfect analogy, but again, that would be a political analogy of how group dynamics have changed over the past decade. I'll just say that after all this time, if someone still likes to frequent that group when those types of comments are made? Yeah, I feel comfortable judging that.

I am not "part of a group" by staying there and refuting what they say when they say it. THAT is the authoritarianism I was talking to Dire Bare about.

You are an active member of that group. Currently. so yeah, you are "part of that group" regardless of what you tell yourself. It's the literal definition of being part of that group. So when I say "unlike you", that means I am no longer part of there, haven't been for years, and you still are. That's not a comment about your character, it's a comment that unlike you, I am no longer an active poster there. That's it. Accusations of engaging in authoritarianism by making an observably accurate statement? You're a smart guy. Smarter than this.

*For those that care, transparency is important to me, so to be transparent, I was raised in a rural farming religious family and spent time in the military right after. So when I got out, I considered myself a conservative. However, being an analytical logical thinker, when I was presented with new objective information to analyze, I realized I held some incorrect assumptions and beliefs, and around 2007ish went from conservative to independent, and by 2015 was pretty far into supporting progressive ideals. Fairness and equality are important, and over the past decade, it's clear which "side' supports that and which are fighting against it.

 

[Riley]

I am not "part of a group" by staying there and refuting what they say when they say it. THAT is the authoritarianism I was talking to Dire Bare about. That implication right there, that by staying and fighting for what I think is right somehow taints me with their views, is toxic.

Mistwell,

Perhaps you could define this “authoritarianism” that you are accusing us of? It seems a fairly nebulous concept, divorced from the common political concept

Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of a strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.[1] Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government.[1] Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchicin nature and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military.[2][3]

In an influential 1964 work,[4] the political scientist Juan Linz defined authoritarianism as possessing four qualities:

1. Limited political pluralism, realized with constraints on the legislature, political parties and interest groups.
2. Political legitimacy based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency".
3. Minimal political mobilization, and suppression of anti-regime activities.
4. Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, which extends the power of the executive.[5][6]

Minimally defined, an authoritarian government lacks free and competitive direct elections to legislatures, free and competitive direct or indirect elections for executives, or both.[7]

Authoritarianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It also seems fairly divorced from Authoritarian personality or Mirriam-Webster definition of authoritarian

1: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authorityhad authoritarian parents
2: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the peoplean authoritarian regime

Definition of AUTHORITARIAN

of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority; of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[billd91]

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.

Yeah, that's an utterly bogus defense because even when their broadcaster says "They have no credibility. No reasonable person would believe them," it's obvious that their broadcaster intends for their shows to influence people and their opinions.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I am not "part of a group" by staying there and refuting what they say when they say it. THAT is the authoritarianism I was talking to Dire Bare about. That implication right there, that by staying and fighting for what I think is right somehow taints me with their views, is toxic. That is not what Popper advocated, that is not how the marketplace of ideas works, that's not what freedom of association means, and that is not a "righteous" position. I am not calling you a coward for quitting - we all have our limits. But I have not reached my limit yet and that should be fine by you and not something you're implying makes me "part of a group" that you were "part of" for quite some time yourself.

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. 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, 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!

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.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

But you can and people have. Popper did. It was his entire thesis. Twisting his tolerance of intolerance idea to be something it was not is not wisdom.

It's just hard work and requires education and practice.

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're not trying to change the mind of the bigot. You're trying to change the mind of the people watching the debate. If your view were the view of everyone throughout history, the bigots would have won every time. I mean, the Scopes Monkey Trial couldn't have happened if people took your position. Your position, to me, looks like the easy way out. Your position to me looks like "It's hard work, so why bother." You're not giving someone a position of equal authority and reasonability by debating them - they already have that position before you arrived, because they already have people on the fence listening to them and not hearing the other side. You're simply ceding that communication platform to them by being dismissive.

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.

This is a laughably wrong position which isn't supported by any history except maybe Maoist China and Stalinist Russia. Public spaces MUST accept intolerant views in order to be a free society. Acceptance doesn't mean agreement - it does mean however that freedom includes putting up with the existence of people who we deeply disagree with. But the heart of freedom of speech and assembly and press and the entire first amendment and liberalism itself embodies the idea that the political and public space must allow for the existence of intolerant and objectionable and offensive views. Only authoritarians believe otherwise. You've put yourself into the position of puritanical orthodoxy.

I sure hope you don't call yourself a liberal. Because what you wrote could have been written by any authoritarian in any era. Pick your Cultural Orthodoxy from any society in any era and they would have agreed with you with the same fervor.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

No, they don't "deserve" respect, the argument deserves respect because of the people watching it. Because the only way to make things better is to engage, and not with anger and dismissiveness and righteousness (though I feel those things plenty) but with reasoned discourse.

The idea that we shouldn't even talk to bigots is toxic. That's how bigots win. That's how you cede the ability to communicate to those who are open to being persuaded, to the worst messages.

Suppose Greta Thunberg went on Stephen Crowder's show and engaged in a fiery but ultimately fruitless debate, with neither of them nor anybody in the audience walking away from it having changed their minds. Waste of time for everybody involved, right? Well, no actually, Crowder won that one. Because while he might not have been able to sway Thunberg, nor any of her supporters who tuned in to hatewatch and see him get dunked on, in the eyes of his supporters he just got a massive boost in legitimacy. In their minds, by going on the show, Thunberg acknowledged Crowder as an intellectual equal, the contents of either of their arguments be damned.

The ideal of the "marketplace of ideas" may sound nice on paper, but it rarely plays out well in reality. You want to see what the marketplace of ideas looks like in practice? Well, 4chan is a few clicks down the road to your right. It's only ideas there, no people to pin them on. The only time you'll succeed at changing people's minds is if they're already questioning the validity of their own position; if they're dug in, if they're zealots for their cause, you'll have more success talking to a brick wall. If they're not already open to changing their minds, then every time you talk to them, all that you do is give them the impression that their ideas have the same epistemelogical and moral legitimacy as your's. When those ideas are racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and the other usual suspects of bigotry, well giving them that legitimacy is much too dangerous.

 

[Bolares]

I'm just gonna say this again, because it may not be clear yet. Bigotry is not dissent, bigotry is not an opinion, bigotry is not an idea, bigotry is bigotry.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I am not judging anyone for staying away. I am pissed that people are saying or implying that engaging somehow taints them with the toxicity merely for engaging.

I responded to you about this early, and didn't see a reply, but short version: there's a big difference in engaging known bigots to talk about bigotry, and engaging them to talk about something completely unrelated (like gaming.)

The later does carry a taint, as it implies, at best, tolerance for the host's intolerance, or at worst, agreement with that intolerance, because the interviewee is passively supporting the bigot's platform.

 

[Riley]

I sure hope you don't call yourself a liberal. Because what you wrote could have been written by any authoritarian in any era. Pick your Cultural Orthodoxy from any society in any era and they would have agreed with you with the same fervor.

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.

 

[Steampunkette]

That's fair. Just don't ding the people who are saying those things better than you might. It's hard enough to fight the good fight when the people on your own side give you crap for supposedly "joining that group" or "knowingly being around those toxic people" as if fighting the fight is the same as joining the other side.

Dude... You're not fighting the good fight, here. You're sitting in the middle of the battlefield between "Let minorities live in peace" and "Minorities should be under constant attack" and choosing the middle ground of "Minorities should constantly have to argue their right to exist".

All while Tone Policing, Sea Lioning, Equivocating, and playing the Devil's Advocate.

The marketplace of ideas isn't mythical. It's what actually changes minds. NOBODY is advocating that terribly bigotry be treated as "equal to all other positions." I don't put the same effort into refuting "all other positions" as I do to refuting "terrible bigotry." It's the backing out from refuting them, and acting like they should simply be dismissed and anyone who comes anywhere close to them should be dismissed, that's treating them special. Refuting "terrible bigotry" requires more hard work and effort, not less. Hand waiving it as "well that's toxic so I will let someone else deal with that, and might make their lives harder for even trying to deal with that" is more akin to treating it as "equal to all other positions."

The Marketplace of Ideas is -abjectly- mythical.

If it wasn't, Bigotry would -always- lose every argument. Where everyone goes "But isn't that just going to cause lots of harm? We should not do that thing." and instead we've got SO MUCH BIGOTRY in the world. And it's on the rise.

The Marketplace of Ideas holds hope that the "Best Ideas" will rise to the top and "Bad Ideas" will be shown for what they are and cast aside. It was a sociological theory invented in the 1700s. It has been proven false time and time again by the endless return of Bigotry. Multiple Genocides, Endless Violence, and Fresh New Laws based entirely in bigotry are rising to the top of the Marketplace anew.

Unless you wish to argue that Bigotry is an idea somehow -deserving- of returning to the top of the Marketplace of Ideas..? Somehow I doubt that is your intent.

The Marketplace of Ideas was a flawed concept from the start.

No, they don't "deserve" respect, the argument deserves respect because of the people watching it. Because the only way to make things better is to engage, and not with anger and dismissiveness and righteousness (though I feel those things plenty) but with reasoned discourse.

No. Their argument does not deserve Respect. It should be shunned. Shut down. Cast out. Made Verboten. Recognized as -evil- and thrown away.

You -cannot- argue with a bigot with reasoned discourse. That just gives them a platform to spew their hatred and use emotional arguments, fallacious rhetoric, and high heaped piles of BS to distract and mislead and waste time while the audience grows more and more accustomed to their outrageous positions and slides that Overton Window just a -little- further toward their ideals.

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

The idea that we shouldn't even talk to bigots is toxic. That's how bigots win. That's how you cede the ability to communicate to those who are open to being persuaded, to the worst messages.

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.

I have not "defended" the people he "supports" and I challenge you to find one single quote from me backing up that accusation. YOU are conflating my engaging with them, and my saying that association with a person does not taint you with the views of that person, with somehow supporting those views. And I am saying that is toxic. Your refusal to make a distinction between a person with bad views, and a person communicating with them, is as you put it "misguided at best." Though I prefer the term lazy.

No. I'm not going to Quote-Mine you to try and piece together what you consider appropriate evidence for your support.

Read this post. From top to bottom. Therein lies your support of bigotry. Of bigots. Your defense of them and declaration that anyone who shuts them down is "Authoritarian" is your proof. Your constant waffling and your attempt to discredit Sacrosanct, as well. Your eagerness to claim the ideas of "Poisoned Wells" and internet mobs across various threads.

Your "Challenge" is just another attempt at Faux-Civility. I respond, now, with it's worth:

As to your other reply, I'm not even gonna bother. Your understanding of politics and history seems to be... lacking. And I've not the time, the interest, or the room to educate you on this forum.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

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.

 

[Steampunkette]

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 as to how 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.

-IF- I were Queen of the Internet?

I would ban Bigotry. Flat out.

Any attempt at making website to promote Hate would result in an automatic failure. I would put out a "Bounty" on hate-speech on the Internet. Anyone who found and reported a site which could be verified as a hate-speech site would get a free month of internet access and the site eradicated, the owners temporarily IP-Banned from the internet altogether. Every forum would have to adhere to the Popper Paradox to remain active, self-policing their following, and risk the site-owner and site being IP-Banned for set durations.

There'd be a -lot- of things like that. Like organizing murders, selling illegal drugs, abuse of children, revenge porn. And the people responsible would lose their access, again and again, until they've finally proven that they're incapable of not being awful people at which point they would no longer be allowed on the Internet at any point.

Of course if I were in charge of the internet it would also go offline for, like, an hour while -SERIOUS- infrastructural changes were implemented on it to make it not reliant on, like, 12 people around the world who actually understand how the most basic bits of it work. Like the work would be done offline to get it all together and up n' running, then take it offline and move it onto the new Network infrastructure in that hour...

'Cause holy crap the internet is a cesspool.

Also Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites would be directly ordered to go ahead and put their hate-speech filters in place that they refuse to use because it'd wind up auto-banning a bunch of people on a specific side of the political spectrum.

So yeah. There'd be some Authoritarian Stuff going on. Also plenty of Libertarian and Liberal stuff as I reward people for self-policing, protect freedom of speech, and support a Green AF Internet infrastructure...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

... personal or persona?

“Persona”- Autocorrect added the letter I didn’t catch.

Maybe I need to turn off my Autocorrect. Been getting a lot of unwarranted corrections, lately.

 

[Mistwell]

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

Yes, there is.

I will give an example from this thread. Earlier, I saw some ageism being proudly espoused by a couple of people in a casual way.

Ageism is bigotry. It's held to the same level as discrimination against LGBTQ+ people by our laws. And not in some left over theoretical way, in a real and meaningful way for our society. Older people are prayed on by a large variety of predators in unique ways. Older people are discriminated against in employment, in housing, in financing, in marketing, across a whole range of issues.

And yet, studies show Ageism is the one form of bigotry which appears to be a blind spot for those who fight against bigotry in our society. You see it casually tossed around as if it's perfectly acceptable to speak ill of someone based on their biological age. The phrase "Old white cis male" is tossed around as if every word in that phrase is equal. As if the "old" part were not clear bigotry based on when someone was born rather than the actual views and experiences of that individual who is in a vulnerable minority.

So if you think there are no degrees of bigotry, why do you accept casual ageism in these conversations?

I think because you think, like pretty much everyone thinks, there ARE degrees. It's a spectrum, not an on/off switch. Nobody is free from some form of bigotry in some manner, even if they don't say it. We can all work on those things, but that's the entire meaning of recognizing our own privileges - we may not even be aware of it. We may not even see how we've been behaving. 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.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

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

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?