TSR Giantlands

[Gradine]

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

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.

Once more for the folx in the back

 

[Umbran]

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.

Folks have been trying this for centuries, and still bigotry is strong in the world. Sure, there are examples of this working with individuals. But, by your own description, this does not scale due to the amount of work involved.

There is a point where you can no longer afford to engage in bespoke, artisanal, small-batch conversion of bigots. You are, in essence, chastising people for failing to choose an inefficient, error-prone path that will not get the job done on the scale necessary at this time.

 

[Gradine]

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?

Because you are dodging the issue on bigotry by referring to it as anything (dissent, toxicity, etc.) but bigotry. Because those concepts (even toxicity) are a lot more palatable to defend than "bigotry". So you do that, instead of openly defending bigotry, as a legitimate belief structure owed respect, which is exactly what you are actually doing.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Think about a food you absolutely despise. What could I say, argue, or cite use to prove to you that you should have it for dinner tonight?

Here, I'll let you try. I can't stand eggs. Scrambled, fried, hard boiled, over easy, none of them. Use your rhetoric to convince me that I should have an omelette tonight. I'll help you out in that my dislike doesn't have to do with any allergies, moral objections or dietary restriction, I just don't like eggs.

If you have neither the time, patience or energy to convince me to eat eggs, imagine trying to convince people constantly of things like "trans women are women" or "black people have a right not to be killed by the police".

Anyway, dinner is in two hours...

 

[Bolares]

Well, if I argue with myself, the only possible result is that I'll win...

 

[Gradine]

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.

You are confusing bigotry and bias. Everyone has some degrees of bias within ourselves. However, most of us manage to make it through our lives without making a hobby/career out of attacking the minoritized and disenfranchized for online bigotry brownie points. Therein lies the distinction.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Oh no, that is not authoritarianism. It starts with the people. It ALWAYS starts with people. Struggle Sessions in Maoist China happened from the bottom up - with ordinary people shaming those who had unacceptable views. And then moved to throwing rocks at them. And then moved to hanging them in public. Same in Stalinist Russia - it took people turning in their neighbors. Authoritarianism is a movement which usually happens from the people to the people. The Government tries to control it but it gets out of hand - which is what caused Mao to eventually send all the young people to the rural areas to do farming, where they'd do the least harm and maybe stop hanging all the college professors for not saying the right-enough things.

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,

No, that is not at all what I am saying and I am unsure how you could have in good faith drawn that conclusion from what I am saying. I think the people he talked to suck as well (or at least one of them - I do not know the others). I don't think it's authoritarian to say he sucks. Not at all.

I think it's authoritarian to say anyone who speaks to him must, by that association alone, agree with his views. And that we should therefore shun anyone who speaks to those whose views we find unacceptable. That is classic authoritarianism. That is what leads to blacklisting anyone who ever attended a socialist or communist meeting once in their lives. Or listening to the speech of someone who ends up expressing views we deeply disagree with.

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!

I've never said it's about the first amendment, and I've never mentioned any "Woke Mob." Please don't put words in my mouth. There is no reason for that strawmanning. My ideas stand on their own just fine without you changing them into something you find easier to knock down.

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.

You keep acting like I am defending Pundit by saying he's not David Duke. But that's not a fair characterization. I say he is not David Duke to explain why engaging with him to refute his ideas is not a bad thing. In no world can one fairly say that engaging with someone to refute their ideas is defending that person.

And yes, these things do help. Drawing clear lines that talking to those we disagree with to try and change minds is a good thing does help many people do the same in their lives. If it doesn't help you, that's OK. But, I don't think you can speak for everyone on who is or is not helped by this conversation.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Authoritarianism is usually ordinary people acting in an authoritarian manner. I don't know where this idea that it has to be the Government doing it is coming from, but "Punch a Nazi" never meant "But only if they work for the Government." You know, I know, everyone knows that ordinary people can and do behave in authoritarian manners. And views can be authoritarian views. What Steampunkette wrote is a classic authoritarian view. A Maoist would be proud of Steampunkette's views. A liberal from the 1960s would picket Stempunkette as "the Man."

 

[Bolares]

Oh no, that is not authoritarianism. It starts with the people. It ALWAYS starts with people.

Comming from a country where there's a histpry of military regimes taking over, and having a president that is viewed as authoritharian by most of the population and international media... no it doesn't.

 

[Riley]

Authoritarianism is usually ordinary people acting in an authoritarian manner. I don't know where this idea that it has to be the Government doing it is coming from, but "Punch a Nazi" never meant "But only if they work for the Government." You know, I know, everyone knows that ordinary people can and do behave in authoritarian manners. And views can be authoritarian views. What Steampunkette wrote is a classic authoritarian view. A Maoist would be proud of Steampunkette's views. A liberal from the 1960s would picket Stempunkette as "the Man."

Uh, yeah. No. “You know, I know, everyone knows” is not a definition. “Authoritarianism is usually ordinary people acting in an authoritarian manner” is a tautology. What definition are you using, from where?

 

[Gradine]

Is there a version of Godwin's Law but one that invokes Mao/Stalin instead?

 

[Grendel_Khan]

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?

Instead of addressing the issue directly you're employing another tried-and-true dirty trick--whataboutism.

-What about the fact that Sacrosanct once interacted with Pundit before realizing it was a pointless and awful thing to do. Gotcha!

-What about people using casually using "old" in a negative way? Or, hey, let's take it all the way--what about using "old" and "white" and also "cis?" Aha! Not so perfect after all!

This is a rhetorical strategy that seeks to claim that no one can criticize you or your positions, or ultimately anyone, because no one is perfect. It implies that you're the one who decides when something is worth calling out, and to what degree. Anything beyond that (to your mind) acceptable threshold isn't inherently incorrect or without value, but rather demands a counterattack, an auditing of that person.

Ultimately, when it isn't used entirely in bad faith, all this strategy really tries to do is dismantle strongly-held opinions by somehow dismantling the opinion-holder. It means there's only room in the discourse for someone saying, "well, I only kinda have a problem with this" and everyone always seeing everyone's side, since hey, even absolute bigots deserve to be heard, right?

This is not a good look. But sure, as they say, keep posting through it.

 

[Bolares]

Also... "unacceptable views" is pretty broad... and not bigotry. Bigotry is an unacceptable view sure, but comparing it to the unacceptable views you were mentioning is... I don't know wich word to use... questionable?

 

[Mistwell]

You are confusing bigotry and bias. Everyone has some degrees of bias within ourselves. However, most of us manage to make it through our lives without making a hobby/career out of attacking the minoritized and disenfranchized for online bigotry brownie points. Therein lies the distinction.

I am not confusing it at all.

YOU used the term "old" as a pejorative. It was bigotry. It's not just your "bias" it was you attacking a disenfranchised minority (and yes the elderly are a disenfranchised minority even if there are exceptions to that rule like every other minority has exceptions.)

Everyone has some levels of bigotry in them, and they often don't recognize it's there. But it's not just bias - not when you say it and it harms people.

Which is why I say it's a spectrum, and not a bright line like you are arguing it to be. I am not judging you as some huge bigot for having expressed ageism. Emphasis on "huge" there. I might call it out sometimes when I see it but I know in general you're a pretty good person around here. That doesn't mean you have never expressed bigoted views.

 

[Gradine]

I think it's authoritarian to say anyone who speaks to him must, by that association alone, agree with his views.

It's very much not, but for the very last time, that is not what anyone is saying. What we are saying is that by appearing on a bigoted platform to talk with bigots, he is offering them legitimacy. And bigotry is not and cannot become legitimated. That you keep ignoring this point to keep wailing on your strawman is why I'm not interested in continuing this conversation past this post.

And that we should therefore shun anyone who speaks to those whose views we find unacceptable. That is classic authoritarianism.

No it isn't. Under no sensible and agreed-upon definition of the word is it authoritarianism.

That is what leads to blacklisting anyone who ever attended a socialist or communist meeting once in their lives.

I've seen this a lot, and it holds some water until you realize that blacklisting bigots is a far more reasonable stance than the Red Scare was, and that bigots can become whitelisted again by just... renouncing their past bigotry. It happens all the time.

 

[Faolyn]

-IF- I were Queen of the Internet?

I would ban Bigotry. Flat out.

Aaand by doing so, you legitimize the fears of every single person who is convinced that minorities are out to get them and thus drive them to target anyone who they feel might be a minority. And vice versa--you give people who are in a minority group a sense that it's OK to go forth and attack a "majority" individual. You would cause the bigots to gather and disseminate their beliefs through other means, possibly even by creating a second internet. You would create martyrs to the cause and make the bigots stronger than ever.

Plus, people are now outright stating that the internet is a human right, not just a privilege; it's the freedom to communicate. Denying people a basic right like that, because they committed a thoughtcrime, does not make your side look good.

And what's your criteria? Where's the cutoff? There are real-world groups that in some places are discriminated against or outright oppressed and attacked, and in other places are the ones doing the discrimination and oppression. Would someone be allowed to point that out or condemn the group that's engaging in discrimination, or would they be banned because they are discriminated against elsewhere? If you have a person who in one hand fights for the rights of Black people but in the other hand condemns gay people (or vice versa), do you let them stay online or boot them off? My state still has a law on the books disallowing me from holding office because I'm an atheist. Would you ban my state or state government from the internet until it changes that law, or would you ignore it because it's not really enforceable, even though its mere existence is a slap in the face to every atheist?

You can't ban bigots. You can mock them, you can point out how stupid and hypocritical they are, you can make them look as small and worthless as they actually are. But you can't ban them. Banning things never works.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Everyone has some levels of bigotry in them, and they often don't recognize it's there. But it's not just bias - not when you say it and it harms people.

Which is why I say it's a spectrum, and not a bright line like you are arguing it to be. I am not judging you as some huge bigot for having expressed ageism. Emphasis on "huge" there. I might call it out sometimes when I see it but I know in general you're a pretty good person around here. That doesn't mean you have never expressed bigoted views.

Hold on. Step back from the melee for a second.

What is your goal here?

It's been pointed out by multiple people that your use of the term "authoritarian" is wrong, and no acknowledgement of that. Now you're playing fast and loose with the term bigotry, just begging for a flood of responses pointing out how you've misunderstood what that word is, and what it means in context.

But really, what's the end-game here? That the rest of us nod and say, "You know, that Pundit says awful stuff, but he ain't half bad somewhere on the inside (based on something about how he's just pretending or whatever)" and we all agree to just hear all the worst bigots of the world out? Maybe they have some good ideas, right? Hell, maybe they have some great recipes!

Who cares that bigots are people. This does not need to be acknowledged. It's not dehumanizing someone to tell them they suck, or to shout them down, or to deplatform, or anything else in the realm of what we're discussing.

 

[Gradine]

I am not confusing it at all.

YOU used the term "old" as a pejorative. It was bigotry. It's not just your "bias" it was you attacking a disenfranchised minority (and yes the elderly are a disenfranchised minority even if there are exceptions to that rule like every other minority has exceptions.)

If what you say is true, then you are correct. I have consciously tried not to use "old" as a pejorative, and if I have let that slip through, that would be acting upon my bias, which would be bigoted.

However, the term "old cishet white men", which is a term I used in one of these posts here, is not the same thing as using old (or any of those other terms) as a pejorative. I was clearly calling out the privilege afforded to folks who possess those capabilities. In fact, I was specifically calling out the people defending Ward and others with "oh, he's just old, you can't listen to them" which is both insulting and a pejorative.

Again, we all have biases, some conscious, some unconscious. Some (I would argue a lot) of us do the work to fight against those internal biases. Other embrace those biases and allow them to drive their words and actions; those that do are bigots.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Folks have been trying this for centuries, and still bigotry is strong in the world. Sure, there are examples of this working with individuals. But, by your own description, this does not scale due to the amount of work involved.

There is a point where you can no longer afford to engage in bespoke, artisanal, small-batch conversion of bigots. You are, in essence, chastising people for failing to choose an inefficient, error-prone path that will not get the job done on the scale necessary at this time.

Not to belabor the obvious, or to step into this ... conversation ... but -

We can all, mostly, agree that while bigotry still exists in this world, overall, and in the aggregate, it is less than it was centuries ago.

Which most likely means that the means that we have gotten to the point that we have- tolerance, discussion, understanding, education, forgiveness- are, in fact, the methods that appear to work.

Which makes me think that discarding them because they are inconvenient not "due to the amount of work involved" seems shortsighted. Mostly because it discounts both the lessons learned in how we've gotten to this point, and seems dismissive of the notion that it is hard work.

But that's me.

*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.

I appreciate what you shared; I would only say that this is emblematic of the more important point. People contain multitudes. It's not all good. And we are not the finished product at the beginning. There is many a person the LGBTQA+ community (which is far from monolithic) that has had to wrestle with these issues in their own life; the bigoted family member that came around (or didn't), the ideological enemy who eventually softened, the acquaintance who could not accept that their religion did not excuse their inhumanity.

None of this is easy. It's all hard, and it's all personal, and it can be painful. And worst- most of the time, it doesn't even work.* I shared that earlier post with Danny Alcatraz because it brings up these uncomfortable issues, of that certain need for forgiveness, and why the immediate rush we get from condemnation doesn't necessarily add to the value for society.


*Karma, as they say, is justice without the satisfaction.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
It is pretty clear this is not going anywhere useful to anyone.

Thread closed.