TSR Giantlands

[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?