M.A.R. Barker, author of Tekumel, also author of Neo-Nazi book?

[Fifth Element]

People who put forward the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" outside of legal proceedings are, I believe, invoking the broader principle of "you shouldn't condemn someone unless there's compelling reason to do so; being accused, unto itself, does not meet that burden."

Indeed. Now, when you have a direct accusation, the issue tends to be that if you assume the accused is innocent, you have to assume that the accuser is lying. So you're condemning the accuser of lying, without evidence that they are lying. Meaning it's not that easy a lot of the time.

Accusations are not enough. But accusations accompanied with some evidence are entirely different. Accusing Barker of being racist with the knowledge that he wrote pro-Nazi fiction and worked on a Holocaust-denial journal for over a decade? That's a reasonable conclusion, right there. For example.

 

[Alzrius]

Indeed. Now, when you have a direct accusation, the issue tends to be that if you assume the accused is innocent, you have to assume that the accuser is lying. So you're condemning the accuser of lying, without evidence that they are lying. Meaning it's not that easy a lot of the time.

Let's leave aside for a moment that it's not supposed to be easy; it's supposed to be just (or at least, less unjust than condemning someone who might be innocent). You do not need to assume that the accuser is lying; there, and always have been, alternatives. They might be mistaken, or misremembering, or mischaracterizing something. To say that believing someone accused of something necessarily means that you're calling the accuser a liar is a gross oversimplification.

Accusations are not enough. But accusations accompanied with some evidence are entirely different.

Which is why the next step is then examining and weighing the evidence, since presenting it alone does not necessarily validate the accuser.

 

[Fifth Element]

You do not need to assume that the accuser is lying; there, and always have been, alternatives.

I probably wasn't clear enough. When I said "tends to be", I was trying to focus on the cases where the only real alternative is lying (as evidenced by my "a lot of the time."). It's inaccurate to say that there is always an alternative explanation. Sometimes the only realistic alternative is lying.

Which is why the next step is then examining and weighing the evidence, since presenting it alone does not necessarily validate the accuser.

The problem with people putting forward innocent until proven guilty in the context of this type of discussion is that they tend to stop there, and refuse to even examine what evidence there might be, because they want to apply a standard of evidence beyond what is reasonable. It's used as a discussion-ender, not a standard of evidence. Edit: It's happened in this very thread, for example.

 

[Alzrius]

I probably wasn't clear enough. When I said "tends to be", I was trying to focus on the cases where the only real alternative is lying (as evidenced by my "a lot of the time."). It's inaccurate to say that there is always an alternative explanation. Sometimes the only realistic alternative is lying.

The problem with that is that it presumes there's a clear manner to delineate "where the only real alternative is lying," from all of the other times. While I won't go so far as to say that there's always an alternative explanation, my suspicion is that instances where there isn't are fewer than is generally presumed.

The problem with people putting forward innocent until proven guilty in the context of this type of discussion is that they tend to stop there, and refuse to even examine what evidence there might be, because they want to apply a standard of evidence beyond what is reasonable. It's used as a discussion-ender, not a standard of evidence. Edit: It's happened in this very thread, for example.

Who decides what's reasonable? It strikes me as entirely possible for two people to look at the same evidence and come to vastly different conclusions, including a determination that the evidence is insufficient to reach a conclusion, necessitating a default back to the presumption of innocence.

 

[Alzrius]

The Venn diagram between European/American adherants to his type esoteric, eclectic philosophy and Fascist ideas is not a circle, but it has overlap.

I think this pussyfoots around a more incisive take on what might be the case here, which is that it's neither racist nor Islamophobic to point out that there's a non-negligible portion of contemporary Islamic culture that engages in antisemitism, and that's where the Venn diagram overlaps with Nazism. To what degree this may or may not have been related to Barker's apparent engagement with Holocaust denial I can't speculate, but the possibility is one that should at least be acknowledged.

 

[Dire Bare]

I disagree with your assessment of Barker, from what we know now, afaict he seems to have been seriously engaged with/supportive of Neo-Nazism, making him vastly more racist than most people then or now. Based on this, I would lean strongly towards him being a 'horrible person' (& I'd say the same of game designers on the Left equally supportive of eg Maoism). But the more important point "My mixed views on Lovecraft, Gygax, and Barker doesn't make me a horrible person" I agree with 100%.

As the conversation here and elsewhere has developed, I've learned more. I don't think we have enough information to know Barker was 100% a neo-Nazi without doubt . . . but we have enough to know its pretty darn likely. The weight of evidence is against him. He most definitely engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric. We have enough for me to be disappointed and saddened in the man.

But . . . game designers on the left who support Maoism? Is that a burning issue we've been unaware of?

 

[Dire Bare]

Indeed. Now, when you have a direct accusation, the issue tends to be that if you assume the accused is innocent, you have to assume that the accuser is lying. So you're condemning the accuser of lying, without evidence that they are lying. Meaning it's not that easy a lot of the time.

Accusations are not enough. But accusations accompanied with some evidence are entirely different. Accusing Barker of being racist with the knowledge that he wrote pro-Nazi fiction and worked on a Holocaust-denial journal for over a decade? That's a reasonable conclusion, right there. For example.

I probably wasn't clear enough. When I said "tends to be", I was trying to focus on the cases where the only real alternative is lying (as evidenced by my "a lot of the time."). It's inaccurate to say that there is always an alternative explanation. Sometimes the only realistic alternative is lying.


The problem with people putting forward innocent until proven guilty in the context of this type of discussion is that they tend to stop there, and refuse to even examine what evidence there might be, because they want to apply a standard of evidence beyond what is reasonable. It's used as a discussion-ender, not a standard of evidence. Edit: It's happened in this very thread, for example.

Outside a court of law, the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" is (usually) lower, but still a good principle to adhere to. Do we have enough evidence to convict MAR Barker in a court of law as a neo-Nazi? Probably not. But we have enough evidence to know he's guilty of engaging in neo-Nazi rhetoric. And that's enough (for most folks).

The stakes are lower too, and not just because Barker has passed. If he were still alive, he would not be in danger of being executed, jailed or fined. He would risk a hit to his reputation and possible income from sales of his work, or being fired from his job as a professor.

Some folks do use the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" as a way to deflect criticism of a bad actor like Barker. But that doesn't make the principle itself flawed or not useful. It just makes those folks who use it that way also bad actors, or at least lazy thinkers.

 

[Dire Bare]

The problem with that is that it presumes there's a clear manner to delineate "where the only real alternative is lying," from all of the other times. While I won't go so far as to say that there's always an alternative explanation, my suspicion is that instances where there isn't are fewer than is generally presumed.

Who decides what's reasonable? It strikes me as entirely possible for two people to look at the same evidence and come to vastly different conclusions, including a determination that the evidence is insufficient to reach a conclusion, necessitating a default back to the presumption of innocence.

As this isn't a court of law, we don't need to come to a consensus.

One person may feel there is enough evidence that Barker is a terrible neo-Nazi, and another may feel there is not yet enough evidence. Those folks will likely react differently to the recent news of "Serpent's Walk". And that's okay.

We only need worry about those who think Barker being a neo-Nazi isn't a big deal. Or worse, those who would be now more interested in his work. Or those who work very hard to deflect any criticism or discussion over their literary and gaming heroes revealed flaws.

 

[Blue Orange]

As the conversation here and elsewhere has developed, I've learned more. I don't think we have enough information to know Barker was 100% a neo-Nazi without doubt . . . but we have enough to know its pretty darn likely. The weight of evidence is against him. He most definitely engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric. We have enough for me to be disappointed and saddened in the man.

But . . . game designers on the left who support Maoism? Is that a burning issue we've been unaware of?

One of the 'Uncaged' series had hammer and sickle magic items in what was obviously supposed to be a positive context, and Communism has its own eight-digit death toll. People more up-to-date could probably come up with better examples.

I don't think there's a huge fascism problem in tabletop gaming per se. (Online games are another story...I'm told they're a major recruiting ground.) It may have inclusion problems, but actual fascists seem pretty thin on the ground from what I've seen...even progressive bete noires like the RPGPundit will boot you from their forums if you actually start expressing Nazi views. Barker seems to have kept anything explicit out of his game. Nazis are standard villains, often to a ridiculous degree (Cthulhu Dark Ages has evil cults whose symbol is a swastika...though I suppose in-game maybe the historical Nazis were descendants of the evil cults, which is very Cthulhu).

Tabletop games, for whatever reason, seem to lean heavily left (maybe in reaction to the Satanic Panic of the 80s driving off a large fraction of the right? no clue). But I don't think support for Communist cells is a 'burning issue'.

 

[Fifth Element]

Some folks do use the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" as a way to deflect criticism of a bad actor like Barker. But that doesn't make the principle itself flawed or not useful.

Never suggested otherwise. It is, in fact, simply a restatement of the principle of skepticism for a particular purpose. You shouldn't believe anything until you have good reason to believe it, with "good reason" being entirely dependent on the circumstances and the nature of the claim.