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

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Y’all, while this IS a politically charged thread, it’s getting into the weeds a bit. Let’s step back from the edge a bit, shall we?

 

[S'mon]

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?

Nerd culture in general seems to have gone from broadly Right-Libertarian decades ago, to broadly Left-Liberal today.

 

[mythago]

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.

Yes, the principle is - at best - flawed. Even when used in good faith, it is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand, appropriating the very high standard necessary to procure a criminal conviction and demanding that we should not believe a thing to be true unless that standard is met.

"Innocent until proven guilty", in a criminal court, really means "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". That high standard exists because the State is attempting to judge someone as having committed a crime, and to be subject to deprivation of their liberty and property. The standard of proof in civil courts of law is nowhere near that harsh - even in lawsuits for millions of dollars, the burden of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence", also expressed as "more likely than not" or "a little more than 50%".

I don't think it's an accident that in discussions like this, especially when the argument is against judging someone's actions, the standard thrown out is "innocent until proven guilty". Doing so evokes a whole set of cultural tropes about the need to protect the accused, the risk of consequences for judgment, and the huge pile of evidence that we demand before we accept something as true when we'd really rather not. Imagine instead saying "I really would want a preponderance of the evidence showing this is true." Just doesn't have the same, all-about-the-principles, Atticus Finch kinda oomph to it, eh?

 

[aramis erak]

Yes, the principle is - at best - flawed. Even when used in good faith, it is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand, appropriating the very high standard necessary to procure a criminal conviction and demanding that we should not believe a thing to be true unless that standard is met.

"Innocent until proven guilty", in a criminal court, really means "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". That high standard exists because the State is attempting to judge someone as having committed a crime, and to be subject to deprivation of their liberty and property. The standard of proof in civil courts of law is nowhere near that harsh - even in lawsuits for millions of dollars, the burden of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence", also expressed as "more likely than not" or "a little more than 50%".

I don't think it's an accident that in discussions like this, especially when the argument is against judging someone's actions, the standard thrown out is "innocent until proven guilty". Doing so evokes a whole set of cultural tropes about the need to protect the accused, the risk of consequences for judgment, and the huge pile of evidence that we demand before we accept something as true when we'd really rather not. Imagine instead saying "I really would want a preponderance of the evidence showing this is true." Just doesn't have the same, all-about-the-principles, Atticus Finch kinda oomph to it, eh?

The standard of proof for most legal cases is "Preponderance of the Evidence" - because most legal cases are not criminal court cases.

I don't see it rising to that for being neonazi. Anti-Jewish? Quite possibly, but there's no evidence I've seen of him acting upon it in his day job. (Academia is higher than general population rates with persons of Jewish ethnicity and faith. But keep in mind, technically, Semite isn't just Jews; the whole region technically is mostly semites - Jews, Arabs, Palestinians, Syrians, Chaldeans... all Semites.) 70's and 80's academia, being openly anti-Jewish would have been a career ender in many institutions - the JADL would have seen to that.

 

[Parmandur]

The standard of proof for most legal cases is "Preponderance of the Evidence" - because most legal cases are not criminal court cases.

I don't see it rising to that for being neonazi. Anti-Jewish? Quite possibly, but there's no evidence I've seen of him acting upon it in his day job. (Academia is higher than general population rates with persons of Jewish ethnicity and faith. But keep in mind, technically, Semite isn't just Jews; the whole region technically is mostly semites - Jews, Arabs, Palestinians, Syrians, Chaldeans... all Semites.) 70's and 80's academia, being openly anti-Jewish would have been a career ender in many institutions - the JADL would have seen to that.

Writing a detailed Neo-Nazi novel and taking money for it is action.

 

[mythago]

The standard of proof for most legal cases is "Preponderance of the Evidence" - because most legal cases are not criminal court cases.

Sure. Which is something that gets a little lost in the arguments about what standards "courts of law" have. Urging innocent until proven guilty as a standard for deciding "Should we believe this negative thing about a person?" is indulging in the pretense that we are choosing a neutral, thoughtful, and well-established method of reaching a decision.

 

[aramis erak]

Writing a detailed Neo-Nazi novel and taking money for it is action.

Not action in his day job, tho'.

 

[aramis erak]

Sure. Which is something that gets a little lost in the arguments about what standards "courts of law" have. Urging innocent until proven guilty as a standard for deciding "Should we believe this negative thing about a person?" is indulging in the pretense that we are choosing a neutral, thoughtful, and well-established method of reaching a decision.

Which I consider part of basic human to human decency. (Not to mention a religious obligation for many.)

 

[Parmandur]

Not action in his day job, tho'.

I'm sorry, but taking Nazi action in a side hustle is still pretty terrible.

 

[Parmandur]

Which I consider part of basic human to human decency. (Not to mention a religious obligation for many.)

From a religious and moral angle, a charitable read still isn't good: ignorance and stupidity, unfortunately, are not viable options for parsing his actions, given that Barker was a certified genius and highly educated professor of history and language. Malice is the only logically remaining option.