This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Reconciliation  (Read 23349 times)

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3556
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #150 on: December 01, 2022, 05:14:50 PM »
      Free speech was a huge point for lefties for a long time.  Now a days....there seem to be some subjects so dangerous they can not be discussed in public by anyone lest the corrupting words immediately take effect and cause mass violence.....   So strange that once a side is able to use a tool, free speech, to get what they want tolerated as norms, time to shut that shit down....  It will be an interesting next two decades.   

Stephen Tannhauser

  • Curmudgeonly Refugee
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 1109
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #151 on: December 01, 2022, 05:20:19 PM »
So, to possibly move the thread in a more positive discussion, what would need to happen to make rconciliation more viable?

One idea that occurred to me -- and I have not thought this deeply through so there may well be problems worth criticizing in it -- would be to try to establish, possibly with protection under law, a concept I will rather grandiosely call the "Right of Employment-Independent Conscience".

The biggest legal framework of this would be that a company or organization cannot fire an employee for publicly upholding or expressing a value or stance not shared by the organization or the organization's leaders, unless that value or stance is explicitly enumerated in the employment contract or organizational founding charter (so churches can still have morality clauses, but companies don't get to fire you for your blog posts). The flip side of this is that no individual or company can legally terminate an existing contract with another company solely because of publicly expressed private statements by any given employee of that company (so your employer can sue anybody who breaks a contract with them because of something you said).

Put simply, if everyone was protected from having to choose between their conscience and their livelihood except in the most foundational of dilemmas, conflicts of value could be allowed to play out through free speech without the blackmail silencing effects of cancel culture, and the resentment, hostility and fear of those who could not afford that free speech would be greatly alleviated. I think that might go a long way towards calming things down.
Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3556
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #152 on: December 01, 2022, 05:36:54 PM »
Employers actively and legally discriminate based on race and sex....I am pretty sure not getting fired over opinions is a long way in the rear view at this point.

Stephen Tannhauser

  • Curmudgeonly Refugee
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 1109
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #153 on: December 01, 2022, 05:49:11 PM »
Employers actively and legally discriminate based on race and sex....I am pretty sure not getting fired over opinions is a long way in the rear view at this point.

Tell that to the lawyer who was let go from her law firm for having the nerve to say -- in a conference call explicitly designated as a "safe space" to talk about such reactions -- that she actually didn't disagree with the Dobbs decision.

There's also a difference in that most current discrimination (affirmative action or otherwise) takes place in the hiring part of the process. Cancel culture, by contrast, is all about socio-economically punishing people for things that have nothing to do with how well they do or don't do their job.
Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3556
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #154 on: December 01, 2022, 06:31:25 PM »
Employers actively and legally discriminate based on race and sex....I am pretty sure not getting fired over opinions is a long way in the rear view at this point.

Tell that to the lawyer who was let go from her law firm for having the nerve to say -- in a conference call explicitly designated as a "safe space" to talk about such reactions -- that she actually didn't disagree with the Dobbs decision.

There's also a difference in that most current discrimination (affirmative action or otherwise) takes place in the hiring part of the process. Cancel culture, by contrast, is all about socio-economically punishing people for things that have nothing to do with how well they do or don't do their job.

  I dont think you understood what I meant by the rear view.   As for AA it is the EXACT same as cancel culture, you just do not bother with allowing the person to say anything inappropriate.  You just bar them from entry based solely on race.   If you can do that with the law and "society" on your side, you are NEVER going to be able to allow people to have the opinion they want at work in the open and be safe from getting shitcanned.

3catcircus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 688
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #155 on: December 01, 2022, 09:29:21 PM »
      Free speech was a huge point for lefties for a long time.  Now a days....there seem to be some subjects so dangerous they can not be discussed in public by anyone lest the corrupting words immediately take effect and cause mass violence.....   So strange that once a side is able to use a tool, free speech, to get what they want tolerated as norms, time to shut that shit down....  It will be an interesting next two decades.   

The left labels the truth as racist, sexist, etc. because they are incapable of winning hearts and minds when the playing field of ideas is level.

They can't win on logic, so they rely upon emotion.

EDIT: And they also rely upon the fact that public schools turn out zombies unable to think critically.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2022, 10:27:45 AM by 3catcircus »

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10487
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #156 on: December 02, 2022, 06:01:15 PM »
So, to possibly move the thread in a more positive discussion, what would need to happen to make rconciliation more viable?

I think it's already started now that Elon Musk is running Twitter.

Yeah. I think it's good to mix up platforms and their perceived loyalties, as it shakes people out of their echo chambers. As I commented earlier, I think disconnecting from social media will be a positive step towards reconciliation. Social media thrives on keeping people in constant outrage.


Kissing your boyfriend in public? I could care less. Kissing your boyfriend in public while loudly proclaiming "we're queer and we're here - deal with it, breeders!!!" That's a problem.  Not because you're kissing in public - because you're making a spectacle of yourself.

It sounds like this complaint isn't about sexualization at all. It's about what people are allowed to say in public.

I don't agree with what a lot of people say - but I also believe in free speech. People have a right to speak their mind, even if that makes them a spectacle. And especially, this is in the context of SHARK and Brad talking about violent cleansing of people they consider degenerates.

It's not a free speech issue. It's the attention-whoring look-at-me-ism of someone purposely trying to force someone else to accept and condone, rather than tolerate.

But you didn't mention anything about use of force in your previous statement. If someone is saying "we're queer and we're here - deal with it, breeders!!!" -- they're using speech. Thus, their right to do so is an issue of free speech. People can use free speech to command attention and call for change. I might not agree with people's positions, but they have a right to express themselves.

I might disagree with what people say or how they express it - but expressing their positions is their right in a free society.

Brad

  • Semper Qvantvm Potes
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2929
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #157 on: December 02, 2022, 08:57:12 PM »
I might disagree with what people say or how they express it - but expressing their positions is their right in a free society.

This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.
It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.

3catcircus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 688
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #158 on: December 02, 2022, 09:11:14 PM »
I might disagree with what people say or how they express it - but expressing their positions is their right in a free society.

This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.

At least he gives lip service.  Twitter, not so much. Elon just dropped a bunch of internal emails showing that Twitter execs colluded with the Dem-led government and the DNC to violate the 1st amendment - and keeping it hidden from the former CEO.  The Dems even started that the 1A isn't absolute in their correspondence. When you have incontrovertible proof that the Dems, tech companies and the media engaging in illegal acts that are prosecutable under the RICO Act, there can be no reconciliation
« Last Edit: December 02, 2022, 09:13:42 PM by 3catcircus »

Bruwulf

  • Dwarf Fanboy
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #159 on: December 03, 2022, 10:01:17 AM »
This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.

"<X> is exactly what <Y> would say!" is one of weakest and most suspect arguments in existence. I heard it enough over on TBP.

"Meat is good, I like meat!"

"That sounds like something a cannibal would say!"

Yes. Similar basic ideals can be held both by people with good intentions and people with bad intentions. But, with a margin of error small enough it hardly matters, almost every time this argument gets used, what I hear is "I can't actually argue the basic point, so I'm just going to compare you to someone we've all agreed to hate to silence you."
« Last Edit: December 03, 2022, 12:37:26 PM by Bruwulf »

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10487
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #160 on: December 03, 2022, 12:47:17 PM »
This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.

"<X> is exactly what <Y> would say!" is one of weakest and most suspect arguments in existence. I heard it enough over on TBP.

"Meat is good, I like meat!"

"That sounds like something a cannibal would say!"

In this case, it's more like -

"Meat is good, I like meat!"

"That's exactly what a radical vegetarian would say, right up until they get control and take away all meat."


I've seen exactly this among some leftists, with "I'm not racist" being met with "That's exactly what a racist would say."

Stephen Tannhauser

  • Curmudgeonly Refugee
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 1109
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #161 on: December 03, 2022, 04:31:23 PM »
In this case, it's more like -

"Meat is good, I like meat!"
"That's exactly what a radical vegetarian would say, right up until they get control and take away all meat."

I've seen exactly this among some leftists, with "I'm not racist" being met with "That's exactly what a racist would say."

C.S. Lewis called this logic "the invisible cat" in his book The Four Loves, talking about the tiresome need to refute the assertion that every close masculine friendship in literature was to be interpreted as an instance of repressed homoeroticism, and continually running up against the fact that whenever you pointed out there was no visible sign of sexual passion at all between the principals, the opposition would nod sagely and say, "That is just what we should expect to find."  "We are arguing," Lewis said, "like a man who should say, 'If there were an invisible cat in that chair, then the chair would look empty; but the chair does look empty; therefore there is an invisible cat in it.'"

Which, leading back to the original question, brings one of the biggest obstacles to reconciliation into view: before it can be achieved something resembling good faith negotiation has to be achieved between the sides, and the problem with asking for good faith negotiations is that it is always a rational response, from the position of fearing bad faith, to say, "You first."
Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3556
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #162 on: December 04, 2022, 10:35:42 AM »
This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.

"<X> is exactly what <Y> would say!" is one of weakest and most suspect arguments in existence. I heard it enough over on TBP.

"Meat is good, I like meat!"

"That sounds like something a cannibal would say!"

Yes. Similar basic ideals can be held both by people with good intentions and people with bad intentions. But, with a margin of error small enough it hardly matters, almost every time this argument gets used, what I hear is "I can't actually argue the basic point, so I'm just going to compare you to someone we've all agreed to hate to silence you."

  well I agree it is a weak argument in a logical sense, but guess what?  That bullshit works and works like a charm.  So...if you are going to be in a fight with someone fighting fair is really stupid.

3catcircus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 688
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #163 on: December 04, 2022, 10:47:36 AM »
This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.

"<X> is exactly what <Y> would say!" is one of weakest and most suspect arguments in existence. I heard it enough over on TBP.

"Meat is good, I like meat!"

"That sounds like something a cannibal would say!"

Yes. Similar basic ideals can be held both by people with good intentions and people with bad intentions. But, with a margin of error small enough it hardly matters, almost every time this argument gets used, what I hear is "I can't actually argue the basic point, so I'm just going to compare you to someone we've all agreed to hate to silence you."

  well I agree it is a weak argument in a logical sense, but guess what?  That bullshit works and works like a charm.  So...if you are going to be in a fight with someone fighting fair is really stupid.
This. This is what mainstream Republicans don't get. No one gives a shit about Queensberry Rules. You have to win by any means necessary.

Zelen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 745
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #164 on: December 04, 2022, 11:00:18 AM »
Usually it's pointless to engage with bad faith actors & enablers. Dismissing them is fine. Shame and ridicule is appropriate. Block/Ignoring them is best.