RPGnet's decay (TBP madness)

[Fergurg]

Back to the topic at hand.

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/wilx-receives-a-%F0%9F%92%80-permanent-ban.900109/

I can't figure this one out. Oh, I know exactly why wilx got the boot -- the 'tolerance' of the intolerant, after all -- but they've been on TBP since 2003. They had to know how TBP's culture had metastasized like cancer. It's not like they hadn't posted for an extended period -- looking at their history, seems like they'd post every few years, but they had to see this shit playing out.

Very strange.

You will be made to care about politics, and made to care correctly. To say that you refuse to care is to admit to a heinous crime against the right side of history. TBP mod culture is clearly a totalitarian cult (all cults are essentially totalitarian), but how the poster, a long time member and not a brand new troll account, missed that is indeed bizarre.

Remember: Only you can prevent thoughtcrime!

[Trond]

Lol!  "your brand of intolerance is not welcome here" only theirs is welcome.  How typical.

Should I be asked to choose a single ban that proves how TBP is irremediably insane, I would choose this. It is fascist in the purest sense of the word.

There's that notion again.
I have to disagree. Irredeemably insane yes, but far left and far right aren't the same. I never saw the point in conflating them. It's like calling a serial killer a religious terrorist.

For the record: Fascists are extremist militaristic totalitarian nationalists. With a bit extra emphasis on that last word.

[Reckall]

Lol!  "your brand of intolerance is not welcome here" only theirs is welcome.  How typical.

Should I be asked to choose a single ban that proves how TBP is irremediably insane, I would choose this. It is fascist in the purest sense of the word.

There's that notion again.
I have to disagree. Irredeemably insane yes, but far left and far right aren't the same. I never saw the point in conflating them. It's like calling a serial killer a religious terrorist.

For the record: Fascists are extremist militaristic totalitarian nationalists. With a bit extra emphasis on that last word.

No. According to Merriam-Webster:

- "A tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control."

Britannica Dictionary is even more damning towards TBP:

- "A way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government."

- Very harsh control or authority.

...If the above doesn't describes where that place is now, I don't know what does.

[Trond]

Lol!  "your brand of intolerance is not welcome here" only theirs is welcome.  How typical.

Should I be asked to choose a single ban that proves how TBP is irremediably insane, I would choose this. It is fascist in the purest sense of the word.

There's that notion again.
I have to disagree. Irredeemably insane yes, but far left and far right aren't the same. I never saw the point in conflating them. It's like calling a serial killer a religious terrorist.

For the record: Fascists are extremist militaristic totalitarian nationalists. With a bit extra emphasis on that last word.

No. According to Merriam-Webster:

- "A tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control."

Britannica Dictionary is even more damning towards TBP:

- "A way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government."

- Very harsh control or authority.

...If the above doesn't describes where that place is now, I don't know what does.

The above dictionaries are inaccurate. If we follow Webster then both Caesar and Louis XIV were fascists, which is a useless definition. One might even say the Britannica dictionary is contradicting the old encyclopedia.  According to Encyclopedia Britannica Fascism is most strictly applied to Fascist Italy, Germany and Spain, or more generally "any right-wing, nationalist, totalitarian movement of government". It also mentions militaristic virtues. Ryan Chapman has a pretty through YouTube video explaining it, but I'd say that if extremist nationalism is not involved, then it's definitely not fascism. Militaristic nationalism is the very core of fascism.

[Armchair Gamer]

This thread on games people can't enjoy due to philosophical differences is an interesting snapshot of TBP's own philosophical leanings. I don't object to the premise, but I am struck by some of the examples in play--the idea that any of Lovecraft's cosmology could be intellectually disturbing seems anathema, as well as the concept of non-democratic government being anything other than inherently evil.

[Trond]

This thread on games people can't enjoy due to philosophical differences is an interesting snapshot of TBP's own philosophical leanings. I don't object to the premise, but I am struck by some of the examples in play--the idea that any of Lovecraft's cosmology could be intellectually disturbing seems anathema, as well as the concept of non-democratic government being anything other than inherently evil.

From the OP;
".. I can't seem to reconcile the PCs being the good guys and cops at the same time."

Dear lord

[wmarshal]

This thread on games people can't enjoy due to philosophical differences is an interesting snapshot of TBP's own philosophical leanings. I don't object to the premise, but I am struck by some of the examples in play--the idea that any of Lovecraft's cosmology could be intellectually disturbing seems anathema, as well as the concept of non-democratic government being anything other than inherently evil.

From the OP;
".. I can't seem to reconcile the PCs being the good guys and cops at the same time."

Dear lord

It would be hilarious if anyone posted about having irreconcilable differences with Blue Rose and it's dystopian aspects.

[Armchair Gamer]

It would be hilarious if anyone posted about having irreconcilable differences with Blue Rose and it's dystopian aspects.

  I could if I hadn't scrambled my account--I honestly took a look at the first release, but bounced off not only the sexual liberalism of Aldis, but the tendency to demonize conversatism and traditionalism I saw in Jarzon. (The second edition, by contrast, was overt enough that the Kickstarter promotional text convinced me to stop supporting Green Ronin altogether, despite having been a big M&M reader/collector.)

[Zelen]

It is fascist in the purest sense of the word.

Fascism has no definition, except that it's anti-Communism. And Communism is simply dictatorship by the most evil and degenerate members of society.

[Armchair Gamer]

It is fascist in the purest sense of the word.

Fascism has no definition, except that it's anti-Communism. And Communism is simply dictatorship by the most evil and degenerate members of society.

  The only definition of fascism that everyone agrees on is that it was Mussolini's movement in early 20th-century Italy. Beyond that, even the Nazis and the Spanish right-wing are in or out depending upon which scholar you consult.

[Trond]

Yup, the Italian Fascist movement (capitalized) were of course the ones that actually called themselves that. But a lot of people see great similarities and cross-pollination (or contamination) between these regimes in Germany and Spain as well, as well as openly related movements that didn't get as far in other countries, so having a name for this broader category ("fascists" without capitalization) is quite useful. The real reason why this has always been contentious is at least partially because Hitler didn't like calling himself fascist. But his indebtedness to Mussolini was always obvious, including the infamous fascist salute (now often called Nazi salute).

[Trond]

This thread on games people can't enjoy due to philosophical differences is an interesting snapshot of TBP's own philosophical leanings. I don't object to the premise, but I am struck by some of the examples in play--the idea that any of Lovecraft's cosmology could be intellectually disturbing seems anathema, as well as the concept of non-democratic government being anything other than inherently evil.

From the OP;
".. I can't seem to reconcile the PCs being the good guys and cops at the same time."

Dear lord

It would be hilarious if anyone posted about having irreconcilable differences with Blue Rose and it's dystopian aspects.

Isn't the supreme overlord in that game a magical stag or something? Doesn't sound like a very humanist place.

[Reckall]

Lol!  "your brand of intolerance is not welcome here" only theirs is welcome.  How typical.

Should I be asked to choose a single ban that proves how TBP is irremediably insane, I would choose this. It is fascist in the purest sense of the word.

There's that notion again.
I have to disagree. Irredeemably insane yes, but far left and far right aren't the same. I never saw the point in conflating them. It's like calling a serial killer a religious terrorist.

For the record: Fascists are extremist militaristic totalitarian nationalists. With a bit extra emphasis on that last word.

No. According to Merriam-Webster:

- "A tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control."

Britannica Dictionary is even more damning towards TBP:

- "A way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government."

- Very harsh control or authority.

...If the above doesn't describes where that place is now, I don't know what does.

The above dictionaries are inaccurate. If we follow Webster then both Caesar and Louis XIV were fascists, which is a useless definition. One might even say the Britannica dictionary is contradicting the old encyclopedia.  According to Encyclopedia Britannica Fascism is most strictly applied to Fascist Italy, Germany and Spain, or more generally "any right-wing, nationalist, totalitarian movement of government". It also mentions militaristic virtues. Ryan Chapman has a pretty through YouTube video explaining it, but I'd say that if extremist nationalism is not involved, then it's definitely not fascism. Militaristic nationalism is the very core of fascism.

Let put aside for a moment that the aforementioned definitions still apply to TBP. What you are talking about is the historical application of the concept on nation state level - and, in this context, used as a definition for what happened in Italy, then partially in Spain and Germany. Even in the video you quoted, which I watched, there is a jump: up to 10:25 the ideas expressed by Mussolini can very well describe the whole "Woke" movement - especially the (perceived) "age of crowds". Mussolini then chooses "The greatness of the nation" as his "myth" - and from there "Nationalism" becomes associated with the specific brand of Fascism that was first seen in Italy.

But even going forward, Chapman underlines how Fascism still grows from some Marxist roots: start by telling the crowd a simple story of a binary struggle between good and evil where the elites are evil and the common people is good (do we want to speak AGAIN about the obsession for "The Patriarchy" or "White men as elites"?)

The key point, here, is that the original Fascism had a core set of values you had to agree with "or else" because they are for everyone's good. Mussolini honestly thought that he was acting for the good of Italy, that "banning" (i.e. either arresting or deporting) dissenting voices helped the common good. Truth and facts became secondary to "concepts that reach the crowd emotionally". Violence, physical or verbal, was an unavoidable way to attain these aims.

Notice how the woke crowd fully agrees with all of this: violence is condemned but theirs isn't; intolerance is condemned but theirs isn't - because their actions are actually for the greater good. This is why I wrote how "your brand of intolerance is not welcome here - only theirs is welcome" is "fascism in the purest sense of the word."

Dictatorship in Rome was different, as dictators had a temporal mandate and still could be held accountable for their actions when it expired. And Louis XIV was an Absolutist - i.e. he ruled according to how he got out of the bed that day.

[Trond]

Reckall, I don't think we'll ever agree on this. To me, it simply throws too many things into the "fascist" umbrella that nobody would recognize as such. My grandfather (mother's side)) supported communists, he was stupid in that regard but certainly was not a fascist, who he hid his views from during the war (I once asked my mother why he was a commie, like many communists, he was lazy and wanted things for free according to my mom. Fascists tend to think differently).

What you mention that Mussolini added "The greatness of the nation" (and the extremism of this view) makes the biggest difference. I would also add some things to the video : to fascists militarism actually is part of the point, because they are inspired by military conquerors of the past, to leftists it is a necessity in order to reach utopia (or "unicornia" as I like to say😄). This is why many people think that the socialists are "nicer" despite the fact that the utopia they seek only leads to mass graves. So again I have to disagree, because the underlying motivations of the movements are different, and always have been.

[Reckall]

Reckall, I don't think we'll ever agree on this. To me, it simply throws too many things into the "fascist" umbrella that nobody would recognize as such.

Well, I feel the opposite, so let's say that we agree to disagree.

However, it is worth remembering what Stanley Kubrick said in his interview with Michel Ciment about "A Clockwork Orange":

What amuses me is that many reviewers speak of this society as a communist one, whereas there is no reason to think it is.

The Minister, played by Anthony Sharp, is clearly a figure of the Right. The writer, Patrick Magee, is a lunatic of the Left. 'The common people must be led, driven, pushed!' he pants into the telephone. 'They will sell their liberty for an easier life!'

But these could be the very words of a fascist.

Yes, of course. They differ only in their dogma. Their means and ends are hardly distinguishable.