Quote from: Abraxus on March 22, 2022, 12:35:33 PM
Looks like another purge at the TBP has started:

https://www.rpg.net/columns/advanced-designers-and-dragons/advanced-designers-and-dragons63.phtml

Is it really so different from what's been said here?

Quote from: HappyDaze on March 22, 2022, 02:46:50 PM

Quote from: Abraxus on March 22, 2022, 12:35:33 PM
Looks like another purge at the TBP has started:

https://www.rpg.net/columns/advanced-designers-and-dragons/advanced-designers-and-dragons63.phtml

Is it really so different from what's been said here?

Quote
Whether a problematic author can be separated from their creative work has been a frequent topic of discussion in the 21st century, with the homophobic attitudes of Orson Scott Card and the transphobic attitudes of J.K. Rowling being some of the biggest flashpoints of discussion. It's also touched directly upon our hobby in the previously well-received works of creators such as Alexander Macris and Zak S., which have become problematic to many because of actions of those creators. But there's never been an author as notable as Barker who has been revealed to have such feet of clay.

Yeah, I would say different.

Quote from: tenbones on March 22, 2022, 12:00:04 PMI was meh on the Red List anyhow... now I'm even more meh.

I've always been meh on the Red List too (or Woke List, whatever we wanna call it), but I'm inclined to say "Red List" on the basis that Barker not only wrote what a appears to be one of the most well regarded (by its target audience) pieces of pro-Nazi fiction, but also sat in the board of a Holocaust-denying newspaper, which makes him more than a passive actor with wrong opinions, but someone taking an active role in it, using his weight as an academic to lend credibility to Holocaust denialism. And to top it off the TF sat on that knowledge for years once they found out, whether for financial reasons or to cover their ass.

That being said, I don't consider Tekumel in any way related to Nazism or white supremacy, and would have been happy to separate art from the artist, except for the above points. I also reserve the word "Nazi" for actual members of the Nazi party (which isn't around anymore and he wasn't a part of), or at least people with Nazi views in actual positions of power (like Ukraine's Nazi battalion). But I still think that the guy crossed into the Red (to the degree that list even matters) for the reasons I stated above.

Quote from: tenbones on March 22, 2022, 11:51:29 AM
But I'm not talking about the Red List. I'm talking about the Green List and Yellow List...

#1 needs to be answered first. I don't see anyone here putting their chip on the table... despite all the protestations of the author's extracurricular activities. /looks at Grandpa's closet...

Edit: I'm asking these not *because* I want Tekumel to go onto the Redlist (or remain off it) - I'm asking because  I would assume Tekumel gets the Cthulhu clause... But apparently some people don't think Barker to Lovecraft are apples to oranges.

I think part of the difference with Lovecraft is that he was both a product of an era, and his head was filled with these ideals by his aunts who raised him when he was most vulnerable. But more importantly Lovecraft and Howard get a pass because they both had alot of nuance to their beliefs and their beliefs changed. Especially Lovecraft as he got out and actually saw the real world rather than the ugly image his aunts painted. The other thing with Lovecraft is that for all the claims he was wacist... He was not in the sense we had back in the 60s, and sure as hell not what the terms been twisted into now. And his writing shows this. Haunter in the Dark being one of the better examples.

Barker is a complete cypher. All we have so far is his connections to a supremacist group via two sources. The oversight board one could be for any number of reasons. But Serpent Walks leaves little room for doubt as to it being a platform for the groups agenda. Without reading further back into the book (I started at the end and have been working backwards)  The book though is freakishly not anti-Semitic. In fact the gist of the final statement of the main character on this is "We would have prefered to live with the Jews in peace. Seperately, and at a distance." But the book very much paints the "Izzies", which mostly seems to be Israel as just as bad as the Nazis. Which seems to be the main characters point of disgust with them. If anything at times it is their British and American allies that come across as more racist than the Germans.

Which brings up the even more ugly possibility that Barker was not only working with them to further their racist ideals. But also used them to further HIS racist views. All carefully packaged. There is certainly a pattern developing that I am seeing here just from going over the last several chapters. The main antagonists is Israel the book mentions various historical exerps from their wars with Palestine and by the time of the books setting of 204x it has escalated to africa and europe. Now sprinkle in various bemoanings on how the Nazis were badly treated and were denied "justice". All backed with what are likely true (or partially true) historical incidents during WWII.

It is a book serving two hateful agendas. Not one.

In an attempt to splash some cooling water on understandably passionate conflicts, it seems to me like the problem is a basic clash between two long-standing -- and in themselves neither even slightly disputed, I think -- tenets of the various philosophies prevailing here:

1) Fascism and anti-Semitism are intrinsically evil, and even allowing oneself to be passively associated with them for profit is wrong.
2) Attempting to "cancel" people -- to socially ostracize them through organized campaigns of denunciation and renunciation, even to the point of reputational or economic ruin if possible -- for their political opinions, so long as their advocacy of those opinions does not rise to the level of calling for outright violence, is also intrinsically wrong, not least because it is a critical tactic of fascism whenever it's implemented.

The paradox, of course, is: Is it right or wrong to call for the cancellation of a group who profited from a pro-fascist anti-Semite's work? If cancellation is always and intrinsically wrong, then this admits of no exceptions, not even for neo-Nazism, which understandably strikes many as intolerable. But if neo-Nazism is evil enough to justify otherwise intolerable tactics, then we admit a potentially fatal caveat into the philosophical opposition to Wokeness for which many people value this site -- for then the argument is not whether cancellation is wrong, but only where one draws the line about who truly deserves to suffer it, and lines drawn for exceptions have a demonstrable tendency to shift with the times.

Several stipulations can be noted which may help mitigate this clash, as have been observed by others:

- While Barker's work can't pass any reasonable smell test by now for forgiveable motivations, "passive association" may be too broad a category to realistically use as a sole criterion of judgement. At least some people working for the Tekumel Foundation knew of Barker's anti-Semitic writing for years, but determining "what did you know, and when did you know it?" for everybody who ever worked for the Foundation is impractical, and assuming "if they took the money they should take the blame" may be too close to "guilty until proven innocent" for comfort.

- On the other hand, being put on the Red portion of the Woke list here is a long way off from "an organized campaign of denunciation". Those who don't want to support anti-Semitism even passively, indirectly or retroactively now have the information needed to make the choices required by good conscience, and are free to advise whoever else they like about it and why. If others want to give the Foundation more money for more Tekumel products, on the grounds that (a) none of it has been going to benefit Barker or Barker's politics for years, (b) nothing specifically Tekumel-related is anti-Semitic, and (c) by the time the Foundation found out about Barker there was nothing they could have practically done about it, then they still have that option -- the Red list isn't stopping them.

The fatal temptation when resisting something seen as unquestionably evil is the temptation to believe that a disagreement about means must necessarily indicate an unforgiveable difference about ends. In the spirit of respect for most of the posters I read here, and in gratitude to our host RPGPundit for allowing this to be thrashed out, I ask if we can aspire to looking for the best faith possible with those who disagree.

Part of the pushback against Pundit is that there is far as I know so far no clear timeline of when the Foundation learned of all this. But Pundit has declared them Nazi supporters and accused them of deliberately concealing this.

If thats true then what about Cherine who learned this apparently a decade ago. And yet on this very forum has said not a damn thing about it? And he has posted here as of I think a year ago. Maybe 2. Before my accident Im pretty sure.

Is he damned as well for not telling everyone?

Quote from: Omega on March 22, 2022, 05:04:25 PMPundit has declared them Nazi supporters and accused them of deliberately concealing this.

They did deliberately conceal it; at least, some of them did. How many and who is probably never going to be feasible to specifically determine at this point, barring people making public mea culpas about it.  The Woke certainly overuse, and unfairly, the "silence is complicity" accusation, but that doesn't mean there aren't circumstances in which it's justifiable.

As a Catholic I tend to lean pretty heavily on the distinction between formal and material cooperation with evil, which I find to be a useful way to look at issues like this.

Quote from: Shasarak on March 22, 2022, 03:59:53 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on March 22, 2022, 02:46:50 PM

Quote from: Abraxus on March 22, 2022, 12:35:33 PM
Looks like another purge at the TBP has started:

https://www.rpg.net/columns/advanced-designers-and-dragons/advanced-designers-and-dragons63.phtml

Is it really so different from what's been said here?

Quote
Whether a problematic author can be separated from their creative work has been a frequent topic of discussion in the 21st century, with the homophobic attitudes of Orson Scott Card and the transphobic attitudes of J.K. Rowling being some of the biggest flashpoints of discussion. It's also touched directly upon our hobby in the previously well-received works of creators such as Alexander Macris and Zak S., which have become problematic to many because of actions of those creators. But there's never been an author as notable as Barker who has been revealed to have such feet of clay.

Yeah, I would say different.

I see you agree completely.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 22, 2022, 05:25:50 PM

Quote from: Omega on March 22, 2022, 05:04:25 PMPundit has declared them Nazi supporters and accused them of deliberately concealing this.

They did deliberately conceal it; at least, some of them did. How many and who is probably never going to be feasible to specifically determine at this point, barring people making public mea culpas about it.  The Woke certainly overuse, and unfairly, the "silence is complicity" accusation, but that doesn't mean there aren't circumstances in which it's justifiable.

As a Catholic I tend to lean pretty heavily on the distinction between formal and material cooperation with evil, which I find to be a useful way to look at issues like this.

What I mean is that Pundit is making it out that the foundation concealed this for nefarious ends. Either to merely profiteer off his works. Or as mustache twirling villains.

And we do not know that they concealed it. Merely that they sat on the information for X amount of time. Which as I've pointed out before. Could be for valid reasons or just indecision in the face of ongoing SJW witch hunts.

Screaming "THEY HID IT! THEY ARE EVIL!" doesnt make that a fact.

Now if it turns out that they looked at Cherine and said "Hey bub... Lets not be tellin anyone bout this ok?" then thats a different matter.

Quote from: Omega on March 22, 2022, 05:45:39 PMPundit is making it out that the foundation concealed this for nefarious ends.

They may have done. It depends on how personally venal their motives were. I think it vanishingly unlikely that anybody in the Foundation actually agreed with Barker's expressed views, but if one's stance amounts to, "I don't care enough about anti-Semitism to give up making money at least somewhat enabled by it," that's at absolute best callously selfish. Such attitudes have contributed measurably to the success of pernicious doctrines in the past.

Myself I believe the thinking was more along the lines of, "I don't think our employees deserve to lose their job and their income over one man's evil actions, especially since they didn't know about them, those actions had nothing directly to do with their job, and they can't be altered now anyway," which is in my view more understandable. But it's within the realm of reason to disagree about which way it's more appropriate to bet.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 22, 2022, 04:49:13 PM
In an attempt to splash some cooling water on understandably passionate conflicts, it seems to me like the problem is a basic clash between two long-standing -- and in themselves neither even slightly disputed, I think -- tenets of the various philosophies prevailing here:

1) Fascism and anti-Semitism are intrinsically evil, and even allowing oneself to be passively associated with them for profit is wrong.
2) Attempting to "cancel" people -- to socially ostracize them through organized campaigns of denunciation and renunciation, even to the point of reputational or economic ruin if possible -- for their political opinions, so long as their advocacy of those opinions does not rise to the level of calling for outright violence, is also intrinsically wrong, not least because it is a critical tactic of fascism whenever it's implemented.

I don't think that's where people differ.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 22, 2022, 06:01:38 PM

Quote from: Omega on March 22, 2022, 05:45:39 PMPundit is making it out that the foundation concealed this for nefarious ends.

They may have done. It depends on how personally venal their motives were. I think it vanishingly unlikely that anybody in the Foundation actually agreed with Barker's expressed views, but if one's stance amounts to, "I don't care enough about anti-Semitism to give up making money at least somewhat enabled by it," that's at absolute best callously selfish. Such attitudes have contributed measurably to the success of pernicious doctrines in the past.

Myself I believe the thinking was more along the lines of, "I don't think our employees deserve to lose their job and their income over one man's evil actions, especially since they didn't know about them, those actions had nothing directly to do with their job, and they can't be altered now anyway," which is in my view more understandable. But it's within the realm of reason to disagree about which way it's more appropriate to bet.

Regardless of their rationalizations, they chose to keep it to themselves rather than making it public.

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2022, 06:03:32 PMI don't think that's where people differ.

I agree. I think most regular posters here agree on both those beliefs.

To me it seems like the conflict is about whether there's a necessary contradiction between them in this particular situation, and how best to resolve it if there is. I was just hoping to pour a little oil on troubled waters.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 22, 2022, 06:19:08 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2022, 06:03:32 PMI don't think that's where people differ.

I agree. I think most regular posters here agree on both those beliefs.

To me it seems like the conflict is about whether there's a necessary contradiction between them in this particular situation, and how best to resolve it if there is. I was just hoping to pour a little oil on troubled waters.

That's what I disagree with. I don't think that's the crux of the issue.

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2022, 06:23:36 PMI don't think that's the crux of the issue.

What do you think is the crux of it? If it's been expressed in a previous post, I apologize for missing it.