@Anon Adderlan care to post a link about what Cherine is saying here. Aka ways good to see hypocrites make fools of themselves.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM
1. I see, I was wrong about when he had his PhD. That doesn't change anything significantly - he was still university educated when he converted to Islam, which means he knew what he was converting to.

No, it changes rather a lot if you're not even a grad student vs if you have a PhD.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM2. You're simply wrong about this. It is tolerated. Louis Farrakhan is only criticised by a small portion of the right wing, his open hatred of Jews is tolerated. Linda Sarsour and Rasmea Odeh - the latter who hated Jews so much she killed them - was openly welcomed in the Women's March. You're unaware of it being tolerated because it is tolerated so much the left simply doesn't talk about it.

If it was tolerated, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And again, how you perceive things to be now (which isn't connected to roleplaying at all so I'll leave it there) is irrelevant to what was going on in 1951 when Barker converted. The Women's march happened years after Barker had died, and more than half a century after he converted to Islam. He didn't plan his conversion to Islam based on what some people were going to do more than 60 years into the future. You also stated that as a Muslim, he wouldn't need to hide his antisemitism, yet he did hide it. If he hadn't, the information in this thread wouldn't have been surprising to anyone.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM3. It's the Tekumel foundation that's being condemned for keeping it hidden more than Barker himself - obviously there isn't much point in condemning someone who's already dead.

No, Barker is absolutely being excoriated, but he is, as you say, dead. People don't get excoriated for hiding the bad beliefs of someone if whoever held the beliefs wouldn't get slammed for holding them.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM4. Polytheism is absolutely compatible with atheism - perhaps not in every variant of polytheism, but there are atheist Hindus and there are polytheist Hindus. Just as there were atheist Hellenists and polytheist Hellenists, and they live together (and lived together in the case of the Hellenists) without any friction. If you think they're incompatible, you don't understand pagan beliefs.

Atheism is the belief that no gods exist. Polytheism is the belief in many gods. You cannot be an atheist polytheist. Hinduism isn't really a religion but a term for a set of cultural beliefs shared by several different religions, but you can't actually be an adherent of a Polytheistic religion without believing in the existence of gods. You can be a spiritualist, and you can deny the existence of a creator god and believe the gods came in after the world was made, but if you don't believe in any gods, you're not a polytheist.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AMSikhs, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, Hindus - they can all live in close proximity to each other without any problems. Muslims can't live in close proximity with other - but different - Muslims without having conflict. And Christianity used to be like that. It's not that 'all religions are like that', it's specifically Abrahamic religions that are like that. Judaism used to be like that, Christianity used to be like that, and Islam still is like that.

Huh, and I could have sworn that there was Sikh sectarian violence in India (see the Sikh-Nirankari clash) and a Sikh separatist movement in India that culminated in Operation Blue Star in the 1980s when Indira Gandhi ordered the army to attack the holiest Sikh site, the Golden Temple. Then Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in revenge for this, after which followed riots and violence directed specifically against Sikhs. Huh, almost looks like religious tensions from here, but clearly those are impossible if an Abrahamic religion isn't involved.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM
4. Polytheism is absolutely compatible with atheism - perhaps not in every variant of polytheism, but there are atheist Hindus and there are polytheist Hindus. Just as there were atheist Hellenists and polytheist Hellenists, and they live together (and lived together in the case of the Hellenists) without any friction. If you think they're incompatible, you don't understand pagan beliefs.

Sikhs, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, Hindus - they can all live in close proximity to each other without any problems. Muslims can't live in close proximity with other - but different - Muslims without having conflict. And Christianity used to be like that. It's not that 'all religions are like that', it's specifically Abrahamic religions that are like that. Judaism used to be like that, Christianity used to be like that, and Islam still is like that.

How the fuck can someone be an "atheist polytheist"? Unless you're doing some weird thing where you're conflating the religion and the culture around it, which still doesn't make any sense.

The idea that religious conflict is a specifically Abrahamic thing is so stupid it's laughable. There is a long a storied tradition of Buddhist religious violence. In fact every tradition you named has been associated with religious justifications for violence. Honestly how can you say something so asinine with a straight face?

Quote from: Abraxus on March 30, 2022, 07:34:16 AM
@Anon Adderlan care to post a link about what Cherine is saying here. Aka ways good to see hypocrites make fools of themselves.

Huh, guess I forgot to add the link. Fixed!

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on March 30, 2022, 09:05:41 AM

Quote from: Abraxus on March 30, 2022, 07:34:16 AM
@Anon Adderlan care to post a link about what Cherine is saying here. Aka ways good to see hypocrites make fools of themselves.

Huh, guess I forgot to add the link. Fixed!

Thanks!

I love how he pretends not to know the general character of the forums.

I guess hypocrites are going to be hypocritical.

Quote from: Redwanderer on March 17, 2022, 06:00:46 PM
Crying shame ain't more people whining about the anti-white stuff from things like ADL and SPLC and MURDER bigotry from BLM. What, some kinds of bigotry okay but not others?

Apparently being anti-white, regardless of culture or nationality, is not racism to these woke turds. Questioning them about it, and calling them out on their bigotry, gets you called alt-Right.

But being anti-(insert anything not white here) is a crime against their humanity.

They are the most hate filled social/political group to have risen up in decades, and are completely blind to it.

But if you come out as anti-white, you're not racist. You're pro diversity and inclusive.

Quote from: Abraxus on March 30, 2022, 09:50:50 AM

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on March 30, 2022, 09:05:41 AM

Quote from: Abraxus on March 30, 2022, 07:34:16 AM
@Anon Adderlan care to post a link about what Cherine is saying here. Aka ways good to see hypocrites make fools of themselves.

Huh, guess I forgot to add the link. Fixed!

Thanks!

I love how he pretends not to know the general character of the forums.

I guess hypocrites are going to be hypocritical.

The little bitch is trying a desperate CYA...

History:  4400+ posts and last active 7 days ago
vs.
"stopped posting there because I discovered they were EVULZ."

so its a CYA to avoid cancellation.
(or else he is just claiming that he was so stupid he wasn't aware that the RPGsite was loathed by the CTRL-leftists.)

Yesterday's Slack Wyrm seems pretty apt:  https://joshuawright.net

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 05:17:51 AM
And it's only Christianity and Islam that are exceptionally unfriendly towards Jews. Sikhism, which is also a monotheistic religion, doesn't have any ill will towards Jews.

How can you even compare Christianity and Islam?

One is exceptionally unfriendly towards Jews and the other is Christianity.

Quote from: Rafael on March 30, 2022, 05:01:23 AM
Doesn't look like there's any nuance here, for now. --- If the TF provided other, additional documentation, maybe. But given that they have, so far, fully owned that Barker did the things he did, and explicitly ask their readers that these things would need to be "recognized as part of Professor Barker's past", and are even already trying to move on from the issue itself, I wouldn't be holding my breath.

It would be nice if some kind of saving grace could be found for Barker, but in the texts the public was so far provided with, they are plainly not enough - as are, at this point, any statements from Barker's inner circle, given how they had intentionally been withholding this information until called out.

- I guess, sometimes, somethings are just what they seem.

1: Or maybe there is nuance. That he just had an overinflated ego. Which according to Monard. He probably did.

2: I doubt thats going to happen and even if it did. Would anyone believe it or stop hating him now? You know they wouldnt.
It is such a tangled knot of contradictions and unknowables that the truth will likely never come out.

3: I guess sometimes somethings are not what they seem. Because we do not know now what in the book is actually Barkers work even.

X: So again it comes down to we just do not know that he did, or did not. We have evidence on one side saying yes. And on the other saying no. And everyone jumping to conclusions like good little SJW cattle instead of looking deeper. For all the incessant bitching here about how the Woke falsely accuse everyone. Look at how many here jumped headlong onto the accusation bandwagon.

z: Personal opinion is... I havent a clue anymore. The more I investigate the more ambiguous it gets. Theres every possibility now that yes it was some sort of convoluted jab at Nazis. And theres every possibility it was some sort of convoluted support of Nazis.

At first I was like. "Wait. oooh. Its SJWs making the accusations and insinuations.
Then I read the book more and more and it was looking bad.
Then it turns out the SJWs are, of course, making some stuff up. And theres corraboration Barker was not pro-Nazi.
But theres the damn book?
But then there is the chance, based on Barkers own words. The book was not accepted.
But theres the damn book?
But also from his own words and what of the book he says he wrote and what the book presents is not quite the same? But not so different that its obviously not his book. Just the new possibility that the book was altered and as noted before. Subtle elements that seem contra to the supposed Nazi agenda.
So now theres doubts because things are not matching up for either side.

Im more inclined to believe the side that isnt being deceptive. But not by much because right now there just isnt enough to tip the scales yay or nay. And its even possible he did it for an as yet totally unforeseen, but still nefarious, or benign, reason.

Quote from: Blankman on March 30, 2022, 07:45:08 AM

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM
1. I see, I was wrong about when he had his PhD. That doesn't change anything significantly - he was still university educated when he converted to Islam, which means he knew what he was converting to.

No, it changes rather a lot if you're not even a grad student vs if you have a PhD.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM2. You're simply wrong about this. It is tolerated. Louis Farrakhan is only criticised by a small portion of the right wing, his open hatred of Jews is tolerated. Linda Sarsour and Rasmea Odeh - the latter who hated Jews so much she killed them - was openly welcomed in the Women's March. You're unaware of it being tolerated because it is tolerated so much the left simply doesn't talk about it.

If it was tolerated, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And again, how you perceive things to be now (which isn't connected to roleplaying at all so I'll leave it there) is irrelevant to what was going on in 1951 when Barker converted. The Women's march happened years after Barker had died, and more than half a century after he converted to Islam. He didn't plan his conversion to Islam based on what some people were going to do more than 60 years into the future. You also stated that as a Muslim, he wouldn't need to hide his antisemitism, yet he did hide it. If he hadn't, the information in this thread wouldn't have been surprising to anyone.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM3. It's the Tekumel foundation that's being condemned for keeping it hidden more than Barker himself - obviously there isn't much point in condemning someone who's already dead.

No, Barker is absolutely being excoriated, but he is, as you say, dead. People don't get excoriated for hiding the bad beliefs of someone if whoever held the beliefs wouldn't get slammed for holding them.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AM4. Polytheism is absolutely compatible with atheism - perhaps not in every variant of polytheism, but there are atheist Hindus and there are polytheist Hindus. Just as there were atheist Hellenists and polytheist Hellenists, and they live together (and lived together in the case of the Hellenists) without any friction. If you think they're incompatible, you don't understand pagan beliefs.

Atheism is the belief that no gods exist. Polytheism is the belief in many gods. You cannot be an atheist polytheist. Hinduism isn't really a religion but a term for a set of cultural beliefs shared by several different religions, but you can't actually be an adherent of a Polytheistic religion without believing in the existence of gods. You can be a spiritualist, and you can deny the existence of a creator god and believe the gods came in after the world was made, but if you don't believe in any gods, you're not a polytheist.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 07:04:34 AMSikhs, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, Hindus - they can all live in close proximity to each other without any problems. Muslims can't live in close proximity with other - but different - Muslims without having conflict. And Christianity used to be like that. It's not that 'all religions are like that', it's specifically Abrahamic religions that are like that. Judaism used to be like that, Christianity used to be like that, and Islam still is like that.

Huh, and I could have sworn that there was Sikh sectarian violence in India (see the Sikh-Nirankari clash) and a Sikh separatist movement in India that culminated in Operation Blue Star in the 1980s when Indira Gandhi ordered the army to attack the holiest Sikh site, the Golden Temple. Then Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in revenge for this, after which followed riots and violence directed specifically against Sikhs. Huh, almost looks like religious tensions from here, but clearly those are impossible if an Abrahamic religion isn't involved.

Riddle me this: Why are the charges of nazi anti-semite and not of muslim anti-semite?

I'll tell you why, the left condenms nazis but looks the other way and/or makes excuses when it's muslims.

But enough talk of a dead man. He's just the Troyan Horse, their real target IS the fundation and their destruction, maybe to put some of them in charge.

Also, sure Tekumel where being white is seen as bad is an anti-semite/pro nazi setting... The mental gymnastics...

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2022, 02:36:01 AM
But enough talk of a dead man. He's just the Troyan Horse, their real target IS the fundation and their destruction, maybe to put some of them in charge.

This isn't the everyone-I-don't-like-is-a-Nazi. We're talking about a pro-Nazi novel and a Holocaust denial journal. Which you're defending with this conspiracy theory.

Quote from: Pat on March 31, 2022, 06:24:09 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2022, 02:36:01 AM
But enough talk of a dead man. He's just the Troyan Horse, their real target IS the fundation and their destruction, maybe to put some of them in charge.

This isn't the everyone-I-don't-like-is-a-Nazi. We're talking about a pro-Nazi novel and a Holocaust denial journal. Which you're defending with this conspiracy theory.

How was Geeky defending a pro-Nazi novel and Holocaust denying journal exactly? Pretty serious claim.

I'm a path of least resistance believer when it comes to people. That path 100% supports that Barker wrote the book and sat on the board because he wanted to. That path also means that TF sat on their hands, most likely to stay out of the spotlight and preserve their business.

What I have a massive problem with is how third parties from all different places are handling the situation. I brought up inconsistencies in what OP originally said they knew about Barker, therefore I must be a sympathizer. Another poster asks the question of, so what? Immediately, he is a cunt or a Nazi. And now Geeky questions the motives of the people going after TF, and he is defending a pro-Nazi novel and denial journal with a conspiracy theory.

Quote from: FingerRod on March 31, 2022, 07:29:37 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 31, 2022, 06:24:09 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2022, 02:36:01 AM
But enough talk of a dead man. He's just the Troyan Horse, their real target IS the fundation and their destruction, maybe to put some of them in charge.

This isn't the everyone-I-don't-like-is-a-Nazi. We're talking about a pro-Nazi novel and a Holocaust denial journal. Which you're defending with this conspiracy theory.

How was Geeky defending a pro-Nazi novel and Holocaust denying journal exactly? Pretty serious claim.

I'm a path of least resistance believer when it comes to people. That path 100% supports that Barker wrote the book and sat on the board because he wanted to. That path also means that TF sat on their hands, most likely to stay out of the spotlight and preserve their business.

What I have a massive problem with is how third parties from all different places are handling the situation. I brought up inconsistencies in what OP originally said they knew about Barker, therefore I must be a sympathizer. Another poster asks the question of, so what? Immediately, he is a cunt or a Nazi. And now Geeky questions the motives of the people going after TF, and he is defending a pro-Nazi novel and denial journal with a conspiracy theory.

What do you need explained? This is as obvious as anything can possibly be.

You're trying to play this reasonable moderate, but you're not. The evidence that Barker wrote a pro-Nazi novel and was on the editorial board of a Holocaust denial journal is very strong. It should be investigated further, but the chance anything will come up that will clear Barker is essentially nil. Omega's musings, for instance, are pure fantasy ungrounded from reality. It's also very clear, and based on their own statements, that the Tekumel Foundation hid this information. So some of us said we should obviously put the foundation on the red list.

And what the response been? A wave of outrage. How dare you put Tekumel or Barker on the red list! It makes no sense, they're dead, and the IP is innocent! Except, that's nonsense. Nobody proposed that. All anyone suggested was putting the living and still-in-business executors of a guy who was at the very least Nazi-adjacent on a warning list. Which is the mildest form of protest. In fact, it's bizarre to even call it a protest, because it's literally just information. It's telling people "hey, before you buy this, you might want to know...". There are no staged boycotts, no public protests, no deplatforming, nobody's being shamed or driven from their jobs. Nothing.

But no, that's too much for the outrage crowd. We must memory hole this, and not let anyone know the Nazi link, because this is all a plot by the evil SJWs, who we must oppose even if it means we have to protect Nazis!

To continue, I don't think anyone in the thread woke up one morning and said "hey, defending Nazis sounds like a great idea!". Instead, it appears to be pure partisanship. We must defeat the Enemy at any cost, even if it means defending Nazis!

Look at how much of the reaction has been specifically targeted at the Tubesock Troll, and how that's used to "prove" this is a nefarious plot by the SJWs. But why is that even the slightest bit relevant? The basic facts have been confirmed by multiple independent sources. The alignment of the person who first posted it shouldn't matter.

I've always been a political iconoclast, so I have hard time grokking the sectarian way of thinking. Which is probably why this whole thing has felt so utterly bizarre to me.