Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 22, 2022, 06:25:37 PM

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.

I'm not sure, I just know it's orthogonal to anything I've been talking about. I've mostly been emphasizing the importance of applying the same standards to all sides. But I can't speak for anyone else, and I'm not sure it's a productive direction for further discussion.

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2022, 06:51:19 PM

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 22, 2022, 06:25:37 PM

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.

I'm not sure, I just know it's orthogonal to anything I've been talking about. I've mostly been emphasizing the importance of applying the same standards to all sides. But I can't speak for anyone else, and I'm not sure it's a productive direction for further discussion.

I agree that we should apply the same standards.  Currently the standards are to excuse your friends and destroy your enemies.

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2022, 06:51:19 PM

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 22, 2022, 06:25:37 PM

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.

I'm not sure, I just know it's orthogonal to anything I've been talking about. I've mostly been emphasizing the importance of applying the same standards to all sides. But I can't speak for anyone else, and I'm not sure it's a productive direction for further discussion.

You say that then turn around and damn the foundation for sitting on the information. For reasons as yet unknown to us.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 21, 2022, 03:43:25 PM
FACT: the Tekumel Foundation knew about this for a time period of at least two years and possibly as long as ten years, but kept it covered up because their own clout was more important.

Did they really?  Covering something up is positive action and implies a lot more activity than just staying silent about a distasteful act.  I haven't seen anything here that implies they did more than just keep quiet.

You think there's some ethical requirement that they must publicize distasteful information if they prefer to keep silent.  Legally, ethically, morally, the case for requiring positive action such as this must meet a pretty high standard, because it's such an impairment of personal liberty.  For example under US law you're not allowed to murder, but you're also not required to take positive action to save a life even if you're right there and have the means.  This comes up in the news every once in a while.  Morally I do think there's a duty take action here but the point is that we are uncomfortable requiring positive action, and for good reason.

I'm really uncomfortable with requiring positive action to report someone who is thinking wrong.  First, because this is an established tactic of totalitarians such as the USSR, the fictional 1984 government, and actual nazis.  Second because such requirements can be more easily turned to an evil rather than a good use.  Tyrants love this sort of thing.  Creating a norm of required disclosure is dangerous to the freedom of our society.  In the current political climate it's more likely to be used against you personally than any bad actors.

My opinion is that morally one must disclose information to prevent harm, but this case doesn't meet that standard.  The media in question is harmless, the nazi in question isn't currently doing anything bad because he's dead, and there's no evidence that the estate is doing anything wrong with the money.  As far as I'm concerned the foundation didn't do anything wrong by keeping quiet, and they did more than they had to by confirming that Barker was indeed a nazi when asked, so good for them.

And I'd like to ask you something for my own curiosity; feel free to tell me it's none of my business if you don't care to answer, because I realize that it isn't.  Any sane person realizes that Nazis are evil, but you have a passion for the topic that goes beyond typical.  Is there some reason behind that?

Quote from: Abraxus on March 22, 2022, 08:23:08 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 21, 2022, 11:47:40 PM

Quote from: Abraxus on March 21, 2022, 10:13:37 PM
Unfortunately I wonder if Pundit understands how Cocksuck Soyarmy has completely and throughly played him.

I wonder if he cares remotely that he might lose members of his forum. Or that he is behaving exactly like the regressive repressive Wokescolds like other forums like Rpg.net.

Personal admission I have heard of Tekumal the rpg. Came close to joining a game. It never really took off in my neck of the woods beaten soundly by D&D. I'm not a fan of Barker Anti-Semantism I won't call those who pay for or enjoy his products Nazis or those who promote anti-semantism.

Problem is Pundit is so convinced of his side to the point of not being able to see the other side.worse it's like reading one of those sarcastic comments the mods over at Rpg.net or Paizo forums. I'm not seeing any difference at this point really. Either here or on Twitter.

Then again I'm not sure if he remotely cares about chasing away the moderate elements who refuse to kiss his ass. He can surround himself with sycophants I and others like Tenbones are simply not going to do so.

Pundit isn't the one sounding like the regressives at TBP.

The evidence against Barker is pretty damning at this point.

I'm not denying what is being said about Barker.

Yet Punfit very much comes off as a hypocrite imo at this point.

He does not get to play " go go anti-woke SJW  Ranger". Pokes fun at SJWs whenever he can when it's a cause he does not believe in then virtue signal from the highest rooftops about how bad Barker is.

Or to put it another way he does not get a free pass on being a hypocrite simply for who he is. If one claims to want to hear from both sides and an advocate of free speech then he loses the right to be both pissy and passive aggressive when he gets pushback. Then again seeing how he behaves here and on Twitter he is anything but.

You want to be a sycophantic and kiss Pundits ass I'm not doing that.

If he wants to be played by Soyarmy like thrift store Banjo that's on him.

so I just want to clarify here. Are you saying that being anti-woke means you have to be nice to Neo-Nazis? That being anti-woke is inconsistent with opposing bigotry? because if so, that's a damning confession of your motivations.

Quote from: Omega on March 22, 2022, 07:04:52 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2022, 06:51:19 PM

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 22, 2022, 06:25:37 PM

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.

I'm not sure, I just know it's orthogonal to anything I've been talking about. I've mostly been emphasizing the importance of applying the same standards to all sides. But I can't speak for anyone else, and I'm not sure it's a productive direction for further discussion.

You say that then turn around and damn the foundation for sitting on the information. For reasons as yet unknown to us.

What? That's a minor issue, and why are you saying the reasons are unknown? It's been covered by many people, and should be very (very, very) obvious.

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2022, 07:37:33 PM

Quote from: Omega on March 22, 2022, 07:04:52 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2022, 06:51:19 PM

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 22, 2022, 06:25:37 PM

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.

I'm not sure, I just know it's orthogonal to anything I've been talking about. I've mostly been emphasizing the importance of applying the same standards to all sides. But I can't speak for anyone else, and I'm not sure it's a productive direction for further discussion.

You say that then turn around and damn the foundation for sitting on the information. For reasons as yet unknown to us.

What? That's a minor issue, and why are you saying the reasons are unknown? It's been covered by many people, and should be very (very, very) obvious.

Um... no... it is not obvious why they sat on the information. None of us are the psychic hotline and until more data comes in we do not know even the when of this, let alone the why of it.

Indecision? Fear? Greed? Evil?

By your logic then Cherine must be even worse as he concealed the knowledge from the foundation and us.

Quote from: Omega on March 22, 2022, 07:04:52 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2022, 06:51:19 PM

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 22, 2022, 06:25:37 PM

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.

I'm not sure, I just know it's orthogonal to anything I've been talking about. I've mostly been emphasizing the importance of applying the same standards to all sides. But I can't speak for anyone else, and I'm not sure it's a productive direction for further discussion.

You say that then turn around and damn the foundation for sitting on the information. For reasons as yet unknown to us.

I think their reasons are pretty easy to discern, based on the length of this thread and the fact that this is being discussed everywhere. It even went a couple of pages over at the Pub, where political discussions aren't allowed, before a mod finally stepped in to give a warning along with some disclaimers about how they made an exception to let it go on that long given how momentous this news was. The Foundation must have known the shit storm this news would cause, cuz it's pretty obvious that it would. And didn't want to pay the Piper, so they let the internet break the damn for them instead.

Whether there were financial reasons as well or some such might be speculative, but it's pretty obvious that they didn't want to face the music. So they kept shut instead, which makes them seem complicit and it's not a good look regardless of any rationalizations they might cook up.

Quote from: Omega on March 22, 2022, 07:46:58 PM
By your logic then Cherine must be even worse as he concealed the knowledge from the foundation and us.

Back when he posted here I was under the distinct impression that Chrine was not on good terms with the foundation.  Which may well explain his silence.  It may also have changed, it's been a couple years now.  I expect his old thread is still gathering dust at the bottom of the forum here.

I want to clarify a few things about why Tekumel seems important to people.

Tekumel was essentially the first published D&D world. It came with its own house rules, and Gygax and Arneson had published some material that suggested some things about their own campaigns. But pointing out that Tekumel inspired everything from Talislanta to Exalted really overlooks something more pertinent: Tekumel is part of what gave us Greyhawk. There is no road to Talislanta that does not begin without Tekumel, but that's equally true of Mystara/The Known world, Palladium and the rest. Not to say those worlds couldn't or wouldn't have necessarily been published otherwise, but that Tekumel is one of the significant milestones in creating and publishing fleshed-out, coherent, worldly fantasy settings. Before Tekumel, you had dungeons, you had military skirmishes on Middle-Earth, and you have Gygax's rambling notes about druids, polearms, and prostitutes.

As to the shape of Tekumel itself, it was written by a skilled linguist with a passing interest in anthropology who wrote genre fiction. As a work it embodied what so many of us have aspired to: something really thoughtful but also crafted with gaming in mind. Barker brought a similar set of tools to the work as Tolkien, but with an aim toward creating a game setting. I can only think Tekumel profoundly influenced the opinions of people who undertook to write game worlds. Tekumel may never have had mass market appeal but it was captivating to people who created and published games.

Tekumel is also something of a legend, moving from publisher to publisher. Some stuff gets published, but somehow it never all gets collated at once. So at some point, people who heard of Tekumel wanted to get their hands on it. My first opportunity was the GoO release. Which was ultimately disappointing, but whetted my appetite to understand more about this classic game. Last year I finally was able to order a POD of EPT. We're talking about a 15 years for me between tastes of that experience. And that's me having an active interest, but not having the budget to buy out-of-print, collectible books.

Then there's the community. There are people who INVESTED in Tekumel. There are people who can read the Tsolyani script. There are conventions. There are people who cosplay Tekumel. I never dove that deep. I didn't have the chance, and I'm not the kind of person who marries one property. But I just want people to understand that there are people who have LOVED the setting, for whom it is important emotionally and as a creative work. And those are probably the people who the Tekumel Foundation were too cowardly to engage. They couldn't bear to deliver the truth, so they made themselves complicit in Barker's evil secrecy.

And then there's the big reveal. We've discovered bad things about people in the industry before. This is kind of different. first, there is the man. As creator of Tekumel, he is basically grandfather to every other published high fantasy setting. He is the godfather of in-depth world design, the patron saint of RPG spin-off media, the archetype of the SERIOUS RPG world-builder. Then there is the crime. He wrote Nazi books about Nazis, with swastikas on the cover, and published it through white supremacists. He's a Holocaust denier, an Orientalist Muslim, and by inference, probably a Hitler stan. He gave himself a name suggesting he agreed with Hitler about tours, and he probably could not have been happier than wearing a turban and hanging out with Turkish collaborators from WWWI to and through WWII. There is no comparison of which I am aware, between any RPG person or someone in a closely adjacent fandom, between on the one hand their creative and cultural stature, and on the other hand, the extent to which they turned out to be a complete and utter piece of dogshit.

So do or think whatever you want. But don't act like you weren't told, when someone assumes you're Nazi dogshit becuse you found a piece of Nazi dogshit and didn't have the common sense to put it down. Okay? This is timeout on everything Tekumel-related while people assess the damage. You don't have to agree with that perspective, but don't be a crybaby when people ask you why are playing with Nazi dogshit and are defending the non-political, entertainment value of playing with Nazi dogshit.

The Tekumel Foundation may have entirely innocent motivations, but they have miles of work to do before any decent person in the community will want anything to do with them.

Quote from: Omega on March 22, 2022, 07:46:58 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2022, 07:37:33 PM

Quote from: Omega on March 22, 2022, 07:04:52 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2022, 06:51:19 PM

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 22, 2022, 06:25:37 PM

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.

I'm not sure, I just know it's orthogonal to anything I've been talking about. I've mostly been emphasizing the importance of applying the same standards to all sides. But I can't speak for anyone else, and I'm not sure it's a productive direction for further discussion.

You say that then turn around and damn the foundation for sitting on the information. For reasons as yet unknown to us.

What? That's a minor issue, and why are you saying the reasons are unknown? It's been covered by many people, and should be very (very, very) obvious.

Um... no... it is not obvious why they sat on the information. None of us are the psychic hotline and until more data comes in we do not know even the when of this, let alone the why of it.

Indecision? Fear? Greed? Evil?

By your logic then Cherine must be even worse as he concealed the knowledge from the foundation and us.

First of all, I read your "reasons" as referring to why I was "damning the foundation", not the foundation's own reasons. Your phrasing was unclear.

Secondly, I never said anything like that. Look at my response to Tannhauser. Tannhauser was going through all the psychic hotline stuff you're criticizing, and I specifically dismissed it by saying "Regardless of their rationalizations, they chose to keep it to themselves rather than making it public." I was making the point that their reasons didn't matter, only their actions. Which should have made my "reasons" clear.

Plus, we're talking about putting an organization that profits from Barker on a red list. What does that have to do with a poster?

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 22, 2022, 07:49:21 PM

Quote from: Omega on March 22, 2022, 07:04:52 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2022, 06:51:19 PM

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 22, 2022, 06:25:37 PM

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.

I'm not sure, I just know it's orthogonal to anything I've been talking about. I've mostly been emphasizing the importance of applying the same standards to all sides. But I can't speak for anyone else, and I'm not sure it's a productive direction for further discussion.

You say that then turn around and damn the foundation for sitting on the information. For reasons as yet unknown to us.

I think their reasons are pretty easy to discern, based on the length of this thread and the fact that this is being discussed everywhere. It even went a couple of pages over at the Pub, where political discussions aren't allowed, before a mod finally stepped in to give a warning along with some disclaimers about how they made an exception to let it go on that long given how momentous this news was. The Foundation must have known the shit storm this news would cause, cuz it's pretty obvious that it would. And didn't want to pay the Piper, so they let the internet break the damn for them instead.

Whether there were financial reasons as well or some such might be speculative, but it's pretty obvious that they didn't want to face the music. So they kept shut instead, which makes them seem complicit and it's not a good look regardless of any rationalizations they might cook up.

Greetings!

Indeed, I agree my friend.

I'm not sure where or when this shrill, manic obsession came from that demands everyone, everywhere, shout their darkest secrets into the public square online came from.

I'm familiar with a concept called *Discretion*. Discretion isn't a value or character trait that is valued at all in our current society in large degree.

However, in many, many companies, both large and small, Discretion is an essential quality, and embracing discretion can be a requirement for promotion--and certainly also for even keeping your job. I've known companies that would terminate you in a blink for saying, revealing, exposing, publicizing, any kind of information that makes the corporation as a brand or the leadership team embarrassed, look incompetent, or god forbid, become shamed.

You are to just shut up about it.

I imagine the Tekumel Board people just said, "Yeah, the Professor is dead. No point in publicizing any strange things he was into. Just forget about it and let it sink into the oblivion of time. There is the "Public Professor" and the "Private Professor". Let the "Private Professor" remain as such, in a similar manner to which any normal person would also prefer their "Private Selves" to remain separate."

And that is that. I can't imagine any board member thinking, "NO! We need to scream this into the public square on the internet first thing in the morning!"

Many motivations are possible. As I mentioned, I've known companies that would terminate you for publicly running your mouth about far less.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Mishihari on March 22, 2022, 07:29:31 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 21, 2022, 03:43:25 PM
FACT: the Tekumel Foundation knew about this for a time period of at least two years and possibly as long as ten years, but kept it covered up because their own clout was more important.

Did they really?  Covering something up is positive action and implies a lot more activity than just staying silent about a distasteful act.  I haven't seen anything here that implies they did more than just keep quiet.

You think there's some ethical requirement that they must publicize distasteful information if they prefer to keep silent.  Legally, ethically, morally, the case for requiring positive action such as this must meet a pretty high standard, because it's such an impairment of personal liberty.  For example under US law you're not allowed to murder, but you're also not required to take positive action to save a life even if you're right there and have the means.  This comes up in the news every once in a while.  Morally I do think there's a duty take action here but the point is that we are uncomfortable requiring positive action, and for good reason.

I'm really uncomfortable with requiring positive action to report someone who is thinking wrong.  First, because this is an established tactic of totalitarians such as the USSR, the fictional 1984 government, and actual nazis.  Second because such requirements can be more easily turned to an evil rather than a good use.  Tyrants love this sort of thing.  Creating a norm of required disclosure is dangerous to the freedom of our society.  In the current political climate it's more likely to be used against you personally than any bad actors.

My opinion is that morally one must disclose information to prevent harm, but this case doesn't meet that standard.  The media in question is harmless, the nazi in question isn't currently doing anything bad because he's dead, and there's no evidence that the estate is doing anything wrong with the money.  As far as I'm concerned the foundation didn't do anything wrong by keeping quiet, and they did more than they had to by confirming that Barker was indeed a nazi when asked, so good for them.

And I'd like to ask you something for my own curiosity; feel free to tell me it's none of my business if you don't care to answer, because I realize that it isn't.  Any sane person realizes that Nazis are evil, but you have a passion for the topic that goes beyond typical.  Is there some reason behind that?

You're making a pseudo-legal argument. This isn't a court. Does a company have a legal duty to inform people about X? Irrelevant.

A better analogy would be public relations. Will the public feel betrayed if a company keeps Y a secret, and it comes out later? Did they, even by omission instead of commission, support something odious? This will inevitably affect how people will see the company, going forward. And it may tarnish their reputation, perhaps irreparably. There are ways of handling it better, even if it's unpleasant coming forward with something like this. Though of course it's more than just public relations, because there's also a moral component.

And as someone who despises tyranny in all forms, I find your analogy very distasteful. Tyranny involves compulsion or force, and there is nothing of that nature involved.

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2022, 08:08:50 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on March 22, 2022, 07:29:31 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 21, 2022, 03:43:25 PM
FACT: the Tekumel Foundation knew about this for a time period of at least two years and possibly as long as ten years, but kept it covered up because their own clout was more important.

Did they really?  Covering something up is positive action and implies a lot more activity than just staying silent about a distasteful act.  I haven't seen anything here that implies they did more than just keep quiet.

You think there's some ethical requirement that they must publicize distasteful information if they prefer to keep silent.  Legally, ethically, morally, the case for requiring positive action such as this must meet a pretty high standard, because it's such an impairment of personal liberty.  For example under US law you're not allowed to murder, but you're also not required to take positive action to save a life even if you're right there and have the means.  This comes up in the news every once in a while.  Morally I do think there's a duty take action here but the point is that we are uncomfortable requiring positive action, and for good reason.

I'm really uncomfortable with requiring positive action to report someone who is thinking wrong.  First, because this is an established tactic of totalitarians such as the USSR, the fictional 1984 government, and actual nazis.  Second because such requirements can be more easily turned to an evil rather than a good use.  Tyrants love this sort of thing.  Creating a norm of required disclosure is dangerous to the freedom of our society.  In the current political climate it's more likely to be used against you personally than any bad actors.

My opinion is that morally one must disclose information to prevent harm, but this case doesn't meet that standard.  The media in question is harmless, the nazi in question isn't currently doing anything bad because he's dead, and there's no evidence that the estate is doing anything wrong with the money.  As far as I'm concerned the foundation didn't do anything wrong by keeping quiet, and they did more than they had to by confirming that Barker was indeed a nazi when asked, so good for them.

And I'd like to ask you something for my own curiosity; feel free to tell me it's none of my business if you don't care to answer, because I realize that it isn't.  Any sane person realizes that Nazis are evil, but you have a passion for the topic that goes beyond typical.  Is there some reason behind that?

You're making a pseudo-legal argument. This isn't a court. Does a company have a legal duty to inform people about X? Irrelevant.

A better analogy would be public relations. Will the public feel betrayed if a company keeps Y a secret, and it comes out later? Did they, even by omission instead of commission, support something odious? This will inevitably affect how people will see the company, going forward. And it may tarnish their reputation, perhaps irreparably. There are ways of handling it better, even if it's unpleasant coming forward with something like this. Though of course it's more than just public relations, because there's also a moral component.

And as someone who despises tyranny in all forms, I find your analogy very distasteful. Tyranny involves compulsion or force, and there is nothing of that nature involved.

Every law comes from someone's morals.  Law, ethics, and morals are inextricably intertwined.  The same types of reasoning are used to to examine the validity of all of them.  It's totally relevant.

The premise that I'm arguing against is "One must disclose the wrong thinking of others even when no harm is being done or face repercussions."  Repercussions are compulsion, and enough of them is tyranny.  If you agree with the above premise and despise tyranny, you should examine your thinking for consistency.

Quote from: Mishihari on March 22, 2022, 08:24:53 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2022, 08:08:50 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on March 22, 2022, 07:29:31 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 21, 2022, 03:43:25 PM
FACT: the Tekumel Foundation knew about this for a time period of at least two years and possibly as long as ten years, but kept it covered up because their own clout was more important.

Did they really?  Covering something up is positive action and implies a lot more activity than just staying silent about a distasteful act.  I haven't seen anything here that implies they did more than just keep quiet.

You think there's some ethical requirement that they must publicize distasteful information if they prefer to keep silent.  Legally, ethically, morally, the case for requiring positive action such as this must meet a pretty high standard, because it's such an impairment of personal liberty.  For example under US law you're not allowed to murder, but you're also not required to take positive action to save a life even if you're right there and have the means.  This comes up in the news every once in a while.  Morally I do think there's a duty take action here but the point is that we are uncomfortable requiring positive action, and for good reason.

I'm really uncomfortable with requiring positive action to report someone who is thinking wrong.  First, because this is an established tactic of totalitarians such as the USSR, the fictional 1984 government, and actual nazis.  Second because such requirements can be more easily turned to an evil rather than a good use.  Tyrants love this sort of thing.  Creating a norm of required disclosure is dangerous to the freedom of our society.  In the current political climate it's more likely to be used against you personally than any bad actors.

My opinion is that morally one must disclose information to prevent harm, but this case doesn't meet that standard.  The media in question is harmless, the nazi in question isn't currently doing anything bad because he's dead, and there's no evidence that the estate is doing anything wrong with the money.  As far as I'm concerned the foundation didn't do anything wrong by keeping quiet, and they did more than they had to by confirming that Barker was indeed a nazi when asked, so good for them.

And I'd like to ask you something for my own curiosity; feel free to tell me it's none of my business if you don't care to answer, because I realize that it isn't.  Any sane person realizes that Nazis are evil, but you have a passion for the topic that goes beyond typical.  Is there some reason behind that?

You're making a pseudo-legal argument. This isn't a court. Does a company have a legal duty to inform people about X? Irrelevant.

A better analogy would be public relations. Will the public feel betrayed if a company keeps Y a secret, and it comes out later? Did they, even by omission instead of commission, support something odious? This will inevitably affect how people will see the company, going forward. And it may tarnish their reputation, perhaps irreparably. There are ways of handling it better, even if it's unpleasant coming forward with something like this. Though of course it's more than just public relations, because there's also a moral component.

And as someone who despises tyranny in all forms, I find your analogy very distasteful. Tyranny involves compulsion or force, and there is nothing of that nature involved.

Every law comes from someone's morals.  Law, ethics, and morals are inextricably intertwined.  The same types of reasoning are used to to examine the validity of all of them.  It's totally relevant.

The premise that I'm arguing against is "One must disclose the wrong thinking of others even when no harm is being done or face repercussions."  Repercussions are compulsion, and enough of them is tyranny.  If you agree with the above premise and despise tyranny, you should examine your thinking for consistency.

You're literally arguing that holding people responsible for anything, or even speaking negatively about them, is tyranny. Replying to me is tyranny!