Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110283I don't know that I'd describe anyone at the Den as a 'pal' and I'm certainly not interested in defending the things they say whether they were right or wrong.  If someone feels that they need to justify their position, they can do it themselves.  

In this thread, Macris indicates that he worked for a company that hired Milo Yiannopoulos after it was known the type of hate-spewing he's responsible for.  

Is there a direct connection to Milo having a platform and people going on rampages?  I'm not sure,
but there is some concern about it

Where do you work, if you even have a job? Seriously asking.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110283In this thread, Macris indicates that he worked for a company that hired Milo Yiannopoulos after it was known the type of hate-spewing he's responsible for.  

DeadDMwalking, can you pause for a moment and clarify what aspects of Milo's actions you refer to as "hate-spewing"?

if you mean the ties to white supremacist groups that Buzzfeed discovered and leaked in October 2017: I was not aware of those, nor were the investors. Their revelation led to everyone's hasty exit from the scene.

If you mean the Dangerous Faggot tour: I was of course aware of the tour. I didn't think it was spewing hate. It's worth noting that Milo was invited to be the *keynote speaker* at CPAC, the #1 conference for conservatives in the country, following that tour. Virtually no one in the right wing thought that tour was spewing hate. If you do think it was hateful, then you simply have a different definition of hate than that held by most right-wingers. I would assume you also think Tucker Carlson, Jordan Peterson, and/or Trump spew hate. I know for a fact that for many progressives, there is no difference between a libertarian and a Nazi or a Republican and a fascist etc., in the same that for an ultra-montane Catholic there's no difference between a heretic and a protestant or for an ultra-capitalist there's no difference between communism and socialism.

I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify your sentiments above so I can understand what you are accusing me of. I'm certainly a Tucker Carlson-watching Republican who voted for Trump over Clinton. I am not a fascist or Nazi. Can you clarify whether you see a difference, or if you think Republican = Nazi?

FrankTrollman seems to be nuts, plain and simple. Someone quoted him saying this:

Quote from: FrankTrollmanWhite people are basically just horrible...The entire Reagan Revolution is just white people voting to destroy their own social safety nets because they'd rather fucking starve than let black people eat.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110283Is there a direct connection to Milo having a platform and people going on rampages?  I'm not sure,
but there is some concern about it

That's not really a concern about him causing the rampage in question though. It's a concern that he was being disrespectful and causing division AFTER a rampage. It's similar to saying that Bill Maher caused terrorism because he said that the terrorists were not cowards after 9/11.

Quote from: amacris;1110291DeadDMwalking, can you pause for a moment and clarify what aspects of Milo's actions you refer to as "hate-spewing"?

if you mean the ties to white supremacist groups that Buzzfeed discovered and leaked in October 2017: I was not aware of those, nor were the investors. Their revelation led to everyone's hasty exit from the scene.

If you mean the Dangerous Faggot tour: I was of course aware of the tour. I didn't think it was spewing hate. It's worth noting that Milo was invited to be the *keynote speaker* at CPAC, the #1 conference for conservatives in the country, following that tour. Virtually no one in the right wing thought that tour was spewing hate. If you do think it was hateful, then you simply have a different definition of hate than I do. If so, I would assume you also think Tucker Carlson and Trump spew hate. I know for a fact that for many progressives, there is no difference between a libertarian and a Nazi or a Republican and a fascist etc., in the same that for an ultra-montane Catholic there's no difference between a heretic and a protestant.

I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify your sentiments above so I can understand what you are accusing me of. I'm certainly a Tucker Carlson-watching Republican who voted for Trump over Clinton. I am not secretly a fascist or Nazi. Can you clarify whether you see a difference, or if you think Republican = Nazi?

Milo did project a photo of a trans student who had filed a complaint against the school at his UW Milwaukee talk and mocked them as tranny who 'the way you know he has failed is I can still bang him.'  Publicly mocking and insulting a non-public person so viciously hardly seems to be in line with conservative values of privacy and civility and I think could be reasonably termed 'hateful.' Did that happen before or after you started working with him?

Milo's Breibart article that was a supposed 'establishment conservative guide to the alt right' defended racist rhetoric and holocaust denial as 'creativity and taboo shattering.' At the time many conservatives saw the article for what it is, an apologist defense of white supremacists and their ilk, this is the very article that was later revealed to have been written with the active, inappropriate participation of the white supremacists that you acknowledge and that Milo so ineptly defends in the piece.

I'm think of myself as a conservative and I'm a practicing Cathlolic but I and many other conservatives could recognize Milo for the cruel fool and empty provocateur he was long before his ties to the white supremacists were confirmed beyond doubt. I don't think you are a Nazis but I think you were not being honest with yourself about who Milo clearly was.

Greetings!

*Laughs* How the hell can Milo be a "white supremacist"? I have seen interviews with Milo where Milo eagerly admits to having BLACK gay men as his favourite lovers. That would seem to disqulify Milo entirely for being a "white supremacist". *laughs* Give me a break. The Liberals thin anyone that doesn't agree with them is a "white supremacist" as well as sexist, racist, homophobe, imperialist, Nazi, whatever bullshit they come up with. They are just a bunch of lying, greedy, pathetic fucking pussies.

Liberals hate the fact that Milo is *gay*--and yet, he stands against the Liberal, SJW agenda. That is why they hate him. It is hilarious listening to Milo running the  SJW's the fuck over.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Rhiannon;1110308Milo did project a photo of a trans student who had filed a complaint against the school at his UW Milwaukee talk and mocked them as tranny who 'the way you know he has failed is I can still bang him.'  Publicly mocking and insulting a non-public person so viciously hardly seems to be in line with conservative values of privacy and civility and I think could be reasonably termed 'hateful.' Did that happen before or after you started working with him?

Milo's Breibart article that was a supposed 'establishment conservative guide to the alt right' defended racist rhetoric and holocaust denial as 'creativity and taboo shattering.' At the time many conservatives saw the article for what it is, an apologist defense of white supremacists and their ilk, this is the very article that was later revealed to have been written with the active, inappropriate participation of the white supremacists that you acknowledge and that Milo so ineptly defends in the piece.

I'm think of myself as a conservative and I'm a practicing Cathlolic but I and many other conservatives could recognize Milo for the cruel fool and empty provocateur he was long before his ties to the white supremacists were confirmed beyond doubt. I don't think you are a Nazis but I think you were not being honest with yourself about who Milo clearly was.

Okay, sure, but so what?  Not all people clue into something at the same rate.  

Also... it's not quite so clear even today what Milo IS.  Keep in mind that he has a black boyfriend... or is it husband now, and is partially Jewish by decent.  Does this excuse anything?  No, but it does indicate that this is a troubled and contradictory person who is hard to pin down.   I get that as a Catholic conservative you might not care for Milo, but also you can't condemn Macris or even Milo for being human and fallible, can you?

Quote from: Rhiannon;1110308Milo did project a photo of a trans student who had filed a complaint against the school at his UW Milwaukee talk and mocked them as tranny who 'the way you know he has failed is I can still bang him.'  Publicly mocking and insulting a non-public person so viciously hardly seems to be in line with conservative values of privacy and civility and I think could be reasonably termed 'hateful.' Did that happen before or after you started working with him?

On the 'privacy' part here, he took that photo from the news interview with this trans person. It's not like he outed someone that nobody had seen before. This was the news report that he mocked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNrpoWNWeG8

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110252When I used the term libel, I meant it in the hyperbolic sense that I understood it to be used in Sacrificial Lamb's original post, effectively meaning 'people are saying mean things in writing'.  

Proving something is a lie that is not directly about me is a difficult standard to meet.  Proving that the person who made the claim COULD not know it to be true is much easier.  When someone makes an accusation that is supported by evidence, it may not meet the legal definition of libel, even if it turns out to be false.  Likewise, if someone makes an accusation that is TRUE, there's nothing stopping people from CLAIMING libel, and in fact, good reason to pursue that as a legal defense.

I'm confused by your answer. You think it was not libel for Frank Trollman to accuse Macris of being, "[A] racist shitheel who financed a terrorist network and is personally responsible for the deaths of dozens if not hundreds of people?"

You think that's just hyperbolic and that libel just means hyperbole?

Because I don't think it was intended to come across as hyperbole by Frank to readers, and I don't think it was communicated in a manner that would suggest to the reasonable reader of Frank's posts that Frank does not literally mean what he's saying about Macris.  Given the context, the specified company he's naming, the actions he's naming, it looks like factual statements which he intended as malicious libel to me.

I didn't ask you to PROVE anything. I asked you what you think was libellous here by us concerning Frank. I am asking what, in your opinion, was libel such that you told Frank and others there that you thought we were libeling Frank.

Quote from: amacris;1110291DeadDMwalking, can you pause for a moment and clarify ...

I am a registered Republican and have been for my entire adult life.  I do not think that Republicans are all Nazis.  I do think Trump 'spews hate'.  

As far as the subject of this thread, Frank Trollman has made some pretty serious accusations.  I think they're hyperbolic.  Even if you were involved in a company that was providing a platform to White Supremacists, I don't think that necessarily equates to financing and leading a terrorist network directly, but I can also see why some people would feel otherwise.  

I think that the essential thrust of the accusation - that you knowingly worked with an individual who was known to be 'divisive' (polite euphamism) or 'successfully trolls women and Muslims' in SacrificialLamb's parlance and provided him a platform to radicalize disaffected young people - appears to be substantiated by the things you have been able to reveal here.  If that's not 100% correct, I'm sorry.  

As far as whether anything Frank has said is costing you sales, I can say that it is not in my case.  I was not interested in ACKS, although I do hear that it considers Domain Management more successfully than most other games.  That hasn't been a focus of my games, but I am interested in game design.  If I were seriously working on a domain management mini-game, I might be interested in looking at ACKS in the future.  

I like to participate in gaming forums, and I think that a question that we're all wrestling with with games and other aspects of our life is how far we can separate art from artist.  If a company makes a good product but they're exploiting child labor, are we complicit by buying their products?  If an artist makes enjoyable music but has been convicted of rape, can we still, in good-conscious, support the work?  And of course, most of the time we won't have a 'smoking gun'.  If there is a credible accusation of actions we don't agree with, how should we temper our response?  As an individual, does it matter if I'm inconsistent (ie, I buy chocolate believing it was made with child labor, but make sure to buy shoes that I know weren't)?

Quote from: FrankTrollmanWhite people are basically just horrible...The entire Reagan Revolution is just white people voting to destroy their own social safety nets because they'd rather fucking starve than let black people eat.

Frank Trollman

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3919[/ATTACH]

I have always said that no one can logically support White Supremacy when you have people like this weighing down the average.

Quote from: Rhiannon;1110308Milo did project a photo of a trans student who had filed a complaint against the school at his UW Milwaukee talk and mocked them as tranny who 'the way you know he has failed is I can still bang him.'  Publicly mocking and insulting a non-public person so viciously hardly seems to be in line with conservative values of privacy and civility and I think could be reasonably termed 'hateful.' Did that happen before or after you started working with him?  

That was before I started working for him. I was aware of it. I think what he said was in bad taste. I also think Trump is frequently in bad taste. I also think both Milo and Trump are part of a surge by the right to punch back against the demonization of conservatives that has become absolutely mainstream. I don't like Alinsky-style tactics but I understand why they are used by both sides - they work.

In any case, there were no such incidents while I was managing things. The whole goal for the investors was to establish Milo with a show on Fox or similar. The major task I accomplished there was publishing his book, which became a WSJ #1 bestseller.

QuoteMilo's Breibart article that was a supposed 'establishment conservative guide to the alt right' defended racist rhetoric and holocaust denial as 'creativity and taboo shattering.' At the time many conservatives saw the article for what it is, an apologist defense of white supremacists and their ilk, this is the very article that was later revealed to have been written with the active, inappropriate participation of the white supremacists that you acknowledge and that Milo so ineptly defends in the piece.

I read that article at the time it was written and didn't read it a defense of white supremacism. Having been around plenty of "alt-righters" I think the characterization of them in the article is accurate. They range from disaffected libertarians who fear the cause of liberty is lost, to 4chan edgelords who would have been punks in another era, to hyper-intellectual whiz kids who want a techno-monarchy. In any case, you are correct that the article was written with inappropriate participation by white supremacists, so whether I saw it as propaganda to promote their cause is irrelevant, because it turned out it *actually* was just that.

QuoteI'm think of myself as a conservative and I'm a practicing Cathlolic but I and many other conservatives could recognize Milo for the cruel fool and empty provocateur he was long before his ties to the white supremacists were confirmed beyond doubt. I don't think you are a Nazis but I think you were not being honest with yourself about who Milo clearly was.

I don't think I was being dishonest with myself, I simply made an error of judgment. I had spent the prior decade working in the entertainment industry, and the last three years of that career for a Hollywood-based studio. All too many celebrities are monstrous off camera; cruel and empty narcissism is the default personality of Hollywood talent. The only thing that keeps the typical celebrity from self-destructive disaster is their army of agents, managers, and press staff. So I wrote off his behavior as simply typical for a celebrity who wasn't being well-managed. But perhaps one could argue that everyone who works with atrocious Hollywood celebrities is dishonest with themselves; if so, then certainly guilty.
 
Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110327I am a registered Republican and have been for my entire adult life.

Everyone get your hip waders on.  Just when you thought it couldn't get any deeper ...

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110327I am a registered Republican and have been for my entire adult life.  I do not think that Republicans are all Nazis.  I do think Trump 'spews hate'.  

OK. I understand that perspective. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

QuoteAs far as the subject of this thread, Frank Trollman has made some pretty serious accusations.  I think they're hyperbolic.  Even if you were involved in a company that was providing a platform to White Supremacists, I don't think that necessarily equates to financing and leading a terrorist network directly, but I can also see why some people would feel otherwise.  

I agree that his accusations are hyperbolic and, frankly, silly. There are plenty of things about me that a progressive can hate. There's no need to make up terrorism or money laundering.

QuoteI think that the essential thrust of the accusation - that you knowingly worked with an individual who was known to be 'divisive' (polite euphamism) or 'successfully trolls women and Muslims' in SacrificialLamb's parlance and provided him a platform to radicalize disaffected young people - appears to be substantiated by the things you have been able to reveal here.  If that's not 100% correct, I'm sorry.  

He was definitely divisive. However, the platform was not intended to radicalize disaffected young people. The platform was intended to set Milo up as a Bill Maher* host with his own show on, ideally, FOX. Now, if your argument is that Tucker Carlson actually does radicalize disaffected youth and Trump actually does radicalize disaffected youth, so that the platform I was running would do that, too, then I understand your position. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

(*Bill Maher was the example because he was explicitly Politically Incorrect and, e.g. mocked feminists and Muslims in the same manner that Milo did, while being left-wing. I think the reality is that trends actually went the opposite way and rather than a right-wing Bill Maher becoming permissible, I think the actual Bill Maher became impermissible.)
 

QuoteAs far as whether anything Frank has said is costing you sales, I can say that it is not in my case.  I was not interested in ACKS, although I do hear that it considers Domain Management more successfully than most other games.  That hasn't been a focus of my games, but I am interested in game design.  If I were seriously working on a domain management mini-game, I might be interested in looking at ACKS in the future.

It hasn't cost me a whit. If it had, I would sue him for libel. But I can't because what would my damages be? Extra sales from TheRPGSite's readers?  

QuoteI like to participate in gaming forums, and I think that a question that we're all wrestling with with games and other aspects of our life is how far we can separate art from artist.  If a company makes a good product but they're exploiting child labor, are we complicit by buying their products?  If an artist makes enjoyable music but has been convicted of rape, can we still, in good-conscious, support the work?  And of course, most of the time we won't have a 'smoking gun'.  If there is a credible accusation of actions we don't agree with, how should we temper our response?  As an individual, does it matter if I'm inconsistent (ie, I buy chocolate believing it was made with child labor, but make sure to buy shoes that I know weren't)?

To answer your questions:
- I do think you are complicit if you buy a product built with child labor because the sale of the product furthers the crime. That said, it may be impossible not to be complicit if your economic system is unjust. A Chinese citizen can't be held accountable for buying goods from CCP-owned companies, what choice do they have?
- I do not think you are complicit if you buy art from an artist who committed a crime unless the music furthers the crime. If the musician says "I'm going to use my money to commit more crime!" I see that as very different from a musician that says "I have left the life of crime behind and am working full time to produce great music". I don't feel any guilt in buying Cardi B records even though she admitted mugging and robbing someone.
- If there's a credible accusation of actions, I think you ask/seek additional information.
- I think everyone is inconsistent and all we can do is strive to be consistent to teh extent we, as fallible humans can be.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Quote from: Shasarak;1110330Frank Trollman

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3919[/ATTACH]

I have always said that no one can logically support White Supremacy when you have people like this weighing down the average.

It's weird. Virtually every single example of someone hating their own race is white. Whites thinking that their own race is the very worst. Never mind that Asians (in my experience) tend to be far more racist, and proud of it, but that's probably just my white racism talking.