Let's not get distracted by a flame war, please?

In the modern age of fake news and political polarization, it can be difficult to determine the truth and especially the truth about what people believe. It is extremely easy for unsuspecting people to be radicalized without realizing it (I speak from personal experience). Propaganda is everywhere.

Just compare the articles on GamerGate between Wikipedia and Conservapedia, or any other topic, like Milo himself. Conservatives believe Gamergate and Milo are good. Progressives believe they are evil. Those are two completely contradictory outlooks on reality.

All news is fake news, or at least so biased that it might as well be fake. Both sides paint themselves as martyrs and their enemies as the devil incarnate, so it's no wonder that all information is suspect at best.

It is thus impossible to say whether Macris was radicalized into adopting extremist beliefs, despite the copious evidence from private and public interviews, or whether his views simply reflect those of conservatives in general. The rampant political polarization means that both sides consider the other extremist regardless of whether they are indeed extremist or not. Not only that, but it is now very difficult to distinguish actual extremists from non-extremists unless they're literally waving Nazi or Soviet flags. Even then, they may simply be trolls.

Even assuming that Macris was indeed radicalized into adopting extremist beliefs, and isn't simply being demonized for his brief association with an alleged extremist despite only holding typical conservative beliefs that progressives consider extremist by default due to political polarization, there is no evidence that Macris currently supports white nationalism and fascism.

What matters is what Macris currently believes, because people can change and seek redemption. It seems pretty obvious from his actions that Macris regrets being associated with Milo and is trying desperately to wash his hands of the whole affair.

While I personally consider diversity quotas repugnant, I believe that the easiest way for Macris to get past the controversy is to publish RPG supplements with blatant diversity quotas and obnoxiously obvious progressive politics. For example, rescuing a black lesbian couple from being killed by misogynistic beastmen who wear swastikas. It doesn't have to be good representation, it just has to convince whoever is controlling the conversation.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1109929While I personally consider diversity quotas repugnant, I believe that the easiest way for Macris to get past the controversy is to publish RPG supplements with blatant diversity quotas and obnoxiously obvious progressive politics. For example, rescuing a black lesbian couple from being killed by misogynistic beastmen who wear swastikas. It doesn't have to be good representation, it just has to convince whoever is controlling the conversation.

Why would you do that just to appease a Troll, man?

Quote from: Mistwell;1109903"It's almost funny that they're calling you out for libel and then engaging in libel"

How is that not "talking behind our backs"?

Sacrificial Lamb already posted links back to the Gaming Den.  I fully expected that people who were posting in this thread would also read that thread.

That comment was also primarily directed at Sacrificial Lamb who made it clear that he reads enough posts on the Gaming Den to have seen Frank's post and was clearly following the thread.  There was no attempt at duplicity.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109971Sacrificial Lamb already posted links back to the Gaming Den.  I fully expected that people who were posting in this thread would also read that thread.

That comment was also primarily directed at Sacrificial Lamb who made it clear that he reads enough posts on the Gaming Den to have seen Frank's post and was clearly following the thread.  There was no attempt at duplicity.

What libel do you think has been written here?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1109898Really?

The worst that's going on here is that people are mocking Trollman. I don't agree with the mockery on moral principle, but it isn't the same as trying to tarnish Macris' reputation by falsely claiming he is a neo-nazi terrorist.

Well, I've just been banned from the Gaming Den. :rolleyes:

However, Trollman did more than just call Macris a "neo-Nazi terrorist". He called Gary Gygax a "racist", and called Pundit a "toxic alt-right troll" and "neo-Nazi". And even ignoring that, he accused Macris of:

* racism
* terrorism
* white supremacy
* financing a terrorist network
* radicalizing people for a terrorist network
* money laundering
* funneling money to violent hate groups
* being a bag man for billionaire terrorists
* playing a role in the El Paso shooting
* mass murder, causing the deaths of dozens to hundreds of people

It's all right there. That's what this clusterfuck of a thread is all about. Take note that he refused to explain what he meant by all this stuff. To any normal person, Trollman's statements are going to sound like either vicious lies or pure insanity.

Granted, I wish that I handled the situation with Trollman and his henchmen more delicately. In my defense, I haven't had proper sleep in a long time....so that might be affecting how I interacted with them. However, that doesn't really matter much.....because Trollman lied. We don't have to use terms like "libel" or "defamation of character". He just plain lied. And he did so in the most malicious and spiteful way possible. Essentially, he used deception to prevent other posters on the Gaming Den from spending money on Autarch or ACKS. I suppose you could use the term, "financial terrorism", if we were to take a page out of Trollman's handbook.

Why did he do this? I suspect that he did this out of sheer malice, probably because of some remaining simmering butthurt over Milo Yiannopoulos....whom Macris once worked with.

In any case, the main reason why I say that Trollman lied, is because.....every single time I would ask him to precisely name and identify this alleged "terrorist network" that Macris is supposed to fund and radicalize for, Frank would change the subject.....and become suspiciously vague. He would not explain anything. He shared a link to Time magazine, on an article about how awful 8chan is (and allusions to the El Paso shooting).....without explaining what that had to do Macris. Trollman doubled down, tripled down, and refused to elaborate or explain anything. At all.

If you're reading this, amacris.....I'm sorry that I handled this so poorly and messily. I should have just sent you a private message and a link to Trollman's statements, so that you could silently take note of it...and leave it at that. Oh, well.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1109929In the modern age of fake news and political polarization, it can be difficult to determine the truth and especially the truth about what people believe. It is extremely easy for unsuspecting people to be radicalized without realizing it (I speak from personal experience). Propaganda is everywhere.

Just compare the articles on GamerGate between Wikipedia and Conservapedia, or any other topic, like Milo himself. Conservatives believe Gamergate and Milo are good. Progressives believe they are evil. Those are two completely contradictory outlooks on reality.

All news is fake news, or at least so biased that it might as well be fake. Both sides paint themselves as martyrs and their enemies as the devil incarnate, so it's no wonder that all information is suspect at best.

Well said. I personally compare present-day America to the Early Modern era just after the Protestant Reformation. The shared Christian worldview that had united Europe was extinguished and in its place two different worldviews clashed, each of which was secure in its source of truth (Church and Bible respectively for Catholics and Protestants), and each of which was confident the other side was the devil incarnate. We know how that ends. It's unfortunate.

QuoteIt is thus impossible to say whether Macris was radicalized into adopting extremist beliefs, despite the copious evidence from private and public interviews, or whether his views simply reflect those of conservatives in general. The rampant political polarization means that both sides consider the other extremist regardless of whether they are indeed extremist or not. Not only that, but it is now very difficult to distinguish actual extremists from non-extremists unless they're literally waving Nazi or Soviet flags. Even then, they may simply be trolls.

Well, there's one person who can say: Me. I know for a fact that my views are considered "extreme right-wing" by some far leftists. Equally I know for a fact that my views are considered "cuckservative civic nationalist" by extreme right-wingers. This is why I think the only way forward is to state facts about myself in as neutral a manner as possible and allow people to come to whatever conclusion is right for them based on their own personal philosophy.

QuoteEven assuming that Macris was indeed radicalized into adopting extremist beliefs, and isn't simply being demonized for his brief association with an alleged extremist despite only holding typical conservative beliefs that progressives consider extremist by default due to political polarization, there is no evidence that Macris currently supports white nationalism and fascism.

What matters is what Macris currently believes, because people can change and seek redemption. It seems pretty obvious from his actions that Macris regrets being associated with Milo and is trying desperately to wash his hands of the whole affair.

If working with Milo did anything to me, it was move me left-wing, not right-wing.

To put things as clearly as I possibly can: I'm not a fascist. I'm a libertarian. A fascist believes that everything should be within the state. I believe that as little as possible should be within the state. My mother, who is also a libertarian, handed down the family copy of Atlas Shrugged to me at 16. (Not joking. She gave me LOTR, too. I know, it's a fucking meme.) Later, I literally studied under one of libertarianism's great philosophers, Robert Nozick ("Anarchy, State & Utopia"), at Harvard Law School.  

My central political preoccupation is the avoidance of concentration of power. I believe, with Thomas Sowell and Steve Pinker (in Conflict of Visions and The Blank Slate respectively) that human nature is objectively constrained and that the human condition is therefore tragic; attempts at utopia lead to evil because we are all ourselves capable of evil. It is my belief that power both corrupts and attracts the corrupt; that the concentration of power into monopoly thereby always leads to abuse of power; that only power can block power; and that freedom arises when societies' various sources of power check each other. This worldview can be found detailed in James Burnham's Machievellians: The Defenders of Freedom.

Unlike some libertarians, I include corporate power as one of these sources of power. I believe the same people who run our corporations run our government; corruption and abuse of power don't vanish if you substitute .com for .gov in your email.

From the above follows my political principles.* I support subsidiarity, the devolution of power to local government, to create many centers of power; I support robust antitrust law; I support robust civil society, including churches and not-for-profits; I support separation of church and state; I support small business and wide ownership of property; I support mixed government and separation of powers; I support robust individual rights enforced by an independent judiciary; of these I consider free speech and the right to bear arms as the most important means of keeping power distributed rather than held closely. I oppose concentrating power into monopolies such as unitary executive power, global mega-corporations, or one world government.

No, I'm by no means a progressive, because progressives have what I consider a utopian view of human nature and a wrong-headed belief in the ability of powerful organizations to remain virtuous. As a result, I oppose most progressive policies as misguided (at best) or actively destructive (at worst). I find common cause with anyone who supports individual liberty on a case-by-case basis. The closest politician to my personal views in recent memory has been Ron Paul.

I worked with Milo out of the belief that, given his evident popularity with young people at the time, he could be a powerful advocate for free speech values if properly managed. As it happened, I was very wrong. I legally can't say more; I would if I could.

Within the limits of what I am allowed, when someone spreads *lies* about me, I state the truth. Whether the people who read my words considers the truth about me to be good, bad, or ugly is out of my hands. I don't seek any other person's, group's, or deities' validation for my moral views.  

QuoteWhile I  personally consider diversity quotas repugnant, I believe that the easiest way for Macris to get past the controversy is to publish RPG supplements with blatant diversity quotas and obnoxiously obvious progressive politics. For example, rescuing a black lesbian couple from being killed by misogynistic beastmen who wear swastikas. It doesn't have to be good representation, it just has to convince whoever is controlling the conversation.

I believe it would be immoral to do this. First, it would be a betrayal of my artistic integrity as a creator to exploit my world in that manner. Second, it would be hypocritical to attempt to signal progressive virtue when I do not share their moral code. So, no, I will not do that. Instead I will continue to do what I have been doing: Make strangely baroque role-playing game/wargames with an overreliance on spreadsheets for an audience that thinks Dwarf Fortress could be a good boardgame.

*P.S. If you were wondering how the Auran Empire's "world empire about to fall" theme ties into my political principles of liberty and local power, consider that the Auran Empire is ostensibly founded by superpowered demigods charged by the gods themselves with bringing law and order to the world; and that it still ends up being a corrupt and dystopian basketcase run by a series of dictators within just a couple hundred years. The theme is that nothing made by man is wholly good and everything falls apart. So that's the real connection to my politics, for those of you frantically trying to connect the dots like Alex Jones on Adderall. That said, the setting is not an allegory; I just happen to see the same tragedy played out in history repeatedly and emulated it in my work.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1109929While I personally consider diversity quotas repugnant, I believe that the easiest way for Macris to get past the controversy is to publish RPG supplements with blatant diversity quotas and obnoxiously obvious progressive politics. For example, rescuing a black lesbian couple from being killed by misogynistic beastmen who wear swastikas. It doesn't have to be good representation, it just has to convince whoever is controlling the conversation.

Quote from: Shasarak;1109952Why would you do that just to appease a Troll, man?

I don't even understand wtf he's talking about...so the best way to respond to libel is to make some really shitty games? Or is this meant to be hyperbolic satire? Hard to tell anymore.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1110041In any case, the main reason why I say that Trollman lied, is because.....every single time I would ask him to precisely name and identify this alleged "terrorist network" that Macris is supposed to fund and radicalize for, Frank would change the subject.....and become suspiciously vague. He would not explain anything. He shared a link to Time magazine, on an article about how awful 8chan is (and allusions to the El Paso shooting).....without explaining what that had to do Macris. Trollman doubled down, tripled down, and refused to elaborate or explain anything. At all.

All of this is shocking! Shocking, I say! Though I think you're correct in that it's probably best not to have engaged them on their most personal level and added fuel to the fire, regardless of how valid your statements might be. RIP your account, I suppose. You've been martyred for The Greater Good. You said what you thought was just and that should be lauded, even if it's not by the "right" crowds.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1110041Well, I've just been banned from the Gaming Den. :rolleyes:

To be honest, I'm not really sure what you hoped to accomplish posting there.

There was no chance for that to end well.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1110054To be honest, I'm not really sure what you hoped to accomplish posting there.

There was no chance for that to end well.

You're pretty much right. It was pointless. Let's chalk it up to lack of sleep.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1110057You're pretty much right. It was pointless. Let's chalk it up to lack of sleep.

Username checks out.

Quote from: Brad;1110045I don't even understand wtf he's talking about...so the best way to respond to libel is to make some really shitty games? Or is this meant to be hyperbolic satire? Hard to tell anymore.

At this point there is no longer difference between hyperbole and serious suggestions. I think it is a horrible suggestion simply because it sounds exactly like hyperbolic satire, but it would probably work at convincing the witch-hunters to harass someone else.

Macris speaks for himself and it seems clear to me that he is innocent of the ridiculous list of crimes attributed to him. Unfortunately that will not convince opposition that is clearly arguing in bad faith.

Trollman has an irrational vendetta against Macris. I doubt any amount of facts will convince Trollman and his colleagues otherwise, short of a lawsuit.

Quote from: amacris;1110043corruption and abuse of power don't vanish if you substitute .com for .gov in your email.

THAT is a great quote! Kudos.

Quote from: amacris;1110043My central political preoccupation is the avoidance of concentration of power. I believe, with Thomas Sowell and Steve Pinker (in Conflict of Visions and The Blank Slate respectively) that human nature is objectively constrained and that the human condition is therefore tragic; attempts at utopia lead to evil because we are all ourselves capable of evil. It is my belief that power both corrupts and attracts the corrupt; that the concentration of power into monopoly thereby always leads to abuse of power; that only power can block power; and that freedom arises when societies' various sources of power check each other. This worldview can be found detailed in James Burnham's Machievellians: The Defenders of Freedom.

Unlike some libertarians, I include corporate power as one of these sources of power. I believe the same people who run our corporations run our government; corruption and abuse of power don't vanish if you substitute .com for .gov in your email.

From the above follows my political principles.* I support subsidiarity, the devolution of power to local government, to create many centers of power; I support robust antitrust law; I support robust civil society, including churches and not-for-profits; I support separation of church and state; I support small business and wide ownership of property; I support mixed government and separation of powers; I support robust individual rights enforced by an independent judiciary; of these I consider free speech and the right to bear arms as the most important means of keeping power distributed rather than held closely. I oppose concentrating power into monopolies such as unitary executive power, global mega-corporations, or one world government.

No, I'm by no means a progressive, because progressives have what I consider a utopian view of human nature and a wrong-headed belief in the ability of powerful organizations to remain virtuous. As a result, I oppose most progressive policies as misguided (at best) or actively destructive (at worst). I find common cause with anyone who supports individual liberty on a case-by-case basis. The closest politician to my personal views in recent memory has been Ron Paul.

Alex, you would be amazed at how many people don't grasp this concept.

edit:  On second thought, I take that back...I believe you are perfectly aware of how many people actually do not get the concept.


And Thank You for making an awesome game!

QuoteHe called Gary Gygax a "racist",

This one always cracks me up because the people who do it (or call him a sexist, or a homophobe, or whatever) never have the guts to do it directly towards Gail Gygax, or any of Gary's kids, all of whom are on social media, and all of whom promote all things Gary.  They'll sit on their forums and twitter accounts and mumble incoherently about the big meaniehead Gary Gygax, and yet, when push comes to shove, never straight up go to his kids (who would know) or his wife (who would also know) or even his divorced wife (who would have no reason to not say if it were the case).

Ah, mercy.

But yeah Frank Trollman's messed up.  Didn't he have an account here?