This place is the most inclusive and accepting community I've ever been part of.

[FF_Ninja]

While some of the least accepting and friendly places seem to be the ones that claim to be the most loving and inclusive. In fact, I tend to find that the more "inclusive" a community claims to be, the more homogenous it is and the less accepting it is of anyone or anything that's too different.

I recently started looking for a new universal generic system to replace my old GURPS obsession with. I finally settled on Cortex Prime for reasons - mainly its modularity and flexibility - and began to chum it up with their Discord community. I'd been talking with them about modules and game mechanics and ideas - having a fairly good time, though there was a little resistance here and there when I rubbed up against some sacred cows (some people get very subtly offended for objectively silly reasons, but I digress).

So, yeah, it was going just fine, that is, until the conversation turned one day to WotC. I eventually mentioned the OSR and mentioned Pundit, Grimm, and Venger when answering some questions - and the whole place just cracked. Screaming, swearing, bigot this, Nazi that, racist this, homophobe there - so on and so forth. The regular users, the mods, and even the server owner and writer, Cam, chimed in. I didn't say much other than, "Hey, I like their stuff, I think they're pretty cool," and that was enough to for me to get screamed at and chewed out by a dozen different faces that seemingly just popped out of the woodwork for the occasion.

One particular quote from one of the users stood out to me in particular - not for hyperbole or slanderous accusation, but for its dire implications:

So glad I missed this convo, I would've made it a thousand times worse. When it comes to RW OSR influencers like the ones mentioned, I have a lot to say. Instead, I'll just mention the Popper Paradox and point out the well-known fact that the one thing a tolerant community can't tolerate is intolerance, including those who promote it.

I really hate that approach. It destroys any sort of hope for peaceful coexistence, opting to instead ostracize and alienate people on basis of their beliefs, perspectives, or opinions - even if they're not pushed or advocated. You can't exist in these communities while holding a contravening viewpoint, because the moment it comes to light, you'll be branded and maligned, if not straight-up ejected.

I'm not telling any of you anything you don't already know all too well, but it never fails to frustrate me every time I run into it. I've tried to invest in and involve myself with several gaming communities over the years, spanning several different social media platforms and gaming forums. With scant exception, they've all ended up the same way: the moment I showed any sign of "wrong-think," my time there was effectively terminated and I had to move on to a new place. I expect that will happen with the aforementioned Cortex community as well.

I'm saying all of that to say this: I am very appreciative of this community. Here I'm able to speak my mind and have civil and engaging discussions. I can express controversial and unconventional opinions and concepts. I'm treated exactly the way I treat people. It doesn't matter what my demographic is, what my political leaning is, what influencer I like or support, what system I use, who I voted for, or how I like my eggs cooked.

So, thanks, everyone. Thanks for this. Thanks.

[Cathode Ray]

[SHARK]

Greetings!

*SALUTE* And, if I'm late, WELCOME! Don't be hesitant to jump into discussions and participate, FF Ninja!.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[GeekyBugle]

Ironically enough the Popper Paradox talks about tolerating those who resort to violence, which is the woke and not anyone who opposes them (usually).

[FF_Ninja]

Ironically enough the Popper Paradox talks about tolerating those who resort to violence, which is the woke and not anyone who opposes them (usually).

I don't really know much about it, other than the person I quoted is fairly sanctimonious, and I detest people who ultimately justify harm just because they don't like or agree with someone.

[Jam The MF]

Once you decide that you don't really care if other people hate you, it's much more difficult for their words to bother you in any meaningful way.  I just don't care.

[S'mon]

Ironically enough the Popper Paradox talks about tolerating those who resort to violence, which is the woke and not anyone who opposes them (usually).

Yeah, Popper's Paradox of Tolerance says the exact opposite of what the Woke think it says, or would like it to say.  It says the one thing you can't tolerate is people who would forcibly repress speech - ie them.

[FF_Ninja]

Ironically enough the Popper Paradox talks about tolerating those who resort to violence, which is the woke and not anyone who opposes them (usually).

Yeah, Popper's Paradox of Tolerance says the exact opposite of what the Woke think it says, or would like it to say.  It says the one thing you can't tolerate is people who would forcibly repress speech - ie them.

I ran across this article that seems to explain the paradox with some clarity. It's so bizarre, recognizing that people have to be wilfully and intentionally ignorant to miss it.

Or, I guess they're just looking for excuses to be dicks.

[Wasteland Sniper]

Once you decide that you don't really care if other people hate you, it's much more difficult for their words to bother you in any meaningful way.  I just don't care.

It's just too bad that expecting the woke to understand this is dooming oneself to eternal disappointment. I figured that shit out by the time I hit high school. To be fair, I had some help in the fact that my mother was less than complimentary of me much of the time, so it was hard to get worked up about somebody I barely knew from school talking shit about me.

[Wasteland Sniper]

Or, I guess they're just looking for excuses to be dicks.

That's generally where I put my money.

[FF_Ninja]

Once you decide that you don't really care if other people hate you, it's much more difficult for their words to bother you in any meaningful way.  I just don't care.

My biggest problem thus far is the fact that in online communities "being hated" - or, these days, "being mildly disliked" - is enough to get you entirely barred from participation and forcibly removed - and people have the power to do it.

Unlike in real life, where people are typically a bit less brave about pushing people around and also typically have significantly less power to do so.

So, I can adopt a devil-may-care attitude about it, but unless I can find online communities that are fair and free, I'm typically relegated to being isolated. And it's not very easy to develop real-life friendships or dig into real-life communities - at least, it isn't when you're a hermit crab / social moth hybrid like I am.

[S'mon]

I ran across this article that seems to explain the paradox with some clarity. It's so bizarre, recognizing that people have to be wilfully and intentionally ignorant to miss it.

Or, I guess they're just looking for excuses to be dicks.

Actual quote from Popper here - https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-of-tolerence-in-free-speech-debates-6f6ab4b8f0d3

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

You can see why SJWs are not so keen on Popper once they realise what he was really saying. 

Edit: Umbran on ENW actually told me, once I pointed this out, that we've moved on since Popper's day. We now realise that 'words are violence' and 'cause real harm' - so it's now ok/good to meet argument with force. 

[FF_Ninja]

I ran across this article that seems to explain the paradox with some clarity. It's so bizarre, recognizing that people have to be wilfully and intentionally ignorant to miss it.

Or, I guess they're just looking for excuses to be dicks.

Actual quote from Popper here - https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-of-tolerence-in-free-speech-debates-6f6ab4b8f0d3

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

You can see why SJWs are not so keen on Popper once they realise what he was really saying. 

Edit: Umbran on ENW actually told me, once I pointed this out, that we've moved on since Popper's day. We now realise that 'words are violence' and 'cause real harm' - so it's now ok/good to meet argument with force. 

Comparing Popper's full treatise with the half-assed crap I had thrown at me earlier really grinds my gears. I can't stand intellectual laziness, especially not when it's used to prop up abusive rhetoric.

[Kyle Aaron]

Once you decide that you don't really care if other people hate you, it's much more difficult for their words to bother you in any meaningful way.  I just don't care.

Whatever you do in life, someone will hate you for no good reason - and someone will love you for no good reason. There's no sense in questioning either of those.

Now, if everyone hates you, or everyone loves you, then it's worth looking into.

But what we're usually looking at with these sorts of people is people who love you today and hate you tomorrow, then back again. And that's what's called "splitting" in BPD. It's disordered behaviour, and there's nothing you can do except walk away. Even the majority of psychiatrists and psychologists refuse to work with BPD patients. Even $180 for 45 minutes isn't enough to put up with their shit.

[Skullking]

While some of the least accepting and friendly places seem to be the ones that claim to be the most loving and inclusive.

Welcome to the culture war.