On the Intolerance of Intolerance, or; the Paradox of Tolerance
Preface: If you don't know the name Karl Popper, this is a thread for you to ask questions in. You can sub, you can ask questions. Everybody can do that.
If you DO know the name Karl Popper, Rawls, etc - then you are welcome to state your own formed thoughts and opinions. Do please disagree!
Is this gatekeepery behavior? Yes. This is the collection where I get to act like a crotchety old philosophy professor with a Socratic stick up my ass.
Here's my thesis: In order to have the sort of community and gaming that accepts in persons who don't look like, well, me, we must not allow the intolerant into our communities. This is everybody from out and out fascists to racists, and bigots of all sorts. For shorthand, I'll refer to them as fascists as, well, there's more of them than I'd hoped.
The reason we cannot is pretty straightforward: The perspectives of others create better gaming - and the interaction with others are literally why we play games. Fascists inherently reduce the scope and depth of others who will be in the community, as by attitude, word, action, body-language they increase the friction for those not like them. It is more difficult for people who are mocked, ridiculed, etc to join these communities and to stay in them.
Folks who stay while facing such difficulties are necessarily dedicated, and this is obvious.
To be clear, the above is a self-serving reason to get rid of fascists from our communities; they make them less of a community than I want to be in.
Here's another reason: Fascists are immoral assholes. We shouldn't give our time and attention to immoral assholes, because they are immoral assholes.
Thoughts / comments / questions / concerns?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My only real comment is that your definition of gatekeeping feels odd to me.
ReplyDelete"If you don't know the subject please ask questions": not gatekeeping...
"If you do know the subject, please feel free to comment and give your own thoughts on the matter": again, kind of the opposite of gatekeeping...
"Thesis: protect the community from assholes": I guess this is sort of gatekeeping vs. assholes but, that feels like a fine like semantics argument... and not generally how the term is really applied.
But otherwise, I'm fully on board with the paradox of tolerance.... I pull it out all the time when people say things like "so much for the tolerant left!".
Indeed, yes, Matt Johnson, my first copy was something like "If you don't have a masters in philosophy, STFU", because that's the sort of gatekeeping I am trying to avoid.
ReplyDeleteI want opinions I disagree with, so long as they aren't from fucking fascists.
Someone who does have a masters in Philosophy explaining why you can't allow fascists any sort of platform: https://youtu.be/bgwS_FMZ3nQ
ReplyDeleteyoutube.com - The Philosophy of Antifa | Philosophy Tube
this is a pretty weird argument to me, honestly; it seems like if i were looking for reasons not to support fascists, that "quality of gaming" would be pretty low on my list. i don't think it's unsound, just a strange choice of focus.
ReplyDeletei find your second argument, at the end, much more compelling.
my gut reaction was that it feels like the sort of bluster that winds up establishing a community that kicks out the blatant racists but doesn't do much to actively deal with microaggressions and systemic barriers. you know, where nobody says slurs out loud, but the leadership is still 90% white dudes. but, honestly, i think my gut is still a bit in denial about the number of open and semi-open fascists in gaming circles, so this is probably a necessary step. as long as it doesn't stop there.
So... I just had a thought here... Even if this is a public circle, it still is most likely to hit your direct sphere of engagement... and you are looking for arguments? So you are /looking/ for people to defend fascists rights to exist in our gaming spaces... are you just looking for people to out themselves as closet fascists with some sort of tolerance honey pot?
ReplyDeleteThing I've learned upon taking up a community moderation role: many people don't realize how much a privilege it is for them to discuss in academic theoretical terms matters that are immediate existential threats to others.
ReplyDeleteFrom a devil's advocate position: sometimes, when I'm gaming, I don't want to be challenged. I just want roll some dice, do cool shit, gather the loots. People advocating positions that pull me out of my comfort zone? That's ...
ReplyDeleteOk, that's as long as I can keep that up, and it's all I got.
/sub
ReplyDeleteI know this argument and I agree: say we want our community to be welcoming and inclusive. A community, by definition, is made of people. If some people make that community less welcoming for other people, they are acting against the initial intent, and should stop. Maybe they're not doing it on purpose and talking to them is enough; maybe they do it very intentionally and/or don't want to stop their behaviour. In the latter case, you remove those people from the community in order to allow others to be part of it
ReplyDeleteWilliam Nichols: Do you have anything you’d like to say in this context about people who argue in bad faith? I’d love to learn more about the philosophical take on bad-faith arguments.
ReplyDelete(Never mind, comment deleted, because I don't know who Karl Popper is.)
ReplyDeleteJonathan Beverley Ah yes, the "I just want to play elf games" argument.
ReplyDeleteTony Lower-Basch I'd recommend the video I linked above, I am pretty sure it covers bad faith arguments (and if not I know the channel does in other related videos).
ReplyDeleteok, dealing with the easy ones first: I just woke up and haven't had coffee yet!
ReplyDeleteShane Liebling I'll check that out; predictably, I've also read some shit in ye olde philosophy grad school.
Matt Johnson Nah, this isn't a honey pot. The argument may not be stated well, or defended correctly. What I love about rigorous debate in good faith is we can all get closer to truth.
That's a big part here: is my argument garbage, and can folks help me figure that out?
I used old Popper as a baseline for inclusion because he described the Paradox of Intolerance in 1945, and is one of my favorite 20th century philosophers. Top five, at least.
Adam McConnaughey I wish such obvious arguments were not necessary. I wish I didn't have to make them self-serving.
ReplyDeleteGiven what I've seen happening in the OSR over the last week (which I am adjacent to, at best), I think this is the level of discourse is at.
Here's a scaled up version: I do not make space for the fascist because he will destroy everything that is not the fascist. We fight the fascist, we do not break bread with him. We do not give the position succor. We do not allow it into society, as the tolerant society will falter and be fail if we give them an inch.
If the fascists change his position? He is welcome to rejoin society.
So, yeah: It's not really about gaming. It's about life & global politics and working on a small scale to keep the US from further falling into fascism. It's not the only scale I work on, but it is one scale I work on.
E.T. Smith Yep! I only do so on my own spaces. Usually just this collection, too. Well, and privately; I am more than happy to help folks think through positions. I've had plenty of that help over the decades, and it is only right that I pay that forward.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Beverley I think you know the counter-argument: The fascist inherently pushes people out of their comfort zone. Any game with a fascist in it becomes, over time, a game where only fascists are welcome.
ReplyDeletePatrick Marchiodi Exactly right.
ReplyDeleteAnd, yes: We ramp up and use gentle persuasion at first. Especially if there's not ill will, but simple being wrong. That can be solved.
Now, that being said: It is also not our job to educate at all times. We have the right of self-preservation, which can be saying "You are mistaken. I do not have the energy or will to explain it to you. Come back once you've figured it out."
I've been on both ends of that!
Jule Ann Wakeman Popper was a 20th century philosopher of science. In 1945 he wrote "The Open Society and Its Enemies", one part of which is the Paradox of Tolerance.
ReplyDeleteHere's the quote in Wiki:
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: 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.
So, shortened form:
If the intolerant will listen to reason, use that.
If the intolerant will not listen to reason, suppress them by whatever means necessary.
Karl Popper, antifa.
Karl Popper, philosopher of science.