El Waiki's page

What do you mean "nuance is OVER"? The real question now is which color is best color?

The answer is most likely green. While there some arguments towards blue, some people would argue, in bad faith, that red a valid answer.

They just don't wanna write about it anymore. It's not that hard to understand, and demanding they continue to do so anyway is childish entitlement.

The game is still good. The writing is still good. For the topics the Paizo team doesn't want to touch anymore, Infinite is right there for all of the folks who want it back, and all the 1e material didn't go anywhere.

I'm so tired of this same thread, over and over.

They don't want to to keep writing about it or they decide that is to much trouble to keep writing about it?

Giving that they had some issues or backlash with Agents of Edgewatch amidst the somewhat fiery, but mostly peaceful protest and some parts of the fandom have shown to be somewhat overzealous in recent times I believe is the second.

Rysky wrote:

"You should only be prepared to silence the intolerant when they renounce rational argument."

Bigotry isn't rational to begin with.

Unfortunately, not really true.

If you're the person in power (or, at least, with more power) due to things like skin colour, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc etc then it is rational to fight to maintain that power.

Evil, disgusting, awful and definitely counterproductive in the long term.

But it is rational, at least in the short term

While I was talking mainly about racism and sexism here far more than bigotry against LBGT+ people, bigotry against LBGT+ can also be rational IF your desire is to gain political power from like minded bigots, defend morally indefensible religious views, etc

Lets not confuse evil with irrationality. Evil people can act terribly in order to rationally achieve their disgusting goals

In that cases, while the goal is rational, remaining in power, the argument is not. Unless they admit the goal is to remain in power, which would be a hard sell, they would have to find alternate ways to justify their bigotry which undoubtedly wouldn't stand to scrutiny.

The intolerant are not interested in definitions, or good faith discussions, or the like type of open, honest, rational discourse & exchange of ideas.
By definition the intolerant are, well, intolerant.
Someone who has an open mind and is willing to change if they acquire knowledge which conflicts with the conclusions they made … such a person may appear intolerant, yet such an individual is simply misinformed, not intolerant.

That why the line in the sand, as explained by Popper, is the renunciation to rational argument. If somebody isn't willing to engage in rational argument then they are bigot and not misinformed.

El Waiki wrote:

After all, years ago, criticism of the crown or church was what would be considered offensive, or intolerant, speech.

this isn’t a comment about an open, free, tolerant society but of one about forms of authoritarianism

Popper's Paradox of Tolerance, specially in its delimitation of when to reserve the right to suppress the intolerant, can be read as a guideline of how to defend a tolerant society from intolerance without becoming intolerant ourselves.

Do you like this poem?