This is for folks in the SCA.
(I’ve been holding this for a few days, hoping things would die down, but with the exercise in 21st-Century corporate political correctness and virtue-signaling they’re calling the “Statement of Values” from the Order of Defense, I can see things are only going to continue to escalate.)
Y’all know we’re tearing the SCA apart right now, right?[a][b][c][d][e][f][g][h][i][j][k][l][m][n][o][p][q]
I believe it’s because we’re not seeing each other in person anymore.[r][s][t] Too many of us no longer see others of us as human, because we’re only interacting on social media.[u][v][w][x][y] And too many of us are too caught up in the mundane news on our screens and devices, and somehow feel the need to bring it to the SCA.[z][aa][ab][ac][ad]
Even Master Davius, who wrote an eloquent post calling for us to unify around our shared love of things medieval, couldn’t resist categorizing people as “allies” and “bigots”.[ae][af][ag][ah][ai]
To many of us, many of you appear to be on a rampage. And frankly, it’s scaring us.[aj][ak][al][am][an][ao][ap][aq][ar] We feel unwelcome in the kingdoms we helped to build, and gave the best years of our lives to.[as][at][au][av][aw][ax][ay]
I’m seeing a whole lot of #notinmysca hashtags, and you’re not limiting yourselves to hating on Nazis, even while you’re patting yourselves on the back for unearthing an actual Nazi, taking such pride in hating the right people.[az][ba][bb][bc][bd] You seem so concerned that someone unsavory might reflect badly on the SCA, as though we should only be letting the “right sort” join our club.[be][bf][bg][bh][bi]
Here’s a specific example of what I’m talking about. It was posted as a comment by my regional seneschal, Countess Toryn: “Stopping discrimination, casual racism, homophobia and sexism in the SCA is exactly my business. I am a Rose of Ansteorra and that nonsense has no place in my SCA.”[bj][bk][bl][bm][bn]
Then of course we have Master Avery’s announcement on the Ansteorra FB group of why the SCA has authority to censor our expression and kick us out if we say something the SCA disapproves of. I know what you disapprove of, Avery. It’s people saying “Wuhan” in the Ansteorra FB group, but it’s emphatically NOT your officers using explicitly partisan political symbols as profile pictures while posting official business to SCA forums.[bo][bp][bq][br][bs][bt][bu][bv]
Let me make myself clear.[bw][bx][by] Unlike Master Mateo’s vague accusations in the Ask the Chivalry group, I’m going to provide some context.[bz][ca][cb]
I’ve been in the SCA for 41 years[cc], and spent that entire time recruiting. “We always have room for more nice people,” I often say.[cd][ce][cf] Nobody told me that I should be screening new people for progressive orthodoxy.[cg][ch][ci]
I’m a Roman Catholic. Mundanely. I actually believe in all that stuff. Sin, redemption, salvation, resurrection, forgiveness, all of it. I can overlook sins, because I’m a sinner myself. I can get along with sinners, because there’s no one else TO get along with. But I don’t embrace sin, I don’t applaud it, I don’t approve of it, and I don’t pretend that it isn’t sin.
I don’t accept that a relationship between two people of the same sex can be a marriage. That’s just not what the word means. And if your political agenda requires that we de-fund the Salvation Army, and put out of business every photographer, baker, caterer, and venue owner who doesn’t want to attend your gay “wedding”, then I’m not going to be your fucking “ally”. I’m happy to have gays in the SCA, but to many of you, that makes me a homophobe, and unwelcome.
I view abortion very simply as the intentional taking of an innocent human life. To me, this offends against the virtues of chivalry and mercy. I am monumentally uninterested in lessons on morality from supporters of abortion “rights”. I don’t treat people who disagree with me on this differently, but to many of you, this makes me a misogynist, and someone you don’t want around.[cj][ck][cl]
Science teaches me that sex is an essential attribute of human life, encoded in every cell down to the chromosome level. I can’t accept that a person can, based on their feelings “transition” from male to female, nor female to male; no, nor with any amount of surgery. I can accept people’s persona play any way they feel like playing it, but to many of you, this makes me a transphobe, and dangerous.[cm][cn][co]
I cannot support the Black Lives Matter organization because not only do I disagree with their tactics of blocking traffic and fomenting rioting[cp][cq][cr][cs], not only do I disagree with their hatred of all law enforcement,[ct][cu][cv] [cw]not only do I deny that a disproportionate number of innocent blacks are killed by police, [cx][cy][cz]I particularly object to the rest of their agenda, which explicitly includes the “disruption” of traditional family structures. That sort of disruption has been going on in the black community for over fifty years, and it has been an absolute disaster for millions of people who were forced to grow up in broken homes, raised by only one parent — or none! The black illegitimacy rate is sky-high, and the rest of American society is following fast. I’ve never discriminated against any person of color in the SCA, but to many of you, this makes me a racist, someone who should be thrown out.[da][db][dc][dd]
I believe that Antifa is an anti-American, corporately-funded[de], professionally-organized, violent insurrectionist group whose purpose, far from opposing “facism”, is to overturn a valid election, and terrorize the American people into choosing its preferred figurehead in the upcoming election. To many of you, this view will mark me as a “right-wing extremist” (to you, there is no other kind) who should be kicked out of the SCA.[df][dg][dh]
I believe that living in America is not a human right that redounds to the entire human race. Instead, I believe that stopping illegal immigration is an existential necessity. But I presume without asking that all the immigrants I meet in the SCA came here legally. To many of you, this also makes me a racist unworthy of your company.[di][dj][dk][dl]
I proudly voted for Donald Trump in 2016, and look forward to doing so again in 2020. In fact, I have voted Republican in every presidential election since 1980. Many of my dear friends are on the opposite side, but to many of you, this makes me “deplorable”, somebody you want out.[dm][dn][do]
Social media is filled lately with SCA people “rioting”, figuratively, not literally, burning down the structures and communities that keep our kingdoms running. I’m talking about the relationships. In your incessant virtue-signaling — yes, I said virtue-signaling — you’re trying to out-do each other in your “virtuous” hate of people you consider reprehensible. You’re destroying the SCA.[dp][dq][dr] Because the SCA has always welcomed all kinds of people.[ds][dt][du] Every one of them imperfect.[dv][dw][dx]
You may have noticed that I haven’t said I hate Nazis. Do you want to know why? Because I’m a veteran. Like my father. And like his father. And like two of my brothers and my sister. Like my father-in-law. And I have a son and a sister-in-law serving on active duty now. So I don’t need to virtue-signal who I do and do not like. And I don’t take pride in who I hate; pride is a sin, and opposing evil is a sad duty, not a thing to be proud of.[dy][dz][ea][eb][ec][ed]
In “your” SCA, you need to amend the Membership Application form to include a place to affirm one’s fealty to the BLM platform, the LGBTQ agenda, the open-borders policies of the Democratic Party, and whatever politically correct innovation CNN and the New York Times may come up with next week (Kneeling? Public confessions? Head shaving?).[ee][ef][eg] Because “your” SCA is not about studying and re-creating the Middle Ages, it’s about enforcing 21st Century “woke” political correctness on every person, in every activity.[eh][ei][ej] It’s like the old Soviet slogan, “everything within the Party, nothing outside the Party.”[ek][el][em] But for most us, back in the day, it was about escaping the modern world. That’s no longer permissible to you.[en][eo][ep] If you were honest about what you want to turn the SCA into, you’d never recruit another person who was interested in the actual Middle Ages.[eq][er][es]
A few years ago, after months of listening to my baron & baroness, and my baronial seneschal, plead for someone to step up to apply to be the new seneschal, and since no one else would, I applied. I’m a former prince, a former territorial baron, a double peer, and a former kingdom seneschal; I considered myself qualified. I was told that I couldn’t be a baronial seneschal because my views would make homosexuals feel unwelcome in the SCA.[et][eu][ev] Never mind that no one could point to a single person I’d ever made to feel unwelcome in the SCA; I’ve worked hard to make everyone welcome, to encourage, to teach, to compliment everyone who wanted my teaching or encouragement[ew][ex][ey]. The SCA, in its “inclusivity” was making ME unwelcome.
Today, my regional and kingdom seneschals, along with a chorus of voices here on Facebook, are making me feel that my place in the SCA is untenable. That at any moment, something I say will get me kicked out as summarily as Wolfgang von Sachsenhausen. Now that you’ve done one, the next one will be easier. And the one after that.[ez][fa][fb] As St. Thomas More says in _A Man For All Seasons_, “Yes I give the devil the benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”.
Because you see, after you’ve gotten rid of the Worst Person in the Kingdom, then someone else is the new Worst Person. Get rid of him, and there’s someone else in line. Once you’re in the business of getting rid of the Worst Person in the Kingdom, how do you stop? Someone is always the Worst Person. And you’ve convinced yourself that your virtue depends on getting rid of him. Somehow, a vague concern that a Bad Person on Facebook might “reflect badly on the SCA” is the highest concern. But, “reflect badly” to _whom_? Who’s paying attention, other than people who are already in the SCA who are eaten up with ridiculous notions about collective guilt and collective virtue, and who believe that the only way to prove their own virtue is to carefully ostracize anyone who doesn’t meet their media-decreed standards of “moral” excellence so that they can be found worthy by… whom?[fc][fd][fe]
Somehow, people who’ve more recently come into the SCA have indicted us old-timers for not anticipating the political climate of 2020 forty years in advance, and feel the need to correct the systemic racism and sexism that has always marked our Society. But it _hasn’t_! The SCA has always been welcoming, egalitarian, and friendly to anyone who was interested. And I’ve been proud to be a part of that.[ff][fg][fh]
So I’m done. If I’m going to be convicted by my words, let it be these words.[fi][fj][fk] And if you’re NOT going to throw me out for what I’ve said here, then you can fucking well give up this idiocy of throwing people out of “your” SCA.[fl][fm][fn] If you want to be inclusive, start with the people who are already in the SCA.[fo][fp][fq]
[a]Loaded Question Fallacy - Asking a question that has a presumption built into it so that it can't be answered without appearing guilty.
[b]_Marked as resolved_
[c]_Re-opened_
[d]_Marked as resolved_
[e]_Re-opened_
[f]_Marked as resolved_
[g]_Re-opened_
[h]Just like muscles in the body, in order for positive change to be made, existing structures must be broken down first.
[i]_Marked as resolved_
[j]_Re-opened_
[k]_Marked as resolved_
[l]_Re-opened_
[m]Appeal to Emotion Fallacy - Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
[n]_Marked as resolved_
[o]_Re-opened_
[p]_Marked as resolved_
[q]_Re-opened_
[r]Your statements below seem to indicate you have never truly seen many people that don't fit into your particular world view as people anyway, so I would challenge that this isn't something that is "new." It's just that your prejudices are being challenged and you don't like it and that makes you feel lesser.
[s]_Marked as resolved_
[t]_Re-opened_
[u]False Cause Fallacy - Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.
[v]_Marked as resolved_
[w]_Re-opened_
[x]_Marked as resolved_
[y]_Re-opened_
[z]The SCA does not live in a vacuum. To ask anyone to pretend that their lives outside the SCA shouldn't affect their lives within it is ludicrous, especially when they face the same prejudices and mistreatment within.
[aa]_Marked as resolved_
[ab]_Re-opened_
[ac]_Marked as resolved_
[ad]_Re-opened_
[ae]Tu Quoque Fallacy -
Avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - answering criticism with criticism.
Providing "quotes" without context or proof, as well.
[af]_Marked as resolved_
[ag]_Re-opened_
[ah]_Marked as resolved_
[ai]_Re-opened_
[aj]Appeal to Authority Fallacy - Saying that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
Also Bandwagon Fallacy - Appealing to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.
[ak]When you disenfranchise a group of people for so long and they finally speak up against your A) malicious treatment or B) willful ignorance o their suffering, yeah, it's going to look like an attack, because you're not used to being called out for your part in the problem.
[al]_Marked as resolved_
[am]_Re-opened_
[an]Change is scary.
[ao]_Marked as resolved_
[ap]_Re-opened_
[aq]_Marked as resolved_
[ar]_Re-opened_
[as]What we are saying is that racism, homophobia, trans-exclusionism, and sexism have no place in the SCA (and never should have). If you feel unwelcome because of this, perhaps you should evaluate your beliefs and ask "why?"
[at]_Marked as resolved_
[au]_Re-opened_
[av]_Marked as resolved_
[aw]_Re-opened_
[ax]_Marked as resolved_
[ay]_Re-opened_
[az]Nazis are not the only people that are a problem.
[ba]_Marked as resolved_
[bb]_Re-opened_
[bc]_Marked as resolved_
[bd]_Re-opened_
[be]Yes, yes, this is the core of what we're saying. If you're a terrible person, if you are racist, homophobe, trans-exclusionary, sexist then you are not welcome here. That's exactly what we want. If you're going to willfully discriminate upon someone for their innate characteristics then you should go.
[bf]_Marked as resolved_
[bg]_Re-opened_
[bh]_Marked as resolved_
[bi]_Re-opened_
[bj]This is exactly the sort of comment we should expect from leaders in our community. In this statement, I cannot be more firmly supportive of the Countess. She is standing up to protect the marginalized and those disaffected due to continued mistreatment or neglect.
[bk]_Marked as resolved_
[bl]_Re-opened_
[bm]_Marked as resolved_
[bn]_Re-opened_
[bo]There exists a method for which complaints can be submitted, reviewed, and judged. You cite examples, but fail to provide any substantive proof that these methods were A) Ignored or B) Applied unfairly.
You've made an argument without providing any facts to support it, which is conjecture.
[bp]_Marked as resolved_
[bq]_Re-opened_
[br]Strawman Fallacy - You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
[bs]_Marked as resolved_
[bt]_Re-opened_
[bu]_Marked as resolved_
[bv]_Re-opened_
[bw]Yep, you're definitely about to do that.
[bx]_Marked as resolved_
[by]_Re-opened_
[bz]Ad Hominem - again.
[ca]_Marked as resolved_
[cb]_Re-opened_
[cc]Attempt to establish credibility through "more experience."
[cd]We do.
[ce]_Marked as resolved_
[cf]_Re-opened_
[cg]You should have been (and should continue to) screen new people to exclude racists, homophobes, trans-exclusionaries, and sexists.
[ch]_Marked as resolved_
[ci]_Re-opened_
[cj]What you're saying IS misogynistic.
Nobody goes into a situation wanting an abortion. Nobody gets pregnant to have an abortion. Abortions are done out of desperation, clearly a desperation you cannot or will not empathize with.
[ck]_Marked as resolved_
[cl]_Re-opened_
[cm]What you're saying IS Trans-exclusionary/Transphobic.
Appeal to Nature Fallacy - Making the argument that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good, or ideal.
also
Cherry Picking Fallacy - suppressing evidence to the contrary (also not providing any sort of notation for your science).
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/
[cn]_Marked as resolved_
[co]_Re-opened_
[cp]What your'e saying IS racist.
You can't support BLM because they're not peacefully protesting. You realize that Black People are literally being MURDERED by the police, right?
How many have to die before it's okay to inconvenience traffic a bit? How many have to die before people rise up?
[cq]He specifically denies believing that black people are being murdered by police.
[cr]_Marked as resolved_
[cs]_Re-opened_
[ct]Strawman Fallacy - Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
[cu]_Marked as resolved_
[cv]_Re-opened_
[cw]this whole string is a Sales tactic of making a series of gradually escalating statements, with the expectation that your audience will agree with the first 2-3 statements and then feel honor-bound to also agree to the final statement.
[cx]Anecdotal Fallacy - Using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics.
Science -https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793
[cy]_Marked as resolved_
[cz]_Re-opened_
[da]I got nothing... this is just straight up racism.
[db]There's some sexism too in the 'disrupted families'. The disruptions he means is people, probably specifically women, being able to leave abusive situations. Never forget that family comes from paterfamilias and references the group of people that a man can kill at his whim because he owns them. Illegitimacy is also an inherently sexist idea because it is explicitly based on the idea that children are less valuable without paternal acknowledgement.
[dc]_Marked as resolved_
[dd]_Re-opened_
[de]Guys. This is a dog whistle reference to a very common antisemitic conspiracy theory that blames George Soros for "funding these protests." It is basically a retread of Rothschild conspiracies with a different old Jewish name this time. It's also anti-Black in that it denies them their agency in fighting for their own rights.
[df]Anecdotal Fallacy - Using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics.
Nobody's claimed you're a right-wing extremist, but you're doing a pretty good job of explaining that about yourself as you go along.
[dg]_Marked as resolved_
[dh]_Re-opened_
[di]You know what, I'm not going to argue that point. Illegal immigration is a problem.
The solution is a better structure for immigrants to make their way to our country, however, not their complete exclusion. I should be clear that you have not said anything in this statement that intimates that you believe otherwise, I'm just adding my two cents, because I can.
[dj]_Marked as resolved_
[dk]_Re-opened_
[dl]I absolutely agree that we do need to secure the borders, but that does not mean that the detention and processing of those immigrants needs to be an inhumane and
punitive process.
[dm]Black-Or-White Fallacy - Where two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
[dn]_Marked as resolved_
[do]_Re-opened_
[dp]Strawman Fallacy - again.
Appeal to Emotion - Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
[dq]_Marked as resolved_
[dr]_Re-opened_
[ds]This is unfortunately not true. There are too many examples that prove otherwise.
[dt]_Marked as resolved_
[du]_Re-opened_
[dv]TRUE! Congratulations!
[dw]_Marked as resolved_
[dx]_Re-opened_
[dy]Here's a late entry note. This statement refuses to acknowledge the hate of Nazis, due to opposing evil being a sad duty and not something to be proud of. However, the rest of this statement seems to have no problems showing hatred/disgust for plenty of other groups. Why is that?
[dz]_Marked as resolved_
[ea]_Re-opened_
[eb]No True Scotsman Fallacy - Making what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of an argument.
The service to this country provided by you, your father, his father, your two brothers, your sister, your father-in-law, your son, your sister-in-law is appreciated an applauded.
That doesn't make your arguments here any less despicable. It's not pride to stand up and do the right thing, to condemn hatred and to stop letting repeat offenders get away without so much as a slap on the wrist or even a good finger-wagging.
It's not a matter of pride. I don't enjoy this, but the continued insistence on denying basic human rights and dignity to people has to stop and it's clear the only way that is going to happen is if the people perpetuating it are made REAL uncomfortable about it.
[ec]_Marked as resolved_
[ed]_Re-opened_
[ee]Strawman Fallacy - again.
[ef]_Marked as resolved_
[eg]_Re-opened_
[eh]As mentioned earlier, the SCA does not exist in a vacuum. We expect everyone to be allowed to exist here without the threats of racism, homophobia, trans-exclusionism, or sexism.
[ei]_Marked as resolved_
[ej]_Re-opened_
[ek]Appeal to Emtion - again.
You're trying to equate the argument that those you're attacking for defending those mistreated through racism, homophobia, trans-exclusionism, or sexism to the Soviet Union in order to elicit a specific negative emotional response rather that providing any relevant statement.
[el]_Marked as resolved_
[em]_Re-opened_
[en]I love to escape much of the modern world, I love to leave my laptop at home, turn off my phone and pretend I'm a Hiberno-Norse Skald. But to ignore the struggles of life that persist to for those struggling through the modern world is to bury our head in the sand and be complicit through neglect. This is no longer permissible.
1 total reaction
Rex Deaver reacted with ❤️ at 2023-09-11 21:52 PM
[eo]_Marked as resolved_
[ep]_Re-opened_
[eq]Slippery Slope Fallacy - Asserting that if we allow A to happen, then Z will consequently happen too, therefore A should not happen.
[er]_Marked as resolved_
[es]_Re-opened_
[et]I would like for you to find someone from the LGBTQ+ community that would be willing to qualify this statement after reading this.
[eu]_Marked as resolved_
[ev]_Re-opened_
[ew]Anecdotal Fallacy - Using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics.
Just because you didn't see it or hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
[ex]_Marked as resolved_
[ey]_Re-opened_
[ez]If you're not feeling welcome because people speaking out against behavior/words/etc that are racist, homophobic, trans-exclusionary, or sexist perhaps you should reflect a moment on why that is.
We can only hope that removing one bigot from the SCA will make it easier for the next one and the one after.
[fa]_Marked as resolved_
[fb]_Re-opened_
[fc]Being a Roman Catholic, perhaps you read the Bible.
Matthew 13:24-30
24 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, 25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds[a] among the wheat and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants[b] of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, “Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”
It's harvest time.
[fd]_Marked as resolved_
[fe]_Re-opened_
[ff]Everything that you have expressed to this point seems to contradict your welcoming, egalitarian, friendly place statement.
It shouldn't take 40 years of neglecting an issue for it to finally be addressed.
[fg]_Marked as resolved_
[fh]_Re-opened_
[fi]Fair enough, you've done a fine job of convicting yourself by them.
[fj]_Marked as resolved_
[fk]_Re-opened_
[fl]Be careful what you wish for.
[fm]_Marked as resolved_
[fn]_Re-opened_
[fo]Oh why not, let's get one more logical fallacy in right before we call it a day, shall we?
No True Scotsman Fallacy - Making what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of an argument.
[fp]_Marked as resolved_
[fq]_Re-opened_