Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Momo is Still Not Real (But Memes Are)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 7774662" data-attributes="member: 57112"><p>Oh boy, where to begin. I guess we'll go FILO, in honor of Wizards of the Coast.</p><p></p><p>Moral relativism is incompatible with moral absolutism, sure; but that doesn't make the reverse true. It all depends on how one approaches "truth" (or "truths") as a universal concept. A moral absolutist definitionally believes in a singular capital-T "Truth", and thus must view moral relativism as false. Moral relativism is a bit broader in its approach. I think there is a misconception that moral relativism is the belief that there is no such thing as truth, which I would argue is actually another shade of moral absolutism. Rather, a more accurate description would be that moral relativists accept that there are <em>multiple</em> truths that can depend heavily on context. Hence, the assertion that the tolerance of morally absolute belief systems immediately and logically invalidates moral relativism falls flat on its face. Your truth can be true <em>for you</em> and someone else's, very different (even incompatible!) truth can be true <em>for them,</em> because what matters are the traits, positive and negative, which flow from those beliefs. That this is logically and philosophically consistent can be hard to comprehend to a moral absolutist (who again, definitionally <em>must reject</em> moral relativism) but it does not make their belief in its own inherent invalidity any more correct.</p><p></p><p>There is also the misconception that a moral relativist must view <em>all</em> beliefs as equally valid and correct. This is far, far from the truth, and not just because of Popper's Paradox (though largely it is because of Popper's Paradox). While it is the viewpoint that no singular moral belief can be <em>proven</em> superior to one another, it is still possible (and I would argue necessary) to <em>judge</em> certain moral beliefs superior or inferior (notably intolerance) and acting in accordance. I would argue, by the way, that this how our culture (at least in the United States) actually operates. There is no singular moral act, no matter how seemingly objectively morally repugnant when considered in a vacuum, that is not, in certain contexts, seen as justifiable and/or acceptable by a significant enough portion of our population to merit reconsideration of its supposed objective moral truth. Nearly all of them are in fact state-supported, at least again within certain contexts.</p><p></p><p>Moving on, as a parent I try to muster as much empathy for other parents who are faced with seemingly difficult choices, especially when they are constantly bombarded with misinformation and misguided absolutism. A few years back when I was trying to research whether I should sleep train my child, I learned that I would be engaging in literal child abuse if I tried to sleep train them, and also that it was demonstrably abusive to <em>not</em> sleep train them. It's ridiculous. While internet one-true-wayism wasn't a thing back in the 80's moral (and often overtly Christian) panics were, and so I can't blame somebody for getting swept up in that, especially not somebody who suffered the loss of the child. That would break me. Especially if the child died by suicide; which we knew even less about in the 80's than we do today (but with still a great number of people who insist they have all the <em>real</em> answers). </p><p></p><p>No, who I save my ire for are those who prey on scared and/or emotionally traumatized parents, either for political or economic gain (or more often than not both). Pat Pulling gets a pass in my book; someone whose life is shattered into pieces like that has to find someway to give themselves meaning again, and if her little club was what gave her meaning, then I'm okay with that. What I don't doubt, though I'd love to see documentation one way or the other about, is how BADD gained steam, because one woman wasn't creating a national movement on her own. There were undoubtedly people behind the scenes who backing her, supporting her, steering her in directions for their own benefits, just like all the Satanic Panics that came before and after. I'm not going to argue that everyone involved was disingenuous in their beliefs; far from it. I'm not even necessarily going to argue that the folks most responsible (and I don't believe Pulling is included in that; if it hadn't been her and her son's death that launched the movement it was going to be somebody else) were <em>entirely</em> disingenuous in their beliefs at all. But I do believe such people were quick to capitalize on peoples' personal tragedies to further their own ends, ends which helped to further persecute those were already being othered and oppressed. <em>That</em> is what bothers <em>me</em>.</p><p></p><p>I can't say much about the Momo thing, though. I've seen a few references here or there but I've mostly just ignored it; my child is still much too young for social media. As with other such hoaxes as the knockout game "trend", if you're going to pay any attention to it then it's valuable to understand:</p><p>1) Who's pushing the narrative?</p><p>2) Who benefits?</p><p>3) Who's being targeted?</p><p>The "Tide Pod" thing was another narrative that was mostly meant to depict young people as idiot sheep, despite the fact that even during the height of the "epidemic" (only 50-some cases in a single year, which represented only a slight up-tick from the previous year, before the "Tide Pod Challenge" even became a thing) young people were far from the most common age demographic (their numbers were dwarfed by the number of the elderly who ingested Tide pods).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gradine, post: 7774662, member: 57112"] Oh boy, where to begin. I guess we'll go FILO, in honor of Wizards of the Coast. Moral relativism is incompatible with moral absolutism, sure; but that doesn't make the reverse true. It all depends on how one approaches "truth" (or "truths") as a universal concept. A moral absolutist definitionally believes in a singular capital-T "Truth", and thus must view moral relativism as false. Moral relativism is a bit broader in its approach. I think there is a misconception that moral relativism is the belief that there is no such thing as truth, which I would argue is actually another shade of moral absolutism. Rather, a more accurate description would be that moral relativists accept that there are [I]multiple[/I] truths that can depend heavily on context. Hence, the assertion that the tolerance of morally absolute belief systems immediately and logically invalidates moral relativism falls flat on its face. Your truth can be true [I]for you[/I] and someone else's, very different (even incompatible!) truth can be true [I]for them,[/I] because what matters are the traits, positive and negative, which flow from those beliefs. That this is logically and philosophically consistent can be hard to comprehend to a moral absolutist (who again, definitionally [I]must reject[/I] moral relativism) but it does not make their belief in its own inherent invalidity any more correct. There is also the misconception that a moral relativist must view [I]all[/I] beliefs as equally valid and correct. This is far, far from the truth, and not just because of Popper's Paradox (though largely it is because of Popper's Paradox). While it is the viewpoint that no singular moral belief can be [I]proven[/I] superior to one another, it is still possible (and I would argue necessary) to [I]judge[/I] certain moral beliefs superior or inferior (notably intolerance) and acting in accordance. I would argue, by the way, that this how our culture (at least in the United States) actually operates. There is no singular moral act, no matter how seemingly objectively morally repugnant when considered in a vacuum, that is not, in certain contexts, seen as justifiable and/or acceptable by a significant enough portion of our population to merit reconsideration of its supposed objective moral truth. Nearly all of them are in fact state-supported, at least again within certain contexts. Moving on, as a parent I try to muster as much empathy for other parents who are faced with seemingly difficult choices, especially when they are constantly bombarded with misinformation and misguided absolutism. A few years back when I was trying to research whether I should sleep train my child, I learned that I would be engaging in literal child abuse if I tried to sleep train them, and also that it was demonstrably abusive to [I]not[/I] sleep train them. It's ridiculous. While internet one-true-wayism wasn't a thing back in the 80's moral (and often overtly Christian) panics were, and so I can't blame somebody for getting swept up in that, especially not somebody who suffered the loss of the child. That would break me. Especially if the child died by suicide; which we knew even less about in the 80's than we do today (but with still a great number of people who insist they have all the [I]real[/I] answers). No, who I save my ire for are those who prey on scared and/or emotionally traumatized parents, either for political or economic gain (or more often than not both). Pat Pulling gets a pass in my book; someone whose life is shattered into pieces like that has to find someway to give themselves meaning again, and if her little club was what gave her meaning, then I'm okay with that. What I don't doubt, though I'd love to see documentation one way or the other about, is how BADD gained steam, because one woman wasn't creating a national movement on her own. There were undoubtedly people behind the scenes who backing her, supporting her, steering her in directions for their own benefits, just like all the Satanic Panics that came before and after. I'm not going to argue that everyone involved was disingenuous in their beliefs; far from it. I'm not even necessarily going to argue that the folks most responsible (and I don't believe Pulling is included in that; if it hadn't been her and her son's death that launched the movement it was going to be somebody else) were [I]entirely[/I] disingenuous in their beliefs at all. But I do believe such people were quick to capitalize on peoples' personal tragedies to further their own ends, ends which helped to further persecute those were already being othered and oppressed. [I]That[/I] is what bothers [I]me[/I]. I can't say much about the Momo thing, though. I've seen a few references here or there but I've mostly just ignored it; my child is still much too young for social media. As with other such hoaxes as the knockout game "trend", if you're going to pay any attention to it then it's valuable to understand: 1) Who's pushing the narrative? 2) Who benefits? 3) Who's being targeted? The "Tide Pod" thing was another narrative that was mostly meant to depict young people as idiot sheep, despite the fact that even during the height of the "epidemic" (only 50-some cases in a single year, which represented only a slight up-tick from the previous year, before the "Tide Pod Challenge" even became a thing) young people were far from the most common age demographic (their numbers were dwarfed by the number of the elderly who ingested Tide pods). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Momo is Still Not Real (But Memes Are)
Top