D&D General The Satanic Panic never really died?

[Bawylie]

Now do Islam.

I'll wait for it.

I was going to join twitter just to give her some advice from a personal perspective, but it seems the community actually has it covered well.

Meanwhile, EnWorld....

Maybe I misunderstand, are you asking me to mock Muslims for their faith?

 

[BookBarbarian]

takes Chick Tracts seriously.

Indeed.

Especially since Chick tracts cruelly target far more than D&D. They also cruelly target many sincerely held religious beliefs and not just for one religion.

I even remember when an acquaintance that was gifted, from a Catholic, a tract meant to discourage (which is a light way of putting it) them from Mormonism, only to gift back a tract meant to discourage(still a light way of putting it) Catholicism.

Those hate fueled cartoons are what belongs in hell IMHO.

 

[Umbran]

Which religions don’t hold beliefs about the supernatural? Which of those beliefs do not “contradict objective reality”?

Those which are non-falsifiable do not contradict objective reality - by definition. We can show someone the D&D rulebooks, and show that there are no instructions for actually enacting magic of any kind within their covers - that claim is falsifiable. I cannot prove that some supernatural power didn't assist in Aunt Martha's dramatic and unexpected cancer remission.

How about values?

Aren't objective reality, so we have no issues there.

How much tolerance can you objectively sift out of the universe and weigh/measure? Fairness? Compassion? Justice?

None whatsoever. That's the point - within some very broad cultural norms, you can believe what you want in those regards, without comment.

Is it ok to ridicule someone for not knowing that d&d is a game of make-belief silliness?

It is okay to ridicule someone for ascribing a moral flaw to people out of ignorance. The books are easily available. The speaker could look and see that there's nothing real there, but has failed to do so.

We live on a planet with several billion other people. If you go about calling things evil, without learning directly about them first, the results are on you.

How much ridicule is permissible?

As if we could measure it?

Is that ridicule constructive and likely to bring anyone to a good mutual understanding?

Ridicule, like any tool, can be used constructively or destructively. In this case, given that the person in question will never know of it, it is not likely to be either. Expressing opinions about it here is ineffectual and harmless.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Now do Islam.

Back in the day a friend came back from accompanying his Dad on a business trip to Saudi Arabia, he'd taken his D&D books, and, in Customs, the official, clearly familiar with the books, paged to the illos of the succubus &c and took a black marker to them.

 

[Nagol]

Do you think that some people’s bad actions justify yours?

Ditto? I see only one person calling out people.

 

[Undrave]

Back in the day a friend came back from accompanying his Dad on a business trip to Saudi Arabia, he'd taken his D&D books, and, in Customs, the official, clearly familiar with the books, paged to the illos of the succubus &c and took a black marker to them.

That sucks, but I also think it's super funny the custom official knew the exact page to look for hahaha.

 

[5ekyu]

In an era where flat earth is a business- the idea that some believe most snything is not surprising to me.

 

[Bawylie]

Those which are non-falsifiable do not contradict objective reality - by definition. We can show someone the D&D rulebooks, and show that there are no instructions for actually enacting magic of any kind within their covers - that claim is falsifiable. I cannot prove that some supernatural power didn't assist in Aunt Martha's dramatic and unexpected cancer remission.



Aren't objective reality, so we have no issues there.



None whatsoever. That's the point - within some very broad cultural norms, you can believe what you want in those regards, without comment.



It is okay to ridicule someone ascribing ascribes a moral flaw to people out of ignorance. The books are easily available. The speaker could look and see that there's nothing real there, but has failed to do so.

We live on a planet with several billion other people. If you go about calling things evil, without learning directly about them first, the results are on you.



As if we could measure it?



Ridicule, like any tool, can be used constructively or destructively. In this case, given that the person in question will never know of it, it is not likely to be either. Expressing opinions about it here is ineffectual and harmless.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

Presumably, the mother’s claim that playing d&d may condemn her daughter’s soul is also non-falsifiable. And you’ve said you have no issue with the belief in non-falsifiable claims.

I’m not sold on the idea that checking the PHB’s content disproves the claim, scientifically speaking.

And I don’t believe that this board, and it’s leadership, which espouses tolerance as a value, is in the right to invite ridicule on this person, whether or not that person is aware of that ridicule. Character is what you do when nobody’s looking, and all that.

That makes me the wet-blanket on the “lets all point and laugh at this lady” parade, but I’m comfortable with that.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Not going to say that the Satanic Panic is gone (clearly, those same fears are still present in parts of society), but the last time Harry Potter made the ALA's top ten list of banned books was 2003. The last time a book was challenged for "occult/satanism" was 2013. If you look at 2018's stats, the majority are banned/challenged for having LGBTQIA+ content:

Top 10 Most Challenged Books of 2023

Every year, the American Library Association compiles a list of the Top 10 Most Frequently Challenged Books based on reports from the field and media coverage.

www.ala.org

 

[Celebrim]

Maybe I misunderstand, are you asking me to mock Muslims for their faith?

Not addressed at you. Echoing your comment.

"Now do Islam" is a common meme in some circles where some speaker takes to task a traditional religious group for some stance that they disagree with, but the hearer believes that they have a double standard, both about who to respect and also with respect to the difference in courage required to ridicule the group.

For example, it takes very little courage to mock the Amish.