Asking clarification regarding moderation

[Irlo]

"Lie" carries an added connotation of deceptions, that myths' "might not necessarily be true" really doesn't. The latter is pretty much your "may not be probable as fact" and is pretty normal language in anthropological context. For example "flood myths" refers to various stories around the world relating to giant deluges, and that obviously includes the one in the Bible.

Whatever the analysis, the moderated comment didn't imply "not necessarily true." The word used was "fictional." Not a neutral comment. It was clearly a dig at a few major religions, and as such probably didn't belong in a thread. You're not required to pretend anything is true that you don't believe is true. But why discuss the merits of the religions on that particular thread on a site that has rules about that?

I can understand why a moderator stepped in.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"Lie" carries an added connotation of deceptions, that myths' "might not necessarily be true" really doesn't. The latter is pretty much your "may not be probable as fact" and is pretty normal language in anthropological context. For example "flood myths" refers to various stories around the world relating to giant deluges, and that obviously includes the one in the Bible.

I’ve said what I have said. If you wish to refer to beliefs of major religions as “myths”, feel free.

But don’t cry if people complain and you start racking up warnings and threadbans.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I’ve said what I have said. If you wish to refer to beliefs of major religions as “myths”, feel free.

But don’t cry if people complain and you start racking up warnings and threadbans.

I don't feel particularly feel free to do so if you threaten to infract me for it. But I guess the forum's official moderation stance has now been clarified, so thank you.

 

[Umbran]

It was a joke...

That turns out to not be a particularly effective defense for hurtful words. If someone is hurt by what you say, and this is your defense, that means that you find their pain funny, and you are willing to risk their pain for a laugh.

Not to mention that archetypically, that defense is applied after the fact, held up as a shield only after finding out the audience isn't having any of it.

All in all, what is needed isn't a "neutral" conversation - too many deeply held beliefs, things people us eot build their personal identity are involved. What's needed is a sensitive and respectful discussion.

But you want to make jokes. So, that's not in the offing, now is it?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That turns out to not be a particularly effective defense for hurtful words. If someone is hurt by what you say, and this is your defense, that means that you find their pain funny, and you are willing to risk their pain for a laugh.

Not to mention that archetypically, that defense is applied after the fact, held up as a shield only after finding out the audience isn't having any of it.

All in all, what is needed isn't a "neutral" conversation - too many deeply held beliefs, things people us eot build their personal identity are involved. What's needed is a sensitive and respectful discussion.

But you want to make jokes. So, that's not in the offing, now is it?

Let's get this straight. The joke did no rely on anyone's pain, it was humorously comparing a book of fantastic stories into other similar books on this forum of fantasy enthusiasts and was a serious answer to another poster's question of why this particular Kickstarter was featured and receive attention: the subject matter is very widely known.

And yes, it contained an implication that I personally might not consider the book in question to be factual. And I claim that people censured for expressing such an opinion is a far greater harm, than the potential hurt experienced by some members of privileged hegemonic religion by hearing that not everyone shares their faith.

Another poster was infracted for bringing up various atrocities in the source material and asking how the adaptation would handle it. I think that is an important topic, and there was discussion about similar matter regarding one of the Greek inspired setting... Odyssey of the Dragonlords, I think. I think it is rather unreasonable that the source material being part of major religion would make it except of such examination and critique.

What you demand here is not politeness, it is deference. And one that absolutely is not afforded to marginalised religions here. I strongly feel that we should be able to freely talk about any mythology when it is used as source material of a game, without the fear of being infracted for blasphemy.

 

[reelo]

“Myth” in the context of discussion of major religions also has accreted the additional colloquial connotation of dismissing the faith as false. So it’s a little loaded.

Better practice: call it a “tradition” if you’re talking about a religion with active memberships in the 50M+ range.

But that's an "argumentum ad populum", an argument from popularity, which is a logical fallacy. Something isn't inherently more true, or valid, or valuable, just because it is popular.

 

[Cadence]

But that's an "argumentum ad populum", an argument from popularity, which is a logical fallacy. Something isn't inherently more true, or valid, or valuable, just because it is popular.

It feels like it's a matter of practicalities. It probably isn't practical on a hobby board to let folks go willy-nilly offend large numbers of members about their religious beliefs or non-beliefs when the insult isn't needed if you want the conversation to flow without a flood of reports. And it also is probably impossible to have many conversations at all that aren't oddly constrained if one has to imagine any possible religious belief anyone might have before posting.

And it feels like the terms viewed as insulting aren't needed to make many of the desired points. You don't need to call the bible a myth and compare it to works of fiction, for example, when you want to ask how a good character would deal with the command to kill all the men, women, and children, when there are historical incidents you could compare it to (which would presumably have more bite, anyway).

And if someone is continually offended about how their own non-mega religion is described as myth on here - ask that it not be described that way when it is, and report the folks who keep doing it after being asked to stop.

 

[reelo]

It probably isn't practical on a hobby board to let folks go willy-nilly offend large numbers of members about their religious beliefs or non-beliefs when the insult isn't needed if you want the conversation to flow without a flood of reports.

I don't see anybody actively offending any members of the board. In civil discourse, there is a clear difference between attacking/insulting a person (an action which should rightly bear consequences), and criticizing/dismissing, or even just trivializing, an idea or a concept.
Ideas, concepts, thoughts, and beliefs do not enjoy the same level of protection that actual people (rightfully) do.
Re-evaluating long-held notions and ideas is how societal progress is made.

That said, on these boards I'm fine with not discussing any real-world religions since it is against the rules, but then said rules should apply to ALL real-world religions, and at all times, campaign-setting or no, because otherwise it's unequal treatment and sets up a double-standard.

 

[AnotherGuy]

That said, on these boards I'm fine with not discussing any real-world religions since it is against the rules, but then said rules should apply to ALL real-world religions, and at all times, campaign-setting or no, because otherwise it's unequal treatment and sets up a double-standard.

One is able to identify as an atheist, agnostic or other without utilising a word to denounce another's belief. A lot has been said about how certain lesser followed beliefs have been denigrated. Can anyone reflect an example (with a link) where such occurred?

 

[Cadence]

One is able to identify as an atheist, agnostic or other without utilising a word to denounce another's belief. A lot has been said about how certain lesser followed beliefs have been denigrated. Can anyone reflect an example (with a link) where such occurred?

I believe there are some on this board with beliefs related to ancient Norse faith, and the deities associated with that are commonly treated as mythical and statted up in ways Christian saints and the like wouldn't be. I don't have a particular link.

 

[Cadence]

I don't see anybody actively offending any members of the board. In civil discourse, there is a clear difference between attacking/insulting a person (an action which should rightly bear consequences), and criticizing/dismissing, or even just trivializing, an idea or a concept.
Ideas, concepts, thoughts, and beliefs do not enjoy the same level of protection that actual people (rightfully) do.
Re-evaluating long-held notions and ideas is how societal progress is made.

Has casually dismissing the religious beliefs others hold commonly "proven not to be helpful in a dialogue which requires more than one person talking"?

 

[AnotherGuy]

I believe there are some on this board with beliefs related to ancient Norse faith, and the deities associated with that are commonly treated as mythical and statted up in ways Christian saints and the like wouldn't be. I don't have a particular link.

That's fair, link not needed for that, since deities of many ancient faiths were published by TSR back in the 80's/90's.

I'm wondering now if Mike Myler who regularly uploads stats of mythological and historical persons and beasts has ever done anyone from the Old Testament such as David, Goliath, Moses, Saul, Abraham, Adam, Lilith...etc, or from any other faith.

 

[FrogReaver]

Let's get this straight. The joke did no rely on anyone's pain, it was humorously comparing a book of fantastic stories into other similar books on this forum of fantasy enthusiasts and was a serious answer to another poster's question of why this particular Kickstarter was featured and receive attention: the subject matter is very widely known.

And yes, it contained an implication that I personally might not consider the book in question to be factual. And I claim that people censured for expressing such an opinion is a far greater harm, than the potential hurt experienced by some members of privileged hegemonic religion by hearing that not everyone shares their faith.

Another poster was infracted for bringing up various atrocities in the source material and asking how the adaptation would handle it. I think that is an important topic, and there was discussion about similar matter regarding one of the Greek inspired setting... Odyssey of the Dragonlords, I think. I think it is rather unreasonable that the source material being part of major religion would make it except of such examination and critique.

What you demand here is not politeness, it is deference. And one that absolutely is not afforded to marginalised religions here. I strongly feel that we should be able to freely talk about any mythology when it is used as source material of a game, without the fear of being infracted for blasphemy.

From my perspective it doesn’t matter whether it’s a joke or not. We aren’t permitted to talk religion on here. Period. As a hypothetical- If I had posted on the thread something like, its great to see the one true religion finally getting some love in d&d. Or even made a joke including that phrase, I fully expect that comment would have been modded. It’s just not a topic anyone here can freely talk about.

 

[Umbran]

What you demand here is not politeness, it is deference.

We ask that you defer a bit, not to the religion, but to the feelings of others. It is called "empathy". When people stop caring who they might hurt, they stop getting along, and conflict escalates.

If you don't want to practice empathy, then there's some topics you really shouldn't discuss here.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

From my perspective it doesn’t matter whether it’s a joke or not. We aren’t permitted to talk religion on here. Period. As a hypothetical- If I had posted on the thread something like, its great to see the one true religion finally getting some love in d&d. Or even made a joke including that phrase, I fully expect that comment would have been modded. It’s just not a topic anyone here can freely talk about.

You're correct that it being a joke is besides the point. The real question is whether the factuality of a mythological narrative that may be part of someone's religion (and that's effectively all of them) can be questioned. If you talk about a global flood referenced in a mythological narrative, am I allowed to point out that according to archaeologists and geologists, that didn't actually happen? I think it is rather untenable idea that this couldn't be done. And this really isn't usually an issue, we don't need to play coy about whether we think Thor is real.

 

[FrogReaver]

You're correct that it being a joke is besides the point. The real question is whether the factuality of a mythological narrative that may be part of someone's religion (and that's effectively all of them) can be questioned. If you talk about a global flood referenced in a mythological narrative, am I allowed to point out that according to archaeologists and geologists, that didn't actually happen?

IMO based on the rules that cannot be questioned here. On the other hand It also cannot be advocated for as being real here either.

But more importantly - how the heck is that topic of conversation ever going to come up unless you decide to bring it up. I mean there was not some conversation about the factuality of a global flood that you chimed in on and got modded for while no one else did. If I recall, I think you were you the only one commenting about the factuality or non-factuality of the source material?

I think it is rather untenable idea that this couldn't be done. And this really isn't usually an issue, we don't need to play coy about whether we think Thor is real.

There are ways to respectfully say I am X or I believe X - typically it’s done by not explicitly or implicitly demanding others agree with your belief.

Typically one might do that where that fact about you helps provide additional context to help others understand you or your point of view about a tangential discussion.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a use get modded.

 

[Maggan]

If you talk about a global flood referenced in a mythological narrative, am I allowed to point out that according to archaeologists and geologists, that didn't actually happen?

What's stumping me here is why would you want to point that out? What does the discussion gain from it? I surmise that a global flood brought up on a gaming forum like EN World would be in the context of "how could this be handled in RPG X?" and not in the context of "this is a factual description of Earth history".

But if I want to spin an adventure in a Biblical setting based on the notion of a global flood, what's to be gained from adding "that didn't really happen, you know" to the discussion?

/M

 

[Crimson Longinus]

We ask that you defer a bit, not to the religion, but to the feelings of others. It is called "empathy". When people stop caring who they might hurt, they stop getting along, and conflict escalates.

If you don't want to practice empathy, then there's some topics you really shouldn't discuss here.

Sure. And I truly am not thinking that people should be free insult each other. But implying that you do not believe that a certain mythological narrative is real is not an insult. And perhaps you could also try to practice empathy in understanding that in a world where certain major religions have very privileged position, where in in many cultures there is a great societal pressure for the non-religious and the practitioners marginalised religions to conform and kowtow to the majority, it actually doesn't feel super inclusive to interpret expressing such an opinion as an actionable insult.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure. And I truly am not thinking that people should be free insult each other. But implying that you do not believe that a certain mythological narrative is real is not an insult. And perhaps you could also try to practice empathy in understanding that in a world where certain major religions have very privileged position, where in in many cultures there is a great societal pressure for non-religious and practitioners marginalised religions to conform and kowtow to the majority, it actually doesn't feel super inclusive to interpret expressing such an opinion as an actionable insult.

IMO what you said went quite a bit beyond just implying you didn’t believe.

For what it’s worth I fully agree with you being able to make a respectful post about what you personally believe. I think the pushback you are seeing is more about the perceived lack of respectfulness in your post rather than what you believe.

 

[Umbran]

The real question is whether the factuality of a mythological narrative that may be part of someone's religion (and that's effectively all of them) can be questioned.

For our purposes, the real question is whether EN World is the proper forum for such questioning.