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.