Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Jfdlsjfd]

A paradigmatic example of what I've been saying this entire time that some people don't seem to understand.

I'd say that some understand, but don't follow your point. They agree with the idea that some degree of cultural appropriation is OK, with varying criteria of acceptability. Some that have been explained here are :

a) you do it respectfully (no ascribing of bad qualities to something that is sacred in a culture and vice versa)
b) you can somehow claim this culture as your own (broadly, US writers claim Medieval European folklore)
c) the culture is extinct (which is also problematic when some current culture considers to be heirs of the extinct culture...)
d) the culture is not prejudiced against or is doing well enough.

There are also those who have no problem with cultural appropriation, claiming that cultures are humanity's shared heritage, and those that would say that absolutely no reference are tolerable. It's a spectrum of opinions, none of which is intrinsicly true or false. "I feel that using this word is wrong" is much like "I feel that pinapple pizza is wrong": you can't "prove" it or rationalize it.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm skeptical that you can derive...

I know. That's why I said I'm not the right person to explain it to you.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

"I feel that using this word is wrong" is much like "I feel that pinapple pizza is wrong": you can't "prove" it or rationalize it.

You can if you've defined pizza such that it precludes pineapple.

 

[Cadence]

You can if you've defined pizza such that it precludes pineapple.

So defining acceptable religious adjacent terms to preclude phylactery would be an acceptable process?

 

[J.Quondam]

"I feel that using this word is wrong" is much like "I feel that pinapple pizza is wrong": you can't "prove" it or rationalize it.

Exactly this. Trying to box in experiences like "harm" or "appropriation" with pure logic is an exercise in futility.
And in cases like this one, I'll go so far as to call it outright nefarious. In fact, applications of "cold logic" are often little more than attempts to shut down debate by painting someone's lived experiences or empathies as somehow "scientifically" absurd.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

So defining acceptable religious adjacent terms to preclude phylactery would be an acceptable process?

Yes, but that would only include phylactery and they would need to omit any reason why. If there IS a reason why, then that reason can be applied to any other incident. It's better to remove terms without justification, than give a justification and then be bound to all possible instantiations of it.

It would be better to say "We are replacing the term 'Phylactery." than to say "We are replacing the term 'Phylactery for this reason...'. Because if "this reason" applies to anything else properly, then it also has to be replaced or removed.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Exactly this. Trying to box in experiences like "harm" or "appropriation" with pure logic is an exercise in futility.
And in cases like this one, I'll go so far as to call it outright nefarious. In fact, applications of "cold logic" are often little more than attempts to shut down debate by painting someone's lived experiences or empathies as somehow "scientifically" absurd.

What happens when two peoples "lived experiences" contradict each other? Or are mutually exclusive? Lived experiences may be valid, in that they exist and are real, but by the very nature of their subjectivity they have limited, if any, utility when it comes to applying broad policy-like solutions.

You'll immediately have to start making determinations about which lived experiences override others or motivate/demand change and which don't - literally back in the exact same place you started.

 

[Cadence]

Yes, but that would only include phylactery and they would need to omit any reason why. If there IS a reason why, then that reason can be applied to any other incident. It's better to remove terms without justification, than give a justification and then be bound to all possible instantiations of it.

It would be better to say "We are replacing the term 'Phylactery." than to say "We are replacing the term 'Phylactery for this reason...'. Because if "this reason" applies to anything else properly, then it also has to be replaced or removed.

Maybe... "We have an amorphous poorly defined idea in our collective heads about what qualifies as offensive on religious grounds. On the latest mental update, this one was over the line. We have no additional comment unless you fly out and want to buy us some really nice craft beers to discuss it over. We do not guarantee you will appreciate or agree with some comments and we reserve the right to be wrong about them. On matters of beer, we're pretty sure any disagreements are you being wrong."

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Maybe... "We have an amorphous poorly defined idea in our collective heads about what qualifies as offensive on religious grounds. On the latest mental update, this one was over the line. We have no additional comment unless you fly out and want to buy us some really nice craft beers to discuss it over. We do not guarantee you will appreciate or agree with some comments and we reserve the right to be wrong about them. On matters of beer, we're pretty sure any disagreements are you being wrong."

Will you accept that line of reasoning when the decision in question is offensive to you?

 

[Umbran]

I'll make a personal note that you don't have any interest...

Mod Note:
Don't make this personal.

And, by the way, if you are going to approach the discussion as if the human world, and human reasons for doing things follow strict and absolute logic, you will be sorely disappointed. Humans make use of shades of meaning, and many levels of priorities. If you aren't going to allow for that, this will not end well for you.