Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
Meta - Forums About Forums
Meta
Politics And Gaming Subforum or Tag?
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="Mistwell" data-source="post: 8026262" data-attributes="member: 2525"><p>I think you're using "politics" in a different way than the poster you're responding to.</p><p></p><p>If there were a thread about Thomas Hobbes' book Leviathan, it would be a political thread. The thread wouldn't be about choosing sides between two competing political parties, it would probably not resemble traditional American politics, but it would 100% be a political discussion. It's a foundational book in political science.</p><p></p><p>And it might also be discussed by way of comparison with modern politics, because that's the easiest comparison basis people have to draw from in their experience. I mean, it might also be compared to people's experience with watching Gilligan's Island or something like that, but in all likelihood you'd get people drawing comparisons to modern political topics.</p><p></p><p>Discussions about how a society should treat different groups of people and individuals, about what natural rights should and do look like and the social contract regarding natural rights of groups and individuals (which you termed "human decency") which exists on this board and in the gaming hobby, those are all political discussions. They're core political science topics. You will find those topics in every philosophy of political science course in any country where that degree is taught in universities.</p><p></p><p>And because they're core political science topics, people will frequently turn to comparisons with current more trending political topics and even the political parties which disagree about those topics. Because it's the closest basis for comparison, and a shared experience which relates to those conversations and serves as a common language to talk about them.</p><p></p><p>If you don't want people to be drawing on those modern political discourse topics to relate to a news item that's posted which is about social contracts in our community or natural rights of groups and individuals, then you probably should express that in a different way than its been expressed so far. Tell people they can relate to the topic with something fairly benign, like a comparison to Gilligan's Island would be for a discussion of Leviathan. Tell people they cannot refer to the more modern and more controversial and competitive comparisons to modern politics and political parties. And give examples of how someone can approach the topic which would be OK, and ways which would not be OK.</p><p></p><p>That, or like ccs said, just don't allow comments on topics which you know are likely to result in people reacting in a controversial and competitive way with each other where they use modern politics as a shared language to talk about that topic.</p><p></p><p>Or keep going like we're going, which sounds like it's a source of wretched daily grind for the moderation staff which will eat away at the morale of the people who run this place, and hopefully all of this will just burn itself out over time.</p><p></p><p>Or maybe there is a different way I have not considered.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 8026262, member: 2525"] I think you're using "politics" in a different way than the poster you're responding to. If there were a thread about Thomas Hobbes' book Leviathan, it would be a political thread. The thread wouldn't be about choosing sides between two competing political parties, it would probably not resemble traditional American politics, but it would 100% be a political discussion. It's a foundational book in political science. And it might also be discussed by way of comparison with modern politics, because that's the easiest comparison basis people have to draw from in their experience. I mean, it might also be compared to people's experience with watching Gilligan's Island or something like that, but in all likelihood you'd get people drawing comparisons to modern political topics. Discussions about how a society should treat different groups of people and individuals, about what natural rights should and do look like and the social contract regarding natural rights of groups and individuals (which you termed "human decency") which exists on this board and in the gaming hobby, those are all political discussions. They're core political science topics. You will find those topics in every philosophy of political science course in any country where that degree is taught in universities. And because they're core political science topics, people will frequently turn to comparisons with current more trending political topics and even the political parties which disagree about those topics. Because it's the closest basis for comparison, and a shared experience which relates to those conversations and serves as a common language to talk about them. If you don't want people to be drawing on those modern political discourse topics to relate to a news item that's posted which is about social contracts in our community or natural rights of groups and individuals, then you probably should express that in a different way than its been expressed so far. Tell people they can relate to the topic with something fairly benign, like a comparison to Gilligan's Island would be for a discussion of Leviathan. Tell people they cannot refer to the more modern and more controversial and competitive comparisons to modern politics and political parties. And give examples of how someone can approach the topic which would be OK, and ways which would not be OK. That, or like ccs said, just don't allow comments on topics which you know are likely to result in people reacting in a controversial and competitive way with each other where they use modern politics as a shared language to talk about that topic. Or keep going like we're going, which sounds like it's a source of wretched daily grind for the moderation staff which will eat away at the morale of the people who run this place, and hopefully all of this will just burn itself out over time. Or maybe there is a different way I have not considered. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Meta - Forums About Forums
Meta
Politics And Gaming Subforum or Tag?
Top