I told my boss that I was going to fight presentism by the continual application of absenteeism.
It did not work out well for me.
The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread
- Thread starter Retreater
- Start date
- Status
I told my boss that I was going to fight presentism by the continual application of absenteeism.
It did not work out well for me.
trappedslider
Legend
RealAlHazred
Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
You are still of your time, though, whether you're in it or not.
payn
Glory to Marik
"Hey Charles its your cousin...you know Marvin Berry! You know that new equity you been looking for? Well, listen to this"
Asisreo
Patron Badass
Well, now I'm on my soapbox, but I feel like morality isn't a necessary point of discussion.
When it comes to recounting the lives of those who lived centuries before us, then the accurate recount as-is should be made and any moral inquiries or disagreements should be left for the audience. If not to prevent the author's bias from detracting from the recount, then to preserve the moral rights to the reader such that they get to truly understand who those people of the past are without spreading animosity.
Because, remember, what you think is the morally correct perspective might be the morally incorrect one for someone else. And if the facts are correct in the historical record but it's sprinkled with moral judgements that isolate whatever your "in-group" is, then you may disregard the entire account, missing any historically accurate and important context.
If the word "genocide" doesn't fire off someone's "evil" alarms, then putting the word "horrible" in front of it probably won't saude them. Now, it's important that ommisions are also a writing technique historians can use to press their morality.
If there's a biography about "Mr. Rockstar" and it mentions all the great tours he goes through but seems to omit the fact that he stabs grandmas before every concert, then it is both an incomplete biography and it is morally biased.
Now, what to omit is based on context but relevant events should always be recorded and recounted, whether they are charitable or despicable.
When it comes to recounting the lives of those who lived centuries before us, then the accurate recount as-is should be made and any moral inquiries or disagreements should be left for the audience. If not to prevent the author's bias from detracting from the recount, then to preserve the moral rights to the reader such that they get to truly understand who those people of the past are without spreading animosity.
Because, remember, what you think is the morally correct perspective might be the morally incorrect one for someone else. And if the facts are correct in the historical record but it's sprinkled with moral judgements that isolate whatever your "in-group" is, then you may disregard the entire account, missing any historically accurate and important context.
If the word "genocide" doesn't fire off someone's "evil" alarms, then putting the word "horrible" in front of it probably won't saude them. Now, it's important that ommisions are also a writing technique historians can use to press their morality.
If there's a biography about "Mr. Rockstar" and it mentions all the great tours he goes through but seems to omit the fact that he stabs grandmas before every concert, then it is both an incomplete biography and it is morally biased.
Now, what to omit is based on context but relevant events should always be recorded and recounted, whether they are charitable or despicable.
Since I am not starting new threads for the foreseeable future, this old one might be relevant.
D&D General - The Art and the Artist: Discussing Problematic Issues in D&D
A topic that has been regularly arising recently has concerned the continuing use of certain material in Dungeons & Dragons; sometimes the question is whether the material is problematic (as in legacy material), sometimes whether the material should be updated (as in material in newer books)...
www.enworld.org
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
Unacceptable. Nobody sent this to my desk for review, this change is neither approved nor authorized.
I demand an inquiry.
el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
I am totally willing to be judged wrong by future generations. For example, I frequently think that my willingness to eat factory slaughterhouse meat (or meat of any kind) might be broadly considered monstrous in some future. Many people consider it monstrous now. I know I might be wrong to do so.
Anyway, if judging people of the past is presentism and wrong, I don't want to be right.
I am pretty sure that if you asked people in Jefferson's time, if raping the 14-year old unrecognized half-sister of his wife they'd know it was wrong, except many didn't see her as a person. You may not want to judge that, but I have no issue with it, but do have an issue with those that won't.
- Status
Similar Threads
