|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
So when Jews don't usually use it and the name not coming from Jews/Hebrew but from a general term from the Greek, why is it a Jewish term? Just because you have been told by others that it is and you have to feel offended by it?
I think the comparisons to holy water are in bad faith. The problem isn’t that tefillin are in the game--it’s that one of the three major pieces of ritual apparel for Jews (the others being the kippah and the tallit) is portrayed as a marker of pure evil. Maybe 99% of players don’t know what “phylactery” means. It’s not even a term Jews usually use for tefillin, although it may have been when Gary Gygax learned it, since he grew up during the days of abandoning Hebrew terms and adopting English ones in an attempt to appear less scary and foreign to gentiles. But when players look it up, the first thing they’re going to see is that phylacteries are something Jews wear.
You and others have asked for Jewish posters to speak up if they were offended, and now that one has you're arguing with her to tell her she shouldn't be? Who could have seen that coming
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"dislikes"I am very much in favor of any social media mechanism that allows for "likes" or "favorites" to also allow for "dislikes."
I mean. Main reason why lot of sites do half baked compromise of allowing likes but not dislikes is because it can result in sort of cyber bullying sort of situation where people keep disliking single poster regardless of context or thread whenever they post.
Like in concept its method you can use to encourage and discourage types of behaviours in community. In practice it can result in really horrific stuff. Like at best I've seen its status being "okay no matter how reasonable post is being, people will give 20 dislikes just because they disagree with this person's opinion on liking game's gameplay when its currently popular to complain about AI being bad"
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you opposed to transphobic name-calling or not?Yes
I did it in response to someone saying they wanted to bite anyone who favorited it. Challenge accepted. If *you* can joke about physical violence, then I can joke about it too. I did not seriously think someone was going to actually bite me, nor do I agree with what mikeawmids* posted.
I flagged his post as we are supposed to do and when I responded to the content of the post I did not quote it and measured my comments in a way that the moderators would not be burdened by having to purge my post in addition to the bad post.
*unlike most "questionable" posts, this post is clear and not a case of misinterpretation. This might be a case for a ban of some kind, but I am not Paizo nor do I know mikeawmids' posting history. It might be they scrub the post, warn the poster and move on. It might be they scrub the post and temporarily ban the user. It might be there is a history of this behavior and the user needs to be permanently banned. I lack the information to make a judgment and have to leave it to Paizo to take appropriate action. Unfortunately, my experience leaves me with little to no confidence that they will meet my expectations and those expectations are probably not going to be the same as yours.
Personally, I would be embarrassed to post admitting to something so childish, petulant, and apathetic to harm. I wouldn't take the side of an abusive, transphobic post just because I thought another poster went too far criticising it. If I thought that poster went too far, I wouldn't stoop to their level and "accept their challenge" as if they get to define the rules I engage by.
But that's just me. And if my comment about biting transphobes offended you that much, honestly, fine, whatever. It's your boat to float, but I wish you'd picked a better river.
Isn't the correct terms Jewish?
|
And if my comment about biting transphobes offended you that much, honestly, fine, whatever. It's your boat to float, but I wish you'd picked a better river.
I never said it offended me. I don't give you that much power over my mental state. There is nothing you could say, at least nothing I can think of that would actually cause me offense. I might not agree with it, but that is not the same thing. And to be clear, you didn't say you would bite transphobes, you said you would bite anyone that favorited the thread. You might conflate those two things, but I did not with my response.
I wouldn't take the side of an abusive, transphobic post just because I thought another poster went too far criticising it.
If that is what you got from my comment, then I clearly did a poor job describing my position. However, knowing the tone of this thread and that I am being conflated with a person who openly and intentionally called someone some terrible things, I don't think it'll matter what I say, it won't change anyone's opinion.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you know how it felt to see that someone I generally respected had favorited a post calling my friend an "it"?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Okay, I actually need to get some energy to continue my writing project, so I will refuse to dissect any intents or such right now.
Just few things in general:
"I do not care what other people think of me" =/= "I don't care how my actions affect other people and whether I hurt their feelings". First one is healthy thing, but saying it might lead to people thinking you are meaning the latter depending on context.
Second thing is that only context where offensive jokes you don't believe in, snappy/abrasive/ironic reactions or such really work is in private context where everyone knows each other and trusts each other. In public it just causes confusion.
Third, when member of long persecuted minority stands up to speak, being like "you aren't really being persecuted because I clearly know better than you" doesn't really prove your point, it very much makes it seem like you are persecuting the other person.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I do not care what other people think of me" =/= "I don't care how my actions affect other people and whether I hurt their feelings".
That characterization has been corrected enough times that going back to it is a deliberate act doing the same behavior you're decrying.
The argument is that there is no actual effect on other people. And that there is a limit to how far other peoples hurt feelings can constrain everyone elses actions.
Third, when member of long persecuted minority stands up to speak, being like "you aren't really being persecuted because I clearly know better than you" doesn't really prove your point, it very much makes it seem like you are persecuting the other person.
Being a member of a persecuted minority doesn't make you right about everything connected to being in that minority.(in this case, european witchcraft, irish folklore and several other areas) If i can present facts that contradict elements of a claim then those elements need to be discarded on their own merits, not kept in because of the person presenting them. The point is not that people aren't being persecuted, the point that not everything is persecution.
I felt several of Ella's points were reaching if not ourtight in error and as I have a copy of the Malleus Malefacarum right here thought I'd get some use out of it.
If you include factual disagreements with other people as harm and persecution how would you decide that anyone is ever wrong? What would your argument be against people that feel that feel very strongly that the Jews are persecuting THEM? Your very own argument here is that they feel persecuted, they can make up facts that you can't correct to justify behavior you can't admonish.
That is nuts. Facts matter. Reason matters. Evidence matters. It's the common ground we can all start from. Taking those out is what gets you people nuttier than squirrel poo that are the real problem. Adhereing to them, yes, even when the truth doesn't fit your paradigm, ESPECIALLY when the truth doesn't fit your paradigm, is how you maintain sanity.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a copy of the Malleus Malefacarum right here thought I'd get some use out of it.
You might start by reading the title.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And umm... You do realize you are seriously coming across as bully right now?
Like, you are saying that "post is wrong because these things didn't originate with Judaism", but umm... That isn't how it works? It doesn't change that one of most common phylactery dictionary definitions is Tefillin. You aren't just rejecting Jewish person's view on it, you are rejecting dictionary. It also doesn't change that Blood Libel is EXTREMELY well known antisemitic concept. I don't want to say to google it, but I don't know how else I can convince you if you truly believe there is nothing antisemitic about blood libel.
Why do you think you get to state "See actually, blood libel isn't about Judaism at all, its about lot of other religions too!" despite the fact its form of antisemitism that STILL exists? You don't get to decide that it isn't antisemitic because it used to be about other religions as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you also want to be accurate, historically, the Early Church was also accused of being blood drinkers for their Eucharistic celebrations and Sacramental system. However, that stigma, though is used in some circles in an attempt to belittle Christians who still celebrate Communion, comes not to mean so much when Christianity rises to state religionhood with Constantine. It is used however, against Jewish people in the Middle Ages up unto the Shoah, as justification for mistreatment and abuse, finding ultimate expression in the Jewish Question and the Shoah.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder isn't D&D. They don't have to be beholden to all the long-standing and sometimes problematic traditions included. Even if this change were wholly unnecessary, which I'm quite convinced it isn't, I wouldn't have any problem with altering terminology to create some more daylight between Golarion and the Forgotten Realms.
It's a little gross how a lot of the counterpoints to removing "phylactery" as the game term revolve around folks not feeling it's Jewish enough to count.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And umm... You do realize you are seriously coming across as bully right now?
By your paradigm I'd imagine so. But your paradigm returns some funny results so if it's coming back as BNW is a bully, i really don't care.
And to be clear, this isn't because I want to hurt other people. It's because your paradigm can't establish a rational and sensible conclusion based on facts. If you can't do that? I don't care. All you have is an excuse to make up what results you want and insult the people you disagree with.
You are name calling pure and simple.
Like, you are saying that "post is wrong because these things didn't originate with Judaism", but umm... That isn't how it works? It doesn't change that one of most common phylactery dictionary definitions is Tefillin. You aren't just rejecting Jewish person's view on it
You don't get to decide that it isn't antisemitic because it used to be about other religions as well
Ok, So lets take every group , find one person with a view that thinks something should go, and take it out of the game.
Atheists objecting to Rahadoum, take that out
Wiccans objecting to the witch class
LP objecting to dwarves
Druids objecting to druids (although most i know really love the class and it was their introduction to it...)
Christians objecting to any divine caster
Christians objecting to any NON divine caster
Norwegians objecting to the obviously viking ulfen
eastern europeans tired of tourists asking for Transylvania want ustalav out
....
Alright who's ready to play....
you are rejecting dictionary.
And you're rejecting a wider view of the world where very similar things are done with nearly every holy text on the planet and the fact that the word predates the language of origins contact with Judaism if not the practice itself.
It also doesn't change that Blood Libel is EXTREMELY well known antisemitic concept.
Seriously. Stop. You're not thinking it through and wind up swinging at strawmen.
I am not changing that blood libel is a well known concept.
I am disagreeing that blood libel as a concept doesn't suddenly make every single instance of blood drinking a subliminal message to go Join Q. Half of western fantasy is somehow tied through 6 degrees of kevin bacon to something that was associated with antisemitism at some point. Thats because a LOT of things were associated with antisemitism at some point. If irish folklore that predates Judaism in the isles is antisemitic then you've got a problem with your definition.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, I seriously respect you so I'm really confused about your way of thinking here and I can't really understand your conclusions. You are arguing that you are only using "rational facts and evidence", but the way I see it are also selectively picking your facts by ignoring other context and also how it comes across as and I don't understand why your facts are "more rational" than mine.
And like... I'm not even arguing "Phylactery should be changed because its anti semitic". I'm baffled by your insistence on "Word isn't any more associated with Judaism than other religions". I'm also baffled by methods you are using to dismiss criticism. It's not even about whether vampires or such are anti-semitic, its that when Jewish person says "Man it does feel uncomfortable with how liches are associated with many things anti-semitic" that its valid to take it seriously.
I'm not trying to be insulting or insult you :/ Then again, I suppose you aren't trying to be insulting either, but way you express your belief you are absolutely right comes across as insulting as well. Maybe in that respect we are doing same thing and keep insulting each other because we believe we are both right in our view...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lacks of empathy towards those who have been hurt simply because one is not hurting right now, abound.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't understand what Jones and BNW are hoping to accomplish here. Generally, if I'm going to do something as bold as "lecture a Jewish person about what is and isn't antisemitism" or "remind everyone that heterosexuality can be discriminated against too", I want to know I can accomplish something that makes the ensuing argument worth it. Most of the reason I'm not getting into this whole debate is that aside from it seeming pretty intuitive to me (phylactery is a word strongly associated with Judaism, liches are evil, liches and phylacteries should not be linked in our gentile game), it just doesn't seem like there's anything to be accomplished.
Paizo made the change. It's done. Unless you think removing the word was itself offensive, this seems like the sort of issue neither of you should care about anymore--especially when there are Jewish posters here actually expressing their discomfort with the word having been used before. It feels very arguing-for-the-sake-of-arguing, and it's not even a super winnable argument for you.
Also, Jones, please move on from this "double standards" kick. Bigoted behavior against marginalized groups and generic rudeness will never be considered equal offenses on these forums. Call it ideological wrongthink if that really steams your broccoli, but hard-right social conservativism is not and has not in a long time been welcome around here. Because it's for losers.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The really weird thing is this was never really about appropriation. People keep bringing that up, but this isn't about golems or div or whatever. It's just about Paizo deciding to stop using a word in a particular way. Which is, you know, their business.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Welcome to Whose Side Is It Anyway, where all the offense is made up and the threads don't matter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Welcome to Whose Side Is It Anyway, where all the offense is made up and the threads don't matter.
One favourite is not enough.
Well played, indeed!
|
|
Maybe I'll at least soon reach critical level of sleep deprivation and depression where I'll temporarily gain enlightened zen state where I can continue my writing
Mut sillä välil on kauhea masis päällä siitä että henkilö jota kunnioitin näyttää inhoavan mua (ja sisäitäneen häiritseviä ajatusmalleja, toivottavasti olen väärässä) ja on päällä ekistentiaalikriisi siitä että "mutta olen heteroseksuaali enkä koe että mua oltais syrjitty täällä siitä asiasta". Jotakin jotakin nihilististä ja apateistista tähän väliin meltdownia.
Look, I seriously respect you so I'm really confused about your way of thinking here
pops open the wolf skull
There are four main ingredients in deciding if taking offense is warranted
Intent of the speaker
Social standards (variable by location)
Reality
How the thing is received.
Both the determination of the individual criterea and their relative importance are highly subjective, but what is absolutely critical is that none have a 100% meaning over the others. Someone absolutely can be horribly offended... over nothing. Someone can not mean anything but still be completely beyond the pale. The entomological fallacy is a thing.
It's possible. You need to account for that.
Your paradigm, the best I can figure, grants facts evidence and offense based soley on where they lie in a power dynamic. That can be a factor but using that as the only factor is going to go wonky.
and I can't really understand your conclusions. You are arguing that you are only using "rational facts and evidence", but the way I see it are also selectively picking your facts by ignoring other context
My facts stand on their own. They don't require a context inspiried by my paradigm in order to support my paradigm. They make a line, not a circle. That's the difference.
and also how it comes across as and I don't understand why your facts are "more rational" than mine.
Whether I'm picking them unfairly or not, many my facts aren't reliant on my point of view. Almost all of yours are. Blood drinking as something scary has applied to a lot of different people, irish folktales predate any rationale for irish antisemitism and the depiction of the witch doesn't seem to have started as an anti semetic thing.
You also don't seem to take your conclusions anywhere outside of your conclusions. The associations between x and antisemitism are this close (rate 1-10) You have the bar set so low that you're going to discount half of the genre on antisemitism and the other half on anti something else. So you don't seem to be applying your conclusions consistently.
"Man it does feel uncomfortable with how liches are associated with many things anti-semitic" that its valid to take it seriously.
I'm sure at some point you've met literature majors or conspiracy theorists who were connecting A to B to C in ways that made absolutely zero sense? Do they get to say those connections are real and act on them or do you just say "No...that doesn't follow"
Besides the phylactery, a word that predates any need to apply to a jewish practice, what's supposed to be the connection?
I'm not trying to be insulting or insult you :/ Then again, I suppose you aren't trying to be insulting either, but way you express your belief you are absolutely right comes across as insulting as well.
If you can't go after the rationale in some fashion i really don't have a reason to doubt.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take into consideration this though, Rsyky can be very abrasive and rude. We have gotten into to several times in the last few years. Chances are, we will again. Despite that I would never resort to calling Rsyky an it. So again, tell me how both side of this argument are the same? Dehumanization of people, even those we disagree with, NOT ACCEPTABLE.
|
|
… what are you talking about?
I think they were dissecting their thought process?
I think what they are saying is
1)"If person saying the offending thing isn't intending to offend"
2) "if offending thing isn't considered offensive by social standards"
3) "if offending thing doesn't have basis in reality for being offensive"
and
4) if others aren't offended by the offensive thing" (this one I'm confused by?)
then taking offense isn't warranted and its "being offended over nothing"? I'm not sure I understood that right though because it creates weird scenarios when applied to slurs.
Second part was basically arguing that they aren't doing circular reasoning fallacy. Aka if a then b because if b then a. Maybe? Alternatively its saying that their four point rule for whether offense is warranted doesn't require greater context?
Third one is about objectiveness and subjectiveness? They are saying they had objective arguments and I had purely subjective arguments
Fourth one is arguing that there isn't logical connection between anti-semitism and lich's phylactery?
Fifth one is basically saying that because I didn't try to give rational scientific counter argument, they have no reason to doubt their thesis?
I think that is what post was about? I'm just like "its really rude to say offended person they shouldn't be offended", I'm not really thinking of this in complicated fashion, its 2 am aka too late for that. Like for all I know paizo decided to remove term because its term for holy relic in multiple religions so they decided to not offend any real life religions, I'm not claiming to be authority or expert on subject. Googled sources imply phylactery is in general connected wither with Judaism or Liches, so that is my basis on believing it being widely accepted connection @_@;