Follow TV Tropes
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Aug 9th 2018 at 5:17:08 PM
So the one who never knew Jesus personally would toss out a bunch of the guiding principles of the faith for political power. Makes sense, I guess.
Paul was a former persecutor of the church who eventually switched sides and wrote much of the New Testament. He in particular is notable for believing that old Jewish laws such as dietary restrictions should not be enforced upon gentiles joining Christianity. This is a major part of what made Christianity such a successful religion.
He is usually blamed for perceived problems in Christianity, but he was actually a nice guy. A lot of his quotes are taken out of context, and he was also very much Fair For His Day-indeed, even revolutionary.
I guess telling people eating pork is okay would help win them over. This from someone who just had a BLT for lunch.
Paul is also given a lot of blame for shifting values. The fact he was a guy who believed salvation should and could be given to Gentiles isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The Roman Church also established itself centuries after his death.
Paul for example said that a slave should obey his master but they forget it said that masters were told to free their slaves or treat them as equals. So, not the greatest guy by modern standards but also not what people think.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Aug 9th 2018 at 8:31:25 AM
There's a Tabletop Anti-Fascist Cyberpunk RPG that has just been Kickstarted into existence.
I like it but a lot of people criticize it for being too inclusive...of non-left ideologies.
Ooooh, I actually kinda want that now.
On a sidenote, one of the characters in my story is a military Robot Girl who has a tattoo/engraving on her that says "This Machine Kills Fascists" (she was, in fact, built by a democratic city to help keep them protected by a nearby pseudo-fascist state)
It also runs into the problem of making the fascists looks way too damn awesome in something that's supposedly a damning indictment of them.
"Aesthetics over actual practicality" is kinda what fascism does.
Maybe, but if you want to convince people to play the right side in a game, focus on making the good guys look cool and the bad guys generic.
... I'd say make both sides "look" the same, but draw a clear moral distinction between them. It's surely possible to present both sides as equally cool, but also emphasise that one of their ideologies is worse.
Which is usually the best way to go about things, but this game is pretty much stated to be anti-facist propaganda in its very own description, so making the facist side even remotely cool is counter-intuitive to its agenda.
One element which I like is the We ARE Struggling Together element where the sincere Christians and libertarians are against this.
But so are the socialists and communists.
So there's a bunch of ideologically opposed people against the fascist superstate.
This is nitpicky but unknowing said some pages back that she dumped her secretary because she wanted to be with someone else and I cannot let that pass. She broke up with him because she realized that due to their age difference they were at very different places in their lives, and she wasn't going to get what she wanted out of her life if they continued dating. (Which was, yes, marriage, and a child, but there wasn't some new guy introduced in that episode. It was kind of a bottle episode, actually.)
Which is honestly one of the healthier break ups I've seen in fiction, really. Especially given the whole back and forth with Ross.
I try to write anti-fascist narratives into my books. It's harder than it sounds as villains must be compelling to be interesting.
To be fair, upon reading the thread, I fully get where these people are coming from.
It's kind of hard to believe that, say, right wing militia types and the 'Randian Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalis' set would band together with more moderate right-of-centre and centrist groups, let alone anyone on the left, to fight Fascism, given that the first of the former groups are, in our own reality, solidly part of the Trumpist base (they are after all where all that 'Deep State' conspiracy nuttery comes from) while the second of the former groups are... Pretty much where the Alt-Right originated. Before they could openly admit their Ethno-Nationalist allegiance, most of the Alt-Right leadership built up their political network under the guise of being garden variety Randians and even today, the majority of Libertarians are loathe to condemn the monsters in their midst.
Including them in the coalition of Anti-Fascist factions kinda smacks of whitewashing their real-world responsibility for the mess we currently find ourselves in.
Speaking of tabletop RPGs, I'm especially happy that Chronicles of Darkness do their best to include diversity in their works.
I recently got my Kickstarted copy of the second edition of Changeling: The Lost, and I'm really enjoying the "story" you get before the start of a new chapter. One of the viewpoint characters of said story, Aimee, is transgendered, born male but identifies as female, and her being transgendered makes for a very good example of how a changeling might have complicated feelings about fetches (fake versions created by the Fae to replace the kidnapped humans), especially since her fetch is still physically male, is married with kids, and gets along with her mother more than she ever did.
Onyx Path Publishing, which handles the Chronicles of Darkness nowadays, have made it clear on their forums that they firmly support inclusion and more diversity in their works, and I applaud them for it.
Edited by dragonfire5000 on Aug 9th 2018 at 11:24:27 AM
I learned a lot about tolerance from the Changeling: The Dreaming books.
So, media does change one's opinions.
I was wondering if I could get some people's views on Wonder Woman's version of the Amazons. Or maybe I should say versions given how differently they've been written over decades.
I like the Amazons.
I mean the "real" Amazons who are a bunch of peaceful, enlightened, and technologically advanced yet mythologically immortal people. There's nothing wrong with the classic version and attempts to move from this have never resulted in anything good.
Certainly, it makes no damned sense to try to portray them as boogeymen or having secret evil given Diana is one of the nicest people in the world raised by people she grew up valuing the ideology of.
Mind you, I see some of the criticism of them as a feature rather than a bug. Yes, they're a feminist separatist society and they are capable of their utopia in large part because of a bunch of elements which are questionable (isolationism, literal fucking magic, etc) but that gives room for Wonder Woman and the Amazons to be challenged.
What works for them won't work for others.
Weren't the Amazons meant to be secretly evil in Classical mythology?
As for WW portrayal: It's pretty fine IMO.
The Amazons weren't secretly evil in Greek mythology, they were overtly evil but meant to be hot simultaneously.
Like really-really hot orcs.
They'd murder and kill regular men but a sufficiently badass dude like Hercules could subdue them for sex.
Yeah, "Secretly" isn't the word I was looking for.
So basically Drow? ...Come to think of it, I'm currently playing in a D&D setting that revolves around Greek Mythology. I'm going to toss the idea to have Amazons be Drow in this setting.
"I was agreeing with you. The implication that the Roman Empire became more bigoted because of Christianity was also something I also felt was inaccurate. Christianity did not make Rome more bigoted. Rome made Christianity more bigoted."
This true in that church fathers became increasingly more comfortable to use Roman brutality as an engine to enforce conformity over heterodox Christian sects, but also untrue in saying that it didn't work the other way. Christianity made Rome, previously a syncretic, multicultural hotbed, way more intolerant of religious groups that weren't the official, state-sponsored cult. In the past, literally any god could have a space for worship in Rome, the only stipulation being the imperial cult be worshiped also and no claims of any god being the One True God be made. It's the one thing, the only thing about the Roman state that's unimpeachable in its progressivism. But after Christianity became entrenched, ecclesiastical disputes became perceived as an attack on the government — there was one, and only one way to worship, now. This is part of why integrating the barbarians into the Roman social fabric was so hard — they were all Arians. And in the Levant, this was part of why the area became so solidly Muslim. It was easier to live as a dhimmi under the Rashiduns and just pay a tax than it was to run afoul of the government in Constantinople, where heresy was treason. Rome went from being syncretic to being prescriptive, and while that gave the Roman state some vestige of social unity, it also meant a lot of people in previously good standing had no place in that society.
Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Aug 10th 2018 at 7:49:54 AM
Roman progressiveness in terms of religion has often been touted from the highest heavens but the actuality of it was bullshit. The legend of it is something I think people need to let die. Because they....really weren't tolerant. At all. Roman sycreticism is given a pass but it destroyed the Druid religion as best it could, it persecuted the Jewish religion (creating the diaspora) more than virtually any other religion has been persecuted in history, and it destroyed the faith of Carthage for its practice of human sacrifice.
In-Roman faiths were often persecuted as well. The persecution of Christianity has been mentioned (Become Your Own Antithesis or not) but the Romans also persecuted the cults of Bacchus and myriad other mystery cults. We don't tend to hear about this because, well, Rome destroyed them.
Romans liked to go around and claim people's gods were the same gods as their own but their tolerance began and ended at "will they accept Rome's state cult and religion as part of their allegiance?"
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Aug 10th 2018 at 5:23:35 AM
Community Showcase More