Serious concerns about depictions of Actively Worshiped Religious figures in NSFW situations.

[Sat7166]

Ok, here's what I think:
The thing we should understand is that religion is important to some people and if you make fun of it, you can really hurt their sentiments. Why? I was an atheist for a period of time and also religious so I sort of understand both perspectives. Atheists(or anyone not of that particular religion) may think that it's kinda stupid to care about a fictional character(their Gods/God) that was written in fiction by a stranger. At the same time, religious fanatics may believe they have to somehow protect their religion's honor or something.
However, there exists a line between these two extremes. First of all, people have sentiments towards religion because religion has maybe helped them through a dark time, maybe they consider the God/Gods as their family so it's kinda bad to see this kind of depiction.
However, every religion teaches a person to be humane and compassionate, so even if people are making fun of their religion, they should have enough wisdom to not get hurt by it. After all, religion doesn't need people to protect it, only to follow its teachings.

What I want to say is that, no we shouldn't make fun of religions that are actively worshipped. This seems like the act of a rebellious teenager that has face tattoos just to annoy his parents. But at the same time, true followers of any religion should have enough sense and wisdom to not get enraged by a bad depiction of their God/Gods.

 

[Smuthunter]

I am reminded of the late great Christopher Hitchens. If people are determined to be offended, balancing a ladder precariously on top of their own toilet to be upset by what they see through the neighbor's bathroom window, there's nothing you can do about that. Outside of obeying community guidelines it's not our responsibility to censor ourselves to avoid hurting the feelings of other people, it's on them to ignore the thread and move on with their lives instead.

 

[Acolyte]

I am reminded of the late great Christopher Hitchens. If people are determined to be offended, balancing a ladder precariously on top of their own toilet to be upset by what they see through the neighbor's bathroom window, there's nothing you can do about that. Outside of obeying community guidelines it's not our responsibility to censor ourselves to avoid hurting the feelings of other people, it's on them to ignore the thread and move on with their lives instead.

Click to shrink...

While the mods have made their policies clear so I am going to keep quite about the topic.

But this a fallacious argument at best. It isn't someone watching into someone's home, this is a public forum, so it's more like walking inside the town Square and getting offended by someone doing that there.

Weather you agree you have any responsibility is a settled issue via mod ruling but that reasoning for that is a flawed one.

Actually I just noticed that the mods haven't said anything. So yeah I maintain that the religion thing falls under the political rules.

 

[Smuthunter]

But this a fallacious argument at best. It isn't someone watching into someone's home, this is a public forum, so it's more like walking inside the town Square and getting offended by someone doing that there.

Click to shrink...

Absolutely wrong, QQ is a private forum. You have to make an account and agree to abide by the rules of the community in order to view any NSFW content whatsoever, you're not going to find whatever story ticked you off just by browsing around google.

 

[Acolyte]

Absolutely wrong, QQ is a private forum. You have to make an account and agree to abide by the rules of the community in order to view any NSFW content whatsoever.

Click to shrink...

Public in the sense that it is a public for its users.

 

[Biigoh]

Public in the sense that it is a public for its users.

Click to shrink...

It's a private forum that is actually owned by a person.

It's just that people are allowed to post on it under certain conditions.

If you mean "public" by that, then yes, it's a "public" forum where you can talk with other members.

But all members are still beholden to the rules as laid down by the admins.

And in this case, the so-called religion thing with regards parvati, kama, jeanne d'arc, saint martha, fate buddha? Not political.

 

[Acolyte]

It's a private forum that is actually owned by a person.

It's just that people are allowed to post on it under certain conditions.

If you mean "public" by that, then yes, it's a "public" forum where you can talk with other members.

But all members are still beholden to the rules as laid down by the admins.

And in this case, the so-called religion thing with regards parvati, kama, jeanne d'arc, saint martha, fate buddha? Not political.

Click to shrink...

I was commenting on the anology used by the other person, about people balancing on ladders and looking at other people's houses.

What I mean is that, while yes the forum is owned by a person and we have to follow rules, it isn't a case of me going out of my way to be mad about something, I literally stumbled upon it while browsing.

I guess I could describe it as a shared space if thay would be a better descriptior.

 

[daniel_gudman]

Well like in the first place you were browsing expressly pornographic material, so I dunno how mad you're really allowed to get, ethically, that it was salacious in some particular way you didn't like.

Anyway it seems to me you are trying to concern-troll using the Heckler's Veto, so I don't think your opinion on the matter is really worth all that much consideration.

 

[orbital]

Somehow I knew before even reading this thread that it was going to be about Nasuverse nonsense. Dammit, Japan.

That said, I would like to point out that filtering AO3 for explicit M/M fics including Jesus Christ returns over a hundred results, therefore your argument is invalid.

 

[ultima333]

Acolyte

It is the position of the staff that characters that feature in religion are not fundamentally different than characters in fiction. As such, they are subject to the same rules as fictional characters.

And that rule is basically "as long as it's 2D, it's okay."

As far as the site rules are concerned, there is no difference between making M/M yaoi between the Prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ, and a scene of Harry Potter and Hermione as an alt ship.

 

[Acolyte]

Well like in the first place you were browsing expressly pornographic material, so I dunno how mad you're really allowed to get, ethically, that it was salacious in some particular way you didn't like.

Anyway it seems to me you are trying to concern-troll using the Heckler's Veto, so I don't think your opinion on the matter is really worth all that much consideration.

Click to shrink...

That's an absurd argument. You can watch porn and still have moral problems against other kinds of porn, I mean child porn is a thing or revenge porn.

Acolyte

It is the position of the staff that characters that feature in religion are not fundamentally different than characters in fiction. As such, they are subject to the same rules as fictional characters.

And that rule is basically "as long as it's 2D, it's okay."

As far as the site rules are concerned, there is no difference between making M/M yaoi between the Prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ, and a scene of Harry Potter and Hermione as an alt ship.

Click to shrink...

Fair enough I guess.

 

[Tavarokk]

I'm kind of late to the party with this, but I feel this discussion warrants adding that QQ's centermost principle as far as keeping order goes is having people be civil to each other OOC so that they can afford to write and read about wildest shit as opposed to controlling what they may read and write about to give people less excuses to be uncivil. Politics being the one exception because the staff's sanity has limits, apparently.

 

[Stanley_Jeb]

I'm kind of late to the party with this, but I feel this discussion warrants adding that QQ's centermost principle as far as keeping order goes is having people be civil to each other OOC so that they can afford to write and read about wildest shit as opposed to controlling what they may read and write about to give people less excuses to be uncivil. Politics being the one exception because the staff's sanity has limits, apparently.

Click to shrink...

Makes me wonder if you could just make a containment board for such things... But then again, QQ still has to deal with laws about hatespeech and incitement to violence and all that stuff, so even a big, fat label and multiple checkmarks ensuring that you consent to be reading really fucked up shit wouldn't be enough, would it?

 

[Garahs]

But then again, QQ still has to deal with laws about hatespeech and incitement to violence and all that stuff

Click to shrink...

The first doesn't exist in the US where QQ is hosted and the second is never going to apply unless QQ at least got as large as reddit, which I severely doubt ever happening.

 

[magic9mushroom]

The implication that a bunch of nerds 2d wiafus is more valid than a culture thay has existed on this earth for 5 thousand years and shaped ethics, mathematics and humanity itself in profound ways.

Click to shrink...

That's... not the point, though? It's not about which one's more valid. It's about whether QQers' writing is valid or not. It is.

Makes me wonder if you could just make a containment board for such things...

Click to shrink...

That's what we had prior to rule 8. It's called Rants, and angry discussion (including politics) was confined there. Then they decided they wanted to make Rants less angry.

 

[Stanley_Jeb]

The first doesn't exist in the US where QQ is hosted

Click to shrink...

Ah, fair enough. I tend to forget that, I'm not really used to the whole unrestricted "Freedom Of Speech" thing.

 

[ThedudeManBro]

This thread started via the oddest of reasons with weird af goals, but by golly it ended with an enlightening and interesting time.

And people say we can only speak in Lewd!