does dnd inoculate us against cultural and spiritual contempt?

[Eulalios]

Interesting article this morning in the Wall Street Journal, about Norway's problem with plastic wrapped corpses not decomposing.

In the closing paragraphs, the journalist characterized an interviewee as "making light" of the issue. As a reader, who had roleplayed beliefs I did not share, I doubted that characterization, and wonder to what extent roleplay enhances our ability to respect view points we don't share or believe.

[~Corvus~]

{scrubbed}

[Irenaeus]

Interesting article this morning in the Wall Street Journal, about Norway's problem with plastic wrapped corpses not decomposing.

In the closing paragraphs, the journalist characterized an interviewee as "making light" of the issue. As a reader, who had roleplayed beliefs I did not share, I doubted that characterization, and wonder to what extent roleplay enhances our ability to respect view points we don't share or believe.
It's not actually that relevant to the main point of your thread, but as a Norwegian, I believe that the journalist's characterization is likely to be correct.

Weird article, btw. I've never heard about this.

Why do you think this is an example of cultural or spirital contempt, btw?

[Vulnudaemon]

Being respectful of other views, beliefs, tastes, inclinations, opinions, etc. has to do more with understanding and the ability to question oneself. When you don't bother to put in the shoes of others and you think you are always right without a question you'd tend to be not so much respectful, in fact, you'd be patronizing at best.

A roleplayer may imitate characters who are way diferent from himself/herself but that does not mean that he/she'd respect real persons who have common quirks and traits with the characters he/she roleplays. A writer is the same, you may think a writer respects, for instance, the homosexuals because he writes homosexual characters in a neutral light, with both positive traits and negative ones, but in real life he could be a man who merely tolerates the homosexuals, he wouldn't step out of his way to harm them but he, perhaps, thinks they are sick people that need to be cured.

[Ravens_cry]

Sadly, I think not. Nerd culture can be just as exclusive and mean-spirited to outsiders as any other group. Look how far too many guy gamer nerds treat girl gamer nerds, for example, or the contempt geeks can have for fellow geeks in other fandoms or in geekdoms 'beneath' them.

[Equinox]

Why do you think this is an example of cultural or spirital contempt, btw?Interviewee states something that's probably outside of the interviewer's set of beliefs. Interviewer assumes interviewee is making a funny, because s/he could not possibly mean that seriously.

At least that's what it looked like to me.

[tomandtish]

The article in question can be found here (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303342104579097100412815862).

I'm assuming the comment being referred to is where they say "Berit Carlsson, walking with her dog and husband through the cemetery, found reason to make light of the situation".

In fairness, I wouldn't want to rush to judgment that the writer's making assumptions. The story tells you her words, but gives no description of her expression, etc. If she was laughing while she said it, making big smiles, or exhibiting other behavior that indicated a light hearted emotional state, then saying she's making light of the situation may not be unwarranted. The writer may have done a poor job of being clear that it is legitimately her being lighthearted, but that's a writing issue, not a judgment issue.

They may have also been trying to show that the person isn't stressing out over it. IE, instead of all the "what do we do with all these bodies" stress that some might expect people to have, she's seems pretty unworried about the matter.

Learn something new everyday though. I had no idea they reused graves. +1 for cremation for me.

[Ravens_cry]

There is only so many plots. It's a pretty common practice.
Me? I plan on getting buried on the moon.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I find dogma to be a bad thing in general. To give an example of perspective, there's one fictional culture that injects honey or something into the corpse of a dead person so the body down into a delicious candy over the course of decades. The other cultures of that world (Autochthonia) are horrified by that. Because it's less efficient than simply turning the corpse into nutrient slurry.

But I know that's not a view held by all gamers. And unless it's a view held by most people, it's not a view held by most gamers. To many people, trying to use the resources provided by a corpse is horrifying, they think it's respectful to put it in a box and bury it six feet under the ground, or to burn it into ashes. Marriage, too, is a highly dogmatic thing. But since these things are born of the need to believe in something, to alleviate the very real fear that there may be nothing after we die, that we may simply be complex systems after all, people believe in them.

[warty goblin]

Maybe I'm just deficient in post-modern angst, but I can't say I've ever seen much need in my life to believe stuff in response to my limited ability to control the world or out of fear of nothingness when I die. Mostly because my limited ability to control the world is about as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4, and it's blindingly obvious to me that there's nothing after death. No point in being afraid of either, the only things worth dreading are the things which can be protected against. But fear as a general state of being, fear of things I have no control over is just paralysis by another name.

Live in the time you are alive, don't worry about the time you won't be, because you won't be there to experience it, and exert what control you have. Which, really, is mostly over yourself. Keeps life nice and simple.

[tomandtish]

I find dogma to be a bad thing in general. To give an example of perspective, there's one fictional culture that injects honey or something into the corpse of a dead person so the body down into a delicious candy over the course of decades. The other cultures of that world (Autochthonia) are horrified by that. Because it's less efficient than simply turning the corpse into nutrient slurry.

You know, I loved the movie Wall-E. But they talk about regenerative food banks, and you never see any gardens, animals, etc.

Makes you wonder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soylent_green.jpg) ....

[Hiro Protagonest]

You know, I loved the movie Wall-E. But they talk about regenerative food banks, and you never see any gardens, animals, etc.

Makes you wonder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soylent_green.jpg) ....

I wouldn't actually suggest eating human meat. It's more likely to give us diseases if we eat it ourselves, can encourage animals to eat us if we feed it to them, and when we can already solve world hunger if we could simply get the logistics right I would rather do that.

[Ravens_cry]

You know, I loved the movie Wall-E. But they talk about regenerative food banks, and you never see any gardens, animals, etc.

Makes you wonder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soylent_green.jpg) ....
Eh, molecules are molecules. Any multi-generational closed system will be forced to recycle the dead one way or the other. It's what a certain real world starship (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth) does after all.

[Lord Raziere]

Sadly, I think not. Nerd culture can be just as exclusive and mean-spirited to outsiders as any other group. Look how far too many guy gamer nerds treat girl gamer nerds, for example, or the contempt geeks can have for fellow geeks in other fandoms or in geekdoms 'beneath' them.

This. being a geek, no matter how intelligent does not make you immune to failings of humanity. it in fact makes us more prone to flaws others do not have, even as it makes us aware of flaws others possess. though, the same can be said of any culture really.

[Anarion]

This thread does present an interesting question. On one hand, I think that any story presents people with an opportunity to think about their views and beliefs. RPGs are great for this because the decisions rest squarely with the players and the DM. They're responsible for what they do, unlike more passive works that feed the story to the person, even if the person doesn't like what it is.

On the other hand, I think that people, in general, are god-awful at generalizing things. So, for example, they might play a game that teaches them about fantasy racism and prejudice, but then they don't necessarily expand that to improve their real world views on gender, or other cultural practices because they don't make the connection between different sorts of categorizations.

Honestly, that's probably not unique to RPGs either. I think many people throughout history have drawn all sorts of arbitrary categories where they call themselves enlightened but still have some group or other they think is inferior.

[Irenaeus]

Interviewee states something that's probably outside of the interviewer's set of beliefs. Interviewer assumes interviewee is making a funny, because s/he could not possibly mean that seriously.

At least that's what it looked like to me.

Even if that is correct, how is that contempt?

Also, in what way does the interview give us any indication for the reason of the journalist's interpretation of the statement? From the article, it seems like Jervell has actually talked to the person, so I think all the indicators of jocular behavor that we get during face-to-face communication is very likely to have been central to such an interpretation.

I find this interpretation of the journalist's position less charitable than the journalist's interpretation of the position of the person in the interview.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Real world religion, which pops up in the second post of this thread, is an inappropriate topic for this forum. Thread locked.