Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The term 'Golem'...
386 views
Skip to first unread message
Tetsubo
Dec 19, 2014, 8:22:26 PM12/19/14
to
I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is culturally
insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the Jewish people.
What does the newsgroup think? It is a Jewish term from their cultural
mythology. Can it be used without offense? I honestly can't decide. I
also can't honestly think of abetter term. 'Construct' just doesn't
have them same ring to my ear.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the Jewish people.
What does the newsgroup think? It is a Jewish term from their cultural
mythology. Can it be used without offense? I honestly can't decide. I
also can't honestly think of abetter term. 'Construct' just doesn't
have them same ring to my ear.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
JimP
Dec 19, 2014, 9:24:20 PM12/19/14
to
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 20:22:25 -0500, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is culturally
>insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the Jewish people.
>What does the newsgroup think? It is a Jewish term from their cultural
>mythology. Can it be used without offense? I honestly can't decide. I
>also can't honestly think of abetter term. 'Construct' just doesn't
>have them same ring to my ear.
Its a clay man put to a task, then the letters on its forehead were
erased, it went back to just being clay and collapsed. I'm not Jewish,
but I haven't heard of any other meaning for it. So, if it is
offensive, I've never heard that before now.
--
JimP.
wrote:
> I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is culturally
>insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the Jewish people.
>What does the newsgroup think? It is a Jewish term from their cultural
>mythology. Can it be used without offense? I honestly can't decide. I
>also can't honestly think of abetter term. 'Construct' just doesn't
>have them same ring to my ear.
erased, it went back to just being clay and collapsed. I'm not Jewish,
but I haven't heard of any other meaning for it. So, if it is
offensive, I've never heard that before now.
--
JimP.
LL
Dec 20, 2014, 9:07:13 AM12/20/14
to
On 20.12.2014 02:22, Tetsubo wrote:
> I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is
> culturally insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the
> Jewish people. What does the newsgroup think? It is a Jewish term from
> their cultural mythology. Can it be used without offense? I honestly
> can't decide. I also can't honestly think of abetter term. 'Construct'
> just doesn't have them same ring to my ear.
Wikipedia, first sentence:
> I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is
> culturally insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the
> Jewish people. What does the newsgroup think? It is a Jewish term from
> their cultural mythology. Can it be used without offense? I honestly
> can't decide. I also can't honestly think of abetter term. 'Construct'
> just doesn't have them same ring to my ear.
"For the character in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy,
see Gollum."
Cracks me up. Pop culture beats culture. If I were jewish, this would
bother me more, than the use of the term for monsters in a fantasy game.
There are many monsters (and spells) derived from various religions
and cultures. What about Devils and Demons, Angels? ...sometimes
named different "as a fig leaf" :-)
Or Water Walk, Cure Blindness, Resurrection?
Are christians annoyed by these?
LL
Tetsubo
Dec 20, 2014, 9:11:15 AM12/20/14
to
Ralph Glatt
Dec 20, 2014, 9:32:38 AM12/20/14
to
Ralph Glatt
Dec 20, 2014, 9:46:40 AM12/20/14
to
LL
Dec 20, 2014, 10:07:39 AM12/20/14
to
they shouldn't try to deny others the freeedom of speech or
artistic expression.
Back to the golem, why would anyone think it's offensive?
It's a name for a mythological monster...I don't see any
potential for cultural insensitivity.
No prejudices or stereotypes against the jews are connected
to the golem IFAIK.
LL
Ralph Glatt
Dec 20, 2014, 10:44:57 AM12/20/14
to
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Dec 20, 2014, 11:38:42 AM12/20/14
to
In article <m72ivr$4jg$1...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net (Tetsubo)
wrote:
> I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is
> culturally insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the
> Jewish people.
The golem in D&D is exactly what the original was from Jewish mythology -
a construct activated by a /chem/ - an inscription (or a scroll) on or
within the head of the golem with a single word or name written on it
that empowered the golem (and in later versions, had multiple words that
contained its directives).
Erasure of the /chem/ rendered the golem inanimate (but did not destroy
it). Reinstatement of the /chem/ (or replacement with another)
reactivated it.
I think the "cultural offense" is a manufactured one.
Cheers
JOanna
wrote:
> I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is
> culturally insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the
> Jewish people.
a construct activated by a /chem/ - an inscription (or a scroll) on or
within the head of the golem with a single word or name written on it
that empowered the golem (and in later versions, had multiple words that
contained its directives).
Erasure of the /chem/ rendered the golem inanimate (but did not destroy
it). Reinstatement of the /chem/ (or replacement with another)
reactivated it.
I think the "cultural offense" is a manufactured one.
Cheers
JOanna
Tetsubo
Dec 20, 2014, 12:39:42 PM12/20/14
to
>
> Cheers
> JOanna
Mart van de Wege
Dec 20, 2014, 1:00:04 PM12/20/14
to
LL <Loren...@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 20.12.2014 02:22, Tetsubo wrote:
>> I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is
>> culturally insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the
>> Jewish people. What does the newsgroup think? It is a Jewish term from
>> their cultural mythology. Can it be used without offense? I honestly
>> can't decide. I also can't honestly think of abetter term. 'Construct'
>> just doesn't have them same ring to my ear.
In a very strict reading of the term it *is* cultural appropriation.
> On 20.12.2014 02:22, Tetsubo wrote:
>> I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is
>> culturally insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the
>> Jewish people. What does the newsgroup think? It is a Jewish term from
>> their cultural mythology. Can it be used without offense? I honestly
>> can't decide. I also can't honestly think of abetter term. 'Construct'
>> just doesn't have them same ring to my ear.
Given the overlap between European history and culture and Eastern
European Jewish culture I think a case can be made that this is merely
a case of shared culture.
If someone of Jewish extraction puts up a good argument for cultural
appropriation, I'll respect it, but for now I think that your
sensitivity, while admirable, does not light upon an actual cause for
concern.
>
> Wikipedia, first sentence:
> "For the character in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy,
> see Gollum."
>
> Cracks me up. Pop culture beats culture. If I were jewish, this would
> bother me more, than the use of the term for monsters in a fantasy game.
>
> There are many monsters (and spells) derived from various religions
> and cultures. What about Devils and Demons, Angels? ...sometimes
> named different "as a fig leaf" :-)
> Or Water Walk, Cure Blindness, Resurrection?
> Are christians annoyed by these?
>
seems hard to make a case for cultural appropriation here.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Tetsubo
Dec 20, 2014, 1:04:16 PM12/20/14
to
On 12/20/2014 12:45 PM, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> LL <Loren...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 20.12.2014 02:22, Tetsubo wrote:
>>> I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is
>>> culturally insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the
>>> Jewish people. What does the newsgroup think? It is a Jewish term from
>>> their cultural mythology. Can it be used without offense? I honestly
>>> can't decide. I also can't honestly think of abetter term. 'Construct'
>>> just doesn't have them same ring to my ear.
>
> In a very strict reading of the term it *is* cultural appropriation.
>
> Given the overlap between European history and culture and Eastern
> European Jewish culture I think a case can be made that this is merely
> a case of shared culture.
>
> If someone of Jewish extraction puts up a good argument for cultural
> appropriation, I'll respect it, but for now I think that your
> sensitivity, while admirable, does not light upon an actual cause for
> concern.
It isn't my sensitivity, I'm not Jewish. I'm Neo-Pagan. But I have
> LL <Loren...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 20.12.2014 02:22, Tetsubo wrote:
>>> I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is
>>> culturally insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the
>>> Jewish people. What does the newsgroup think? It is a Jewish term from
>>> their cultural mythology. Can it be used without offense? I honestly
>>> can't decide. I also can't honestly think of abetter term. 'Construct'
>>> just doesn't have them same ring to my ear.
>
> In a very strict reading of the term it *is* cultural appropriation.
>
> Given the overlap between European history and culture and Eastern
> European Jewish culture I think a case can be made that this is merely
> a case of shared culture.
>
> If someone of Jewish extraction puts up a good argument for cultural
> appropriation, I'll respect it, but for now I think that your
> sensitivity, while admirable, does not light upon an actual cause for
> concern.
encountered people that felt it was cultural appropriation.
>
>>
>> Wikipedia, first sentence:
>> "For the character in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy,
>> see Gollum."
>>
>> Cracks me up. Pop culture beats culture. If I were jewish, this would
>> bother me more, than the use of the term for monsters in a fantasy game.
>>
>> There are many monsters (and spells) derived from various religions
>> and cultures. What about Devils and Demons, Angels? ...sometimes
>> named different "as a fig leaf" :-)
>
> Well, if I were a Hindu, I would cast a side-eye at things like 'Deva'.
>
>> Or Water Walk, Cure Blindness, Resurrection?
>> Are christians annoyed by these?
>>
> Given that Gygax was firmly rooted in Western Christian culture, it
> seems hard to make a case for cultural appropriation here.
I agree. I have still known people that didn't like that aspect of the
>>
>> Wikipedia, first sentence:
>> "For the character in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy,
>> see Gollum."
>>
>> Cracks me up. Pop culture beats culture. If I were jewish, this would
>> bother me more, than the use of the term for monsters in a fantasy game.
>>
>> There are many monsters (and spells) derived from various religions
>> and cultures. What about Devils and Demons, Angels? ...sometimes
>> named different "as a fig leaf" :-)
>
> Well, if I were a Hindu, I would cast a side-eye at things like 'Deva'.
>
>> Or Water Walk, Cure Blindness, Resurrection?
>> Are christians annoyed by these?
>>
> Given that Gygax was firmly rooted in Western Christian culture, it
> seems hard to make a case for cultural appropriation here.
game.
>
> Mart
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Dec 20, 2014, 1:19:23 PM12/20/14
to
In article <m74c86$sn2$1...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net (Tetsubo)
wrote:
> Not by the Jewish people that are offended by it.
Perhaps.
But in life, where possible one simply avoids such things if they would
cause offense. As a Christian I could be offended by D&D because it has
named devils and demons, has vampires, evil cultists of dark gods, etc. I
choose not to be. If a DM sets their game in a setting where I feel
uncomfortable, I choose to play with another DM or even with another
group.
e.g. I refused to play with one DM whose campaign was set in the Plane of
Shadow, not because I was offended by him or his campaign, but because
after he moved it from a club to his home, half the players started
smoking weed there regularly. I was not alone in being offended and
opting out. I could have reported it (possession of weed is a criminal
misdemeanour in the UK), but why?
Simpler all round to vote with my feet than create a stink to rival the
one in the game room.
Therefore to rail against a game that includes golems as servants and/or
monsters is pointless - is it not better for everyone in a particular
campaign to just call them constructs throughout, or ask the DM to
substitute some other sort of creature with the same challenges (e.g.
some form of elemental), or simply not play in that game.
Cheers
JOanna
wrote:
> Not by the Jewish people that are offended by it.
But in life, where possible one simply avoids such things if they would
cause offense. As a Christian I could be offended by D&D because it has
named devils and demons, has vampires, evil cultists of dark gods, etc. I
choose not to be. If a DM sets their game in a setting where I feel
uncomfortable, I choose to play with another DM or even with another
group.
e.g. I refused to play with one DM whose campaign was set in the Plane of
Shadow, not because I was offended by him or his campaign, but because
after he moved it from a club to his home, half the players started
smoking weed there regularly. I was not alone in being offended and
opting out. I could have reported it (possession of weed is a criminal
misdemeanour in the UK), but why?
Simpler all round to vote with my feet than create a stink to rival the
one in the game room.
Therefore to rail against a game that includes golems as servants and/or
monsters is pointless - is it not better for everyone in a particular
campaign to just call them constructs throughout, or ask the DM to
substitute some other sort of creature with the same challenges (e.g.
some form of elemental), or simply not play in that game.
Cheers
JOanna
Nicole Massey
Dec 21, 2014, 10:13:24 AM12/21/14
to
"Joanna Rowland Stuart" <jrowlan...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2014122...@jrowlandstuart.cix.co.uk...
aren't there. Some folks take things a bit too far.
dr...@bin.sh
Dec 22, 2014, 12:23:22 AM12/22/14
to
Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> write:
> I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is culturally
> insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the Jewish people.
*shrug* oh well.
> I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is culturally
> insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the Jewish people.
--
._n_______n_. dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
| --------- |== -----------------------------------------------------------
I"/""|"|Z7""' "There's a time for sneakin' around, my brother,
lJ | | and a time for droppin' an attack chopper full of
|_l pissed-off 19-year olds in full body armor on somebody.
And we have reached that appointed hour."
-- Colonel Vance
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Dec 22, 2014, 12:23:16 PM12/22/14
to
LL <Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:m743b5$jup$1...@dont-email.me:
The ones who get the most worked up over it are the ones who
desperately want Christians to be offended so that they can be
outrages over it.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:m743b5$jup$1...@dont-email.me:
desperately want Christians to be offended so that they can be
outrages over it.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Dec 22, 2014, 12:24:53 PM12/22/14
to
LL <Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:m73vpq$4fb$1...@dont-email.me:
> Pop culture beats culture.
Pop culture beats worn out, archaic cultures that nobody cares about,
sure. (Because if it weren't worn out and archaic, it would *be* pop
culture. Duh.)
Your statement is the equivalent to saying "water is wetter than
drywall." No shit.
news:m73vpq$4fb$1...@dont-email.me:
> Pop culture beats culture.
Pop culture beats worn out, archaic cultures that nobody cares about,
sure. (Because if it weren't worn out and archaic, it would *be* pop
culture. Duh.)
Your statement is the equivalent to saying "water is wetter than
drywall." No shit.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Dec 22, 2014, 12:26:44 PM12/22/14
to
Mart van de Wege <mvd...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:864msqn...@gaheris.avalon.lan:
> but for now I think
> that your sensitivity, while admirable, does not light upon an
> actual cause for concern.
>
You're a funny guy. There's no cultureal sensitivity here. He's
trolling for something to be outraged over.
news:864msqn...@gaheris.avalon.lan:
> but for now I think
> that your sensitivity, while admirable, does not light upon an
> actual cause for concern.
>
trolling for something to be outraged over.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Dec 22, 2014, 12:28:34 PM12/22/14
to
Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:m74c86$sn2$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 12/20/2014 11:38 AM, Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
>> In article <m72ivr$4jg$1...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net
>> (Tetsubo) wrote:
>>
>>> I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem'
>>> is
>>> culturally insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive
>>> to the Jewish people.
>> The golem in D&D is exactly what the original was from Jewish
>> mythology - a construct activated by a /chem/ - an inscription
>> (or a scroll) on or within the head of the golem with a single
>> word or name written on it that empowered the golem (and in
>> later versions, had multiple words that contained its
>> directives).
>>
>> Erasure of the /chem/ rendered the golem inanimate (but did not
>> destroy it). Reinstatement of the /chem/ (or replacement with
>> another) reactivated it.
>>
>> I think the "cultural offense" is a manufactured one.
>
> Not by the Jewish people that are offended by it.
Which you cannot find a single example of, apparently (or you
wouldn't be asking about it here).
news:m74c86$sn2$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 12/20/2014 11:38 AM, Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
>> In article <m72ivr$4jg$1...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net
>> (Tetsubo) wrote:
>>
>>> I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem'
>>> is
>>> culturally insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive
>>> to the Jewish people.
>> The golem in D&D is exactly what the original was from Jewish
>> mythology - a construct activated by a /chem/ - an inscription
>> (or a scroll) on or within the head of the golem with a single
>> word or name written on it that empowered the golem (and in
>> later versions, had multiple words that contained its
>> directives).
>>
>> Erasure of the /chem/ rendered the golem inanimate (but did not
>> destroy it). Reinstatement of the /chem/ (or replacement with
>> another) reactivated it.
>>
>> I think the "cultural offense" is a manufactured one.
>
> Not by the Jewish people that are offended by it.
wouldn't be asking about it here).
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Dec 22, 2014, 2:02:17 PM12/22/14
to
In article <XnsA40B5F7EAA4...@69.16.179.43>,
Cheers
JOanna
taus...@gmail.com (Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy) wrote:
> The ones who get the most worked up over it are the ones who
> desperately want Christians to be offended so that they can be
> outrages over it.
<VBG>
> The ones who get the most worked up over it are the ones who
> desperately want Christians to be offended so that they can be
> outrages over it.
Cheers
JOanna
Justisaur
Dec 23, 2014, 11:46:36 AM12/23/14
to
I'm not offended by someone using the word 'Dragon' because it appeared as a monster in my collective European past's mythology.
- Justisaur
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Dec 23, 2014, 12:05:39 PM12/23/14
to
Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d412f7f6-b684-4c74...@googlegroups.com:
> I'm not offended by someone using the word 'Dragon' because it
> appeared as a monster in my collective European past's
> mythology.
>
I think you have to be Chinese to be offended by that.
news:d412f7f6-b684-4c74...@googlegroups.com:
> I'm not offended by someone using the word 'Dragon' because it
> appeared as a monster in my collective European past's
> mythology.
>
LL
Dec 23, 2014, 1:42:33 PM12/23/14
to
On 22.12.2014 17:24, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> LL <Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:m73vpq$4fb$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> Pop culture beats culture.
>
> Pop culture beats worn out, archaic cultures that nobody cares about,
> sure. (Because if it weren't worn out and archaic, it would *be* pop
> culture. Duh.)
Pop culture is only a subset of modern or contemporary culture.
> LL <Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:m73vpq$4fb$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> Pop culture beats culture.
>
> Pop culture beats worn out, archaic cultures that nobody cares about,
> sure. (Because if it weren't worn out and archaic, it would *be* pop
> culture. Duh.)
There are many subjects in various areas of culture which are
not pop culture and not worn out or archaic.
Many things have a real meaning in culture and a pop culture
interpretation or use which is often wrong and seldom creative.
> Your statement is the equivalent to saying "water is wetter than
> drywall." No shit.
LL
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Dec 23, 2014, 2:40:50 PM12/23/14
to
LL <Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:m7cd21$2ts$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 22.12.2014 17:24, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> LL <Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>> news:m73vpq$4fb$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> Pop culture beats culture.
>>
>> Pop culture beats worn out, archaic cultures that nobody cares
>> about, sure. (Because if it weren't worn out and archaic, it
>> would *be* pop culture. Duh.)
>
> Pop culture is only a subset of modern or contemporary culture.
No, not really, It's what's popular. Which generally *is*
contemporary, but then, again, contemporary is another term that is
descriptive, not prescriptive. Which is to say, if it's popular
*now*, it's contemporary.
Most of what's popular now is, indeed, modern. Duh.
> There are many subjects in various areas of culture which are
> not pop culture and not worn out or archaic.
Which is irrelevent to the question at hand, since nobody has
mentioned those subjects until you tried to change the subject.
news:m7cd21$2ts$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 22.12.2014 17:24, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> LL <Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>> news:m73vpq$4fb$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> Pop culture beats culture.
>>
>> Pop culture beats worn out, archaic cultures that nobody cares
>> about, sure. (Because if it weren't worn out and archaic, it
>> would *be* pop culture. Duh.)
>
> Pop culture is only a subset of modern or contemporary culture.
contemporary, but then, again, contemporary is another term that is
descriptive, not prescriptive. Which is to say, if it's popular
*now*, it's contemporary.
Most of what's popular now is, indeed, modern. Duh.
> There are many subjects in various areas of culture which are
> not pop culture and not worn out or archaic.
mentioned those subjects until you tried to change the subject.
>
> Many things have a real meaning in culture and a pop culture
> interpretation or use which is often wrong and seldom creative.
Also irrelevant.
> Many things have a real meaning in culture and a pop culture
> interpretation or use which is often wrong and seldom creative.
>
>> Your statement is the equivalent to saying "water is wetter
>> than drywall." No shit.
>
> Merry Christmas, Terry!
>
Or, to quote Grumpy Cat, "Merry KissMyAss."
>> Your statement is the equivalent to saying "water is wetter
>> than drywall." No shit.
>
> Merry Christmas, Terry!
>
Ubiquitous
Dec 23, 2014, 6:28:40 PM12/23/14
to
In article <m72ivr$4jg$1...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net wrote:
>I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is culturally
>insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the Jewish people.
>What does the newsgroup think? It is a Jewish term from their cultural
>mythology. Can it be used without offense? I honestly can't decide. I
>also can't honestly think of abetter term. 'Construct' just doesn't
>have them same ring to my ear.
That's ridiculous!
>I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is culturally
>insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the Jewish people.
>What does the newsgroup think? It is a Jewish term from their cultural
>mythology. Can it be used without offense? I honestly can't decide. I
>also can't honestly think of abetter term. 'Construct' just doesn't
>have them same ring to my ear.
--
Regarding Cuba, Obama says that we should get over things that happened
before we were born -- does this also apply to slavery and segregation?
fg2...@yahoo.com
Dec 23, 2014, 10:14:32 PM12/23/14
to
Nicole Massey
Dec 24, 2014, 9:15:39 AM12/24/14
to
<fg2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ae70b86-4b7c-42a3...@googlegroups.com...
Ah, I suspected this would be the case -- we've got a real problem in our
culture these days with political correctness advocates getting incensed for
other people at what they see as cultural or social insensitivity. It makes
for a condition where folks are afraid to say anything or do anything
because they're scared they'll offend someone. As a friend of mine said in
high school, the world would be a much easier place to live in if folks were
more honest and less quick to take offense.
Ralph Glatt
Dec 24, 2014, 9:20:46 AM12/24/14
to
On Friday, December 19, 2014 8:22:26 PM UTC-5, Tetsubo wrote:
> I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is culturally
> insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the Jewish people.
> What does the newsgroup think? It is a Jewish term from their cultural
> mythology. Can it be used without offense? I honestly can't decide. I
> also can't honestly think of abetter term. 'Construct' just doesn't
> have them same ring to my ear.
> --
> Tetsubo
> Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
> YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
I doubt my opinion would make any difference, so I'm not saying anything, good or bad. Besides, I got rid of my asbestos underwear because I heard it causes cancer. ;-)
> I recently heard someone say that using the word 'golem' is culturally
> insensitive and cultural appropriation, offensive to the Jewish people.
> What does the newsgroup think? It is a Jewish term from their cultural
> mythology. Can it be used without offense? I honestly can't decide. I
> also can't honestly think of abetter term. 'Construct' just doesn't
> have them same ring to my ear.
> --
> Tetsubo
> Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
> YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Dec 25, 2014, 10:02:10 PM12/25/14
to
In article <1ae70b86-4b7c-42a3...@googlegroups.com>,
Cheers
JOanna
fg2...@yahoo.com () wrote:
> Frankly, I think it's kind of cool that part of my culture was
> interesting enough for Gygax and the boys to include them in this
> fantastic game we play.
^5
> Frankly, I think it's kind of cool that part of my culture was
> interesting enough for Gygax and the boys to include them in this
> fantastic game we play.
Cheers
JOanna
John Geoffrey
Dec 26, 2014, 1:08:04 AM12/26/14
to
On 23/12/14 19:40, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> LL<Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:m7cd21$2ts$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> >On 22.12.2014 17:24, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> >>LL<Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>>> >>news:m73vpq$4fb$1...@dont-email.me:
>>> >>
>>>> >>>Pop culture beats culture.
>>> >>
>>> >>Pop culture beats worn out, archaic cultures that nobody cares
>>> >>about, sure. (Because if it weren't worn out and archaic, it
>>> >>would*be* pop culture. Duh.)
> LL<Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:m7cd21$2ts$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> >On 22.12.2014 17:24, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> >>LL<Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>>> >>news:m73vpq$4fb$1...@dont-email.me:
>>> >>
>>>> >>>Pop culture beats culture.
>>> >>
>>> >>Pop culture beats worn out, archaic cultures that nobody cares
>>> >>about, sure. (Because if it weren't worn out and archaic, it
>> >
>> >Pop culture is only a subset of modern or contemporary culture.
> No, not really, It's what's popular. Which generally*is*
> contemporary, but then, again, contemporary is another term that is
> descriptive, not prescriptive. Which is to say, if it's popular
> *now*, it's contemporary.
I always think about pop culture as the more popular current culture.
>> >Pop culture is only a subset of modern or contemporary culture.
> No, not really, It's what's popular. Which generally*is*
> contemporary, but then, again, contemporary is another term that is
> descriptive, not prescriptive. Which is to say, if it's popular
> *now*, it's contemporary.
Which is liable to disappear from view if it goes out of vogue.
Culture is the more general term for the whole of the phenomenon, which
might or might not include parts of previous pop culture. (a bit like
short term and long term memory, pop culture is the one which society is
concerned with right now, while culture as such is the stuff that makes
up the whole of society's cultural heritage; some stuff it really is
concerned with right now might fall on the wayside later on, while some
smaller things stay with culture even though their immediate impact was
very small).
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Dec 26, 2014, 1:22:03 PM12/26/14
to
John Geoffrey <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:nf1umb-...@Zothique.lodz.pl:
> On 23/12/14 19:40, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> LL<Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>> news:m7cd21$2ts$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> >On 22.12.2014 17:24, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>>> >>LL<Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>>>> >>news:m73vpq$4fb$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>Pop culture beats culture.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Pop culture beats worn out, archaic cultures that nobody
>>>> >>cares about, sure. (Because if it weren't worn out and
>>>> >>archaic, it would*be* pop culture. Duh.)
>>> >
>>> >Pop culture is only a subset of modern or contemporary
>>> >culture.
>> No, not really, It's what's popular. Which generally*is*
>> contemporary, but then, again, contemporary is another term
>> that is descriptive, not prescriptive. Which is to say, if it's
>> popular *now*, it's contemporary.
>
> I always think about pop culture as the more popular current
> culture.
That would be, perhaps, because the "pop" is short for "popular."
Duh.
news:nf1umb-...@Zothique.lodz.pl:
> On 23/12/14 19:40, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> LL<Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>> news:m7cd21$2ts$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> >On 22.12.2014 17:24, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>>> >>LL<Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>>>> >>news:m73vpq$4fb$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>Pop culture beats culture.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Pop culture beats worn out, archaic cultures that nobody
>>>> >>cares about, sure. (Because if it weren't worn out and
>>>> >>archaic, it would*be* pop culture. Duh.)
>>> >
>>> >Pop culture is only a subset of modern or contemporary
>>> >culture.
>> No, not really, It's what's popular. Which generally*is*
>> contemporary, but then, again, contemporary is another term
>> that is descriptive, not prescriptive. Which is to say, if it's
>> popular *now*, it's contemporary.
>
> I always think about pop culture as the more popular current
> culture.
Duh.
0 new messages