Hilarious.
I haven’t seen them since they closed out book 2 of Exodus (aka chapter 24). stpauler, the guy running the thread, last posted in drewtwo’s “indefinite hiatus” thread, and clearly was unhappy with the moderation here.
I’d have picked up the slack, but I’m nowhere near consistent enough to get them out on a regular schedule. I’m kinda surprised Dex didn’t pick it up, as he was a perennial contributor to said threads, even coming up with what he’d say ahead of time.
Of course, that’s assuming stpauler isn’t just on vacation or something. I’m not exactly happy he didn’t let us know. Even if he is mad at the moderation here, that’s no excuse to leave the rest of us out of the loop.
In that case you should have called her Trixster. 
I suspect you were thinking of the candy bar.
Quit with the naivete. Do you really not understand that someone who brings up God or Jesus in a list of fictional characters is doing so to rile feathers?
It was an anti-religious jab by a poster who has a history of making them. And such jabs have a history of causing thread derails.
It’s no different than being told to avoid political jabs, which also happens. If someone had a thread about “biggest buffoon characters” in Cafe Society, and someone brought up “George W. Bush,” they would be told to avoid political jabs. This is no different.
It’s because I used the term “butthurt” isn’t it? I forgot about your misguided distaste for that word. You know it just means being upset by something (usually trivial), right?
If the warning is because I said a certain poster likes to skirt the line, then fine. But it’s not usually the kind of thing that warnings are given for. Very heavy handed.
You could say I’m butthurt over the warning.
Apparently I don’t understand. I believe that nominating God as a fictional character is a perfectly valid and logical response to the OP, regardless of how somebody else may or may not react to the choice.
We let Nazis, flat earthers and all kinds of people (who most of us agree are nutcases) spout their crazy ideas without censorship, unless they cross certain lines and veer into hate speech. IMO it is antithetical to the purpose of this board to rule that certain completely logical opinions simply may not be stated.
Maybe I was thinking of Napster or Netflix, but made an unfortunate number of typos.
C’mon, Jim, you’ve been here too long not to get this. How people react to posts is indeed a valid reason that they might not be allowed in particular threads in order to avoid a derailment. Context is meaningful.
We don’t allow Nazis or flat earthers to pop into Cafe Society threads to spout their ideas. If someone were to start a thread asking for their favorite heroic and admirable characters in films, and someone nominated Hitler, that would likely be moderated. We allow pretty free discussion of controversial ideas in Great Debates, but that doesn’t mean those ideas are open for discussion in a thread on film.
Since twickster was quoted as saying “As we’ve ruled in other similar threads…” it might be useful to have a link or reference to those other threads.
My own two cents: If Czarcasm, Darth Panda, et al made their posts for the specific purpose of claiming God/Jesus is/was not real, then they were trolling and behaving inappropriately for the forum. It’s not clear to me, however, that they were doing so.
IMHO that thread could have used a clearer definition of “fictional character.” If we had had a working definition, it would have been clearer whether a suggestion like “God” or “Jesus” was legit in the spirit of the thread.
You are mistaken. It’s not always best to let people know that you won’t be around…
(Bosda was a good sport about it afterwards.)
Presumably we would if there was a thread where posting those opinions would be a logical response to the OP. For instance, “What movie gives the most sympathetic treatment to Hitler’s views?” or, “What book best lays out the the viewpoint of flat earthers?”
I dunno – would you close the threads themselves as being too offensive? If not, it would be perfectly logical to lay out some of those beliefs and discuss how the works addressed them.
Of course, this is not in the least comparable to the thread in question. And you’re tacitly recognizing that the context of a thread is significant. Posts that are appropriate for one thread would not be appropriate in another. Because we allow a certain discussion in a particular thread, doesn’t give leave to have that discussion in any and all other threads.
Maybe not in the OP subject matter, but certainly in whether a given response to an OP is logical or not.
Are you saying that it’s NOT logical or rational to believe “God” is a fictional character?
That’s a question for Great Debates, not Cafe Society.
I think you’ve received sufficient explanation of the rationale for moderation of the posts in question. I doubt that any further discussion is likely to change your mind.
You do understand, don’t you, that I’m not asking if God IS fictional, just whether it is rational and logical to hold the opinion that God is fictional?
Do you fear to answer the question? Do you not know the answer to the question? Do you think there is more than one answer to the question?
Apparently we have a fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes rationality and logic. I don’t think I can make any further contributions to this thread.
The issue of course isn’t the logic or rationality of an argument, but what forum that discussion goes in, something you’re continuing to fail to acknowledge.
No, I disagree. It’s basically trolling. Look, there’s a place and a time for discussions about whether or not Jesus was a real historical person. No one gets moderated for claiming he is fictional in those.
This was Cafe Society and the OP was Is there a fictional character more popular than Sherlock Holmes?
Counting the numbers of diffe*rent media where the character may have appeared, and the number of individual actors that may have portrayed him/her, and the span of time where the same character has been in popular culture, is there anybody even close to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s creation?
Who are at least some candidates to consider?*
Zeldar wasn’t asking for a theological debate, and those two posters knew that. It’s either trolling, threadshitting or a hijack, but it’s not in any way “perfectly valid and logical response”.
If the OP had been Is Jesus a fictional character? in GD, then sure.
But ‘God’ has been dealt with in fictional media - we’re not talking bible bookstores - we’re talking popular culture - Monty Python skits, magazines, movies, etc - so, as a charactor in popular fiction - (unless, again, someone is opining that those charactorizations are, in fact, God) - he should count for the Cafe Society question.
Could the poster that brought it up been more clear? absolutely - but as an answer to the “most popular fictional charector” - God has to be in the running based on that alone.
This has nothing to do with GOD (the belief in said entity) - but the fiction created around said entity.
If someone asks “most popular fiction book” - and the answer is “The Bible” - then yeah, thats threadshitting/trolling in CS.
I actually somewhat disagree–I think that given the specific question that was asked, “God” could be a valid answer–certainly, God and Jesus have been portrayed many times by many actors in many movies.
Nonetheless, I think the mods are correct here. If the post had said, “depending on your point of view, God might count…” then it would be legitimate subject for discussion. But instead, it made a comment about “fan fiction,” which I can’t interpret in any other way than as a dig at the Bible. The post was plainly inflammatory.
Edit: simster, by that logic, would Napoleon Bonaparte count as a popular fictional character? After all, the short egotist with the ridiculous accent and bad case of tallness-envy has nothing to do with the real entity known as Napoleon, but rather the fiction surrounding that entity.