And nothing Czarcasm said required it to be a theological debate either. I don’t recall the OP requesting a listing of where/how the character was used.
He should have been called on to clarify what he meant OR simply state “stay away from theology and keep it to fictional sources* only”.
*for which the bible doesn’t qualify.
In other terms -
One shouldn’t assume that the persons intent is to derail the thread - if you want to caution against it getting derailed, fine -
Which is exactly what was done: “*No warnings issued. *”
Not really -
It’s assumed that an effort to start a debate - or simple trolling - is at play.
Warnings or not - that’s stifling to a discussion about popular chars in fiction - of which there have been plenty of fictional characterizations of both.
Personally, I’m not a fan of being restricted because other people can’t behave. I think God should be fair game in a thread like that. If a note needs to be given, it should be to warn future posters not to derail the thread. If it does derail, then deal with it.
There was nothing to keep anyone from going to a more appropriate forum – like, say, Great Debates and starting a thread there to debate this point of view. But it was not appropriate action in the thread in Cafe Society.
It’s not appropriate to throw something like that in the middle of a completely different topic, in a forum where debating is not a major pastime.
It’s on a par with someone with a question about the Windows operating system asking that question and being told “Buy a Mac!” Not appropriate to the situation, not helpful, not in the least useful to anyone, and actually more than a little hostile. That’s all wrong. Don’t do that.
And, to back this up, this is a long standing rule that’s existed since like…2004 or so. Remember when there were a few posters who insisted on bringing politics into every! single! fucking thread? (I noticed it a ton in CS). It was a more-or-less non-stop barrage of:
OP: Was Forrest Gump actually dumb, or more of the “wise fool” character?
One of those posters: I dunno, but BUSH-THE-SHRUB sure is dumb. Haw haw! 
CS was getting unreadable and, IMO, the obvious hijacking/atheist-witnessing was exactly the same sort of lame attempt at thread derailment.
OP; Who’s the most famous fictional character?
Fictional Poster: Jesus! Haw-haw! I just BLEW YOUR ENTIRE MIND, MAN! Because, like God and Jesus totally aren’t real! Do you squares now SEE the LIGHT?
It’s lame and I appreciate CS being kept free of people with social/political agendas from threadshitting or drive-by witnessing or attempts to derail a thread or however you want to characterize this misbehavior. Back before this got clamped down upon in CS, it was really unpleasant to read.
You’re right, but how to control it without appearing to grant unreasonable protection for religious views?
It’s not unreasonable to ask that users of this board treat other users in a civil manner in appropriate areas. Cafe Society is one of those areas.
If you have a problem with someone else’s views and want to take them to task for holding them, want to criticize and find fault, the proper place to take it is the Pit.
There’s appropriate places for all kinds of posts on this board, respect the rights of others as you would like to have your own rights upheld.
Most of all, don’t be a jerk.
IMO, it has nothing to do with “unreasonable protection” or religious views. It has to do with obnoxious witnessing and/or threadshitting.
For those who think the “Jezus is the most famous fictional character! HawHaw!” crap is ok, try thinking of this. What if a birther popped into that very same thread and said “Barak HUSSEIN Obama’s fake life-story about growing up in Hawaii when we all know he’s a stealth Muslim who was born in Kenya. Hawhaw!” Exactly the same thing. And it doesn’t matter which you believe (Jesus-fictional, Obama’s birth story-fictional) or if you believe both or neither: it’s all an ugly mix of threadshitting and witnessing.
And if I was there to do anything other than to submit the God-character as it is used fictionally. and fictionally only, throughout our culture, I would have started something in Great Debates. I gave as much depth to my response as most other posters gave to theirs, but if anyone had raised a question I would have quickly clarified what I meant. If there was anything being debated, it was without my intent and without my knowledge, and it was certainly not being debated on that thread before I was told to knock off whatever you thought I was attempting to do.
Fenris’ Jack Chickesque over the top fictional examples aside, I would like to think the majority of posters would have grasped what I meant the first time I explained it. It would have been nice to find out.
But whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy can’t I threadshit?
:rolleyes:
Regards,
Shodan
I didn’t say it was unreasonable protection; I said it may appear that way - that is, the rule becomes something one side can use to accuse the other about.
It’s not exactly the same - because a) the division between religious people and atheists is more polar, and b) there is already history of atheists claiming undue protection of theists on this board.
That’s what you say (and I believe you), but reading your post doesn’t make it clear which direction you’re going. That’s exactly why twickser didn’t do anything harsher than ensure that your post NOT be taken as the start of a debate. She didn’t clean up past post, she was trying to avoid future mis-direction.
but what twixter did was to state that ANY discussion that included God/Jesus was considered trolling and/or threadhitting - thereby squashing reasonable discussion in CS as well. (by mandaiting it must be taken elsewhere)
If I had made it clear in that first post exactly what I meant, would it then have been acceptable?
No, I said that it was trolling in that thread, not in that forum.
A couple of thoughts that come to mind in this can of worns:
So far, nobody has mentioned Aliens Who Appear In Human Form.
In the Pastor Weems accounts, is the boyhood George Washington who chopped down the cherry tree a “fictional character”?
Generally, the copyright page of a novel has words to the effect of “This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events and incidents are either the products of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.” So, if that disclaimer is present, it is the intent of the author to have any references to dieties (no matter how real) recognized as being portrayed “in a fictitious manner”. And therefore qualifying as eligible to be listed as fictional characters, provided the reference is understood to relate to that particular work of fiction.
I don’t see that comment as limited to that thread - i saw it as implied in all CS threads.
Ah. I misunderstood. 
I strongly disagree: the liberal/conservative is much more polar than theist/atheist and b-there’s a longer history of conservatives claiming liberal bias. And if “Jebus is fictional cuz there IS no Gawd!” is ok, despite it’s obviously inflammatory nature, then why wouldn’t “Barak Obama’s the most famous guy around but his whole history is an elaborate fiction, and all you sheeple believe the LIE!!! so he’s the most famous fictional character?”
Obviously the Obama one wouldn’t be ok. So why should the Jesus one? Either one’s throwing a bomb into a perfectly good CS discussion.
I guess maybe it’s just not on my radar then. The theist/atheist division is global. The Obama thing is pretty much an American phenomenon.
Really, that I think it would be bad for the board to be open to further accusations of favouritism toward theists is enogh of a reason. There has already been too much of that.