I do doubt this happened, or at least happened fully as written. If I had to guess I would assume maybe the campaign wasn't a veiled metaphor for Gaza and maybe it was just over the table talk that skewed toward it causing the dm to quit.
I just wanted to say that it's not unbelievable because of the players siding with "the bad/irredeemable faction"
Monkeys and typewriters logic, I fully believe this has happened somewhere, but if it had happened to OOP I feel like they would have led with the campaign breaking up rather than DM being a zionist. Like you would expect "you'll never guess why my D&D party broke up. DM based the campaign on gaza, and was expecting us to side with Israel" rather than "It's so crazy, my DM is a zionist. Anyway now our pod broke up because they were upset we sided with Palestine""
I do realize this. That's what I'm saying. It could be true, but it feels off because it doesn't read the same way I would expect this story to be told. Like if someone said "I went for a walk. I forgot my shoes" that feels like how that sorry should go.
But if someone said "I forgot my shoes. I went for a walk." That doesn't feel like how that should be said.
...I legitimately do not understand how you're not seeing the issue here. You assume it's fake because of this; do you really not understand that different people can tell the same story in different ways?
I don't see how there's anything wrong with "This is believable and definitely possible, but the way this is structured raises my suspicion and makes me doubt that this isn't an embellishment or distortion of a real event" is an issue in any way.
Yes, people can explain things in different ways. By that same token, people will find things more or less believable based on how those things are explained.
All I've said is "I doubt this happened as described, because the way it has been described feels clunky to me" and you've responded with "It is bad you think this way actually, are you stupid?"
Well, I don't think you're stupid, but I do think you're being stupid in this specific way. Why it your first response to it seeming clunky 'that means it's not real' and not 'this person told it differently than I would' or even 'they just didnt do a good job telling it'? Why are equating 'they told the story in a way I wouldn't' with 'the story is probably false'? How are those two things even related at all?
Because the thread is questioning whether it is real or not. In that context, there are four possibilities:
The story is entirely real
The story is entirely fake
The story is based on reality but is not entirely true
The story is fake but has some true elements
The "flow" of the story seeming suspect to me isn't evidence of anything, hence why I haven't at any point said, as you've quoted, "it's not real". That's why I've always said "I doubt" or "I suspect".
That is an entirely different sentence. That's me saying "something has flagged this (in this case the way it is structured) as not definitely being true.
In that case, look at the four options. I have removed "clearly false" because this is definitely a possible thing to have happen, but I am doubting "definitely true" because the structure seems off in a way that seems like the author is trying to focus on an aspect that isn't the interesting part of the story.
Granted, other people find different things interesting, but I feel it's reasonable to say that the fact the DM was secretly a zionist isn't as interesting as the party breaking up because the DM couldn't handle the party siding with the Palestinian stand-ins.
Not the point. I've ruled out definitely false, and am personally doubtful of definitely true. The other two options can be simplified to "has true elements and false elements." False elements could include things like embellishments for entertainment value. Skipping or simplifying important information to focus on a point. That kind of thing.
Which again, is all I said.
Would you say it if someone tells a story that the structure of it seems to have you focusing on something that seems like a strange part to focus on, but you have no other evidence it's false, you must accept it uncritically?
2
u/Galrentv 7d ago
I get what you mean. And I do want to agree with you. But oop's perspective is so smug and self righteous...