It's a presumption to say that women stay home for children because they are paid less. I certainly haven't made that connection.
It remains true that women are more likely to do so. This is perhaps somewhat cultural. I tend to think the reasons are much more biologically linked. There are physiological processes that accompany birth that make for strong emotional links between a baby and mother that encourage a closer connection than with a father.
Also, whether it is wrong or sexist for a culture to reinforce this is not necessarily the case either. Breastfeeding has been shown to be linked to healthy development, and so there is an element of individual and social benefit to mothers raising children, at least in early stages. It's natural to see how cultural traditions can root themselves in very basic realities like this.
Show me actual institutional impositions that prevent women from doing anything otherwise, and then there is a point. Many middle eastern countries are explicit examples of this. In countries like the US, all I hear is vague politically charged claims and simplistic statistical comparisons.
When you say women are not as ____ as men that is sexist. It is a sweeping generalization about a wide group of people including a perceived inferiority when compared to another group: blatant sexism.
Nevelo was talking about statistical prevalence and that's not a sweeping generalization. It may well be false or misleading, in which case it might be sexist, but if it's a fact it's a fact. A statement of objective truth can't really be sexist (though that doesn't stop the person saying it being so), unless you define sexism such that it cannot always be considered a moral flaw (in the same way as acknowledging violence is not a moral flaw where perpetrating it is).
Nevelo said
Being more likely to the be the one to stay home for the children, take more time off, work part time, and take certain work, are all facts.
It's not sexist to point out that these tendencies exist. But are the reasons for these tendencies sexist?
Dox seemed to be accusing Nevelo of making a sexist remark, and not saying that he was talking about aspects of society which are in fact sexist.
Show me actual institutional impositions that prevent women from doing anything otherwise, and then there is a point.
Like the thing I linked that shows if two identical CVs get sent in the one with a male name gets hired more often?
@joande: only one of the 5 myths you linked even slightly resembles anything being discussed here, try to keep up. If you want to start a topic to discuss rape prevention or whatever, that's probably fine.
I'm referring specifically to laws in place to prevent women from making a choice other than the culturally accepted one.
Anecdotal examples of this CV being rejected over another doesn't constitute much for evidence. There are enough people and businesses in this country that the very opposite could be furnished as "proof" if we wanted to go through the motions.
Evaluators are humans, and thus are imperfect. Stuff like reading one early in the stack vs late in the stack can influence decision making just on the basis of fatigue. Any differences in words, typeface, or specific companies referenced can influence things subtly. It's easy to set up depending on how obvious you want to be, just by picking the right type of work or organisation.
Furthermore, there are a lot of variables involved in hiring someone outside of their basic qualifications. For example, interviewing tends to be about sussing out personalities and work ethics that cannot be construed from a CV.
But I suppose its just easier to blame the whole country for widespread sexism, even though an honest analysis of statistics doesn't support that conclusion.
Anecdotal examples of this CV being rejected over another doesn't constitute much for evidence. There are enough people and businesses in this country that the very opposite could be furnished as "proof" if we wanted to go through the motions.
The study used a nationwide sample of 127 physics, chemistry and biology professors from research-intensive, public and private universities. The P-values in the results were less than 0.001. This isn't exactly anecdote level.
But I suppose its just easier to blame the whole country for widespread sexism, even though an honest analysis of statistics doesn't support that conclusion.
I hardly think handwaving away statistical results published in the 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America' as "anecdotal examples" constitutes honest analysis of statistics.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
So, your saying that a study demonstrated that people specifically in the research sciences of higher education, a field that tends to be populated by leftists, shows elements of sexism? Hmm, interesting.
I suppose we should further look into that industry to pin point where the 3-4% difference between men and women's salaries is arising.
It reminds me a little bit of how the historical sins of the country, that largely were perpetuated by leftists at the time, are now laid off on "America" in general. As though it was the policies and politics of abolitionists that were just as much to blame.
You can dress it up with fancy headers and think that that gives the argument more weight somehow. I'm cynical enough to not take everything under the sun that is printed as being absolute truth. I mean, after all, the same place published a study that says female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes, as though the weather itself is conspiring in this sexism.
So, your saying that a study demonstrated that people specifically in the research sciences of higher education, a field that tends to be populated by leftists, shows elements of sexism? Hmm, interesting.
The political affiliation of the people involved in the study is irrelevant. It's not like being a member of a particular political party makes you immune to ingrained cultural attitudes.
It reminds me a little bit of how the historical sins of the country, that largely were perpetuated by leftists at the time, are now laid off on "America" in general. As though it was the policies and politics of abolitionists that were just as much to blame.
You can dress it up with fancy headers and think that that gives the argument more weight somehow. I'm cynical enough to not take everything under the sun that is printed as being absolute truth. I mean, after all, the same place published a study that says female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes, as though the weather itself is conspiring in this sexism.
It's true that that sounds like a silly title. You could try reading the wage gap study and judging it on its merits. With regard to the hurricane paper, I'm not sure whether it's more polite to assume that:
a) You read the title of the paper and linked it without reading more,
b) You read the paper but didn't understand it, or
c) You read the paper but are wilfully misrepresenting it.
Just in case it's a) or b), here's the cliff notes:
- Hurricanes used to be given only female names, because of funny-at-the-time ideas that women are unpredictable by nature
- Then they switched to alternating male and female names
- For more severe storms, statistics indicated that storms with female names had a higher death toll than storms with male names
- The researchers hypothesised that this was because (thanks to ingrained cultural attitudes) people treated storms with female names as weaker/less violent
- In one experiment, participants were shown a hurricane on a weather map, told its name, and asked to assess its strength. Those participants given a male name for the hurricane estimated its strength as significantly higher than those given a female name.
- In another experiment, with a similar scenario, particpants were asked about their intentions to evacuate. They were significantly less likely to evacuate if given a female name for the hurricane.
- In another experiment, participants were asked about their intention to follow a voluntary evacuation order. They were significantly less likely to follow the order if given a female name for the hurricane.
Essentially, the study shows discrimination based on whether the storm is perceived to have female or male qualities, just from the name. In, I will point out, much the same way as the wage gap study does, so you've provided more evidence for my point.
If waving about irrelevancies like 'leftists' and 'abolitionists'* and 'hey look a silly paper' (that wasn't) is your "honest analysis of statistics", I do wonder what it would look like if you were actually shifting the goalposts and throwing out red herrings.
* At the time, as I understand it, the Republicans were the progressives and the Democrats the conservatives.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
At the time, as I understand it, the Republicans were the progressives and the Democrats the conservatives.
There's no simple answer to this. My normal inclination is to call the Republicans "progressives" because they were advocating major social change -- to wit, abolition. And the "conservatives" would be those who argued for maintaining the status quo. But of course, these definitions of "progressive" and "conservative" make the question of whether the abolitionists were progressive tautological, so they're not really helpful here. Nevelo is obviously using some different definition. Still, I have a hard time buying his assertion that slavery's defenders were "leftist" by any recognizable definition of "leftism". Even setting aside the fact that they owned slaves, slaveowners were pretty much everything leftists are supposed to hate: rich landowners with inherited wealth and privilege. And the actual proto-leftists of the time -- like Karl Marx himself, who was writing for the New York Tribune in the early 1860s and commented extensively on the Civil War -- were staunchly abolitionist.
Still, if we call the Republicans "progressive" we have got to be very careful that we don't make any inferences about their economic platform from this label, because (notwithstanding Marx being around) the economic issues of the day were simply too different for anachronistic labels to be of much use. Homestead Acts -- right or left? Not really a meaningful question.
And there's another wrinkle in this story, as well, for even if we are comfortable calling the Republicans "progressives", it doesn't follow that the Democrats were the "conservatives". In fact, the Democrats were all over the map. Literally -- there was a very strong geographic divide between the Southern Democrats (pro-slavery) and the Northern Democrats (eventually absorbed by the Republicans). Which, of course, led to two separate Democratic candidates for the Presidency in 1860 and a very weird electoral result.
There are the words progressive and conservative, and then there are the political ideologies Progressivism and Conservativism. Each are respectively very different from their plain language definitions. Just as the word liberal doesn't necessarily tell you anything about Liberalism. You seem to be using the definition. I am using the political terms.
"It reminds me a little bit of how the historical sins of the country, that largely were perpetuated by leftists at the time, are now laid off on 'America' in general. As though it was the policies and politics of abolitionists that were just as much to blame." Calhoun was a perpetrator. Marx was an abolitionist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That statement doesn't name either of those people? Marx is still a leftist, and Calhoun is still a racist (and a Democrat, so not sure what the point is there). The exception doesn't make the rule.
That statement doesn't name either of those people? Marx is still a leftist, and Calhoun is still a racist (and a Democrat, so not sure what the point is there). The exception doesn't make the rule.
Perhaps you could explain what you meant by leftists in your comment about abolitionism, because I wasn't really sure what you intended by that. Did you mean that the Democrats of the time were leftists, and if so, by what definition?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
When you say women are not as ____ as men that is sexist. It is a sweeping generalization about a wide group of people including a perceived inferiority when compared to another group: blatant sexism.
As someone who works as a in biostatistics I am always baffled and irritated, when I hear such statements. Males and females have many differences in biochemistry (not just hormones), height, weight, ECG values, life expectancy, etc. These are real and measurable differences which have to be taken into account when applying drugs and other therapies.
You claim essentially that all scientist and medics are sexist, which is not only wrong but also dangerous.
And please watch a sport event and look in how many disciplines the male world record is better then the female world record. You can even take chess since the male chess grand master outnumber their female counterparts, which is why the easier to archive chess grand master of women was introduced.
These are all quantifiable things where there is a difference between man and women and you can apply concepts like better, faster and stronger to it. So if someone says women are not as fast as men, this is a valid and correct statement (save for edge cases).
The only thing that would be sexist is to say is that women have lower worth as human beings. And if you really thing that a lower body height makes you a somehow an inferior human being, then I really can't help you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Drop your knees to the floor
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
@Grant: Things get fairly messy when viewing political positions in a sharply different era, only generation apart from the revolution. Left and Right are relative when talking about specific platforms. What is important is to note what direction they push the country. Simple answer is yes, I was largely referring to the Democrats of the antebellum era. The party was created with the express purpose of perpetuating slavery. They were the leftists of their time.
I'd like to note that this association extended into the postbellum era and well into the 20th century. The KKK used to be a well known political arm of the Democratic Party. Many Democrat would-be politicians would join to assist in their aspirations for office. These associations went as far as the presidency. Wilson was very public about his support. FDR appointed a Klan member to the Supreme Court. Several high profile Senators were Klan members, like Thurmond and Byrd, both of which held seats into the 2000s.
The party was created with the express purpose of perpetuating slavery.
This is factually inaccurate. While the Democratic Party was the pro-slavery party, that was not its purpose in formation. (Perhaps you're confusing it with the Republican Party, which was founded largely for the purpose of abolishing slavery or at least containing it?)
This is the assertion we're really questioning. In what sense does the party of John C. Calhoun have a better claim to the title "leftists of their time" than Karl Marx? It's not as if Calhoun was some wingnut DINO outlier of the day. Pretty much every ideological defense of slavery in the two decades leading up to the Civil War was based directly on his thought. And Marx was a little bit influential too, as you may have heard.
What do you think was the primary driving force of political will at that time? Why do you think that the Democrat-Republican party splintered when Adams was elected President? In no small part because Adams was a New Englander who was souring to slavery. We like to overlook these things, but the main reason for Jackson and Van Buren founding the Democrat party was to consolidate power among pro-slavery factions, with the express purpose of perpetuating it. Calhoun's defences of slavery as a high profile Democrat illustrate this.
Also, Marx isn't an American. So interjecting him in a discussion about the left and right in America is a red herring.
You still haven't actually answered the question. In what sense was the Democratic Party "leftist"?
I have to echo this. The Democratic Party of the 1800s was not necessarily connected to the term "left." As a matter of fact, many of them were more classically liberal with an emphasis on states' rights, a conservative position now. Attempting to connect the Democratic Party of today (and "leftists" in general) is an absurd proposition as it ignores things like the Southern Strategy that fundamentally changed the Democratic and Republican Parties.
There's a reason that most higher level history classes emphasize that politics of the past do not conform to our left-right spectrum of today. Trying to define a party like the Federalists by our modern political understanding is ultimately a waste of time and generally only done by those attempting to push an agenda or trying to vilify and mudsling some imaginary opponent.
I always love the wiki definitions. I'd have to go into far more detail than I'm willing to here, but to say that left and right are relative words. The country was far more right oriented at the time, fresh off a revolution against a tyranical monarchy. A viable Left Wing looks far different in that context.
You seem far more interested in attacking those you perceive as "left" than you are with actually having a debate, seeing as how you avoid defending your position whenever it's brought up.
The fact is that Democrats were left wing then just as much as they are left wing now.
Once again, this is false. Just looking at the history of the party should be enough to dispel this notion unless you're so partisan that you can't read basic history.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern URW Control WBG Abzan GRW Burn
EDH GR Rosheen Meanderer
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It remains true that women are more likely to do so. This is perhaps somewhat cultural. I tend to think the reasons are much more biologically linked. There are physiological processes that accompany birth that make for strong emotional links between a baby and mother that encourage a closer connection than with a father.
Also, whether it is wrong or sexist for a culture to reinforce this is not necessarily the case either. Breastfeeding has been shown to be linked to healthy development, and so there is an element of individual and social benefit to mothers raising children, at least in early stages. It's natural to see how cultural traditions can root themselves in very basic realities like this.
Show me actual institutional impositions that prevent women from doing anything otherwise, and then there is a point. Many middle eastern countries are explicit examples of this. In countries like the US, all I hear is vague politically charged claims and simplistic statistical comparisons.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Dox seemed to be accusing Nevelo of making a sexist remark, and not saying that he was talking about aspects of society which are in fact sexist.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
@joande: only one of the 5 myths you linked even slightly resembles anything being discussed here, try to keep up. If you want to start a topic to discuss rape prevention or whatever, that's probably fine.
Art is life itself.
Anecdotal examples of this CV being rejected over another doesn't constitute much for evidence. There are enough people and businesses in this country that the very opposite could be furnished as "proof" if we wanted to go through the motions.
Evaluators are humans, and thus are imperfect. Stuff like reading one early in the stack vs late in the stack can influence decision making just on the basis of fatigue. Any differences in words, typeface, or specific companies referenced can influence things subtly. It's easy to set up depending on how obvious you want to be, just by picking the right type of work or organisation.
Furthermore, there are a lot of variables involved in hiring someone outside of their basic qualifications. For example, interviewing tends to be about sussing out personalities and work ethics that cannot be construed from a CV.
But I suppose its just easier to blame the whole country for widespread sexism, even though an honest analysis of statistics doesn't support that conclusion.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
I hardly think handwaving away statistical results published in the 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America' as "anecdotal examples" constitutes honest analysis of statistics.
I suppose we should further look into that industry to pin point where the 3-4% difference between men and women's salaries is arising.
It reminds me a little bit of how the historical sins of the country, that largely were perpetuated by leftists at the time, are now laid off on "America" in general. As though it was the policies and politics of abolitionists that were just as much to blame.
You can dress it up with fancy headers and think that that gives the argument more weight somehow. I'm cynical enough to not take everything under the sun that is printed as being absolute truth. I mean, after all, the same place published a study that says female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes, as though the weather itself is conspiring in this sexism.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
There's a breakdown of the salary gap by occupation in at least one of the links already posted in this thread. Breathtakingly irrelevant. It's true that that sounds like a silly title. You could try reading the wage gap study and judging it on its merits. With regard to the hurricane paper, I'm not sure whether it's more polite to assume that:
a) You read the title of the paper and linked it without reading more,
b) You read the paper but didn't understand it, or
c) You read the paper but are wilfully misrepresenting it.
Just in case it's a) or b), here's the cliff notes:
- Hurricanes used to be given only female names, because of funny-at-the-time ideas that women are unpredictable by nature
- Then they switched to alternating male and female names
- For more severe storms, statistics indicated that storms with female names had a higher death toll than storms with male names
- The researchers hypothesised that this was because (thanks to ingrained cultural attitudes) people treated storms with female names as weaker/less violent
- In one experiment, participants were shown a hurricane on a weather map, told its name, and asked to assess its strength. Those participants given a male name for the hurricane estimated its strength as significantly higher than those given a female name.
- In another experiment, with a similar scenario, particpants were asked about their intentions to evacuate. They were significantly less likely to evacuate if given a female name for the hurricane.
- In another experiment, participants were asked about their intention to follow a voluntary evacuation order. They were significantly less likely to follow the order if given a female name for the hurricane.
Essentially, the study shows discrimination based on whether the storm is perceived to have female or male qualities, just from the name. In, I will point out, much the same way as the wage gap study does, so you've provided more evidence for my point.
If waving about irrelevancies like 'leftists' and 'abolitionists'* and 'hey look a silly paper' (that wasn't) is your "honest analysis of statistics", I do wonder what it would look like if you were actually shifting the goalposts and throwing out red herrings.
* At the time, as I understand it, the Republicans were the progressives and the Democrats the conservatives.
Still, if we call the Republicans "progressive" we have got to be very careful that we don't make any inferences about their economic platform from this label, because (notwithstanding Marx being around) the economic issues of the day were simply too different for anachronistic labels to be of much use. Homestead Acts -- right or left? Not really a meaningful question.
And there's another wrinkle in this story, as well, for even if we are comfortable calling the Republicans "progressives", it doesn't follow that the Democrats were the "conservatives". In fact, the Democrats were all over the map. Literally -- there was a very strong geographic divide between the Southern Democrats (pro-slavery) and the Northern Democrats (eventually absorbed by the Republicans). Which, of course, led to two separate Democratic candidates for the Presidency in 1860 and a very weird electoral result.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
When did I say that?
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
As someone who works as a in biostatistics I am always baffled and irritated, when I hear such statements. Males and females have many differences in biochemistry (not just hormones), height, weight, ECG values, life expectancy, etc. These are real and measurable differences which have to be taken into account when applying drugs and other therapies.
You claim essentially that all scientist and medics are sexist, which is not only wrong but also dangerous.
And please watch a sport event and look in how many disciplines the male world record is better then the female world record. You can even take chess since the male chess grand master outnumber their female counterparts, which is why the easier to archive chess grand master of women was introduced.
These are all quantifiable things where there is a difference between man and women and you can apply concepts like better, faster and stronger to it. So if someone says women are not as fast as men, this is a valid and correct statement (save for edge cases).
The only thing that would be sexist is to say is that women have lower worth as human beings. And if you really thing that a lower body height makes you a somehow an inferior human being, then I really can't help you.
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
I'd like to note that this association extended into the postbellum era and well into the 20th century. The KKK used to be a well known political arm of the Democratic Party. Many Democrat would-be politicians would join to assist in their aspirations for office. These associations went as far as the presidency. Wilson was very public about his support. FDR appointed a Klan member to the Supreme Court. Several high profile Senators were Klan members, like Thurmond and Byrd, both of which held seats into the 2000s.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
This is factually inaccurate. While the Democratic Party was the pro-slavery party, that was not its purpose in formation. (Perhaps you're confusing it with the Republican Party, which was founded largely for the purpose of abolishing slavery or at least containing it?)
This is the assertion we're really questioning. In what sense does the party of John C. Calhoun have a better claim to the title "leftists of their time" than Karl Marx? It's not as if Calhoun was some wingnut DINO outlier of the day. Pretty much every ideological defense of slavery in the two decades leading up to the Civil War was based directly on his thought. And Marx was a little bit influential too, as you may have heard.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Also, Marx isn't an American. So interjecting him in a discussion about the left and right in America is a red herring.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I have to echo this. The Democratic Party of the 1800s was not necessarily connected to the term "left." As a matter of fact, many of them were more classically liberal with an emphasis on states' rights, a conservative position now. Attempting to connect the Democratic Party of today (and "leftists" in general) is an absurd proposition as it ignores things like the Southern Strategy that fundamentally changed the Democratic and Republican Parties.
There's a reason that most higher level history classes emphasize that politics of the past do not conform to our left-right spectrum of today. Trying to define a party like the Federalists by our modern political understanding is ultimately a waste of time and generally only done by those attempting to push an agenda or trying to vilify and mudsling some imaginary opponent.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Here's a thought. How about Democrats and leftist a justify their own history and assocuations that are relevant to this day for once?
The fact is that Democrats were left wing then just as much as they are left wing now.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Like what? What claims?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Once again, this is false. Just looking at the history of the party should be enough to dispel this notion unless you're so partisan that you can't read basic history.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer