Fundamental disagreement. If there's no evidence, that means it isn't happening. You're in Canada, what do you think the good Professor Jordan Peterson would say about stating that we should always believe accusations without evidence, hell putting proof in quotation marks as if its some vague concept.
I have two sisters, I'm not that heartless, but if they ever told me they were experiencing problems my first advice would be to file a report with authorities as opposed to Twitter.
Tons and tons of harassment happens in subtle ways, many of which aren't provable. In this case, it's been someone harassing via tweet and then deleting it. Sometimes, it's harassing words spoken in private, that nobody but the victim to verify. Denying that harassment can happen in a way that can't just be straightforwardly reported to the authorities is denying reality, and in an incredibly harmful way.
I think you are really overestimating this influence. Also, the later statement about throwing the rock? The rock causes pain and injury. Words don't. I'm very Ayn Rand on these matters - force or threat of force, that's it.
This is great if you pretend that mental and emotional pain don't exist. Mental and emotional abuse are recognized as abuse in relationships, abuse isn't restricted solely to physical. Why should the standard be different for harassment?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
A common problem that I've seen with people who tend to dismiss this sort of harassment is they look at each event individually. "Oh, some guy made a lewd comment? Whatever, that's not a big deal." Since that one thing isn't a big deal, the hypothetical person here just ignores it and forgets it. Then the next one happens, and they do/say the same thing. They are ignoring the fact that for the person on the receiving end, this is the sum of years of comments, and that adds up.
Also, as a community, can we do away with the term SJW? If you see something *****ty, stand up and say something. It's not being a SJW, it's just being a decent human being. This isn't in response to anything specific, just felt like I wanted to say it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWR Breach, UWB Esper control
Legacy: UW RiP/Helm, UR Sneak and Show
Just to quote a few things (among dozens), Jeremy:
- Has labeled falsely people as pedophile.
- Has incited people to asks vile questions during Q&A panels.
At what point do these stop being grey areas?
Yes, I do think this is about what kind of society we want to live in. I want to live in a society where people like Jeremy are considered vile and harassers. I don't want to live in a society where people think he's just mild and his targets are simply thin-skinned. It's as simple as that. And yes, I do think people who want more evidences at his point are just apologists.
If you think the debate is still at the "is he, or is he not" point, there is not much else to talk about.
I watched the video by Sprankle months ago where she discussed how she was not paid to cosplay at major events. Her costumes, travel, lodging was all paid out of pocket, and that she was losing the ability to afford to do this. That is no one's fault but her own. Personally, I hate what Patreon has done, turning people into virtual panhandlers wanting their hobbies funded by strangers. And yes, that extends to Jeremy, who I do not support on Patreon. She began to cry, and all I could think was "this is not my problem." Jeremy took a very similar stance, while also making the claim that she was only getting support by way of being one of the few instances of a woman involved with MtG who may be considered cute by the general public.
This is fair and valid criticism. The issue arises with how he went about criticising Christine, and how he has asked people to attack others on hus behalf. It's fine to criticise people. It's fine to disagree with them. But if someone incites a mob to verbally attack people, they should face the backlash without blaming the victim or falling back on the tired excuse of 'It was clearly a joke!'. As the Prof said, he has a platform and an ability to influence thousands of people. He needs to be responsible with what he says.
I think you are really overestimating this influence. Also, the later statement about throwing the rock? The rock causes pain and injury. Words don't. I'm very Ayn Rand on these matters - force or threat of force, that's it.
Yes words can hurt, and inciting a mob is a threat of force.
At the same time, imagine you're walking along a beach and toss a rock over the next rise. Your intention was to throw the rock. Nothing more. You hit someone with the rock. Should you apologise? Your intention wasn't to hit them with the rock, but you did. Are they less hurt because you didn't intend to hit them?
Many people (myself included sometimes) fail to realise that your intentions have little bearing on the reaction you received. If you hurt someone, it's not their fault they were hurt.
In, for example, stand-up comedy, there are plenty of "offensive" things being said and taking offense is generally derided to be a sign of being too thin-skinned. Many comics mock either groups of people or even specific people (usually celebrities or members of the audience), but any kind of backlash about their being offensive tends to be pretty rare, and usually isn't taken very seriously.
I'm curious where people think the difference is (or if there is one)? Is it because comedy doesn't tend to incite other people to violence and threats of violence like online harassment does? Or is it that victims are unable to escape being harassed online compared to being mocked by a comic? Or maybe another reason I haven't considered?
I'm not trying to make any statement about the actual events over the weekend, I'm just curious why people think these two things are treated so differently.
In my opinion, it's all about context. When you go to a stand up show, or watch anything by an established comic, you understand that it's an act. That their material doesn't reflect their personality.
With people like Jeremy, however, he isn't established as a satirist, or someone who is trying to point out flaws in a constructive way. He's seen as a bully. Especially when he doesn't back down and say 'Yeah, you're right, I crossed the line.'
His 'material' also tends to appeal to people who are not joking when they make these comments. People who do have issues with women, minorities, whoever, and either can't see he's joking, or refuse to acknowledge that it's not real.
Why is harassment only a women's problem? Furthermore, if that is your stance it seems like you are supporting the counter-harassment that situations like this always seem to generate when put into the "court of public opinion."
It's not only a women's problem, but it happens disproportionately to women and people of colour to such a disgustingly disproportionate degree (and with a disproportionate level of vitriol) that having most of the public discourse on the subject be about minority groups is nothing more than a reflection of the frequency which these incidents occur as opposed to straight white cis men.
You're in Canada, what do you think the good Professor Jordan Peterson would say about stating that we should always believe accusations without evidence, hell putting proof in quotation marks as if its some vague concept.
I'm going to be very blunt here: What the **** should I care about what someone who stridently opposed the bill (C-16, for the record) that would grant me equal rights at the federal level thinks? The man is an example of scaremongering from someone who opposes equal treatment for minority groups, nothing more.
I have two sisters, I'm not that heartless, but if they ever told me they were experiencing problems my first advice would be to file a report with authorities as opposed to Twitter.
Reports which, I can tell you as a woman, are more likely than not simply to be dismissed. Sexism is an institutional problem as well as a social one. This is why it's so important for communities to police themselves and ensure that outspoken bigots, harassers, and other filth are ostracized rather than embraced.
I do think people who want more evidences at his point are just apologists.
If you think the debate is still at the "is he, or is he not" point, there is not much else to talk about.
Look, you have to realize that not everyone even knew who this dude was prior to a few days ago. It's not really fair to expect everyone to immediately rush to judgment based on some hearsay on mtgs. The prof did a good job of actually showing evidence of harassment in his video, but a lot of other people seem to assume that everyone was following this guy before this incident, which many people were not.
Reports which, I can tell you as a woman, are more likely than not simply to be dismissed. Sexism is an institutional problem as well as a social one. This is why it's so important for communities to police themselves and ensure that outspoken bigots, harassers, and other filth are ostracized rather than embraced.
I have a HUGE problem with this statement. No, this is exactly why communities SHOULDN’T police themselves. There is a court of law, and a court of public opinion, and the two should NEVER intersect, ever. If you feel as though your rights have been violated, then you report it to the appropriate authorities, not your buddies on FB or Twitter. This is an incredibly reckless statement, and couldn’t be further from the truth.
I plan on giving my .02 on the topic at hand, but I’m sorry, this statement needed to be called out as this is mindset is all to common in today’s social environment, and it leads to these “mobs” that everybody keeps talking about.
I see this guy has received death threats, if somebody were to ever follow through on said threat, if the initial harassment had never been reported, then the blood is as much on the hands of the accuser as it is the one who committed the act. There is no grey area there, it is black and white, and then what? Yeah, you should rethink this one a bit, otherwise you are supporting vigilante justice.
Sargon of Akkad pointed out the obvious - Sprankle is simply claiming harassment when Jeremy's two most egregious "offenses" were stating that she isn't all that hot and that young naive men shouldn't give their money to her because it won't get them laid.
Oh, and yeah the claim that women in Canada didn't get equal rights until a law forced people to refer to greenhairs as xur is absolutely ridiculous. Plus I'd recommend everyone watch Dr. Peterson on the Joe Rogan podcast, dude's a ******* genius.
Public Mod Note
(Wildfire393):
Warning for trolling - defending the harasser
At the same time, imagine you're walking along a beach and toss a rock over the next rise. Your intention was to throw the rock. Nothing more. You hit someone with the rock. Should you apologise? Your intention wasn't to hit them with the rock, but you did. Are they less hurt because you didn't intend to hit them?
Many people (myself included sometimes) fail to realise that your intentions have little bearing on the reaction you received. If you hurt someone, it's not their fault they were hurt.
In, for example, stand-up comedy, there are plenty of "offensive" things being said and taking offense is generally derided to be a sign of being too thin-skinned. Many comics mock either groups of people or even specific people (usually celebrities or members of the audience), but any kind of backlash about their being offensive tends to be pretty rare, and usually isn't taken very seriously.
I'm curious where people think the difference is (or if there is one)? Is it because comedy doesn't tend to incite other people to violence and threats of violence like online harassment does? Or is it that victims are unable to escape being harassed online compared to being mocked by a comic? Or maybe another reason I haven't considered?
I'm not trying to make any statement about the actual events over the weekend, I'm just curious why people think these two things are treated so differently.
In my opinion, it's all about context. When you go to a stand up show, or watch anything by an established comic, you understand that it's an act. That their material doesn't reflect their personality.
With people like Jeremy, however, he isn't established as a satirist, or someone who is trying to point out flaws in a constructive way. He's seen as a bully. Especially when he doesn't back down and say 'Yeah, you're right, I crossed the line.'
His 'material' also tends to appeal to people who are not joking when they make these comments. People who do have issues with women, minorities, whoever, and either can't see he's joking, or refuse to acknowledge that it's not real.
My 2 cents anyway.
The other thing to note is some comedians like Lenny Bruce or George Carlin, their intention is to actually offend. The point being to create a response they hope will challenge the persons way of thinking. An insult comic like Don Rickles is a challenge to yourself image, to not take yourself so seriously.
Jeremy does none of that. He says you shouldn't be offended, not I didn't mean to offend. There's a difference. He wants to say what he wants but not bear any of the responsibility for it. There's no deeper meaning to his comments than that. When he talks about men are giving money to Sprankle because they want to have sex with her, and they're idiots because they never will. He's saying this not because he honestly thinks she's using her subscribers, but because he's jealous. Wizards hired her to be the face of Avacyn for SOI they hired her to be the face of Chandra at PAX. They wanted her to represent the brand at HAScon. Wizards of the Coast sees value in what she does. They don't see value in what Jeremy does hence them dropping him form any sponsorship.
He's trying to de-legitimize what she brings to Magic. That's not a joke, nor should an attempt to affect her ability to make a career out of this be something she needs to grow a thicker skin about.
"Listen and believe" is exactly as vile as "Boys will be boys".
If you need to dehumanize "the other" to feel safe you have been radicalized and in turn dehumanized by a system that doesn't care about anything but your partisanship. You have become the mob and by proxy, the abuser.
Identitarianism divides us in a myriad of ways and makes it harder for people to truly respect and support each other.
We live in the politician's dream world where everyone is antifa or a nazi, and sometimes even both at the same time just because some insidious despot twitted the right inciter to the right group of people desperate for their latest chance to prove their "virtue" to the party even if they don't even realize theyr allegiance is not to an ideology or justice itself but to an oligarch's bottom line. This is exactly the enviroment that lets people like Jeremy thrive and even if you think you don't support this sytem by othering people from your seat at the opposite extreme of the "bad guys", you are.
Women have only just gotten equal rights in Canada!?
That's going a bit far surely?
I'm just going to put some context out there for those who aren't up on Canadian politics: Bill C-16 adds gender identity and expression to the list of protected classes (along with existing categories such as sex, nationality, religion, etc) as far as hate crimes and the like go. Essentially, it helps grant trans people equal rights as far as legal protections.
Jordan Peterson's scaremongering was absolutely no different than if it was religion being added as a protected class and worrying that everyone would be forced to kowtow to every fringe cult in existence, rather than just being a prohibition against, say, antisemitism, anti-Catholicism, etc.
Sargon of Akkad pointed out the obvious - Sprankle is simply claiming harassment when Jeremy's two most egregious "offenses" were stating that she isn't all that hot and that young naive men shouldn't give their money to her because it won't get them laid.
Oh, and yeah the claim that women in Canada didn't get equal rights until a law forced people to refer to greenhairs as xur is absolutely ridiculous. Plus I'd recommend everyone watch Dr. Peterson on the Joe Rogan podcast, dude's a ******* genius.
So transphobia is totally okay with you? Trans people don't deserve equal rights?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
So once again, I'm asking for the proof of this longstanding, concerted campaign of harassment specifically against Christine.
Public Mod Note
(Wildfire393):
Warning for trolling - The Professor's videos have been linked and other sources provided. At this point, it's on you to actually follow the research provided. Continued stubbornness does not equal a counterargument.
While I will agree what the person in question did was deplorable and that the harassment is, of course, entirely uncalled for I am very disappointed in this site's echo chamber approach to things. No, no one should be defending harassment or anything of the sort. However, cracking the whip at anyone that dares use SJW as a negative (oh no!) or saying that people maybe should toughen up a bit is going a bit too far. I mean, are we NeoGAF now? No one should have to put up with harassment, but people in general (and not just women) get trash talked or teased online (and in real life) all the time and until it gets to the point that actual physical danger is a risk...well, sticks and stones right? It's like people complaining about being offended, if something offends you...so? So like I said, harassment is messed up, but someone is not suddenly the devil for saying to grow some thicker skin if someone makes a mean comment (and I think rating someone a 6/10 definitely falls under the latter than actual harassment [and I am speaking specifically and only on that point when I say this.]).
As for the SJW thing, is there really something wrong with using it in a not so white light? SJWs are the same types that whined about Triumph of Ferocity but praised Triumph of Cruelty or the types that harassed me and gave me crap because I pointed out that making the new Spike, the face of competitive Magic players, card a female when the majority of competitive Magic players are male is well, just plain unnecessary pandering.
Public Mod Note
(Wildfire393):
Warning for ignoring a mod request - SJW posts are off limits not because we're protecting SJWs, but because it's completely irrelevant and people are literally just using it as a pejorative term to flame.
Jeremy should be made an example of what is not tolerated. Jeremy shouldn't be targeted. Jeremy should have a voice. Jeremy shouldn't have a voice. Both and neither.
I'm indifferent at best to Jeremy receiving counter-harassment. You can't dish out harassment towards others and then proceed to cry murder when it happens to you. Frankly, I am actually glad that he's getting some kind of push back. He's gone far too long without tasting his own medicine because this community, and WOTC themselves, routinely does more than nothing to him. He's gone after The Professor, he's gone after Wedge, he's gone after Sprankle and many others for a long time. Big figures in our community who have done nothing but spread enjoyment of the game and try to enrich the Magic experience. And we're just going to allow someone to harass them on this level, harassment that has been stated to have caused emotional and psychological trauma? Disgusting.
Ignoring him doesn't work. Wedge and The Professor and Sprankle have tries that for a long time now. Ignoring a problem does not make it go away.
It's about as simple as the basic old axiom we teach to children: Treat others how you want to be treated. Though he may act like a man child, he is a fully formed adult. It would be different if he were apologetic or had a hint of feeling that he's done some amount of wrong or gone too far. He is fully aware of his own actions. If you want to harass others I hope that you get that back ten fold. We don't want you here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pop in, find a dragon, roast a dragon."
-Chandra Nalaar
Jeremy benefits from being made an example of what is not tolerated. Because the post SJW/Alt-Right/NeoGaf/Stormfront/Tumblr/Twitter/Reddit/whatever internet has forgotten 4chan's one and only possitive contribution to web culture: DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
If WotC/Hasbro takes any further action against him he'll just go cry at Sargon's show about the evil SJW corporation targetting him, and all the people who feel victimized by radicalized political correctness policing/progressivism (justly or not) will jump at the chance to support him. The only true way to diminish his influence is by using youtube and twitter's built in silencing mechanism for undesired interactions. It is not the public execution his dissenters (and admittedly a lot of morbid bystanders with no chips in the table) wish for, and it is an unjust ammount of responsability forced on the people who he has targetted for harassment, but it is the only outcome he can't twist to his advantage and shamefully the right to be a public figure comes with the responsability of being a public figure.
I'm indifferent at best to Jeremy receiving counter-harassment. You can't dish out harassment towards others and then proceed to cry murder when it happens to you. Frankly, I am actually glad that he's getting some kind of push back. He's gone far too long without tasting his own medicine because this community, and WOTC themselves, routinely does more than nothing to him. He's gone after The Professor, he's gone after Wedge, he's gone after Sprankle and many others for a long time. Big figures in our community who have done nothing but spread enjoyment of the game and try to enrich the Magic experience. And we're just going to allow someone to harass them on this level, harassment that has been stated to have caused emotional and psychological trauma? Disgusting.
Ignoring him doesn't work. Wedge and The Professor and Sprankle have tries that for a long time now. Ignoring a problem does not make it go away.
It's about as simple as the basic old axiom we teach to children: Treat others how you want to be treated. Though he may act like a man child, he is a fully formed adult. It would be different if he were apologetic or had a hint of feeling that he's done some amount of wrong or gone too far. He is fully aware of his own actions. If you want to harass others I hope that you get that back ten fold. We don't want you here.
Here's the thing though, that just makes everyone raging hypocrites and shows them acting like petty children. "It's ok if we harass him because he harassed her!" I mean, really? Makes everyone just as bad as he is.
I clearly can't see the SJW aspect of this particular drama. SJW may be harassing Jeremy now, but this would be a separate issue. The issue is Jeremy's behavior and it is clearly something not acceptable. We don't need to bring SJW x whatever to this dialogue. To the very least Jeremy is bringing toxicity to the community and this is what we should be focusing on. This isn't the first time and probably won't be the last time. The real discussion shouldn't be obfuscated by this partisanship war which is also a separate issue used as umbrella.
I used to watch and enjoy his content when it was just about enjoying sealed products. He wasn't a good speaker or knowledgeable to begin with, but he seemed earnest and passionate about the product. However, things started to get weird when he started to promote his app or whatever it was and it didn't go his way and he started showing his true color partially. I already unsubbed before his toxic mode started, so I saved myself of watching his blabbing. From that time till now he did not bring any good positive to that part of Youtube community which isn't big to begin with, just negative feelings. Even when I avoided it, it indirectly or directly affect other good youtubers.
This drama just may be culmination of this individual's destructive behavior. I don't know if he is trying and failing to be funny, critical, or whatever, but high profile youtubers in other fandoms who did smaller (but dumb) stuff like that got more burn than his past missteps. Dunno why he gets so much leeway from MTG community. They are losing good people and keeping the dubious stuff.
MTG youtube community isn't big. It's very niche compared to other fandoms. Dunno about what forum goers, reddit, WotC, or whatever should do about this situation, but at least that community should speak up against this kinda behavior. It brings nothing to the table and *****s on it.
As for "being just as bad" as MTGHQ for responding in kind? As someone on Twitter said, that's like saying if someone breaks into your home that you're as bad as them for defending yourself. False equivalency, through and through - a typical tactic and fence-sitter position that has been the leading reason that MTGHQ got as much of a following as he did. Fencesitters who think simply ignoring problems will make them go away are in part responsible for the community getting to the point it has.
Also, anyone using "SJW" or the like in their comment or argument regarding this topic cannot be taken seriously.
As for "being just as bad" as MTGHQ for responding in kind? As someone on Twitter said, that's like saying if someone breaks into your home that you're as bad as them for defending yourself. False equivalency, through and through - a typical tactic and fence-sitter position that has been the leading reason that MTGHQ got as much of a following as he did. Fencesitters who think simply ignoring problems will make them go away are in part responsible for the community getting to the point it has.
Also, anyone using "SJW" or the like in their comment or argument regarding this topic cannot be taken seriously.
"You're either alt-left or you're a nazi" is exactly the reason why a lot of people who find Jeremy disgusting refuse to shun him if it means taking your side.
You othered everyone not wearing blue hats and then wondered why people are wary of blue hats.
The way to put an end to Jeremy's bull***** isn't throwing a crusade against him or ignoring him and taking the abuse. It's silencing him through youtube/twitter's administrative tools and involving judiciary, with proof in hand, if he persists.
"You're either alt-left or you're a nazi" is exactly the reason why a lot of people who find Jeremy disgusting refuse to shun him if it means taking your side.
Problem is pretty much nobody actually says that, or anything to that effect. It's just what some people choose to hear instead of the more nuanced discourse that goes on. And this isn't just about Jeremy, but everyone who harasses people in the community, as well as those who enable the harassment. Sure, shutting down Jeremy's social media accounts (and hopefully having the DCI suspend him from organized play) would be good, but he isn't the only problematic element within the community. And the community will only change for the better if the people within the community enforce that change themselves.
As for "being just as bad" as MTGHQ for responding in kind? As someone on Twitter said, that's like saying if someone breaks into your home that you're as bad as them for defending yourself. False equivalency, through and through - a typical tactic and fence-sitter position that has been the leading reason that MTGHQ got as much of a following as he did. Fencesitters who think simply ignoring problems will make them go away are in part responsible for the community getting to the point it has.
Also, anyone using "SJW" or the like in their comment or argument regarding this topic cannot be taken seriously.
No, it's more like if he broke into your house and then you break into theirs in response. Both are wrong.
And anyone discarding someone's opinion because they dare to use the dreaded "SJW" is someone not worth taking seriously.
So once again, I'm asking for the proof of this longstanding, concerted campaign of harassment specifically against Christine.
Followed by the following Mod Note:
Public Mod Note (Wildfire393): Warning for trolling - The Professor's videos have been linked and other sources provided. At this point, it's on you to actually follow the research provided. Continued stubbornness does not equal a counterargument.
One of the ground rules in the first post in the thread was:
"While many of the videos and tweets leading up to this were deleted, this is not the place to debate whether or not this actually happened."
First of all, I agree with the sentiment that harassment is not okay and there isn't really a "harassment is okay" side of hearing things out. I whole-heartedly agree with that. Harassment, bullying, cyber-bullying are things that we as a community should not condone.
With that being said, I'm very much out-of-the-loop when it comes to this topic. I wish to be more informed so I can have my own opinion on this issue, much like many other people within the community who are just as concerned as I am.
However, I must say that the moderation of this thread is kind of pushing people towards a specific conclusion. Anything that threatens to challenge said conclusion are met with red texts of warnings and infractions. I feel that the moderation in this thread is kind of hindering people from trying to become more informed, so we could form their own opinion on the matter. Particularly in the example above.
I'm very much against harassment and bullying, but I'm also against jumping to a conclusion when the facts are not laid bare in front of me. And when someone is warned for "trolling" for asking for those facts, that just doesn't sit right with me.
I'm not "defending the harasser" and I'm not "debating whether or not this actually happened". I just want to know exactly what happened. When, where, and in what way was Christine Sprankle being harassed?
I've done as much research as I could, but as mentioned in the ground rules, many of the alleged harassment examples were deleted. The "sources provided" are simply people's reactions to this alleged harassment, not examples of the harassment itself. Maybe I'm just bad at the internet or I arrived too late to the party, but I can't find this "mountain of easily available evidence of harassment". Moreover, I don't see what's wrong with asking for examples. I don't understand why the above poster was modded. Why don't we just post the examples in the OP or anywhere in this thread?
I don't think it's fair that the person asking for proof of harassment was "warned for trolling" when he was simply searching for the truth, just as I am. As someone out of the loop, it just feels fishy when we're not allowed to question whether or not harassment took place, we are only allowed to discuss this topic under the premise that the harassment DID take place, but we're also not allowed to request examples of the alleged harassment. Does this not seem fishy to you? It's as if to say "take our side in this argument or get an infraction".
I hope I don't get modded for this but, can anyone provide specific context of this alleged harassment, to help me and people like me form our own opinion on the matter?
Tons and tons of harassment happens in subtle ways, many of which aren't provable. In this case, it's been someone harassing via tweet and then deleting it. Sometimes, it's harassing words spoken in private, that nobody but the victim to verify. Denying that harassment can happen in a way that can't just be straightforwardly reported to the authorities is denying reality, and in an incredibly harmful way.
This is great if you pretend that mental and emotional pain don't exist. Mental and emotional abuse are recognized as abuse in relationships, abuse isn't restricted solely to physical. Why should the standard be different for harassment?
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Also, as a community, can we do away with the term SJW? If you see something *****ty, stand up and say something. It's not being a SJW, it's just being a decent human being. This isn't in response to anything specific, just felt like I wanted to say it.
Legacy: UW RiP/Helm, UR Sneak and Show
- Has labeled falsely people as pedophile.
- Has incited people to asks vile questions during Q&A panels.
At what point do these stop being grey areas?
Yes, I do think this is about what kind of society we want to live in. I want to live in a society where people like Jeremy are considered vile and harassers. I don't want to live in a society where people think he's just mild and his targets are simply thin-skinned. It's as simple as that. And yes, I do think people who want more evidences at his point are just apologists.
If you think the debate is still at the "is he, or is he not" point, there is not much else to talk about.
Yes words can hurt, and inciting a mob is a threat of force.
In my opinion, it's all about context. When you go to a stand up show, or watch anything by an established comic, you understand that it's an act. That their material doesn't reflect their personality.
With people like Jeremy, however, he isn't established as a satirist, or someone who is trying to point out flaws in a constructive way. He's seen as a bully. Especially when he doesn't back down and say 'Yeah, you're right, I crossed the line.'
His 'material' also tends to appeal to people who are not joking when they make these comments. People who do have issues with women, minorities, whoever, and either can't see he's joking, or refuse to acknowledge that it's not real.
My 2 cents anyway.
It's not only a women's problem, but it happens disproportionately to women and people of colour to such a disgustingly disproportionate degree (and with a disproportionate level of vitriol) that having most of the public discourse on the subject be about minority groups is nothing more than a reflection of the frequency which these incidents occur as opposed to straight white cis men.
I'm going to be very blunt here: What the **** should I care about what someone who stridently opposed the bill (C-16, for the record) that would grant me equal rights at the federal level thinks? The man is an example of scaremongering from someone who opposes equal treatment for minority groups, nothing more.
Reports which, I can tell you as a woman, are more likely than not simply to be dismissed. Sexism is an institutional problem as well as a social one. This is why it's so important for communities to police themselves and ensure that outspoken bigots, harassers, and other filth are ostracized rather than embraced.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I have a HUGE problem with this statement. No, this is exactly why communities SHOULDN’T police themselves. There is a court of law, and a court of public opinion, and the two should NEVER intersect, ever. If you feel as though your rights have been violated, then you report it to the appropriate authorities, not your buddies on FB or Twitter. This is an incredibly reckless statement, and couldn’t be further from the truth.
I plan on giving my .02 on the topic at hand, but I’m sorry, this statement needed to be called out as this is mindset is all to common in today’s social environment, and it leads to these “mobs” that everybody keeps talking about.
I see this guy has received death threats, if somebody were to ever follow through on said threat, if the initial harassment had never been reported, then the blood is as much on the hands of the accuser as it is the one who committed the act. There is no grey area there, it is black and white, and then what? Yeah, you should rethink this one a bit, otherwise you are supporting vigilante justice.
Oh, and yeah the claim that women in Canada didn't get equal rights until a law forced people to refer to greenhairs as xur is absolutely ridiculous. Plus I'd recommend everyone watch Dr. Peterson on the Joe Rogan podcast, dude's a ******* genius.
The other thing to note is some comedians like Lenny Bruce or George Carlin, their intention is to actually offend. The point being to create a response they hope will challenge the persons way of thinking. An insult comic like Don Rickles is a challenge to yourself image, to not take yourself so seriously.
Jeremy does none of that. He says you shouldn't be offended, not I didn't mean to offend. There's a difference. He wants to say what he wants but not bear any of the responsibility for it. There's no deeper meaning to his comments than that. When he talks about men are giving money to Sprankle because they want to have sex with her, and they're idiots because they never will. He's saying this not because he honestly thinks she's using her subscribers, but because he's jealous. Wizards hired her to be the face of Avacyn for SOI they hired her to be the face of Chandra at PAX. They wanted her to represent the brand at HAScon. Wizards of the Coast sees value in what she does. They don't see value in what Jeremy does hence them dropping him form any sponsorship.
He's trying to de-legitimize what she brings to Magic. That's not a joke, nor should an attempt to affect her ability to make a career out of this be something she needs to grow a thicker skin about.
If you need to dehumanize "the other" to feel safe you have been radicalized and in turn dehumanized by a system that doesn't care about anything but your partisanship. You have become the mob and by proxy, the abuser.
Identitarianism divides us in a myriad of ways and makes it harder for people to truly respect and support each other.
We live in the politician's dream world where everyone is antifa or a nazi, and sometimes even both at the same time just because some insidious despot twitted the right inciter to the right group of people desperate for their latest chance to prove their "virtue" to the party even if they don't even realize theyr allegiance is not to an ideology or justice itself but to an oligarch's bottom line. This is exactly the enviroment that lets people like Jeremy thrive and even if you think you don't support this sytem by othering people from your seat at the opposite extreme of the "bad guys", you are.
I'm just going to put some context out there for those who aren't up on Canadian politics: Bill C-16 adds gender identity and expression to the list of protected classes (along with existing categories such as sex, nationality, religion, etc) as far as hate crimes and the like go. Essentially, it helps grant trans people equal rights as far as legal protections.
Jordan Peterson's scaremongering was absolutely no different than if it was religion being added as a protected class and worrying that everyone would be forced to kowtow to every fringe cult in existence, rather than just being a prohibition against, say, antisemitism, anti-Catholicism, etc.
So transphobia is totally okay with you? Trans people don't deserve equal rights?
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
As for the SJW thing, is there really something wrong with using it in a not so white light? SJWs are the same types that whined about Triumph of Ferocity but praised Triumph of Cruelty or the types that harassed me and gave me crap because I pointed out that making the new Spike, the face of competitive Magic players, card a female when the majority of competitive Magic players are male is well, just plain unnecessary pandering.
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
Ignoring him doesn't work. Wedge and The Professor and Sprankle have tries that for a long time now. Ignoring a problem does not make it go away.
It's about as simple as the basic old axiom we teach to children: Treat others how you want to be treated. Though he may act like a man child, he is a fully formed adult. It would be different if he were apologetic or had a hint of feeling that he's done some amount of wrong or gone too far. He is fully aware of his own actions. If you want to harass others I hope that you get that back ten fold. We don't want you here.
-Chandra Nalaar
If WotC/Hasbro takes any further action against him he'll just go cry at Sargon's show about the evil SJW corporation targetting him, and all the people who feel victimized by radicalized political correctness policing/progressivism (justly or not) will jump at the chance to support him. The only true way to diminish his influence is by using youtube and twitter's built in silencing mechanism for undesired interactions. It is not the public execution his dissenters (and admittedly a lot of morbid bystanders with no chips in the table) wish for, and it is an unjust ammount of responsability forced on the people who he has targetted for harassment, but it is the only outcome he can't twist to his advantage and shamefully the right to be a public figure comes with the responsability of being a public figure.
Here's the thing though, that just makes everyone raging hypocrites and shows them acting like petty children. "It's ok if we harass him because he harassed her!" I mean, really? Makes everyone just as bad as he is.
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
I used to watch and enjoy his content when it was just about enjoying sealed products. He wasn't a good speaker or knowledgeable to begin with, but he seemed earnest and passionate about the product. However, things started to get weird when he started to promote his app or whatever it was and it didn't go his way and he started showing his true color partially. I already unsubbed before his toxic mode started, so I saved myself of watching his blabbing. From that time till now he did not bring any good positive to that part of Youtube community which isn't big to begin with, just negative feelings. Even when I avoided it, it indirectly or directly affect other good youtubers.
This drama just may be culmination of this individual's destructive behavior. I don't know if he is trying and failing to be funny, critical, or whatever, but high profile youtubers in other fandoms who did smaller (but dumb) stuff like that got more burn than his past missteps. Dunno why he gets so much leeway from MTG community. They are losing good people and keeping the dubious stuff.
MTG youtube community isn't big. It's very niche compared to other fandoms. Dunno about what forum goers, reddit, WotC, or whatever should do about this situation, but at least that community should speak up against this kinda behavior. It brings nothing to the table and *****s on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nslCeqwKuCk
As for "being just as bad" as MTGHQ for responding in kind? As someone on Twitter said, that's like saying if someone breaks into your home that you're as bad as them for defending yourself. False equivalency, through and through - a typical tactic and fence-sitter position that has been the leading reason that MTGHQ got as much of a following as he did. Fencesitters who think simply ignoring problems will make them go away are in part responsible for the community getting to the point it has.
Also, anyone using "SJW" or the like in their comment or argument regarding this topic cannot be taken seriously.
(Also known as Xenphire)
You othered everyone not wearing blue hats and then wondered why people are wary of blue hats.
The way to put an end to Jeremy's bull***** isn't throwing a crusade against him or ignoring him and taking the abuse. It's silencing him through youtube/twitter's administrative tools and involving judiciary, with proof in hand, if he persists.
Problem is pretty much nobody actually says that, or anything to that effect. It's just what some people choose to hear instead of the more nuanced discourse that goes on. And this isn't just about Jeremy, but everyone who harasses people in the community, as well as those who enable the harassment. Sure, shutting down Jeremy's social media accounts (and hopefully having the DCI suspend him from organized play) would be good, but he isn't the only problematic element within the community. And the community will only change for the better if the people within the community enforce that change themselves.
No, it's more like if he broke into your house and then you break into theirs in response. Both are wrong.
And anyone discarding someone's opinion because they dare to use the dreaded "SJW" is someone not worth taking seriously.
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
Followed by the following Mod Note:
One of the ground rules in the first post in the thread was:
First of all, I agree with the sentiment that harassment is not okay and there isn't really a "harassment is okay" side of hearing things out. I whole-heartedly agree with that. Harassment, bullying, cyber-bullying are things that we as a community should not condone.
With that being said, I'm very much out-of-the-loop when it comes to this topic. I wish to be more informed so I can have my own opinion on this issue, much like many other people within the community who are just as concerned as I am.
However, I must say that the moderation of this thread is kind of pushing people towards a specific conclusion. Anything that threatens to challenge said conclusion are met with red texts of warnings and infractions. I feel that the moderation in this thread is kind of hindering people from trying to become more informed, so we could form their own opinion on the matter. Particularly in the example above.
I'm very much against harassment and bullying, but I'm also against jumping to a conclusion when the facts are not laid bare in front of me. And when someone is warned for "trolling" for asking for those facts, that just doesn't sit right with me.
I'm not "defending the harasser" and I'm not "debating whether or not this actually happened". I just want to know exactly what happened. When, where, and in what way was Christine Sprankle being harassed?
I've done as much research as I could, but as mentioned in the ground rules, many of the alleged harassment examples were deleted. The "sources provided" are simply people's reactions to this alleged harassment, not examples of the harassment itself. Maybe I'm just bad at the internet or I arrived too late to the party, but I can't find this "mountain of easily available evidence of harassment". Moreover, I don't see what's wrong with asking for examples. I don't understand why the above poster was modded. Why don't we just post the examples in the OP or anywhere in this thread?
I don't think it's fair that the person asking for proof of harassment was "warned for trolling" when he was simply searching for the truth, just as I am. As someone out of the loop, it just feels fishy when we're not allowed to question whether or not harassment took place, we are only allowed to discuss this topic under the premise that the harassment DID take place, but we're also not allowed to request examples of the alleged harassment. Does this not seem fishy to you? It's as if to say "take our side in this argument or get an infraction".
I hope I don't get modded for this but, can anyone provide specific context of this alleged harassment, to help me and people like me form our own opinion on the matter?
Thank you.