I understand the appeal of radical action, but cautious steady progress is the way to go IMO. I liked the way more diversity was incorporated in MTG. Similar methods should be applied here. They could remove the art from gatherer or design upgraded cards to slowly push out those they deem problematic. Solution not as sexy as bannings, but better in the long run.
The thing is, almost all those cards were on the Reserved List, AND have been rendered almost obsolete by newer, better printings. Crusade, for example, has been outshined by Honor of the Pure. Stone-Throwing Devils has been outdone since 1999. Even the card Invoke Prejudice has been outmoded severaltimesover. People still talk about the cards over and over, and play them to "trigger the libs" or something similar. The Old School format still runs these cards, because they only have two years to work with. The cards aren't going anywhere on their own, and neither are their fans.
At least scryfall is more classy with the way they handled the censor of the seven. Its basically a warning disclaimer and doesn't show up in normal searches except if you add "extras" to the search. Wizards method is heavy handed.
While most cards are old and have never been reprinted, the main one that stands out is Crusade due it having multiple different artworks. As you have the Crusade artwork, the Angel version, and the Elspeth version. Yet they condemned all versions, including the Elspeth version, which means Elspeth is now associated with a wholly racist card, even on their own version. Which can mean by extension, one of wizards characters for marketing is now a racist and its not even lore reasons like Nissa Revane used to be.
But the bus does not stop here the problem with the association of the word instead of the artwork also means by extension any card that mentions "Crusade" or "Crusader" or "Crusading" in its name or flavor text is possibly on the same chopping block by just mere extension. In name that is 22 cards, including Crusade itself. Checking flavor text, five cards are now caught by extension. These cards are Ill-Gotten Gains, Lowland Tracker, Kruin Striker, Reliquary Tower, and Sungrass Egg. This isn't slippery slope trap either. As by the reasoning for Crusade's banning is the context behind the word and less about the artwork. To exclude other cards that share the same word shows a questionable bias on Wizard's behalf.
Their own announcement created a Streisand Effect with these seven cards among investors and players. Since these can't be obtained by Wizards affiliated websites like your Channel Fireball or Starcity Games or TCGPlayer, what they have done is created is a black market through eBay. And people are panick buying these. This isn't some random rambling either. When I go to sold listings for just "Crusade MTG" I see the most popular one being the Templar version, followed by the angel verison, and lastly the Elspeth verison. But its not just them, I see Cathars' Crusade, Phyrexian Crusader, White Shield Crusader, Stormfist Crusader, Mystic Crusader, Dralnu's Crusade, Tivadar's Crusade, Mirran Crusader. Oh and there is even starting to be combo packages like Bad Moon + Stone Throwing Devils + Crusade or Crusade + ProxyInvoke Prejudice. Like there is a 17.5k box of Legends who uses purposefully Invoke Prejudice and Cleanse in its listing just to potentially get a buyer.
If you think about it, its crazy. Crazy how wizards helped create a black market of players, speculators, and collectors who speculate on the banned seven for their racism but also on unrelated cards because of being potentially racist. They condemn the cards with bannings and shouting to the rooftops of this racism, but they instead caused interest and a boom in sales in unsavory products.
As the world outside is looking at us. These people who don't care about MTG or barely know of it as mere passing knowledge, are now paying attention to the collective of MTG's people and its company because of the game's racism. Not because they finally decided to have interest in the game itself. We are now being associated as part of "that game with racist cards that got banned".
as i said in the other topic, the banning will just increase the attention to these cards, which were forgotten by most people or which newer players never have known in the first place. now their price is increasing, surely not what wizards intended to accomplish with this (or ?)
- China does not allow human skulls, so all the art is changed that has them, its a lot of art that is different just for China.
- Removing religious symbols from cards was to pander to the christian fanatics.
- Removing sexy depictions of women was to please the SJW movement.
- The diversity train is currently plowing through the art of Magic.
- More characters and art had to be forced into the game to please the LGBT* crowd.
Why is it an issue to make the game more inviting to more people? Is the game not having "sexy depictions of women" (which means less overtly sexualized depictions) and more racially diverse and LGBTQ+ characters taking something away from you? If I take your complaints literally, you must want a game of nothing but white guys and women in bikinis.
Seriously though, and I am asking this genuinely, what do feel you lose by someone different that you being able to identify with characters in the game the same way you can?
I think Wizard's diversity is doing great for minorities and women with Core 2021 having a lot of Black characters featuring prominently. My only complaint with Wizards is that its rare now we get a standard white male named character that isn't a vampire or antagonist or something along the lines. Lukka and Barrin are the only two recent ones I can think of.
I think this can be solved by just upping the number of Legendaries/Walkers per set again.
I agree but the reason I asked is that on the one hand he says that people shouldn't be so sensitive to pseudo insults, then says being labeled nazi is a joke and is "insulted" by it. That seems hypocritical to me.
Being directly and personally insulted and attacked is just that, an insult and is actual even illegal to do no matter the context.
Nobody has to be directly and personally insulted or should be.
However, if a card displays something and by proxy someone feels insulted by that, they are explicitly not directly and personally insulted, but by proxy claim to be insulted, which is an entirely different animal.
As by this "by proxy insulted" notion you can be insulted by absolutely everything, as long as you claim to be insulted and you can claim ownership over being a victim and weaponize that.
If nobody means any harm to you and you blame them for insulting you, thats just terrible wrong and does nothing good, its toxic and destructive to any good relationship.
At this point the artists of these labeled as "racist" cards are attacked personally by people, as by proxy, the artist is transformed into a racist too, no matter what their intention was in the art and its even less relevant if they actually are what they are blamed for ...
Theres a real danger in doing that and its fairly easy to realize how wrong it is to do that.
The Nazis did the very same to jews. They just blamed them to be "evil" and the entire nation followed that narrative and see what we got, a entire nation that suddenly by proxy hated on jews and caused one of the most evil acts in human history.
What we get with the current racism trope is very much like that and it gets more and more violent and crazy every day by now.
People that mean absolutely no harm are labeled and blamed for almost everything , and suddenly violence against them is "justified" , even encouraged, and the mob is destroying monuments, property and throwing rocks at people.
Its the same stupidity as Nazi Germany did against the jews, its labeling a enemy out of thin air and completely goes over the rails to lash out.
----
WotC here by proxy declares these cards and names of the cards as "racist" , by proxy labels the artists of these cards as racists and instigates an entire group of people to rally against a straw man, all in the name of fighting racism.
So the end result is, you just created more racism out of thin air, more hate against people and either side of the argument is going to radicalize over it and lesser minds will even resort to violence.
----
So yes, if someone is directly and personally attacked by any means, i am among the first to defend that person.
And freedom of speech means you are not restricted in what you say, as you do no harm in that, its strictly positive to be able to talk about whatever is in your mind, everyone that thinks different is free to do the same and oppose your arguments.
If someone suddenly claims the color red is a symbol of hate, and by that its banned, do we ban everything red from magic to pander to that claim ?
Its simply insane to go that way, as its an ever increasing list of banned words, banned things, banned hand-signs and at some point you are not allowed to do anything as it might somehow be offensive to somebody in the world.
----
The claim to fight against racism is by definition divisive and damaging on its own, especially if its too broad and cloudy defined.
It gets even worse looking way in the past and using todays standards to retroactive "fix" the past, as it doesnt fix anything, but attacks and damages the history and brands all the people as "Bad" that honor that history.
----
At some point people should just throw all that garbage away and get together, have fun and play the game.
A lot of people dont want to deal with any outside-world problems at all at a table of magic.
I dont care what color your skin has, i dont care what your sexual preferences are and i absolutely dont care what your politcal views are, we can all get together and play the game, and thats the point, thats whats so positive.
If you cant do that, you ostracize yourself and others, and thats just plain bad to do, as its the exact opposite of welcoming and inclusive.
No longer the place for conversation, sadly. The mods have been hard at work, actively censoring this topic.
It wasn't that they were censoring the topic, the replies had just devolved into a bunch of whining and personal attacks. As with most nuanced conversations, the internet rarely stay s a forum for productive discussion for a long period of time.
I’m actually fresh off a week-long ban for mentioning ‘privilege.’ That’s outright censorship.
I believe that comment had been directed at me and, for whatever it’s worth, I’m upset that you got banned for saying it.
As the world outside is looking at us. These people who don't care about MTG or barely know of it as mere passing knowledge, are now paying attention to the collective of MTG's people and its company because of the game's racism. Not because they finally decided to have interest in the game itself. We are now being associated as part of "that game with racist cards that got banned".
Yeah, it looks like magic is/was a racist game which wotc has to react to cuz of events. and there are still tons of cards you can (mis)interpret with the reading that black means skincolor and not magical faction. now everybody playing mono white decks will be closely looked upon.
Being directly and personally insulted and attacked is just that, an insult and is actual even illegal to do no matter the context.
Nobody has to be directly and personally insulted or should be.
However, if a card displays something and by proxy someone feels insulted by that, they are explicitly not directly and personally insulted, but by proxy claim to be insulted[/b], which is an entirely different animal.
As by this "by proxy insulted" notion you can be insulted by absolutely everything, as long as you claim to be insulted and you can claim ownership over being a victim and weaponize that.
If nobody means any harm to you and you blame them for insulting you, thats just terrible wrong and does nothing good, its toxic and destructive to any good relationship.
So you are in the camp that intention is bigger than effect, so if you do harm but mean no harm its ok.
What when the people who point out that those things might be racist did not mean harm but wanted to point that out as in hey that card has racist connotations and then they blame them for insulting them as racist. To me it still looks like its the same thing but one of those things is ok and the other is not?
At this point the artists of these labeled as "racist" cards are attacked personally by people, as by proxy, the artist is transformed into a racist too, no matter what their intention was in the art and its even less relevant if they actually are what they are blamed for ...
First besided Harold mc Neil who Heavily uses Nazi and White Supremacy iconography see here they are hardly attacked and if at all for their art and not personally. Since the art context is mainly problematic for Invoke prejudice.
Theres a real danger in doing that and its fairly easy to realize how wrong it is to do that.
The Nazis did the very same to jews. They just blamed them to be "evil" and the entire nation followed that narrative and see what we got, a entire nation that suddenly by proxy hated on jews and caused one of the most evil acts in human history.
With the differende here beeing twofold:
1. It was a government not a company who used it as propaganda
2. Their "reasoning" was made in such a way that they are evil because who they are here their reasoning is not your evil because you are a racist it's hey those are not nice things to do. In the first they can't change out of being who they are in the second they have the chance to either change their opinion or double down on it or realize that they were ignorant in somethings. The jews didn't have agency when someone is called a racist they do.
What we get with the current racism trope is very much like that and it gets more and more violent and crazy every day by now.
People that mean absolutely no harm are labeled and blamed for almost everything , and suddenly violence against them is "justified" , even encouraged, and the mob is destroying monuments, property and throwing rocks at people.
Its the same stupidity as Nazi Germany did against the jews, its labeling a enemy out of thin air and completely goes over the rails to lash out.
See above, if you take away peoples agency they tend to get frustrated and if people who have agency say "theres nothing we can do" the people without agency get frustrated even more. While I don't condone violence I can see where it comes from.
WotC here by proxy declares these cards and names of the cards as "racist" , by proxy labels the artists of these cards as racists and instigates an entire group of people to rally against a straw man, all in the name of fighting racism.
So the end result is, you just created more racism out of thin air, more hate against people and either side of the argument is going to radicalize over it and lesser minds will even resort to violence.
No no you did not, just because someone labeled something racist does not add a racist thing into the world it was already there someone just pointed it out. If the offended people have no right to be offended nobody should be offended by being called racist/nazi.
So yes, if someone is directly and personally attacked by any means, i am among the first to defend that person.
And freedom of speech means you are not restricted in what you say, as you do no harm in that, its strictly positive to be able to talk about whatever is in your mind, everyone that thinks different is free to do the same and oppose your arguments.
As someone else already pointed out Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, if plattform owners don't like what you say they are within their right to say yeah buddy not here. And freedom of speech also applies the other way around if you say hey thats not racist I can sey hey thats racist.
If someone suddenly claims the color red is a symbol of hate, and by that its banned, do we ban everything red from magic to pander to that claim ?
Its simply insane to go that way, as its an ever increasing list of banned words, banned things, banned hand-signs and at some point you are not allowed to do anything as it might somehow be offensive to somebody in the world.
As I said before in 2 points its not the government that bans this it's the company/plattform and if that plattform deems hey that's not what they are about it is within their right to do so as it is their freedom of speech. And even if that "slippery slope" argument comes true as with your personal freedom of speech they also do not have freedom from consequences so lets say they ban the color red and people don't like it guess what they are not entitled tho those people still being paying customers.
The claim to fight against racism is by definition divisive and damaging on its own, especially if its too broad and cloudy defined.
It gets even worse looking way in the past and using todays standards to retroactive "fix" the past, as it doesnt fix anything, but attacks and damages the history and brands all the people as "Bad" that honor that history.
Thats not how it works as the less you do the more real racists feel empowered to be openly racist. This is what brought us in this situation we are in rn.
At some point people should just throw all that garbage away and get together, have fun and play the game.
A lot of people dont want to deal with any outside-world problems at all at a table of magic.
I dont care what color your skin has, i dont care what your sexual preferences are and i absolutely dont care what your politcal views are, we can all get together and play the game, and thats the point, thats whats so positive.
If you cant do that, you ostracize yourself and others, and thats just plain bad to do, as its the exact opposite of welcoming and inclusive.
Yes alot of people don't want to deal with outside world problems but when those problems get in your game of magic you can't really use it as escapism.
So you are in the camp that intention is bigger than effect, so if you do harm but mean no harm its ok.
What when the people who point out that those things might be racist did not mean harm but wanted to point that out as in hey that card has racist connotations and then they blame them for insulting them as racist. To me it still looks like its the same thing but one of those things is ok and the other is not?
You cant threat it the same if there is intention or not.
If someone has the intention to hurt you, thats tremendously worse than, than someone that means no harm gets suddenly branded.
If someone means no harm, you are free to tell them whats supposed wrong, and they are free to change or not accept your claim.
The one that blames someone for wrong doing isnt automatically in the right.
If a Nazi blames a jew , its not the Nazi that is in the right for calling out the jew.
----
The intention of the blamer is as important as the intention of the supposed evil doer.
If a person just claims victim status for themselves and uses that as a weapon to destroy others, its in no way helpful at all, its producing problems out of thin air.
----
In what world do you want to live in.
- A world with thousands of banned words, banned signs and banned art.
- Or a world in which everything is allowed and everyone is free to make up their own mind.
I am in the camp for the free world.
As the world that bans stuff always depends on some form of authority that defines what is banned, and can do so on their own merits, and i am highly opposed to anybody taking my own responsibility away from me to dictate what i am allowed to say, do or think.
This freedom however doesnt mean you are free to harm others.
But then again, intention is a big part, on both sides.
The intention of any human should be to allow a life in solidarity.
Even if people dislike each other, they should still be able to work with each other, and not sabotage and destroy each others lives.
And that goes both ways. Its not a one way street.
----
If a black person is actively hated on, everyone in their right mind will jump to defend them.
Perfectly reasonable and i dont think anybody here will oppose that (as that would indeed be the most direct form of racism you could think of).
If that black person now sees someone with a magic deck that has Invoke Prejudice in it, what is the reasonable "consequence" ?
We could just accept it and live our lives happily, OR we go to war against that person and take away that persons freedom as we suddenly claim ownership over our supposed oppression ; someone might throw that person out of the store, insult them, claim they are racists, and make their day really bad.
Do we want that ? Seriously, anybody wants that ?
I dont.
This insult by proxy is only doing harm and produces conflict.
Its much more healthy to get away from the past and assume people do not mean harm, instead of actively looking and searching for any farm of passive insults by proxy, and then leashing out aggression against that person.
I dont want a Magic banned list with thousand of cards that are deemed racist.
It needs to be consistent also.
If something is racist, ALL the racist variations need to be addressed, not just a sub-group that is more important than another (as that is in itself racist to make such a distinguishing).
- A world with thousands of banned words, banned signs and banned art.
- Or a world in which everything is allowed and everyone is free to make up their own mind.
Yeah again with the slippery slope acting as if magic taging away a card is banning a word entirely, wotc is not the government.
If someone has the intention to hurt you, thats tremendously worse than, than someone that means no harm gets suddenly branded.
If someone does not mean harm to you but still harms you harm is still done and you can call that someone out for it. Yes it is worse if harm was meant. But just because no harm was meant doeesn't mean no harm is done.
I agree that if you acidentally shoot someone its less bad that to actively do it. But that doesn't mean just because you didnt mean to doesn't mean someone isn't shot. And if you acidentally shoot someone you still call him out since you know manslaughter isn't murder buts its still a crime and its still bad thing.
All I can see in your arguments is its bad to call someone racist/nazi bad and makes people do bad things to them, but saying/doing racist things will not make people do bad things to different people. Like you said either everything is equal or nothing is.
edit
someone might throw that person out of the store, insult them, claim they are racists, and make their day really bad.
Get thrown out of the store, like racists do with people of a different race. Make their day really bad you mean like people like tiro and the jihad thing which he is reminded of when he sees the card. You know the same consequences.
So you are in the camp that intention is bigger than effect, so if you do harm but mean no harm its ok.
What when the people who point out that those things might be racist did not mean harm but wanted to point that out as in hey that card has racist connotations and then they blame them for insulting them as racist. To me it still looks like its the same thing but one of those things is ok and the other is not?
You cant threat it the same if there is intention or not.
If someone has the intention to hurt you, thats tremendously worse than, than someone that means no harm gets suddenly branded.
If someone means no harm, you are free to tell them whats supposed wrong, and they are free to change or not accept your claim.
The one that blames someone for wrong doing isnt automatically in the right.
If a Nazi blames a jew , its not the Nazi that is in the right for calling out the jew.
----
The intention of the blamer is as important as the intention of the supposed evil doer.
If a person just claims victim status for themselves and uses that as a weapon to destroy others, its in no way helpful at all, its producing problems out of thin air.
----
In what world do you want to live in.
- A world with thousands of banned words, banned signs and banned art.
- Or a world in which everything is allowed and everyone is free to make up their own mind.
I am in the camp for the free world.
As the world that bans stuff always depends on some form of authority that defines what is banned, and can do so on their own merits, and i am highly opposed to anybody taking my own responsibility away from me to dictate what i am allowed to say, do or think.
This freedom however doesnt mean you are free to harm others.
But then again, intention is a big part, on both sides.
The intention of any human should be to allow a life in solidarity.
Even if people dislike each other, they should still be able to work with each other, and not sabotage and destroy each others lives.
And that goes both ways. Its not a one way street.
----
If a black person is actively hated on, everyone in their right mind will jump to defend them.
Perfectly reasonable and i dont think anybody here will oppose that (as that would indeed be the most direct form of racism you could think of).
If that black person now sees someone with a magic deck that has Invoke Prejudice in it, what is the reasonable "consequence" ?
We could just accept it and live our lives happily, OR we go to war against that person and take away that persons freedom as we suddenly claim ownership over our supposed oppression ; someone might throw that person out of the store, insult them, claim they are racists, and make their day really bad.
Do we want that ? Seriously, anybody wants that ?
I dont.
This insult by proxy is only doing harm and produces conflict.
Its much more healthy to get away from the past and assume people do not mean harm, instead of actively looking and searching for any farm of passive insults by proxy, and then leashing out aggression against that person.
I dont want a Magic banned list with thousand of cards that are deemed racist.
It needs to be consistent also.
If something is racist, ALL the racist variations need to be addressed, not just a sub-group that is more important than another (as that is in itself racist to make such a distinguishing).
Either everyone is equal, or nobody is.
I know we’ve been here before, but it bears mentioning again: we don’t want equality, we want equity. Hundreds of years of systemic injustice isn’t going to be erased by opening the door to misguided accusations of ‘reverse racism,’ a thing that does not and never will exist.
If something is racist, ALL the racist variations need to be addressed, not just a sub-group that is more important than another (as that is in itself racist to make such a distinguishing).
Agreed if you have the context for banning a card that can be viewed as racist against whites by the same standards have at it. Keep in mind that cleanse isnt just because it kills all black creatures, its the additional context.
I also agree that all racism needs to be adressed. But If a house is burning you don't go to extinguish the neigbours candle because all Fires must be adressed. If one issue is more pressing you handle that issue. If you only come up with men's rights when womens's rights are discussed that paints the picture of a Kid who only plays with the ball when his brother wants to play , he doesn't care about the ball he just cares that his brother cant play with it.
Note that I'm very specifically talking about the call outs in the article from the post I quoted; my responses were more to those claims than anything else.
Perhaps, your post referred to intentionality and it was a convenient jumping off point to discuss why intent is not the standard because not all racism is intentional. Or overt, for that matter.
It's unlikely any of these cards were created with the intention to have racist connotations, they were created in a time where there was much less conversation and general awareness of how racism operates. Racism permeates systems and social norms, and is exhibited as much in passive elements as active ones. These cards are no more problematic this week than they were for decades, that they weren't a point of conversation before now is a part of the problem. Not needing to or not feeling compelled to address your racist behaviors (intentional or otherwise) is part of the problem, that we know WotC has been aware of the issues with some of these cards for at least 5-10 years and elected to say or do nothing is emblematic of of that.
Second I'm not arguing against changing Invoke Prejudice's ID, I just don't think trying to use it as evidence as WOTC failing at something is an argument that holds any water. It's the same with the 7/11 joke. It's not like they make these cards with the art and all the flavor and everything there; some guy sat down and needed a power and toughness for their big dumb vehicle. Eventually this blank piece of paper wound up with 7/11, and people probably chuckled at it. This isn't some intentional poke at Indian culture, it's just some guys not fully connecting the dots from 7/11 to indian stereotypes. Without more evidence suggesting otherwise, I think that could just be an honest to god slip. Maybe that's worth a "sorry we didn't make that connection", but raking them over the coals over it doesn't feel right to me.
My first thought on seeing this card was how I would have stuck "Convenient" in either its name or flavor text if I'd been doing flavor text. (Perhaps a strong sign that I shouldn't be doing name and flavor text. For those unaware, 7-Eleven is an American chain of convenience stores.)
Which is a joke that specifically relies upon racial stereotypes. And is why I felt we needed to be more aware of the intent versus impact relationship. I don't think MaRo was intentionally racist, but it's still a problem that he was uncritically using racial stereotypes to crack a joke.
I n my opinion there is a possibility it will influence game mechanics as designers will be aware ( consciously or not ) that their design (and they) will be judged from the premise of malintent. Part of the players community will also use the presumption of prejudice while judging other players.
Put another way, this might symbolize a sea change where the game designers will be more aware of the racist impacts of their work and endeavor to limit how often their products have racist connotations and MtG players will be more aware of how prejudices hurt people and make play spaces unsafe.
The second thing is, it creates a symbol of division. A flag that two extreme groups can unite under. And if we can't resolve this peacefully those two pretty small extreme groups will divide and polarise the rest.
There's an argument to be made that racism was already a dividing force, it's just that most people didn't realize what side of the divide they were (intentionally or otherwise) on.
I don't believe in censorship in general, especially in art. It has it's place when there is unique harmful information connected to identifiable people. The "sheltering method" of banning words that someone might find offensive is causing more harm than good. Word is a symbol and symbol has only the power people give it. The same goes for the alteration of history. We should view the history through the optics of progress we made and learn from mistakes we made. And we can find joy in recognising what good moves we made. If we will censor parts of it we will create a cult following of the wrong parts, or worse we will forget and at some point we are deemed to repeat the mistakes.
Your point about words is kinda missing the forest for the trees. Dehumanizing language and othering language do have power, and no amount of "sticks and stones" can change that. Language is a social tool to communicate ideas and values, and in the instance of dehumanizing/othering language, it has the power of society's norms and standards behind it - which is why that language is an issue. And that power behind language can be reversed, when we have conversations about language that is hurtful we are challenging society's norms and standards and pushing for a redefined social standard.
I understand the appeal of radical action, but cautious steady progress is the way to go IMO. I liked the way more diversity was incorporated in MTG. Similar methods should be applied here. They could remove the art from gatherer or design upgraded cards to slowly push out those they deem problematic. Solution not as sexy as bannings, but better in the long run.
Incrementalism isn't the worst way to address social issues, it certainly gives time for society at large to become accustomed to change. Though it is also worth pointing out that incremental change that's decades late to start is interpreted as a form of resisting change or trying to limit how much change happens.
For what it's worth, this isn't the radical action I would have suggested to WotC. I would have advocated for highlighting these cards as examples of how racial bias, racial stereotypes, and racist systems can create an issue within the game. Fully articulate why these cards aren't acceptable and outline the lessons learned from each that will be guiding WotC from here on. The bans on their own are a symbolic copout, if the company (its practices, policies, and internal culture) doesn't change, these bannings are meaningless.
The thing is, almost all those cards were on the Reserved List, AND have been rendered almost obsolete by newer, better printings. Crusade, for example, has been outshined by Honor of the Pure. Stone-Throwing Devils has been outdone since 1999. Even the card Invoke Prejudice has been outmoded severaltimesover.People still talk about the cards over and over, and play them to "trigger the libs" or something similar. The Old School format still runs these cards, because they only have two years to work with. The cards aren't going anywhere on their own, and neither are their fans.
Which is the reason why this conversation is so necessary. Those players have always existed within the game, and have been making play spaces unsafe for others the entire time. I don't think this conversation the fandom is having will change them, but that's not the point. The hope is it changes everyone else. Other players, LGSes, WotC itself, as they change the culture of the fandom and players who would antagonize others with bigotry will find that conduct less and less accepted until they give it up or go elsewhere.
While most cards are old and have never been reprinted, the main one that stands out is Crusade due it having multiple different artworks. As you have the Crusade artwork, the Angel version, and the Elspeth version. Yet they condemned all versions, including the Elspeth version, which means Elspeth is now associated with a wholly racist card, even on their own version. Which can mean by extension, one of wizards characters for marketing is now a racist and its not even lore reasons like Nissa Revane used to be.
No, this does not make Elspeth a racist.
But the bus does not stop here the problem with the association of the word instead of the artwork also means by extension any card that mentions "Crusade" or "Crusader" or "Crusading" in its name or flavor text is possibly on the same chopping block by just mere extension. In name that is 22 cards, including Crusade itself. Checking flavor text, five cards are now caught by extension. These cards are Ill-Gotten Gains, Lowland Tracker, Kruin Striker, Reliquary Tower, and Sungrass Egg. This isn't slippery slope trap either. As by the reasoning for Crusade's banning is the context behind the word and less about the artwork. To exclude other cards that share the same word shows a questionable bias on Wizard's behalf.
You're missing the context that makes Crusade an issue is not just its name, but the intersection of its name and effect, a relationship that has been outlined a few times now. Crusade as a word has legitimate uses as well as uses that evoke a very specific meaning - the intersection of card name and ability draws the connotation too close to the specific (racially charged) meaning and away from the general (relatively neutral) definition.
Their own announcement created a Streisand Effect with these seven cards among investors and players. Since these can't be obtained by Wizards affiliated websites like your Channel Fireball or Starcity Games or TCGPlayer, what they have done is created is a black market through eBay. And people are panick buying these. This isn't some random rambling either. When I go to sold listings for just "Crusade MTG" I see the most popular one being the Templar version, followed by the angel verison, and lastly the Elspeth verison. But its not just them, I see Cathars' Crusade, Phyrexian Crusader, White Shield Crusader, Stormfist Crusader, Mystic Crusader, Dralnu's Crusade, Tivadar's Crusade, Mirran Crusader. Oh and there is even starting to be combo packages like Bad Moon + Stone Throwing Devils + Crusade or Crusade + ProxyInvoke Prejudice. Like there is a 17.5k box of Legends who uses purposefully Invoke Prejudice and Cleanse in its listing just to potentially get a buyer.
Yes, these are symptoms of the larger issue of racism in the fandom. Not addressing it wasn't going to make it go away, and though I have my own issues with WotC's chosen direction, I ultimately think the conversation they started is a net benefit. In part because we can identify that people are profiteering off cards with racist connotations.
If you think about it, its crazy. Crazy how wizards helped create a black market of players, speculators, and collectors who speculate on the banned seven for their racism but also on unrelated cards because of being potentially racist. They condemn the cards with bannings and shouting to the rooftops of this racism, but they instead caused interest and a boom in sales in unsavory products.
As the world outside is looking at us. These people who don't care about MTG or barely know of it as mere passing knowledge, are now paying attention to the collective of MTG's people and its company because of the game's racism. Not because they finally decided to have interest in the game itself. We are now being associated as part of "that game with racist cards that got banned".
Incidentally, the comments and tweets on articles about WotC's decision really highlight how the fandom is seen from the outside: exclusionary, unsafe, immature. People in my playgroup (who are largely women, BIPOC and/or LGBTQ2S+) have been fielding comments from people asking them how they would want to be involved with this fandom, so that's a thing.
It reminds me a lot of the external reactions to videogame fandom at large being challenged on sexism/homophobia and the fandom reactions that followed.
I think Wizard's diversity is doing great for minorities and women with Core 2021 having a lot of Black characters featuring prominently. My only complaint with Wizards is that its rare now we get a standard white male named character that isn't a vampire or antagonist or something along the lines. Lukka and Barrin are the only two recent ones I can think of.
It might be in bad taste to, in a conversation of how racism intersects with MtG and its fandom, to lodge a complaint about how the game really isn't featuring white guys prominently enough right now.
The game has centred white men for virtually its whole history. It's first big arc was about Urza and Gerrard and the Gatewatch arc really pushed Jace as the face of the game for a long time, the game can handle white guys not being the prominent heroes for a year. And we also did just get the Kenriths, for whatever that's worth. I don't think WotC is going to stop having heroic white guys, they just haven't been the key focus for a handful of sets.
Being directly and personally insulted and attacked is just that, an insult and is actual even illegal to do no matter the context.
Nobody has to be directly and personally insulted or should be.
However, if a card displays something and by proxy someone feels insulted by that, they are explicitly not directly and personally insulted, but by proxy claim to be insulted, which is an entirely different animal.
Yes, pejorative language directed at someone and pejorative language that creates an environment of unease/unsafety are mechanically different. They are also both worth challenging.
As by this "by proxy insulted" notion you can be insulted by absolutely everything, as long as you claim to be insulted and you can claim ownership over being a victim and weaponize that.
If nobody means any harm to you and you blame them for insulting you, thats just terrible wrong and does nothing good, its toxic and destructive to any good relationship.
"Weaponizing victimhood" is such an obtuse way of framing anti-racist work that I have a hard time even comprehending where you're coming from. It's just not congruent with what I'm seeing from people who want the game and fandom to be less exclusionary and bigoted. You seem to think it's all a game for power that you think will be unfairly leveraged against you, and what I'm seeing is people pushing for more respect and accountability from other players, play spaces, and the game itself.
Is this stemming from a fear of being considered a racist for your behaviors?
A colleague once told me something that really stuck with me, I hope by sharing it you find it useful. They told me that when people are expressing to someone that their actions are disrespectful and hurtful, it's coming from a place of believing that person is capable of changing. It's an act of trust in that the person trusts us to acknowledge how we have acted and impacted, and will reassess our behavior. Refusing to be self-reflective and considerate is in effect a betrayal of that expression of trust.
At this point the artists of these labeled as "racist" cards are attacked personally by people, as by proxy, the artist is transformed into a racist too, no matter what their intention was in the art and its even less relevant if they actually are what they are blamed for ...
The artists shouldn't be attacked. The artist who has demonstrated particularly racist beliefs should be criticized on those grounds, but there's no need for attacks. And no, artists aren't "racists by proxy" because the end product they contributed to is problematic.
People that mean absolutely no harm are labeled and blamed for almost everything
Meaning no harm and causing no harm are two distinct concepts.
If someone suddenly claims the color red is a symbol of hate, and by that its banned, do we ban everything red from magic to pander to that claim ?
It would be worth the conversation at least, and if the complaints hold water then some sort of action would be important. That's just what the process is, and it's reflective of how society as a whole is challenged and changed. Though this example is absurd because it relies upon an extreme (unrealistic) example, it's just a strawman.
Its simply insane to go that way, as its an ever increasing list of banned words, banned things, banned hand-signs and at some point you are not allowed to do anything as it might somehow be offensive to somebody in the world.
So is the issue that people use language as a tool to oppress or that people who don't want to be oppressed are pushing back against language that causes harm.
As well, "socially unacceptable" and "banned" aren't the same thing. People want bigotry to be socially unacceptable so that society and culture can shift in a way that eases their oppression.
At some point people should just throw all that garbage away and get together, have fun and play the game.
A lot of people dont want to deal with any outside-world problems at all at a table of magic.
I dont care what color your skin has, i dont care what your sexual preferences are and i absolutely dont care what your politcal views are, we can all get together and play the game, and thats the point, thats whats so positive.
If you cant do that, you ostracize yourself and others, and thats just plain bad to do, as its the exact opposite of welcoming and inclusive.
Do you know why my playgroup is mostly women, BIPOC, and/or LGBTQ2S+? It's because they couldn't just "get together, have fun and play the game" in other spaces because those real-world issues you want to be left out of things can't just be ignored by the people impacted by them. It's a luxury to ignore that people's behavior can be bigoted and make others feel unsafe and unwelcome.
We all had to create our own group because of other players making other groups unwelcoming or choosing to ignore the issue. We didn't ostracize ourselves, we were left with few choices by players creating toxic environments or simply condoning it that eventually pushed us out. That's what ostracization looks like.
Yeah, it looks like magic is/was a racist game which wotc has to react to cuz of events. and there are still tons of cards you can (mis)interpret with the reading that black means skincolor and not magical faction. now everybody playing mono white decks will be closely looked upon.
No, players playing mono-white aren't going to be looked at with more suspicion now and black within the context of MtG's five colors won't be innately tied to skin color either. We can discuss the very real consequences of WotC's actions without muddying the waters with extreme examples that don't serve any sort of nuanced purpose. It's just strawmanning to derail the real conversation.
Could be another reason why wotc is going to eat ***** over this is the people they are pandering to do not buy the product. Those who cry for inclusion and diversity, in a lot of other industries are like an infection, welcomed in blindly then corroding out the core of what it was. Marvel comics has canceled countless 'woke' / sjw comics because all of their coalition hires want these diverse people but all they're doing is rainbow roading main characters because they can't write their own. They put out multiple failed projects and they only cost the company money and the fans haven't been buying. And their writings are so lazy that everything they pump out is literally just "I'm _____" and that is the entirety of their character. People saw this with other product lines and now seeing this come to magic they're going to abandon ship before their collections turn to trash.
Could be another reason why wotc is going to eat ***** over this is the people they are pandering to do not buy the product.
The post immediately above yours proves this to be wrong, as if that were necessary to see the patently obvious. People of every race, creed, color, and gender play this game; it is no less true even if for some reason your personal experience does not bear this out.
Can't let this stand (bolding mine), the artist is Harold McNeill. Drew Tucker has a rather weird art style a lot of people don't like, yeah, but I've never heard anything about him being a Nazi.
My first thought on seeing this card was how I would have stuck "Convenient" in either its name or flavor text if I'd been doing flavor text. (Perhaps a strong sign that I shouldn't be doing name and flavor text. For those unaware, 7-Eleven is an American chain of convenience stores.)
Which is a joke that specifically relies upon racial stereotypes. And is why I felt we needed to be more aware of the intent versus impact relationship. I don't think MaRo was intentionally racist, but it's still a problem that he was uncritically using racial stereotypes to crack a joke.
The fact that 7/11 stores exist, as a chain of stores that call themselves "convenience stores," is not a racist joke. His joke doesn't even touch on race at all. Your brain might then remind you that Indian Americans tend to run convenience stores, but that's entirely user-end. If I'm missing something please explain further.
I know we’ve been here before, but it bears mentioning again: we don’t want equality, we want equity. Hundreds of years of systemic injustice isn’t going to be erased by opening the door to misguided accusations of ‘reverse racism,’ a thing that does not and never will exist.
I am not sure what equity is but I find anything other than equality morally reprehesible.
I am also not sure what reverse racism is but I suspect you mean racism agaist white people? And why doesn't this exist? Last time I checked Hispanics, Jews, Slavs, Arabs, Turks, Roma, Sinti, and probably a lot more were all or still subjected to racism and last time I checked these are all white.
And you speak like someone who never was refused entry to a restaurant because of his skin color. A thing that happend to me and I am white.
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!
My first thought on seeing this card was how I would have stuck "Convenient" in either its name or flavor text if I'd been doing flavor text. (Perhaps a strong sign that I shouldn't be doing name and flavor text. For those unaware, 7-Eleven is an American chain of convenience stores.)
Which is a joke that specifically relies upon racial stereotypes. And is why I felt we needed to be more aware of the intent versus impact relationship. I don't think MaRo was intentionally racist, but it's still a problem that he was uncritically using racial stereotypes to crack a joke.
The fact that 7/11 stores exist, as a chain of stores that call themselves "convenience stores," is not a racist joke. His joke doesn't even touch on race at all. Your brain might then remind you that Indian Americans tend to run convenience stores, but that's entirely user-end. If I'm missing something please explain further.
What you're missing is that the joke was told within the context of talking about Kaladesh, MtG's East Indian inspired plane. Within that context, MaRo's joke is a bad look. That MaRo didn't understand that the joke was off color in that context is part of the problem.
That exact quote wouldn't have been perceived poorly at all if Consulate Dreadnought was a card in Ixalan or Dominaria and not Kaladesh, because the context would be different. Linking something with power and toughness 7/11 to the convenience store brand isn't the issue (I don't think it's particularly clever, but your mileage may vary and that's not the issue at hand), doing it within the context of a set depicting East Indian-inspired people is an issue because of the racist stereotypes around East Indian immigrants and convenience stores. That stereotype is used to paint East Indian people in an undignified light, it's reductive, and it's mocking very real situations that immigrants find themselves in in North America but that's a concept outside the scope of this discussion. Suffice is to say, that stereotype is the reason why The Simpsons was hounded by complaints for literal decades and why Hank Azaria wanted to retire the character of Apu. MaRo played into those same tropes.
I know we’ve been here before, but it bears mentioning again: we don’t want equality, we want equity. Hundreds of years of systemic injustice isn’t going to be erased by opening the door to misguided accusations of ‘reverse racism,’ a thing that does not and never will exist.
I am not sure what equity is but I find anything other than equality morally reprehesible.
Equity is the recognition that not everyone starts in the same position in life and equality initiatives that fail to take them into account only replicate and reinforce disparities.
Equality is everyone is treated exactly the same. Equity is everyone being treated according to need to level the playing field.
I am also not sure what reverse racism is but I suspect you mean racism agaist white people? And why doesn't this exist? Last time I checked Hispanics, Jews, Slavs, Arabs, Turks, Roma, Sinti, and probably a lot more were all or still subjected to racism and last time I checked these are all white.
It doesn't exist because racial prejudice and racism, though conflated, are very distinct concepts.
Racial prejudice exists in everyone and is internal biases that affect our behavior. Racism is a much more complex concept and requires systems, institutions, and power dynamics to empower it. Whenever a given society has one race that holds greater importance/power/influence/priority and that position is used to maintain that while oppressing others, that's racism. It's the unequal relationship between a race that holds systemic power and races that do not and it impacts every area of society (work, school, faith, relationships, finances, opportunity, art, entertainment, travel, security, governance, policy, industry, etc). Reverse racism is a fallacious concept because it doesn't understand the power dynamic element in systemic racism. A racially oppressed group cannot exert racism against the dominant race because they do not have power to do so within that society. They can absolutely be racially prejudiced, but if they do not have systemic power in society that prejudice is not racism. Prejudice works in all directions (bottom-up, top-down, and laterally) while racism only functions top-down.
ETA: I should point out that I don't want this to be a whole off-topic tangent, but the difference between racial prejudice and racism is germane to talking about how the game and fandom can, and should, grow in regards to racial justice. Yandere (or anyone who wants to have a good faith dialogue), if you'd like to discuss it further, perhaps we could take it to PMs?
Glorifying colonialism is a very good point. In that regard, I was very taken aback when the Ixilan block's story was released... Very offensive and DEFINITELY glorifying the Spanish takeover of the American Indigenous peoples... no idea how that got through. I propose taking a thorough look at every card in both Ixilan sets, if not outright banning the entire block...
As for specific cards, off the top of my head, Azusa, Lost but Seeking is a very offensive stereotype of Japanese culture that I personally think is in bad taste. I see this card crop up in my local game store quite often.
I sometimes look on these forums here and there, and wanted to make an account to make this post, as I wanted to address a few things other users have posted and bring about some points to the table.
Reverse-racism is NOT a correct term. It is just "racism" in it's truest form when broken down. Some have made comments pertaining to racism only being from the top down, when in actuality, up until a few days ago on some "official" sites, it was changed in an effort to appease individuals of minorities.
I have seen others saying minorities have been fighting for equity, when a simple google search shows many protests over the decades, including the civil right protests have been for equality, not equity. Changing the narrative can only work so far when one's who believe they are right think so highly of themseves.
Going back on the topic of racism, it was always a two-way street. Racism is the prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group. One can add the part of only to "minorities" to add to their cause, but you are changing what the definition of what the word actually is. Much like how people changed the term "literally", to mean "figuratively" over the years, which is ironic in this case.
One can not change the rules during the middle of a game, thinking the opponents are clueless, and not expect any blow-back, and then think you are morally superior and have the high ground as if on cue to justify a dangerous ideology.
The United States itself is not institutionally racist. Yes, there are parts of US history that is troubling of course, but it's foundation in and of itself have never been racist.
What happened to George Floyd was a very sad issue, but worse is with what happened afterwards was much worse because of the riots. People being offended where no aggression was meant is a sadistic form that has become more and more invasive in the world, and growth will never happen if people cannot look beyond their situations let alone problems that they never had to deal with. The events of the last few weeks is going to perpetuate "racists" much worse, and on both sides.
There are quite a few bad eggs, but that is on both sides of the spectrum, politically, and on the racial scale, and to think otherwise is redundant and silly to argue with, especially when the wrong "facts" are brought up in an effort to work with their narrative. Other users have asked that you listen and try to understand their side, but those other users before as I mentioned keep bringing up useless facts that are not supporting their argument one bit. Ironically, even the "alt-right nazis" as claimed by those same users here can be spoken with as compared to the ones that won't even give them the time of day, and then bring up points of "consequences" to what people say? That is hypocrisy. That is pure form of toxicity on this site, and why people like myself rarely, if ever comment, and just watch.
What WOTC is doing now, is as many have said, it is pandering, plain and simple. They are a business first, and foremost, and will do what they believe, with or without data, is best for their company. No one is refuting that they are a private company and can do this, but rather if they should. This topic does not bar them from being appropriately criticized on the matter. Some cards, sure, have racist connotations to it, but some of the others, well, it is always interesting where one's look to be offended, when again, no offense was ever meant. Any form of critical thinking will help one understand that.
Lastly, rather than look at other forms of media, particularly ones that have been proven false on many occasions, think for yourselves,and look for the best in others, rather than thinking every little thing a white individual does is racist. Racism and slavery existed LONG before the modern use of it was ever utilized, and from many races and cultures.
The only time equity makes sense is in hindsight of disabled or any other form of being unable to do it on your own.
Building a ramp that someone in a wheelchair can get to work is reasonable, nobody would be sane to ask that person to use the stairs as anybody else, that makes no sense.
However, if equity is used to somehow claim some people have it harder in life, just because of their skin color, than thats just a cop out, they dont, and the claim is silly.
The even worse part is to charge a higher tax rate just for the skin color, such things are racist and the reverse, to pay a specific group money to "help" them, is just as racist, just reversed, as some people believe they have to help people, while people very much prefer to get along on their own.
Getting stuffed in a group and threated like a disabled person is quite an insult to a person that doesnt need that help, its only reasonable where its absolute necessary to archive equality.
Everyone has to get the same chances, not everyone is the same, not everyone wants to be the same.
So equality is what you want to archive, and equity where its actually useful, and not everywhere.
Because some things you have to accept are not reasonable done by everyone and its unreasonable to change everything just to make it work for them and let everyone else pay for that.
The mire fact that this thread was locked shows no one knows how to talk about this issue which has been the problem for the last 100 years and still is today.
The mire fact that this thread was locked shows no one knows how to talk about this issue which has been the problem for the last 100 years and still is today.
I would say that's not accurate. It doesn't show that "no one" knows how to talk about this issue... plenty of people have done so successfully. What it instead shows is that A) this is not a conversation the Mods feel comfortable moderating, so they'd rather have it shut down than do so, and B) there are people who know exactly how to talk about this issue in order to get these threads shut down. Obviously B contributes to A, of course, because the mods reluctance to moderate these types of discussions is exacerbated by certain groups desire to use it as a soap box to rant about political correctness or the like. Which creates a toxic feedback loop: Nobody wants to participate in conversations like these on this forum, because the people that make it toxic drown out any attempts at having a genuine discussion or provide education. Which means the main group of people who engage with it are the toxic ones, which makes it impossible to moderate, which means these discussions get shut down. It seems likely there are additional issues with the moderation, mentioned elsewhere in the thread, which obviously do not help.
People that mean absolutely no harm are labeled and blamed for almost everything , and suddenly violence against them is "justified" , even encouraged, and the mob is destroying monuments, property and throwing rocks at people.
Its the same stupidity as Nazi Germany did against the jews, its labeling a enemy out of thin air and completely goes over the rails to lash out.
Seriously, how dare you compare racists to the Jews? The only thing they have in common is that some people don't like them. "This is just like the Holocaust" absolutely must be reserved for serious cases. For example, India's government recently passed an anti-Muslim equivalent to the Nuremberg Laws. If you want to compare Indian Muslims to the Jews, go right ahead. If you are going to complain about racists and people accused of racism getting cancelled, leave the Holocaust comparisons at home. Doing othewise is tremendously disrespectful to my people.
Please, mill me. Mill my important cards. Mill my lands. Mill it all. Because I will still deal 20 damage before you can mill 45 cards most every time.
I sometimes look on these forums here and there, and wanted to make an account to make this post, as I wanted to address a few things other users have posted and bring about some points to the table.
Reverse-racism is NOT a correct term. It is just "racism" in it's truest form when broken down. Some have made comments pertaining to racism only being from the top down, when in actuality, up until a few days ago on some "official" sites, it was changed in an effort to appease individuals of minorities.
I have seen others saying minorities have been fighting for equity, when a simple google search shows many protests over the decades, including the civil right protests have been for equality, not equity. Changing the narrative can only work so far when one's who believe they are right think so highly of themseves.
Going back on the topic of racism, it was always a two-way street. Racism is the prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group. One can add the part of only to "minorities" to add to their cause, but you are changing what the definition of what the word actually is. Much like how people changed the term "literally", to mean "figuratively" over the years, which is ironic in this case.
One can not change the rules during the middle of a game, thinking the opponents are clueless, and not expect any blow-back, and then think you are morally superior and have the high ground as if on cue to justify a dangerous ideology.
It's not "changing" the definition. The qualification that racism is necessarily systemic is a decision which was made collectively by intellectuals in their discussion of the issue of racism. It follows naturally as a consequence of analyzing the social issue in which merely defining it as prejudice would not adequately describe or explain many phenomena. Racial inequities in society are a product of racism, but it is reductive to say they are a product of some individual's prejudices against a given race. The causality of racial inequities is just more complicated than coming down to just prejudice, they would exist and continue to exist even if every individual did not hold those prejudices. Insofar as "racism" is a word which is employed for the express purpose of defining a social problem, narrowing its definition to prejudice would make it fail to define the problem. It is a standard practice in intellectual discourse to refine language as needed by the subtleties involved in the topic at hand. Defining racism as only prejudice also opens to door to white people complaining about prejudice directed toward them, which is not a comparable social issue to solve (in fact, it is relatively trivial in importance) and needlessly derails the discussion. The technical use of the word "racism" by intellectuals might be more difficult to understand for uneducated people who are accustomed to their colloquial usage. But if someone takes the trouble to explain it to them, one would hope they'd listen and try to understand.
I have to admit, I'm taken aback at people rejecting the notion of the value of equity. Equality as a concept is impoverished if it doesn't include dimensions of equity; equity makes equality ethically robust. Now if someone could demonstrate to me what equality actually loses by including equity, that would be a fascinating discussion.
The United States itself is not institutionally racist. Yes, there are parts of US history that is troubling of course, but it's foundation in and of itself have never been racist.
Since you're defining racism as prejudice, which is something only a person can have, and a "foundation" is not a person, this claim is guilty of begging the question.
What happened to George Floyd was a very sad issue, but worse is with what happened afterwards was much worse because of the riots. People being offended where no aggression was meant is a sadistic form that has become more and more invasive in the world, and growth will never happen if people cannot look beyond their situations let alone problems that they never had to deal with. The events of the last few weeks is going to perpetuate "racists" much worse, and on both sides.
Well, there you have it. You value black lives so little that you prioritize them after the damage to property done by riots.
There are quite a few bad eggs, but that is on both sides of the spectrum, politically, and on the racial scale, and to think otherwise is redundant and silly to argue with, especially when the wrong "facts" are brought up in an effort to work with their narrative. Other users have asked that you listen and try to understand their side, but those other users before as I mentioned keep bringing up useless facts that are not supporting their argument one bit. Ironically, even the "alt-right nazis" as claimed by those same users here can be spoken with as compared to the ones that won't even give them the time of day, and then bring up points of "consequences" to what people say? That is hypocrisy. That is pure form of toxicity on this site, and why people like myself rarely, if ever comment, and just watch.
It's not toxic to get mad at someone for making racist arguments. But it certainly can be toxic to insist on saying whatever you want and never be criticized for it by anyone.
What WOTC is doing now, is as many have said, it is pandering, plain and simple. They are a business first, and foremost, and will do what they believe, with or without data, is best for their company. No one is refuting that they are a private company and can do this, but rather if they should. This topic does not bar them from being appropriately criticized on the matter. Some cards, sure, have racist connotations to it, but some of the others, well, it is always interesting where one's look to be offended, when again, no offense was ever meant. Any form of critical thinking will help one understand that.
Agree.
Lastly, rather than look at other forms of media, particularly ones that have been proven false on many occasions, think for yourselves,and look for the best in others, rather than thinking every little thing a white individual does is racist. Racism and slavery existed LONG before the modern use of it was ever utilized, and from many races and cultures.
Why exactly is it so important to you to trivialize black slavery by comparing it to other historical examples? And what does that have to do with whether or not everything a white person does is racist?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The thing is, almost all those cards were on the Reserved List, AND have been rendered almost obsolete by newer, better printings. Crusade, for example, has been outshined by Honor of the Pure. Stone-Throwing Devils has been outdone since 1999. Even the card Invoke Prejudice has been outmoded several times over. People still talk about the cards over and over, and play them to "trigger the libs" or something similar. The Old School format still runs these cards, because they only have two years to work with. The cards aren't going anywhere on their own, and neither are their fans.
While most cards are old and have never been reprinted, the main one that stands out is Crusade due it having multiple different artworks. As you have the Crusade artwork, the Angel version, and the Elspeth version. Yet they condemned all versions, including the Elspeth version, which means Elspeth is now associated with a wholly racist card, even on their own version. Which can mean by extension, one of wizards characters for marketing is now a racist and its not even lore reasons like Nissa Revane used to be.
But the bus does not stop here the problem with the association of the word instead of the artwork also means by extension any card that mentions "Crusade" or "Crusader" or "Crusading" in its name or flavor text is possibly on the same chopping block by just mere extension. In name that is 22 cards, including Crusade itself. Checking flavor text, five cards are now caught by extension. These cards are Ill-Gotten Gains, Lowland Tracker, Kruin Striker, Reliquary Tower, and Sungrass Egg. This isn't slippery slope trap either. As by the reasoning for Crusade's banning is the context behind the word and less about the artwork. To exclude other cards that share the same word shows a questionable bias on Wizard's behalf.
Their own announcement created a Streisand Effect with these seven cards among investors and players. Since these can't be obtained by Wizards affiliated websites like your Channel Fireball or Starcity Games or TCGPlayer, what they have done is created is a black market through eBay. And people are panick buying these. This isn't some random rambling either. When I go to sold listings for just "Crusade MTG" I see the most popular one being the Templar version, followed by the angel verison, and lastly the Elspeth verison. But its not just them, I see Cathars' Crusade, Phyrexian Crusader, White Shield Crusader, Stormfist Crusader, Mystic Crusader, Dralnu's Crusade, Tivadar's Crusade, Mirran Crusader. Oh and there is even starting to be combo packages like Bad Moon + Stone Throwing Devils + Crusade or Crusade + Proxy Invoke Prejudice. Like there is a 17.5k box of Legends who uses purposefully Invoke Prejudice and Cleanse in its listing just to potentially get a buyer.
If you think about it, its crazy. Crazy how wizards helped create a black market of players, speculators, and collectors who speculate on the banned seven for their racism but also on unrelated cards because of being potentially racist. They condemn the cards with bannings and shouting to the rooftops of this racism, but they instead caused interest and a boom in sales in unsavory products.
As the world outside is looking at us. These people who don't care about MTG or barely know of it as mere passing knowledge, are now paying attention to the collective of MTG's people and its company because of the game's racism. Not because they finally decided to have interest in the game itself. We are now being associated as part of "that game with racist cards that got banned".
I think Wizard's diversity is doing great for minorities and women with Core 2021 having a lot of Black characters featuring prominently. My only complaint with Wizards is that its rare now we get a standard white male named character that isn't a vampire or antagonist or something along the lines. Lukka and Barrin are the only two recent ones I can think of.
I think this can be solved by just upping the number of Legendaries/Walkers per set again.
Current EDH Decks:
Dakkon Blackblade 2WUUB
Being directly and personally insulted and attacked is just that, an insult and is actual even illegal to do no matter the context.
Nobody has to be directly and personally insulted or should be.
However, if a card displays something and by proxy someone feels insulted by that, they are explicitly not directly and personally insulted, but by proxy claim to be insulted, which is an entirely different animal.
As by this "by proxy insulted" notion you can be insulted by absolutely everything, as long as you claim to be insulted and you can claim ownership over being a victim and weaponize that.
If nobody means any harm to you and you blame them for insulting you, thats just terrible wrong and does nothing good, its toxic and destructive to any good relationship.
At this point the artists of these labeled as "racist" cards are attacked personally by people, as by proxy, the artist is transformed into a racist too, no matter what their intention was in the art and its even less relevant if they actually are what they are blamed for ...
Theres a real danger in doing that and its fairly easy to realize how wrong it is to do that.
The Nazis did the very same to jews. They just blamed them to be "evil" and the entire nation followed that narrative and see what we got, a entire nation that suddenly by proxy hated on jews and caused one of the most evil acts in human history.
What we get with the current racism trope is very much like that and it gets more and more violent and crazy every day by now.
People that mean absolutely no harm are labeled and blamed for almost everything , and suddenly violence against them is "justified" , even encouraged, and the mob is destroying monuments, property and throwing rocks at people.
Its the same stupidity as Nazi Germany did against the jews, its labeling a enemy out of thin air and completely goes over the rails to lash out.
----
WotC here by proxy declares these cards and names of the cards as "racist" , by proxy labels the artists of these cards as racists and instigates an entire group of people to rally against a straw man, all in the name of fighting racism.
So the end result is, you just created more racism out of thin air, more hate against people and either side of the argument is going to radicalize over it and lesser minds will even resort to violence.
----
So yes, if someone is directly and personally attacked by any means, i am among the first to defend that person.
And freedom of speech means you are not restricted in what you say, as you do no harm in that, its strictly positive to be able to talk about whatever is in your mind, everyone that thinks different is free to do the same and oppose your arguments.
If someone suddenly claims the color red is a symbol of hate, and by that its banned, do we ban everything red from magic to pander to that claim ?
Its simply insane to go that way, as its an ever increasing list of banned words, banned things, banned hand-signs and at some point you are not allowed to do anything as it might somehow be offensive to somebody in the world.
----
The claim to fight against racism is by definition divisive and damaging on its own, especially if its too broad and cloudy defined.
It gets even worse looking way in the past and using todays standards to retroactive "fix" the past, as it doesnt fix anything, but attacks and damages the history and brands all the people as "Bad" that honor that history.
----
At some point people should just throw all that garbage away and get together, have fun and play the game.
A lot of people dont want to deal with any outside-world problems at all at a table of magic.
I dont care what color your skin has, i dont care what your sexual preferences are and i absolutely dont care what your politcal views are, we can all get together and play the game, and thats the point, thats whats so positive.
If you cant do that, you ostracize yourself and others, and thats just plain bad to do, as its the exact opposite of welcoming and inclusive.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I believe that comment had been directed at me and, for whatever it’s worth, I’m upset that you got banned for saying it.
Yeah, it looks like magic is/was a racist game which wotc has to react to cuz of events. and there are still tons of cards you can (mis)interpret with the reading that black means skincolor and not magical faction. now everybody playing mono white decks will be closely looked upon.
powpercube Johnny https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
So you are in the camp that intention is bigger than effect, so if you do harm but mean no harm its ok.
What when the people who point out that those things might be racist did not mean harm but wanted to point that out as in hey that card has racist connotations and then they blame them for insulting them as racist. To me it still looks like its the same thing but one of those things is ok and the other is not?
First besided Harold mc Neil who Heavily uses Nazi and White Supremacy iconography see here they are hardly attacked and if at all for their art and not personally. Since the art context is mainly problematic for Invoke prejudice.
With the differende here beeing twofold:
1. It was a government not a company who used it as propaganda
2. Their "reasoning" was made in such a way that they are evil because who they are here their reasoning is not your evil because you are a racist it's hey those are not nice things to do. In the first they can't change out of being who they are in the second they have the chance to either change their opinion or double down on it or realize that they were ignorant in somethings. The jews didn't have agency when someone is called a racist they do.
See above, if you take away peoples agency they tend to get frustrated and if people who have agency say "theres nothing we can do" the people without agency get frustrated even more. While I don't condone violence I can see where it comes from.
No no you did not, just because someone labeled something racist does not add a racist thing into the world it was already there someone just pointed it out. If the offended people have no right to be offended nobody should be offended by being called racist/nazi.
As someone else already pointed out Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, if plattform owners don't like what you say they are within their right to say yeah buddy not here. And freedom of speech also applies the other way around if you say hey thats not racist I can sey hey thats racist.
As I said before in 2 points its not the government that bans this it's the company/plattform and if that plattform deems hey that's not what they are about it is within their right to do so as it is their freedom of speech. And even if that "slippery slope" argument comes true as with your personal freedom of speech they also do not have freedom from consequences so lets say they ban the color red and people don't like it guess what they are not entitled tho those people still being paying customers.
Thats not how it works as the less you do the more real racists feel empowered to be openly racist. This is what brought us in this situation we are in rn.
Yes alot of people don't want to deal with outside world problems but when those problems get in your game of magic you can't really use it as escapism.
You cant threat it the same if there is intention or not.
If someone has the intention to hurt you, thats tremendously worse than, than someone that means no harm gets suddenly branded.
If someone means no harm, you are free to tell them whats supposed wrong, and they are free to change or not accept your claim.
The one that blames someone for wrong doing isnt automatically in the right.
If a Nazi blames a jew , its not the Nazi that is in the right for calling out the jew.
----
The intention of the blamer is as important as the intention of the supposed evil doer.
If a person just claims victim status for themselves and uses that as a weapon to destroy others, its in no way helpful at all, its producing problems out of thin air.
----
In what world do you want to live in.
- A world with thousands of banned words, banned signs and banned art.
- Or a world in which everything is allowed and everyone is free to make up their own mind.
I am in the camp for the free world.
As the world that bans stuff always depends on some form of authority that defines what is banned, and can do so on their own merits, and i am highly opposed to anybody taking my own responsibility away from me to dictate what i am allowed to say, do or think.
This freedom however doesnt mean you are free to harm others.
But then again, intention is a big part, on both sides.
The intention of any human should be to allow a life in solidarity.
Even if people dislike each other, they should still be able to work with each other, and not sabotage and destroy each others lives.
And that goes both ways. Its not a one way street.
----
If a black person is actively hated on, everyone in their right mind will jump to defend them.
Perfectly reasonable and i dont think anybody here will oppose that (as that would indeed be the most direct form of racism you could think of).
If that black person now sees someone with a magic deck that has Invoke Prejudice in it, what is the reasonable "consequence" ?
We could just accept it and live our lives happily, OR we go to war against that person and take away that persons freedom as we suddenly claim ownership over our supposed oppression ; someone might throw that person out of the store, insult them, claim they are racists, and make their day really bad.
Do we want that ? Seriously, anybody wants that ?
I dont.
This insult by proxy is only doing harm and produces conflict.
Its much more healthy to get away from the past and assume people do not mean harm, instead of actively looking and searching for any farm of passive insults by proxy, and then leashing out aggression against that person.
I dont want a Magic banned list with thousand of cards that are deemed racist.
It needs to be consistent also.
If something is racist, ALL the racist variations need to be addressed, not just a sub-group that is more important than another (as that is in itself racist to make such a distinguishing).
Either everyone is equal, or nobody is.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Yeah again with the slippery slope acting as if magic taging away a card is banning a word entirely, wotc is not the government.
If someone does not mean harm to you but still harms you harm is still done and you can call that someone out for it. Yes it is worse if harm was meant. But just because no harm was meant doeesn't mean no harm is done.
I agree that if you acidentally shoot someone its less bad that to actively do it. But that doesn't mean just because you didnt mean to doesn't mean someone isn't shot. And if you acidentally shoot someone you still call him out since you know manslaughter isn't murder buts its still a crime and its still bad thing.
All I can see in your arguments is its bad to call someone racist/nazi bad and makes people do bad things to them, but saying/doing racist things will not make people do bad things to different people. Like you said either everything is equal or nothing is.
edit
Get thrown out of the store, like racists do with people of a different race. Make their day really bad you mean like people like tiro and the jihad thing which he is reminded of when he sees the card. You know the same consequences.
I know we’ve been here before, but it bears mentioning again: we don’t want equality, we want equity. Hundreds of years of systemic injustice isn’t going to be erased by opening the door to misguided accusations of ‘reverse racism,’ a thing that does not and never will exist.
Do you know what a slippery slope is?
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Agreed if you have the context for banning a card that can be viewed as racist against whites by the same standards have at it. Keep in mind that cleanse isnt just because it kills all black creatures, its the additional context.
I also agree that all racism needs to be adressed. But If a house is burning you don't go to extinguish the neigbours candle because all Fires must be adressed. If one issue is more pressing you handle that issue. If you only come up with men's rights when womens's rights are discussed that paints the picture of a Kid who only plays with the ball when his brother wants to play , he doesn't care about the ball he just cares that his brother cant play with it.
Perhaps, your post referred to intentionality and it was a convenient jumping off point to discuss why intent is not the standard because not all racism is intentional. Or overt, for that matter.
It's unlikely any of these cards were created with the intention to have racist connotations, they were created in a time where there was much less conversation and general awareness of how racism operates. Racism permeates systems and social norms, and is exhibited as much in passive elements as active ones. These cards are no more problematic this week than they were for decades, that they weren't a point of conversation before now is a part of the problem. Not needing to or not feeling compelled to address your racist behaviors (intentional or otherwise) is part of the problem, that we know WotC has been aware of the issues with some of these cards for at least 5-10 years and elected to say or do nothing is emblematic of of that.
The card itself isn't the issue being discussed, what is being discussed is this MaRo quote:
Which is a joke that specifically relies upon racial stereotypes. And is why I felt we needed to be more aware of the intent versus impact relationship. I don't think MaRo was intentionally racist, but it's still a problem that he was uncritically using racial stereotypes to crack a joke.
Put another way, this might symbolize a sea change where the game designers will be more aware of the racist impacts of their work and endeavor to limit how often their products have racist connotations and MtG players will be more aware of how prejudices hurt people and make play spaces unsafe.
There's an argument to be made that racism was already a dividing force, it's just that most people didn't realize what side of the divide they were (intentionally or otherwise) on.
Your point about words is kinda missing the forest for the trees. Dehumanizing language and othering language do have power, and no amount of "sticks and stones" can change that. Language is a social tool to communicate ideas and values, and in the instance of dehumanizing/othering language, it has the power of society's norms and standards behind it - which is why that language is an issue. And that power behind language can be reversed, when we have conversations about language that is hurtful we are challenging society's norms and standards and pushing for a redefined social standard.
Incrementalism isn't the worst way to address social issues, it certainly gives time for society at large to become accustomed to change. Though it is also worth pointing out that incremental change that's decades late to start is interpreted as a form of resisting change or trying to limit how much change happens.
For what it's worth, this isn't the radical action I would have suggested to WotC. I would have advocated for highlighting these cards as examples of how racial bias, racial stereotypes, and racist systems can create an issue within the game. Fully articulate why these cards aren't acceptable and outline the lessons learned from each that will be guiding WotC from here on. The bans on their own are a symbolic copout, if the company (its practices, policies, and internal culture) doesn't change, these bannings are meaningless.
Which is the reason why this conversation is so necessary. Those players have always existed within the game, and have been making play spaces unsafe for others the entire time. I don't think this conversation the fandom is having will change them, but that's not the point. The hope is it changes everyone else. Other players, LGSes, WotC itself, as they change the culture of the fandom and players who would antagonize others with bigotry will find that conduct less and less accepted until they give it up or go elsewhere.
No, this does not make Elspeth a racist.
You're missing the context that makes Crusade an issue is not just its name, but the intersection of its name and effect, a relationship that has been outlined a few times now. Crusade as a word has legitimate uses as well as uses that evoke a very specific meaning - the intersection of card name and ability draws the connotation too close to the specific (racially charged) meaning and away from the general (relatively neutral) definition.
Yes, these are symptoms of the larger issue of racism in the fandom. Not addressing it wasn't going to make it go away, and though I have my own issues with WotC's chosen direction, I ultimately think the conversation they started is a net benefit. In part because we can identify that people are profiteering off cards with racist connotations.
Incidentally, the comments and tweets on articles about WotC's decision really highlight how the fandom is seen from the outside: exclusionary, unsafe, immature. People in my playgroup (who are largely women, BIPOC and/or LGBTQ2S+) have been fielding comments from people asking them how they would want to be involved with this fandom, so that's a thing.
It reminds me a lot of the external reactions to videogame fandom at large being challenged on sexism/homophobia and the fandom reactions that followed.
It might be in bad taste to, in a conversation of how racism intersects with MtG and its fandom, to lodge a complaint about how the game really isn't featuring white guys prominently enough right now.
The game has centred white men for virtually its whole history. It's first big arc was about Urza and Gerrard and the Gatewatch arc really pushed Jace as the face of the game for a long time, the game can handle white guys not being the prominent heroes for a year. And we also did just get the Kenriths, for whatever that's worth. I don't think WotC is going to stop having heroic white guys, they just haven't been the key focus for a handful of sets.
Yes, pejorative language directed at someone and pejorative language that creates an environment of unease/unsafety are mechanically different. They are also both worth challenging.
"Weaponizing victimhood" is such an obtuse way of framing anti-racist work that I have a hard time even comprehending where you're coming from. It's just not congruent with what I'm seeing from people who want the game and fandom to be less exclusionary and bigoted. You seem to think it's all a game for power that you think will be unfairly leveraged against you, and what I'm seeing is people pushing for more respect and accountability from other players, play spaces, and the game itself.
Is this stemming from a fear of being considered a racist for your behaviors?
A colleague once told me something that really stuck with me, I hope by sharing it you find it useful. They told me that when people are expressing to someone that their actions are disrespectful and hurtful, it's coming from a place of believing that person is capable of changing. It's an act of trust in that the person trusts us to acknowledge how we have acted and impacted, and will reassess our behavior. Refusing to be self-reflective and considerate is in effect a betrayal of that expression of trust.
The artists shouldn't be attacked. The artist who has demonstrated particularly racist beliefs should be criticized on those grounds, but there's no need for attacks. And no, artists aren't "racists by proxy" because the end product they contributed to is problematic.
Meaning no harm and causing no harm are two distinct concepts.
It would be worth the conversation at least, and if the complaints hold water then some sort of action would be important. That's just what the process is, and it's reflective of how society as a whole is challenged and changed. Though this example is absurd because it relies upon an extreme (unrealistic) example, it's just a strawman.
So is the issue that people use language as a tool to oppress or that people who don't want to be oppressed are pushing back against language that causes harm.
As well, "socially unacceptable" and "banned" aren't the same thing. People want bigotry to be socially unacceptable so that society and culture can shift in a way that eases their oppression.
Do you know why my playgroup is mostly women, BIPOC, and/or LGBTQ2S+? It's because they couldn't just "get together, have fun and play the game" in other spaces because those real-world issues you want to be left out of things can't just be ignored by the people impacted by them. It's a luxury to ignore that people's behavior can be bigoted and make others feel unsafe and unwelcome.
We all had to create our own group because of other players making other groups unwelcoming or choosing to ignore the issue. We didn't ostracize ourselves, we were left with few choices by players creating toxic environments or simply condoning it that eventually pushed us out. That's what ostracization looks like.
No, players playing mono-white aren't going to be looked at with more suspicion now and black within the context of MtG's five colors won't be innately tied to skin color either. We can discuss the very real consequences of WotC's actions without muddying the waters with extreme examples that don't serve any sort of nuanced purpose. It's just strawmanning to derail the real conversation.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
The post immediately above yours proves this to be wrong, as if that were necessary to see the patently obvious. People of every race, creed, color, and gender play this game; it is no less true even if for some reason your personal experience does not bear this out.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
True, mistake, fixed!
The fact that 7/11 stores exist, as a chain of stores that call themselves "convenience stores," is not a racist joke. His joke doesn't even touch on race at all. Your brain might then remind you that Indian Americans tend to run convenience stores, but that's entirely user-end. If I'm missing something please explain further.
I am not sure what equity is but I find anything other than equality morally reprehesible.
I am also not sure what reverse racism is but I suspect you mean racism agaist white people? And why doesn't this exist? Last time I checked Hispanics, Jews, Slavs, Arabs, Turks, Roma, Sinti, and probably a lot more were all or still subjected to racism and last time I checked these are all white.
And you speak like someone who never was refused entry to a restaurant because of his skin color. A thing that happend to me and I am white.
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
What you're missing is that the joke was told within the context of talking about Kaladesh, MtG's East Indian inspired plane. Within that context, MaRo's joke is a bad look. That MaRo didn't understand that the joke was off color in that context is part of the problem.
That exact quote wouldn't have been perceived poorly at all if Consulate Dreadnought was a card in Ixalan or Dominaria and not Kaladesh, because the context would be different. Linking something with power and toughness 7/11 to the convenience store brand isn't the issue (I don't think it's particularly clever, but your mileage may vary and that's not the issue at hand), doing it within the context of a set depicting East Indian-inspired people is an issue because of the racist stereotypes around East Indian immigrants and convenience stores. That stereotype is used to paint East Indian people in an undignified light, it's reductive, and it's mocking very real situations that immigrants find themselves in in North America but that's a concept outside the scope of this discussion. Suffice is to say, that stereotype is the reason why The Simpsons was hounded by complaints for literal decades and why Hank Azaria wanted to retire the character of Apu. MaRo played into those same tropes.
Equity is the recognition that not everyone starts in the same position in life and equality initiatives that fail to take them into account only replicate and reinforce disparities.
Equality is everyone is treated exactly the same. Equity is everyone being treated according to need to level the playing field.
It doesn't exist because racial prejudice and racism, though conflated, are very distinct concepts.
Racial prejudice exists in everyone and is internal biases that affect our behavior. Racism is a much more complex concept and requires systems, institutions, and power dynamics to empower it. Whenever a given society has one race that holds greater importance/power/influence/priority and that position is used to maintain that while oppressing others, that's racism. It's the unequal relationship between a race that holds systemic power and races that do not and it impacts every area of society (work, school, faith, relationships, finances, opportunity, art, entertainment, travel, security, governance, policy, industry, etc). Reverse racism is a fallacious concept because it doesn't understand the power dynamic element in systemic racism. A racially oppressed group cannot exert racism against the dominant race because they do not have power to do so within that society. They can absolutely be racially prejudiced, but if they do not have systemic power in society that prejudice is not racism. Prejudice works in all directions (bottom-up, top-down, and laterally) while racism only functions top-down.
ETA: I should point out that I don't want this to be a whole off-topic tangent, but the difference between racial prejudice and racism is germane to talking about how the game and fandom can, and should, grow in regards to racial justice. Yandere (or anyone who wants to have a good faith dialogue), if you'd like to discuss it further, perhaps we could take it to PMs?
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
As for specific cards, off the top of my head, Azusa, Lost but Seeking is a very offensive stereotype of Japanese culture that I personally think is in bad taste. I see this card crop up in my local game store quite often.
Reverse-racism is NOT a correct term. It is just "racism" in it's truest form when broken down. Some have made comments pertaining to racism only being from the top down, when in actuality, up until a few days ago on some "official" sites, it was changed in an effort to appease individuals of minorities.
I have seen others saying minorities have been fighting for equity, when a simple google search shows many protests over the decades, including the civil right protests have been for equality, not equity. Changing the narrative can only work so far when one's who believe they are right think so highly of themseves.
Going back on the topic of racism, it was always a two-way street. Racism is the prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group. One can add the part of only to "minorities" to add to their cause, but you are changing what the definition of what the word actually is. Much like how people changed the term "literally", to mean "figuratively" over the years, which is ironic in this case.
One can not change the rules during the middle of a game, thinking the opponents are clueless, and not expect any blow-back, and then think you are morally superior and have the high ground as if on cue to justify a dangerous ideology.
The United States itself is not institutionally racist. Yes, there are parts of US history that is troubling of course, but it's foundation in and of itself have never been racist.
What happened to George Floyd was a very sad issue, but worse is with what happened afterwards was much worse because of the riots. People being offended where no aggression was meant is a sadistic form that has become more and more invasive in the world, and growth will never happen if people cannot look beyond their situations let alone problems that they never had to deal with. The events of the last few weeks is going to perpetuate "racists" much worse, and on both sides.
There are quite a few bad eggs, but that is on both sides of the spectrum, politically, and on the racial scale, and to think otherwise is redundant and silly to argue with, especially when the wrong "facts" are brought up in an effort to work with their narrative. Other users have asked that you listen and try to understand their side, but those other users before as I mentioned keep bringing up useless facts that are not supporting their argument one bit. Ironically, even the "alt-right nazis" as claimed by those same users here can be spoken with as compared to the ones that won't even give them the time of day, and then bring up points of "consequences" to what people say? That is hypocrisy. That is pure form of toxicity on this site, and why people like myself rarely, if ever comment, and just watch.
What WOTC is doing now, is as many have said, it is pandering, plain and simple. They are a business first, and foremost, and will do what they believe, with or without data, is best for their company. No one is refuting that they are a private company and can do this, but rather if they should. This topic does not bar them from being appropriately criticized on the matter. Some cards, sure, have racist connotations to it, but some of the others, well, it is always interesting where one's look to be offended, when again, no offense was ever meant. Any form of critical thinking will help one understand that.
Lastly, rather than look at other forms of media, particularly ones that have been proven false on many occasions, think for yourselves,and look for the best in others, rather than thinking every little thing a white individual does is racist. Racism and slavery existed LONG before the modern use of it was ever utilized, and from many races and cultures.
Nobody should be threated different.
The only time equity makes sense is in hindsight of disabled or any other form of being unable to do it on your own.
Building a ramp that someone in a wheelchair can get to work is reasonable, nobody would be sane to ask that person to use the stairs as anybody else, that makes no sense.
However, if equity is used to somehow claim some people have it harder in life, just because of their skin color, than thats just a cop out, they dont, and the claim is silly.
The even worse part is to charge a higher tax rate just for the skin color, such things are racist and the reverse, to pay a specific group money to "help" them, is just as racist, just reversed, as some people believe they have to help people, while people very much prefer to get along on their own.
Getting stuffed in a group and threated like a disabled person is quite an insult to a person that doesnt need that help, its only reasonable where its absolute necessary to archive equality.
Everyone has to get the same chances, not everyone is the same, not everyone wants to be the same.
So equality is what you want to archive, and equity where its actually useful, and not everywhere.
Because some things you have to accept are not reasonable done by everyone and its unreasonable to change everything just to make it work for them and let everyone else pay for that.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Seriously, how dare you compare racists to the Jews? The only thing they have in common is that some people don't like them. "This is just like the Holocaust" absolutely must be reserved for serious cases. For example, India's government recently passed an anti-Muslim equivalent to the Nuremberg Laws. If you want to compare Indian Muslims to the Jews, go right ahead. If you are going to complain about racists and people accused of racism getting cancelled, leave the Holocaust comparisons at home. Doing othewise is tremendously disrespectful to my people.
It's not "changing" the definition. The qualification that racism is necessarily systemic is a decision which was made collectively by intellectuals in their discussion of the issue of racism. It follows naturally as a consequence of analyzing the social issue in which merely defining it as prejudice would not adequately describe or explain many phenomena. Racial inequities in society are a product of racism, but it is reductive to say they are a product of some individual's prejudices against a given race. The causality of racial inequities is just more complicated than coming down to just prejudice, they would exist and continue to exist even if every individual did not hold those prejudices. Insofar as "racism" is a word which is employed for the express purpose of defining a social problem, narrowing its definition to prejudice would make it fail to define the problem. It is a standard practice in intellectual discourse to refine language as needed by the subtleties involved in the topic at hand. Defining racism as only prejudice also opens to door to white people complaining about prejudice directed toward them, which is not a comparable social issue to solve (in fact, it is relatively trivial in importance) and needlessly derails the discussion. The technical use of the word "racism" by intellectuals might be more difficult to understand for uneducated people who are accustomed to their colloquial usage. But if someone takes the trouble to explain it to them, one would hope they'd listen and try to understand.
I have to admit, I'm taken aback at people rejecting the notion of the value of equity. Equality as a concept is impoverished if it doesn't include dimensions of equity; equity makes equality ethically robust. Now if someone could demonstrate to me what equality actually loses by including equity, that would be a fascinating discussion.
Since you're defining racism as prejudice, which is something only a person can have, and a "foundation" is not a person, this claim is guilty of begging the question.
Well, there you have it. You value black lives so little that you prioritize them after the damage to property done by riots.
It's not toxic to get mad at someone for making racist arguments. But it certainly can be toxic to insist on saying whatever you want and never be criticized for it by anyone.
Agree.
Why exactly is it so important to you to trivialize black slavery by comparing it to other historical examples? And what does that have to do with whether or not everything a white person does is racist?