The problem I have with the bannings is that aggressive bannings won't make things better. The problem is that the format lacks certain cards to make it better and taking away options in an already limited pool of choices does not expand a format. For example, I think that banning Scorched Desert would probably have been a better attempt at balancing ramunap without killing the deck. Also Rampaging Ferocidon being banned has left me a bit divided. I see the points they are pushing, yet at the same time it was one of the few ways red had to deal with a lot of the life gain and token strategies. Energy is likely going to go Grixis now as it has the better options to run and never ran the banned cards to begin with.
Did you read the banning article? Because making sure that decks that go wide or use life gain can fight back against RR was why the card was banned. /facepalm
Yeah I did, and I don't agree that it was a wise decision to ban Ferocidon. I think something else should have been banned in place of it as despite the fact they designed it to handle a problem that never surfaced, it still acted as a SkullCrack in a format that does have a lot of options for life gain. At the same time, I understand the reasons for why they would ban it. Did you read my own post? I said I was divided on the decision, not "zomg it was the stupidest choice ever".
Case in point, mono-black aggro win percentage was around 56%. They could, as mentioned, removed Ahncrop Crasher to equal effect, removing an older card, keeping Ixalan free of banned cards, and therefore not make the set worse to open. But who knows, maybe they actually have Skullcrack coming in the next set so this was to give an underpowered vampires strategy breathing room.
No you asked why would they ban the card when it fights against tokens and life gain strategies when the article literally spells out why banning the card, in order to enable that angle of attack against RR, which calls into question why you would ask a question that was already answered directly by the article. Straw manning other people's posts doesn't make that any less nonsensical.
As someone else put it, if a Skullcrack with legs is giving someone trouble they have their own issues to deal with. Now I'm interested in seeing if mono-black aggro makes a return.
That's not a response, that's you ignoring the fact you asked a question answered in the very article you claim to have read. Nor does it actually address the situation in the format that prompted the bannings. It doesn't even make sense in regards to the article since the article specifically mentions that going wide and lifegain WAS an effective strategy against RR. Which Ferocidon wrecks.
The problem I have with the bannings is that aggressive bannings won't make things better. The problem is that the format lacks certain cards to make it better and taking away options in an already limited pool of choices does not expand a format. For example, I think that banning Scorched Desert would probably have been a better attempt at balancing ramunap without killing the deck. Also Rampaging Ferocidon being banned has left me a bit divided. I see the points they are pushing, yet at the same time it was one of the few ways red had to deal with a lot of the life gain and token strategies. Energy is likely going to go Grixis now as it has the better options to run and never ran the banned cards to begin with.
Did you read the banning article? Because making sure that decks that go wide or use life gain can fight back against RR was why the card was banned. /facepalm
Yeah I did, and I don't agree that it was a wise decision to ban Ferocidon. I think something else should have been banned in place of it as despite the fact they designed it to handle a problem that never surfaced, it still acted as a SkullCrack in a format that does have a lot of options for life gain. At the same time, I understand the reasons for why they would ban it. Did you read my own post? I said I was divided on the decision, not "zomg it was the stupidest choice ever".
Case in point, mono-black aggro win percentage was around 56%. They could, as mentioned, removed Ahncrop Crasher to equal effect, removing an older card, keeping Ixalan free of banned cards, and therefore not make the set worse to open. But who knows, maybe they actually have Skullcrack coming in the next set so this was to give an underpowered vampires strategy breathing room.
No you asked why would they ban the card when it fights against tokens and life gain strategies when the article literally spells out why banning the card, in order to enable that angle of attack against RR, which calls into question why you would ask a question that was already answered directly by the article. Straw manning other people's posts doesn't make that any less nonsensical.
The problem I have with the bannings is that aggressive bannings won't make things better. The problem is that the format lacks certain cards to make it better and taking away options in an already limited pool of choices does not expand a format. For example, I think that banning Scorched Desert would probably have been a better attempt at balancing ramunap without killing the deck. Also Rampaging Ferocidon being banned has left me a bit divided. I see the points they are pushing, yet at the same time it was one of the few ways red had to deal with a lot of the life gain and token strategies. Energy is likely going to go Grixis now as it has the better options to run and never ran the banned cards to begin with.
Did you read the banning article? Because making sure that decks that go wide or use life gain can fight back against RR was why the card was banned. /facepalm
There's really no point in asking if the cards are some of the worst on the ban list because context always defines something like that. Attune is a glue card that looks innocent, but performs a vital and efficient function that drastically increases the reliability of a deck like that. Cards like that are anything but weak.
That's not my narrative. That's just what is being discussed now. Whether or not its factual or otherwise is what is being discussed. Don't try to convince me; I'm against harassment and just observing. The sole purpose of my post was to point out that jeremy vs sprankle has virtually nothing to do with whats going on in your white house. At all.
There's a greater narrative outside of the scope of these events, related to a rising phenomenon in America that does make this about that, but honestly the mods have asked everyone to steer things back so it would probably be best if that was done. More pertinently, what happened with to miss Sprankle does not exist in the vacuum and what people have seen in Hollywood and elsewhere naturally colours the narrative of these events for understandable reasons. In consideration of why that is important for understanding why this happened it's important. But it's hard to actually discuss that if people are going to continually try to debate these things in bad faith. That benefits no one.
It was an article that was needed, it was well done and spot on in its assessments and I cannot thank the person who wrote it enough. The sad thing is that most of the responses to it are mired in the very lack of self reflection that defines the current era and lies at the heart of the "alternative fact." reality that a growing and disturbing amount of people feel they are entitled to. It's born out of a movement that in seeking to normalize it's views as simply one amongst many, feel it is necessary to attempt to strip actions and words of all meaning then hide in this muddied waters to justify itself.
It is NEVER okay or justified or a valid critique to attempt to **** shame people.
It is NEVER okay or justified to decry people compelled by sensitivity born out of empathy as being nothing but "virtue signalers." because your own self loathing and misapplied rage created by a sensitivity born out of fear compels you to label other people's motivations as cynical and selfish.
There is no justified argument predicated on disliking someone merely for the brute fact of their gender or sex, ethnicity,etc nor would that argument be grounded in reason.
If that bothers you so be it, because what you are attempting to normalize and characterize as simply another point of view is anything but. It is an abject failure to uphold even the bare minimum of human decency and frankly it should not have to be explained to you. It should be instinctual that you do not treat people like that.
This young man put himself in the position he is finding himself in. He chose his words, he chose his actions and those have consequences. Consequences yet to be fully realized in so far as WoTC and the capacity of any sub culture to uphold and create standards for itself can enforce.
If you feel compelled to think this is a free speech thing, or both sides thing, you are tragically mistaken. It's a personal responsibility and a discipline thing. If you can't create an environment for a sub culture formed around a hobby that doesn't attempt to foster this sort of discrimination and harassment then you do not need to be a part of it. It's a privilege, not something to be handed to you and the rest of us having standards against is not something anyone needs to apologize for. If that seems harsh or ostracizing then you need to take some time to self reflect on what it is you are doing that merited that response. Grow up. You'll be better off for it in the end.
So... what part of him twisting facts into a disingenuous narrative is valid? You might want to give more details - stewart peppers his "news" with more bull***** than hannity, and this particular segment has literally 0 to contribute to the discussion beyond proving that the pro-brown side doesn't actually look at facts.
Because I certainly trust your unbiased and well informed opinion on the matter, so much so I gleefully agree with a baseless "because I said so." analysis. Beyond that, I think at least two people here have severely undereducated knowledge about political satire over the centuries.
You've basically just saying, "It's a disanalogy because it disagrees with the conclusion I want to reach."
Or you're doing nothing but propping a strawman because your example was bizarre in that it had no analogue and was non sequitor.
And you're unwittingly helping my case by noting that an allusion to a real threat would be "bizarre". It would be bizarre. Like I said, jokes are about nonthreatening things.
Another non sequitor. What I did was say at BEST you could stretch your bizarre metaphor to roughly be an analogue to a real world scenario instead of the fiction it was.
Of course it doesn't. But look at the context it's in. That's clearly not the purpose it's intended to serve in F_B's argument. I don't like F_B's argument overall, but at least I understand how it fits together. Don't be so quick to berate people for not having a clue when all they've done is refrain from strawmanning.
Considering my post was on context, and the issues there in I find your attempt at retort on that ground rather ironic. Especially considering your strawmanning above.
Does this mean lifetime bans for everybody who gets a little peevish once or twice? Of course not. Talk to them, give them warnings, hand out temporary sanctions, whatever. But nobody is under an obligation to tolerate consistently bad behavior, least of all the owner of a private business whose bottom line may actually take a hit because of it. And anyway, saying "I can't believe I just lost to a girl" is not "getting a little peevish". It's an expression of really ugly sentiment. As far as I am concerned, one warning, then the boot after a second incident, is more than fair.
And how do we decide? Who is watching to make sure these "rules" are enforced equally? When I was in college I worked with a girl that we would regularly say "sexist" things to like "go make me a Sandwich!" and it was perfectly fine. It was all part of a joke because she was the only girl we worked with. If I say something like that to a friend at an event and someone overhears me should I be banned? I mean it's not at all unreasonable for someone to be offended by something they just overhear... and since we are apparently trying to avoid any situation where we offend someone I can only assume that we would punish anyone that says anything that someone finds offensive at any time to anyone. Or is it only those statements that you agree are offensive?
Anecdotal commentary based around contextual social dynamics is not a hand wave of sexism or sexist commentary. It's actually quite literally the "exception that proves the rule." The whole reason the context works is because sexism and sexist commentary is a thing. Holding that up as counter point is either an exercise in being obtuse or honest ignorance, both of which are deplorable.
Not 100% sure on what your point is but you did nothing to address the point of what I said. If I am with friends at an event and someone overhears me say something to my friends and that person happens to find it offensive do you (originally the question was directed toward BS) think punishment of any form is in order? And to clarify, a warning is a form of punishment.
I didn't find the "point" such as it is to be of much consideration. Nor would I, out of hand, accept the absurd idea that a warning is in all contexts a punishment. It's a ridiculous, non contextual comment. Not to mention the above scenario is playing in the area of social dynamics. If someone has the sense of self and sense of social environment then the reactions are going to be measured against how accurately the perceived that social environment. Which, and I almost feel bad I even need to point this out. Applies to BOTH parties. In other words, that person might be stupidly overreacting...or someone just made an equally stupid comment on the sort of social environment they should have known better than to. Don't be surprised that there are situations where both occur.
In regards to Magic I'm glad to say I didn't get to see direct occurrences of sexism or misogyny at events or FNM's. The closest was people who already had social issues having increased social awkwardness when around the opposite sex. I did however see instances of racism though including watching someone at a PTQ have to get a game loss if memory serves over an outburst against the jewish opponent he was paling.
This does not follow. If I make a joke about the monsters under your bed, does that only work because bed monsters are actually a thing?
Your example is nonsensical. In part since it's a poor example, unless you're making some bizarre allusion to actual real people someone might describe as a monster underneath a bed like a serial killer or a like. Either way it doesn't change the concept of contextual ribbing amongst friends acting as contrast to comments meant to harm rather than a poor attempt at the equivalent of "Some of my best friends are black...."
If a woman genuinely takes an ironically sexist comment as a joke, that implies she feels safe enough for the idea of real sexism to be, well, laughable. Now, we can speculate all we want about whether this is the case in F_B's anecdote; ultimately, the only person who can attest to it is the woman herself, and she ain't here. So we can really only speak meaningfully about the generalities of ironically sexist humor. It generally speaking, you are wrong, just based on how humor works.
To repeat the above. It sounds far more like you don't seem to have a clue why posting such an anecdote does not disarm the greater conversation about sexism. It honestly sounds like you don't get the concept.
Does this mean lifetime bans for everybody who gets a little peevish once or twice? Of course not. Talk to them, give them warnings, hand out temporary sanctions, whatever. But nobody is under an obligation to tolerate consistently bad behavior, least of all the owner of a private business whose bottom line may actually take a hit because of it. And anyway, saying "I can't believe I just lost to a girl" is not "getting a little peevish". It's an expression of really ugly sentiment. As far as I am concerned, one warning, then the boot after a second incident, is more than fair.
And how do we decide? Who is watching to make sure these "rules" are enforced equally? When I was in college I worked with a girl that we would regularly say "sexist" things to like "go make me a Sandwich!" and it was perfectly fine. It was all part of a joke because she was the only girl we worked with. If I say something like that to a friend at an event and someone overhears me should I be banned? I mean it's not at all unreasonable for someone to be offended by something they just overhear... and since we are apparently trying to avoid any situation where we offend someone I can only assume that we would punish anyone that says anything that someone finds offensive at any time to anyone. Or is it only those statements that you agree are offensive?
Anecdotal commentary based around contextual social dynamics is not a hand wave of sexism or sexist commentary. It's actually quite literally the "exception that proves the rule." The whole reason the context works is because sexism and sexist commentary is a thing. Holding that up as counter point is either an exercise in being obtuse or honest ignorance, both of which are deplorable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's not a response, that's you ignoring the fact you asked a question answered in the very article you claim to have read. Nor does it actually address the situation in the format that prompted the bannings. It doesn't even make sense in regards to the article since the article specifically mentions that going wide and lifegain WAS an effective strategy against RR. Which Ferocidon wrecks.
*An insular mechanic from an older set running over a format shifts attention away from new cards.
*That's a non sequitur.
No you asked why would they ban the card when it fights against tokens and life gain strategies when the article literally spells out why banning the card, in order to enable that angle of attack against RR, which calls into question why you would ask a question that was already answered directly by the article. Straw manning other people's posts doesn't make that any less nonsensical.
Did you read the banning article? Because making sure that decks that go wide or use life gain can fight back against RR was why the card was banned. /facepalm
There's a greater narrative outside of the scope of these events, related to a rising phenomenon in America that does make this about that, but honestly the mods have asked everyone to steer things back so it would probably be best if that was done. More pertinently, what happened with to miss Sprankle does not exist in the vacuum and what people have seen in Hollywood and elsewhere naturally colours the narrative of these events for understandable reasons. In consideration of why that is important for understanding why this happened it's important. But it's hard to actually discuss that if people are going to continually try to debate these things in bad faith. That benefits no one.
It is NEVER okay or justified or a valid critique to attempt to **** shame people.
It is NEVER okay or justified to decry people compelled by sensitivity born out of empathy as being nothing but "virtue signalers." because your own self loathing and misapplied rage created by a sensitivity born out of fear compels you to label other people's motivations as cynical and selfish.
There is no justified argument predicated on disliking someone merely for the brute fact of their gender or sex, ethnicity,etc nor would that argument be grounded in reason.
If that bothers you so be it, because what you are attempting to normalize and characterize as simply another point of view is anything but. It is an abject failure to uphold even the bare minimum of human decency and frankly it should not have to be explained to you. It should be instinctual that you do not treat people like that.
This young man put himself in the position he is finding himself in. He chose his words, he chose his actions and those have consequences. Consequences yet to be fully realized in so far as WoTC and the capacity of any sub culture to uphold and create standards for itself can enforce.
If you feel compelled to think this is a free speech thing, or both sides thing, you are tragically mistaken. It's a personal responsibility and a discipline thing. If you can't create an environment for a sub culture formed around a hobby that doesn't attempt to foster this sort of discrimination and harassment then you do not need to be a part of it. It's a privilege, not something to be handed to you and the rest of us having standards against is not something anyone needs to apologize for. If that seems harsh or ostracizing then you need to take some time to self reflect on what it is you are doing that merited that response. Grow up. You'll be better off for it in the end.
Because I certainly trust your unbiased and well informed opinion on the matter, so much so I gleefully agree with a baseless "because I said so." analysis. Beyond that, I think at least two people here have severely undereducated knowledge about political satire over the centuries.
Because Jon Stewart puts it better than I could.
Or you're doing nothing but propping a strawman because your example was bizarre in that it had no analogue and was non sequitor.
Another non sequitor. What I did was say at BEST you could stretch your bizarre metaphor to roughly be an analogue to a real world scenario instead of the fiction it was.
Considering my post was on context, and the issues there in I find your attempt at retort on that ground rather ironic. Especially considering your strawmanning above.
I didn't find the "point" such as it is to be of much consideration. Nor would I, out of hand, accept the absurd idea that a warning is in all contexts a punishment. It's a ridiculous, non contextual comment. Not to mention the above scenario is playing in the area of social dynamics. If someone has the sense of self and sense of social environment then the reactions are going to be measured against how accurately the perceived that social environment. Which, and I almost feel bad I even need to point this out. Applies to BOTH parties. In other words, that person might be stupidly overreacting...or someone just made an equally stupid comment on the sort of social environment they should have known better than to. Don't be surprised that there are situations where both occur.
In regards to Magic I'm glad to say I didn't get to see direct occurrences of sexism or misogyny at events or FNM's. The closest was people who already had social issues having increased social awkwardness when around the opposite sex. I did however see instances of racism though including watching someone at a PTQ have to get a game loss if memory serves over an outburst against the jewish opponent he was paling.
Your example is nonsensical. In part since it's a poor example, unless you're making some bizarre allusion to actual real people someone might describe as a monster underneath a bed like a serial killer or a like. Either way it doesn't change the concept of contextual ribbing amongst friends acting as contrast to comments meant to harm rather than a poor attempt at the equivalent of "Some of my best friends are black...."
To repeat the above. It sounds far more like you don't seem to have a clue why posting such an anecdote does not disarm the greater conversation about sexism. It honestly sounds like you don't get the concept.
Anecdotal commentary based around contextual social dynamics is not a hand wave of sexism or sexist commentary. It's actually quite literally the "exception that proves the rule." The whole reason the context works is because sexism and sexist commentary is a thing. Holding that up as counter point is either an exercise in being obtuse or honest ignorance, both of which are deplorable.