The very idea that black "cant be racist" is mind boggling naive.
That is boggling, and naive, yes. Anyone can be racist.
That depends entirely on the framework you're looking at, the colloquial usage or the social sciences usage. Colloquially, of course anyone can be racist in the sense that anyone of any race can hold race-based prejudices that cause them to see other races as less than and/or their own race as greater than, or otherwise infers inequality on an individual level. That's the typical definition you get when you google racism, and it is entirely true on an individual level.
I think the problem here is that many engaged in this conversation are, because the topic is on a society-wide issue, talking about systemic/institutionalized racism, which is a whole different beast. Unequal practices built into organizations or institutional systems that disproportionately benefit or disadvantage particular racial groups is really what we're talking about here, not racism on an individual level. Within a white supremacist society/system, nonwhite people and groups are going to lack or be denied institutional power, and without significant power on a systemic level, those people/groups are unable to wield systemic racism, even if they may be racially prejudiced on an individual level. So when people say "black people can't be racist," what they're really saying is "black people are denied systemic power and therefore cannot create systems that meaningfully create/sustain black supremacy." Black people can certainly be prejudiced, they just don't have the power to control the very systems oppressing them (which was the point of those systems in the first place). Is that more complicated? Yes. Can it be hard to parse through someone's words to understand what they mean when they talk about racism? Sure. Are the distinctions between the two uses of the word vital to talking about the issue of systemic racism and unjust policing? Absolutely.
Systemic racism and individual racism are certainly connected, they feed and reinforce one another, and dismantling one requires dismantling the other. They just serve distinct functions within society and their complex interactions are a significant reason why these conversations are challenging.
** As an aside, I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about whether racial minorities can create pockets within the larger white supremacist society that involve racially prejudiced systems, but that's a conversation not best served by having it amongst (presumably, and pardon to anyone this does not apply to) white people. At a time where systemic racism is causing untold suffering and taking lives. I think there's an intriguing academic discussion there, it would only serve as a distraction in the current climate/discussion, though.
The very idea that black "cant be racist" is mind boggling naive.
That is boggling, and naive, yes. Anyone can be racist.
That depends entirely on the framework you're looking at, the colloquial usage or the social sciences usage. Colloquially, of course anyone can be racist in the sense that anyone of any race can hold race-based prejudices that cause them to see other races as less than and/or their own race as greater than, or otherwise infers inequality on an individual level. That's the typical definition you get when you google racism, and it is entirely true on an individual level.
I think the problem here is that many engaged in this conversation are, because the topic is on a society-wide issue, talking about systemic/institutionalized racism, which is a whole different beast. Unequal practices built into organizations or institutional systems that disproportionately benefit or disadvantage particular racial groups is really what we're talking about here, not racism on an individual level. Within a white supremacist society/system, nonwhite people and groups are going to lack or be denied institutional power, and without significant power on a systemic level, those people/groups are unable to wield systemic racism, even if they may be racially prejudiced on an individual level. So when people say "black people can't be racist," what they're really saying is "black people are denied systemic power and therefore cannot create systems that meaningfully create/sustain black supremacy." Black people can certainly be prejudiced, they just don't have the power to control the very systems oppressing them (which was the point of those systems in the first place). Is that more complicated? Yes. Can it be hard to parse through someone's words to understand what they mean when they talk about racism? Sure. Are the distinctions between the two uses of the word vital to talking about the issue of systemic racism and unjust policing? Absolutely.
Systemic racism and individual racism are certainly connected, they feed and reinforce one another, and dismantling one requires dismantling the other. They just serve distinct functions within society and their complex interactions are a significant reason why these conversations are challenging.
** As an aside, I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about whether racial minorities can create pockets within the larger white supremacist society that involve racially prejudiced systems, but that's a conversation not best served by having it amongst (presumably, and pardon to anyone this does not apply to) white people. At a time where systemic racism is causing untold suffering and taking lives. I think there's an intriguing academic discussion there, it would only serve as a distraction in the current climate/discussion, though.
I appreciate you sparing me the effort. This is a valuable conversation to have on its own.
For me its personally incredible insulting to make a statement that enforces the believe that :
At a time where systemic racism is causing untold suffering and taking lives.
This assumption is incredible.
Its so blatantly trying to assort everything to this buzz word its like a religion thats trying to assume people do evil things because "the devil".
No.
People make individual choices. People are responsible for their choices alone, not anybody else.
Group guilt is unjust, unfair and the assumption to punish or benefit a group in itself, instead of judging the individual is downright insulting to every human being.
No matter the system, people can still make their individual choices, and they do every day, in every moment.
People just succumb to ideology, manipulation and fear (either fear of punishment, physical, social, mental, everything goes).
We are not robots and we have individual will and consciousness.
----
People either make decisions to hurt others, or they contribute to benefit themselves, uplifting everyone around them.
People that keep their area clean benefit the people.
People that educate others (with actual useful knowledge) contribute to empower the capabilities of others.
People that just destroy and drag other people down are just that, destructive and miserable.
----
If somebody assumes racism in everyone, they will create it.
Racist companies cant succeed, as you want the best people for each job, if any of them happens to be racist, they will naturally be on a disadvantage.
If people choose to be racist and not serve people, they make less money, theres no reason to act racist in any way.
The assumption white (as a whole) have an inherent advantage is so insulting and racist its not even funny.
Tell the poor white person how privileged they are, and how oppressed the rich NBA player is.
Nobody will ever take that serious, its borderline insanity to believe that.
Any black family that actually has a mother and a father does quite fine.
If they are drugged, bad. The same is true for white families.
If the father is a gang member, thats bad. The same is true for white families.
Religious black families to quite fine.
Single moms do comparable poorly, pushing that the go-to family model is quite questionable.
Plenty of issues that have nothing to do with racism, plenty of cultural reasons, and misguided financial benefits that direct people in directions that are less beneficial for them.
Blacks are like 13.4% of the population (arguably any mixed, when a 1/8 black still counts themselves as black, question is at what point does it not count as black anymore? Skin color is such a terrible group indicator its crazy)
----
Instead of thinking in skin color terms, the issues of the individuals should be addressed.
People have needs that do not reflect their pinpointed group.
Affirmative action might help somebody in some way, and it hurts a lot of others.
The net benefit is just not positive at all , as it does harm to anybody else that does not get the benefits (for no other reason than, oh hey, you are born with a skin color that we decide to benefit, congratulations for that achievement).
----
To acknowledge problems is not wrong.
To ask for violence to "somehow" make these problems wish away, is just stupid.
To make demands and force them with violence is not consensus, it undermines everything that makes a society fair.
----
To believe that just a black person can or will make "intentional" choices that will not harm black people is also borderline racist assumption.
If unintentional decisions result in a form of oppression against people, thats a problem to acknowledge and solutions can arise ; as nobody should have any interest in making life worse for anybody else ; but as we see here some people just dont want Peace at all, some just want to claim their demands are more important , and this prioritization in group think reinforces the problem in the first place.
Its absolutely impossible to have a society in which everything is equally represented.
You cant have a women, a men, a transgender male, a transgender female, a non-gender, a animal person, a German, a Jew, a Christian, an Asian, and all kinds of variations in every position to fully represent everyone ... thats impossible, and these people also dont represent only that group.
If groups are broken down to their fundament, you end up with the individual again.
A black person is to another black person just another individual.
Their needs are different as are the needs of anybody else.
----
Empower the individual to fix their own issues as good as possible, helps a lot more than to ask some government to do it and make them dependent and incapable.
I think it would go a long way towards serving your point if we could understand you better. Could you maybe try re-formatting your post into paragraphs, correct for spelling and grammar (words underlined in red are misspelled), etc. Thank you!
I think it would go a long way towards serving your point if we could understand you better. Could you maybe try re-formatting your post into paragraphs, correct for spelling and grammar (words underlined in red are misspelled), etc. Thank you!
I think it would go a long way towards serving your point if we could understand you better. Could you maybe try re-formatting your post into paragraphs, correct for spelling and grammar (words underlined in red are misspelled), etc. Thank you!
You and you alone have to deal with that.
There is no WE in your opinion.
Thank you!!!
I disagree, but my peers are welcome to chime in for themselves here. As someone who makes a living teaching 7th and 8th graders, your writing is... difficult to parse. I've given you the benefit of the doubt in the past and spent quite a bit of extra time and energy deciphering your posts, in the interest of promoting your education on the subject, but those resources are in increasingly short supply given your inability to engage in good faith discourse. I suspect that may be why so few others have bothered to respond to you at all.
If you have any actual interest in convincing others of your viewpoint, there's quite a bit of room for you to make yourself better understood. The onus certainly isn't on me (or anyone else) to spend extra time making your case for you, when we're demonstrably occupied with crafting our own cogent and intelligible responses.
In hindsight I probably should have addressed your literacy in a private message, so as not to derail the topic further. Apologies, I won't make that mistake again - though my conditions for re-engaging you remain the same.
Thank you to all who have come to comment in the thread regarding the site's policies on the various #LivesMatter social issues, and associated political implications.
We have reviewed the resources provided. We remain steadfast with allowing #BlackLivesMatter on the site; Thus, to allow for balanced abilities for people to express themselves, we allow #BlueLivesMatter to keep rights of expression fair. Political disruptions of threads will still be closed down - we stand by the idea that this is a site for discussing Magic related topics, and that this is not a political discourse channel. Topics that do not contribute to that remain off-topic.
At this time, we will no longer accept debate about the validity of any of the positions in this thread. Any concerns about the site's policies, or additional resources you wish to provide to us for consideration will still be welcomed, but we ask that it be kept to an informational level. This thread is not a replacement for the (closed) debate forum.
What would be the point of providing you additional resources when you've decided to roundly ignore the ones already presented, including your own?
Per your own articles:
BlueLivesMatter is a counter-movement that has been co-opted with more positive branding, not the other way around. We know its origins for a fact.
It started as a response to BlackLivesMatters. The dates and implied messaging from BlueLivesMatter outlets bear this out.
Multiple sources indicate the main point of BlueLivesMatter is to further criminalize the murder of police officers; no other mention of how best to honor the fallen beyond punitive measures.
One guy, not already aware of its established social or cultural underpinnings, decided to monetize the BlueLivesMatter movement with merch. How noble.
Taken at face value, neither of the main BlueLivesMatter outlets reflect their true origins or intent - was this to be expected? Do we honestly believe they'd promote "Here to undermine the #BLM movement since 2014!" as their mission statement?
From the U.S. Sun: "The non-profit organization is made up of active and retired law enforcement officers, who believe there is a 'war on cops.'" Countermovements are easier to digest if someone is waging hypothetical war on you, I guess. Still less noble than the general premise of honoring sacrifice in the line of duty.
Speaking of 'war on cops': the number of peace officer deaths per annum has varied greatly since 2013, strongly suggesting there is no surge of cop murder as a consequence of BlackLivesMatter.
From the Washington Post: "By using the phrase 'blue lives' and equating themselves with protected groups eligible for hate-crime legislation, police — specifically white police — are telling the world that they are police even when their uniforms are off, part of a targeted community in need of special protection." White people need special protection... why does this sound familiar?
From the bluelivesmatter.blue archive: I got as far as "On August 9 2014, Ferguson PD Officer Darren Wilson was doing his job as he stopped Michael Brown... " before my bias alarm went off. Just doing his job... why does this sound familiar?
Some companies have walked-back their lack of support for BlueLivesMatter due to backlash, true. Is that because it cost them bad press or money, or because it was right thing to do? The articles don't specify, but I can guess.
Your own sources belie the conclusion that you've somehow drawn, bob, and I'm not sure how or why; perhaps you just have a poor eye for obvious bias. How does Hanlon's razor go again?
I've noted repeatedly that people on this site only came out to support BlueLives in response to my own personal efforts, and your response to that affect remains conspicuously absent. Oh, I'm sure those posters will protest their innocence all day long, if you haven't talked to them already. That being the case, I have this really nice bridge to sell you.
Balance for the murderers and the murdered, all in the name of selling ad space for the site owners. How ironic that this place should be so far beyond salvation.
I've noted repeatedly that people on this site only came out to support BlueLives in response to my own personal efforts, and your response to that affect remains conspicuously absent.
Maybe the actual solution would be to stay to Magic and avoid ANY political aspect at all.
It would remove this entire issue.
----
Otherwise allowing one side of an argument and downright censoring the other is atrociously hypocrisy if theres any remote idea of being a platform that wants to be "inclusive".
----
I would much prefer to not have any political implications and make that sure.
As it stands, the next "trend" will just produce the next discussion of what is allowed and what not and it keeps on going forever and might even keep shifting from month to month (in which case, people need to constantly monitor what the current stand of the moderators are to what is they claim to be ok or not, thats obfuscation and not clear rules at all).
Maybe the actual solution would be to stay to Magic and avoid ANY political aspect at all.
Congrats, you posted enough bullsh*t to reaffirm the site owner's decision to ignore their conscience. You proved everything we've said since post #9, and now this thread serves as a welcome mat for every other bigot and bad faith actor. At least we can finally admit that this was your goal all along.
"Post here ye faithful, for no matter how toxic or harmful, there will be balance."
Any concerns about the site's policies, or additional resources you wish to provide to us for consideration will still be welcomed, but we ask that it be kept to an informational level.
More data for all concerned to ignore. At the informational level, of course.
Less than 14% of the entire population represents at least 23% of those fatality shot by police in 2018-19. I say 'at least' because a portion of those ~200 unknown deaths each year may have also been black.
Contrast this with the number of peace officers intentionally killed in the line of duty (less than 50) set against the total number of employed peace officers in 2018. That's .007% of the working peace officers 'assassinated,' as you're inclined to describe it.
Given that lynch is a word with very heavy racial overtones, and that we're currently suffering from societal issues around extrajudicial killings, it doesn't strike me that this is acceptable discourse. Perhaps there is some context that I'm unaware of; it doesn't matter. This was discovered by way of a site admin's profile and viewing their most recent posts, and if there's something buried in that thread to explain it, I don't see how any casual observer would bother to sift through ~5,000 posts for an explanation. I wouldn't hesitate to report a random poster for using such language, I certainly don't see how the site owners can lay claim to promoting a 'neutral' atmosphere here at MTGS when even their own admins exercise poor judgment in conversation.
Given the discourse that has already transpired in this very thread (for whatever that's worth), it would only serve to validate the impression that MTGS has an alt-right bias if shadowlancerx were allowed to maintain their current level of power and authority. I respectfully urge that the wolf be removed from the sheep. Thank you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from FlossedBeaver »
Wolves don't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep, eh Lancer?
Given that lynch is a word with very heavy racial overtones, and that we're currently suffering from societal issues around extrajudicial killings, it doesn't strike me that this is acceptable discourse. Perhaps there is some context that I'm unaware of; it doesn't matter. This was discovered by way of a site admin's profile and viewing their most recent posts, and if there's something buried in that thread to explain it, I don't see how any casual observer would bother to sift through ~5,000 posts for an explanation. I wouldn't hesitate to report a random poster for using such language, I certainly don't see how the site owners can lay claim to promoting a 'neutral' atmosphere here at MTGS when even their own admins exercise poor judgment in conversation.
Given the discourse that has already transpired in this very thread (for whatever that's worth), it would only serve to validate the impression that MTGS has an alt-right bias if shadowlancerx were allowed to maintain their current level of power and authority. I respectfully urge that the wolf be removed from the sheep. Thank you.
For what it's worth, a 'lynch' in mafia-style games refers to the elimination of a player based on group vote. It's literally a game term for mob 'violence', and it's been used on these forums as long as I've been around on the site (likely back to the 'News days).
Though, for the sake of fairness, I know some mafia communities are moving away from that term for obvious reasons.
Though, for the sake of fairness, I know some mafia communities are moving away from that term for obvious reasons.
"This is how we've always done it" has never been a strong argument against social evolution, even (or maybe especially) when it comes to linguistics. There was a period of time not too long ago when the N-word wasn't just a racial epithet, it was the norm. Is my accusation petty? Maybe. Does it still stand in the face of MTGS' hypothetical stance on inclusion? Absolutely. We shouldn't expect new players to come to these boards and invest time into research to prove for themselves that this place isn't inherently racist. If I were a person of color, and I saw lancer's post, I would probably leave for greener pastures and never return. That's not good for the community, and it's not good for generating ad revenue. Time for the site owners to step up and take notice.
Any concerns about the site's policies, or additional resources you wish to provide to us for consideration will still be welcomed, but we ask that it be kept to an informational level.
More data for all concerned to ignore. At the informational level, of course.
Less than 14% of the entire population represents at least 23% of those fatality shot by police in 2018-19. I say 'at least' because a portion of those ~200 unknown deaths each year may have also been black.
Contrast this with the number of peace officers intentionally killed in the line of duty (less than 50) set against the total number of employed peace officers in 2018. That's .007% of the working peace officers 'assassinated,' as you're inclined to describe it.
[snip]
Also, I see that lancer was the last person to edit this post; it was stripped of exposition - stealthily and without accountability - to adhere to the admin's current hard-line stance on political opinions. That, to my mind, amounts to censorship. It also stands in the face of what's been discussed here about deleting posts versus infracting them, a courtesy that was extended to TheOnlyOne but apparently withdrawn from me.
At this point I think it would be beneficial for all involved if lancer recused himself from this thread. If it requires continued moderation I'm sure there is someone demonstrably less biased who is up to the task.
"This is how we've always done it" has never been a strong argument against social evolution
You always need a very good reason to change something that worked for years or even generations in a reasonable fair way.
If the reason to change something is just "Current political climate" , it couldnt be any worse reason to make any change ; as thats the most flip-flop pointless reason to do anything.
If something truly deserves to be changed, you have to make a real case that the change is actually beneficial and not just "different".
----
Labeling some terms as "bad" for pointless reasons is just a constructed straw-men to claim a pseudo moral high ground to critique something, for no other reason than to make it a issue out of nowhere for nobodies benefit other than having something to cry about (that is of no issue to anybody involved or affected).
Its oh so easy to cry for change, but change on itself is not good, it comes at a cost, you dont keep changing all the time without any goal, and it always needs to be addressed if the cost of a change outweighs the risk that it will just make more problems.
----
The extreme political stance of an account with a giant black power fist couldnt be more oozing.
Shifting a forum to such extremes and pandering to that extremes is pretty much the worst decision any forum can make if they claim any inclusion and free speech.
----
For your own sake and sanity i would advise to assume that people use words and there meaning in as much of a positive light as possible ; assuming the worst in everything is not going to portray a welcoming world, it just produces "enemies" out of potential friends.
A lot of people here are not native english speakers, so might use words that artificially offend you or others, in such a case, if it truly bothers you, even a private Message to that user can help a lot more than a more drastic cry for moderation ; if they see any reason in your argument they make think different and use other words in the future (or they think your argument is garbage and so ignore you anyway, no harm in either).
----
If the "goal" is to censor and moderate with a more extreme world view, its of more harm than to allow an actual reasonable dialogue from happening.
In the end, you want to talk about Magic here, a card game, and not Politics or censor people on common words or assume they are the worst kind of people, just because you want to label them as such if they so slightly disagree with anything.
There is no need for further discussion of the issues brought up in this thread. The points have been made. However, with respect to the points I've raised, I have not seen them addressed to my satisfaction or really to the satisfaction of any reasonable standard. From my point of view, the staff has only reiterated their original positions and ignored my concerns.
Please address:
1. The issue that a policy against political posts is itself political
2. A methodology which naively produces balance for its own sake actually produces bias. 'Overbalancing' by representing views that have no business being represented is bias
3. A balance which is inclusive to hate groups is toxic to the cohesion of the forum community
4. Overzealous and authoritarian approaches to moderation will stifle engagement in the forum community
5. 4 & 5 will have the long term effect of diminishing revenue
There is no need for further discussion of the issues brought up in this thread. The points have been made. However, with respect to the points I've raised, I have not seen them addressed to my satisfaction or really to the satisfaction of any reasonable standard. From my point of view, the staff has only reiterated their original positions and ignored my concerns.
Please address:
1. The issue that a policy against political posts is itself political
2. A methodology which naively produces balance for its own sake actually produces bias. 'Overbalancing' by representing views that have no business being represented is bias
3. A balance which is inclusive to hate groups is toxic to the cohesion of the forum community
4. Overzealous and authoritarian approaches to moderation will stifle engagement in the forum community
5. 4 & 5 will have the long term effect of diminishing revenue
1. This seems to me to be a fallacy. If a policy against political posts is itself political, then the option is either to allow politics, or still be political? Everything is political? I find it irresponsible to believe that mature individuals are entirely incapable of having a conversation of Magic, or anything else, without bringing up politics every 15 seconds. Somehow, I manage to hold many such conversations each day.
2. So the options again are either to enforce bias, or to be biased anyways? Again, I disagree. Censoring to one extreme or another can only be harmful to all involved. This is a site that exists to discuss Magic. This should be feasible without overcomplication.
3. The site is not here to pass moral judgment. You know what else would be detrimental to a community? Excising anyone with a differing viewpoint than your own.
While you may be judging the entire group to be a hate group, the rest of the collective US community, the commercial interest, and the internet do not currently agree with your assessment. If a change occurs, we will adapt to it. Until then, every other commercial venture is willing to accept it, so will we.
4. And what overzealous and authoritarian approach are you referring to here?
A simple request to keep discussion to the topics that this forum was made for?
Or that if people fail to follow the rules of the community, they are asked to leave?
Is it really that hard to understand "Please follow the rules, don't be a jerk, or we will ask you to not be here?"
5. You know what else would affect revenue? Becoming a Magic site that doesn't discuss Magic.
If a person arrives at this site from google, wanting to look up an interaction, or discuss some new cards - but instead they see a bunch of people yelling at each other about entirely unrelated things? Well suddenly that makes this seem like a terrible site to come to for the answers to Magic related questions.
===
I joined this site to discuss Magic. I joined it to discuss Commander. I joined the moderator team to help improve the goals of facilitating that kind of discussion. For the last THREE MONTHS, 95% of my interaction and duties on this site have been entirely non-magic related. I'm frankly getting sick and tired of this. Everywhere else, I seem to be able to find people who are able to hold a conversation on a topic without needing to proselytize. Conversations in which if a person says "Hey, I don't want to hold this discussion here, can we let it drop," the other person respects it. Or even following simple rules and requests for use of a facility or services. When the people who collect the garbage in my neighborhood arrive in the early morning with their trucks, no one seems to need to quiz them about their political allegiance.
Everyone saying that we need to discuss non-magic things here... No. We. Don't. There are plenty of places where you can share your political views. There are plenty of places where it's appropriate to do so. Want to share them? Write an opinion piece to your local paper. Write to your congressman. Go to a protest. Go to a townhall. GO. VOTE. Arguing with random people on the internet, on a site which has nothing to do about it is a waste of everyone's time.
I'm willing to bet that you don't go to a Walmart, or a Target, or even a McDonald's to shout at people about your views on this. There is nothing that makes this place any more appropriate than those, expect that on here you can do so from the comfort of your own home and you don't have to actually look anyone in the eyes when you do it. Don't do it. We don't want it here. Grow up. Take it to where it matters.
This site is about Magic. If you want to talk about something Not Magic - you've come to the wrong place.
I agree that not everything is politics but most opinionated statements unless very specific stem from personal beliefs which include politics so techically alot of statements are political including the statement to not post anything exlpicitly political. Stems from the personal belief of Shut up and do the thing you are here for and only that. That is similar in vein as all the people said about the kneeling of the NFL players protest that they should just shut up and play the game because this is not the place to do that.
2. So the options again are either to enforce bias, or to be biased anyways? Again, I disagree. Censoring to one extreme or another can only be harmful to all involved. This is a site that exists to discuss Magic. This should be feasible without overcomplication.
That Assumes that both are extreme views and both similarly extreme.
With the thing in question wasn't it your source after all that said that one was literally just a countermovement to diminish the original movement?
While I disagree with the blue lives matter movement, and agree with H3RAC71TU5 statement of balance just for balances sake is a naive way of doing things.
I agree with your desicion that you will allow it for now and keep monitoring it as your and the other moderators time is limited.
Like you invite a medical professional to a talk show and just to balance it out invite a snake oil salesman just for the sake of balance gives the snake oil salesman a lot more validity even tough he is just scamming people thus shifting the bias more to the side of the snakeoil salesperson and give more chances for an even worse one to be heard in the future
With a few exceptions I think so far you and the other mods have done an adequate job of keeping threads on topic.
However beeing against a on topic political discussion is something I don't understand.
So how's your view on Magic related politics?
This site is about Magic. If you want to talk about something Not Magic - you've come to the wrong place.
I know this is a bit pedantic but if thats the case why do we even have the Talk and Entertainment, Mafia and Forum Game sections?
Are you in favor of getting rid of these with a statement like that? I don't think you do, so I think you don't agree with your own statement and this was more of a heat of the moment thing.
Yea, some topics have a very high tendency to drift away from Magic into politics.
If its about specific artists, "racist" card art being banned, or some policy of WotC, its basically always in some way or form political grounded already and people will either agree or disagree with them on their political reasons.
Inclusion of gay characters in a card game for 13 year old kids, is that needed ? is it helpful ? is it even necessary ?
Some people have very strong believes in that regard, and drastically different too, so its quite natural that such topics will get to that point and if a moderator stifles the conversation because its "no longer on topic" some people get angry about it, as it feels to them like their view is no longer welcome ; while the moderator decision is just to prevent a more excessive drifting away into the political realm.
These topics are always walking the line, it can be Magic related, but it wont stay Magic related for long, its simply inevitable.
The "place" for these discussions start sometimes in the Rumor Mill, and people jump on it, or its in Magic General.
If their would be a sub-forum for these political discussions, Moderators could just move the topic in their and let it happen (but then, if that is not wanted from the site, the problematic topics will always need a moderator to lock it and comments from people will have a very high chance to be "flame" or become insulting barrages against each other, like all political discussions can easily be).
So if a Magic related topic is political in some way, its pretty important to stay on topic to keep it Magic related ; people might need to be incentivized to have discussions in private messages, if they just quote each other in a topic.
I joined this site to discuss Magic. I joined it to discuss Commander. I joined the moderator team to help improve the goals of facilitating that kind of discussion. For the last THREE MONTHS, 95% of my interaction and duties on this site have been entirely non-magic related. I'm frankly getting sick and tired of this. Everywhere else, I seem to be able to find people who are able to hold a conversation on a topic without needing to proselytize. Conversations in which if a person says "Hey, I don't want to hold this discussion here, can we let it drop," the other person respects it. Or even following simple rules and requests for use of a facility or services. When the people who collect the garbage in my neighborhood arrive in the early morning with their trucks, no one seems to need to quiz them about their political allegiance.
Careful, your slip is showing.
I'm willing to bet that you don't go to a Walmart, or a Target, or even a McDonald's to shout at people about your views on this.
Well, no, and that's a bit of a strawman. I don't do that, I doubt anyone here does. Speaking for myself, however, when I'm in a public space (like a forum) and I witness ignorant comments or bigoted behavior I will (if safe) say something. And, in my experience, the reverse is also true and I've been in public and have had bigoted things said to me (usually for being ~*~TOO GAY~*~ but sometimes for other social justice/progressive statements). Being in public and never experiencing socio-political issues in everyday places is completely foreign to me.
The point I'm trying to make, though, is that the behavior I'm describing, people in public spaces responding to socio-political cues from others, is exactly what was transpiring on the forums. And it's probably going to keep happening because humans have opinions and there will always be organic moments when those opinions are shared in public.
* * *
For me, though, I'm going to take your advice and I'm going to go. I'll probably lurk and hibernate, see if the site changes again, but this clearly isn't the place for me anymore.
1. This seems to me to be a fallacy. If a policy against political posts is itself political, then the option is either to allow politics, or still be political? Everything is political? I find it irresponsible to believe that mature individuals are entirely incapable of having a conversation of Magic, or anything else, without bringing up politics every 15 seconds. Somehow, I manage to hold many such conversations each day.
The policy is political while presenting itself as not political. It has political results, and is more acceptable to only one side of political issues. For example, TheOnlyOne652089 was quick to accept that the "solution" is to have no discussion of politics whatsoever because this solution clearly suits his purposes. Everything is political, though in more or less obvious ways. "Politics" covers everything that has to do with human life, with humans as social creatures. That's what the word means and it has implications on everything we might talk about. It's important to be honest about it. So yes, if you're going to be political either way, I think a good maxim would be to lean toward allowing discussion. This way, you have people happy with their ability to express themselves and so on, meaning the results are effective for maintaining the health of the community which is your charge as the staff here.
At no point have I suggested that we should bring up politics "every 15 seconds." In fact, the issue I have been pointing out is the trend of political posts hating on groups being posted in threads for causes as minimal as a card depicting a black person. People have a natural desire to want to respond to such content which you have disallowed. But the reverse doesn't happen (people randomly posting leftist or centrist political takes out of the blue), because the nature of politics differs by ideology and this leads to different behavior. I would be perfectly happy to discuss only Magic cards in their direct application as game components if that was the only sort of discussion a particular card inspired.
2. So the options again are either to enforce bias, or to be biased anyways? Again, I disagree. Censoring to one extreme or another can only be harmful to all involved. This is a site that exists to discuss Magic. This should be feasible without overcomplication.
To the contrary, it's entirely possible to not be biased in the matter. The non-biased perspective would acknowledge that one view is extreme and the other is not. The non-extreme (BLM) would only be possible to consider as extreme in the biased perspective that compares and defines it in relation to the extreme one.
3. The site is not here to pass moral judgment. You know what else would be detrimental to a community? Excising anyone with a differing viewpoint than your own.
While you may be judging the entire group to be a hate group, the rest of the collective US community, the commercial interest, and the internet do not currently agree with your assessment. If a change occurs, we will adapt to it. Until then, every other commercial venture is willing to accept it, so will we.
The idea that excising people with different viewpoints than mine would be harmful to the community... is a moral judgment. Politics, after all, is a subset of moral theory. However, I haven't advocated for the excising of people just because their views differ from mine. Earlier in this thread, I engaged in polemics against the political positions you were kind enough to state in order to demonstrate that we're both partisan. I don't think you should be excised just because I disagree with you, because you haven't advocated for things that are inherently dehumanizing. I can recognize that you in good faith believe your views are what's best for a variety of people (a moral judgment).
I take it you're referring to bluelivesmatter here. I'm speaking more generally about hate groups, and it seems to me no coincidence that those same hate groups also are favorable towards bluelivesmatter. The lovely thing about reason is that we can draw inferences about things that lead us to opposite conclusions of popular opinion.
4. And what overzealous and authoritarian approach are you referring to here?
A simple request to keep discussion to the topics that this forum was made for?
Or that if people fail to follow the rules of the community, they are asked to leave?
Is it really that hard to understand "Please follow the rules, don't be a jerk, or we will ask you to not be here?"
Intervening in discussions just because they're "off topic" is very likely to be excessive.
5. You know what else would affect revenue? Becoming a Magic site that doesn't discuss Magic.
If a person arrives at this site from google, wanting to look up an interaction, or discuss some new cards - but instead they see a bunch of people yelling at each other about entirely unrelated things? Well suddenly that makes this seem like a terrible site to come to for the answers to Magic related questions.
I don't see how this is the necessary outcome. I suspect that politics is something that will rarely come up because most people here are primarily interested in discussing Magic and that's not going to change.
I joined this site to discuss Magic. I joined it to discuss Commander. I joined the moderator team to help improve the goals of facilitating that kind of discussion. For the last THREE MONTHS, 95% of my interaction and duties on this site have been entirely non-magic related. I'm frankly getting sick and tired of this. Everywhere else, I seem to be able to find people who are able to hold a conversation on a topic without needing to proselytize. Conversations in which if a person says "Hey, I don't want to hold this discussion here, can we let it drop," the other person respects it. Or even following simple rules and requests for use of a facility or services. When the people who collect the garbage in my neighborhood arrive in the early morning with their trucks, no one seems to need to quiz them about their political allegiance.
Everyone saying that we need to discuss non-magic things here... No. We. Don't. There are plenty of places where you can share your political views. There are plenty of places where it's appropriate to do so. Want to share them? Write an opinion piece to your local paper. Write to your congressman. Go to a protest. Go to a townhall. GO. VOTE. Arguing with random people on the internet, on a site which has nothing to do about it is a waste of everyone's time.
I'm willing to bet that you don't go to a Walmart, or a Target, or even a McDonald's to shout at people about your views on this. There is nothing that makes this place any more appropriate than those, expect that on here you can do so from the comfort of your own home and you don't have to actually look anyone in the eyes when you do it. Don't do it. We don't want it here. Grow up. Take it to where it matters.
This site is about Magic. If you want to talk about something Not Magic - you've come to the wrong place.
Never mind that Magic itself is expressly political, apparently provoking political responses with choices as simple as depicting black people in card art. The controversies here are over something really basic, which essentially distills to the question of whether humanity is universal or not. Such a basic controversy can't go unresolved.
I've said before, this is a forum. It's a place where people go to discuss Magic and discuss generally. If you want a forum with a bunch of threads where the only comment is "GILBIC /thread," congratulations, you've created a forum in which discussion is actually dead.
No real dog in this fight, but wanted to give an outsiders opinion.
I haven’t posted on this forum in quite some time. Many factors contributed to this, though I still lurk. Mostly here for the spoilers and what not. I don’t play paper magic much at all anymore, mostly playing Arena, and even then my time playing MtG in general is minuscule at best.
With that out of the way, I wanted to address this take in that “Everything is political”. I honestly hear this take a lot, primarily on message boards or when a certain aspect of life doesn’t quite line up with your expectations. However, it couldn’t be further from the truth. You can inject politics into any discussion. It’s very easy, incredibly low effort, and sometimes signals ignorance on a particular subject, or at the very best an unnecessary reason to escalate the conversation beyond what it truly is.
Where we are as society today, politics dominates everything, it’s inevitable to avoid political discussion entirely. However, IMO, it should be avoided at all costs no matter what side of political spectrum you fall under. Identity politics has gone off the rails recently and quite frankly is primarily the reason we are in the situation we are in. I never imagined a day where I’d visit an MtG forum and find #BLM or #Defundthepolice or #Bluelivesmatter or #MAGA or whatever listed at the end of an opinion on magic cards. Seeing that makes me incredibly unwilling to engage with that individual, especially in today’s political climate. Not a single political discussion is ever carried out in good faith, ever.
In closing, I commend the mods for their approach. I find it asinine that folks have a problem with giving both movements equal representation, which is exactly the problem in today’s world, but it’s to be expected. I would argue that they shouldn’t allow any of it as it really has no place here, and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other platforms for you to have those discussions with like minded individuals. But, WOTC has woven politics into some of their decision making of late, so it’s unavoidable I guess. I’d just say that, you’re more likely to alienate the folks this site was designed for, and attract the worst both political parties have to offer, as they attempt to demonize each other, evidence of which is in this very thread.
With that out of the way, I wanted to address this take in that “Everything is political”. I honestly hear this take a lot, primarily on message boards or when a certain aspect of life doesn’t quite line up with your expectations. However, it couldn’t be further from the truth. You can inject politics into any discussion. It’s very easy, incredibly low effort, and sometimes signals ignorance on a particular subject, or at the very best an unnecessary reason to escalate the conversation beyond what it truly is.
There's a huge qualitative difference between injecting an (explicit) political discussion into a topic which is not immediately political in itself and exposing the implicitly political nature of a position which pretends to be apolitical.
Usually, people who claim that their positions aren't truly political are people who are ignorant about logical entailments.
Not a single political discussion is ever carried out in good faith, ever.
That's a pretty cynical and destructive claim. And if it were true, human civilization wouldn't exist.
Bad faith political discussion is certainly common, because it works at what it tries to accomplish (eristics). But it would be less effective rhetorically if the general populace could identify and name it, a skill which can hardly be developed if political discussion doesn't occur at all.
***
I'd like to touch again on the claim that the site isn't here to make moral judgments. This is false on its face, because the forum has rules of conduct in the first place which are based in moral judgment. Bob, you earlier introduced the term "moral" into the discussion and I was appreciative of you doing so because its frequently the case that people have a dismissive attitude about whatever they term "moral" due to its subjective connotations. If we were so inclined, we could engage in a discussion which in every explicit sense was only descriptive and leave its normative character as subtextual, but I don't think that would be a very sincere, clear, or constructive approach. Every decision we make in life entails a moral judgment; we could take no action otherwise. You can't avoid making moral judgments, just as you can't avoid being political, and maturity involves acknowledging this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That depends entirely on the framework you're looking at, the colloquial usage or the social sciences usage. Colloquially, of course anyone can be racist in the sense that anyone of any race can hold race-based prejudices that cause them to see other races as less than and/or their own race as greater than, or otherwise infers inequality on an individual level. That's the typical definition you get when you google racism, and it is entirely true on an individual level.
I think the problem here is that many engaged in this conversation are, because the topic is on a society-wide issue, talking about systemic/institutionalized racism, which is a whole different beast. Unequal practices built into organizations or institutional systems that disproportionately benefit or disadvantage particular racial groups is really what we're talking about here, not racism on an individual level. Within a white supremacist society/system, nonwhite people and groups are going to lack or be denied institutional power, and without significant power on a systemic level, those people/groups are unable to wield systemic racism, even if they may be racially prejudiced on an individual level. So when people say "black people can't be racist," what they're really saying is "black people are denied systemic power and therefore cannot create systems that meaningfully create/sustain black supremacy." Black people can certainly be prejudiced, they just don't have the power to control the very systems oppressing them (which was the point of those systems in the first place). Is that more complicated? Yes. Can it be hard to parse through someone's words to understand what they mean when they talk about racism? Sure. Are the distinctions between the two uses of the word vital to talking about the issue of systemic racism and unjust policing? Absolutely.
Systemic racism and individual racism are certainly connected, they feed and reinforce one another, and dismantling one requires dismantling the other. They just serve distinct functions within society and their complex interactions are a significant reason why these conversations are challenging.
** As an aside, I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about whether racial minorities can create pockets within the larger white supremacist society that involve racially prejudiced systems, but that's a conversation not best served by having it amongst (presumably, and pardon to anyone this does not apply to) white people. At a time where systemic racism is causing untold suffering and taking lives. I think there's an intriguing academic discussion there, it would only serve as a distraction in the current climate/discussion, though.
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
I appreciate you sparing me the effort. This is a valuable conversation to have on its own.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
This assumption is incredible.
Its so blatantly trying to assort everything to this buzz word its like a religion thats trying to assume people do evil things because "the devil".
No.
People make individual choices. People are responsible for their choices alone, not anybody else.
Group guilt is unjust, unfair and the assumption to punish or benefit a group in itself, instead of judging the individual is downright insulting to every human being.
No matter the system, people can still make their individual choices, and they do every day, in every moment.
People just succumb to ideology, manipulation and fear (either fear of punishment, physical, social, mental, everything goes).
We are not robots and we have individual will and consciousness.
----
People either make decisions to hurt others, or they contribute to benefit themselves, uplifting everyone around them.
People that keep their area clean benefit the people.
People that educate others (with actual useful knowledge) contribute to empower the capabilities of others.
People that just destroy and drag other people down are just that, destructive and miserable.
----
If somebody assumes racism in everyone, they will create it.
Racist companies cant succeed, as you want the best people for each job, if any of them happens to be racist, they will naturally be on a disadvantage.
If people choose to be racist and not serve people, they make less money, theres no reason to act racist in any way.
The assumption white (as a whole) have an inherent advantage is so insulting and racist its not even funny.
Tell the poor white person how privileged they are, and how oppressed the rich NBA player is.
Nobody will ever take that serious, its borderline insanity to believe that.
Any black family that actually has a mother and a father does quite fine.
If they are drugged, bad. The same is true for white families.
If the father is a gang member, thats bad. The same is true for white families.
Religious black families to quite fine.
Single moms do comparable poorly, pushing that the go-to family model is quite questionable.
Plenty of issues that have nothing to do with racism, plenty of cultural reasons, and misguided financial benefits that direct people in directions that are less beneficial for them.
Blacks are like 13.4% of the population (arguably any mixed, when a 1/8 black still counts themselves as black, question is at what point does it not count as black anymore? Skin color is such a terrible group indicator its crazy)
----
Instead of thinking in skin color terms, the issues of the individuals should be addressed.
People have needs that do not reflect their pinpointed group.
Affirmative action might help somebody in some way, and it hurts a lot of others.
The net benefit is just not positive at all , as it does harm to anybody else that does not get the benefits (for no other reason than, oh hey, you are born with a skin color that we decide to benefit, congratulations for that achievement).
----
To acknowledge problems is not wrong.
To ask for violence to "somehow" make these problems wish away, is just stupid.
To make demands and force them with violence is not consensus, it undermines everything that makes a society fair.
----
To believe that just a black person can or will make "intentional" choices that will not harm black people is also borderline racist assumption.
If unintentional decisions result in a form of oppression against people, thats a problem to acknowledge and solutions can arise ; as nobody should have any interest in making life worse for anybody else ; but as we see here some people just dont want Peace at all, some just want to claim their demands are more important , and this prioritization in group think reinforces the problem in the first place.
Its absolutely impossible to have a society in which everything is equally represented.
You cant have a women, a men, a transgender male, a transgender female, a non-gender, a animal person, a German, a Jew, a Christian, an Asian, and all kinds of variations in every position to fully represent everyone ... thats impossible, and these people also dont represent only that group.
If groups are broken down to their fundament, you end up with the individual again.
A black person is to another black person just another individual.
Their needs are different as are the needs of anybody else.
----
Empower the individual to fix their own issues as good as possible, helps a lot more than to ask some government to do it and make them dependent and incapable.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I think it would go a long way towards serving your point if we could understand you better. Could you maybe try re-formatting your post into paragraphs, correct for spelling and grammar (words underlined in red are misspelled), etc. Thank you!
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
You and you alone have to deal with that.
There is no WE in your opinion.
Thank you!!!
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I disagree, but my peers are welcome to chime in for themselves here. As someone who makes a living teaching 7th and 8th graders, your writing is... difficult to parse. I've given you the benefit of the doubt in the past and spent quite a bit of extra time and energy deciphering your posts, in the interest of promoting your education on the subject, but those resources are in increasingly short supply given your inability to engage in good faith discourse. I suspect that may be why so few others have bothered to respond to you at all.
If you have any actual interest in convincing others of your viewpoint, there's quite a bit of room for you to make yourself better understood. The onus certainly isn't on me (or anyone else) to spend extra time making your case for you, when we're demonstrably occupied with crafting our own cogent and intelligible responses.
In hindsight I probably should have addressed your literacy in a private message, so as not to derail the topic further. Apologies, I won't make that mistake again - though my conditions for re-engaging you remain the same.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
We have reviewed the resources provided. We remain steadfast with allowing #BlackLivesMatter on the site; Thus, to allow for balanced abilities for people to express themselves, we allow #BlueLivesMatter to keep rights of expression fair. Political disruptions of threads will still be closed down - we stand by the idea that this is a site for discussing Magic related topics, and that this is not a political discourse channel. Topics that do not contribute to that remain off-topic.
At this time, we will no longer accept debate about the validity of any of the positions in this thread. Any concerns about the site's policies, or additional resources you wish to provide to us for consideration will still be welcomed, but we ask that it be kept to an informational level. This thread is not a replacement for the (closed) debate forum.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
Per your own articles:
Your own sources belie the conclusion that you've somehow drawn, bob, and I'm not sure how or why; perhaps you just have a poor eye for obvious bias. How does Hanlon's razor go again?
I've noted repeatedly that people on this site only came out to support BlueLives in response to my own personal efforts, and your response to that affect remains conspicuously absent. Oh, I'm sure those posters will protest their innocence all day long, if you haven't talked to them already. That being the case, I have this really nice bridge to sell you.
Balance for the murderers and the murdered, all in the name of selling ad space for the site owners. How ironic that this place should be so far beyond salvation.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Maybe the actual solution would be to stay to Magic and avoid ANY political aspect at all.
It would remove this entire issue.
----
Otherwise allowing one side of an argument and downright censoring the other is atrociously hypocrisy if theres any remote idea of being a platform that wants to be "inclusive".
----
I would much prefer to not have any political implications and make that sure.
As it stands, the next "trend" will just produce the next discussion of what is allowed and what not and it keeps on going forever and might even keep shifting from month to month (in which case, people need to constantly monitor what the current stand of the moderators are to what is they claim to be ok or not, thats obfuscation and not clear rules at all).
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Congrats, you posted enough bullsh*t to reaffirm the site owner's decision to ignore their conscience. You proved everything we've said since post #9, and now this thread serves as a welcome mat for every other bigot and bad faith actor. At least we can finally admit that this was your goal all along.
"Post here ye faithful, for no matter how toxic or harmful, there will be balance."
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
More data for all concerned to ignore. At the informational level, of course.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
Less than 14% of the entire population represents at least 23% of those fatality shot by police in 2018-19. I say 'at least' because a portion of those ~200 unknown deaths each year may have also been black.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2019-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-in-the-line-of-duty
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191694/number-of-law-enforcement-officers-in-the-us/
Contrast this with the number of peace officers intentionally killed in the line of duty (less than 50) set against the total number of employed peace officers in 2018. That's .007% of the working peace officers 'assassinated,' as you're inclined to describe it.
[snip]
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Is there a way that we can connect or converse more directly with the site owners? I would like to know why your site admins seem to think it's okay to casually use the word 'lynch' in the current political climate. See this post: https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/mafia/817898-voldemorts-throne-room-mafia-game-over-town-win?comment=4901
Given that lynch is a word with very heavy racial overtones, and that we're currently suffering from societal issues around extrajudicial killings, it doesn't strike me that this is acceptable discourse. Perhaps there is some context that I'm unaware of; it doesn't matter. This was discovered by way of a site admin's profile and viewing their most recent posts, and if there's something buried in that thread to explain it, I don't see how any casual observer would bother to sift through ~5,000 posts for an explanation. I wouldn't hesitate to report a random poster for using such language, I certainly don't see how the site owners can lay claim to promoting a 'neutral' atmosphere here at MTGS when even their own admins exercise poor judgment in conversation.
Given the discourse that has already transpired in this very thread (for whatever that's worth), it would only serve to validate the impression that MTGS has an alt-right bias if shadowlancerx were allowed to maintain their current level of power and authority. I respectfully urge that the wolf be removed from the sheep. Thank you.
For what it's worth, a 'lynch' in mafia-style games refers to the elimination of a player based on group vote. It's literally a game term for mob 'violence', and it's been used on these forums as long as I've been around on the site (likely back to the 'News days).
Though, for the sake of fairness, I know some mafia communities are moving away from that term for obvious reasons.
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
"This is how we've always done it" has never been a strong argument against social evolution, even (or maybe especially) when it comes to linguistics. There was a period of time not too long ago when the N-word wasn't just a racial epithet, it was the norm. Is my accusation petty? Maybe. Does it still stand in the face of MTGS' hypothetical stance on inclusion? Absolutely. We shouldn't expect new players to come to these boards and invest time into research to prove for themselves that this place isn't inherently racist. If I were a person of color, and I saw lancer's post, I would probably leave for greener pastures and never return. That's not good for the community, and it's not good for generating ad revenue. Time for the site owners to step up and take notice.
Also, I see that lancer was the last person to edit this post; it was stripped of exposition - stealthily and without accountability - to adhere to the admin's current hard-line stance on political opinions. That, to my mind, amounts to censorship. It also stands in the face of what's been discussed here about deleting posts versus infracting them, a courtesy that was extended to TheOnlyOne but apparently withdrawn from me.
At this point I think it would be beneficial for all involved if lancer recused himself from this thread. If it requires continued moderation I'm sure there is someone demonstrably less biased who is up to the task.
You always need a very good reason to change something that worked for years or even generations in a reasonable fair way.
If the reason to change something is just "Current political climate" , it couldnt be any worse reason to make any change ; as thats the most flip-flop pointless reason to do anything.
If something truly deserves to be changed, you have to make a real case that the change is actually beneficial and not just "different".
----
Labeling some terms as "bad" for pointless reasons is just a constructed straw-men to claim a pseudo moral high ground to critique something, for no other reason than to make it a issue out of nowhere for nobodies benefit other than having something to cry about (that is of no issue to anybody involved or affected).
Its oh so easy to cry for change, but change on itself is not good, it comes at a cost, you dont keep changing all the time without any goal, and it always needs to be addressed if the cost of a change outweighs the risk that it will just make more problems.
----
The extreme political stance of an account with a giant black power fist couldnt be more oozing.
Shifting a forum to such extremes and pandering to that extremes is pretty much the worst decision any forum can make if they claim any inclusion and free speech.
----
For your own sake and sanity i would advise to assume that people use words and there meaning in as much of a positive light as possible ; assuming the worst in everything is not going to portray a welcoming world, it just produces "enemies" out of potential friends.
A lot of people here are not native english speakers, so might use words that artificially offend you or others, in such a case, if it truly bothers you, even a private Message to that user can help a lot more than a more drastic cry for moderation ; if they see any reason in your argument they make think different and use other words in the future (or they think your argument is garbage and so ignore you anyway, no harm in either).
----
If the "goal" is to censor and moderate with a more extreme world view, its of more harm than to allow an actual reasonable dialogue from happening.
In the end, you want to talk about Magic here, a card game, and not Politics or censor people on common words or assume they are the worst kind of people, just because you want to label them as such if they so slightly disagree with anything.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Please address:
1. The issue that a policy against political posts is itself political
2. A methodology which naively produces balance for its own sake actually produces bias. 'Overbalancing' by representing views that have no business being represented is bias
3. A balance which is inclusive to hate groups is toxic to the cohesion of the forum community
4. Overzealous and authoritarian approaches to moderation will stifle engagement in the forum community
5. 4 & 5 will have the long term effect of diminishing revenue
1. This seems to me to be a fallacy. If a policy against political posts is itself political, then the option is either to allow politics, or still be political? Everything is political? I find it irresponsible to believe that mature individuals are entirely incapable of having a conversation of Magic, or anything else, without bringing up politics every 15 seconds. Somehow, I manage to hold many such conversations each day.
2. So the options again are either to enforce bias, or to be biased anyways? Again, I disagree. Censoring to one extreme or another can only be harmful to all involved. This is a site that exists to discuss Magic. This should be feasible without overcomplication.
3. The site is not here to pass moral judgment. You know what else would be detrimental to a community? Excising anyone with a differing viewpoint than your own.
While you may be judging the entire group to be a hate group, the rest of the collective US community, the commercial interest, and the internet do not currently agree with your assessment. If a change occurs, we will adapt to it. Until then, every other commercial venture is willing to accept it, so will we.
4. And what overzealous and authoritarian approach are you referring to here?
5. You know what else would affect revenue? Becoming a Magic site that doesn't discuss Magic.
If a person arrives at this site from google, wanting to look up an interaction, or discuss some new cards - but instead they see a bunch of people yelling at each other about entirely unrelated things? Well suddenly that makes this seem like a terrible site to come to for the answers to Magic related questions.
===
I joined this site to discuss Magic. I joined it to discuss Commander. I joined the moderator team to help improve the goals of facilitating that kind of discussion. For the last THREE MONTHS, 95% of my interaction and duties on this site have been entirely non-magic related. I'm frankly getting sick and tired of this. Everywhere else, I seem to be able to find people who are able to hold a conversation on a topic without needing to proselytize. Conversations in which if a person says "Hey, I don't want to hold this discussion here, can we let it drop," the other person respects it. Or even following simple rules and requests for use of a facility or services. When the people who collect the garbage in my neighborhood arrive in the early morning with their trucks, no one seems to need to quiz them about their political allegiance.
Everyone saying that we need to discuss non-magic things here... No. We. Don't. There are plenty of places where you can share your political views. There are plenty of places where it's appropriate to do so. Want to share them? Write an opinion piece to your local paper. Write to your congressman. Go to a protest. Go to a townhall. GO. VOTE. Arguing with random people on the internet, on a site which has nothing to do about it is a waste of everyone's time.
I'm willing to bet that you don't go to a Walmart, or a Target, or even a McDonald's to shout at people about your views on this. There is nothing that makes this place any more appropriate than those, expect that on here you can do so from the comfort of your own home and you don't have to actually look anyone in the eyes when you do it. Don't do it. We don't want it here. Grow up. Take it to where it matters.
This site is about Magic. If you want to talk about something Not Magic - you've come to the wrong place.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
I agree that not everything is politics but most opinionated statements unless very specific stem from personal beliefs which include politics so techically alot of statements are political including the statement to not post anything exlpicitly political. Stems from the personal belief of Shut up and do the thing you are here for and only that. That is similar in vein as all the people said about the kneeling of the NFL players protest that they should just shut up and play the game because this is not the place to do that.
That Assumes that both are extreme views and both similarly extreme.
With the thing in question wasn't it your source after all that said that one was literally just a countermovement to diminish the original movement?
While I disagree with the blue lives matter movement, and agree with H3RAC71TU5 statement of balance just for balances sake is a naive way of doing things.
I agree with your desicion that you will allow it for now and keep monitoring it as your and the other moderators time is limited.
With a few exceptions I think so far you and the other mods have done an adequate job of keeping threads on topic.
However beeing against a on topic political discussion is something I don't understand.
So how's your view on Magic related politics?
I know this is a bit pedantic but if thats the case why do we even have the Talk and Entertainment, Mafia and Forum Game sections?
Are you in favor of getting rid of these with a statement like that? I don't think you do, so I think you don't agree with your own statement and this was more of a heat of the moment thing.
Yea, some topics have a very high tendency to drift away from Magic into politics.
If its about specific artists, "racist" card art being banned, or some policy of WotC, its basically always in some way or form political grounded already and people will either agree or disagree with them on their political reasons.
Inclusion of gay characters in a card game for 13 year old kids, is that needed ? is it helpful ? is it even necessary ?
Some people have very strong believes in that regard, and drastically different too, so its quite natural that such topics will get to that point and if a moderator stifles the conversation because its "no longer on topic" some people get angry about it, as it feels to them like their view is no longer welcome ; while the moderator decision is just to prevent a more excessive drifting away into the political realm.
These topics are always walking the line, it can be Magic related, but it wont stay Magic related for long, its simply inevitable.
The "place" for these discussions start sometimes in the Rumor Mill, and people jump on it, or its in Magic General.
If their would be a sub-forum for these political discussions, Moderators could just move the topic in their and let it happen (but then, if that is not wanted from the site, the problematic topics will always need a moderator to lock it and comments from people will have a very high chance to be "flame" or become insulting barrages against each other, like all political discussions can easily be).
So if a Magic related topic is political in some way, its pretty important to stay on topic to keep it Magic related ; people might need to be incentivized to have discussions in private messages, if they just quote each other in a topic.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Careful, your slip is showing.
Well, no, and that's a bit of a strawman. I don't do that, I doubt anyone here does. Speaking for myself, however, when I'm in a public space (like a forum) and I witness ignorant comments or bigoted behavior I will (if safe) say something. And, in my experience, the reverse is also true and I've been in public and have had bigoted things said to me (usually for being ~*~TOO GAY~*~ but sometimes for other social justice/progressive statements). Being in public and never experiencing socio-political issues in everyday places is completely foreign to me.
The point I'm trying to make, though, is that the behavior I'm describing, people in public spaces responding to socio-political cues from others, is exactly what was transpiring on the forums. And it's probably going to keep happening because humans have opinions and there will always be organic moments when those opinions are shared in public.
* * *
For me, though, I'm going to take your advice and I'm going to go. I'll probably lurk and hibernate, see if the site changes again, but this clearly isn't the place for me anymore.
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 policy is political while presenting itself as not political. It has political results, and is more acceptable to only one side of political issues. For example, TheOnlyOne652089 was quick to accept that the "solution" is to have no discussion of politics whatsoever because this solution clearly suits his purposes. Everything is political, though in more or less obvious ways. "Politics" covers everything that has to do with human life, with humans as social creatures. That's what the word means and it has implications on everything we might talk about. It's important to be honest about it. So yes, if you're going to be political either way, I think a good maxim would be to lean toward allowing discussion. This way, you have people happy with their ability to express themselves and so on, meaning the results are effective for maintaining the health of the community which is your charge as the staff here.
At no point have I suggested that we should bring up politics "every 15 seconds." In fact, the issue I have been pointing out is the trend of political posts hating on groups being posted in threads for causes as minimal as a card depicting a black person. People have a natural desire to want to respond to such content which you have disallowed. But the reverse doesn't happen (people randomly posting leftist or centrist political takes out of the blue), because the nature of politics differs by ideology and this leads to different behavior. I would be perfectly happy to discuss only Magic cards in their direct application as game components if that was the only sort of discussion a particular card inspired.
To the contrary, it's entirely possible to not be biased in the matter. The non-biased perspective would acknowledge that one view is extreme and the other is not. The non-extreme (BLM) would only be possible to consider as extreme in the biased perspective that compares and defines it in relation to the extreme one.
The idea that excising people with different viewpoints than mine would be harmful to the community... is a moral judgment. Politics, after all, is a subset of moral theory. However, I haven't advocated for the excising of people just because their views differ from mine. Earlier in this thread, I engaged in polemics against the political positions you were kind enough to state in order to demonstrate that we're both partisan. I don't think you should be excised just because I disagree with you, because you haven't advocated for things that are inherently dehumanizing. I can recognize that you in good faith believe your views are what's best for a variety of people (a moral judgment).
I take it you're referring to bluelivesmatter here. I'm speaking more generally about hate groups, and it seems to me no coincidence that those same hate groups also are favorable towards bluelivesmatter. The lovely thing about reason is that we can draw inferences about things that lead us to opposite conclusions of popular opinion.
Intervening in discussions just because they're "off topic" is very likely to be excessive.
I don't see how this is the necessary outcome. I suspect that politics is something that will rarely come up because most people here are primarily interested in discussing Magic and that's not going to change.
Never mind that Magic itself is expressly political, apparently provoking political responses with choices as simple as depicting black people in card art. The controversies here are over something really basic, which essentially distills to the question of whether humanity is universal or not. Such a basic controversy can't go unresolved.
I've said before, this is a forum. It's a place where people go to discuss Magic and discuss generally. If you want a forum with a bunch of threads where the only comment is "GILBIC /thread," congratulations, you've created a forum in which discussion is actually dead.
I haven’t posted on this forum in quite some time. Many factors contributed to this, though I still lurk. Mostly here for the spoilers and what not. I don’t play paper magic much at all anymore, mostly playing Arena, and even then my time playing MtG in general is minuscule at best.
With that out of the way, I wanted to address this take in that “Everything is political”. I honestly hear this take a lot, primarily on message boards or when a certain aspect of life doesn’t quite line up with your expectations. However, it couldn’t be further from the truth. You can inject politics into any discussion. It’s very easy, incredibly low effort, and sometimes signals ignorance on a particular subject, or at the very best an unnecessary reason to escalate the conversation beyond what it truly is.
Where we are as society today, politics dominates everything, it’s inevitable to avoid political discussion entirely. However, IMO, it should be avoided at all costs no matter what side of political spectrum you fall under. Identity politics has gone off the rails recently and quite frankly is primarily the reason we are in the situation we are in. I never imagined a day where I’d visit an MtG forum and find #BLM or #Defundthepolice or #Bluelivesmatter or #MAGA or whatever listed at the end of an opinion on magic cards. Seeing that makes me incredibly unwilling to engage with that individual, especially in today’s political climate. Not a single political discussion is ever carried out in good faith, ever.
In closing, I commend the mods for their approach. I find it asinine that folks have a problem with giving both movements equal representation, which is exactly the problem in today’s world, but it’s to be expected. I would argue that they shouldn’t allow any of it as it really has no place here, and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other platforms for you to have those discussions with like minded individuals. But, WOTC has woven politics into some of their decision making of late, so it’s unavoidable I guess. I’d just say that, you’re more likely to alienate the folks this site was designed for, and attract the worst both political parties have to offer, as they attempt to demonize each other, evidence of which is in this very thread.
There's a huge qualitative difference between injecting an (explicit) political discussion into a topic which is not immediately political in itself and exposing the implicitly political nature of a position which pretends to be apolitical.
Usually, people who claim that their positions aren't truly political are people who are ignorant about logical entailments.
That's a pretty cynical and destructive claim. And if it were true, human civilization wouldn't exist.
Bad faith political discussion is certainly common, because it works at what it tries to accomplish (eristics). But it would be less effective rhetorically if the general populace could identify and name it, a skill which can hardly be developed if political discussion doesn't occur at all.
I'd like to touch again on the claim that the site isn't here to make moral judgments. This is false on its face, because the forum has rules of conduct in the first place which are based in moral judgment. Bob, you earlier introduced the term "moral" into the discussion and I was appreciative of you doing so because its frequently the case that people have a dismissive attitude about whatever they term "moral" due to its subjective connotations. If we were so inclined, we could engage in a discussion which in every explicit sense was only descriptive and leave its normative character as subtextual, but I don't think that would be a very sincere, clear, or constructive approach. Every decision we make in life entails a moral judgment; we could take no action otherwise. You can't avoid making moral judgments, just as you can't avoid being political, and maturity involves acknowledging this.