@Adam W: This is all true, and perhaps helps to illustrate the point Forar and others are making. Namely, that it's not a bad thing to be sensitive to the perspective of others.
It's probably one of the most violent shows, especially towards women and children no less, that's ever been on national TV.
Where is the public outcry? Where is CBS saying, "I'm sorry we make such a violent show, depicting women being raped and murdered and children being abused?"
We sit and watch that show munching on popcorn like it's nothing.
Archie Bunker was an outright bigot and we laughed at him. Hell, it was the number 1 show for YEARS.
But THIS? THIS we get upset about?
I'm sorry folks. Call me insensitive if you want (and I'm really not as I genuinely care about people, especially women and children) but we are blowing this way out of proportion relative to everything else going on in the real and not so real world.
Part of the problem is that, as I understand it, someone brought their concern over one piece of art to WOTC, and some others seem to think that it's not a big deal (their prerogative) and that those who are concerned/offended are being irrational (not cool).
It's fine to have a disagreement in opinion. At the end of the day neither you nor I nor anyone in the thread (most likely) will have direct influence over whether or not WOTC prints cards with similar artwork in the future. But telling people that they're not entitled to their opinions is rude and uncalled for. (Oh noes, I just told people that their opinons of other peoples opinions being wrong are bad, parse that one out for a second and its turtles all the way down!!)
I think the main problem here isn't even the artwork, though. I think it's the idea of "Man vs Woman" and many men being fearful of the societal backlash (did I word this properly?) of coming off as "sexist" for disagreeing with a woman calling anything out as being such.
My post was meant to say that, while it is good to say "Well, sorry you're offended..." I would finish that statement with "...but until you campaign against anything that looks remotely like this, I'll continue to play my cards now." I am genuinely sorry for them...because it appears they can't put it aside. Now, if I know I'm going to play with this person before hand, I will gladly swap out those copies for my non-offensive copies of the card. I will agree, that's just common courtesy.
I wasn't sure if you were trolling or not. Your question seemed odd. My only point is that people should be nice to each other.
Still, it's never good to open a post like that. It makes it seem like you're trying to make someone look bad, and smear is never a respectable strategy (Not accusing you of that, mind.)
So put her in jeans and move his leg to one side and the people who think this is "wrong" are going to stop thinking that way? I doubt it.
Nope, not at all, but they would have less ground to stand on. I think it's also that they have no context: They don't understand that she's an incredibly powerful Mage who has harmed this man in a way that is just grotesque, and horrible. they just see a woman and a man, andthe man appears to be winning, therefor this must be rape.
So, essentially-If you get int oa fight with a woman, let her kill you. Otherwise, you're a sexist, immoral, would-be rapist.
...I wish that above statement was a joke, but it's true. Seriously, next time a woman is beating the hell out of you, grab her by the wrists or something, just to make her stop. Guess who's getting the chai nfor this? you are, good sir.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Getting Back into the swing of MTGS. Bear with me folks~
The fact that they're in a boxing ring wearing martial arts gear makes it clear that they're participating in a martial arts fight. There's really no way to look at that picture and not see the context.
. Are you kidding me? the hypothertical person that doesn't know about MMA also doesn't know about boxing or a martial art's gear. Just imagine someone does't know the context, in the same way your asking us to imagine someone doesn't know the context of a MTG card. We agree now correct? Stop trying to come up with ways that the imaginary person knows the context and except the premise that they don't. If it helps imagine the person in question is part of an indigenous tribe in the amazon. The know what rape is, yet they have no clue what MMA is and the fighting techniques used in it are.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
It's probably one of the most violent shows, especially towards women and children no less, that's ever been on national TV.
Where is the public outcry? Where is CBS saying, "I'm sorry we make such a violent show, depicting women being raped and murdered and children being abused?"
We sit and watch that show munching on popcorn like it's nothing.
That's actually an argument in favour of people's concern. Because these undertones are rarely found within Magic cards, thus making the time that one shows up (at least for some people) stand out more. A show like Criminal Minds is known and expected to be about horrific acts of depravity/control. Magic: the Gathering is not.
Archie Bunker was an outright bigot and we laughed at him. Hell, it was the number 1 show for YEARS.
But THIS? THIS we get upset about?
I'm sorry folks. Call me insensitive if you want (and I'm really not as I genuinely care about people, especially women and children) but we are blowing this way out of proportion relative to everything else going on in the real and not so real world.
Fair enough. You (and others) are being insensitive.
Ask yourself this; what would be lost by WOTC listening to the members of their fanbase who express some concern? Would Magic overall be harmed by them showing respect to those players, or do you really think it'd be some kind of slippery slope where 2 blocks from now we'll be "gently hugging" with "Fluffy Panda" and then casting "everyone goes off for icecream, place all creatures into the graveyard happy school bus of learning and fun"?
That's actually an argument in favour of people's concern. Because these undertones are rarely found within Magic cards, thus making the time that one shows up (at least for some people) stand out more. A show like Criminal Minds is known and expected to be about horrific acts of depravity/control. Magic: the Gathering is not.
Not to mention that Criminal Minds and shows of its ilk are about showing how wrong those acts are. They don't celebrate it, they decry it.
The easiest would be to simply mimic the other Triumph, frame the piece over Lil's head/shoulder as she lays on the ground with Garruk standing triumphantly over her with his axe. The eliminates the questionable overtones (hand around her neck, his position between her legs, her prone position on her back over a rock with him looming over her, since you apparently missed it the number of times the thread went over it) and also very neatly mirrors the companion piece for some nice symmetry, which you ask me the pieces should've had to begin with.
This is literally as sexually provocative as the last piece, if not more. How long after this piece comes out does someone say "that hulking brute of a man just knocked out that poor women (who is dressed in a provocative cheesecake corset) and now he is looking over her prone body with the thought of taking advantage of her." Since we are ignoring context on the first piece, why would anyone do any differently to this second one.
Also art does not need to follow symmetry, etc, it needs to be art. There is not a formula to art. Neither here nor there but if your an artist with a vision and suddenly you change that because of some society norm or what you think people might infer the you are not really making your own art anymore.
That's actually an argument in favour of people's concern. Because these undertones are rarely found within Magic cards, thus making the time that one shows up (at least for some people) stand out more. A show like Criminal Minds is known and expected to be about horrific acts of depravity/control. Magic: the Gathering is not.
So, in other words, as long as we come right out of the gate saying, "We're going to make the brutal show you've ever seen. We're going to rape and kill women and torture children" THAT'S OKAY?
That is the most insane thing I've ever heard in my life and just a cop out and excuse for somebody who wants to make an explicitly violent show.
And don't get me wrong. I love Criminal Minds. It's one of the best written shows on TV. But I could make a VERY strong case for it being totally over the top as far as the violence goes.
Ask yourself this; what would be lost by WOTC listening to the members of their fanbase who express some concern? Would Magic overall be harmed by them showing respect to those players, or do you really think it'd be some kind of slippery slope where 2 blocks from now we'll be "gently hugging" with "Fluffy Panda" and then casting "everyone goes off for icecream, place all creatures into the graveyard happy school bus of learning and fun"?
First of all, where is this huge fan base (people playing the game) that are outraged over this card? This is the first I'm even hearing of it.
Secondly, and this is more important, yes, there is always a slippery slope when you start taking away freedom of expression. Because somebody else is going to write to WotC, if they retracted the artwork or didn't print anything of that nature again, and complain about how their letter that WotC is cruel to animals (it really is) was ignored. And what if they get an animal activists group like the ASPCA involved?
So then all cards that show animals being killed or doing the killing are no longer made?
And yes, what about the Christians (by the way I am one, go to church, served on Consistory and even preached 2 sermons) who are up in arms about the vampire themes and anything anti God?
Where does it end?
If you can tell me where it ends once we start down this slope, I'll sell my magic cards right now and stop playing this game forever.
You can't because it won't end. There is always going to be something, somewhere, that's going to offend SOMEBODY.
Interestingly, for all the talk I've seen of women getting less of a say, I typically value a female player's opinion more than a male's opinion, because they generally seem less likely to just run with the trends (based on my experience). And in this case, I would absolutely value a female's opinion more highly, since the argument is the male's dominance over the female in the art. That's also why I've avoided giving my own opinion on the situation; I feel like I have no place to comment.
I asked my grandfather, who like many elderly is often stuck in the past for the way things are done, what he thought of the picture. He said, "There's nothing offensive about that. It's two people fighting, and it looks like she's doing just fine." That from an 80-year-old man who retains all of the prejudices and stereotypes from the 1950s and 60s.
Ed: Also, from what I've seen, this is a very isolated controversy. Most Magic players I've mentioned it to didn't even know anyone was offended, or why they would be. So the idea that this is alienating some large group of players is just plain inaccurate.
So, in other words, as long as we come right out of the gate saying, "We're going to make the brutal show you've ever seen. We're going to rape and kill women and torture children" THAT'S OKAY?
That is the most insane thing I've ever heard in my life and just a cop out and excuse for somebody who wants to make an explicitly violent show.
And don't get me wrong. I love Criminal Minds. It's one of the best written shows on TV. But I could make a VERY strong case for it being totally over the top as far as the violence goes.
If someone wants to make Raping And Torturing: The Series, that's their prerogative. Assuming they can find funding and an audience. I won't be among them.
I will, however, point you to the Hostel series as evidence that there IS an audience for such things. There are worse references I can point to, but I'd probably be infracted for them.
First of all, where is this huge fan base (people playing the game) that are outraged over this card? This is the first I'm even hearing of it.
Secondly, and this is more important, yes, there is always a slippery slope when you start taking away freedom of expression. Because somebody else is going to write to WotC, if they retracted the artwork or didn't print anything of that nature again, and complain about how their letter that WotC is cruel to animals (it really is) was ignored. And what if they get an animal activists group like the ASPCA involved?
So then all cards that show animals being killed or doing the killing are no longer made?
And yes, what about the Christians (by the way I am one, go to church, served on Consistory and even preached 2 sermons) who are up in arms about the vampire themes and anything anti God?
Where does it end?
If you can tell me where it ends once we start down this slope, I'll sell my magic cards right now and stop playing this game forever.
You can't because it won't end. There is always going to be something, somewhere, that's going to offend SOMEBODY.
1) Why does it need to be a huge fanbase? Just because something is fine with 99% of players doesn't mean that the concerns of the 1% are illegitimate, unless you feel tyrany of the majority is totally cool. There have been times in very recent history where the majority needed to have things pointed out to them as uncool and then (figuratively) have their noses smacked with a rolled up newspaper. I am referring to the fight for equal civil rights fought (and still being fought) across racial, sexual orientation and gender differences.
2) And those people are free to complain about anything they so choose. It's not up to you to decide that those complaints are illegitimate, and telling people they're being irrational is rude and inconsiderate. That is WOTC's choice to make. If your statement was "I don't think it's a problem" I wouldn't take issue with it at all. Trying to paint those with concerns as bad, wrong or crazy, however, is not cool.
If you feel that Vampires, Demons and other issues your religion takes issue with are worth complaining about, you are free to contact WOTC yourself and bring them up. And I wish you luck with your most surely politely worded and eloquent statements as to why you feel that way. And I will politely state that it isn't an issue for me, but respect that your beliefs lead you to feel that way. I might even voice that I hope WOTC continues to print Vampires and Demons, but I won't tell you that you are wrong, or bad, or crazy for feeling that way.
That is the difference here. Not the opinion itself; the voicing of that opinion in a manner that demeans the (from what I've seen so far; politely worded and expressed) opinion of others.
People are free to be offended by whatever they like. WOTC gets to weigh out what potential damage might result (within the community, financially, etc) by paying attention (or not) to those concerns.
This is literally as sexually provocative as the last piece, if not more.
Please explain to us why.
Also art does not need to follow symmetry, etc, it needs to be art.
I was just saying that since the two cards are clearly linked companion pieces, the composition of their arts could have been more closely mirrored to complete that symmetry. We see that often in cycles, and I think it could have been used to great effect here.
Neither here nor there but if your an artist with a vision and suddenly you change that because of some society norm or what you think people might infer the you are not really making your own art anymore.
They weren't to begin with, at least not the artists doing commissioned work for this card game. I don't know what you're on about, but that's not where I was going with this.
I literally did in my last post, you cut it from my quote.
The problem with the last piece is no one took it in context of the story so we have to assume they would not with the new piece.
I can easily see a picture of a hulking man with an axe and what i have to assume would be a triumphant (read smug) look on his face standing over a 90 pound woman who is half dressed and beaten or knocked out lying prone on the ground as EVERY BIT as sexually provocative as this. I can assure you a great many real life rapes happened when a man, possibly armed, knocked out a woman and took advantage of her when she was unconscious.
SO how is your picture any better? at least in the art we have Liliana can be seen as defending herself with a fireball.
For those arguing about artistic freedom- Again, look at the Alpha art for Unholy Strength. It did cause some problems, if I recall, and Magic has since said to make an attempt not to display this exact kind of imagery (sacrifice to some sort of devil or demon through a known "demonic" device or method in a realistic way) I do know people offended by Ravenous Demon, and you know what? I understand that. Their views cause that card to be offensive.
That does not necessarily limit art. And, though it is a slight limitation, it does not make it worse.
If you're an actor, and you're given lines, does this stifle your creativity? Not at all. You can express those lines correctly however you want, as long as the people making the film approve of it. This was a failure of foresight, but one that I don't think was easy to catch, and knowing Magic, they will simply note to attempt to not do it again if the ycan help it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Getting Back into the swing of MTGS. Bear with me folks~
The problem with the last piece is no one took it in context of the story so we have to assume they would not with the new piece.
I can easily see a picture of a hulking man with an axe and what i have to assume would be a triumphant (read smug) look on his face standing over a 90 pound woman who is half dressed and beaten or knocked out lying prone on the ground as EVERY BIT as sexually provocative as this. I can assure you a great many real life rapes happened when a man, possibly armed, knocked out a woman and took advantage of her when she was unconscious.
SO how is your picture any better?
It separates the two, for a start. Not that physical contact in a violent context is inherently a sexist thing (it's really quite not), but dividing them removes a lot of the physical immediacy of the original piece. It also conveniently gets Garruk out from between her legs and gets his hand from off her neck, both of which diminish the amount of direct physical dominance he's exhibiting on Liliana. All we're left with now is her on the ground with him standing triumphantly a distance away (a composition of a battle this thread has already discussed and dismissed as not being particularly sexist or sexually suggestive). The finer details (Liliana having a fireball in hand or not, Garruk holding an axe or standing with beasts or not, etc) really aren't too big a deal at this point since the piece is largely stripped of the components that were suggestive of a sexual assault. At this point, one would have to really be looking for rape to see it in the piece - and wouldn't that be ironic.
And maybe if, instead of swinging at her, he was commanding a beast at her, as she commands zombies at him. This piece had many possibilities, and tragically, this happened.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Getting Back into the swing of MTGS. Bear with me folks~
I I can assure you a great many real life rapes happened when a man, possibly armed, knocked out a woman and took advantage of her when she was unconscious.
But can you also assure us that it never happens to men(man on man, woman on man see "Girl with the dragon tatoo")? are you then going to expect the same treatment for men? Until you do your argument is self defeating, hypocritical and divisive.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
This whole thread in my eyes right now is a practice in reductio ad absurdum. Someone made an absurd claim and we have to defend ourselves or look like we are justifying them.
It's like a frivolous law suit where someone threatens to sue someone in a case they know they won't win just to try to force a settlement because the headache, money, and time it would take to defend themselves would be a greater loss.
The image is not sexist or of rape. Anyone who says they see that in the picture is projecting there personal perception, not that of reality. And sorry if your feeling are hurt, cant please everyone all the time.
Without drifting too close to the slippery slope fallacy, this is one of those grey areas in life. You and I can never know what might trigger someone else. Furthermore, they might not even know until it happens.
One can make a reasonable effort to avoid obvious/common statements, actions, images, etc that people find unpleasant, especially those who have suffered a traumatic experience, but there's also the flip side where some victims deal with their trauma through humour (sometimes so dark it's pitch black), and will mock, belittle or cajole those who would try to shield them, even going so far as to find such attempts profoundly offensive and misogynistic themselves, in that once again choice is being taken away from them, even if it's meant preventatively with the best of intentions.
Perhaps the artwork in question here didn't err far enough on the side of caution, but nothing produced for mass consumption will ever be completely and utterly sanitized from all possible slights or offences. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try as a society to look carefully into our words/acts/works and how they affect people. Just that it's a complicated issue with no simple solution and a number of mutually exclusive facets.
So in other words you're damned if you do and damned if you don't? So then why shouldn't everyone just do as they damn well please (after all, you're damned no matter what you do)?
I've kept my views silent through this entire thread just to see if the other side would be reasonable. I have found they are reasonable to a degree, but are terrible at communicating thier ideas (if they weren't then there would be fewer people pissed off at their expressions, which are offensive, such as callign people "sexist" like "whydirt" does)
So here if how I feel about it:
There is only one rational place to draw the line: Does the picture ACTUALLY depict rape or sexual assault/sexual violence/sexual abuse. IF it doesn't then Im sorry it triggers you but it aint the job of the people or artists to be constatnly questioning themselves "might this kind of look like or be misconstrued rape?".
If his hand was on Lily's breast, then thats obviosly displaying sexual violence. If her corset(?) was ripped open and her skirt was down on the floor, thats obviosly displaying sexual violence. If he has his wang hanging out waiting to go in this scene, obviosly sexual violence. Obviosly all intentional displays of it (the examples I gave).
Any of the above cases and I could see asking the artists to be more careful of other people's feelings, otherwise... Its so stupid to be walkign on eggshells and sayign to yourself "hmm, might this completely non-sexual image be misconstrued as rape? Is it even remotely suggestive of rape?"...
(OH BTW... I don't want to hear any **** about "you're just not tryign to see it from other peoples perspecitve". I have, and I just don't agree and think its absurd. In my short life I have been a conservative at one point and converted to being a liberal. I've been a christian and an atheist. I change my views when I believe the evidence has warrented it. So don't give me this "you're not just opened minded or empathetic enough BS".)
But can you also assure us that it never happens to men(man on man, woman on man see "Girl with the dragon tatoo")? are you then going to expect the same treatment for men? Until you do your argument is self defeating, hypocritical and divisive.
I did not exclude that possibility. Anyone can get raped. it is unfortunate that it happens and it is unfortunate that we are even talking about it because of a picture of NOT RAPE.
I know at least 2 men who were sexually assaulted by other men. I have never met a man who was sexually assaulted by a woman and I have never personally met a woman who was sexually assaulted by a man. Does not mean it does not happen. My statement does not preclude that, all my statement does was frame that other piece of artwork that was suggested, which fits all the same criteria for controversy as this other piece.
You already have to read into what that picture has to infer rape, so why wouldn't people read into another one. If everyone is so scared of physical contact portrayed on cards I recommend we all get our decontamination suits and live in bubble for the rest of our lives.
I think your all hypocrites to the fullest extent.
This "controversy" still continues to amaze me.
Especially because people have chosen to talk about one of the less-rapey cards I've seen involving this type of situation.
For example, what about Liliana's art for Demonic Tutor? That looks WAY more like a rape scenario than Triumph does.
So in other words you're damned if you do and damned if you don't? So then why shouldn't everyone just do as they damn well please (after all, you're damned no matter what you do)?
Perhaps the artwork in question here didn't err far enough on the side of caution, but nothing produced for mass consumption will ever be completely and utterly sanitized from all possible slights or offences. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try as a society to look carefully into our words/acts/works and how they affect people. Just that it's a complicated issue with no simple solution and a number of mutually exclusive facets.
If you're going to bold and respond to a point I make, you should probably note that I account for your contention in the very next lines of my post. I (and others) further clarify and address those concerns in other posts as well.
I did not exclude that possibility. Anyone can get raped. it is unfortunate that it happens and it is unfortunate that we are even talking about it because of a picture of NOT RAPE.
My bad. I didn't really read the whole conversation you had going on. From the one post i quoted it seemed like you had a much different view then you actually have. My mistake.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
I think your all hypocrites to the fullest extent.
Which hypocrites are you referring to? The ones who think this subject is nonsense or the ones who are up in arms about respecting the feelings of those who might be offended?
I just want to know which group of hypocrites I'm in with.
Wow, 18 pages about the definition and statistics of rape since I posted last night. How did this thread not get locked? I haven't seen **** about Magic in pages...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UUU Talrand, Sky Summoner // (W/U)(W/U)(W/U) Grand Arbiter Augustin IV // RRR Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker // (R/G)(R/G)(R/G) Wort, the Raidmother // URG Riku of Two Reflections // RWU Ruhan of the Fomori
Quote from Mark Rosewater »
In response to your Lightning Blast, I'll eat this burrito.
Quote from slipknot72102 »
This is why I started playing magic in the first place. It wasn't PT aspirations just making noobs cry by doing things that are perfectly fair.
This thread has kind of gotten silly. It's gone from the card to debates over whether MTG should be more cautious about offending people. MTG cannot and should not worry about offending the minority. Our nation today is so obsessed with political correctness that it's become stifling. People are now only looking for something to be offended by. Sometimes you only see something because you want to see something.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard Decks:
:symw::symw:W/u Humans (No Geist!):symw::symu:
Record: 22-3-0
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's probably one of the most violent shows, especially towards women and children no less, that's ever been on national TV.
Where is the public outcry? Where is CBS saying, "I'm sorry we make such a violent show, depicting women being raped and murdered and children being abused?"
We sit and watch that show munching on popcorn like it's nothing.
Archie Bunker was an outright bigot and we laughed at him. Hell, it was the number 1 show for YEARS.
But THIS? THIS we get upset about?
I'm sorry folks. Call me insensitive if you want (and I'm really not as I genuinely care about people, especially women and children) but we are blowing this way out of proportion relative to everything else going on in the real and not so real world.
I think the main problem here isn't even the artwork, though. I think it's the idea of "Man vs Woman" and many men being fearful of the societal backlash (did I word this properly?) of coming off as "sexist" for disagreeing with a woman calling anything out as being such.
My post was meant to say that, while it is good to say "Well, sorry you're offended..." I would finish that statement with "...but until you campaign against anything that looks remotely like this, I'll continue to play my cards now." I am genuinely sorry for them...because it appears they can't put it aside. Now, if I know I'm going to play with this person before hand, I will gladly swap out those copies for my non-offensive copies of the card. I will agree, that's just common courtesy.
Still, it's never good to open a post like that. It makes it seem like you're trying to make someone look bad, and smear is never a respectable strategy (Not accusing you of that, mind.)
Nope, not at all, but they would have less ground to stand on. I think it's also that they have no context: They don't understand that she's an incredibly powerful Mage who has harmed this man in a way that is just grotesque, and horrible. they just see a woman and a man, andthe man appears to be winning, therefor this must be rape.
So, essentially-If you get int oa fight with a woman, let her kill you. Otherwise, you're a sexist, immoral, would-be rapist.
...I wish that above statement was a joke, but it's true. Seriously, next time a woman is beating the hell out of you, grab her by the wrists or something, just to make her stop. Guess who's getting the chai nfor this? you are, good sir.
Done by Rivenor of Miraculous Recovery signatures!
. Are you kidding me? the hypothertical person that doesn't know about MMA also doesn't know about boxing or a martial art's gear. Just imagine someone does't know the context, in the same way your asking us to imagine someone doesn't know the context of a MTG card. We agree now correct? Stop trying to come up with ways that the imaginary person knows the context and except the premise that they don't. If it helps imagine the person in question is part of an indigenous tribe in the amazon. The know what rape is, yet they have no clue what MMA is and the fighting techniques used in it are.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
That's actually an argument in favour of people's concern. Because these undertones are rarely found within Magic cards, thus making the time that one shows up (at least for some people) stand out more. A show like Criminal Minds is known and expected to be about horrific acts of depravity/control. Magic: the Gathering is not.
Fair enough. You (and others) are being insensitive.
Ask yourself this; what would be lost by WOTC listening to the members of their fanbase who express some concern? Would Magic overall be harmed by them showing respect to those players, or do you really think it'd be some kind of slippery slope where 2 blocks from now we'll be "gently hugging" with "Fluffy Panda" and then casting "everyone goes off for icecream, place all creatures into the
graveyardhappy school bus of learning and fun"?WCommander EeshaBDrana, Kalastria BloodchiefBGGlissa, the TraitorBWVish Kal, Blood ArbiterRUNin, the Pain Artist
UGEdric, Spymaster of TrestWRBasandra, Battle SeraphBGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGWGhave, Guru of Spores
RGWUril, the MiststalkerGUBThe MimeoplasmUWGRafiq of the ManyWUBRGSliver Overlord
Not to mention that Criminal Minds and shows of its ilk are about showing how wrong those acts are. They don't celebrate it, they decry it.
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 literally as sexually provocative as the last piece, if not more. How long after this piece comes out does someone say "that hulking brute of a man just knocked out that poor women (who is dressed in a provocative cheesecake corset) and now he is looking over her prone body with the thought of taking advantage of her." Since we are ignoring context on the first piece, why would anyone do any differently to this second one.
Also art does not need to follow symmetry, etc, it needs to be art. There is not a formula to art. Neither here nor there but if your an artist with a vision and suddenly you change that because of some society norm or what you think people might infer the you are not really making your own art anymore.
Http://www.fantasticneighborhood.com/
Comedy gaming podcast. Listening to it makes you cool.
So, in other words, as long as we come right out of the gate saying, "We're going to make the brutal show you've ever seen. We're going to rape and kill women and torture children" THAT'S OKAY?
That is the most insane thing I've ever heard in my life and just a cop out and excuse for somebody who wants to make an explicitly violent show.
And don't get me wrong. I love Criminal Minds. It's one of the best written shows on TV. But I could make a VERY strong case for it being totally over the top as far as the violence goes.
First of all, where is this huge fan base (people playing the game) that are outraged over this card? This is the first I'm even hearing of it.
Secondly, and this is more important, yes, there is always a slippery slope when you start taking away freedom of expression. Because somebody else is going to write to WotC, if they retracted the artwork or didn't print anything of that nature again, and complain about how their letter that WotC is cruel to animals (it really is) was ignored. And what if they get an animal activists group like the ASPCA involved?
So then all cards that show animals being killed or doing the killing are no longer made?
And yes, what about the Christians (by the way I am one, go to church, served on Consistory and even preached 2 sermons) who are up in arms about the vampire themes and anything anti God?
Where does it end?
If you can tell me where it ends once we start down this slope, I'll sell my magic cards right now and stop playing this game forever.
You can't because it won't end. There is always going to be something, somewhere, that's going to offend SOMEBODY.
I asked my grandfather, who like many elderly is often stuck in the past for the way things are done, what he thought of the picture. He said, "There's nothing offensive about that. It's two people fighting, and it looks like she's doing just fine." That from an 80-year-old man who retains all of the prejudices and stereotypes from the 1950s and 60s.
Ed: Also, from what I've seen, this is a very isolated controversy. Most Magic players I've mentioned it to didn't even know anyone was offended, or why they would be. So the idea that this is alienating some large group of players is just plain inaccurate.
If someone wants to make Raping And Torturing: The Series, that's their prerogative. Assuming they can find funding and an audience. I won't be among them.
I will, however, point you to the Hostel series as evidence that there IS an audience for such things. There are worse references I can point to, but I'd probably be infracted for them.
1) Why does it need to be a huge fanbase? Just because something is fine with 99% of players doesn't mean that the concerns of the 1% are illegitimate, unless you feel tyrany of the majority is totally cool. There have been times in very recent history where the majority needed to have things pointed out to them as uncool and then (figuratively) have their noses smacked with a rolled up newspaper. I am referring to the fight for equal civil rights fought (and still being fought) across racial, sexual orientation and gender differences.
2) And those people are free to complain about anything they so choose. It's not up to you to decide that those complaints are illegitimate, and telling people they're being irrational is rude and inconsiderate. That is WOTC's choice to make. If your statement was "I don't think it's a problem" I wouldn't take issue with it at all. Trying to paint those with concerns as bad, wrong or crazy, however, is not cool.
If you feel that Vampires, Demons and other issues your religion takes issue with are worth complaining about, you are free to contact WOTC yourself and bring them up. And I wish you luck with your most surely politely worded and eloquent statements as to why you feel that way. And I will politely state that it isn't an issue for me, but respect that your beliefs lead you to feel that way. I might even voice that I hope WOTC continues to print Vampires and Demons, but I won't tell you that you are wrong, or bad, or crazy for feeling that way.
That is the difference here. Not the opinion itself; the voicing of that opinion in a manner that demeans the (from what I've seen so far; politely worded and expressed) opinion of others.
People are free to be offended by whatever they like. WOTC gets to weigh out what potential damage might result (within the community, financially, etc) by paying attention (or not) to those concerns.
WCommander EeshaBDrana, Kalastria BloodchiefBGGlissa, the TraitorBWVish Kal, Blood ArbiterRUNin, the Pain Artist
UGEdric, Spymaster of TrestWRBasandra, Battle SeraphBGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGWGhave, Guru of Spores
RGWUril, the MiststalkerGUBThe MimeoplasmUWGRafiq of the ManyWUBRGSliver Overlord
Please explain to us why.
I was just saying that since the two cards are clearly linked companion pieces, the composition of their arts could have been more closely mirrored to complete that symmetry. We see that often in cycles, and I think it could have been used to great effect here.
They weren't to begin with, at least not the artists doing commissioned work for this card game. I don't know what you're on about, but that's not where I was going with this.
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 literally did in my last post, you cut it from my quote.
The problem with the last piece is no one took it in context of the story so we have to assume they would not with the new piece.
I can easily see a picture of a hulking man with an axe and what i have to assume would be a triumphant (read smug) look on his face standing over a 90 pound woman who is half dressed and beaten or knocked out lying prone on the ground as EVERY BIT as sexually provocative as this. I can assure you a great many real life rapes happened when a man, possibly armed, knocked out a woman and took advantage of her when she was unconscious.
SO how is your picture any better? at least in the art we have Liliana can be seen as defending herself with a fireball.
Http://www.fantasticneighborhood.com/
Comedy gaming podcast. Listening to it makes you cool.
That does not necessarily limit art. And, though it is a slight limitation, it does not make it worse.
If you're an actor, and you're given lines, does this stifle your creativity? Not at all. You can express those lines correctly however you want, as long as the people making the film approve of it. This was a failure of foresight, but one that I don't think was easy to catch, and knowing Magic, they will simply note to attempt to not do it again if the ycan help it.
Done by Rivenor of Miraculous Recovery signatures!
It separates the two, for a start. Not that physical contact in a violent context is inherently a sexist thing (it's really quite not), but dividing them removes a lot of the physical immediacy of the original piece. It also conveniently gets Garruk out from between her legs and gets his hand from off her neck, both of which diminish the amount of direct physical dominance he's exhibiting on Liliana. All we're left with now is her on the ground with him standing triumphantly a distance away (a composition of a battle this thread has already discussed and dismissed as not being particularly sexist or sexually suggestive). The finer details (Liliana having a fireball in hand or not, Garruk holding an axe or standing with beasts or not, etc) really aren't too big a deal at this point since the piece is largely stripped of the components that were suggestive of a sexual assault. At this point, one would have to really be looking for rape to see it in the piece - and wouldn't that be ironic.
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
Done by Rivenor of Miraculous Recovery signatures!
But can you also assure us that it never happens to men(man on man, woman on man see "Girl with the dragon tatoo")? are you then going to expect the same treatment for men? Until you do your argument is self defeating, hypocritical and divisive.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
It's like a frivolous law suit where someone threatens to sue someone in a case they know they won't win just to try to force a settlement because the headache, money, and time it would take to defend themselves would be a greater loss.
The image is not sexist or of rape. Anyone who says they see that in the picture is projecting there personal perception, not that of reality. And sorry if your feeling are hurt, cant please everyone all the time.
Http://www.fantasticneighborhood.com/
Comedy gaming podcast. Listening to it makes you cool.
So in other words you're damned if you do and damned if you don't? So then why shouldn't everyone just do as they damn well please (after all, you're damned no matter what you do)?
I've kept my views silent through this entire thread just to see if the other side would be reasonable. I have found they are reasonable to a degree, but are terrible at communicating thier ideas (if they weren't then there would be fewer people pissed off at their expressions, which are offensive, such as callign people "sexist" like "whydirt" does)
So here if how I feel about it:
There is only one rational place to draw the line: Does the picture ACTUALLY depict rape or sexual assault/sexual violence/sexual abuse. IF it doesn't then Im sorry it triggers you but it aint the job of the people or artists to be constatnly questioning themselves "might this kind of look like or be misconstrued rape?".
If his hand was on Lily's breast, then thats obviosly displaying sexual violence. If her corset(?) was ripped open and her skirt was down on the floor, thats obviosly displaying sexual violence. If he has his wang hanging out waiting to go in this scene, obviosly sexual violence. Obviosly all intentional displays of it (the examples I gave).
Any of the above cases and I could see asking the artists to be more careful of other people's feelings, otherwise... Its so stupid to be walkign on eggshells and sayign to yourself "hmm, might this completely non-sexual image be misconstrued as rape? Is it even remotely suggestive of rape?"...
(OH BTW... I don't want to hear any **** about "you're just not tryign to see it from other peoples perspecitve". I have, and I just don't agree and think its absurd. In my short life I have been a conservative at one point and converted to being a liberal. I've been a christian and an atheist. I change my views when I believe the evidence has warrented it. So don't give me this "you're not just opened minded or empathetic enough BS".)
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
I did not exclude that possibility. Anyone can get raped. it is unfortunate that it happens and it is unfortunate that we are even talking about it because of a picture of NOT RAPE.
I know at least 2 men who were sexually assaulted by other men. I have never met a man who was sexually assaulted by a woman and I have never personally met a woman who was sexually assaulted by a man. Does not mean it does not happen. My statement does not preclude that, all my statement does was frame that other piece of artwork that was suggested, which fits all the same criteria for controversy as this other piece.
You already have to read into what that picture has to infer rape, so why wouldn't people read into another one. If everyone is so scared of physical contact portrayed on cards I recommend we all get our decontamination suits and live in bubble for the rest of our lives.
I think your all hypocrites to the fullest extent.
Http://www.fantasticneighborhood.com/
Comedy gaming podcast. Listening to it makes you cool.
Especially because people have chosen to talk about one of the less-rapey cards I've seen involving this type of situation.
For example, what about Liliana's art for Demonic Tutor? That looks WAY more like a rape scenario than Triumph does.
If you're going to bold and respond to a point I make, you should probably note that I account for your contention in the very next lines of my post. I (and others) further clarify and address those concerns in other posts as well.
WCommander EeshaBDrana, Kalastria BloodchiefBGGlissa, the TraitorBWVish Kal, Blood ArbiterRUNin, the Pain Artist
UGEdric, Spymaster of TrestWRBasandra, Battle SeraphBGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGWGhave, Guru of Spores
RGWUril, the MiststalkerGUBThe MimeoplasmUWGRafiq of the ManyWUBRGSliver Overlord
My bad. I didn't really read the whole conversation you had going on. From the one post i quoted it seemed like you had a much different view then you actually have. My mistake.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Which hypocrites are you referring to? The ones who think this subject is nonsense or the ones who are up in arms about respecting the feelings of those who might be offended?
I just want to know which group of hypocrites I'm in with.
:symw::symw:W/u Humans (No Geist!):symw::symu:
Record: 22-3-0