I agree with Jeremy, and quite frankly find this thread a joke. The rules basically prevent any discussion that sides with what he said, which I believe makes this thread little more than an echo chamber.
So why do you agree with him, and what are you agreeing with in particular?
Fair question, and I am trying to answer in accordance with the thread's guidelines:
I watched the video by Sprankle months ago where she discussed how she was not paid to cosplay at major events. Her costumes, travel, lodging was all paid out of pocket, and that she was losing the ability to afford to do this. That is no one's fault but her own. Personally, I hate what Patreon has done, turning people into virtual panhandlers wanting their hobbies funded by strangers. And yes, that extends to Jeremy, who I do not support on Patreon. She began to cry, and all I could think was "this is not my problem." Jeremy took a very similar stance, while also making the claim that she was only getting support by way of being one of the few instances of a woman involved with MtG who may be considered cute by the general public. Personally, I agree with that too but realize it is only speculation. I think he's been critical, but nothing that I would consider harassment. The goalposts have been moved, I think too far, for where criticism and mockery becomes harassment. Everyone's emotions are within his or her control, barring illness or injury. If someone upsets me, which hell happens all the time, I'm mad for about five minutes then say "good thing it won't affect my physical safety or wallet" and move on. Too many people now get upset, then demand retribution that anyone dared be remotely mean.
I think the entire culture of "this person sent a hatemob after me" needs to end. People should be held accountable for their own actions. Anyone who made any sort of threat of violence is wrong, but the only person responsible in such a case is the person who sent the threat. It's easier to point to a content creator, because you know their face and name. Doesn't make it the correct move.
EDIT: I did not see purklefluff's comment. the correct response to someone being upset is not always to apologize if that emotional response isn't reasonable. Again, the goalposts culturally of reasonable emotional reactions is moving, and I don't think in a wise way.
I’ll never understand why people think it’s acceptable to tell others how to feel. Just because your reaction to a situation is brushing it off within 5 minutes doesn’t mean that is how it has to be for every other person. If someone has a response you do not deem “reasonable,” that is your fault, not theirs.
Actually I disagree Lurker. Look, it's like the case from Plato's Republic. If your friend walks into your house seething in anger, going on about his wife, then asks you where you keep your sword, are you going to go along with their feelings? No. Indeed, not all emotional reactions are rational. If someone is behaving irrationally, I refuse to enable them. Your stance is postmodernist nonsense to me - all emotions are valid and correct because that's what someone wants to do. It's a fundamental philosophical difference. Being too sensitive is indeed a flaw. Doesn't make Sprankle a bad person, far from it. It just makes her immature in my opinion. I also remember seeing how Gaby Spartz lost her mind after Trump got elected, thought the same thing. Caleb Durward trolled someone in his twitch chat by taking a knee and playing the national anthem (found it hilarious that he did that personally) and other pros began to talk about him as some sort of hero.
I’ll never understand why people think it’s acceptable to tell others how to feel. Just because your reaction to a situation is brushing it off within 5 minutes doesn’t mean that is how it has to be for every other person. If someone has a response you do not deem “reasonable,” that is your fault, not theirs.
From a third person's standpoint, I don't think that he was saying he can tell others how to feel. I think the more accurate statement is that he was saying that it is unfair to demand an apology from someone because your feelings were hurt by something that was not intended in that fashion. I mean, if you say the sky is blue and I get extremely depressed about the fact that I thought it was grey and you called me wrong, should you have to apologize? That is his basic argument I think, taken to absurdity.
Everyone's emotions are within his or her control, barring illness or injury. If someone upsets me, which hell happens all the time, I'm mad for about five minutes then say "good thing it won't affect my physical safety or wallet" and move on. Too many people now get upset, then demand retribution that anyone dared be remotely mean.
Again, the goalposts culturally of reasonable emotional reactions is moving, and I don't think in a wise way.
you clearly don't work in a profession or public sector where this comes into play, so i'll forgive you for not understanding this fully.
but i'll tell you now, as someone who does - what you're saying/suggesting here isn't the reality of it. I can see why you think the way you do, from your perspective I really do - but you're not correct to apply your own experiences to 'people at large'.
As someone who for 10+ years has professionally worked with victims, mental health, education and special educational needs, social difficulties and a plethora of similar things I could be considered an authority in layman's terms on this sort of thing.
emotions are complex - 'emotional intelligence' is a fairly new term which can be helpful to use, because it describes someone's ability to understand, manage and contextualise their emotional experiences (and the emotions of others). Most people (genuinely a very high proportion) on planet earth can be regarded as having low emotional intelligence. This is a facet of their educational upbringing, their social groupings and the specific social/emotional tropes of their culture. Emotion is akin to an additional and highly complex language which forms a layer over our everyday experience and social activity. It takes education and guidance over many years to even begin to understand the nuances and details of emotion. What this amounts to is that, at large, most people are emotionally reactionary, easily led, unable to effectively contexualise emotional 'data' and don't have the capacity to 'control' emotions as you're describing.
if someone gets upset, that's an automatic, overwhelming response. most people can't just "switch it off" as you're suggesting. in fact, the ability to do this at all suggests an exceptional neurological structure we generally refer to as psychopathy. You should look into this, it's not intrinsically a bad thing, so don't take it as an insult. It's just a facet of how people's brains can work.
my point here is that the basis of your argument in support of Jeremy is false. you're effectively suggesting that victims of insults or hate should just "stop being upset" like they have a choice, or in other words "toughen up". this is classic victim-blaming, ignoring the source of the insult that caused the upset. Whether you intended to take this stance is, unfortunately, irrelevant. That's what you've ended up expressing above.
Actually I disagree Lurker. Look, it's like the case from Plato's Republic. If your friend walks into your house seething in anger, going on about his wife, then asks you where you keep your sword, are you going to go along with their feelings? No. Indeed, not all emotional reactions are rational. If someone is behaving irrationally, I refuse to enable them. Your stance is postmodernist nonsense to me - all emotions are valid and correct because that's what someone wants to do. It's a fundamental philosophical difference. Being too sensitive is indeed a flaw. Doesn't make Sprankle a bad person, far from it. It just makes her immature in my opinion. I also remember seeing how Gaby Spartz lost her mind after Trump got elected, thought the same thing. Caleb Durward trolled someone in his twitch chat by taking a knee and playing the national anthem (found it hilarious that he did that personally) and other pros began to talk about him as some sort of hero.
It's about reason and rationale.
You mentioned goalposts earlier. Where do you place your own? In what grey area do you draw the line?
Also, the video that was made months ago wasn’t a standalone problem. Issues like this do not arise from one source, but rather from a series of causes and effects. She probably didn’t like that video, but it wasn’t the nail in the coffin. Rather, the nails was the public’s response to the video. The increase in negative attention that can get overwhelming to most individuals.
Reason and rationale are extremely important qualities, but one must not understate the value of emotion as it is the key aspect of humanity. To the same point, one must not sacrifice reason and rationale for the sake of emotion for they are the key aspects of survival. It’s all a matter of where we draw our lines.
Reason and rationale are extremely important qualities, but one must not understate the value of emotion as it is the key aspect of humanity. To the same point, one must not sacrifice reason and rationale for the sake of emotion for they are the key aspects of survival. It’s all a matter of where we draw our lines.
As someone whose own emotions can be a burden, and who has someone close with emotional problems, I can see the temptation to ignore the emotion part of the equation.
But as you said, emotion is an integral part of humanity, so ignoring or downplaying it is ill-advised.
if someone gets upset, that's an automatic, overwhelming response. most people can't just "switch it off" as you're suggesting. in fact, the ability to do this at all suggests an exceptional neurological structure we generally refer to as psychopathy. You should look into this, it's not intrinsically a bad thing, so don't take it as an insult. It's just a facet of how people's brains can work.
To add on to this, a lot of trolls do in fact know this, and weaponize it against the victims as another vector from which to make them feel devalued, and even to blame themselves for being unable to "switch it off." The whole "stop taking it so seriously" thing, spoken both by the harasser and those supporting the harasser, can manage to pile up an unhealthy amount of guilt in the victim on top of the harassment already going on. It's a sickening thing, but trolls and bigots have toxicity down pat to such a degree that many bystanders would even doubt that such layers of nuance even exist or are intentional. This obviously isn't to say that everyone who says "calm down, it's just a joke" means to devalue the victim intentionally... but it's very much a weapon in the harassers' arsenal that too often goes overlooked.
This is the problem with this thread, though. The rules currently in place say "if you don't believe its harassment, you're wrong, and you're not allowed to make any sort of claim."
Actually I disagree Lurker. Look, it's like the case from Plato's Republic. If your friend walks into your house seething in anger, going on about his wife, then asks you where you keep your sword, are you going to go along with their feelings? No. Indeed, not all emotional reactions are rational. If someone is behaving irrationally, I refuse to enable them. Your stance is postmodernist nonsense to me - all emotions are valid and correct because that's what someone wants to do. It's a fundamental philosophical difference. Being too sensitive is indeed a flaw. Doesn't make Sprankle a bad person, far from it. It just makes her immature in my opinion. I also remember seeing how Gaby Spartz lost her mind after Trump got elected, thought the same thing. Caleb Durward trolled someone in his twitch chat by taking a knee and playing the national anthem (found it hilarious that he did that personally) and other pros began to talk about him as some sort of hero.
It's about reason and rationale.
It’s obvious what each of us think is highly suggestive so this conversation ultimately does not need to happy. You, I and every other human being on the planet, have a different definition of emotion and sensetivity and reaction. So whatever. The problem though is even if you believe Sprankle’s initial cosplay video was too emotional and her being a baby, how on earth do Jeremy and his followers responses to that align with rational? Is the harassment she has suffered really okay because of a video you claim was too over emotional? I don’t understand. None of her side of this has had any threat of violence. His has. He’s enabling violence and harassment by regurgitating his hateful bull***** into the gaping mouths of his followers.
I already watched 2 hours of videos and looked at twitter as well as some of the follow up videos. If this was taken to court with a Jury, Jeremy would be in seriously deep water here. In fact is his Channel still up on YouTube? They have to have taken it down by now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
It’s obvious what each of us think is highly suggestive so this conversation ultimately does not need to happy. You, I and every other human being on the planet, have a different definition of emotion and sensetivity and reaction. So whatever. The problem though is even if you believe Sprankle’s initial cosplay video was too emotional and her being a baby, how on earth do Jeremy and his followers responses to that align with rational? Is the harassment she has suffered really okay because of a video you claim was too over emotional? I don’t understand. None of her side of this has had any threat of violence. His has. He’s enabling violence and harassment by regurgitating his hateful bull***** into the gaping mouths of his followers.
To be fair, he's at least claimed that he's also now received death threats. Violence, or threat of violence, on either side is unjustifiable.
I watched the video by Sprankle months ago where she discussed how she was not paid to cosplay at major events. Her costumes, travel, lodging was all paid out of pocket, and that she was losing the ability to afford to do this. That is no one's fault but her own. Personally, I hate what Patreon has done, turning people into virtual panhandlers wanting their hobbies funded by strangers. And yes, that extends to Jeremy, who I do not support on Patreon. She began to cry, and all I could think was "this is not my problem." Jeremy took a very similar stance, while also making the claim that she was only getting support by way of being one of the few instances of a woman involved with MtG who may be considered cute by the general public.
This is fair and valid criticism. The issue arises with how he went about criticising Christine, and how he has asked people to attack others on hus behalf. It's fine to criticise people. It's fine to disagree with them. But if someone incites a mob to verbally attack people, they should face the backlash without blaming the victim or falling back on the tired excuse of 'It was clearly a joke!'. As the Prof said, he has a platform and an ability to influence thousands of people. He needs to be responsible with what he says.
I think the more accurate statement is that he was saying that it is unfair to demand an apology from someone because your feelings were hurt by something that was not intended in that fashion.
At the same time, imagine you're walking along a beach and toss a rock over the next rise. Your intention was to throw the rock. Nothing more. You hit someone with the rock. Should you apologise? Your intention wasn't to hit them with the rock, but you did. Are they less hurt because you didn't intend to hit them?
Many people (myself included sometimes) fail to realise that your intentions have little bearing on the reaction you received. If you hurt someone, it's not their fault they were hurt.
It’s obvious what each of us think is highly suggestive so this conversation ultimately does not need to happy. You, I and every other human being on the planet, have a different definition of emotion and sensetivity and reaction. So whatever. The problem though is even if you believe Sprankle’s initial cosplay video was too emotional and her being a baby, how on earth do Jeremy and his followers responses to that align with rational? Is the harassment she has suffered really okay because of a video you claim was too over emotional? I don’t understand. None of her side of this has had any threat of violence. His has. He’s enabling violence and harassment by regurgitating his hateful bull***** into the gaping mouths of his followers.
To be fair, he's at least claimed that he's also now received death threats. Violence, or threat of violence, on either side is unjustifiable.
Hes gotten this sort of backlash before this whole thing with Christine. Its just has not blown up this big in his face before.
At the same time, imagine you're walking along a beach and toss a rock over the next rise. Your intention was to throw the rock. Nothing more. You hit someone with the rock. Should you apologise? Your intention wasn't to hit them with the rock, but you did. Are they less hurt because you didn't intend to hit them?
Many people (myself included sometimes) fail to realise that your intentions have little bearing on the reaction you received. If you hurt someone, it's not their fault they were hurt.
In, for example, stand-up comedy, there are plenty of "offensive" things being said and taking offense is generally derided to be a sign of being too thin-skinned. Many comics mock either groups of people or even specific people (usually celebrities or members of the audience), but any kind of backlash about their being offensive tends to be pretty rare, and usually isn't taken very seriously.
I'm curious where people think the difference is (or if there is one)? Is it because comedy doesn't tend to incite other people to violence and threats of violence like online harassment does? Or is it that victims are unable to escape being harassed online compared to being mocked by a comic? Or maybe another reason I haven't considered?
I'm not trying to make any statement about the actual events over the weekend, I'm just curious why people think these two things are treated so differently.
It’s obvious what each of us think is highly suggestive so this conversation ultimately does not need to happy. You, I and every other human being on the planet, have a different definition of emotion and sensetivity and reaction. So whatever. The problem though is even if you believe Sprankle’s initial cosplay video was too emotional and her being a baby, how on earth do Jeremy and his followers responses to that align with rational? Is the harassment she has suffered really okay because of a video you claim was too over emotional? I don’t understand. None of her side of this has had any threat of violence. His has. He’s enabling violence and harassment by regurgitating his hateful bull***** into the gaping mouths of his followers.
To be fair, he's at least claimed that he's also now received death threats. Violence, or threat of violence, on either side is unjustifiable.
So the trick is to not post in this thread, then? Looking at the other thread it seems like everyone not condemning the guy was given a warning for trolling. This is really poor conduct by the mods.
Yes, people who are defending well-known harassers, questioning the validity of extremely obviously valid harassment claims, brushing off harassment as "just a joke", and blaming the victims in that thread were infracted. That is also going to be true of this thread. If it is your opinion that toxic harassers aren't actually toxic or harassers, or that they're just joking, or that their victims had it coming, I do invite you not to post in this thread (or any other about this topic).
It is my opinion that we (at least those involved in this issue) live in a country that bases its judgement on the philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty." What I have seen of his actions here are not harassment, just being a general ass****. My objection is to the immediate hate mobs that spring up at any accusations.
***** talking is fine, as long as everyone "really" knows its ***** talking.
The problem becomes persistent if the ***** talk turns into a real opinion of life and people stop to distance themselves from just outright hate speech against people that clearly cannot defend themselves appropriately (which easily turns into a real crime).
----
If people get popular its totally normal that some jokes are made, even some that the person in question might not find funny, but nobody forces them to look at them and its fine that way.
Some special idiots will take it further and not just make jokes, but that it as granted to not have a stop sign in front of them, thats the big red line nobody should ever cross and it requires that the person in question has at least a minimal amount of social skill to begin with (often enough these people need help themselves and just flee into hate against others to compensate for their own bad situations; and others are just plain ********s).
----
I must say Jemery is a *****-talker, and he might cross the line a bunch of times too, but in the end, he isnt the real problem, as there will always be the "bottom" and hes not too terrible in the grand spectrum of ***** talkers (so yes, if he goes too far, sue him, its your right to sue him for publicly blaming, insult, offend you in any way ; if he has to struggle with enough of these he will naturally step back and think more about how far is too far).
But on the other side, you will always have the White Knights, Social Justice Warriors and even people that get popular but really cannot stand the pressure that popularity brings with it.
You can make money with being popular and you will also get the attention of a lot of trolls, idiots and psychopaths.
If in doubt, call the police and sue them, some people just need to get feedback they actually understand, and "talking" to a troll is not the way to solve such an issue, it will just fuel oil to the fire and in the worst case burn you with it.
Public Mod Note
(Wildfire393):
Warning for ignoring a mod request - arguing about SJWs, defending harassment
So, I'm doing a video on this entire thing. My major question is this: if almost all these tweets were deleted, then why didn't she put them on an archive? If they were, can it be provided to me, because I am honestly on the side of, "Provide the evidence to back up your claims".
It is my opinion that we (at least those involved in this issue) live in a country that bases its judgement on the philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty."
That's for courts of law, though, not for courts of public opinion. While cases like Sprankle's are very clear-cut with lots of evidence of harassment, the greater problems facing women in the community boil down to lower-tier harassment that adds up over time, with little to no evidence to "prove" guilt. Hence why it's imperative to believe women when we say when an environment or player is being toxic, without endless demands for "proof" and constant reinforcement of "it's just a joke, relax."
It is my opinion that we (at least those involved in this issue) live in a country that bases its judgement on the philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty."
That's for courts of law, though, not for courts of public opinion. While cases like Sprankle's are very clear-cut with lots of evidence of harassment, the greater problems facing women in the community boil down to lower-tier harassment that adds up over time, with little to no evidence to "prove" guilt. Hence why it's imperative to believe women when we say when an environment or player is being toxic, without endless demands for "proof" and constant reinforcement of "it's just a joke, relax."
Why is harassment only a women's problem? Furthermore, if that is your stance it seems like you are supporting the counter-harassment that situations like this always seem to generate when put into the "court of public opinion."
It is my opinion that we (at least those involved in this issue) live in a country that bases its judgement on the philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty."
That's for courts of law, though, not for courts of public opinion. While cases like Sprankle's are very clear-cut with lots of evidence of harassment, the greater problems facing women in the community boil down to lower-tier harassment that adds up over time, with little to no evidence to "prove" guilt. Hence why it's imperative to believe women when we say when an environment or player is being toxic, without endless demands for "proof" and constant reinforcement of "it's just a joke, relax."
Fundamental disagreement. If there's no evidence, that means it isn't happening. You're in Canada, what do you think the good Professor Jordan Peterson would say about stating that we should always believe accusations without evidence, hell putting proof in quotation marks as if its some vague concept.
I have two sisters, I'm not that heartless, but if they ever told me they were experiencing problems my first advice would be to file a report with authorities as opposed to Twitter.
I have a hard time believing some people don't see Jeremy as an harasser and a bully. It's to the point that it's basically a litmus test of basic understanding. If his behavior is not harassment, then what is? (Don't bother replying, it's a rhetorical question. I'm not interested in the minutia of the psyche of people defending Jeremy. And no, I and everyone else reading this thread don't "have to" hear your POV. Yes, sorry, if you disagree about Jeremy harassing people, wedon't have duty to entertain your rambling.)
I was unaware of that seething side of MTG. I wish I still were, but keeping silent while knowing is being complicit.
I watched the video by Sprankle months ago where she discussed how she was not paid to cosplay at major events. Her costumes, travel, lodging was all paid out of pocket, and that she was losing the ability to afford to do this. That is no one's fault but her own. Personally, I hate what Patreon has done, turning people into virtual panhandlers wanting their hobbies funded by strangers. And yes, that extends to Jeremy, who I do not support on Patreon. She began to cry, and all I could think was "this is not my problem." Jeremy took a very similar stance, while also making the claim that she was only getting support by way of being one of the few instances of a woman involved with MtG who may be considered cute by the general public.
This is fair and valid criticism. The issue arises with how he went about criticising Christine, and how he has asked people to attack others on hus behalf. It's fine to criticise people. It's fine to disagree with them. But if someone incites a mob to verbally attack people, they should face the backlash without blaming the victim or falling back on the tired excuse of 'It was clearly a joke!'. As the Prof said, he has a platform and an ability to influence thousands of people. He needs to be responsible with what he says.
I think you are really overestimating this influence. Also, the later statement about throwing the rock? The rock causes pain and injury. Words don't. I'm very Ayn Rand on these matters - force or threat of force, that's it.
Part of the reason this thread has caught my attention is that videos from the TheQuartering channel keep showing up as recommended when I visit Youtube, even though I haven't watched any of his videos. So, I became somewhat curious about this guy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I’ll never understand why people think it’s acceptable to tell others how to feel. Just because your reaction to a situation is brushing it off within 5 minutes doesn’t mean that is how it has to be for every other person. If someone has a response you do not deem “reasonable,” that is your fault, not theirs.
YouTube Channel
It's about reason and rationale.
From a third person's standpoint, I don't think that he was saying he can tell others how to feel. I think the more accurate statement is that he was saying that it is unfair to demand an apology from someone because your feelings were hurt by something that was not intended in that fashion. I mean, if you say the sky is blue and I get extremely depressed about the fact that I thought it was grey and you called me wrong, should you have to apologize? That is his basic argument I think, taken to absurdity.
you clearly don't work in a profession or public sector where this comes into play, so i'll forgive you for not understanding this fully.
but i'll tell you now, as someone who does - what you're saying/suggesting here isn't the reality of it. I can see why you think the way you do, from your perspective I really do - but you're not correct to apply your own experiences to 'people at large'.
As someone who for 10+ years has professionally worked with victims, mental health, education and special educational needs, social difficulties and a plethora of similar things I could be considered an authority in layman's terms on this sort of thing.
emotions are complex - 'emotional intelligence' is a fairly new term which can be helpful to use, because it describes someone's ability to understand, manage and contextualise their emotional experiences (and the emotions of others). Most people (genuinely a very high proportion) on planet earth can be regarded as having low emotional intelligence. This is a facet of their educational upbringing, their social groupings and the specific social/emotional tropes of their culture. Emotion is akin to an additional and highly complex language which forms a layer over our everyday experience and social activity. It takes education and guidance over many years to even begin to understand the nuances and details of emotion. What this amounts to is that, at large, most people are emotionally reactionary, easily led, unable to effectively contexualise emotional 'data' and don't have the capacity to 'control' emotions as you're describing.
if someone gets upset, that's an automatic, overwhelming response. most people can't just "switch it off" as you're suggesting. in fact, the ability to do this at all suggests an exceptional neurological structure we generally refer to as psychopathy. You should look into this, it's not intrinsically a bad thing, so don't take it as an insult. It's just a facet of how people's brains can work.
my point here is that the basis of your argument in support of Jeremy is false. you're effectively suggesting that victims of insults or hate should just "stop being upset" like they have a choice, or in other words "toughen up". this is classic victim-blaming, ignoring the source of the insult that caused the upset. Whether you intended to take this stance is, unfortunately, irrelevant. That's what you've ended up expressing above.
You mentioned goalposts earlier. Where do you place your own? In what grey area do you draw the line?
Also, the video that was made months ago wasn’t a standalone problem. Issues like this do not arise from one source, but rather from a series of causes and effects. She probably didn’t like that video, but it wasn’t the nail in the coffin. Rather, the nails was the public’s response to the video. The increase in negative attention that can get overwhelming to most individuals.
Reason and rationale are extremely important qualities, but one must not understate the value of emotion as it is the key aspect of humanity. To the same point, one must not sacrifice reason and rationale for the sake of emotion for they are the key aspects of survival. It’s all a matter of where we draw our lines.
As someone whose own emotions can be a burden, and who has someone close with emotional problems, I can see the temptation to ignore the emotion part of the equation.
But as you said, emotion is an integral part of humanity, so ignoring or downplaying it is ill-advised.
To add on to this, a lot of trolls do in fact know this, and weaponize it against the victims as another vector from which to make them feel devalued, and even to blame themselves for being unable to "switch it off." The whole "stop taking it so seriously" thing, spoken both by the harasser and those supporting the harasser, can manage to pile up an unhealthy amount of guilt in the victim on top of the harassment already going on. It's a sickening thing, but trolls and bigots have toxicity down pat to such a degree that many bystanders would even doubt that such layers of nuance even exist or are intentional. This obviously isn't to say that everyone who says "calm down, it's just a joke" means to devalue the victim intentionally... but it's very much a weapon in the harassers' arsenal that too often goes overlooked.
It’s obvious what each of us think is highly suggestive so this conversation ultimately does not need to happy. You, I and every other human being on the planet, have a different definition of emotion and sensetivity and reaction. So whatever. The problem though is even if you believe Sprankle’s initial cosplay video was too emotional and her being a baby, how on earth do Jeremy and his followers responses to that align with rational? Is the harassment she has suffered really okay because of a video you claim was too over emotional? I don’t understand. None of her side of this has had any threat of violence. His has. He’s enabling violence and harassment by regurgitating his hateful bull***** into the gaping mouths of his followers.
YouTube Channel
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
This is fair and valid criticism. The issue arises with how he went about criticising Christine, and how he has asked people to attack others on hus behalf. It's fine to criticise people. It's fine to disagree with them. But if someone incites a mob to verbally attack people, they should face the backlash without blaming the victim or falling back on the tired excuse of 'It was clearly a joke!'. As the Prof said, he has a platform and an ability to influence thousands of people. He needs to be responsible with what he says.
At the same time, imagine you're walking along a beach and toss a rock over the next rise. Your intention was to throw the rock. Nothing more. You hit someone with the rock. Should you apologise? Your intention wasn't to hit them with the rock, but you did. Are they less hurt because you didn't intend to hit them?
Many people (myself included sometimes) fail to realise that your intentions have little bearing on the reaction you received. If you hurt someone, it's not their fault they were hurt.
I'm curious where people think the difference is (or if there is one)? Is it because comedy doesn't tend to incite other people to violence and threats of violence like online harassment does? Or is it that victims are unable to escape being harassed online compared to being mocked by a comic? Or maybe another reason I haven't considered?
I'm not trying to make any statement about the actual events over the weekend, I'm just curious why people think these two things are treated so differently.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Gotcha, didn’t know that. Thanks for the info
YouTube Channel
It is my opinion that we (at least those involved in this issue) live in a country that bases its judgement on the philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty." What I have seen of his actions here are not harassment, just being a general ass****. My objection is to the immediate hate mobs that spring up at any accusations.
The problem becomes persistent if the ***** talk turns into a real opinion of life and people stop to distance themselves from just outright hate speech against people that clearly cannot defend themselves appropriately (which easily turns into a real crime).
----
If people get popular its totally normal that some jokes are made, even some that the person in question might not find funny, but nobody forces them to look at them and its fine that way.
Some special idiots will take it further and not just make jokes, but that it as granted to not have a stop sign in front of them, thats the big red line nobody should ever cross and it requires that the person in question has at least a minimal amount of social skill to begin with (often enough these people need help themselves and just flee into hate against others to compensate for their own bad situations; and others are just plain ********s).
----
I must say Jemery is a *****-talker, and he might cross the line a bunch of times too, but in the end, he isnt the real problem, as there will always be the "bottom" and hes not too terrible in the grand spectrum of ***** talkers (so yes, if he goes too far, sue him, its your right to sue him for publicly blaming, insult, offend you in any way ; if he has to struggle with enough of these he will naturally step back and think more about how far is too far).
But on the other side, you will always have the White Knights, Social Justice Warriors and even people that get popular but really cannot stand the pressure that popularity brings with it.
You can make money with being popular and you will also get the attention of a lot of trolls, idiots and psychopaths.
If in doubt, call the police and sue them, some people just need to get feedback they actually understand, and "talking" to a troll is not the way to solve such an issue, it will just fuel oil to the fire and in the worst case burn you with it.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
That's for courts of law, though, not for courts of public opinion. While cases like Sprankle's are very clear-cut with lots of evidence of harassment, the greater problems facing women in the community boil down to lower-tier harassment that adds up over time, with little to no evidence to "prove" guilt. Hence why it's imperative to believe women when we say when an environment or player is being toxic, without endless demands for "proof" and constant reinforcement of "it's just a joke, relax."
Why is harassment only a women's problem? Furthermore, if that is your stance it seems like you are supporting the counter-harassment that situations like this always seem to generate when put into the "court of public opinion."
Fundamental disagreement. If there's no evidence, that means it isn't happening. You're in Canada, what do you think the good Professor Jordan Peterson would say about stating that we should always believe accusations without evidence, hell putting proof in quotation marks as if its some vague concept.
I have two sisters, I'm not that heartless, but if they ever told me they were experiencing problems my first advice would be to file a report with authorities as opposed to Twitter.
I was unaware of that seething side of MTG. I wish I still were, but keeping silent while knowing is being complicit.
EDIT:
Speechless.
I think you are really overestimating this influence. Also, the later statement about throwing the rock? The rock causes pain and injury. Words don't. I'm very Ayn Rand on these matters - force or threat of force, that's it.