Suddenly we can infer "ideology" based on who people follow on Twitter. And then we can persecute them for their thoughts. And their supposed thoughts. Except we can't be certain of their thoughts. But that's what the pitchforks of the witch hunt mob are for. You're only as good as the worst thing the account you follow on Twitter has posted, ever!
When the account in question that she liked and gave her endorsement to called for the wholesale gassing of every Jew on the planet, or to kill the "actors" at Sandy Hook, that's definitely something worth judging over.
So guilty by association. Got it.
You don't know what guilty by association means. Got it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Nobody is calling for her to be oppressed by the government for her idiotic beliefs. Wizards has determined that her promotion of such radical ideology does not give with the image they want to project. Wizards customers have determined that they do not want to support such a toxic ideology.
Its absolutely not "wizards customers" , just a bunch of twitters screechers, that currently go on a rampage for absolutely everyone.
Its as counter constructive as it could ever be.
Its only a matter of time till it hits something you dare to enjoy, and you will understand, just wait for it.
First, those "screamers" are customers. Second, for all your (fake) concern about engaging with the argument instead of attacking the person, all you seem to do is attack those you disagree with while ignoring the argument. Why don't you engage with the ideas that the people on twitter are expressing, that Nielsen's views are repugnant and wizards shouldn't employ people who retweet antisemitic rhetoric, instead of just snidely dismissing them with insults. One can only infer that you don't actually care about high minded discourse, you only want to use it in bad faith as a shield for people who express terrible beliefs because you don't want them judged for those beliefs, but are damn fine judging people for their beliefs when you disagree with them.
By the way, I DO enjoy her art a great deal. Her style is superior to the generic cgi sameness that plagues modern magic and her skill is phenomenal. Too bad she went crazy and can't stop endorsing terrible people and antisemitic tweets. I also enjoy: Kevin Spacey's acting, James Woods acting, Mel Gibson's acting, too bad Spacey is rapey, Gibson is a racist ********, and Woods is just such an enormous douche canoe that he kills his own brand for me.
America is a free country, you can say whatever you want, and that means that people can crap on you for saying it. Free speech doesn't mean saying whatever you want without being judged for it.
At this point the "free" is in a pretty questionable state.
More than ever the screeching mob gets what it wants as authorities just bend over and let it happen.
Pandering to a mob that just wants to see stuff burn is the exact opposite of helpful or constructive.
WAAAHH, people disagree with me so I'm oppressed.
No dude, free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences for your speech. It means that you are free to speak your piece and the government can't stop you or punish you. It does not mean that your employee cannot fire you for violating its policies or saying things that embarrass it, that people can't shun you, that people can't crap on you on the internet for what you say, etc. Of course, because you don't actually give a crap about free speech, this doesn't matter to you. You'd rather paint people who disagree with you as a "screeching mob" to be dismissed and feared, and suggest that their engagement in their own freedom of speech to decry the offensive speech of others, and Wizards freedom of association to distance itself from toxic or controversial artists, should be curtailed to protect people you agree with from any negative consequences from their speech. That's not a defense of free speech, its a wish to help your beliefs dominate the conversation. You don't just want freedom for those you agree with, you want a privileged position for them.
If you say stupid crap, people will think you're stupid, and it's your fault for providing them with the evidence.
The barrage of supposed insults aside,
Like screaming mobs?
what makes free speech worth its dime is the means to tell what you think, without the fear to get hit over the head for it.
No. What makes freedom of speech worth a dime is the ability to speak your mind without government interference or oppression. Freedom of speech is curtailed, rather than enhanced, by what you suggest, because freedom of speech DEMANDS that people be allowed to react to speech. Denouncing certain speech, disassociating from people who espouse certain ideas, forming opinions based on speech are essential. Asserting that you should be able to say whatever you want without consequence is the attitude of a petulant child. Nielsen wanted to add to the conversation by retweeting some vulgar crap and endorsing some terrible people. You do that because you want to influence people's opinions. Well, the thing about speech is that you may want it to influence people's opinions in a certain way, but there is no guarantee that it will do so, and it may influence people's opinions in an unintended way. She may have wanted to get people thinking there may be a point Cynthia McKinney's anti-semitic rhetoric when she retweeted her, or to get people who respect her to see Infowars and other nonsense as reasonable sources of information, but instead her exercise in speech just caused people to form the opinion that she's an idiot with reprehensible beliefs, and that they don't want to pay for her art anymore. Oops, she played herself.
People like to pretend that "consequences" are appropriate, but in fact, they are absolutely destructive for any argument, as its actively suppressing people from telling others what they actually think, in fear they might react negative , and not just a little bit, literally going overboard and seeking their personal vendetta on that person.
Again, no. What you are seeing is literally just the back and forth that occurs in a free society. Taking a controversial position entails risk. That's why when someone takes a controversial stance that is later proven right they are considered brave, because they faced consequences for bucking the system to fight for what's right. When people do the same for obviously terrible ideas that are proven terrible by history, they suffer the same consequences but are never vindicated, and find far fewer people willing to come to their defense because their views are indefensible (and those that do must hide behind generic bromides about free speech because even you can't defend her beliefs).
"And that is a massive problem."
No it isn't. It encourages you to think before you speak, to learn the art of circumspection and to formulate your ideas so that when you do endorse them, you do so in a way to put them in the best possible light, with the best ability to be convincing. For controversial ideas that have merit, this has the idea of strengthening the arguments in support of them by encouraging their proponents to actually put in the work. Thoughtfulness and diligence are virtues, not least when it comes to speech. And it gives a chance for people to actually think about the ideas they want to endorse. When you try to put your ideas in their best light and make the best arguments in support of them, you must look at your own ideas critically, which has the side effect of making people with bad ideas, like antisemitism, interrogate their own ideas and possibly realize that maybe they shouldn't hold them in the first place. Laziness and recklessness invite negative reactions to speech. They harm the cause of noble ideas.
It undermines the entire point of having free speech.
You either want to know what people think, or you produce a lot of even more extreme terror cells that will explode at some point or another.
Which is the opposite of how things work in the real world. In the real world, where people smarter than either of us who actually study extremism and terrorism to better understand and prevent it, isolating extremist ideas and driving them underground lessens their spread and lessens the radicalization of those who hold them. In practice, those with extremist ideas will mostly encounter people who disagree with them, and not have their ideas reinforced, and will rarely be pushed to adopt even more radical versions of their beliefs, and are far less likely to engage in terrorism (as terrorism is usually the end result of a long process of radicalization and egging on by other members of an ideological group, even so called "lone wolves"). Allowing radicalism free reign, rather than attempting to isolate it, normalizes the ideas and makes them more acceptable. It also exposes more people to the ideas, growing the number of people who subscribe to the ideas, and allows those people to interact with each other more frequently, allowing them to reinforce their beliefs and encouraging each other to further radicalize, and eventually leads to terror attacks once violence becomes an acceptable means among the group as the most radical members continue to egg each other on. When I speak of groups, I don't mean organizations, but ideological groups. Your assertion is basically the opposite of how radicalization works in the real world, whether we are discussing terrorism or state sponsored extremism like Nazism or Islamism.
The Holocaust didn't happen because Nazis were silenced and they got all pissy in their basements, it happened because antisemitic attitudes weren't crushed in their larval stage in Europe and kept fringe, but were allowed to propagate and become acceptable in polite conversation, to become normalized and accepted as attitudes that reasonable people could hold even among those who disagreed, and once that happened antisemitic conspiracies were able to jump into the political mainstream in Germany, and to then start informing public policy. You don't quash this ***** when they start loading up the trains, you don't do it when they start making people wear patches, you don't even do it when a major political party starts endorsing it, you do it whenever it rears its slimy head.
Think your way of communication to the end, and see if people actually dare to tell you the truth, or keep lying to your face, and let you only hear what they think is "socially acceptable".
I dont want a world in which lying and pandering is the norm, i want honest human beings than can respect each other, even if they disagree with another person point of view , and leave that argument out of judging that person ; it really comes down to "Fight the idea, not the person".
People that simply cant make that distinction simply fuel the hate train and it will never stop and roll over whoever is standing up to stop it.
Pandering to the mob has no winners, everyone loses.
Which is, frankly, a childish attitude that ignores that the ideas that people like me are choosing to disrespect and refusing to countenance are ideas that explicitly disrespect people. You can't logically argue that we should respect Nielsen for disrespecting Jews and trans people. The reason she's in hot water, the reason she no longer does magic art, is because she endorsed anti trans and antisemitic statements, and endorsed outlets that promote such. You, ironically, want me to be respectful of her but give her a pass to disrespect entire groups of people. That's one of the things that makes antisemitism, transphobia, and other vile ideas fundamentally different from a mere difference of opinion. Once your belief system requires disrespecting the humanity of people, your beliefs are no longer entitled to respect, and you open yourself to earned disrespect. By endorsing such things, you reveal something awful about yourself, and people will judge you based on it. She let the world know a fundamental flaw in her character, because endorsing antisemitism, transphobia, etc reveals a fundamental flaw in your character. People will judge a person based on that, rightly.
Its an immature and shallow idea to believe that you can ever separate the speech from the speaker. What we say reveals things about ourselves and our values, which reveals insights into our characters. And judging people by the content of their character is right. Not just a right, but right. It is indeed the only thing by which we have any right to judge a person by, and it is adaptive to do so both as individuals and a society. People should be able to respectfully disagree on most topics, because most of the time a difference of belief doesn't reveal anything bad about either person's character, or at least in most cases there is a benevolent explanation for the belief. A person for higher taxes and an increased safety net reveals that they care about the poor and those in need, while a person who advocates for lower taxes reveals they care about the ability for a person to improve their own lot in life and keep the fruits of their own labor. A person who is against a war reveals they are against the taking of human life and martial aggression, while a person for the war reveals they care about the safety of their nation or the human rights abuses being carried out by the country being invaded. A person for the death penalty reveals that they care about justice and restitution for the victims' families, while a person against the death penalty reveals that they care about innocent people who are executed or that they don't feel it is always abusive for a dispassionate government to kill someone who is already rendered a non threat. Obviously, plenty of controversial topics can and should be discussed respectfully. But certain positions, namely things like antisemitism that dehumanize groups of people, always reveal something rotten about the person who holds them. It might not be a deep rot, and it might be fixable, but its there, and by expressing those beliefs people reveal it to the world.
You see extremists keeping their odious beliefs to themselves as pandering to societies norms. I see allowing extremists to openly spout their garbage without push back as society catering to extremism. The dog wagging the tail is normal, the tail wagging the dog is wrong. What you propose is that society cave to the extremists, that we keep quiet about our own views against them. We've tried that before, the results are always disaster.
And btw, when the "twitter mob" overreaches, it gets smacked down. Plenty of people have been declared "canceled" to no effect because the "cancellation" meets with push back. Usually its over a trivial matter or a grey area (and that's the typical result for trivial matters and grey areas), or something proving false.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
For the love of art and the talented individuals who create it despite their shortcomings and imperfections
Something we can all share, appreciate, and understand
Suddenly we can infer "ideology" based on who people follow on Twitter. And then we can persecute them for their thoughts. And their supposed thoughts. Except we can't be certain of their thoughts. But that's what the pitchforks of the witch hunt mob are for. You're only as good as the worst thing the account you follow on Twitter has posted, ever!
When the account in question that she liked and gave her endorsement to called for the wholesale gassing of every Jew on the planet, or to kill the "actors" at Sandy Hook, that's definitely something worth judging over.
So guilty by association. Got it.
You don't know what guilty by association means. Got it.
Ben Mulroney just stepped down as host of eTalk (a dreadful show by any barometer) for this exact reason.
He didn't personally do anything wrong, but his wife makes him look bad, because people automatically assume that if he's married to a racist, that either makes him one as well, complicit in her views, or willfully blind to them, all of which speak to his lack of good judgement and inability to be a good role model.
He obviously never needed that job, but still seemed to enjoy it and did it to the best of his ability, so it seems unfair that he should be pressured to step down which is almost certainly what happened behind closed doors.
It's surprising his wife didn't have more poise and restraint as you'd expect anyone marrying a celebrity or public figure (especially the son of a politician) would know to keep a clean low profile and filter any negative comments which are inappropriate as to not reflect poorly on the family.
Rest assured, he wouldn't have stepped down if she didn't get embarrassed in the spotlight, so I don't buy the explanation that it was solely influenced by his apparent noble selfless intention to make room for someone of a less privileged background to fill that role instead.
Ben Mulroney just stepped down as host of eTalk (a dreadful show by any barometer) for this exact reason.
He didn't personally do anything wrong, but his wife makes him look bad, because people automatically assume that if he's married to a racist, that either makes him one as well, complicit in her views, or willfully blind to them, all of which speak to his lack of good judgement and inability to be a good role model.
He obviously never needed that job, but still seemed to enjoy it and did it to the best of his ability, so it seems unfair that he should be pressured to step down which is almost certainly what happened behind closed doors.
It's surprising his wife didn't have more poise and restraint as you'd expect anyone marrying a celebrity or public figure (especially the son of a politician) would know to keep a clean low profile and filter any negative comments which are inappropriate as to not reflect poorly on the family.
Rest assured, he wouldn't have stepped down if she didn't get embarrassed in the spotlight, so I don't buy the explanation that it was solely influenced by his apparent noble selfless intention to make room for someone of a less privileged background to fill that role instead.
Ben Mulroney isn't stepping down because of "guilt by association", he stepped down because Lainey (one of his coworkers, she covers celebrity gossip) wrote a column about how Ben and Jessica have been abusing their wealth and status for years and are both known for it. Now they are suspected of strategizing a way to weather this storm and then come out on the other side with the renewed privilege of destroying the careers of those who crossed them using their status and connections. Ben's public image was already on shaky ground in Toronto (even among the deluded "elites" in Toronto, I don't get the impression that he's viewed as important outside of his family's connection to the Royals, and there are stories of him using political connections to intimidate detractors as far back as his Canadian Idol hosting days), he only kept his status because of his "celebrity" and the power afforded him by being wealthy and connected.
I don't buy that it was a noble act, either. Largely because Ben and Jessica are notably in lockstep with each other, he just has enough years of media training from being a Prime Minister's kid to show his ass in public. This move is just their strategy for rehabbing their image (or at least step one in a longer plan), not because of any sort of "guilty by association" outrage given that there isn't really much outrage pointed in his direction to begin with.
So not only is this not germane to the discussion of Terese Nielsen, it's not even proving the point you were trying to prove. If you want to discuss this via PM, let me know, I don't think we should be pulling this thread off track, I just wanted to contextualize your argument.
For the love of art and the talented individuals who create it despite their shortcomings and imperfections
Something we can all share, appreciate, and understand
Thanks for sharing. Love the Swords to Plowshares, one of my faves. Strangely enough I do NOT like her representation of Garruk, never have, he seems off. I am hoping she continues with the change of heart, shows she doesn't hold hateful views and WotC rethinks its stance and hires her for more artwork someday. I'll keep my fingers crossed but won't hold my breath.
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
For the love of art and the talented individuals who create it despite their shortcomings and imperfections
Something we can all share, appreciate, and understand
Thanks for sharing. Love the Swords to Plowshares, one of my faves. Strangely enough I do NOT like her representation of Garruk, never have, he seems off. I am hoping she continues with the change of heart, shows she doesn't hold hateful views and WotC rethinks its stance and hires her for more artwork someday. I'll keep my fingers crossed but won't hold my breath.
This I agree with. She's a great artist, and the best case scenario is that she comes to her senses, makes amends in some way (hey, she's an artist, she actually has a means to create something beyond a short half apology). She donated art to people who push the anti-Semitic trope ridden Soros conspiracy, she can donate art to a cause that fights against that sort of thing, or auction are to raise money for a charity that supports some of the people she endorsed hatred against. Then she gets a second (really third) chance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
For the love of art and the talented individuals who create it despite their shortcomings and imperfections
Something we can all share, appreciate, and understand
Thanks for sharing. Love the Swords to Plowshares, one of my faves. Strangely enough I do NOT like her representation of Garruk, never have, he seems off. I am hoping she continues with the change of heart, shows she doesn't hold hateful views and WotC rethinks its stance and hires her for more artwork someday. I'll keep my fingers crossed but won't hold my breath.
Ha! That wasn't my intent.
If it were, I would've looked for more copies which are in decks (I also have copies from commander's arsenal, etc)
I actually wonder if they'll revert back to the judge promo art for the next eventual reprint.
I also wonder...
What are the criteria for dishonorably discharging an artist now?
If Wizards is taking these individuals' personal views, opinions, and expressions into consideration, where are they going to draw the line?
Will an artist who expresses that they're an anti-vaxer be let go next?
What about one who is against blood transfusions (Jehova's witnesses)?
After all, if they're denying scientifically proven treatment to their sick child, what kind of person does that truly make them despite their right to faith and apparent good intentions?
What about someone who expresses belief in conspiracy theories pertaining to extraterrestrials, the faked moon landing, or the JFK assassination?
Are those things which and artist can have an expressed opinion about without being vilified?
What if they never speak words to that effect but express their unorthodox viewpoints in their art?
What if they like old Kevin Spacey or Bill Murray movies where he typically acts very forthcoming and cavalier with many of the women he courts?
What if they express that they voted for Trump (for whatever reason or none at all) who many consider a "bad man" if not the devil incarnate?
What if they express an intent to vote for him again?
What if they don't believe "there are in fact 72+ genders", think that claim is outrageous, or believe it panders to personal insecurities and identity disorders?
Is it so politically incorrect to express that opinion without being shamed for it, or any opinion which was innocently ignorantly shared by countless billions throughout history up until recently?
What if they never attend religious services? By extension wouldn't that imply they're morally inferior?
What if they burnt ants with a magnifying glass as a child?
What if they ran away from home in their youth and have an estranged relationship with one or both parents and this becomes public?
What if an artist posted nude photos or explicit video online in the past or future?
Is that not their right? Should that cost them their job which is completely unrelated to other art which they may be producing?
What if they have a compulsive personality at no fault of their own, or a sex addiction?
What if something was filmed without their knowledge and posted online? (Like what happened to Hulk Hogan with Gawker)
What if they tell bad jokes which insult someone or like a comedian who did? (like Mike Ward)
Are any of those valid reason enough to justify dismissing an artist?
Perhaps Wizards should only hire Social Democrats, Far left Liberal extremists, people who don't vote at all, and Libertarians moving forward.
I suppose I'm having a difficult time understanding what metric is being used, what the threshold for acceptable opinions or online activity of artists is.
What would happen if every artist on Wizards' payroll stood in spontaneous solidarity with the artists being turned into pariahs, and all posted sexually explicit photos of themselves online?! Would Wizards fire the whole lot of them?! Wipe the slate clean as it were and start over from scratch?!
Why? Because some consider the human body (or certain human bodies) to be obscene while others may be of the opinion that they we are all beautiful in our rawest form because it shows our true vulnerability once there's nothing left to hide what lies beneath?!
Art is, has, and will always be subjective.
Creating an inclusive community is about allowing people with different opinions and lifestyles to interact and learn from each other.
Silencing the voices of those whose politics you disagree with only punishes the rest of the chorus and the audience
I urge WoTC with every ounce of strength to please reconsider this terrible politically motivated decision and do what's best for the art, the game, and those who love how both of those things come together harmoniously in Magic. I ask this sincerely as both a long time consumer and a Jew (not even as an artist as my art is mainly musical now) who firmly knows with absolute certainty that the good created from artwork always supersedes the controversial opinions, negative viewpoints, and even antisemitic ignorance of the artists who create it. Please do not deny me or any of us more Magic card art by Terese Nielsen. I beg you.
Edit:
Just ordered a foil playset of Elder of Laurels and a pair of foil Ixidron (among a few others) which will almost certainly spike on the secondary market as a direct result of Wizards' misguided, shortsighted decision.
It's disappointing, but unsurprising as so many of us often try to fix one mistake by making another.
Anyway, I recommend that anyone who wants specific cards she's done get them now as they'll only rise from this point on.
Make no mistake, these cards are effectively added to the reserved list,and it's unlikely alternate arts will be prioritized by players or collectors, regardless of their personal politics.
"Hopes and prayers can carry the same force as swords and torches"
-Elder of Laurels, flavor text
For the love of art and the talented individuals who create it despite their shortcomings and imperfections
Something we can all share, appreciate, and understand
Thanks for sharing. Love the Swords to Plowshares, one of my faves. Strangely enough I do NOT like her representation of Garruk, never have, he seems off. I am hoping she continues with the change of heart, shows she doesn't hold hateful views and WotC rethinks its stance and hires her for more artwork someday. I'll keep my fingers crossed but won't hold my breath.
Ha! That wasn't my intent.
If it were, I would've looked for more copies which are in decks (I also have copies from commander's arsenal, etc)
I actually wonder if they'll revert back to the judge promo art for the next eventual reprint.
I also wonder...
What are the criteria for dishonorably discharging an artist now?
If Wizards is taking these individuals' personal views, opinions, and expressions into consideration, where are they going to draw the line?
Will an artist who expresses that they're an anti-vaxer be let go next?
What about one who is against blood transfusions (Jehova's witnesses)?
After all, if they're denying scientifically proven treatment to their sick child, what kind of person does that truly make them despite their right to faith and apparent good intentions?
What about someone who expresses belief in conspiracy theories pertaining to extraterrestrials, the faked moon landing, or the JFK assassination?
Are those things which and artist can have an expressed opinion about without being vilified?
What if they never speak words to that effect but express their unorthodox viewpoints in their art?
What if they like old Kevin Spacey or Bill Murray movies where he typically acts very forthcoming and cavalier with many of the women he courts?
What if they express that they voted for Trump (for whatever reason or none at all) who many consider a "bad man" if not the devil incarnate?
What if they express an intent to vote for him again?
What if they don't believe "there are in fact 72+ genders", think that claim is outrageous, or believe it panders to personal insecurities and identity disorders?
Is it so politically incorrect to express that opinion without being shamed for it, or any opinion which was innocently ignorantly shared by countless billions throughout history up until recently?
What if they never attend religious services? By extension wouldn't that imply they're morally inferior?
What if they burnt ants with a magnifying glass as a child?
What if they ran away from home in their youth and have an estranged relationship with one or both parents and this becomes public?
What if an artist posted nude photos or explicit video online in the past or future?
Is that not their right? Should that cost them their job which is completely unrelated to other art which they may be producing?
What if they have a compulsive personality at no fault of their own, or a sex addiction?
What if something was filmed without their knowledge and posted online? (Like what happened to Hulk Hogan with Gawker)
What if they tell bad jokes which insult someone or like a comedian who did? (like Mike Ward)
Are any of those valid reason enough to justify dismissing an artist?
Perhaps Wizards should only hire Social Democrats, Far left Liberal extremists, people who don't vote at all, and Libertarians moving forward.
I suppose I'm having a difficult time understanding what metric is being used, what the threshold for acceptable opinions or online activity of artists is.
What would happen if every artist on Wizards' payroll stood in spontaneous solidarity with the artists being turned into pariahs, and all posted sexually explicit photos of themselves online?! Would Wizards fire the whole lot of them?! Wipe the slate clean as it were and start over from scratch?!
Why? Because some consider the human body (or certain human bodies) to be obscene while others may be of the opinion that they we are all beautiful in our rawest form because it shows our true vulnerability once there's nothing left to hide what lies beneath?!
Art is, has, and will always be subjective.
Creating an inclusive community is about allowing people with different opinions and lifestyles to interact and learn from each other.
Silencing the voices of those whose politics you disagree with only punishes the rest of the chorus and the audience
I urge WoTC with every ounce of strength to please reconsider this terrible politically motivated decision and do what's best for the art, the game, and those who love how both of those things come together harmoniously in Magic. I ask this sincerely as both a long time consumer and a Jew (not even as an artist as my art is mainly musical now) who firmly knows with absolute certainty that the good created from artwork always supersedes the controversial opinions, negative viewpoints, and even antisemitic ignorance of the artists who create it. Please do not deny me or any of us more Magic card art by Terese Nielsen. I beg you.
Edit:
Just ordered a foil playset of Elder of Laurels and a pair of foil Ixidron (among a few others) which will almost certainly spike on the secondary market as a direct result of Wizards' misguided, shortsighted decision.
It's disappointing, but unsurprising as so many of us often try to fix one mistake by making another.
Anyway, I recommend that anyone who wants specific cards she's done get them now as they'll only rise from this point on.
Make no mistake, these cards are effectively added to the reserved list,and it's unlikely alternate arts will be prioritized by players or collectors, regardless of their personal politics.
"Hopes and prayers can carry the same force as swords and torches"
-Elder of Laurels, flavor text
Cool slippery slope fallacy bro, you spent a lot of words to end up saying nothing of worth.
When all you have are what ifs, your argument sucks. What if wizards cuts ties with an artist for having nude photos? Well, a reasonable person would say let's have that discussion IF it happens. An unreasonable person, or a person arguing in bad faith, would want to have that discussion when it hasn't yet happened, in order to avoid actually discussing the topic at hand.
Also it's not a disagreement over politics here, it's promoting bigotry, and endorsing conspiracy theorists who are actively slandering real people.
Again, it really boils down to having the mental capacity to differentiate between what's a reasonable scenario and what isn't. Some people, like you apparently, either cannot do this or find it easier for their arguments if they pretend like such discernment is impossible. It's actually something that most people can do. A reasonable can pretty easily discern a difference between buying into conspiracy theories that don't have much real world impact (like those surrounding the JFK assassination or Roswell or AREA 51), and conspiracy theories that deal with ongoing things and have tangible real world impact, such Alex Jones Sandy Hook conspiracies, which are libelous and which lead to the harassment of grieving families. You may think that the latter is harmless, but the law would disagree with you as the chubby conman has had to pay lots of money after it was found to be libel and promoting harassment. Reasonable people would also draw a distinction between both of those kinds of conspiracy theories and the kind that are designed to promote hatred of a group, especially since the latter have time and again led to atrocities against the groups they target.
You can make this argument about pretty much everything you listed. No, liking Kevin Spacey movies isn't going to get anyone fired. That is such an unreasonable idea that if it ever did happen, the pushback would be so immense that the company would have to reverse course. Even bringing that up as a poor attempt at reductio ad absurdum is just sad. Acting like Kevin Spacey, though, will get your ass fired, and rightly so.
Getting fired for nude photos? This one actually happens sometimes, and typically is met with severe pushback that leads to the decision being reversed. Turns out that when you fire someone for something unreasonable and it becomes public knowledge it's super bad publicity and that same "mob" that so many posters are crying about jump on the company and pressure them to give the person their job back. Now, if you're fired because you are actively doing porn, thats more likely to stick, because its often going to violate a few clauses in your contract. For an artist, if you get let go because you drew some porn years ago, thats going to draw backlash, but if you get let go because you are drawing porn under you real name while under contract to produce art for a company that wants to promote a family friendly image, people are generally going to see that as reasonable. Although Phil Foglio was able to do his thing without getting nicked (until his art style fell out of favor).
I could go on and address every inane what if you posted, but that would be beating a dead horse. The reason the slipper slope fallacy is so stupid is that people are actually pretty good at determining where they would draw the line. The reason it has emotional resonance is because it allows the person making the fallacy to present ideas the other person would find objectionable, but that's also why the slippery slope is a fallacy, because people will find those things objectionable anyway. As long as people are able to draw the line, they will. That's why authoritarian regimes first focus on removing the ability for their citizens to draw the line, so that when they get to the crap their citizens object to they don't have any recourse.
Look at your argument in the opposite direction. You asked how far do we go with what's ok to cut ties with an artist over, as a means of trying to show that accepting TN being cut for the stated reasons is unreasonable and will lead to a slippery slope. I can just as easily, and just as foolishly, ask you, who objects to TN being cut adrift by wizards for these reasons, what reasons you WOULD find acceptable to cut ties with an artist over. Sure, endorsing antisemitism is ok by you, but what if she starts marching with a tiki torch shouting "Jews will not replace us"? But that's a dumb argument that should be insulting to you, and I'm not going to seriously engage in it, because I know you'd have an answer on where to draw the line, and simply by having an answer you'd demonstrate the inanity of the fallacy. What you're actual answer is is irrelevant, because that's a matter of opinion that people will disagree on based on their personal tolerance for various behaviors, but having an answer, being able to draw that line, means that you aren't stupid enough to fall to the fallacy you are pushing. Perhaps you think that those you disagree with actually are stupid enough to fall down the slippery slope, or maybe you just haven't given it much thought.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Your long list of hypotheticals is not the most honest argument. It is in fact possible to draw lines. You can't slippery slope everything. The world is full of decisions and plenty of grey areas. Ignoring that with absolutism does not make a position better.
Nevertheless, I'm going to give you a bunch of serious answers. Because it is in fact possible to answer these questions. It's not a problem for the argument against Nielson, no matter how many random hypotheticals you've got up your sleave.
What are the criteria for dishonorably discharging an artist now?
Expression of views and behaviour that does not meet ethical standards of the business in question. And in particular, those views and behaviours that may result in harm to others.
Such as promoting fascists, a pretty unethical thing that definitely has the potential to harm others.
If Wizards is taking these individuals' personal views, opinions, and expressions into consideration, where are they going to draw the line?
Public statements and behaviour.
Not going to break into anyone's homes and read their private diaries, or scan people's thoughts anytime soon.
Will an artist who expresses that they're an anti-vaxer be let go next?
If they're insistent enough about it (as in, advocating for others not to), that might not be a bad idea.
What about one who is against blood transfusions (Jehova's witnesses)?
No. Usually a private decision here that doesn't have the ability to harm anyone else. And religious protections exist.
What about someone who expresses belief in conspiracy theories pertaining to extraterrestrials, the faked moon landing, or the JFK assassination?
Are those things which and artist can have an expressed opinion about without being vilified?
Probably. No real harm to others.
What if they never speak words to that effect but express their unorthodox viewpoints in their art?
If their intentions are unambiguous enough, absolutely.
What if they like old Kevin Spacey or Bill Murray movies where he typically acts very forthcoming and cavalier with many of the women he courts?
Liking a movie is usually too weak, because most movies are quite interpretable and may not focus on any particular message so much as simple entertainment. Now, if the movie they like is Birth of a Nation or Erbkrank, for instance...
What if they express that they voted for Trump (for whatever reason or none at all) who many consider a "bad man" if not the devil incarnate?
What if they express an intent to vote for him again?
Support for Trump is too open-ended. People don't always agree with much of what a candidate stands for when they vote for them, but may just prefer them to the alternative or believe a particular issue they support is just too critical.
What if they don't believe "there are in fact 72+ genders", think that claim is outrageous, or believe it panders to personal insecurities and identity disorders?
Then they belong alongside Nielsen. Gender discrimination is actually bad.
Is it so politically incorrect to express that opinion without being shamed for it, or any opinion which was innocently ignorantly shared by countless billions throughout history up until recently?
The long and deep history of prejudice throughout history is NOT one of innocent people who just didn't realise it was wrong until recently when the idea of equality was somehow discovered. And in the modern day, you don't even have that excuse. If you support incorrect and dangerous views, you deserve to be called out for it. That's how you learn not to do it.
What if they never attend religious services? By extension wouldn't that imply they're morally inferior?
?? ??
What if they burnt ants with a magnifying glass as a child?
What if they ran away from home in their youth and have an estranged relationship with one or both parents and this becomes public?
What if an artist posted nude photos or explicit video online in the past or future?
What if...what if...what if...
What if we made ethical decisions and actually drew lines in the sand and held people accountable for their actions?
Is that not their right?
No one's putting an implant in Nielson's brain to stop her from wrong-thinking. Or anything of the sort. Her rights are intact.
Should that cost them their job which is completely unrelated to other art which they may be producing?
Criminals often lose their jobs for being criminals, even if their crime was unrelated to their job, even if they've already served time/done service/paid fines.
Are any of those valid reason enough to justify dismissing an artist?
Yes.
Yes, some of them are.
Perhaps Wizards should only hire Social Democrats, Far left Liberal extremists, people who don't vote at all, and Libertarians moving forward.
I suppose I'm having a difficult time understanding what metric is being used, what the threshold for acceptable opinions or online activity of artists is.
See above. Right at the top.
What would happen if every artist on Wizards' payroll stood in spontaneous solidarity with the artists being turned into pariahs, and all posted sexually explicit photos of themselves online?! Would Wizards fire the whole lot of them?! Wipe the slate clean as it were and start over from scratch?!
Why? Because some consider the human body (or certain human bodies) to be obscene while others may be of the opinion that they we are all beautiful in our rawest form because it shows our true vulnerability once there's nothing left to hide what lies beneath?!
...what?
Art is, has, and will always be subjective.
Art is neither entirely subjective or entirely objective. Art involves many different possibilities of form, expression and context.
For instance, art that promotes fascism is objectively harmful.
Creating an inclusive community is about allowing people with different opinions and lifestyles to interact and learn from each other.
Silencing the voices of those whose politics you disagree with only punishes the rest of the chorus and the audience
And allowing fascists and fascist sympathisers to go unchecked is a serious threat to diversity.
I urge WoTC with every ounce of strength to please reconsider this terrible politically motivated decision
Not everything with political implications or elements is wildly partisan or biased, or for that matter avoidable.
and do what's best for the art, the game, and those who love how both of those things come together harmoniously in Magic. I ask this sincerely as both a long time consumer and a Jew (not even as an artist as my art is mainly musical now) who firmly knows with absolute certainty that the good created from artwork always supersedes the controversial opinions, negative viewpoints, and even antisemitic ignorance of the artists who create it. Please do not deny me or any of us more Magic card art by Terese Nielsen. I beg you.
But don't worry about denying us magic art from all the random artists they haven't hired for whatever number of other different reasons, of course.
Nevertheless, I'm going to give you a bunch of serious answers.
Who makes you arbiter of what is right and wrong? (Not a personal attack my friend, it is not my intent)
Your list of answers differs from what mine would be. You can claim to be in the majority on your views. I'm not going to claim it on mine, and my views exist and they hurt no one that I am aware of.
My point, and I hope you don't take this as an attack, its a rebuttal of your opinions, is that there is a wide scale of opinion out in humanity. Ones own opinions don't negate another or carry more weight (in most cases). We are battling many times over those gray areas. Isn't it a wonderful thing that at this time we have that privilege to do so? I want that to continue. I don't support hate, I don't support hurt, I don't support ignorance. I think most of us have similar hopes for these things inside us. We certainly differ on how those things should be pursued. We need to agree to disagree. And that's okay most of the time.
With all of that said, yes WotC can choose who they want to hire and fire and for what reasons. I am in total agreement on that. But I don't have to like it or support it. Terese needs to rethink and adjust, WotC should rethink and adjust, often we meet in the middle. I don't like this current culture of division. Healing is in order, I hope I haven't harmed with my words here. Can we at least find that common ground of "agreeing to disagree"?
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
[quote from="WarMachinePrime »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/817934-wizards-cuts-ties-with-artist-terese-nielsen?comment=87"
I don't like this current culture of division. Healing is in order, I hope I haven't harmed with my words here. Can we at least find that common ground of "agreeing to disagree"? [/quote]
Here's the problem with that sentiment when applied to this situation: what Theresa was doing was actively feeding a culture of division. There is no middle ground on anti semitism. There is no middle ground on bigotry. There is no middle ground on people like Alex Jones. You either support that crap, or you don't. Wizards even tried to find a "middle ground", it would have started commissioning her again if she just stopped publicly supporting that crap. She couldn't. She continued to support some of the most extreme voices out there.
An open, diverse, and tolerant society where it is possible to agree to disagree without hating each other for it can not afford to tolerate the kind of crap she was, and is, supporting, because that crap is directly opposed to an open, diverse, and tolerant society where we can agree to disagree. Healing cannot happen while those views are accepted and tolerated, because those people will continue to sabotage any attempt at healing. Because healing is not what they want. They want division. They want those they disagree with silenced. They want groups of people harmed. They don't want a plurality of viewpoints to exist, they want only their viewpoint to dominate.
Despite what people with a persecution complex like mystic may assert, this isn't about Democrats vs republicans. There's plenty of room at the party of ideas for conservatives and republicans, and to equate bigotry and the most extreme far right voices with republicans, as mystic did, is slanderous to republicans. Alex Jones does draw some of the most extreme republicans, but also many libertarians and even some extreme leftists. There are leftist anti semites. Ice Cube is rightly getting crapped on for his bizarre anti semitism (though I still haven't figured out what that ******* black cube is supposed to mean). There's also a difference between being transphobic and not being pro trans. Not wanting to have sex with a trans woman isn't transphobic, believing that your birth sex is your gender isn't transphobic, repeatedly declaring that trans women aren't women and it's all mental illness IS. The difference there is it goes beyond your personal beliefs into attacking trans people. Criticism of Israel for it's policies isn't anti semitism, criticism of Israel based on anti Jewish sentiment or stereotypes is, like the tweet from Cynthia McKinney (a former liberal Democrat btw who rightly has been shunned within the party for anti semitism, before becoming a green and then most recently a libertarian) that Theresa like was doing. Louis Farrakhan is guy that does a lot of good work in the black community, but he's a raging antisemite that is as vile as anything on the right in that regard, so when a Democrat occasionally rubs elbows with him due to his work in the black community they rightly catch heat for ignoring his hatred of Jews. Its usually republicans who point that out, and the absolutely should.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
This thread has derailed into an argument over politics, rather than just WOTC cutting ties with Terese Nielsen, despite me asking to keep it on topic. Therefore I will be locking it
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You don't know what guilty by association means. Got it.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
First, those "screamers" are customers. Second, for all your (fake) concern about engaging with the argument instead of attacking the person, all you seem to do is attack those you disagree with while ignoring the argument. Why don't you engage with the ideas that the people on twitter are expressing, that Nielsen's views are repugnant and wizards shouldn't employ people who retweet antisemitic rhetoric, instead of just snidely dismissing them with insults. One can only infer that you don't actually care about high minded discourse, you only want to use it in bad faith as a shield for people who express terrible beliefs because you don't want them judged for those beliefs, but are damn fine judging people for their beliefs when you disagree with them.
By the way, I DO enjoy her art a great deal. Her style is superior to the generic cgi sameness that plagues modern magic and her skill is phenomenal. Too bad she went crazy and can't stop endorsing terrible people and antisemitic tweets. I also enjoy: Kevin Spacey's acting, James Woods acting, Mel Gibson's acting, too bad Spacey is rapey, Gibson is a racist ********, and Woods is just such an enormous douche canoe that he kills his own brand for me.
WAAAHH, people disagree with me so I'm oppressed.
No dude, free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences for your speech. It means that you are free to speak your piece and the government can't stop you or punish you. It does not mean that your employee cannot fire you for violating its policies or saying things that embarrass it, that people can't shun you, that people can't crap on you on the internet for what you say, etc. Of course, because you don't actually give a crap about free speech, this doesn't matter to you. You'd rather paint people who disagree with you as a "screeching mob" to be dismissed and feared, and suggest that their engagement in their own freedom of speech to decry the offensive speech of others, and Wizards freedom of association to distance itself from toxic or controversial artists, should be curtailed to protect people you agree with from any negative consequences from their speech. That's not a defense of free speech, its a wish to help your beliefs dominate the conversation. You don't just want freedom for those you agree with, you want a privileged position for them.
Like screaming mobs?
No. What makes freedom of speech worth a dime is the ability to speak your mind without government interference or oppression. Freedom of speech is curtailed, rather than enhanced, by what you suggest, because freedom of speech DEMANDS that people be allowed to react to speech. Denouncing certain speech, disassociating from people who espouse certain ideas, forming opinions based on speech are essential. Asserting that you should be able to say whatever you want without consequence is the attitude of a petulant child. Nielsen wanted to add to the conversation by retweeting some vulgar crap and endorsing some terrible people. You do that because you want to influence people's opinions. Well, the thing about speech is that you may want it to influence people's opinions in a certain way, but there is no guarantee that it will do so, and it may influence people's opinions in an unintended way. She may have wanted to get people thinking there may be a point Cynthia McKinney's anti-semitic rhetoric when she retweeted her, or to get people who respect her to see Infowars and other nonsense as reasonable sources of information, but instead her exercise in speech just caused people to form the opinion that she's an idiot with reprehensible beliefs, and that they don't want to pay for her art anymore. Oops, she played herself.
Again, no. What you are seeing is literally just the back and forth that occurs in a free society. Taking a controversial position entails risk. That's why when someone takes a controversial stance that is later proven right they are considered brave, because they faced consequences for bucking the system to fight for what's right. When people do the same for obviously terrible ideas that are proven terrible by history, they suffer the same consequences but are never vindicated, and find far fewer people willing to come to their defense because their views are indefensible (and those that do must hide behind generic bromides about free speech because even you can't defend her beliefs).
"And that is a massive problem."
No it isn't. It encourages you to think before you speak, to learn the art of circumspection and to formulate your ideas so that when you do endorse them, you do so in a way to put them in the best possible light, with the best ability to be convincing. For controversial ideas that have merit, this has the idea of strengthening the arguments in support of them by encouraging their proponents to actually put in the work. Thoughtfulness and diligence are virtues, not least when it comes to speech. And it gives a chance for people to actually think about the ideas they want to endorse. When you try to put your ideas in their best light and make the best arguments in support of them, you must look at your own ideas critically, which has the side effect of making people with bad ideas, like antisemitism, interrogate their own ideas and possibly realize that maybe they shouldn't hold them in the first place. Laziness and recklessness invite negative reactions to speech. They harm the cause of noble ideas.
Which is the opposite of how things work in the real world. In the real world, where people smarter than either of us who actually study extremism and terrorism to better understand and prevent it, isolating extremist ideas and driving them underground lessens their spread and lessens the radicalization of those who hold them. In practice, those with extremist ideas will mostly encounter people who disagree with them, and not have their ideas reinforced, and will rarely be pushed to adopt even more radical versions of their beliefs, and are far less likely to engage in terrorism (as terrorism is usually the end result of a long process of radicalization and egging on by other members of an ideological group, even so called "lone wolves"). Allowing radicalism free reign, rather than attempting to isolate it, normalizes the ideas and makes them more acceptable. It also exposes more people to the ideas, growing the number of people who subscribe to the ideas, and allows those people to interact with each other more frequently, allowing them to reinforce their beliefs and encouraging each other to further radicalize, and eventually leads to terror attacks once violence becomes an acceptable means among the group as the most radical members continue to egg each other on. When I speak of groups, I don't mean organizations, but ideological groups. Your assertion is basically the opposite of how radicalization works in the real world, whether we are discussing terrorism or state sponsored extremism like Nazism or Islamism.
The Holocaust didn't happen because Nazis were silenced and they got all pissy in their basements, it happened because antisemitic attitudes weren't crushed in their larval stage in Europe and kept fringe, but were allowed to propagate and become acceptable in polite conversation, to become normalized and accepted as attitudes that reasonable people could hold even among those who disagreed, and once that happened antisemitic conspiracies were able to jump into the political mainstream in Germany, and to then start informing public policy. You don't quash this ***** when they start loading up the trains, you don't do it when they start making people wear patches, you don't even do it when a major political party starts endorsing it, you do it whenever it rears its slimy head.
Which is, frankly, a childish attitude that ignores that the ideas that people like me are choosing to disrespect and refusing to countenance are ideas that explicitly disrespect people. You can't logically argue that we should respect Nielsen for disrespecting Jews and trans people. The reason she's in hot water, the reason she no longer does magic art, is because she endorsed anti trans and antisemitic statements, and endorsed outlets that promote such. You, ironically, want me to be respectful of her but give her a pass to disrespect entire groups of people. That's one of the things that makes antisemitism, transphobia, and other vile ideas fundamentally different from a mere difference of opinion. Once your belief system requires disrespecting the humanity of people, your beliefs are no longer entitled to respect, and you open yourself to earned disrespect. By endorsing such things, you reveal something awful about yourself, and people will judge you based on it. She let the world know a fundamental flaw in her character, because endorsing antisemitism, transphobia, etc reveals a fundamental flaw in your character. People will judge a person based on that, rightly.
Its an immature and shallow idea to believe that you can ever separate the speech from the speaker. What we say reveals things about ourselves and our values, which reveals insights into our characters. And judging people by the content of their character is right. Not just a right, but right. It is indeed the only thing by which we have any right to judge a person by, and it is adaptive to do so both as individuals and a society. People should be able to respectfully disagree on most topics, because most of the time a difference of belief doesn't reveal anything bad about either person's character, or at least in most cases there is a benevolent explanation for the belief. A person for higher taxes and an increased safety net reveals that they care about the poor and those in need, while a person who advocates for lower taxes reveals they care about the ability for a person to improve their own lot in life and keep the fruits of their own labor. A person who is against a war reveals they are against the taking of human life and martial aggression, while a person for the war reveals they care about the safety of their nation or the human rights abuses being carried out by the country being invaded. A person for the death penalty reveals that they care about justice and restitution for the victims' families, while a person against the death penalty reveals that they care about innocent people who are executed or that they don't feel it is always abusive for a dispassionate government to kill someone who is already rendered a non threat. Obviously, plenty of controversial topics can and should be discussed respectfully. But certain positions, namely things like antisemitism that dehumanize groups of people, always reveal something rotten about the person who holds them. It might not be a deep rot, and it might be fixable, but its there, and by expressing those beliefs people reveal it to the world.
You see extremists keeping their odious beliefs to themselves as pandering to societies norms. I see allowing extremists to openly spout their garbage without push back as society catering to extremism. The dog wagging the tail is normal, the tail wagging the dog is wrong. What you propose is that society cave to the extremists, that we keep quiet about our own views against them. We've tried that before, the results are always disaster.
And btw, when the "twitter mob" overreaches, it gets smacked down. Plenty of people have been declared "canceled" to no effect because the "cancellation" meets with push back. Usually its over a trivial matter or a grey area (and that's the typical result for trivial matters and grey areas), or something proving false.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Something we can all share, appreciate, and understand
I used to be a demigod, but now I'm an omnimage
Ben Mulroney just stepped down as host of eTalk (a dreadful show by any barometer) for this exact reason.
He didn't personally do anything wrong, but his wife makes him look bad, because people automatically assume that if he's married to a racist, that either makes him one as well, complicit in her views, or willfully blind to them, all of which speak to his lack of good judgement and inability to be a good role model.
He obviously never needed that job, but still seemed to enjoy it and did it to the best of his ability, so it seems unfair that he should be pressured to step down which is almost certainly what happened behind closed doors.
It's surprising his wife didn't have more poise and restraint as you'd expect anyone marrying a celebrity or public figure (especially the son of a politician) would know to keep a clean low profile and filter any negative comments which are inappropriate as to not reflect poorly on the family.
Rest assured, he wouldn't have stepped down if she didn't get embarrassed in the spotlight, so I don't buy the explanation that it was solely influenced by his apparent noble selfless intention to make room for someone of a less privileged background to fill that role instead.
I used to be a demigod, but now I'm an omnimage
Ben Mulroney isn't stepping down because of "guilt by association", he stepped down because Lainey (one of his coworkers, she covers celebrity gossip) wrote a column about how Ben and Jessica have been abusing their wealth and status for years and are both known for it. Now they are suspected of strategizing a way to weather this storm and then come out on the other side with the renewed privilege of destroying the careers of those who crossed them using their status and connections. Ben's public image was already on shaky ground in Toronto (even among the deluded "elites" in Toronto, I don't get the impression that he's viewed as important outside of his family's connection to the Royals, and there are stories of him using political connections to intimidate detractors as far back as his Canadian Idol hosting days), he only kept his status because of his "celebrity" and the power afforded him by being wealthy and connected.
I don't buy that it was a noble act, either. Largely because Ben and Jessica are notably in lockstep with each other, he just has enough years of media training from being a Prime Minister's kid to show his ass in public. This move is just their strategy for rehabbing their image (or at least step one in a longer plan), not because of any sort of "guilty by association" outrage given that there isn't really much outrage pointed in his direction to begin with.
So not only is this not germane to the discussion of Terese Nielsen, it's not even proving the point you were trying to prove. If you want to discuss this via PM, let me know, I don't think we should be pulling this thread off track, I just wanted to contextualize your argument.
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
Thanks for sharing. Love the Swords to Plowshares, one of my faves. Strangely enough I do NOT like her representation of Garruk, never have, he seems off. I am hoping she continues with the change of heart, shows she doesn't hold hateful views and WotC rethinks its stance and hires her for more artwork someday. I'll keep my fingers crossed but won't hold my breath.
PS: Jealous of your foil Rhystic Study
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
This I agree with. She's a great artist, and the best case scenario is that she comes to her senses, makes amends in some way (hey, she's an artist, she actually has a means to create something beyond a short half apology). She donated art to people who push the anti-Semitic trope ridden Soros conspiracy, she can donate art to a cause that fights against that sort of thing, or auction are to raise money for a charity that supports some of the people she endorsed hatred against. Then she gets a second (really third) chance.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Ha! That wasn't my intent.
If it were, I would've looked for more copies which are in decks (I also have copies from commander's arsenal, etc)
I actually wonder if they'll revert back to the judge promo art for the next eventual reprint.
I also wonder...
What are the criteria for dishonorably discharging an artist now?
If Wizards is taking these individuals' personal views, opinions, and expressions into consideration, where are they going to draw the line?
Will an artist who expresses that they're an anti-vaxer be let go next?
What about one who is against blood transfusions (Jehova's witnesses)?
After all, if they're denying scientifically proven treatment to their sick child, what kind of person does that truly make them despite their right to faith and apparent good intentions?
What about someone who expresses belief in conspiracy theories pertaining to extraterrestrials, the faked moon landing, or the JFK assassination?
Are those things which and artist can have an expressed opinion about without being vilified?
What if they never speak words to that effect but express their unorthodox viewpoints in their art?
What if they like old Kevin Spacey or Bill Murray movies where he typically acts very forthcoming and cavalier with many of the women he courts?
What if they express that they voted for Trump (for whatever reason or none at all) who many consider a "bad man" if not the devil incarnate?
What if they express an intent to vote for him again?
What if they don't believe "there are in fact 72+ genders", think that claim is outrageous, or believe it panders to personal insecurities and identity disorders?
Is it so politically incorrect to express that opinion without being shamed for it, or any opinion which was
innocentlyignorantly shared by countless billions throughout history up until recently?What if they never attend religious services? By extension wouldn't that imply they're morally inferior?
What if they burnt ants with a magnifying glass as a child?
What if they ran away from home in their youth and have an estranged relationship with one or both parents and this becomes public?
What if an artist posted nude photos or explicit video online in the past or future?
Is that not their right? Should that cost them their job which is completely unrelated to other art which they may be producing?
What if they have a compulsive personality at no fault of their own, or a sex addiction?
What if something was filmed without their knowledge and posted online? (Like what happened to Hulk Hogan with Gawker)
What if they tell bad jokes which insult someone or like a comedian who did? (like Mike Ward)
Are any of those valid reason enough to justify dismissing an artist?
Perhaps Wizards should only hire Social Democrats, Far left Liberal extremists, people who don't vote at all, and Libertarians moving forward.
I suppose I'm having a difficult time understanding what metric is being used, what the threshold for acceptable opinions or online activity of artists is.
What would happen if every artist on Wizards' payroll stood in spontaneous solidarity with the artists being turned into pariahs, and all posted sexually explicit photos of themselves online?! Would Wizards fire the whole lot of them?! Wipe the slate clean as it were and start over from scratch?!
Why? Because some consider the human body (or certain human bodies) to be obscene while others may be of the opinion that they we are all beautiful in our rawest form because it shows our true vulnerability once there's nothing left to hide what lies beneath?!
Art is, has, and will always be subjective.
Creating an inclusive community is about allowing people with different opinions and lifestyles to interact and learn from each other.
Silencing the voices of those whose politics you disagree with only punishes the rest of the chorus and the audience
I urge WoTC with every ounce of strength to please reconsider this terrible politically motivated decision and do what's best for the art, the game, and those who love how both of those things come together harmoniously in Magic. I ask this sincerely as both a long time consumer and a Jew (not even as an artist as my art is mainly musical now) who firmly knows with absolute certainty that the good created from artwork always supersedes the controversial opinions, negative viewpoints, and even antisemitic ignorance of the artists who create it. Please do not deny me or any of us more Magic card art by Terese Nielsen. I beg you.
Edit:
Just ordered a foil playset of Elder of Laurels and a pair of foil Ixidron (among a few others) which will almost certainly spike on the secondary market as a direct result of Wizards' misguided, shortsighted decision.
It's disappointing, but unsurprising as so many of us often try to fix one mistake by making another.
Anyway, I recommend that anyone who wants specific cards she's done get them now as they'll only rise from this point on.
Make no mistake, these cards are effectively added to the reserved list,and it's unlikely alternate arts will be prioritized by players or collectors, regardless of their personal politics.
"Hopes and prayers can carry the same force as swords and torches"
-Elder of Laurels, flavor text
I used to be a demigod, but now I'm an omnimage
Cool slippery slope fallacy bro, you spent a lot of words to end up saying nothing of worth.
When all you have are what ifs, your argument sucks. What if wizards cuts ties with an artist for having nude photos? Well, a reasonable person would say let's have that discussion IF it happens. An unreasonable person, or a person arguing in bad faith, would want to have that discussion when it hasn't yet happened, in order to avoid actually discussing the topic at hand.
Also it's not a disagreement over politics here, it's promoting bigotry, and endorsing conspiracy theorists who are actively slandering real people.
Again, it really boils down to having the mental capacity to differentiate between what's a reasonable scenario and what isn't. Some people, like you apparently, either cannot do this or find it easier for their arguments if they pretend like such discernment is impossible. It's actually something that most people can do. A reasonable can pretty easily discern a difference between buying into conspiracy theories that don't have much real world impact (like those surrounding the JFK assassination or Roswell or AREA 51), and conspiracy theories that deal with ongoing things and have tangible real world impact, such Alex Jones Sandy Hook conspiracies, which are libelous and which lead to the harassment of grieving families. You may think that the latter is harmless, but the law would disagree with you as the chubby conman has had to pay lots of money after it was found to be libel and promoting harassment. Reasonable people would also draw a distinction between both of those kinds of conspiracy theories and the kind that are designed to promote hatred of a group, especially since the latter have time and again led to atrocities against the groups they target.
You can make this argument about pretty much everything you listed. No, liking Kevin Spacey movies isn't going to get anyone fired. That is such an unreasonable idea that if it ever did happen, the pushback would be so immense that the company would have to reverse course. Even bringing that up as a poor attempt at reductio ad absurdum is just sad. Acting like Kevin Spacey, though, will get your ass fired, and rightly so.
Getting fired for nude photos? This one actually happens sometimes, and typically is met with severe pushback that leads to the decision being reversed. Turns out that when you fire someone for something unreasonable and it becomes public knowledge it's super bad publicity and that same "mob" that so many posters are crying about jump on the company and pressure them to give the person their job back. Now, if you're fired because you are actively doing porn, thats more likely to stick, because its often going to violate a few clauses in your contract. For an artist, if you get let go because you drew some porn years ago, thats going to draw backlash, but if you get let go because you are drawing porn under you real name while under contract to produce art for a company that wants to promote a family friendly image, people are generally going to see that as reasonable. Although Phil Foglio was able to do his thing without getting nicked (until his art style fell out of favor).
I could go on and address every inane what if you posted, but that would be beating a dead horse. The reason the slipper slope fallacy is so stupid is that people are actually pretty good at determining where they would draw the line. The reason it has emotional resonance is because it allows the person making the fallacy to present ideas the other person would find objectionable, but that's also why the slippery slope is a fallacy, because people will find those things objectionable anyway. As long as people are able to draw the line, they will. That's why authoritarian regimes first focus on removing the ability for their citizens to draw the line, so that when they get to the crap their citizens object to they don't have any recourse.
Look at your argument in the opposite direction. You asked how far do we go with what's ok to cut ties with an artist over, as a means of trying to show that accepting TN being cut for the stated reasons is unreasonable and will lead to a slippery slope. I can just as easily, and just as foolishly, ask you, who objects to TN being cut adrift by wizards for these reasons, what reasons you WOULD find acceptable to cut ties with an artist over. Sure, endorsing antisemitism is ok by you, but what if she starts marching with a tiki torch shouting "Jews will not replace us"? But that's a dumb argument that should be insulting to you, and I'm not going to seriously engage in it, because I know you'd have an answer on where to draw the line, and simply by having an answer you'd demonstrate the inanity of the fallacy. What you're actual answer is is irrelevant, because that's a matter of opinion that people will disagree on based on their personal tolerance for various behaviors, but having an answer, being able to draw that line, means that you aren't stupid enough to fall to the fallacy you are pushing. Perhaps you think that those you disagree with actually are stupid enough to fall down the slippery slope, or maybe you just haven't given it much thought.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Your long list of hypotheticals is not the most honest argument. It is in fact possible to draw lines. You can't slippery slope everything. The world is full of decisions and plenty of grey areas. Ignoring that with absolutism does not make a position better.
Nevertheless, I'm going to give you a bunch of serious answers. Because it is in fact possible to answer these questions. It's not a problem for the argument against Nielson, no matter how many random hypotheticals you've got up your sleave.
Expression of views and behaviour that does not meet ethical standards of the business in question. And in particular, those views and behaviours that may result in harm to others.
Such as promoting fascists, a pretty unethical thing that definitely has the potential to harm others.
Public statements and behaviour.
Not going to break into anyone's homes and read their private diaries, or scan people's thoughts anytime soon.
If they're insistent enough about it (as in, advocating for others not to), that might not be a bad idea.
No. Usually a private decision here that doesn't have the ability to harm anyone else. And religious protections exist.
Probably. No real harm to others.
If their intentions are unambiguous enough, absolutely.
Liking a movie is usually too weak, because most movies are quite interpretable and may not focus on any particular message so much as simple entertainment. Now, if the movie they like is Birth of a Nation or Erbkrank, for instance...
Support for Trump is too open-ended. People don't always agree with much of what a candidate stands for when they vote for them, but may just prefer them to the alternative or believe a particular issue they support is just too critical.
Then they belong alongside Nielsen. Gender discrimination is actually bad.
The long and deep history of prejudice throughout history is NOT one of innocent people who just didn't realise it was wrong until recently when the idea of equality was somehow discovered. And in the modern day, you don't even have that excuse. If you support incorrect and dangerous views, you deserve to be called out for it. That's how you learn not to do it.
?? ??
What if...what if...what if...
What if we made ethical decisions and actually drew lines in the sand and held people accountable for their actions?
No one's putting an implant in Nielson's brain to stop her from wrong-thinking. Or anything of the sort. Her rights are intact.
Criminals often lose their jobs for being criminals, even if their crime was unrelated to their job, even if they've already served time/done service/paid fines.
Yes.
Yes, some of them are.
See above. Right at the top.
...what?
Art is neither entirely subjective or entirely objective. Art involves many different possibilities of form, expression and context.
For instance, art that promotes fascism is objectively harmful.
And allowing fascists and fascist sympathisers to go unchecked is a serious threat to diversity.
Not everything with political implications or elements is wildly partisan or biased, or for that matter avoidable.
But don't worry about denying us magic art from all the random artists they haven't hired for whatever number of other different reasons, of course.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Who makes you arbiter of what is right and wrong? (Not a personal attack my friend, it is not my intent)
Your list of answers differs from what mine would be. You can claim to be in the majority on your views. I'm not going to claim it on mine, and my views exist and they hurt no one that I am aware of.
My point, and I hope you don't take this as an attack, its a rebuttal of your opinions, is that there is a wide scale of opinion out in humanity. Ones own opinions don't negate another or carry more weight (in most cases). We are battling many times over those gray areas. Isn't it a wonderful thing that at this time we have that privilege to do so? I want that to continue. I don't support hate, I don't support hurt, I don't support ignorance. I think most of us have similar hopes for these things inside us. We certainly differ on how those things should be pursued. We need to agree to disagree. And that's okay most of the time.
With all of that said, yes WotC can choose who they want to hire and fire and for what reasons. I am in total agreement on that. But I don't have to like it or support it. Terese needs to rethink and adjust, WotC should rethink and adjust, often we meet in the middle. I don't like this current culture of division. Healing is in order, I hope I haven't harmed with my words here. Can we at least find that common ground of "agreeing to disagree"?
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
I don't like this current culture of division. Healing is in order, I hope I haven't harmed with my words here. Can we at least find that common ground of "agreeing to disagree"? [/quote]
Here's the problem with that sentiment when applied to this situation: what Theresa was doing was actively feeding a culture of division. There is no middle ground on anti semitism. There is no middle ground on bigotry. There is no middle ground on people like Alex Jones. You either support that crap, or you don't. Wizards even tried to find a "middle ground", it would have started commissioning her again if she just stopped publicly supporting that crap. She couldn't. She continued to support some of the most extreme voices out there.
An open, diverse, and tolerant society where it is possible to agree to disagree without hating each other for it can not afford to tolerate the kind of crap she was, and is, supporting, because that crap is directly opposed to an open, diverse, and tolerant society where we can agree to disagree. Healing cannot happen while those views are accepted and tolerated, because those people will continue to sabotage any attempt at healing. Because healing is not what they want. They want division. They want those they disagree with silenced. They want groups of people harmed. They don't want a plurality of viewpoints to exist, they want only their viewpoint to dominate.
Despite what people with a persecution complex like mystic may assert, this isn't about Democrats vs republicans. There's plenty of room at the party of ideas for conservatives and republicans, and to equate bigotry and the most extreme far right voices with republicans, as mystic did, is slanderous to republicans. Alex Jones does draw some of the most extreme republicans, but also many libertarians and even some extreme leftists. There are leftist anti semites. Ice Cube is rightly getting crapped on for his bizarre anti semitism (though I still haven't figured out what that ******* black cube is supposed to mean). There's also a difference between being transphobic and not being pro trans. Not wanting to have sex with a trans woman isn't transphobic, believing that your birth sex is your gender isn't transphobic, repeatedly declaring that trans women aren't women and it's all mental illness IS. The difference there is it goes beyond your personal beliefs into attacking trans people. Criticism of Israel for it's policies isn't anti semitism, criticism of Israel based on anti Jewish sentiment or stereotypes is, like the tweet from Cynthia McKinney (a former liberal Democrat btw who rightly has been shunned within the party for anti semitism, before becoming a green and then most recently a libertarian) that Theresa like was doing. Louis Farrakhan is guy that does a lot of good work in the black community, but he's a raging antisemite that is as vile as anything on the right in that regard, so when a Democrat occasionally rubs elbows with him due to his work in the black community they rightly catch heat for ignoring his hatred of Jews. Its usually republicans who point that out, and the absolutely should.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!