It's estimated that about ~3.5% of the population in the US is gay (broad sense).
If 1 out of 30 characters are gay, they are just being accurate and nothing more. Gay people exist, making characters based on demographics that exist is not "pushing an agenda", catering to a group or anything like that.
NOT making then on the other hand would be an agenda - miss representing demographics to cater to one belief system.
Wanting a fictional character to die for any reason at all is not hate speech.
I wanted voldemort to die bc he was a** ugly and only bc he was a** ugly does that make it hate speech?
No. Wanting a fictional character to die for any reason at all no matter the reason cannot constitute hate speech. Point blank period. He hasnt incited violence against anyone nor is advocating for the death of a real person so again by the definition alone its not hate speech.
Secondly, i love when people like bringing up real life demographics to justify a fantasy settings demographics as if the fantasy settings must reflect the real world. The whole reason to play and get involved in a fantasy setting is to be away from and removed from real life in a sense. Not to mention if we bring up the increasing number of women warriors and traditional gender roles you guys will bring up how its a fantasy setting and it doesnt reflect the traditional gender roles we have in “our world”. So which one is it? Is its supposed to reflect real life or not?
Lastly, no one is complaining about to much diversity in fact no one complained about liliana, elspeth, nissa being portrayed as strong women, no one complained about ashiok being gender neutral, no one complained about any of that. Why? Because these parts of the stories were well thought out, flowed naturally, and were organic in that they fit flavor wise, lore wise, etc etc. we complain when diveristy is pushed for diversity sake. In fact, since you referenced MaRo ill reference him too when he said that they need to over represent minorities to compensate for not having done so in the past additionally where was his defense of diverse opinions when everyone was shi**ing on Terese Nielson for hers? This is exactly what the problem is. Diversity for the sake of diversity and its blatantly obvious when it obstructs the quality of game design, lore, art, etc etc. to top it off it becomes even more of an issue when they explicitly state they want to hire ppl now based on color instead of qualifications and experience which is even more proof how quality is being neglected for sake of diversity. THAT is the problem dude.
So lets get this straight once and for all. Its not about gay, straight, woman, man, cis, bi, whatever. Its about character design, game design and lore quality being sacrificed for the sake of political agendas.
And if equality is so important why is this dude half naked? Why is seasoned pyro shirtless? Its not very fair that men are half naked and women are depicted fully clothed and covered up. How do you think it makes some of us overweight guys feel seeing seasoned pyro with abs and chest ripped up? Doesnt give us great self esteem seeing what they obviously think is ideal not look anything like us but who cares cuz wer guys right? We can handle it. Yea, i totally feel included too.
I’m going to call it like I see it and say he is Puck from Midsummers Night’s Dream. Saw a rendition back in the day that looks a lot like that, but plot wise I am hoping he is more like the Puck
/Loki from Gargoyles, which might mean next stop is Kaldheim!
It's estimated that about ~3.5% of the population in the US is gay (broad sense).
If 1 out of 30 characters are gay, they are just being accurate and nothing more. Gay people exist, making characters based on demographics that exist is not "pushing an agenda", catering to a group or anything like that.
NOT making then on the other hand would be an agenda - miss representing demographics to cater to one belief system.
4 out of 100 people are gay? soo 2 out 50 ~ 1 out 25 right?
Also, no word on Oko being gay (or is it?). He may have kinda of have a paralel on drag/trans stories but they didn't say the character was or was not.
Also on the gay demographcs of walkers we just have Ral confirmed as gay, don't we?
It's estimated that about ~3.5% of the population in the US is gay (broad sense).
If 1 out of 30 characters are gay, they are just being accurate and nothing more. Gay people exist, making characters based on demographics that exist is not "pushing an agenda", catering to a group or anything like that.
NOT making then on the other hand would be an agenda - miss representing demographics to cater to one belief system.
4 out of 100 people are gay? soo 2 out 50 ~ 1 out 25 right?
Also, no word on Oko being gay (or is it?). He may have kinda of have a paralel on drag/trans stories but they didn't say the character was or was not.
Also on the gay demographcs of walkers we just have Ral confirmed as gay, don't we?
Not sure, was the Chandra - Nissa thing actually confirmed?
Anyway, back to the topic - this guy really ticks me off. He seems to be exactly the kind of person that makes me want to go nuclear, someone who uses past experience as an excuse to just be an a-hole and then runs away rather than face any consequences. So, Wizards, good job creating a villain that gets the emotions running, I guess. Still hope that Garruk finds him.
No i assure you it was meant to be posted here where the hypocrisy is the highest and selective virtue signaling is the norm. Pointing out how depicting the bodies of males as essentially perfect has had a negative impact on many males, on their self esteem and their self image is met with mockery and laughs proves that the community doesnt care about diversity and inclusion. They care about the current political agenda. Its obviously extremely hypocritical the huge difference how males and females are depicted in the art and game. But you know im just an idiot im sure this type of neglect hasnt lead many of our countries young men down paths of deep depression and violence towards others. Im just an incel right?
Good job at proving me right.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern RUAffinityUR GMono Green StompyG CEldrazi TronC URWJeskai GeistWRU WRBoros BurnRW BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
I just went back and reread rhe wild son comic. Has it been stated that garruk is NOT from eldraine? Place gives that vibe with a specific castle adding extra to the theory. The enlistment of young men as soldiers also fits the 5 realms thing. Does anyone know?
Pointing out how depicting the bodies of males as essentially perfect has had a negative impact on many males, on their self esteem and their self image is met with mockery and laughs proves that the community doesnt care about diversity and inclusion. They care about the current political agenda. Its obviously extremely hypocritical the huge difference how males and females are depicted in the art and game. But you know im just an idiot im sure this type of neglect hasnt lead many of our countries young men down paths of deep depression and violence towards others. Im just an incel right?
Good job at proving me right.
If Magic card art is making you depressed, then please seek out therapy. And I mean that with complete sincerity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Everything falls apart. But living things fall apart in the most fascinating ways."
—Mowagh the Gwyllion, Fang Skulkin
Glad we have half naked men while the women are covered to the eye lids. Totally fair!
In this age you cant even say if this isnt a women ...
Colors are quite off , but in the end, its just a very androgyn dude and if we are lucky, the character quickly dies ; count on you Garruk, time to grind your axe, theres a lot in magic to clean up.
That’s hate speech mate.
There’s noth’un wrong with him. I hope he is lgbtq+. Our community contributes bad eggs as well as good and it would be refreshing to have more of this kind of antagonist that you can empathize with, while noting his faults.
Edit: kinda like Xenagos!
I bring up my post again because it’s the only accurate record of what was actually said, and the problem many had with it.
Please explain how wanting a fictional character to die is hate speech?
Please explain that one.
Gladly. He wants him to die not because he’s an antagonist and an a**hole, but because he’s lgbtq+.
Done.
There is absolutely no evidence that the character *possibly being lgbtq+ compromises the storyline’s integrity. In fact, this antagonist adds depth and greyness to the story because, while it’s easy to identify with his problems, his solutions and outlets cause a lot of people pain and misery!
If anyone thinks featuring an lgbtq+ **antagonist** who has a justifiable chip on his shoulder, but is managing that all wrong, is somehow pandering to SJW’s, political correctness and special snowflakes...
I’m curious as to what then constitutes diversity, complicated grey narrative, and inclusivity in your mind.
MaRo wrote an interesting article on this. Essentially, every time an idiot complains that there is too much diversity, aren’t they being the special snowflakes? The ones that can’t handle difference, or different opinions? That the world revolves around them.
As I said, there is nothing about the character that implies bad writing or pandering. We need antagonists whom we can empathize with, who yes, are a**holes, so that we can reflect upon the fact that having a few good points and bad stuff happen to ya cannot nec excuse the means whereby they achieve their goals.
This is in fact the opposite of the millennial strawman many commenters on here contend. And on diversity, there’s still no guarantee ?he’s lgbtq+ though I think he might be, which could be great. Antagonists need to be diverse too, and there are extremists and cruelty found in every demographic, identify, and ism.
MtG is a great medium to tell these stories as every colour and combo has a turn at being more the protagonists, and antagonists.
As for sexy art of males and females, there’s still quite a few sexually appealing art of women in mtg, but it’s drawn from the perspective of how to help women women feel empowered in their bodies, rather than objects. This usually means fewer chainmail bikinis.
Oko is a fey trickster and magic user. Like Xenagos, the implied sexuality of his appearance is meant to hit an ancient trope: the otherworldly hedonist troublemaker who is more charismatic and cunning than outright imposing.
Wanting a fictional character to die for any reason at all is not hate speech.
I wanted voldemort to die bc he was a** ugly and only bc he was a** ugly does that make it hate speech?
No. Wanting a fictional character to die for any reason at all no matter the reason cannot constitute hate speech. Point blank period. He hasnt incited violence against anyone nor is advocating for the death of a real person so again by the definition alone its not hate speech.
Secondly, i love when people like bringing up real life demographics to justify a fantasy settings demographics as if the fantasy settings must reflect the real world. The whole reason to play and get involved in a fantasy setting is to be away from and removed from real life in a sense. Not to mention if we bring up the increasing number of women warriors and traditional gender roles you guys will bring up how its a fantasy setting and it doesnt reflect the traditional gender roles we have in “our world”. So which one is it? Is its supposed to reflect real life or not?
Lastly, no one is complaining about to much diversity in fact no one complained about liliana, elspeth, nissa being portrayed as strong women, no one complained about ashiok being gender neutral, no one complained about any of that. Why? Because these parts of the stories were well thought out, flowed naturally, and were organic in that they fit flavor wise, lore wise, etc etc. we complain when diveristy is pushed for diversity sake. In fact, since you referenced MaRo ill reference him too when he said that they need to over represent minorities to compensate for not having done so in the past additionally where was his defense of diverse opinions when everyone was shi**ing on Terese Nielson for hers? This is exactly what the problem is. Diversity for the sake of diversity and its blatantly obvious when it obstructs the quality of game design, lore, art, etc etc. to top it off it becomes even more of an issue when they explicitly state they want to hire ppl now based on color instead of qualifications and experience which is even more proof how quality is being neglected for sake of diversity. THAT is the problem dude.
So lets get this straight once and for all. Its not about gay, straight, woman, man, cis, bi, whatever. Its about character design, game design and lore quality being sacrificed for the sake of political agendas.
And if equality is so important why is this dude half naked? Why is seasoned pyro shirtless? Its not very fair that men are half naked and women are depicted fully clothed and covered up. How do you think it makes some of us overweight guys feel seeing seasoned pyro with abs and chest ripped up? Doesnt give us great self esteem seeing what they obviously think is ideal not look anything like us but who cares cuz wer guys right? We can handle it. Yea, i totally feel included too.
Decide.
Either you're a postmodernist and there's no context, such as real-world demographics and societal changes, to reflect or consider as informing a narrative, or even hate-motivated reasons why someone would want a character to die-
OR- you're a contextualist who looks at the narrative as being informed and reflective of the storytellers, speakers and their society, including modern ethos such as inclusivity and diversity.
I’m all for a “human” male being shirtless again. Last set I checked any shirtless males were ogres or giants. Rakdos guildmembers should be allowed to be scantily clad for crying out loud. Boros, not so much.
I expect some scantily clad witch in Eldraine. I don’t care if she looks 80+ years old. Some spellcaster in rags in the middle of the woods seems like something that should be in this set.
That being said I am loving the Queen artwork. Regal people are typically very clothed and that makes sense. It is when art design decides to overclothe berserkers that I take issue.
Pointing out how depicting the bodies of males as essentially perfect has had a negative impact on many males, on their self esteem and their self image is met with mockery and laughs proves that the community doesnt care about diversity and inclusion. They care about the current political agenda. Its obviously extremely hypocritical the huge difference how males and females are depicted in the art and game. But you know im just an idiot im sure this type of neglect hasnt lead many of our countries young men down paths of deep depression and violence towards others. Im just an incel right?
Good job at proving me right.
If Magic card art is making you depressed, then please seek out therapy. And I mean that with complete sincerity.
So were you in this camp when that girl had her feelings hurt by triumph of ferocity?
i do appreciate your genuine advice however, I am not depressed nor hurt by card art. I am simply pointing the hypocrisy found with what wotc pushes in the game and the changes theyve made for the sake of some while excluding others all at the same time touting virtue. Its funny how I can say that looking at art that depicts men with unrealistic unobtainable bodies does a number on my self esteem and all Ill get is "you need therapy" but when a girl complains about Garruk and Liliana battling the whole dam game changes in the blink of an eye. So why do you care more about that girl than about me? Am I worth less in yours and WoTC's eyes? When will WoTC protect me and people like me?
@orzhovplaneswalker
i will reiterate that wanting a FICTIONAL character to die for any reason is not hate speech even if that reason is inherently racist, sexist etc etc because first, its a fictional character and two the "hater" is not inciting violence towards anyone or advocating that a person die.
As for sexy art of males and females, there’s still quite a few sexually appealing art of women in mtg, but it’s drawn from the perspective of how to help women women feel empowered in their bodies, rather than objects. This usually means fewer chainmail bikinis.
This is hypocritical in that women are protected while men are still objectified and shown in an unrealistic fashion and this is what I have a problem with. They changed the art to protect some people while excluding others from these same protections therefore is the mission to be inclusive to all or just to some? And yes I guarantee you men suffer from body image issues which is why %95 of steroid users for cosmetic reasons are men. So to make an argument that men dont suffer from this type of objectification is not valid and is why I have a problem with them adding in protections to a game that was fine before hand.
And lastly this
Decide.
Either you're a postmodernist and there's no context, such as real-world demographics and societal changes, to reflect or consider as informing a narrative, or even hate-motivated reasons why someone would want a character to die-
OR- you're a contextualist who looks at the narrative as being informed and reflective of the storytellers, speakers and their society, including modern ethos such as inclusivity and diversity.
You can't have it both ways mate.
This is exactly my point. You cant have it both ways so which one is it? Which way am i supposed to look at things bc the way wotc and this community goes about it it would have to be both. Everything has turned into a mess of political propaganda and hypocrisy. People bring up how MaRo recognizes those that are intolerant of differing opinions are the real snow flakes but I didnt see him stick up for Terese Nielson and her differing opinions. I dont see these protection they extend to women done so for men. i dont see them hiring and taking opinions of qualified individuals based on said qualifications, I dont see them supporting their die hard best players and fans. I see a company that has warped the game into what they think an audience they dont have wants. I dont have a problem if this new PW is gay or whatever man. I really do not. Like i said before its when you focus on the fact that he/she is gay at the cost of quality that its an issue. And you know perhaps im speaking too soon maybe hes a badass well developed character but whats sad is thats probably not the case especially when its the PW used for a forbes article for all to see how woke wotc is.
You cant argue at the hypocritical characteristics of the many things I've outlined here. You cant protect one class of people and exclude another who suffers just as much from receiving these same protections. You cant claim that this is a fantasy setting that doesnt have to reflect the real world while at the same time claiming the demographics have to parallel our own. You cant claim to be inclusive and righteous when you have employees stating explicitly they are hiring based on color. You cant say that those who are intolerant of opposing views are whining and snow flakes while bashing others with views opposing your own. The game has suffered because of these things. So which one is it? Are you inclusive? If yes will you support Terese Nielson and support someone who is of the opinion that this PW should die? Are you for equality? if so will you extend the same protections you have for women to men? Will you advocate for men to no longer be depicted with ideal unobtainable bodies?
Or are you selective with what opinions you will accept, who you protect and who you hire? If this is the case then just say it. Say you want to exclude those with differing opinions, say that men dont need any protecting, say that youre not as inclusive as you claim to be. This is the root of the issue here. Say that there is an agenda to include some and exclude others which would prove me right in that there is indeed an agenda. Or am I just dead wrong? you pick. You cant have it both ways mate.
I just think getting this upset over a shirtless twinkie planeswalker is a bit much. There are tons of male characters who are fully dressed and/or conventionally unattractive, and many women who wear revealing outfits and/or are super conventionally attractive. Don't let a piece of art make you feel so crappy about your own body. It's not worth it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Everything falls apart. But living things fall apart in the most fascinating ways."
—Mowagh the Gwyllion, Fang Skulkin
I’m going to call it like I see it and say he is Puck from Midsummers Night’s Dream. Saw a rendition back in the day that looks a lot like that, but plot wise I am hoping he is more like the Puck
/Loki from Gargoyles, which might mean next stop is Kaldheim!
.
Well, you're at least the third person in this thread to make that call.
Yes I understand what youre saying and I agree with you. I dont feel bad or any of that I am making a point about the inherent hypocrisy in protecting some people and not others from the same potential harm.
And as of right now there have not been any revealing art works of women since.. oath of the gatewatch.? I think its hard to find exactly when it stopped but there isnt any recent art that portrays any sort of sexualization or objectification of women anywhere near the same degree as there is for men.
All I am saying is that its hypocritical. I am mot depressed nor harmed by card art an I believe that its silly to be hrmed by it emotionally much like the girl who cried about triumph of ferocity. But, i know many who have been affected by seeing unobtainable male physiques in comics, anime and games and now suffer many psychological issues as well as addictions bc of the never ending pursuit of said physique. It does do harm to young impressionable boys there is a plethora of evidence to support this so my question is why has wotc decided to protect girls/women from this harm but not young boys/men?
That is all I am saying in regards to that topic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern RUAffinityUR GMono Green StompyG CEldrazi TronC URWJeskai GeistWRU WRBoros BurnRW BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
No i assure you it was meant to be posted here where the hypocrisy is the highest and selective virtue signaling is the norm. Pointing out how depicting the bodies of males as essentially perfect has had a negative impact on many males, on their self esteem and their self image is met with mockery and laughs proves that the community doesnt care about diversity and inclusion. They care about the current political agenda. Its obviously extremely hypocritical the huge difference how males and females are depicted in the art and game. But you know im just an idiot im sure this type of neglect hasnt lead many of our countries young men down paths of deep depression and violence towards others. Im just an incel right?
Good job at proving me right.
There's a massive rift between how our culture treats depictions of male warrior archetypes (clothed or otherwise) and over-sexualized female caricatures. One is a manifestation of wish fulfillment, and the other is objectification. The two aren't remotely the same, and your assertion that scantily clad male figures only contribute to poor self-esteem doesn't jibe with our understanding of nerd culture going back generations. Sweaty neckbeards enjoying themselves as they pretend to be Goku or Conan the Barbarian is the norm, not an aberration.
Pointing out how depicting the bodies of males as essentially perfect has had a negative impact on many males, on their self esteem and their self image is met with mockery and laughs proves that the community doesnt care about diversity and inclusion. They care about the current political agenda. Its obviously extremely hypocritical the huge difference how males and females are depicted in the art and game. But you know im just an idiot im sure this type of neglect hasnt lead many of our countries young men down paths of deep depression and violence towards others. Im just an incel right?
Good job at proving me right.
If Magic card art is making you depressed, then please seek out therapy. And I mean that with complete sincerity.
So were you in this camp when that girl had her feelings hurt by triumph of ferocity?
i do appreciate your genuine advice however, I am not depressed nor hurt by card art. I am simply pointing the hypocrisy found with what wotc pushes in the game and the changes theyve made for the sake of some while excluding others all at the same time touting virtue. Its funny how I can say that looking at art that depicts men with unrealistic unobtainable bodies does a number on my self esteem and all Ill get is "you need therapy" but when a girl complains about Garruk and Liliana battling the whole dam game changes in the blink of an eye. So why do you care more about that girl than about me? Am I worth less in yours and WoTC's eyes? When will WoTC protect me and people like me?
@orzhovplaneswalker
i will reiterate that wanting a FICTIONAL character to die for any reason is not hate speech even if that reason is inherently racist, sexist etc etc because first, its a fictional character and two the "hater" is not inciting violence towards anyone or advocating that a person die.
As for sexy art of males and females, there’s still quite a few sexually appealing art of women in mtg, but it’s drawn from the perspective of how to help women women feel empowered in their bodies, rather than objects. This usually means fewer chainmail bikinis.
This is hypocritical in that women are protected while men are still objectified and shown in an unrealistic fashion and this is what I have a problem with. They changed the art to protect some people while excluding others from these same protections therefore is the mission to be inclusive to all or just to some? And yes I guarantee you men suffer from body image issues which is why %95 of steroid users for cosmetic reasons are men. So to make an argument that men dont suffer from this type of objectification is not valid and is why I have a problem with them adding in protections to a game that was fine before hand.
And lastly this
Decide.
Either you're a postmodernist and there's no context, such as real-world demographics and societal changes, to reflect or consider as informing a narrative, or even hate-motivated reasons why someone would want a character to die-
OR- you're a contextualist who looks at the narrative as being informed and reflective of the storytellers, speakers and their society, including modern ethos such as inclusivity and diversity.
You can't have it both ways mate.
This is exactly my point. You cant have it both ways so which one is it? Which way am i supposed to look at things bc the way wotc and this community goes about it it would have to be both. Everything has turned into a mess of political propaganda and hypocrisy. People bring up how MaRo recognizes those that are intolerant of differing opinions are the real snow flakes but I didnt see him stick up for Terese Nielson and her differing opinions. I dont see these protection they extend to women done so for men. i dont see them hiring and taking opinions of qualified individuals based on said qualifications, I dont see them supporting their die hard best players and fans. I see a company that has warped the game into what they think an audience they dont have wants. I dont have a problem if this new PW is gay or whatever man. I really do not. Like i said before its when you focus on the fact that he/she is gay at the cost of quality that its an issue. And you know perhaps im speaking too soon maybe hes a badass well developed character but whats sad is thats probably not the case especially when its the PW used for a forbes article for all to see how woke wotc is.
You cant argue at the hypocritical characteristics of the many things I've outlined here. You cant protect one class of people and exclude another who suffers just as much from receiving these same protections. You cant claim that this is a fantasy setting that doesnt have to reflect the real world while at the same time claiming the demographics have to parallel our own. You cant claim to be inclusive and righteous when you have employees stating explicitly they are hiring based on color. You cant say that those who are intolerant of opposing views are whining and snow flakes while bashing others with views opposing your own. The game has suffered because of these things. So which one is it? Are you inclusive? If yes will you support Terese Nielson and support someone who is of the opinion that this PW should die? Are you for equality? if so will you extend the same protections you have for women to men? Will you advocate for men to no longer be depicted with ideal unobtainable bodies?
Or are you selective with what opinions you will accept, who you protect and who you hire? If this is the case then just say it. Say you want to exclude those with differing opinions, say that men dont need any protecting, say that youre not as inclusive as you claim to be. This is the root of the issue here. Say that there is an agenda to include some and exclude others which would prove me right in that there is indeed an agenda. Or am I just dead wrong? you pick. You cant have it both ways mate.
Yes I understand what youre saying and I agree with you. I dont feel bad or any of that I am making a point about the inherent hypocrisy in protecting some people and not others from the same potential harm.
And as of right now there have not been any revealing art works of women since.. oath of the gatewatch.? I think its hard to find exactly when it stopped but there isnt any recent art that portrays any sort of sexualization or objectification of women anywhere near the same degree as there is for men.
All I am saying is that its hypocritical. I am mot depressed nor harmed by card art an I believe that its silly to be hrmed by it emotionally much like the girl who cried about triumph of ferocity. But, i know many who have been affected by seeing unobtainable male physiques in comics, anime and games and now suffer many psychological issues as well as addictions bc of the never ending pursuit of said physique. It does do harm to young impressionable boys there is a plethora of evidence to support this so my question is why has wotc decided to protect girls/women from this harm but not young boys/men?
That is all I am saying in regards to that topic.
There just isn't any logical flow to your argument mate.
I have been pretty clear that the context of the social environment, speakers and storytellers matter, and yes, the context and motivations in which upon which a person likes and hates a character is included in that as it is reflective of how they feel in their real-world context. Especially if they want the person to die for no reason other than their potentially being a sexual minority.
I agree that WoTC storytelling is partly informed by contemporary political ethos such as a broad-form of feminism, inclusivity and cultural sensitivity. What I disagree upon is the premise that these are creating subpar creative narratives, or that they are hypocritical in their portrayal of men and women and sexual and physical ideals. Very few male characters overall have been made to be explicitly sexualized, particularly in comparison to women. Sexy portrayals of both men and women are both still done, but the company has realized that they need to tone down how often and extreme they did this with the latter while upping the ante slightly with the former. To balance it out.
This isn't hypocrisy. It's equality. Averaging out while not making to extreme the sexiness of men and women, and the genders often associated with these. Furthermore, more identities than male and female, the inflexible gender constructions associated with these, etc are being also explored.
I have no qualms with triumph of ferocity though I recognize that women experience more violence on account of men then the other way around. This is because for me, the idea and depiction of Garruk defeating Lilliana through violence is not informed by chauvinism or hegemonic masculinity but by the fact that its understandable why Garruk might want to kill her seeing what she did, and based upon his environmental extremism. (not that I nec agree with him but anyways)
It is ok to want Oko to die, because of his cruelties upon others. Just don't pretend that wanting Oko to die just because he's possibly LGBTQ+, or Liliana to die because she's a strongminded women, as not being hate speech. The "because" matters.
Liliana brought ruin and death to Ravnica all to preserve her own life, she arguably deserves to die accord to some.
We'll see about Oko. But if he's anything like Lili, I'm ok with him facing the ultimate price for selfish violence and cruelty.
Im so glad you said this because here in lies the crux of what I have been trying to say.
Since when do you or anyone else be it WoTC or the majority of the community care what “sweatyneck beards” want? Im pretty sure “neck beards” dont want homosexual characters shoved in their faces and as the faces of their game. Im also pretty sure theyve been totally against the puritanical art direction for female characters. Im also pretty sure they all loved Garruk. So what is it youre trying to say? That these scantily clad males are here for the neck beards? And my assertion is a fact. Showing young men unrealistic male physiques warps their own body image. There are interviews of professional body builders who have explicitly stated this. Watch the documentary of bigger stronger faster so you can see first hand how many men have had their lives destroyed in their pursuit of these types of physiques. They were “neck beards” until one day they werent.
So its not an assertion dude its a fact that young boys are affected it by it regardless if at that point of their life they are happy fantasizing and pretending that they are their hero be it goku, wolverine etc.
And my argument is why would they protect women from the harm and not men?
So its a lose lose for you now. Because 1. You cannot prove at all that these scantily clad males are here to please the neck beards bc nothing else that was liked by “them” has remained and has in fact changed away from what they like and what we understood about nerd culture going back generations and 2. The on going portrayal of these scantily clad male physiques proves that wotc doesnt care to protect these neck beards from the psychological harm it causes and have opted to ONLY protect women from this type of harm.
So sweaty neck beards AKA OG players, young men, have their opinions dismissed and their mental health ignored. WoTC took it upon themselves to protect girls and women by changing the art direction of the females. So do they not care to protect the men from this psychological harm? Or are neck beards a vital part of wotc’s income so scantily clad males are here to make them happy while they erase and destroy everything else these “neck beards” liked? How do you explain that?
Where is my logic lacking? if the aim is diversity and inclusive why cant someone have the opinion that the homosexual PW should die?
the context and motivations upon which a person likes and hates a character is included in that as it is reflective of how they feel in their real-world context
he never said that he should die because of his sexual orientation. he just said he hopes he is killed off. And even IF he wanted him to die because of his sexual orientation that does not make it hate speech. You cannot draw the conclusion that because he wants a fictional character to cease existing means that he wants all homosexuals in real life to die. That is not a logical conclusion at all and the two are vastly vastly different and does not constitute hate speech. If i want Oko to die because of his sexual orientation and my belief that it doesnt belong in a childrens game doesnt mean I want homosexuals to die in real life. That is flawed thinking and could lead to some very very dangerous totalitarian territory.
You cannot do more for one and less for another and call it equality no matter how much you are attempting to average it out. It does not work that way. This isnt a zero sum game where you can say "okay we can stop bc its averaged out now." And if that is what is happening then that proves that there is a social justice agenda to correct perceived injustices right? This averaging out is the agenda then. okay so when are they going to be done averaging it out? when can i expect to stop seeing unobtainable shirtless male physiques? by the way there havent been any "sexy" portrayals of women physiques n the art in a very long time not at all in comparison to how theyve shown males. So you are right theyve dumbed down the former but not the latter as heavily.
You make alot of sense for sure. But you still havent answered my questions on who is included, who is excluded, am i allowed to hate? are there going to be characters who hate and are racist since this game has to parallel our reality? These are real questions. Serious ones. Ones i wouldnt be asking if there wasnt a push to "even it out" at every given opportunity. Politics and this agenda to "even it out" should have never entered this game. This push for inclusion has left many many OG players feeling excluded, betrayed and abandoned. Sure wotc is making money but its not because of these agendas, its in spite of them.
Go back to the original, unedited post. He did imply that,
And yes, hate speech towards a character on account of their identity can be reasonably construed as being informed by hate in real life. The fact that the guy edited his post afterwards implies that he either agreed with me, or thought moderators or others would agree with me enough to edit his reasoning for wanting the character to die out.
You have a very different understanding of equality, and equity than I obviously. And a very different understanding of what hate is. Hate is destructive, both for the hater and the hated. One can disagree without it. One can argue their points without it.
You also have yet to demonstrate how WoTC's policies towards inclusion and diversity has made their products, creative and design, worse. How is the OG player-base excluded or abandoned by such practices?? What makes you feel threatened by this turn of policy? Provide evidence that the Men are more sexualized than women these days, and that it is equatable to the sexualization of women in MTG in the past. I can think only a handful of cards in recent sets where the men seem deliberately seductive. Evening out is part of equality. It's making so that there's balance, and causing players to ask tough questions of themselves.
I see there's no convincing you. Yet I am glad you voiced your opinion. I would rather that people's true feelings are brought to public so that people can weigh and interact with the logic and motivations themselves, then be unvoiced but informing personal and group behavior.
That's all I have. If others wanna go at it they can, but I gotta get back to the offline life.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards. listen. The Vorthos community will await the consequences of the Eldrazi Titans' deaths/sealing. We will keep the watch.
“The wind whispers, ‘come home,’ but I cannot.”
— Teferi
So were you in this camp when that girl had her feelings hurt by triumph of ferocity?
i do appreciate your genuine advice however, I am not depressed nor hurt by card art. I am simply pointing the hypocrisy found with what wotc pushes in the game and the changes theyve made for the sake of some while excluding others all at the same time touting virtue. Its funny how I can say that looking at art that depicts men with unrealistic unobtainable bodies does a number on my self esteem and all Ill get is "you need therapy" but when a girl complains about Garruk and Liliana battling the whole dam game changes in the blink of an eye. So why do you care more about that girl than about me? Am I worth less in yours and WoTC's eyes? When will WoTC protect me and people like me?
You're conflating two very different things. Sexualization of characters and violence against women are not related at all. I have no idea why you think they're the same thing. The people who had an issue with that card equated the art with real violence against women(which yes, is silly) and complained. The issue with sexualization stems from some female characters usually being depicted as sexy and more scantily clad than their male counterparts. WotC's response was to do a 180 and make some male characters dress like they're attending a gay pride parade in the middle of a ren fair and most female characters dress like they're on an arctic expedition that somehow took a detour through Saudi Arabia. Which is obviously not equality or whatever. The reaction to that card art and WotC's decision to hypersexualize many male characters and desexualize most female characters are both kneejerk reactions that make no sense, but they're not the same things. You thinking of them as the same thing or being equal really shows how your mind works.
Where is my logic lacking? if the aim is diversity and inclusive why cant someone have the opinion that the homosexual PW should die?
If your motivation for wanting the gay character to die and go away forever is simply that they're gay then you're just a piece of **** and your viewpoint has no value. Tolerating intolerance is not a virtue, it's cowardice.
Of course you can come to the conclusion that he hates in real life or at the very least dislikes the idea in real life but you cannot come to the conclusion that he wants those in real life to share the same fate because those are two different things and have two very different impacts on people. So I can agree that if a person dislikes some details about a character in a game are dislikes they have about people in real life, but the fate they wish upon either or are completely different. So by that its not hate speech. Unless he explicitly states that Oka should die and all homosexuals should die in real life along with him then yes its hate speech. But only saying Oka should die does not constitute hate speech and jumping to the conclusion you have is dangerous to say the least. I dont recall what his original post said but I dont remember him explicitly stating he wanted Oka to die BECAUSE he was effeminate or homosexual. I do remember him implying that it would be a useless character.
Equality and equity does not mean you balance out past injustices, it means everything is equal. Thats literally where the word comes from EQUAL in EQUALity. You cant have equality by doing more or less for some due to what was done in the past. That is not equality, maybe its a move towards equality sure but as it stand that is not equality. By that logic one can advocate all white people be enslaved to make up for the enslavement of african americans thus balance it out. Or the other way around all white people today have to give african americans their property to "balance it out" is that equality to you? Is that how you balance it out? give less to some and more to others..?
Provide evidence that the Men are more sexualized than women these days, and that it is equatable to the sexualization of women in MTG in the past.
This new planeswalker is the proof. Hes shirtless dude. Show me one shirtless female from the last two years. Show me art depicting an attractive shirtless female. you cant. So that right there is evidence that men are more sexualized at this moment. and you seem to think only women have been sexualized in magics history. Men have been sexualized for as long as the women have and now its only men who are persistently sexualized. Simply because the players dont see the men as sexual objects is a different story but they have been depicted just as naked, just as fit, just as sexualized for the entirety of the existence of magic so by that, how can you make the argument that now wotc is attempting to balance it out by showing less sexy women and more sexy men when both sexes have been portrayed as such since the beginning..?
What makes you feel threatened by this turn of policy?
Well ill point to the racist hiring practices from wotc as described by their own employees on twitter explicitly stating that they are hiring based on color. So thats a pretty blatant form of racism and political pandering that threatens the quality of the game at the very least. and is a threat to me and people who look like me. which is fine i dont mind them doing that but dont do it under the guise of equality and diversity. Its racist and a regression to jim crow like practices. Also when a store refuses to give service to a homosexual or a person of color no one who supports wotc doing this has the right to speak on the matter because they are in favor of it when its racist to some but cry when others are racist towards them. I say any business can do as they please and if you stand against the practice dont be selective or hypocritical.
You also have yet to demonstrate how WoTC's policies towards inclusion and diversity has made their products, creative and design, worse. How is the OG player-base excluded or abandoned by such practices??
Well for starters the puritanical art is bland. The complete and utter shunning of Terese Nielson is another one ive already brought up. The inherent hypocrisy that comes with inclusion and diversity ideology is another one ive already brought up. The story line has been pretty bland lately and unsatisfying as compared to before all this started. And i cant imagine their focus on inclusion and diversity hasnt affected game development any since the complete and utter failure of hogaak in modern points to just straight up negligence. The MPL is a joke because instead of supporting their die hard OG players like Reid Duke, LSV, jensen, etc they made a trans woman the face of it. I can keep going man i really can just keep this list going but i think you should get the picture by now unless youre being willfully blind.
You make may good points but youre not seeing the bigger picture of what is actually happening. Many many players have left magic dude. There have been many stores shutting down and very very few new ones opening up. There are you tube channels that focused on mtg that have straight up shut down bc they quit the game. Many stores FNM's were dead prior to horizons. Talk to store owners about how difficult it is to have a store dedicated to MTG and how they hardly see anyone from the old days. Its very obvious how many ppl have left the game and have felt abandoned by wotc. This is akin to many star wars fans now. Its the same tune on a different instrument.
If 1 out of 30 characters are gay, they are just being accurate and nothing more. Gay people exist, making characters based on demographics that exist is not "pushing an agenda", catering to a group or anything like that.
NOT making then on the other hand would be an agenda - miss representing demographics to cater to one belief system.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
I wanted voldemort to die bc he was a** ugly and only bc he was a** ugly does that make it hate speech?
No. Wanting a fictional character to die for any reason at all no matter the reason cannot constitute hate speech. Point blank period. He hasnt incited violence against anyone nor is advocating for the death of a real person so again by the definition alone its not hate speech.
Secondly, i love when people like bringing up real life demographics to justify a fantasy settings demographics as if the fantasy settings must reflect the real world. The whole reason to play and get involved in a fantasy setting is to be away from and removed from real life in a sense. Not to mention if we bring up the increasing number of women warriors and traditional gender roles you guys will bring up how its a fantasy setting and it doesnt reflect the traditional gender roles we have in “our world”. So which one is it? Is its supposed to reflect real life or not?
Lastly, no one is complaining about to much diversity in fact no one complained about liliana, elspeth, nissa being portrayed as strong women, no one complained about ashiok being gender neutral, no one complained about any of that. Why? Because these parts of the stories were well thought out, flowed naturally, and were organic in that they fit flavor wise, lore wise, etc etc. we complain when diveristy is pushed for diversity sake. In fact, since you referenced MaRo ill reference him too when he said that they need to over represent minorities to compensate for not having done so in the past additionally where was his defense of diverse opinions when everyone was shi**ing on Terese Nielson for hers? This is exactly what the problem is. Diversity for the sake of diversity and its blatantly obvious when it obstructs the quality of game design, lore, art, etc etc. to top it off it becomes even more of an issue when they explicitly state they want to hire ppl now based on color instead of qualifications and experience which is even more proof how quality is being neglected for sake of diversity. THAT is the problem dude.
So lets get this straight once and for all. Its not about gay, straight, woman, man, cis, bi, whatever. Its about character design, game design and lore quality being sacrificed for the sake of political agendas.
And if equality is so important why is this dude half naked? Why is seasoned pyro shirtless? Its not very fair that men are half naked and women are depicted fully clothed and covered up. How do you think it makes some of us overweight guys feel seeing seasoned pyro with abs and chest ripped up? Doesnt give us great self esteem seeing what they obviously think is ideal not look anything like us but who cares cuz wer guys right? We can handle it. Yea, i totally feel included too.
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
4 out of 100 people are gay? soo 2 out 50 ~ 1 out 25 right?
Also, no word on Oko being gay (or is it?). He may have kinda of have a paralel on drag/trans stories but they didn't say the character was or was not.
Also on the gay demographcs of walkers we just have Ral confirmed as gay, don't we?
Blue lives don't matter in the slightest.
Not sure, was the Chandra - Nissa thing actually confirmed?
Anyway, back to the topic - this guy really ticks me off. He seems to be exactly the kind of person that makes me want to go nuclear, someone who uses past experience as an excuse to just be an a-hole and then runs away rather than face any consequences. So, Wizards, good job creating a villain that gets the emotions running, I guess. Still hope that Garruk finds him.
Good job at proving me right.
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
If Magic card art is making you depressed, then please seek out therapy. And I mean that with complete sincerity.
—Mowagh the Gwyllion, Fang Skulkin
I bring up my post again because it’s the only accurate record of what was actually said, and the problem many had with it.
I appreciate the commenter’s edit since.
As I said, there is nothing about the character that implies bad writing or pandering. We need antagonists whom we can empathize with, who yes, are a**holes, so that we can reflect upon the fact that having a few good points and bad stuff happen to ya cannot nec excuse the means whereby they achieve their goals.
This is in fact the opposite of the millennial strawman many commenters on here contend. And on diversity, there’s still no guarantee ?he’s lgbtq+ though I think he might be, which could be great. Antagonists need to be diverse too, and there are extremists and cruelty found in every demographic, identify, and ism.
MtG is a great medium to tell these stories as every colour and combo has a turn at being more the protagonists, and antagonists.
As for sexy art of males and females, there’s still quite a few sexually appealing art of women in mtg, but it’s drawn from the perspective of how to help women women feel empowered in their bodies, rather than objects. This usually means fewer chainmail bikinis.
Oko is a fey trickster and magic user. Like Xenagos, the implied sexuality of his appearance is meant to hit an ancient trope: the otherworldly hedonist troublemaker who is more charismatic and cunning than outright imposing.
Edit:
Decide.
Either you're a postmodernist and there's no context, such as real-world demographics and societal changes, to reflect or consider as informing a narrative, or even hate-motivated reasons why someone would want a character to die-
OR- you're a contextualist who looks at the narrative as being informed and reflective of the storytellers, speakers and their society, including modern ethos such as inclusivity and diversity.
You can't have it both ways mate.
The Vorthos community will await the consequences of the Eldrazi Titans' deaths/sealing. We will keep the watch.
“The wind whispers, ‘come home,’ but I cannot.”
— Teferi
I expect some scantily clad witch in Eldraine. I don’t care if she looks 80+ years old. Some spellcaster in rags in the middle of the woods seems like something that should be in this set.
That being said I am loving the Queen artwork. Regal people are typically very clothed and that makes sense. It is when art design decides to overclothe berserkers that I take issue.
So were you in this camp when that girl had her feelings hurt by triumph of ferocity?
i do appreciate your genuine advice however, I am not depressed nor hurt by card art. I am simply pointing the hypocrisy found with what wotc pushes in the game and the changes theyve made for the sake of some while excluding others all at the same time touting virtue. Its funny how I can say that looking at art that depicts men with unrealistic unobtainable bodies does a number on my self esteem and all Ill get is "you need therapy" but when a girl complains about Garruk and Liliana battling the whole dam game changes in the blink of an eye. So why do you care more about that girl than about me? Am I worth less in yours and WoTC's eyes? When will WoTC protect me and people like me?
@orzhovplaneswalker
i will reiterate that wanting a FICTIONAL character to die for any reason is not hate speech even if that reason is inherently racist, sexist etc etc because first, its a fictional character and two the "hater" is not inciting violence towards anyone or advocating that a person die.
This is hypocritical in that women are protected while men are still objectified and shown in an unrealistic fashion and this is what I have a problem with. They changed the art to protect some people while excluding others from these same protections therefore is the mission to be inclusive to all or just to some? And yes I guarantee you men suffer from body image issues which is why %95 of steroid users for cosmetic reasons are men. So to make an argument that men dont suffer from this type of objectification is not valid and is why I have a problem with them adding in protections to a game that was fine before hand.
And lastly this
This is exactly my point. You cant have it both ways so which one is it? Which way am i supposed to look at things bc the way wotc and this community goes about it it would have to be both. Everything has turned into a mess of political propaganda and hypocrisy. People bring up how MaRo recognizes those that are intolerant of differing opinions are the real snow flakes but I didnt see him stick up for Terese Nielson and her differing opinions. I dont see these protection they extend to women done so for men. i dont see them hiring and taking opinions of qualified individuals based on said qualifications, I dont see them supporting their die hard best players and fans. I see a company that has warped the game into what they think an audience they dont have wants. I dont have a problem if this new PW is gay or whatever man. I really do not. Like i said before its when you focus on the fact that he/she is gay at the cost of quality that its an issue. And you know perhaps im speaking too soon maybe hes a badass well developed character but whats sad is thats probably not the case especially when its the PW used for a forbes article for all to see how woke wotc is.
You cant argue at the hypocritical characteristics of the many things I've outlined here. You cant protect one class of people and exclude another who suffers just as much from receiving these same protections. You cant claim that this is a fantasy setting that doesnt have to reflect the real world while at the same time claiming the demographics have to parallel our own. You cant claim to be inclusive and righteous when you have employees stating explicitly they are hiring based on color. You cant say that those who are intolerant of opposing views are whining and snow flakes while bashing others with views opposing your own. The game has suffered because of these things. So which one is it? Are you inclusive? If yes will you support Terese Nielson and support someone who is of the opinion that this PW should die? Are you for equality? if so will you extend the same protections you have for women to men? Will you advocate for men to no longer be depicted with ideal unobtainable bodies?
Or are you selective with what opinions you will accept, who you protect and who you hire? If this is the case then just say it. Say you want to exclude those with differing opinions, say that men dont need any protecting, say that youre not as inclusive as you claim to be. This is the root of the issue here. Say that there is an agenda to include some and exclude others which would prove me right in that there is indeed an agenda. Or am I just dead wrong? you pick. You cant have it both ways mate.
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
—Mowagh the Gwyllion, Fang Skulkin
Well, you're at least the third person in this thread to make that call.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
And as of right now there have not been any revealing art works of women since.. oath of the gatewatch.? I think its hard to find exactly when it stopped but there isnt any recent art that portrays any sort of sexualization or objectification of women anywhere near the same degree as there is for men.
All I am saying is that its hypocritical. I am mot depressed nor harmed by card art an I believe that its silly to be hrmed by it emotionally much like the girl who cried about triumph of ferocity. But, i know many who have been affected by seeing unobtainable male physiques in comics, anime and games and now suffer many psychological issues as well as addictions bc of the never ending pursuit of said physique. It does do harm to young impressionable boys there is a plethora of evidence to support this so my question is why has wotc decided to protect girls/women from this harm but not young boys/men?
That is all I am saying in regards to that topic.
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
There's a massive rift between how our culture treats depictions of male warrior archetypes (clothed or otherwise) and over-sexualized female caricatures. One is a manifestation of wish fulfillment, and the other is objectification. The two aren't remotely the same, and your assertion that scantily clad male figures only contribute to poor self-esteem doesn't jibe with our understanding of nerd culture going back generations. Sweaty neckbeards enjoying themselves as they pretend to be Goku or Conan the Barbarian is the norm, not an aberration.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
There just isn't any logical flow to your argument mate.
I have been pretty clear that the context of the social environment, speakers and storytellers matter, and yes, the context and motivations in which upon which a person likes and hates a character is included in that as it is reflective of how they feel in their real-world context. Especially if they want the person to die for no reason other than their potentially being a sexual minority.
I agree that WoTC storytelling is partly informed by contemporary political ethos such as a broad-form of feminism, inclusivity and cultural sensitivity. What I disagree upon is the premise that these are creating subpar creative narratives, or that they are hypocritical in their portrayal of men and women and sexual and physical ideals. Very few male characters overall have been made to be explicitly sexualized, particularly in comparison to women. Sexy portrayals of both men and women are both still done, but the company has realized that they need to tone down how often and extreme they did this with the latter while upping the ante slightly with the former. To balance it out.
This isn't hypocrisy. It's equality. Averaging out while not making to extreme the sexiness of men and women, and the genders often associated with these. Furthermore, more identities than male and female, the inflexible gender constructions associated with these, etc are being also explored.
I have no qualms with triumph of ferocity though I recognize that women experience more violence on account of men then the other way around. This is because for me, the idea and depiction of Garruk defeating Lilliana through violence is not informed by chauvinism or hegemonic masculinity but by the fact that its understandable why Garruk might want to kill her seeing what she did, and based upon his environmental extremism. (not that I nec agree with him but anyways)
It is ok to want Oko to die, because of his cruelties upon others. Just don't pretend that wanting Oko to die just because he's possibly LGBTQ+, or Liliana to die because she's a strongminded women, as not being hate speech. The "because" matters.
Liliana brought ruin and death to Ravnica all to preserve her own life, she arguably deserves to die accord to some.
We'll see about Oko. But if he's anything like Lili, I'm ok with him facing the ultimate price for selfish violence and cruelty.
The Vorthos community will await the consequences of the Eldrazi Titans' deaths/sealing. We will keep the watch.
“The wind whispers, ‘come home,’ but I cannot.”
— Teferi
Since when do you or anyone else be it WoTC or the majority of the community care what “sweatyneck beards” want? Im pretty sure “neck beards” dont want homosexual characters shoved in their faces and as the faces of their game. Im also pretty sure theyve been totally against the puritanical art direction for female characters. Im also pretty sure they all loved Garruk. So what is it youre trying to say? That these scantily clad males are here for the neck beards? And my assertion is a fact. Showing young men unrealistic male physiques warps their own body image. There are interviews of professional body builders who have explicitly stated this. Watch the documentary of bigger stronger faster so you can see first hand how many men have had their lives destroyed in their pursuit of these types of physiques. They were “neck beards” until one day they werent.
So its not an assertion dude its a fact that young boys are affected it by it regardless if at that point of their life they are happy fantasizing and pretending that they are their hero be it goku, wolverine etc.
And my argument is why would they protect women from the harm and not men?
So its a lose lose for you now. Because 1. You cannot prove at all that these scantily clad males are here to please the neck beards bc nothing else that was liked by “them” has remained and has in fact changed away from what they like and what we understood about nerd culture going back generations and 2. The on going portrayal of these scantily clad male physiques proves that wotc doesnt care to protect these neck beards from the psychological harm it causes and have opted to ONLY protect women from this type of harm.
So sweaty neck beards AKA OG players, young men, have their opinions dismissed and their mental health ignored. WoTC took it upon themselves to protect girls and women by changing the art direction of the females. So do they not care to protect the men from this psychological harm? Or are neck beards a vital part of wotc’s income so scantily clad males are here to make them happy while they erase and destroy everything else these “neck beards” liked? How do you explain that?
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
he never said that he should die because of his sexual orientation. he just said he hopes he is killed off. And even IF he wanted him to die because of his sexual orientation that does not make it hate speech. You cannot draw the conclusion that because he wants a fictional character to cease existing means that he wants all homosexuals in real life to die. That is not a logical conclusion at all and the two are vastly vastly different and does not constitute hate speech. If i want Oko to die because of his sexual orientation and my belief that it doesnt belong in a childrens game doesnt mean I want homosexuals to die in real life. That is flawed thinking and could lead to some very very dangerous totalitarian territory.
You cannot do more for one and less for another and call it equality no matter how much you are attempting to average it out. It does not work that way. This isnt a zero sum game where you can say "okay we can stop bc its averaged out now." And if that is what is happening then that proves that there is a social justice agenda to correct perceived injustices right? This averaging out is the agenda then. okay so when are they going to be done averaging it out? when can i expect to stop seeing unobtainable shirtless male physiques? by the way there havent been any "sexy" portrayals of women physiques n the art in a very long time not at all in comparison to how theyve shown males. So you are right theyve dumbed down the former but not the latter as heavily.
You make alot of sense for sure. But you still havent answered my questions on who is included, who is excluded, am i allowed to hate? are there going to be characters who hate and are racist since this game has to parallel our reality? These are real questions. Serious ones. Ones i wouldnt be asking if there wasnt a push to "even it out" at every given opportunity. Politics and this agenda to "even it out" should have never entered this game. This push for inclusion has left many many OG players feeling excluded, betrayed and abandoned. Sure wotc is making money but its not because of these agendas, its in spite of them.
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
And yes, hate speech towards a character on account of their identity can be reasonably construed as being informed by hate in real life. The fact that the guy edited his post afterwards implies that he either agreed with me, or thought moderators or others would agree with me enough to edit his reasoning for wanting the character to die out.
You have a very different understanding of equality, and equity than I obviously. And a very different understanding of what hate is. Hate is destructive, both for the hater and the hated. One can disagree without it. One can argue their points without it.
You also have yet to demonstrate how WoTC's policies towards inclusion and diversity has made their products, creative and design, worse. How is the OG player-base excluded or abandoned by such practices?? What makes you feel threatened by this turn of policy? Provide evidence that the Men are more sexualized than women these days, and that it is equatable to the sexualization of women in MTG in the past. I can think only a handful of cards in recent sets where the men seem deliberately seductive. Evening out is part of equality. It's making so that there's balance, and causing players to ask tough questions of themselves.
I see there's no convincing you. Yet I am glad you voiced your opinion. I would rather that people's true feelings are brought to public so that people can weigh and interact with the logic and motivations themselves, then be unvoiced but informing personal and group behavior.
That's all I have. If others wanna go at it they can, but I gotta get back to the offline life.
The Vorthos community will await the consequences of the Eldrazi Titans' deaths/sealing. We will keep the watch.
“The wind whispers, ‘come home,’ but I cannot.”
— Teferi
You're conflating two very different things. Sexualization of characters and violence against women are not related at all. I have no idea why you think they're the same thing. The people who had an issue with that card equated the art with real violence against women(which yes, is silly) and complained. The issue with sexualization stems from some female characters usually being depicted as sexy and more scantily clad than their male counterparts. WotC's response was to do a 180 and make some male characters dress like they're attending a gay pride parade in the middle of a ren fair and most female characters dress like they're on an arctic expedition that somehow took a detour through Saudi Arabia. Which is obviously not equality or whatever. The reaction to that card art and WotC's decision to hypersexualize many male characters and desexualize most female characters are both kneejerk reactions that make no sense, but they're not the same things. You thinking of them as the same thing or being equal really shows how your mind works.
If your motivation for wanting the gay character to die and go away forever is simply that they're gay then you're just a piece of **** and your viewpoint has no value. Tolerating intolerance is not a virtue, it's cowardice.
Equality and equity does not mean you balance out past injustices, it means everything is equal. Thats literally where the word comes from EQUAL in EQUALity. You cant have equality by doing more or less for some due to what was done in the past. That is not equality, maybe its a move towards equality sure but as it stand that is not equality. By that logic one can advocate all white people be enslaved to make up for the enslavement of african americans thus balance it out. Or the other way around all white people today have to give african americans their property to "balance it out" is that equality to you? Is that how you balance it out? give less to some and more to others..?
This new planeswalker is the proof. Hes shirtless dude. Show me one shirtless female from the last two years. Show me art depicting an attractive shirtless female. you cant. So that right there is evidence that men are more sexualized at this moment. and you seem to think only women have been sexualized in magics history. Men have been sexualized for as long as the women have and now its only men who are persistently sexualized. Simply because the players dont see the men as sexual objects is a different story but they have been depicted just as naked, just as fit, just as sexualized for the entirety of the existence of magic so by that, how can you make the argument that now wotc is attempting to balance it out by showing less sexy women and more sexy men when both sexes have been portrayed as such since the beginning..?
Well ill point to the racist hiring practices from wotc as described by their own employees on twitter explicitly stating that they are hiring based on color. So thats a pretty blatant form of racism and political pandering that threatens the quality of the game at the very least. and is a threat to me and people who look like me. which is fine i dont mind them doing that but dont do it under the guise of equality and diversity. Its racist and a regression to jim crow like practices. Also when a store refuses to give service to a homosexual or a person of color no one who supports wotc doing this has the right to speak on the matter because they are in favor of it when its racist to some but cry when others are racist towards them. I say any business can do as they please and if you stand against the practice dont be selective or hypocritical.
Well for starters the puritanical art is bland. The complete and utter shunning of Terese Nielson is another one ive already brought up. The inherent hypocrisy that comes with inclusion and diversity ideology is another one ive already brought up. The story line has been pretty bland lately and unsatisfying as compared to before all this started. And i cant imagine their focus on inclusion and diversity hasnt affected game development any since the complete and utter failure of hogaak in modern points to just straight up negligence. The MPL is a joke because instead of supporting their die hard OG players like Reid Duke, LSV, jensen, etc they made a trans woman the face of it. I can keep going man i really can just keep this list going but i think you should get the picture by now unless youre being willfully blind.
You make may good points but youre not seeing the bigger picture of what is actually happening. Many many players have left magic dude. There have been many stores shutting down and very very few new ones opening up. There are you tube channels that focused on mtg that have straight up shut down bc they quit the game. Many stores FNM's were dead prior to horizons. Talk to store owners about how difficult it is to have a store dedicated to MTG and how they hardly see anyone from the old days. Its very obvious how many ppl have left the game and have felt abandoned by wotc. This is akin to many star wars fans now. Its the same tune on a different instrument.
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB