I just thought you were making a joke about card art or something, so I did a quick search to see if I could "get it". Now I have a naughty joke about the old man with a small piece of wood in his hand. That sure don't look like a +2/+2 to me, more like a +1/+0, know what I mean?
Anyhoo, I made my controversial "subversive" comment of the day, so let's get back to the topic at hand.
The card itself isn't anything fancy, just a neat little tool for blue decks to use against each other.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
I'm not even going to start touching upon the BLM movement, because we're skating on thin ice here as it is.
*snip a whole lot of stuff*
This post is most likely going to get moderated because it's controversial and barely on-topic.
You're literally the person that brought the subject up, then got a response addressing the very same controversial topic you yourself brought up to begin with. Indignation at a response to the very provocative subjectyou initiated comes across... fascinatingly. Not that's it's particularly SHOCKING a level of indignation, mind you.
A little thought experiment to show you how your initial question sounded. Change your initial post to something involving different dominant and marginalized groups, read it, and think about the type of response IT would garner: "You ever notice how, whenever a character of one race is dominating a character of a different race in the art, it's always a person of color dominating a white person? Why don't we ever see the reverse? It's hard to call it equal representation when the representation isn't actually equal."
Do you see how that just MIGHT be perceived as quite a problematic statement? Switching which dominant and marginalized groups are involved, especially to one with an even longer deeply heated and oppressive historical context, doesn't... change the problematic nature of the statement. At all.
But really. You brought this up to begin with. Did you truly expect no responses the likes of which you received? Honestly?
Next time, it might be a great idea to simply... not interject such "subversive", as you put it, thoughts into a forum about a game in a discussion about a card within that game? And you won't get the kinds of responses you then acted rather indignant towards. So yes. Back to the card at hand, rather than the controversial subject you yourself interjected into the conversation.
Well, my choices are 1) just accept the trend I find troubling and not say anything, or 2) bring it up in a place where people who need to see it will actually see it. My indignation is at someone else's assertation that it's progressive to favor one sex, but not the other. I think it's oppressive either way, and I'm trying to make it clear that that mentality does not sit well with me. And yes, I would say the exact same thing if we were talking about races as opposed to sexes, because being part of one race doesn't give you a right to oppress another race either.
I brought the subject up because I want people to think rather than just nod, accept, and try to assert that oppressing this group is okay now because some people of this group oppressed people of another group in the past. It doesn't matter whether the groups are men and women, whites and blacks, cats and dogs, or apples and oranges. Oppression is wrong, no matter who it's aimed at, no matter who it's coming from, I don't care what excuse is being used to rationalize it.
I find it perplexing that when I say "I'd like men and women both to be represented as dominant some of the time", I'm met with "no, women should be dominant all of the time". We are supposed to be moving past demographic biases like racism and sexism, yet so-called "progressives" are themselves trying to establish and enforce demographic biases. Again, I point to my statement that equality needs to be allowed, not forced.
I have a right to be indignant when I'm told "you should be submissive because you're male", just as much as women have a right to be indignant when they're told they should be submissive because they're female. A "person of color" has a right to be indignant if they were told they should be submissive because of their race. Every person has a right to be indignant at being told what they should or shouldn't be, especially when that decision is based on some physical attribute that, until recent history, they had no control over. I can't change the fact I was born a straight white cis male. And why would I want to? I am what I am. I don't want to change my race, my sex, or my sexuality. But what I am does not determine who I am.
I'm gonna give you a thought experiment. Let's say I'm a black woman. I come into this topic and see a card depicting a black woman being dominated by a white man. That bothers me, because I've seen it a lot since I started playing the game, yet I never see a black woman dominating a white man. I bring this up, I receive a response that says black people being dominated by white people is "progressive" and the other way around is "regressive", I respond with indignancy. Then you come along and tell me I shouldn't interject "subversive" thoughts into a forum about a game in a discussion about a card game. I'm a black woman who feels black women are not being given fair representation in the game's art, and you're saying I'm wrong for bringing that up? You're saying I'm wrong for becoming indignant when someone says I should be submissive because I'm black? Does any of that sound at all okay to you?
By the way, I'm only using the word "subversive" because the responder used it first. Since being "subversive" is apparently okay, I'm being "subversive" towards a "subversive" mindset. You gonna use fire, I'm gonna use it too.
People want me to choose one "side" or the other, the sides in this case being the sexes, and choosing either is sexist to me, so I'm choosing a third path here, one that sits in the middle and sees a problem with both extremes. You're only seeing the part of me that opposes the female extreme, because that's the extreme at work here; if I saw a male extreme here, I'd be arguing in favor of more representation of women and female dominance in the game, because my focus is on being fair. My focus is on making it so everybody can embrace the roles they want, and right now that's not the case. I ask for more instances of male dominance in a game that predominantly leans towards female domination and has for years, and I'm told "no, men shouldn't be dominant". That is not a fair, just, or equal mentality, that is a sexist mentality, just as sexist as if it was the other way around. How about instead we say "Both men and women can be dominant or submissive"? That's fair and equal. Same goes for race, orientation, whatever.
And I find it funny that nobody addresses the complications that trans people add to the equation. In my system, trans people are simply people, and they have a right to be dominant or submissive as much as anyone else. But if the issue is one hinging on fundamental differences in gender, then what's your ruling on these people? Does a trans man lose his "right" to be dominant because he stopped being a woman? Funny how almost nobody ever thinks of how the feminist and LGBT "causes" might occasionally grind against each other.
Frankly, I don't care if I get responses that make me indignant. I care about being able to speak my mind freely, indignant or not. If you're gonna say something that makes me indignant, then go ahead and say it. Speak your mind, and I'll speak mine. That's what Freedom of Speech is all about.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
I'm not even going to start touching upon the BLM movement, because we're skating on thin ice here as it is.
*snip a whole lot of stuff*
This post is most likely going to get moderated because it's controversial and barely on-topic.
You're literally the person that brought the subject up, then got a response addressing the very same controversial topic you yourself brought up to begin with. Indignation at a response to the very provocative subjectyou initiated comes across... fascinatingly. Not that's it's particularly SHOCKING a level of indignation, mind you.
A little thought experiment to show you how your initial question sounded. Change your initial post to something involving different dominant and marginalized groups, read it, and think about the type of response IT would garner: "You ever notice how, whenever a character of one race is dominating a character of a different race in the art, it's always a person of color dominating a white person? Why don't we ever see the reverse? It's hard to call it equal representation when the representation isn't actually equal."
Do you see how that just MIGHT be perceived as quite a problematic statement? Switching which dominant and marginalized groups are involved, especially to one with an even longer deeply heated and oppressive historical context, doesn't... change the problematic nature of the statement. At all.
But really. You brought this up to begin with. Did you truly expect no responses the likes of which you received? Honestly?
Next time, it might be a great idea to simply... not interject such "subversive", as you put it, thoughts into a forum about a game in a discussion about a card within that game? And you won't get the kinds of responses you then acted rather indignant towards. So yes. Back to the card at hand, rather than the controversial subject you yourself interjected into the conversation.
Well, my choices are 1) just accept the trend I find troubling and not say anything, or 2) bring it up in a place where people who need to see it will actually see it. My indignation is at someone else's assertation that it's progressive to favor one sex, but not the other. I think it's oppressive either way, and I'm trying to make it clear that that mentality does not sit well with me. And yes, I would say the exact same thing if we were talking about races as opposed to sexes, because being part of one race doesn't give you a right to oppress another race either.
I brought the subject up because I want people to think rather than just nod, accept, and try to assert that oppressing this group is okay now because some people of this group oppressed people of another group in the past. It doesn't matter whether the groups are men and women, whites and blacks, cats and dogs, or apples and oranges. Oppression is wrong, no matter who it's aimed at, no matter who it's coming from, I don't care what excuse is being used to rationalize it.
I find it perplexing that when I say "I'd like men and women both to be represented as dominant some of the time", I'm met with "no, women should be dominant all of the time". We are supposed to be moving past demographic biases like racism and sexism, yet so-called "progressives" are themselves trying to establish and enforce demographic biases. Again, I point to my statement that equality needs to be allowed, not forced.
I have a right to be indignant when I'm told "you should be submissive because you're male", just as much as women have a right to be indignant when they're told they should be submissive because they're female. A "person of color" has a right to be indignant if they were told they should be submissive because of their race. Every person has a right to be indignant at being told what they should or shouldn't be, especially when that decision is based on some physical attribute that, until recent history, they had no control over. I can't change the fact I was born a straight white cis male. And why would I want to? I am what I am. I don't want to change my race, my sex, or my sexuality. But what I am does not determine who I am.
I'm gonna give you a thought experiment. Let's say I'm a black woman. I come into this topic and see a card depicting a black woman being dominated by a white man. That bothers me, because I've seen it a lot since I started playing the game, yet I never see a black woman dominating a white man. I bring this up, I receive a response that says black people being dominated by white people is "progressive" and the other way around is "regressive", I respond with indignancy. Then you come along and tell me I shouldn't interject "subversive" thoughts into a forum about a game in a discussion about a card game. I'm a black woman who feels black women are not being given fair representation in the game's art, and you're saying I'm wrong for bringing that up? You're saying I'm wrong for becoming indignant when someone says I should be submissive because I'm black? Does any of that sound at all okay to you?
By the way, I'm only using the word "subversive" because the responder used it first. Since being "subversive" is apparently okay, I'm being "subversive" towards a "subversive" mindset. You gonna use fire, I'm gonna use it too.
People want me to choose one "side" or the other, the sides in this case being the sexes, and choosing either is sexist to me, so I'm choosing a third path here, one that sits in the middle and sees a problem with both extremes. You're only seeing the part of me that opposes the female extreme, because that's the extreme at work here; if I saw a male extreme here, I'd be arguing in favor of more representation of women and female dominance in the game, because my focus is on being fair. My focus is on making it so everybody can embrace the roles they want, and right now that's not the case. I ask for more instances of male dominance in a game that predominantly leans towards female domination and has for years, and I'm told "no, men shouldn't be dominant". That is not a fair, just, or equal mentality, that is a sexist mentality, just as sexist as if it was the other way around. How about instead we say "Both men and women can be dominant or submissive"? That's fair and equal. Same goes for race, orientation, whatever.
And I find it funny that nobody addresses the complications that trans people add to the equation. In my system, trans people are simply people, and they have a right to be dominant or submissive as much as anyone else. But if the issue is one hinging on fundamental differences in gender, then what's your ruling on these people? Does a trans man lose his "right" to be dominant because he stopped being a woman? Funny how almost nobody ever thinks of how the feminist and LGBT "causes" might occasionally grind against each other.
Frankly, I don't care if I get responses that make me indignant. I care about being able to speak my mind freely, indignant or not. If you're gonna say something that makes me indignant, than go ahead and say it. Speak your mind, and I'll speak mine. That's what Freedom of Speech is all about.
Dude seriously. No one wants to hear your audition for America's Next Top Victim.
Public Mod Note
(bobthefunny):
Warn - Flaming/Trolling
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Protection from reason (Decadent_Creed can't be blocked, targeted, dealt damage, or enchanted by reason.)
is anyone else tired of the best counterspells only hosing blue? this is 2-3 recently. blueis supposed to GET counters, not be the easiest target for them
Blue control players getting a taste of their old medicine. I'll allow it, even if I still absolutely hate Mana Leak and anyone who played it last time it was in standard.
I will however point out that your statement is incredibly sexist, and demonstrates the problem I have with the feminist movement. They are basically trying to replace one kind of sexism with another.
And yet, here you are, still as sexist as ever. They're clearly not doing a very good job.
Feminists "overshoot" equality because truly pushing for mere equality has never been enough. If they shoot for femme superiority to counter backlash from people like you, maybe we'll end up in the middle. Men have been saying for thousands of years that they're superior. Maybe if women win the right to start saying that they're superior too, we'll all really be equal in our claim to superiority.
Unlike You Women, I'm Not Overly Emotional and Don't Care About the Drama of Identity Politics: a novella by Manite
Really seems like this thread about Mystical Dispute has turned into… quite the dispute.
Upset about the art in Magic? Aren't willing to play as Jaina in Hearthstone because you can't see her cleavage? Just go play Shadowverse! Plenty of cleavage there. For every piece of media that doesn't cater to your demographic specifically, there are 10 more that do. How's that for equality?
Manite, have you ever considered the possibility that depictions of women dominating men in magic art might help men to empathize better with women and how much the experience of being dominated sucks? Something that those men normally would never even have cross their minds because, in real life, they don't have to worry about being dominated over due to their sex (dare I say, something of a privilege of theirs)? If the art bothers you, maybe the solution isn't to have an equal proportion of artworks where men dominate women and vice versa, but rather, to turn your attention to the actual impact our sexist society has against the female sex and be bothered by that. If seeing this artwork makes you this upset, just try to imagine yourself, if possible, in a woman's shoes for a moment. Not for the sake of making an analogy of how your experiences are the same and therefore your grievances as a man in this situation are valid and right, but to try to recognize that your experiences are not the same.
Your idea of equal representations of domination of each sex stems from a notion of fairness which is utterly abstracted from the context of sex-based disparity in our society, so much so that it becomes in practice unfair. If you want to see media portrayals of men dominating women, congratulations, I'd like to introduce you to the entire history of art. And not just old art, it continues to pervade our culture every moment. You're trying to push MTG to be more like the rest of that sexist culture (to regress), because it has consciously chosen to make subversive commentary on that culture instead. The effect of that commentary would dissipate if they depicted just as many conventional sex-based domination themes as the subversive ones, because in that case the sex of the characters depicted could just as well be ignored. And the whole point of it all is, it shouldn't be ignored, because it is an issue.
Right, this argument has gone on long enough. It's clear that you people are among those who think an eye for an eye is an acceptable way of balancing past injustices. You won't be satisfied unless we spend a good few centuries with men suffering the way women did in centuries past, even though men today didn't cause the suffering back then and do not deserve to suffer for it. Well I'm done talking about it. I'm not budging on my stance. A fair society comes from people of all sexes, races, orientations, etc. getting actual equal treatment, not reverse privileges for certain groups. I started the argument by bringing up a controversial opinion, and now I'm finishing it. It's over. Anyone else who brings it up will be reported and blocked. Now get back to talking about the card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with putting words in others mouths or stifle/censor others who have a different opinion for also expressing it. I don't think anyone here is arguing for actual men to suffer, to make up for a history of oppression, nor are praising actual oppression of any kind regardless of the instigator or the victim. I think we can separate the reality from fantasy depictions, otherwise where is the outrage for a card called Murder and even if people can't there are plenty of depictions of males being dominant in Magic perhaps if not physically dominating women but dominant none the less. Hell the ruler of this plane is a King though I'm sure there will also be strong female characters as well which doesn't effect my self worth or make me feel minimized in anyway.
ITT: another confused soul who doesn't understand the difference between equality and equity.
Equal =/= fair. Go ahead and report me, Manite. I've already reported every last post of yours in this thread, and I strongly recommend that everyone else do so as well. Suffice it to say, this forum is not the designated soap-box for your bigoted trolling antics.
Manite does have the striking habit of clogging literally every thread on this forum with unintelligent, self-important spam posts. This community and the quality of discussion could really be improved without that.
My own head-canon is that the only reason that this thread hasn't been moderated yet is that having an argument in a thread about a card called "Mystical Dispute" is terribly appropriate.
Manite does have the striking habit of clogging literally every thread on this forum with unintelligent, self-important spam posts. This community and the quality of discussion could really be improved without that.
We should be careful to draw a line between combating bigotry and cyberbullying. I have no vested interest in driving someone away from this forum who is otherwise capable of discussing Magic.
Manite does have the striking habit of clogging literally every thread on this forum with unintelligent, self-important spam posts. This community and the quality of discussion could really be improved without that.
We should be careful to draw a line between combating bigotry and cyberbullying. I have no vested interest in driving someone away from this forum who is otherwise capable of discussing Magic.
Are there still mods? Why haven't any of them stepped in? The fact that this red pill manifesto has been left up for an entire day is a blemish on the website. This used to be a safe, welcoming community.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Protection from reason (Decadent_Creed can't be blocked, targeted, dealt damage, or enchanted by reason.)
My own head-canon is that the only reason that this thread hasn't been moderated yet is that having an argument in a thread about a card called "Mystical Dispute" is terribly appropriate.
Anyhoo, I made my controversial "subversive" comment of the day, so let's get back to the topic at hand.
The card itself isn't anything fancy, just a neat little tool for blue decks to use against each other.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
You're literally the person that brought the subject up, then got a response addressing the very same controversial topic you yourself brought up to begin with. Indignation at a response to the very provocative subject you initiated comes across... fascinatingly. Not that's it's particularly SHOCKING a level of indignation, mind you.
A little thought experiment to show you how your initial question sounded. Change your initial post to something involving different dominant and marginalized groups, read it, and think about the type of response IT would garner: "You ever notice how, whenever a character of one race is dominating a character of a different race in the art, it's always a person of color dominating a white person? Why don't we ever see the reverse? It's hard to call it equal representation when the representation isn't actually equal."
Do you see how that just MIGHT be perceived as quite a problematic statement? Switching which dominant and marginalized groups are involved, especially to one with an even longer deeply heated and oppressive historical context, doesn't... change the problematic nature of the statement. At all.
But really. You brought this up to begin with. Did you truly expect no responses the likes of which you received? Honestly?
Next time, it might be a great idea to simply... not interject such "subversive", as you put it, thoughts into a forum about a game in a discussion about a card within that game? And you won't get the kinds of responses you then acted rather indignant towards. So yes. Back to the card at hand, rather than the controversial subject you yourself interjected into the conversation.
Well, my choices are 1) just accept the trend I find troubling and not say anything, or 2) bring it up in a place where people who need to see it will actually see it. My indignation is at someone else's assertation that it's progressive to favor one sex, but not the other. I think it's oppressive either way, and I'm trying to make it clear that that mentality does not sit well with me. And yes, I would say the exact same thing if we were talking about races as opposed to sexes, because being part of one race doesn't give you a right to oppress another race either.
I brought the subject up because I want people to think rather than just nod, accept, and try to assert that oppressing this group is okay now because some people of this group oppressed people of another group in the past. It doesn't matter whether the groups are men and women, whites and blacks, cats and dogs, or apples and oranges. Oppression is wrong, no matter who it's aimed at, no matter who it's coming from, I don't care what excuse is being used to rationalize it.
I find it perplexing that when I say "I'd like men and women both to be represented as dominant some of the time", I'm met with "no, women should be dominant all of the time". We are supposed to be moving past demographic biases like racism and sexism, yet so-called "progressives" are themselves trying to establish and enforce demographic biases. Again, I point to my statement that equality needs to be allowed, not forced.
I have a right to be indignant when I'm told "you should be submissive because you're male", just as much as women have a right to be indignant when they're told they should be submissive because they're female. A "person of color" has a right to be indignant if they were told they should be submissive because of their race. Every person has a right to be indignant at being told what they should or shouldn't be, especially when that decision is based on some physical attribute that, until recent history, they had no control over. I can't change the fact I was born a straight white cis male. And why would I want to? I am what I am. I don't want to change my race, my sex, or my sexuality. But what I am does not determine who I am.
I'm gonna give you a thought experiment. Let's say I'm a black woman. I come into this topic and see a card depicting a black woman being dominated by a white man. That bothers me, because I've seen it a lot since I started playing the game, yet I never see a black woman dominating a white man. I bring this up, I receive a response that says black people being dominated by white people is "progressive" and the other way around is "regressive", I respond with indignancy. Then you come along and tell me I shouldn't interject "subversive" thoughts into a forum about a game in a discussion about a card game. I'm a black woman who feels black women are not being given fair representation in the game's art, and you're saying I'm wrong for bringing that up? You're saying I'm wrong for becoming indignant when someone says I should be submissive because I'm black? Does any of that sound at all okay to you?
By the way, I'm only using the word "subversive" because the responder used it first. Since being "subversive" is apparently okay, I'm being "subversive" towards a "subversive" mindset. You gonna use fire, I'm gonna use it too.
People want me to choose one "side" or the other, the sides in this case being the sexes, and choosing either is sexist to me, so I'm choosing a third path here, one that sits in the middle and sees a problem with both extremes. You're only seeing the part of me that opposes the female extreme, because that's the extreme at work here; if I saw a male extreme here, I'd be arguing in favor of more representation of women and female dominance in the game, because my focus is on being fair. My focus is on making it so everybody can embrace the roles they want, and right now that's not the case. I ask for more instances of male dominance in a game that predominantly leans towards female domination and has for years, and I'm told "no, men shouldn't be dominant". That is not a fair, just, or equal mentality, that is a sexist mentality, just as sexist as if it was the other way around. How about instead we say "Both men and women can be dominant or submissive"? That's fair and equal. Same goes for race, orientation, whatever.
And I find it funny that nobody addresses the complications that trans people add to the equation. In my system, trans people are simply people, and they have a right to be dominant or submissive as much as anyone else. But if the issue is one hinging on fundamental differences in gender, then what's your ruling on these people? Does a trans man lose his "right" to be dominant because he stopped being a woman? Funny how almost nobody ever thinks of how the feminist and LGBT "causes" might occasionally grind against each other.
Frankly, I don't care if I get responses that make me indignant. I care about being able to speak my mind freely, indignant or not. If you're gonna say something that makes me indignant, then go ahead and say it. Speak your mind, and I'll speak mine. That's what Freedom of Speech is all about.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
Dude seriously. No one wants to hear your audition for America's Next Top Victim.
I don’t really want to get into this, but there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who profit off of those auditions.
Blue control players getting a taste of their old medicine. I'll allow it, even if I still absolutely hate Mana Leak and anyone who played it last time it was in standard.
And yet, here you are, still as sexist as ever. They're clearly not doing a very good job.
Feminists "overshoot" equality because truly pushing for mere equality has never been enough. If they shoot for femme superiority to counter backlash from people like you, maybe we'll end up in the middle. Men have been saying for thousands of years that they're superior. Maybe if women win the right to start saying that they're superior too, we'll all really be equal in our claim to superiority.
Right, because when someone calls you sexist, they're oppressing you, but when you call a woman a *****, you're just expressing your feelings.
Unlike You Women, I'm Not Overly Emotional and Don't Care About the Drama of Identity Politics: a novella by Manite
Really seems like this thread about Mystical Dispute has turned into… quite the dispute.
Upset about the art in Magic? Aren't willing to play as Jaina in Hearthstone because you can't see her cleavage? Just go play Shadowverse! Plenty of cleavage there. For every piece of media that doesn't cater to your demographic specifically, there are 10 more that do. How's that for equality?
Your idea of equal representations of domination of each sex stems from a notion of fairness which is utterly abstracted from the context of sex-based disparity in our society, so much so that it becomes in practice unfair. If you want to see media portrayals of men dominating women, congratulations, I'd like to introduce you to the entire history of art. And not just old art, it continues to pervade our culture every moment. You're trying to push MTG to be more like the rest of that sexist culture (to regress), because it has consciously chosen to make subversive commentary on that culture instead. The effect of that commentary would dissipate if they depicted just as many conventional sex-based domination themes as the subversive ones, because in that case the sex of the characters depicted could just as well be ignored. And the whole point of it all is, it shouldn't be ignored, because it is an issue.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
Oh no.
Will you also screenshot our comments?
For posterity?
Equal =/= fair. Go ahead and report me, Manite. I've already reported every last post of yours in this thread, and I strongly recommend that everyone else do so as well. Suffice it to say, this forum is not the designated soap-box for your bigoted trolling antics.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
We should be careful to draw a line between combating bigotry and cyberbullying. I have no vested interest in driving someone away from this forum who is otherwise capable of discussing Magic.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Are there still mods? Why haven't any of them stepped in? The fact that this red pill manifesto has been left up for an entire day is a blemish on the website. This used to be a safe, welcoming community.
Ironic enough to make you choke.
We'll be looking over the current thread, and we'll re-open after it's been given some time to cool off.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek