@FlossedBeaver: If there's ever a user here saying explicitly what you insist people are implying (i.e. "That's not what a man/woman should be encouraged to go outside like, hur!" or "Last time I checked, the world still belonged to straight white able blablabla men, this must stop nooow!"), I will gladly back you up. Thus far, you are antagonizing people who are perfectly on board with equal rights, treatment *and* representation for LGBTIQ+, women, muslims, jews, people of color, overweight, underweight, disabled, elderly, you name it. If it's an arbitrary part of your identity (unlike being, say a neo-nazi or a rapist or a serial killer), there is no reason why you should be excluded or treated with less respect than anyone else. Do you recognize how that is not what people here are about?
@FlossedBeaver: If there's ever a user here saying explicitly what you insist people are implying (i.e. "That's not what a man/woman should be encouraged to go outside like, hur!" or "Last time I checked, the world still belonged to straight white able blablabla men, this must stop nooow!"), I will gladly back you up. Thus far, you are antagonizing people who are perfectly on board with equal rights, treatment *and* representation for LGBTIQ+, women, muslims, jews, people of color, overweight, underweight, disabled, elderly, you name it. If it's an arbitrary part of your identity (unlike being, say a neo-nazi or a rapist or a serial killer), there is no reason why you should be excluded or treated with less respect than anyone else. Do you recognize how that is not what people here are about?
Well, they may certainly think they're on board with equity (not equal rights), but by and large people aren't even aware of their own biases. And that's okay, perfectly normal in fact, but even you yourself have expressed more than a little confusion about what constitutes acceptable behavior here. I think a good general rule of thumb around the internet is: if you wouldn't say or do it face-to-face, don't do it at all.
So yeah, it's really easy to call out people for overtly bigoted behavior, but we shouldn't pretend like there aren't larger, underlying concerns that still need to be addressed even when it's not overt. The first step toward solving any problem is simply being aware of its existence, and you don't do that by willfully ignoring even vaguely problematic behavior or language. Maybe you think I'm seeing phantoms everywhere; I would contend that, as an avid reader, generally excellent communicator, and credentialed English teacher I'm more than qualified to make inferences when they arise.
If you feel that I've somehow been antagonistic toward you, I apologize. You seem to me a generally earnest and well-meaning poster, and I was making a good faith effort to respond in kind to what also seemed to be an earnest point of confusion on your part.
@FlossedBeaver: I get that you present yourself as extending an olive branch here (if that's how you say it english) and I really need you to explain how you can say this withoit the intention of antagonizing someone:
[Except that this is a game (or a forum about a game) that has nothing to do with sex, so the way a woman is dressed and/or depicted is not an express invitation to wax prurient.
(Emphasis mine.)
You know that's one heckuva personal thing to even hint at, no matter how eloquent an expression you choose to use, and it flies completely in the face of the whole notion of this forum being a safe space for anyone.
Essentially, I joined this thread going "She haaawt" (which yes, you can criticize, as long as you keep in mind that this is not an actual person) and your response is "Don't you dare ******** to that!"
Yes, I can see the infraction/snip/ban/lock coming at this point. If anyone sees this post prior to that and wants to re-read it, I'll gladly PM a screenshot.
A lock would be tragic, though, as I liked how Yannik being a genuinely loyal sentinel and partner has been discussed, because I do think that hyenas have received an unfairly bad rep in the past.
@FlossedBeaver: I get that you present yourself as extending an olive branch here (if that's how you say it english) and I really need you to explain how you can say this withoit the intention of antagonizing someone:
...
Essentially, I joined this thread going "She haaawt" (which yes, you can criticize, as long as you keep in mind that this is not an actual person) and your response is "Don't you dare ******** to that!"
Well, because A) that wasn't directed at you and B) that's also not what that means.
And, keeping in mind it's not an actual person, that kind of statement still comes with all of the baggage already pointed out by @mikeyG and myself.
Okay, I give. What do you mean by "wax prurient"? And keep in mind that I had to look up the word prurient, as I told you in another thread where you introduced that term to me (yes, english is not my first, nor second language...)
My point also still stands that this game has some intense graphic content which goes way beyond the question of what personal style is or isn't acceptable. I feel like that context is essential when considering the topics that can be discussed on forums about this specific game.
And you know also that when you address one person's stance on a specific issue, everyone sharing that stance is likely to consider themselves addressed, too.
(Edit: Merged this and my next comment, because no response showed up in between and I had the time to remedy at least this double post. Hence my next post after this I will now delete.)
"Wax" just means either to become or to increase in size or intensity, it's not the idiom you're probably thinking of ("whack off"). The moon waxes and wanes; in this thread I've been waxing eloquent, apparently. It's just the way I write, I promise I'm not doing it deliberately to frustrate you. Out of idle curiosity, what is your native language?
As to the text you quoted before, an appropriate analogy might be this: if you pass a scantily clad woman on the street, that is not an invitation to shout catcalls in her general direction.
And you know also that when you address one person's stance on a specific issue, everyone sharing that stance is likely to consider themselves addressed, too.
In the same way that if you make your opinions known about the way a fictional character looks, others who conform to that depiction will likewise feel judged?
My other point likewise stills stands: not all problems are equal. Gratuitous violence may not be okay, but that doesn't mean sexism or exclusionary behavior gets a pass.
"As to the text you quoted before, an appropriate analogy might be this: if you pass a scantily clad woman on the street, that is not an invitation to shout catcalls in her general direction.
I won't even take the liberty and classify someone as 'scantily clad', even in my mind, as long as their genitals are covered, let alone start catcalling. And again, you are talking about actual people. Even if I physically held a copy of Nikara and said out loud that I liked her looks, there would not be any harm done to anyone. What are you doing?
And you know also that when you address one person's stance on a specific issue, everyone sharing that stance is likely to consider themselves addressed, too.
In the same way that if you make your opinions known about the way a fictional character looks, others who conform to that depiction will likewise feel judged?
My other point likewise stills stands: not all problems are equal. Gratuitous violence may not be okay, but that doesn't mean sexism or exclusionary behavior gets a pass.
To the first point: So now you know that I, *one person*, don't like your appearance, and frankly, that's my loss, not yours. A perfect stranger, nonetheless. One whose personal, subjective preferences say absolutely nothing about you. Someone makes a dismissive comment about men with waning hair. Should I see that as an attack on my value as a human being? I don't think so.
To the second point: I made it clear that I wasn't comparing issues, but giving important context. That is not the same thing.
To the first point: So now you know that I, *one person*, don't like your appearance, and frankly, that's my loss, not yours. A perfect stranger, nonetheless. One whose personal, subjective preferences say absolutely nothing about you. Someone makes a dismissive comment about men with wankng hair. Should I see that as an attack on my value as a human being? I don't think so.
The scrutiny that you are subjected to as a member of a privileged class is not the same as what women are subjected to on a daily basis, or have been subjected to historically. We call that a false equivalence. And yes, the opinions of separate individuals do add up, especially when those opinions have been tallying since adolescence.
You have a daughter. I have a daughter, and she is constantly trying to climb into my lap even as I write this response. One day she stands to inherit my entire Magic collection, and I don't want her growing up to think she only has value if she wears garters and dyes her hair pink.
In the same way that if you make your opinions known about the way a fictional character looks, others who conform to that depiction will likewise feel judged?
You cant just put yourself in a picture and claim all the blame for someone else, thats just pathetic.
If someone makes a statement about this particular art, its about THIS particular art and not millions of human beings that "identify" as that artwork, which suddenly feel attacked by someone totally innocent in this.
Its completely overblown to assume any real world issues into this and its an almost malicious try to make enemies of people that dont wish you any harm.
My other point likewise stills stands: not all problems are equal. Gratuitous violence may not be okay, but that doesn't mean sexism or exclusionary behavior gets a pass.
This is art and not a culmination of real world issues.
People should never put themselves in an artwork and take critique on that art as a personal attack on them, thats neither healthy nor fair to the critique.
The world is not a flawless happy place, so theres a major benefit to keep real life out of a fantasy card game as far as possible.
----
So to be perfectly clear, this is art, not a human being. There is no victim here and certainly no "bad human beings" for whatever made up reason someone might believe they are entitled to make such claims.
I feel like any cogent argumentation on my part moving forward is just going to be met with increasingly unsubstantive denial, so I'll just end our discourse with this subtle recommendation: get woke, sir.
You may proceed with your "nuh uh"s and "no, you're wrong!"s.
Wow, okay, so by stating what I do or don't like I am fundamentally shaping the minds of other people, is that it? You linked to a case where an authority figure influenced the people they were charged to teach. I am in no such position when I engage in a public discussion, where everyone can meet me at eyelevel and debate my statements.
"Wax" just means either to become or to increase in size or intensity, it's not the idiom you're probably thinking of ("whack off"). The moon waxes and wanes; in this thread I've been waxing eloquent, apparently. It's just the way I write, I promise I'm not doing it deliberately to frustrate you. Out of idle curiosity, what is your native language?
Okay, so I took that as 'wax' like 'polish', not as 'wax' like 'grow'. And yes, that would than have to be 'wax pruriently' unless there is lyrical shananigans that allow for an adverb to go without the 'ly' at the end, even if common english would demand it.
My first language is german, as I was born and raised in Germany, since you asked. My parents are both from Italy. So you could say those two should be my first two languages, although my italian is actually far worse than my english. I'd also like to note in this whole privilege thing that you addressed, I'm having a hard time calling myself a white man what with all the times other white people have asked me where I "really come from" (including the *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* crap). Not that I think that makes my points any more or less valid, because it shouldn't.
Okay, so I took that as 'wax' like 'polish', not as 'wax' like 'grow'. And yes, that would than have to be 'wax pruriently' unless there is lyrical shananigans that allow for an adverb to go without the 'ly' at the end, even if common english would demand it.
Leave it to FlossedBeaver and others to perpetuate nontraversies and declare themselves "victorious" with flawed logic and data. It is no wonder why I don't post here as often anymore. Never change MTGS...
There's a reason why no one wants to live in Somalia but everyone wants to live in the U.S, a reason why Europe is littered with the monuments of the Roman Empire and in sub-Saharan Africa you find mud huts (Ancient Egyptians were caucasoid), a reason why everyone in the third world is clamoring to get into the first world, a reason why the computer, the automobile, the airplane, the telephone, the locomotive, ocean-faring vessels etc. came out of the West (and these phenomena have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a ~300 year period of time when indigo, cotton, and tobacco were produced cheaper because of "slavery"). The kids in the experiment you cite in the article you linked chose dolls of a certain color because there is a whole slew of things associated with that phenotype (not just social, but genetic things). No amount of "let's all get along kumbaya modern progressive B.S." is going to change that. The immutable laws of nature express themselves in the world around us everyday. We live in a time when it is not acceptable to acknowledge these things, or even question them. But the truth always wins.
mod note: Aside from being horrendously offtopic, and also factually incorrect from multiple standpoints, this post is unacceptable in a multitude of ways.
I'm literally aghast to see that the psychological underpinnings that convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to desegregate is now alternately considered flawed logic and data, or "kumbaya modern progressive B.S." The dramatic reversal of Brown v. Board of Education is basic history (it's universal k-12 curriculum), but I suppose it should come as no surprise that people in this day and age would rather we revert to a pre-Civil Rights Movement mindset, just one more sign of the troubling times we find ourselves in.
I'm curious to know what those reasons why are, apart from the bias implicit to an outmoded, Eurocentric historical model. Most people with any substantive understanding of history would acknowledge that, up until the Colombian Exchange, the Chinese were primarily the world leaders in almost every aspect of the advancement of civilization, and that it was a matter of historical accident (the discovery of silver in South America) that they were derailed for a handful of centuries. Please, explain to me how that fits into your narrative about Western superiority.
Are you going to address the differnce between someone participating in a public discussion on equal footing with everyone else and someone imposing their world view on others from a position of power?
Are you going to address how you heavily implied that people who express their liking gratuitous artwork are automatically people who harass others in real life?
Are you going to address that this game's generally intense graphic content is in direct contradiction of the idea that it's safe for innocent minds, if I may put it that way, to engage in?
Is that what you take from that article? Someone's genetic disposition puts them in a category above or below people with a different genetic disposition? Even if you actually believe that:
How did you contribute to the genetic disposition you ended up being born with?
How did you contribute to being born in the country you were born in?
How does it show in your life that you are superior to people with a genetic disposition that you consider inferior to yours? Are you smarter than every single one of them? Have you accomplished more than every single one of them?
How do you talk about peoples that have been and continue to be exploited and forced into misery through things like sanctions like it is simply their destiny to suffer like that and those who cause all that misery are justified by their chance genetic disposition? If anything, that shows that the supposedly superior people is utterly incapable of handling the power they accumulated responsibly, let alone humanely.
And yes, I get this is a troll account and I hope you're enjoying your popcorn right now. My response is mostly aimed at people who welcome some good points to dismantle the 'but it's just science' argument.
Are you going to address the differnce between someone participating in a public discussion on equal footing with everyone else and someone imposing their world view on others from a position of power?
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Can you rephrase?
Quote from Fan-of-"Fanservice »
Are you going to address how you heavily implied that people who express their liking gratuitous artwork are automatically people who harass others in real life?
That's still really not what I wanted you to take away from that, and I've clarified a number of times now and in several different ways. The point isn't that you're automatically a bad person, or that you're going to engage in harassing behavior in real life, it's that there are very real consequences even in a virtual space, and even when you think your commentary is only being directed at an inanimate expression of real life. People are reading this, and people do feel judged by what you say, whether you realize it or not.
Quote from Fan-of-"Fanservice »
Are you going to address that this game's generally intense graphic content is in direct contradiction of the idea that it's safe for innocent minds, if I may put it that way, to engage in?
I already did. To say that violence and sexism are equal barriers to inclusion, or that they both contribute equally to an an unsafe space, is patently false. Unless it resembles domestic violence, that is.
there are very real consequences even in a virtual space, and even when you think your commentary is only being directed at an inanimate expression of real life.
Failed hyperbole. If thats true then critique would not exists. You just want that we act as sheeps endorsing everthing that wotc do.
Well, they may certainly think they're on board with equity (not equal rights), but by and large people aren't even aware of their own biases. And that's okay, perfectly normal in fact, but even you yourself have expressed more than a little confusion about what constitutes acceptable behavior here. I think a good general rule of thumb around the internet is: if you wouldn't say or do it face-to-face, don't do it at all.
So yeah, it's really easy to call out people for overtly bigoted behavior, but we shouldn't pretend like there aren't larger, underlying concerns that still need to be addressed even when it's not overt. The first step toward solving any problem is simply being aware of its existence, and you don't do that by willfully ignoring even vaguely problematic behavior or language. Maybe you think I'm seeing phantoms everywhere; I would contend that, as an avid reader, generally excellent communicator, and credentialed English teacher I'm more than qualified to make inferences when they arise.
If you feel that I've somehow been antagonistic toward you, I apologize. You seem to me a generally earnest and well-meaning poster, and I was making a good faith effort to respond in kind to what also seemed to be an earnest point of confusion on your part.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
(Emphasis mine.)
You know that's one heckuva personal thing to even hint at, no matter how eloquent an expression you choose to use, and it flies completely in the face of the whole notion of this forum being a safe space for anyone.
Essentially, I joined this thread going "She haaawt" (which yes, you can criticize, as long as you keep in mind that this is not an actual person) and your response is "Don't you dare ******** to that!"
Yes, I can see the infraction/snip/ban/lock coming at this point. If anyone sees this post prior to that and wants to re-read it, I'll gladly PM a screenshot.
A lock would be tragic, though, as I liked how Yannik being a genuinely loyal sentinel and partner has been discussed, because I do think that hyenas have received an unfairly bad rep in the past.
Well, because A) that wasn't directed at you and B) that's also not what that means.
And, keeping in mind it's not an actual person, that kind of statement still comes with all of the baggage already pointed out by @mikeyG and myself.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
My point also still stands that this game has some intense graphic content which goes way beyond the question of what personal style is or isn't acceptable. I feel like that context is essential when considering the topics that can be discussed on forums about this specific game.
And you know also that when you address one person's stance on a specific issue, everyone sharing that stance is likely to consider themselves addressed, too.
(Edit: Merged this and my next comment, because no response showed up in between and I had the time to remedy at least this double post. Hence my next post after this I will now delete.)
As to the text you quoted before, an appropriate analogy might be this: if you pass a scantily clad woman on the street, that is not an invitation to shout catcalls in her general direction.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
In the same way that if you make your opinions known about the way a fictional character looks, others who conform to that depiction will likewise feel judged?
My other point likewise stills stands: not all problems are equal. Gratuitous violence may not be okay, but that doesn't mean sexism or exclusionary behavior gets a pass.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
I won't even take the liberty and classify someone as 'scantily clad', even in my mind, as long as their genitals are covered, let alone start catcalling. And again, you are talking about actual people. Even if I physically held a copy of Nikara and said out loud that I liked her looks, there would not be any harm done to anyone. What are you doing?
Merged part from yet another double post:
To the first point: So now you know that I, *one person*, don't like your appearance, and frankly, that's my loss, not yours. A perfect stranger, nonetheless. One whose personal, subjective preferences say absolutely nothing about you. Someone makes a dismissive comment about men with waning hair. Should I see that as an attack on my value as a human being? I don't think so.
To the second point: I made it clear that I wasn't comparing issues, but giving important context. That is not the same thing.
The harm would be to anyone within earshot who doesn't look like Nikara, then. This may help you to understand why:
https://www.history.com/news/brown-v-board-of-education-doll-experiment
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
The scrutiny that you are subjected to as a member of a privileged class is not the same as what women are subjected to on a daily basis, or have been subjected to historically. We call that a false equivalence. And yes, the opinions of separate individuals do add up, especially when those opinions have been tallying since adolescence.
You have a daughter. I have a daughter, and she is constantly trying to climb into my lap even as I write this response. One day she stands to inherit my entire Magic collection, and I don't want her growing up to think she only has value if she wears garters and dyes her hair pink.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
You cant just put yourself in a picture and claim all the blame for someone else, thats just pathetic.
If someone makes a statement about this particular art, its about THIS particular art and not millions of human beings that "identify" as that artwork, which suddenly feel attacked by someone totally innocent in this.
Its completely overblown to assume any real world issues into this and its an almost malicious try to make enemies of people that dont wish you any harm.
This is art and not a culmination of real world issues.
People should never put themselves in an artwork and take critique on that art as a personal attack on them, thats neither healthy nor fair to the critique.
The world is not a flawless happy place, so theres a major benefit to keep real life out of a fantasy card game as far as possible.
----
So to be perfectly clear, this is art, not a human being. There is no victim here and certainly no "bad human beings" for whatever made up reason someone might believe they are entitled to make such claims.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I feel like any cogent argumentation on my part moving forward is just going to be met with increasingly unsubstantive denial, so I'll just end our discourse with this subtle recommendation: get woke, sir.
You may proceed with your "nuh uh"s and "no, you're wrong!"s.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Wow, okay, so by stating what I do or don't like I am fundamentally shaping the minds of other people, is that it? You linked to a case where an authority figure influenced the people they were charged to teach. I am in no such position when I engage in a public discussion, where everyone can meet me at eyelevel and debate my statements.
Again from my next post, merged into this one:
Okay, so I took that as 'wax' like 'polish', not as 'wax' like 'grow'. And yes, that would than have to be 'wax pruriently' unless there is lyrical shananigans that allow for an adverb to go without the 'ly' at the end, even if common english would demand it.
My first language is german, as I was born and raised in Germany, since you asked. My parents are both from Italy. So you could say those two should be my first two languages, although my italian is actually far worse than my english. I'd also like to note in this whole privilege thing that you addressed, I'm having a hard time calling myself a white man what with all the times other white people have asked me where I "really come from" (including the *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* crap). Not that I think that makes my points any more or less valid, because it shouldn't.
Without even realizing it, yes. I think that's what we've been trying to tell you since the beginning of this conversation.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Your "world" is special.
Good we dont live in that world.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
That's not how you use quotation marks.
Did you read the article I linked? Because that very much is the world we live in, sadly.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
No, I promise I got it right.
Prurient is an adjective.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
EDH DECKS
Currently under construction
MAGECRAFT STORM
-Veyran, Voice of Duality-
Protection from Degeneracy
Do not pray for an easy life. Pray for the strength to endure a difficult one.
Here's an article for you. https://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/Race-differences-in-average-IQ-are-largely-genetic.aspx
There's a reason why no one wants to live in Somalia but everyone wants to live in the U.S, a reason why Europe is littered with the monuments of the Roman Empire and in sub-Saharan Africa you find mud huts (Ancient Egyptians were caucasoid), a reason why everyone in the third world is clamoring to get into the first world, a reason why the computer, the automobile, the airplane, the telephone, the locomotive, ocean-faring vessels etc. came out of the West (and these phenomena have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a ~300 year period of time when indigo, cotton, and tobacco were produced cheaper because of "slavery"). The kids in the experiment you cite in the article you linked chose dolls of a certain color because there is a whole slew of things associated with that phenotype (not just social, but genetic things). No amount of "let's all get along kumbaya modern progressive B.S." is going to change that. The immutable laws of nature express themselves in the world around us everyday. We live in a time when it is not acceptable to acknowledge these things, or even question them. But the truth always wins.
mod note: Aside from being horrendously offtopic, and also factually incorrect from multiple standpoints, this post is unacceptable in a multitude of ways.
I'm curious to know what those reasons why are, apart from the bias implicit to an outmoded, Eurocentric historical model. Most people with any substantive understanding of history would acknowledge that, up until the Colombian Exchange, the Chinese were primarily the world leaders in almost every aspect of the advancement of civilization, and that it was a matter of historical accident (the discovery of silver in South America) that they were derailed for a handful of centuries. Please, explain to me how that fits into your narrative about Western superiority.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Are you going to address the differnce between someone participating in a public discussion on equal footing with everyone else and someone imposing their world view on others from a position of power?
Are you going to address how you heavily implied that people who express their liking gratuitous artwork are automatically people who harass others in real life?
Are you going to address that this game's generally intense graphic content is in direct contradiction of the idea that it's safe for innocent minds, if I may put it that way, to engage in?
Is that what you take from that article? Someone's genetic disposition puts them in a category above or below people with a different genetic disposition? Even if you actually believe that:
How did you contribute to the genetic disposition you ended up being born with?
How did you contribute to being born in the country you were born in?
How does it show in your life that you are superior to people with a genetic disposition that you consider inferior to yours? Are you smarter than every single one of them? Have you accomplished more than every single one of them?
How do you talk about peoples that have been and continue to be exploited and forced into misery through things like sanctions like it is simply their destiny to suffer like that and those who cause all that misery are justified by their chance genetic disposition? If anything, that shows that the supposedly superior people is utterly incapable of handling the power they accumulated responsibly, let alone humanely.
And yes, I get this is a troll account and I hope you're enjoying your popcorn right now. My response is mostly aimed at people who welcome some good points to dismantle the 'but it's just science' argument.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Can you rephrase?
That's still really not what I wanted you to take away from that, and I've clarified a number of times now and in several different ways. The point isn't that you're automatically a bad person, or that you're going to engage in harassing behavior in real life, it's that there are very real consequences even in a virtual space, and even when you think your commentary is only being directed at an inanimate expression of real life. People are reading this, and people do feel judged by what you say, whether you realize it or not.
I already did. To say that violence and sexism are equal barriers to inclusion, or that they both contribute equally to an an unsafe space, is patently false. Unless it resembles domestic violence, that is.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Failed hyperbole. If thats true then critique would not exists. You just want that we act as sheeps endorsing everthing that wotc do.
Not worth my time.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice