But it does mean she is associated with a racist card which means public opinion can shift toward that character.
You're missing the context that makes Crusade an issue is not just its name, but the intersection of its name and effect, a relationship that has been outlined a few times now. Crusade as a word has legitimate uses as well as uses that evoke a very specific meaning - the intersection of card name and ability draws the connotation too close to the specific (racially charged) meaning and away from the general (relatively neutral) definition.
To exclude the other cards with the words Crusading, Crusader, or Crusade is wrong. As the word Crusade and Crusader are never being used for their secondary definition
Crusader
2. a person who campaigns vigorously for political, social, or religious change; a campaigner.
"crusaders for early detection and treatment of mental illness"
Crusade
2.lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue.
"he crusaded against gambling in the 1950s"
They instead refer to a military expedition or a fighter within a crusade. Turns out most MTG cards with the aforementioned words fit the first definition instead because MTG is a game about two wizards/duelists/planeswalkers battling it out with spells and armies and wonderous artifacts.
If you want evidence of the secondary definition in action, that is on Wizards own part and those around them that advocate the banning of perceived racist cards.
Yes, these are symptoms of the larger issue of racism in the fandom. Not addressing it wasn't going to make it go away, and though I have my own issues with WotC's chosen direction, I ultimately think the conversation they started is a net benefit. In part because we can identify that people are profiteering off cards with racist connotations.
The bigger issue is actually addressing those cards. By doing so they are now worth more because Wizards called attention to them and made a large deal out of it. Letting them fade into obscurity is actually better as nobody would have cared for these cards except for a small minority of the playerbase.
To me its frankly disgusting how political discussion has seeped to the forefront of the game. I played MTG to escape it, not have it shoved in my face. In any other time prior to this event, this thread would be locked for being off topic when relating to a game for preadolescence/pre-teen/tween aka children. Oh and before that last bit is mistaken for "think of the children", no, the kids are plenty intelligent enough to make decisions on their own. My beef with it stems from how a toy company is making these sociopolitical statements for brownie points among the masses during a very emotionally charged time.
But it does mean she is associated with a racist card which means public opinion can shift toward that character.
You're missing the context that makes Crusade an issue is not just its name, but the intersection of its name and effect, a relationship that has been outlined a few times now. Crusade as a word has legitimate uses as well as uses that evoke a very specific meaning - the intersection of card name and ability draws the connotation too close to the specific (racially charged) meaning and away from the general (relatively neutral) definition.
To exclude the other cards with the words Crusading, Crusader, or Crusade is wrong. As the word Crusade and Crusader are never being used for their secondary definition
Crusader
2. a person who campaigns vigorously for political, social, or religious change; a campaigner.
"crusaders for early detection and treatment of mental illness"
Crusade
2.lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue.
"he crusaded against gambling in the 1950s"
They instead refer to a military expedition or a fighter within a crusade. Turns out most MTG cards with the aforementioned words fit the first definition instead because MTG is a game about two wizards/duelists/planeswalkers battling it out with spells and armies and wonderous artifacts.
If you want evidence of the secondary definition in action, that is on Wizards own part and those around them that advocate the banning of perceived racist cards.
Yes, these are symptoms of the larger issue of racism in the fandom. Not addressing it wasn't going to make it go away, and though I have my own issues with WotC's chosen direction, I ultimately think the conversation they started is a net benefit. In part because we can identify that people are profiteering off cards with racist connotations.
The bigger issue is actually addressing those cards. By doing so they are now worth more because Wizards called attention to them and made a large deal out of it. Letting them fade into obscurity is actually better as nobody would have cared for these cards except for a small minority of the playerbase.
To me its frankly disgusting how political discussion has seeped to the forefront of the game. I played MTG to escape it, not have it shoved in my face. In any other time prior to this event, this thread would be locked for being off topic when relating to a game for preadolescence/pre-teen/tween aka children. Oh and before that last bit is mistaken for "think of the children", no, the kids are plenty intelligent enough to make decisions on their own. My beef with it stems from how a toy company is making these sociopolitical statements for brownie points among the masses during a very emotionally charged time.
I find it curious that you quoted him, and then didn’t acknowledge that he said it’s a combination of name + effect. Something called Crusade, that actively promotes white superiority in game terms, is just a little too on the nose. Do the other cards you mentioned (“crusader” et al) have similar effects?
As for escaping the political conversation, consider yourself blessed. Or privileged, or lucky, or whatever. You get to go home and sleep tonight without worrying about dying in your sleep from a no-knock warrant, a luxury not everyone gets - ask those people if they want to take a break from political conversation so we can fantasize about cardboard.
But it does mean she is associated with a racist card which means public opinion can shift toward that character.
I'm not sure I'd hold my breath on that one, I think it's entirely unrealistic that Elspeth becomes widely associated with racism.
To exclude the other cards with the words Crusading, Crusader, or Crusade is wrong. As the word Crusade and Crusader are never being used for their secondary definition
Crusader
2. a person who campaigns vigorously for political, social, or religious change; a campaigner.
"crusaders for early detection and treatment of mental illness"
Crusade
2.lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue.
"he crusaded against gambling in the 1950s"
They instead refer to a military expedition or a fighter within a crusade. Turns out most MTG cards with the aforementioned words fit the first definition instead because MTG is a game about two wizards/duelists/planeswalkers battling it out with spells and armies and wonderous artifacts.
If you want evidence of the secondary definition in action, that is on Wizards own part and those around them that advocate the banning of perceived racist cards.
Look, you seem to really want to play a semantic game over this, and I just don't care to. WotC has said their decision was based on the relationship between the card name and its effects that has unfortunate racial connotations. I'm not sure what else I can say, I've already said I don't think WotC made the perfect call on this whole thing, all I can do is point you to their own justification.
The bigger issue is actually addressing those cards. By doing so they are now worth more because Wizards called attention to them and made a large deal out of it. Letting them fade into obscurity is actually better as nobody would have cared for these cards except for a small minority of the playerbase.
And I maintain that letting racially-charged things to fade away without acknowledgement and ownership is irresponsible on several levels and while I have critiques of WotC's strategy here, I do appreciate that they are starting conversations in the fandom. They're long overdue.
To me its frankly disgusting how political discussion has seeped to the forefront of the game. I played MTG to escape it, not have it shoved in my face.
Imagine for a moment what it would be like to never really get to escape those discussions or their ramifications. Your discomfort and frustration are valid, I hope they can serve as a gateway to empathy for people impacted by bigotry in the community.
In any other time prior to this event, this thread would be locked for being off topic when relating to a game for preadolescence/pre-teen/tween aka children. Oh and before that last bit is mistaken for "think of the children", no, the kids are plenty intelligent enough to make decisions on their own. My beef with it stems from how a toy company is making these sociopolitical statements for brownie points among the masses during a very emotionally charged time.
WotC's purposes aside, why do you have a problem with the game trying to promote a more inclusive fandom?
Also, since it's apropos, since the last thread started, I've been having conversations with several posters/lurkers via PMs. One of them mentioned that playgroups in their area were seeing a steep decline in younger players specifically because of the toxic culture perpetuated by older players. It's anecdotal, but it squares with what I'm seeing locally as well as in other communities. There's a generational aspect to this, younger players are just less likely to engage with a game and fandom that has a culture of exclusionary behavior. It's not unrealistic to suspect WotC is aware of that trend if it really exists (I haven't seen specific surveys to indicate it, but we know WotC conducts such surveys so if the trend exist that younger players feel less comfortable in the fandom, WotC likely knows) and a lot of their sociopolitical actions over the past few years are a response to that.
It's not "changing" the definition. The qualification that racism is necessarily systemic is a decision which was made collectively by intellectuals in their discussion of the issue of racism. It follows naturally as a consequence of analyzing the social issue in which merely defining it as prejudice would not adequately describe or explain many phenomena. Racial inequities in society are a product of racism, but it is reductive to say they are a product of some individual's prejudices against a given race. The causality of racial inequities is just more complicated than coming down to just prejudice, they would exist and continue to exist even if every individual did not hold those prejudices. Insofar as "racism" is a word which is employed for the express purpose of defining a social problem, narrowing its definition to prejudice would make it fail to define the problem. It is a standard practice in intellectual discourse to refine language as needed by the subtleties involved in the topic at hand. Defining racism as only prejudice also opens to door to white people complaining about prejudice directed toward them, which is not a comparable social issue to solve (in fact, it is relatively trivial in importance) and needlessly derails the discussion. The technical use of the word "racism" by intellectuals might be more difficult to understand for uneducated people who are accustomed to their colloquial usage. But if someone takes the trouble to explain it to them, one would hope they'd listen and try to understand.
For many people, the term "racism" encompasses everything from what you've described as racial prejudice to full-fledged systems of oppression. It's an umbrella term that doesn't only apply to societies or systems, but actors on any part of the societal scale. Imo this should be taken as a fact of the world we live in, if you like it or not. When it comes to language, most people don't care about how certain terms are defined by intellectuals - they use them intuitively, based on how they've seem them used by others throughout their lives. Going against this is very difficult, especially when talking about a issue as big as racism. That's why I'm not sure if it's helpful to flat-out label the colloquial definition of racism as wrong. It leads to communication issues way too easily.
I've seen many instances where "racism" is used interchangeably with "systemic racism", basically as a snyonym. This can understandably cause confusion (and, by extension, frustration). Because if both both words mean the same - why specify? And if the only two options are personal prejudice and institutionalized racism, where do you put small-to-mid scale organizations?
I can understand that many activists may not be happy with using "systemic racism" because it's a word with less overall impact and makes people feel like they're not part of the problem. Almost no one wants to be a racist, so using just "racism" is suited better for grabbing people's attention. However, once you get past this initial stage of getting people involved (for better or for worse), I think a more granular use of language is very much beneficial. I've seen a lot of Twitter and forum threads derail because of the "reverse racism doesn't exist, educate yourself" response. For many activists, that's where they draw the line - they don't want to debate about the meaning. But to people on the other side, responses like this give off strong anti-vaxxer/flat-earther vibes. As a result, vocal activists are often accused of "only going by their ideology", "pushing an agenda" or being part of a marxist/socialist/communist conspiracy (which I find absolutely hilarious btw).
If you want to have meaningful conversations with people, the mutual battle line demarcations have to be overcome somehow. I understand that many minority actors are not OK with constantly being asked to make the initial effort that has a high chance of not paying off anyway (hence the "it's not my job to educate you" stance). But I don't think insisting on redefining an umbrella term to only have a very specific meaning is a winning strategy, really.
I've seen a lot of Twitter and forum threads derail because of the "reverse racism doesn't exist, educate yourself" response. For many activists, that's where they draw the line - they don't want to debate about the meaning. But to people on the other side, responses like this give off strong anti-vaxxer/flat-earther vibes. As a result, vocal activists are often accused of "only going by their ideology", "pushing an agenda" or being part of a marxist/socialist/communist conspiracy (which I find absolutely hilarious btw).
Yes, it’s more than a little frustrating to have meaningful conversation derailed - purposefully and repetitiously - by the same bad faith linguistic arguments. We’re rapidly approaching a point, if not well past it, where nobody is owed an explanation as to why “All Lives Matter” is not just inherently racist, but deliberately so. Arguments over the exact definition of racism, which should be more of an informative exercise than debate, only serve to distract from the real conversations that need to be had right now. To finger-wag our potential dismissiveness assumes a certain level of good faith from both parties that is just seldom there.
I jumped the gun on that one. I thought that the thread was locked but glad it wasn’t. I invent was to involve an intellectual conversation about this action, and I’m glad for the most part it stayed that way. I believe names of cards should be removed and I’m sure they weren’t thought of that way and no intended harm was well intended. So they are trying to correct what they feel was a wrong doing on their post.
As for escaping the political conversation, consider yourself blessed. Or privileged, or lucky, or whatever. You get to go home and sleep tonight without worrying about dying in your sleep from a no-knock warrant, a luxury not everyone gets - ask those people if they want to take a break from political conversation so we can fantasize about cardboard.
Are you for real? I live below the poverty line. Don't preach to me about how lucky/blessed/privileged I am.
Imagine for a moment what it would be like to never really get to escape those discussions or their ramifications. Your discomfort and frustration are valid, I hope they can serve as a gateway to empathy for people impacted by bigotry in the community.
I have empathy for people. I don't have empathy for faceless corporations that shallowly pretend to care about you or try to be your friend.
As for your last point about less younger people showing up, you can blame it on a "toxic culture", I blame it on how Wizard's is whale hunting and pricing out people who would be legit interested in their game. Other card games are on the market and they tend to be cheaper than what Wizards's offer. Also more kids are likely to play Pokemon or Yugioh or Legend of Runeterra because its bright and happy generally simpler to understand compared to MTG. Wizard's knows this to, they know that things like Hearthstone tend to attract a larger audience than the grungy and dark elements that the game was founded on.
As for escaping the political conversation, consider yourself blessed. Or privileged, or lucky, or whatever. You get to go home and sleep tonight without worrying about dying in your sleep from a no-knock warrant, a luxury not everyone gets - ask those people if they want to take a break from political conversation so we can fantasize about cardboard.
Are you for real? I live below the poverty line. Don't preach to me about how lucky/blessed/privileged I am.
You’re fairly astute at linguistics, so I can only assume that your decision to say “I live below the poverty line” instead of “I’m black” was deliberate and purposeful. Did you catch the full context of my post?
You’re fairly astute at linguistics, so I can only assume that your decision to say “I live below the poverty line” instead of “I’m black” was deliberate and purposeful. Did you catch the full context of my post?
Because telling you my skin color instead only proves that I would've received brownie points for saying something that is topical and favorable of the current times. I want to be seen as a person, not as what the cover my book defines me as.
It's not "changing" the definition. The qualification that racism is necessarily systemic is a decision which was made collectively by intellectuals in their discussion of the issue of racism. It follows naturally as a consequence of analyzing the social issue in which merely defining it as prejudice would not adequately describe or explain many phenomena. Racial inequities in society are a product of racism, but it is reductive to say they are a product of some individual's prejudices against a given race. The causality of racial inequities is just more complicated than coming down to just prejudice, they would exist and continue to exist even if every individual did not hold those prejudices. Insofar as "racism" is a word which is employed for the express purpose of defining a social problem, narrowing its definition to prejudice would make it fail to define the problem. It is a standard practice in intellectual discourse to refine language as needed by the subtleties involved in the topic at hand. Defining racism as only prejudice also opens to door to white people complaining about prejudice directed toward them, which is not a comparable social issue to solve (in fact, it is relatively trivial in importance) and needlessly derails the discussion. The technical use of the word "racism" by intellectuals might be more difficult to understand for uneducated people who are accustomed to their colloquial usage. But if someone takes the trouble to explain it to them, one would hope they'd listen and try to understand.
For many people, the term "racism" encompasses everything from what you've described as racial prejudice to full-fledged systems of oppression. It's an umbrella term that doesn't only apply to societies or systems, but actors on any part of the societal scale. Imo this should be taken as a fact of the world we live in, if you like it or not. When it comes to language, most people don't care about how certain terms are defined by intellectuals - they use them intuitively, based on how they've seem them used by others throughout their lives. Going against this is very difficult, especially when talking about a issue as big as racism. That's why I'm not sure if it's helpful to flat-out label the colloquial definition of racism as wrong. It leads to communication issues way too easily.
I've seen many instances where "racism" is used interchangeably with "systemic racism", basically as a snyonym. This can understandably cause confusion (and, by extension, frustration). Because if both both words mean the same - why specify? And if the only two options are personal prejudice and institutionalized racism, where do you put small-to-mid scale organizations?
I can understand that many activists may not be happy with using "systemic racism" because it's a word with less overall impact and makes people feel like they're not part of the problem. Almost no one wants to be a racist, so using just "racism" is suited better for grabbing people's attention. However, once you get past this initial stage of getting people involved (for better or for worse), I think a more granular use of language is very much beneficial. I've seen a lot of Twitter and forum threads derail because of the "reverse racism doesn't exist, educate yourself" response. For many activists, that's where they draw the line - they don't want to debate about the meaning. But to people on the other side, responses like this give off strong anti-vaxxer/flat-earther vibes. As a result, vocal activists are often accused of "only going by their ideology", "pushing an agenda" or being part of a marxist/socialist/communist conspiracy (which I find absolutely hilarious btw).
If you want to have meaningful conversations with people, the mutual battle line demarcations have to be overcome somehow. I understand that many minority actors are not OK with constantly being asked to make the initial effort that has a high chance of not paying off anyway (hence the "it's not my job to educate you" stance). But I don't think insisting on redefining an umbrella term to only have a very specific meaning is a winning strategy, really.
We should defer to the language of expertise as much as we are able because the meanings given therein relate to a critical theoretic understanding. If someone uses the word "racism" without understanding its systemic qualities, they don't understand what racism is. And that's a huge block to solving the problem. If people think that racism is only about holding an individual prejudice against others on the basis of race, and in their conscious assessment, they don't hold those prejudices, then they conclude they aren't racist. Even that racism doesn't exist at an institutional level, like the guy I was replying to. This is bad for two reasons: it creates a lack of reflection upon one's implicit bias, and it ignores the systemic structures which are the precise issue in need of being addressed. The crux of it is this: systemic problems require systemic solutions. If you don't recognize that a problem is systemic in nature, your treatment will be overly superficial (e.g., "I'm not prejudiced because I have black friends, therefore all racism in society is solved. Done!"). Prejudice is an aspect of racism, but it has to be understood in terms of the broader societal context. Note that the context is a constant regardless of the scale, an understanding which is missing from your analysis. White people, as a group, are not routinely subjected to race-based prejudice from a broad swath of social settings on the basis of their whiteness. Any prejudice an individual white person might encounter is not seriously comparable to that of people of color, so much so that it's grossly inappropriate to make that comparison.
Personally, I don't think people using the word colloquially would be an issue if they understood the proper, formal definition. But they rather manifestly do not understand, and even insist on the colloquial definition being right, and the formal definition being wrong, as the person I was replying to did. I never once said it was "wrong," I said it was inadequate for understanding the issue. If the right is going to deny that racism is systemic by definition, it is imperative that we are very clear that nothing could be farther from the truth. It's true that going against the grain with popular consciousness is difficult, but in this case, it is absolutely necessary.
I don't have much of an opinion about the granularity of language re "systemic racism" vs. "racism." That's a stylistic choice that's largely up to the individual. It's up to you how redundant you want to be talking about it. If anything, the colloquial usage would be in need of higher granularity, so that the burden is on those people when they want to talk about "small r racism," since while this usage is more common, its application is less relevant. It should be stated that part of the reason so much online arguments revolve around this issue stems from liberalism as a political philosophy, which has played a huge historical role in influencing discourse in our society. In liberalism, the basic unit of analysis is the individual. Roughly, all people are ethically entailed equal rights because all people are of the same category individual and the category of individual has rights as an entailment. The rights the category of individual entails are all the so-called negative liberties (freedom from someone doing something to you). As long as the state applies them equally to everyone, liberalism regards society as equal. But the category is an abstraction. Actual concrete individuals are, as a consequence of being individuals, all different. This is where the individual analysis breaks down and cannot recognize systemic causes of difference. Such causes have their own corresponding ethical entailments -- positive liberties. Liberal political theory considers these to be unfair because they aren't entailed by the universal category. This is why, for example, it is common for people to object to affirmative action (to policies aimed at restoring equity). Then some theorists took it even further and developed libertarianism, going on to claim such things as "there is no such thing as social justice because only individuals exist, and groups have no ontological reality, so the only justice is that for the individual." If you're committed to that as a principle, you're going to deny that systemic racism exists at all costs. Frankly, that view is divorced to reality to an extreme that it might not actually be possible to fruitfully discuss anything with those sorts of people. But that's why the left is so emphatic about discussing the systemic causes of social issues, so that people gain a theoretic understanding and are less likely to adopt such a principle.
Note that I'm here making a good faith effort to explain everything, far from the attitude that "it's not my job to educate you." And I don't think that the left really has a choice in its strategy of using language correctly. So while I understand where you're coming from I think you should consider more why the left's ideology has the features it does.
You’re fairly astute at linguistics, so I can only assume that your decision to say “I live below the poverty line” instead of “I’m black” was deliberate and purposeful. Did you catch the full context of my post?
Because telling you my skin color instead only proves that I would've received brownie points for saying something that is topical and favorable of the current times. I want to be seen as a person, not as what the cover my book defines me as.
That would be very PC of you to say, if we were still living in the ‘90s. No, indicating your skin color would have actually made your comment relevant to my post. Socioeconomic status correlates, certainly, but to assign yourself victimhood in a conversation about racism and then deliberately avoid the topic of race is... well, confusing to say the least. To infer anything else right now would come off accusatory, but I will say this: there’s a very good reason (several, actually) we still read To Kill a Mockingbird in public school, not the least of which is because so little has changed. So did you catch the full context of my post or not?
If for whatever reason this is a sensitive subject for you, or I haven’t been appropriately empathetic, then I apologize. We can certainly continue this conversation by PM, if you prefer.
You’re fairly astute at linguistics, so I can only assume that your decision to say “I live below the poverty line” instead of “I’m black” was deliberate and purposeful. Did you catch the full context of my post?
Because telling you my skin color instead only proves that I would've received brownie points for saying something that is topical and favorable of the current times. I want to be seen as a person, not as what the cover my book defines me as.
That would be very PC of you to say, if we were still living in the ‘90s. No, indicating your skin color would have actually made your comment relevant to my post. Socioeconomic status correlates, certainly, but to assign yourself victimhood in a conversation about racism and then deliberately avoid the topic of race is... well, confusing to say the least. To infer anything else right now would come off accusatory, but I will say this: there’s a very good reason (several, actually) we still read To Kill a Mockingbird in public school, not the least of which is because so little has changed.
If for whatever reason this is a sensitive subject for you, or I haven’t been appropriately empathetic, then I apologize. We can certainly continue this conversation by PM, if you prefer.
Thank you for being more understanding. I personally believe that purposefully giving yourself 'tags' only hinders yourself in the long run. To shed as many of those 'tags' turns you into a better person that isn't defined to mere shallow words. A person's inner light, who they truly are, shines better when they are free of these things. I claim, as you put it, "victimhood" because I took offense to being called 'privileged' when I know my living situation is the opposite. As I believe we cannot truly be seen as people if we give ourselves 'tags' that allow others to easily categorize us and also make a common recurring situation "us vs them". You say its a PC thing of the 90s by avoiding using such things as race, but I believe it is foolish to be seen for only what you appear on the outside as we are all humans and as a collective we deserve better than infighting and hatred amongst ourselves.
You’re fairly astute at linguistics, so I can only assume that your decision to say “I live below the poverty line” instead of “I’m black” was deliberate and purposeful. Did you catch the full context of my post?
Because telling you my skin color instead only proves that I would've received brownie points for saying something that is topical and favorable of the current times. I want to be seen as a person, not as what the cover my book defines me as.
That would be very PC of you to say, if we were still living in the ‘90s. No, indicating your skin color would have actually made your comment relevant to my post. Socioeconomic status correlates, certainly, but to assign yourself victimhood in a conversation about racism and then deliberately avoid the topic of race is... well, confusing to say the least. To infer anything else right now would come off accusatory, but I will say this: there’s a very good reason (several, actually) we still read To Kill a Mockingbird in public school, not the least of which is because so little has changed.
If for whatever reason this is a sensitive subject for you, or I haven’t been appropriately empathetic, then I apologize. We can certainly continue this conversation by PM, if you prefer.
Thank you for being more understanding. I personally believe that purposefully giving yourself 'tags' only hinders yourself in the long run. To shed as many of those 'tags' turns you into a better person that isn't defined to mere shallow words. A person's inner light, who they truly are, shines better when they are free of these things. I claim, as you put it, "victimhood" because I took offense to being called 'privileged' when I know my living situation is the opposite. As I believe we cannot truly be seen as people if we give ourselves 'tags' that allow others to easily categorize us and also make a common recurring situation "us vs them". You say its a PC thing of the 90s by avoiding using such things as race, but I believe it is foolish to be seen for only what you appear on the outside as we are all humans and as a collective we deserve better than infighting and hatred amongst ourselves.
The reason I keep asking if you understood the context of my post is because I’m alluding to Breonna Taylor, a young black woman who was gunned down in her own home by plainclothes officers executing a no-knock warrant. Breonna Taylor didn’t get the benefit of a safe space where she could just stop being black long enough for a night’s sleep, let alone talk about fantasy card games. I get that this thread and this conversation is an obstacle to your escape from reality - whatever that might be - but it’s still absolutely critical that we have it, even here, on a random Magic forum.
As for the ‘tags,’ I obviously can’t speak for you, but: it’s simply no longer acceptable on our part to say “I don’t see color,” because that implies that the social and economic barriers people face on a daily basis don’t fundamentally shape their lives. Simply put, if you don’t see a person’s color you utterly fail to recognize them as a human being. If you’re black and believe otherwise then I’d be very interested to hear why.
I have to admit, I'm taken aback at people rejecting the notion of the value of equity. Equality as a concept is impoverished if it doesn't include dimensions of equity; equity makes equality ethically robust. Now if someone could demonstrate to me what equality actually loses by including equity, that would be a fascinating discussion.
I have to pause you here, equity has to occur organically, in my opinion, in order for it to be of value. To deny the opportunity to compete is assuredly wrong, but the institutional mandate of equity is equally flawed. Solely as a matter of self-worth and the perception of those you interact with should not be tarnished by the assumption that the position you achieved is a result of pity. Extrapolating this idea, I find the practice endemic to Hollywood awards of differentiating best actor and actress sexist and unnecessary. Would you suggest that Audrey Hepburn would not be recognized if she were a man? It had even been suggested they should further fragmentizing according to race. All that is telling me is one of two things: Hollywood admits to not giving the same opportunities to succeed or they are insinuating that a particular demographic is more capable at acting. Either option is repugnant.
To further go down this rabbit hole, the question of biological inequality in capabilities comes up in a competition like the Olympics. Are we at a point where we can still have competitions that are separated male/female? The reason for the initial separation was to level the playing field because of an understanding of average physical capabilities between men and women. Where does a transgender individual fall in this spectrum? What if you are biologically female but identify as male? Is the correct course of action to differentiate or to combine? Either way equity is not possible to attain.
So, yes, I want my doctor to be an African American woman because she is the individual that has earned the position, and is not a quota. I want my president to be the man whose ideals and experience resonate with what I feel is the best for the country, and not to hit a milestone in opportunity (I am not saying Obama was not the best choice, but rather I had heard people vote for him solely because of his race and what that shows for equity and equality).
Equity will follow equality, but organically it takes some time. If indeed wotc was denying people based on race that is absolutely wrong. Equity done in an organic manner is painful, and slow. But equity to create equality creates resentment and maintains a racial lens.
I would love to hear a solution that doesn’t take several hundred more years, because I feel like we’ve tried that and this is as far as we’ve gotten. Do you have one?
The reason I keep asking if you understood the context of my post is because I’m alluding to Breonna Taylor, a young black woman who was gunned down in her own home by plainclothes officers executing a no-knock warrant. Breonna Taylor didn’t get the benefit of a safe space where she could just stop being black long enough for a night’s sleep, let alone talk about fantasy card games. I get that this thread and this conversation is an obstacle to your escape from reality - whatever that might be - but it’s still absolutely critical that we have it, even here, on a random Magic forum.
Which is sad, tragic, and unfortunate event to that person.
As for the ‘tags,’ I obviously can’t speak for you, but: it’s simply no longer acceptable on our part to say “I don’t see color,” because that implies that the social and economic barriers people face on a daily basis don’t fundamentally shape their lives.
Wrong. The hurdles in your life may shape you, but that does not ultimately define you.
Simply put, if you don’t see a person’s color you utterly fail to recognize them as a human being. If you’re black and believe otherwise then I’d be very interested to hear why.
Because Martin Luther King is still right in not seeing color, people who focus on it do not talk to the soul of the person they are merely talking first to the shell of that person. If they see a person murdered or their body, choosing to see their skin color first and focus on their skin first, they see the shell of that person first, not who they were as a person first.
Treating people as people, treating them like how I wish to be treated with respect and kindness, matters more to me than treating another as another "[skin tone] person".
I easily could consider myself a: black nonbinary asexual who is biromantic.
But I don't wear those 'tags' as that isn't really helping me except for certain cliques and demographics. I know I could be considered very intelligent as a person, I don't treat myself as one though, as to consider it otherwise boosts my ego with undeserved pride and subjects myself to the folly that is the dunning-kreuger effect on matters I don't know or am barely knowledgeable in.
I'm not sure I have a clear grasp on what you think the distinction is between "organic" equity and the alternative. I have absolutely no interest in Hollywood award categories? Whether or not Olympic sports are split between male and female athletes is an issue that has close to zero material impact on anybody. I'm talking about stuff like addressing cycles of poverty that are perpetuated by an elite class who profits from doing so (which, incidentally, will also help poor whites). The existence of that factor in society is a pretty big reason to doubt that if we sit around and do nothing our "equality" will "organically" produce more equity. It wont; it hasn't.
The crux of it is this: systemic problems require systemic solutions. If you don't recognize that a problem is systemic in nature, your treatment will be overly superficial (e.g., "I'm not prejudiced because I have black friends, therefore all racism in society is solved. Done!"). Prejudice is an aspect of racism, but it has to be understood in terms of the broader societal context. Note that the context is a constant regardless of the scale, an understanding which is missing from your analysis.
Let me preface this by saying that I don't actually disagree with you here; the structural/systemic elements of racism have adressed poorly so far and are definitely the ones that need the most attention right now. In my original post I mentioned the problem of placing "medium-sized" actors - organizations like the KKK, other supremacist groups, racist or at least strongly prejudiced communities - but of course these can only "be a thing" because they're imbedded in systems that somehow allow them to exist. But in the end, racism is both a bottom-up and top-down issue, that's why I think it's not helpful to completely cut one half of it out of the definition.
On the smaller, more personal level, comments like "that's racist (of you)" are most commonly understood to refer to "small r racism", similar to "that's homophobic." It would be good if people didn't always take it as a personal attack and instead saw it as an opportunity to reflect on their own biases and the context of their daily lives, but frankly I don't think it's possible with such a loaded term. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, I don't know.
Note that I'm here making a good faith effort to explain everything, far from the attitude that "it's not my job to educate you." And I don't think that the left really has a choice in its strategy of using language correctly. So while I understand where you're coming from I think you should consider more why the left's ideology has the features it does.
Oh, the bit about the "it's not my job to educate you" was in reference to the Twitter threads and the general debate on this topic. I appreciate that you're taking your time with this, although I think we're pretty much on the same page. A lot of online/media debate is focused on "winning" an argument, "destroying" / "canceling" someone, "exposing" them for what they really are, etc. While there definitely are many people that you simply can't get through to, I do think that those judgments are often made too quickly. Of course Twitter with its low character limit encourages this from all participants in any given conversation.
Hey mods, would you care to move this thread to Talk & Entertainment? Clearly this has little bearing on MTG as a whole and more just as a way for people to in general talk about off topic things.
To bring this back to talking about the actual game (and I hope this point wasn't addressed already, I only had time to skim through the pages):
When a player plays a card that depicts horrible actions or concepts, does that make you think that player condones such actions or concepts in real life?
I believe that's the question it comes down to in this game, as well as in the entertainment industry as a whole.
Can we view the depiction of horrible actions or concepts within the framework of *escapist* mediums as a benign, or at least harmless, form of artistic expression? Or is every depiction of horrible actions or concepts automatically an endorsement of those things?
The Lorwyn Elves were essentially an entirely racist society, yet we are still fine with playing cards like Eyeblight Massacre, right?
Murder is a thing in the real world, sad as that is, and still we can acknowledge that a player playing that card isn't automatically okay with actual murder, right?
In the end, I believe most of us agree that addressing what WotC wanted to address as well as trying to make a real difference in that regard is good and necessary.
Magic was heading in a good direction there, ramping up the diversity in characters depicted in their product. They also have a long history of doing so in regards to black people with great characters like Teferi, Sisay, Crovax, Agrus Cos, Alexi or Jolrael and I believe many of us liked the expansion of that inclusive direction in general.
In short, is it possible for us to acknowledge the good in WotC's proclaimed goal while still criticizing their chosen method do achieve that goal? Or will we always automatically claim that whoever has a problem with the action is automatically also against the intended outcome of those actions?
To bring this back to talking about the actual game (and I hope this point wasn't addressed already, I only had time to skim through the pages):
When a player plays a card that depicts horrible actions or concepts, does that make you think that player condones such actions or concepts in real life?
I believe that's the question it comes down to in this game, as well as in the entertainment industry as a whole.
That Misses the point of these bannings entirely, the point being context and connotation.
What we've already discussed here (since you haven't been reading everything and who can blame you its at 6 pages already) it's not the actions depicted on the cards /names it's the context. Major Teroh is not a controversial card for killing all black creatures nor is Planar Cleansing for containing the word cleansing However Cleanse with the combination of killing all black creatures is due to the fact that Etnic cleansing is a talking point in white supremacist circles.
So my question to you is whats the harm in banning these cards in official settings?
Edit:
In short, is it possible for us to acknowledge the good in WotC's proclaimed goal while still criticizing their chosen method do achieve that goal? Or will we always automatically claim that whoever has a problem with the action is automatically also against the intended outcome of those actions?
You can disagree with the method so far noone has "automatically claimed that you are automatically against the intended outcome" they just argued for the method.
That Misses the point of these bannings entirely, the point being context and connotation.
Context and connotation dont work here.
Someone will always be more sensitive than others.
Lots of people wont have any problem with Cleanse, and some very sensitive people might.
Others look at Planar Cleansing and might also feel its racist (there are humans sucked into their death), do you just dismiss their claims ?
Some people have a group-think and put themselves into categories of skin color, religion, nation or whatever.
Others do not do that, a human is a human, no matter what, so a healthy mind should not make any distinction based on any of these factors and see the human as equal to anybody else.
Group-Thinking and putting people into groups is a sick mindset that spreads and produces racist thinking and fosters hate between the groups.
An authority has to make that choice what is racist and what is not.
And that authority is by nature biased and will dismiss some claims and give roots to claims that others would not accept as racist at all.
So my question to you is whats the harm in banning these cards in official settings?
The biggest deal is how utterly useless it is in the first place.
It doesnt matter if these cards are banned or not.
If they are played, you can be almost 100% sure the person and the opponent will not see it as a racist statement at all.
Its a non-issue and this "show" masquerades it into a problem just to pander to the mob of hyper-sensitive people.
If you are consistent with banning potentially problematic cards, you would need to ban ALL artworks, every single one, as someone might be offended for whatever reason you cannot even imagine.
Then we play magic without art, just text.
And someone might still be offended by some flavor text, some random number that for them is historically branded (like a power thoughness of 9/11 , some go crazy).
A card like Trapped in the Tower was spoilered on 9/11 , is that a cruel joke ? Or should the card be banned for that remote connection, as people are traumatized from 9/11 and might get a panic attack seeing the card.
Some claim a bunch of "wurm" art looks like a male genital. Do we BAN all wurm art because it could remotely display one ?
The sex monkeys, famous and funny, Uktabi Orangutan, is that ban worthy as it shows some monkeys in the back having sex ?
Countless black and red cards show very real torture and hurting people.
A lot of people could be hyper sensitive to them and be distributed to see the art.
Like the original Ravnica Macabre Waltz is extremely bloody and gory, and i felt disturbed by the art, but thats the point, the art is an expression of this bloody and gory "dance of death", its literally the Macabre waltz.
Some people might have family members that died in a fire and looking at art like Disintegrate and the original Incinerate, even the fifth edition Inferno, might give them a traumatic flashback.
Is that ban worthy ?
If you want to be consistent, we ban all of that art and never show anything remotely violent again (and thats just silly).
----
Do we want all that ? Does it really help anybody ?
Or is it just pandering to people to claim "we care for you".
----
Banning these cards increases the demand for them as collectable items.
The art is removed from databases like oracle and even some other sites.
Shops stop selling them.
Thats far far beyond just banning a card.
And WotC made clear they will look for more cards to ban for such proclaimed racist reasons and whatever else they come up with.
Imagine a list of banned cards in the THOUSAND, nobody can possible remember all of them and its just silly ...
----
Banning these cards is harmful to the integrity of the game itself, its art and the fantasy setting.
Retroactive banning cards in this way is a very bad statement against freedom of expression, art should not be censored, people should always be allowed to see them, talk about them, and if they are problematic in some way, have a discussion why that is, and deal with it.
The "cancel culture" of banning everything you dislike is a extremely harmful trend that is actively destroying variety and diversity of art and expression.
If some art is labeled as supposedly "racist" , "sexist" or "anti-religious", some authority has to make that claim, and thats just plain bad to have.
----
In my view, no art should ever be banned.
You can absolutely have a dialog on what is potentially problematic art, but thats about it.
Everyone looking at the art should be able to deal with its existence without any issue.
Pandering to a hyper sensitive group of people is never doing anything good and the resulting restriction to everyone are much more sever and damaging, not to the individual, but to the integrity itself to stand for freedom of expression.
----
And in this current age some of these issues are so exponentially inflated that they suddenly "justify" all kinds of absolute insanity, violence and hate ; which is far more problematic than what they proclaim to fight against.
At some point people have to let go and deal with the present and care for the future, not the past.
You have to learn from the past, not destroy it.
All you come about is the slippery slope and that goes both ways both with banning and not banning cards.
Invoke prejudice is ok so next hey casual swastika is ok, i mean some people are just more sensitive than others right so why should that be banned.
Or outright porn I mean this game is catered to kids but hey you cant be insensitive if you always argue that others are to sensitive.
And if your argument is that they wouldn't do that because of some reason why can't that reasoning be applied to the bannings as well?
How is it harmful to the Integrity of the game to ban those cards? How does it hurt the fantasy setting how does it hurt the art?
How does it hurt freedom of expression? Noone is banned from making art cards its a company saying yeah we dont want that art (anymore)? Similar to what I said before freedom of expression does not mean everything you make MUST BE Published/considered. And similar to that its the companies freedom of expression to say yeah thats not who we are as a company whether its pandering wheter its for moral reasons wheter its for simply not wanting to be associated with something does not matter its their freedom to say "yeah no"
At some point people have to let go and deal with the present and care for the future,
Thats what they do since for those people those issues are still in the present and they fight for a better future
To bring this back to talking about the actual game (and I hope this point wasn't addressed already, I only had time to skim through the pages):
When a player plays a card that depicts horrible actions or concepts, does that make you think that player condones such actions or concepts in real life?
I believe that's the question it comes down to in this game, as well as in the entertainment industry as a whole.
Can we view the depiction of horrible actions or concepts within the framework of *escapist* mediums as a benign, or at least harmless, form of artistic expression? Or is every depiction of horrible actions or concepts automatically an endorsement of those things?
The Lorwyn Elves were essentially an entirely racist society, yet we are still fine with playing cards like Eyeblight Massacre, right?
Murder is a thing in the real world, sad as that is, and still we can acknowledge that a player playing that card isn't automatically okay with actual murder, right?
As a long time D&Der, I have to say that people who do horrible things in "escapist" fantasy are often morally questionable IRL. "Escape" for some people doesn't mean escape from just the 9-5 grind or from the burdens of being an adult (assuming they are one), or from the tedium of dealing with the real world. For some people, and this is entirely IME, "escapism" also means escaping from rules, morals and laws. Doing the things that, assuming there were not laws against them, they'd do them IRL. Of course this is not every player who does a terrible thing in a game, and arguably RPGs are much more "direct" fantasy escapism than TCGs.
But it is one of those which may cause one to raise an eyebrow. Why did they choose that card? What was their emotional reaction to its effect? We're not trained psychologists, but we are humans, and humans are designed to examine those around them in search for commonality, community and safety. We are social animals after all. To that end, we're equally designed to look for danger within our social groups as without. There's a reason psychopaths set off little alarm bells in the back of our mind precisely because they don't react to certain stimuli like those little herd-finding parts of our brains expect, and that part of our brain is designed to warn us of danger.
So no, not every person who plays a card with terrible implications is a terrible person. But it can certainly be used as a way to see if they are.
In the end, I believe most of us agree that addressing what WotC wanted to address as well as trying to make a real difference in that regard is good and necessary.
Magic was heading in a good direction there, ramping up the diversity in characters depicted in their product. They also have a long history of doing so in regards to black people with great characters like Teferi, Sisay, Crovax, Agrus Cos, Alexi or Jolrael and I believe many of us liked the expansion of that inclusive direction in general.
In short, is it possible for us to acknowledge the good in WotC's proclaimed goal while still criticizing their chosen method do achieve that goal? Or will we always automatically claim that whoever has a problem with the action is automatically also against the intended outcome of those actions?
As good as it is to critique WOTCs actions and their intentions, such critique should equally be applied to the critique-er. If we are to question why WOTC says a thing or does a thing, then that critique can just as readily be leveled on us by others, or even by WOTC. Knee-jerk reactions are problematic in any direction, but "Are the actually against this action?" is a fair question to ask when someone starts critiquing someone else's actions.
I have no attachment to these cards. I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone play them. There are better cards, with better effects, cheaper costs, better art, more creative flavor text to be used. Noone's going to come into your house and burn your cards, and you might be able to make a quick buck off some collectors who want to get their hands on them. IMO it's good that WOTC is addressing some of these older issues, and I think they've done a good job being forward-facing about including more diversity.
If you see art like Invoke prejudice, it is displayed as a vision / dream of smoke.
Its a vision of exactly what the name implies.
But why ban that art ?
It displays something everyone will recognize as bad, when you learn about its meaning, and its just as bad as we all agree Murder is bad.
But just because art displays something we all agree on is evil, doesnt justify to ban the art.
As i explained in detail in my above comment already, you have to accept art for what it is, a depiction of fantasy.
Countless people look at Invoke prejudice and do not know about the historic detail, they dont see any problem with it.
And if you happen to see it (which is already incredible unlikely as the card is so old, expensive and all that) , what is your response ?
Is someone freaking out in panic looking at that art ?
Really ? Absolute not.
So why ban that card, when so many other stuff displays disturbing art and thats a non-issue.
----
The artist made the art not with the intention to hate on the historic events, but knew about it and made the art as it very well expresses the name Invoke prejudice, you could even say its a perfect depiction of any form of prejudice.
The art itself is not racist, it displays a historic event (in a cloudy smoke style) that is absolutely racist by nature, but that doesnt make the art racist itself and it doesnt glorify what happens, and it doesnt make it look acceptable or anything.
I have seen the card get played a lot of times, and what it usually does the first time someone sees it and recognizes the Clans-Men , is "Wow, damn" ; and thats about it, you accept the art for what it is, and thats about it.
Banning the card doesnt do anything good, its pointless pandering and a show.
----
You dont start by banning everything and then pick what you deem ok, someone has to make that picking and some authority will have to judge what is ok and what is not.
I dont like anybody to be that authority, art should always be allowed to express and display what the artist wants to show ; and the viewer of the art will then interpret the art with their own feelings and memories.
Its the beauty of art to allow that.
Before art is commissioned and released of course you can decide what art you want to have on a card.
This does obviously not mean that anything should be put on a card, but the art was approved, accepted and got released, it was around for 25+ years, and then suddenly by events in the real world, decide to retroactive go ahead and ban the art, the card and make a giant fuss about it, doesnt do any good at all, so there is no point in doing that, only pandering to a mob that is asking for book burning and destruction of history.
Its much more valuable to keep a card like Invoke prejudice around, as the card is part of magics history and the act of erasing it entirely is just the surrender to your own incapability to deal with the cards meaning and history.
To exclude the other cards with the words Crusading, Crusader, or Crusade is wrong. As the word Crusade and Crusader are never being used for their secondary definition
Crusader
2. a person who campaigns vigorously for political, social, or religious change; a campaigner.
"crusaders for early detection and treatment of mental illness"
Crusade
2.lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue.
"he crusaded against gambling in the 1950s"
They instead refer to a military expedition or a fighter within a crusade. Turns out most MTG cards with the aforementioned words fit the first definition instead because MTG is a game about two wizards/duelists/planeswalkers battling it out with spells and armies and wonderous artifacts.
If you want evidence of the secondary definition in action, that is on Wizards own part and those around them that advocate the banning of perceived racist cards.
The bigger issue is actually addressing those cards. By doing so they are now worth more because Wizards called attention to them and made a large deal out of it. Letting them fade into obscurity is actually better as nobody would have cared for these cards except for a small minority of the playerbase.
To me its frankly disgusting how political discussion has seeped to the forefront of the game. I played MTG to escape it, not have it shoved in my face. In any other time prior to this event, this thread would be locked for being off topic when relating to a game for preadolescence/pre-teen/tween aka children. Oh and before that last bit is mistaken for "think of the children", no, the kids are plenty intelligent enough to make decisions on their own. My beef with it stems from how a toy company is making these sociopolitical statements for brownie points among the masses during a very emotionally charged time.
I find it curious that you quoted him, and then didn’t acknowledge that he said it’s a combination of name + effect. Something called Crusade, that actively promotes white superiority in game terms, is just a little too on the nose. Do the other cards you mentioned (“crusader” et al) have similar effects?
As for escaping the political conversation, consider yourself blessed. Or privileged, or lucky, or whatever. You get to go home and sleep tonight without worrying about dying in your sleep from a no-knock warrant, a luxury not everyone gets - ask those people if they want to take a break from political conversation so we can fantasize about cardboard.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
I'm not sure I'd hold my breath on that one, I think it's entirely unrealistic that Elspeth becomes widely associated with racism.
Look, you seem to really want to play a semantic game over this, and I just don't care to. WotC has said their decision was based on the relationship between the card name and its effects that has unfortunate racial connotations. I'm not sure what else I can say, I've already said I don't think WotC made the perfect call on this whole thing, all I can do is point you to their own justification.
And I maintain that letting racially-charged things to fade away without acknowledgement and ownership is irresponsible on several levels and while I have critiques of WotC's strategy here, I do appreciate that they are starting conversations in the fandom. They're long overdue.
Imagine for a moment what it would be like to never really get to escape those discussions or their ramifications. Your discomfort and frustration are valid, I hope they can serve as a gateway to empathy for people impacted by bigotry in the community.
WotC's purposes aside, why do you have a problem with the game trying to promote a more inclusive fandom?
Also, since it's apropos, since the last thread started, I've been having conversations with several posters/lurkers via PMs. One of them mentioned that playgroups in their area were seeing a steep decline in younger players specifically because of the toxic culture perpetuated by older players. It's anecdotal, but it squares with what I'm seeing locally as well as in other communities. There's a generational aspect to this, younger players are just less likely to engage with a game and fandom that has a culture of exclusionary behavior. It's not unrealistic to suspect WotC is aware of that trend if it really exists (I haven't seen specific surveys to indicate it, but we know WotC conducts such surveys so if the trend exist that younger players feel less comfortable in the fandom, WotC likely knows) and a lot of their sociopolitical actions over the past few years are a response to that.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I've seen many instances where "racism" is used interchangeably with "systemic racism", basically as a snyonym. This can understandably cause confusion (and, by extension, frustration). Because if both both words mean the same - why specify? And if the only two options are personal prejudice and institutionalized racism, where do you put small-to-mid scale organizations?
I can understand that many activists may not be happy with using "systemic racism" because it's a word with less overall impact and makes people feel like they're not part of the problem. Almost no one wants to be a racist, so using just "racism" is suited better for grabbing people's attention. However, once you get past this initial stage of getting people involved (for better or for worse), I think a more granular use of language is very much beneficial. I've seen a lot of Twitter and forum threads derail because of the "reverse racism doesn't exist, educate yourself" response. For many activists, that's where they draw the line - they don't want to debate about the meaning. But to people on the other side, responses like this give off strong anti-vaxxer/flat-earther vibes. As a result, vocal activists are often accused of "only going by their ideology", "pushing an agenda" or being part of a marxist/socialist/communist conspiracy (which I find absolutely hilarious btw).
If you want to have meaningful conversations with people, the mutual battle line demarcations have to be overcome somehow. I understand that many minority actors are not OK with constantly being asked to make the initial effort that has a high chance of not paying off anyway (hence the "it's not my job to educate you" stance). But I don't think insisting on redefining an umbrella term to only have a very specific meaning is a winning strategy, really.
Yes, it’s more than a little frustrating to have meaningful conversation derailed - purposefully and repetitiously - by the same bad faith linguistic arguments. We’re rapidly approaching a point, if not well past it, where nobody is owed an explanation as to why “All Lives Matter” is not just inherently racist, but deliberately so. Arguments over the exact definition of racism, which should be more of an informative exercise than debate, only serve to distract from the real conversations that need to be had right now. To finger-wag our potential dismissiveness assumes a certain level of good faith from both parties that is just seldom there.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
I have empathy for people. I don't have empathy for faceless corporations that shallowly pretend to care about you or try to be your friend.
As for your last point about less younger people showing up, you can blame it on a "toxic culture", I blame it on how Wizard's is whale hunting and pricing out people who would be legit interested in their game. Other card games are on the market and they tend to be cheaper than what Wizards's offer. Also more kids are likely to play Pokemon or Yugioh or Legend of Runeterra because its bright and happy generally simpler to understand compared to MTG. Wizard's knows this to, they know that things like Hearthstone tend to attract a larger audience than the grungy and dark elements that the game was founded on.
You’re fairly astute at linguistics, so I can only assume that your decision to say “I live below the poverty line” instead of “I’m black” was deliberate and purposeful. Did you catch the full context of my post?
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
We should defer to the language of expertise as much as we are able because the meanings given therein relate to a critical theoretic understanding. If someone uses the word "racism" without understanding its systemic qualities, they don't understand what racism is. And that's a huge block to solving the problem. If people think that racism is only about holding an individual prejudice against others on the basis of race, and in their conscious assessment, they don't hold those prejudices, then they conclude they aren't racist. Even that racism doesn't exist at an institutional level, like the guy I was replying to. This is bad for two reasons: it creates a lack of reflection upon one's implicit bias, and it ignores the systemic structures which are the precise issue in need of being addressed. The crux of it is this: systemic problems require systemic solutions. If you don't recognize that a problem is systemic in nature, your treatment will be overly superficial (e.g., "I'm not prejudiced because I have black friends, therefore all racism in society is solved. Done!"). Prejudice is an aspect of racism, but it has to be understood in terms of the broader societal context. Note that the context is a constant regardless of the scale, an understanding which is missing from your analysis. White people, as a group, are not routinely subjected to race-based prejudice from a broad swath of social settings on the basis of their whiteness. Any prejudice an individual white person might encounter is not seriously comparable to that of people of color, so much so that it's grossly inappropriate to make that comparison.
Personally, I don't think people using the word colloquially would be an issue if they understood the proper, formal definition. But they rather manifestly do not understand, and even insist on the colloquial definition being right, and the formal definition being wrong, as the person I was replying to did. I never once said it was "wrong," I said it was inadequate for understanding the issue. If the right is going to deny that racism is systemic by definition, it is imperative that we are very clear that nothing could be farther from the truth. It's true that going against the grain with popular consciousness is difficult, but in this case, it is absolutely necessary.
I don't have much of an opinion about the granularity of language re "systemic racism" vs. "racism." That's a stylistic choice that's largely up to the individual. It's up to you how redundant you want to be talking about it. If anything, the colloquial usage would be in need of higher granularity, so that the burden is on those people when they want to talk about "small r racism," since while this usage is more common, its application is less relevant. It should be stated that part of the reason so much online arguments revolve around this issue stems from liberalism as a political philosophy, which has played a huge historical role in influencing discourse in our society. In liberalism, the basic unit of analysis is the individual. Roughly, all people are ethically entailed equal rights because all people are of the same category individual and the category of individual has rights as an entailment. The rights the category of individual entails are all the so-called negative liberties (freedom from someone doing something to you). As long as the state applies them equally to everyone, liberalism regards society as equal. But the category is an abstraction. Actual concrete individuals are, as a consequence of being individuals, all different. This is where the individual analysis breaks down and cannot recognize systemic causes of difference. Such causes have their own corresponding ethical entailments -- positive liberties. Liberal political theory considers these to be unfair because they aren't entailed by the universal category. This is why, for example, it is common for people to object to affirmative action (to policies aimed at restoring equity). Then some theorists took it even further and developed libertarianism, going on to claim such things as "there is no such thing as social justice because only individuals exist, and groups have no ontological reality, so the only justice is that for the individual." If you're committed to that as a principle, you're going to deny that systemic racism exists at all costs. Frankly, that view is divorced to reality to an extreme that it might not actually be possible to fruitfully discuss anything with those sorts of people. But that's why the left is so emphatic about discussing the systemic causes of social issues, so that people gain a theoretic understanding and are less likely to adopt such a principle.
Note that I'm here making a good faith effort to explain everything, far from the attitude that "it's not my job to educate you." And I don't think that the left really has a choice in its strategy of using language correctly. So while I understand where you're coming from I think you should consider more why the left's ideology has the features it does.
That would be very PC of you to say, if we were still living in the ‘90s. No, indicating your skin color would have actually made your comment relevant to my post. Socioeconomic status correlates, certainly, but to assign yourself victimhood in a conversation about racism and then deliberately avoid the topic of race is... well, confusing to say the least. To infer anything else right now would come off accusatory, but I will say this: there’s a very good reason (several, actually) we still read To Kill a Mockingbird in public school, not the least of which is because so little has changed. So did you catch the full context of my post or not?
If for whatever reason this is a sensitive subject for you, or I haven’t been appropriately empathetic, then I apologize. We can certainly continue this conversation by PM, if you prefer.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
The reason I keep asking if you understood the context of my post is because I’m alluding to Breonna Taylor, a young black woman who was gunned down in her own home by plainclothes officers executing a no-knock warrant. Breonna Taylor didn’t get the benefit of a safe space where she could just stop being black long enough for a night’s sleep, let alone talk about fantasy card games. I get that this thread and this conversation is an obstacle to your escape from reality - whatever that might be - but it’s still absolutely critical that we have it, even here, on a random Magic forum.
As for the ‘tags,’ I obviously can’t speak for you, but: it’s simply no longer acceptable on our part to say “I don’t see color,” because that implies that the social and economic barriers people face on a daily basis don’t fundamentally shape their lives. Simply put, if you don’t see a person’s color you utterly fail to recognize them as a human being. If you’re black and believe otherwise then I’d be very interested to hear why.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
I have to pause you here, equity has to occur organically, in my opinion, in order for it to be of value. To deny the opportunity to compete is assuredly wrong, but the institutional mandate of equity is equally flawed. Solely as a matter of self-worth and the perception of those you interact with should not be tarnished by the assumption that the position you achieved is a result of pity. Extrapolating this idea, I find the practice endemic to Hollywood awards of differentiating best actor and actress sexist and unnecessary. Would you suggest that Audrey Hepburn would not be recognized if she were a man? It had even been suggested they should further fragmentizing according to race. All that is telling me is one of two things: Hollywood admits to not giving the same opportunities to succeed or they are insinuating that a particular demographic is more capable at acting. Either option is repugnant.
To further go down this rabbit hole, the question of biological inequality in capabilities comes up in a competition like the Olympics. Are we at a point where we can still have competitions that are separated male/female? The reason for the initial separation was to level the playing field because of an understanding of average physical capabilities between men and women. Where does a transgender individual fall in this spectrum? What if you are biologically female but identify as male? Is the correct course of action to differentiate or to combine? Either way equity is not possible to attain.
So, yes, I want my doctor to be an African American woman because she is the individual that has earned the position, and is not a quota. I want my president to be the man whose ideals and experience resonate with what I feel is the best for the country, and not to hit a milestone in opportunity (I am not saying Obama was not the best choice, but rather I had heard people vote for him solely because of his race and what that shows for equity and equality).
Equity will follow equality, but organically it takes some time. If indeed wotc was denying people based on race that is absolutely wrong. Equity done in an organic manner is painful, and slow. But equity to create equality creates resentment and maintains a racial lens.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Wrong. The hurdles in your life may shape you, but that does not ultimately define you.
Because Martin Luther King is still right in not seeing color, people who focus on it do not talk to the soul of the person they are merely talking first to the shell of that person. If they see a person murdered or their body, choosing to see their skin color first and focus on their skin first, they see the shell of that person first, not who they were as a person first.
Treating people as people, treating them like how I wish to be treated with respect and kindness, matters more to me than treating another as another "[skin tone] person".
I easily could consider myself a: black nonbinary asexual who is biromantic.
But I don't wear those 'tags' as that isn't really helping me except for certain cliques and demographics. I know I could be considered very intelligent as a person, I don't treat myself as one though, as to consider it otherwise boosts my ego with undeserved pride and subjects myself to the folly that is the dunning-kreuger effect on matters I don't know or am barely knowledgeable in.
I'm not sure I have a clear grasp on what you think the distinction is between "organic" equity and the alternative. I have absolutely no interest in Hollywood award categories? Whether or not Olympic sports are split between male and female athletes is an issue that has close to zero material impact on anybody. I'm talking about stuff like addressing cycles of poverty that are perpetuated by an elite class who profits from doing so (which, incidentally, will also help poor whites). The existence of that factor in society is a pretty big reason to doubt that if we sit around and do nothing our "equality" will "organically" produce more equity. It wont; it hasn't.
On the smaller, more personal level, comments like "that's racist (of you)" are most commonly understood to refer to "small r racism", similar to "that's homophobic." It would be good if people didn't always take it as a personal attack and instead saw it as an opportunity to reflect on their own biases and the context of their daily lives, but frankly I don't think it's possible with such a loaded term. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, I don't know.
Oh, the bit about the "it's not my job to educate you" was in reference to the Twitter threads and the general debate on this topic. I appreciate that you're taking your time with this, although I think we're pretty much on the same page. A lot of online/media debate is focused on "winning" an argument, "destroying" / "canceling" someone, "exposing" them for what they really are, etc. While there definitely are many people that you simply can't get through to, I do think that those judgments are often made too quickly. Of course Twitter with its low character limit encourages this from all participants in any given conversation.
When a player plays a card that depicts horrible actions or concepts, does that make you think that player condones such actions or concepts in real life?
I believe that's the question it comes down to in this game, as well as in the entertainment industry as a whole.
Can we view the depiction of horrible actions or concepts within the framework of *escapist* mediums as a benign, or at least harmless, form of artistic expression? Or is every depiction of horrible actions or concepts automatically an endorsement of those things?
The Lorwyn Elves were essentially an entirely racist society, yet we are still fine with playing cards like Eyeblight Massacre, right?
Murder is a thing in the real world, sad as that is, and still we can acknowledge that a player playing that card isn't automatically okay with actual murder, right?
In the end, I believe most of us agree that addressing what WotC wanted to address as well as trying to make a real difference in that regard is good and necessary.
Magic was heading in a good direction there, ramping up the diversity in characters depicted in their product. They also have a long history of doing so in regards to black people with great characters like Teferi, Sisay, Crovax, Agrus Cos, Alexi or Jolrael and I believe many of us liked the expansion of that inclusive direction in general.
In short, is it possible for us to acknowledge the good in WotC's proclaimed goal while still criticizing their chosen method do achieve that goal? Or will we always automatically claim that whoever has a problem with the action is automatically also against the intended outcome of those actions?
That Misses the point of these bannings entirely, the point being context and connotation.
What we've already discussed here (since you haven't been reading everything and who can blame you its at 6 pages already) it's not the actions depicted on the cards /names it's the context. Major Teroh is not a controversial card for killing all black creatures nor is Planar Cleansing for containing the word cleansing However Cleanse with the combination of killing all black creatures is due to the fact that Etnic cleansing is a talking point in white supremacist circles.
So my question to you is whats the harm in banning these cards in official settings?
Edit:
You can disagree with the method so far noone has "automatically claimed that you are automatically against the intended outcome" they just argued for the method.
Context and connotation dont work here.
Someone will always be more sensitive than others.
Lots of people wont have any problem with Cleanse, and some very sensitive people might.
Others look at Planar Cleansing and might also feel its racist (there are humans sucked into their death), do you just dismiss their claims ?
Some people have a group-think and put themselves into categories of skin color, religion, nation or whatever.
Others do not do that, a human is a human, no matter what, so a healthy mind should not make any distinction based on any of these factors and see the human as equal to anybody else.
Group-Thinking and putting people into groups is a sick mindset that spreads and produces racist thinking and fosters hate between the groups.
An authority has to make that choice what is racist and what is not.
And that authority is by nature biased and will dismiss some claims and give roots to claims that others would not accept as racist at all.
By that nature it is divisive and not consistent.
The biggest deal is how utterly useless it is in the first place.
It doesnt matter if these cards are banned or not.
If they are played, you can be almost 100% sure the person and the opponent will not see it as a racist statement at all.
Its a non-issue and this "show" masquerades it into a problem just to pander to the mob of hyper-sensitive people.
If you are consistent with banning potentially problematic cards, you would need to ban ALL artworks, every single one, as someone might be offended for whatever reason you cannot even imagine.
Then we play magic without art, just text.
And someone might still be offended by some flavor text, some random number that for them is historically branded (like a power thoughness of 9/11 , some go crazy).
A card like Trapped in the Tower was spoilered on 9/11 , is that a cruel joke ? Or should the card be banned for that remote connection, as people are traumatized from 9/11 and might get a panic attack seeing the card.
Some claim a bunch of "wurm" art looks like a male genital. Do we BAN all wurm art because it could remotely display one ?
The sex monkeys, famous and funny, Uktabi Orangutan, is that ban worthy as it shows some monkeys in the back having sex ?
Countless black and red cards show very real torture and hurting people.
A lot of people could be hyper sensitive to them and be distributed to see the art.
Like the original Ravnica Macabre Waltz is extremely bloody and gory, and i felt disturbed by the art, but thats the point, the art is an expression of this bloody and gory "dance of death", its literally the Macabre waltz.
Some people might have family members that died in a fire and looking at art like Disintegrate and the original Incinerate, even the fifth edition Inferno, might give them a traumatic flashback.
Is that ban worthy ?
If you want to be consistent, we ban all of that art and never show anything remotely violent again (and thats just silly).
----
Do we want all that ? Does it really help anybody ?
Or is it just pandering to people to claim "we care for you".
----
Banning these cards increases the demand for them as collectable items.
The art is removed from databases like oracle and even some other sites.
Shops stop selling them.
Thats far far beyond just banning a card.
And WotC made clear they will look for more cards to ban for such proclaimed racist reasons and whatever else they come up with.
Imagine a list of banned cards in the THOUSAND, nobody can possible remember all of them and its just silly ...
----
Banning these cards is harmful to the integrity of the game itself, its art and the fantasy setting.
Retroactive banning cards in this way is a very bad statement against freedom of expression, art should not be censored, people should always be allowed to see them, talk about them, and if they are problematic in some way, have a discussion why that is, and deal with it.
The "cancel culture" of banning everything you dislike is a extremely harmful trend that is actively destroying variety and diversity of art and expression.
If some art is labeled as supposedly "racist" , "sexist" or "anti-religious", some authority has to make that claim, and thats just plain bad to have.
----
In my view, no art should ever be banned.
You can absolutely have a dialog on what is potentially problematic art, but thats about it.
Everyone looking at the art should be able to deal with its existence without any issue.
Pandering to a hyper sensitive group of people is never doing anything good and the resulting restriction to everyone are much more sever and damaging, not to the individual, but to the integrity itself to stand for freedom of expression.
----
And in this current age some of these issues are so exponentially inflated that they suddenly "justify" all kinds of absolute insanity, violence and hate ; which is far more problematic than what they proclaim to fight against.
At some point people have to let go and deal with the present and care for the future, not the past.
You have to learn from the past, not destroy it.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Invoke prejudice is ok so next hey casual swastika is ok, i mean some people are just more sensitive than others right so why should that be banned.
Or outright porn I mean this game is catered to kids but hey you cant be insensitive if you always argue that others are to sensitive.
And if your argument is that they wouldn't do that because of some reason why can't that reasoning be applied to the bannings as well?
How is it harmful to the Integrity of the game to ban those cards? How does it hurt the fantasy setting how does it hurt the art?
How does it hurt freedom of expression? Noone is banned from making art cards its a company saying yeah we dont want that art (anymore)? Similar to what I said before freedom of expression does not mean everything you make MUST BE Published/considered. And similar to that its the companies freedom of expression to say yeah thats not who we are as a company whether its pandering wheter its for moral reasons wheter its for simply not wanting to be associated with something does not matter its their freedom to say "yeah no"
Thats what they do since for those people those issues are still in the present and they fight for a better future
As a long time D&Der, I have to say that people who do horrible things in "escapist" fantasy are often morally questionable IRL. "Escape" for some people doesn't mean escape from just the 9-5 grind or from the burdens of being an adult (assuming they are one), or from the tedium of dealing with the real world. For some people, and this is entirely IME, "escapism" also means escaping from rules, morals and laws. Doing the things that, assuming there were not laws against them, they'd do them IRL. Of course this is not every player who does a terrible thing in a game, and arguably RPGs are much more "direct" fantasy escapism than TCGs.
But it is one of those which may cause one to raise an eyebrow. Why did they choose that card? What was their emotional reaction to its effect? We're not trained psychologists, but we are humans, and humans are designed to examine those around them in search for commonality, community and safety. We are social animals after all. To that end, we're equally designed to look for danger within our social groups as without. There's a reason psychopaths set off little alarm bells in the back of our mind precisely because they don't react to certain stimuli like those little herd-finding parts of our brains expect, and that part of our brain is designed to warn us of danger.
So no, not every person who plays a card with terrible implications is a terrible person. But it can certainly be used as a way to see if they are.
As good as it is to critique WOTCs actions and their intentions, such critique should equally be applied to the critique-er. If we are to question why WOTC says a thing or does a thing, then that critique can just as readily be leveled on us by others, or even by WOTC. Knee-jerk reactions are problematic in any direction, but "Are the actually against this action?" is a fair question to ask when someone starts critiquing someone else's actions.
I have no attachment to these cards. I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone play them. There are better cards, with better effects, cheaper costs, better art, more creative flavor text to be used. Noone's going to come into your house and burn your cards, and you might be able to make a quick buck off some collectors who want to get their hands on them. IMO it's good that WOTC is addressing some of these older issues, and I think they've done a good job being forward-facing about including more diversity.
Its a vision of exactly what the name implies.
But why ban that art ?
It displays something everyone will recognize as bad, when you learn about its meaning, and its just as bad as we all agree Murder is bad.
But just because art displays something we all agree on is evil, doesnt justify to ban the art.
As i explained in detail in my above comment already, you have to accept art for what it is, a depiction of fantasy.
Countless people look at Invoke prejudice and do not know about the historic detail, they dont see any problem with it.
And if you happen to see it (which is already incredible unlikely as the card is so old, expensive and all that) , what is your response ?
Is someone freaking out in panic looking at that art ?
Really ? Absolute not.
So why ban that card, when so many other stuff displays disturbing art and thats a non-issue.
----
The artist made the art not with the intention to hate on the historic events, but knew about it and made the art as it very well expresses the name Invoke prejudice, you could even say its a perfect depiction of any form of prejudice.
The art itself is not racist, it displays a historic event (in a cloudy smoke style) that is absolutely racist by nature, but that doesnt make the art racist itself and it doesnt glorify what happens, and it doesnt make it look acceptable or anything.
I have seen the card get played a lot of times, and what it usually does the first time someone sees it and recognizes the Clans-Men , is "Wow, damn" ; and thats about it, you accept the art for what it is, and thats about it.
Banning the card doesnt do anything good, its pointless pandering and a show.
----
You dont start by banning everything and then pick what you deem ok, someone has to make that picking and some authority will have to judge what is ok and what is not.
I dont like anybody to be that authority, art should always be allowed to express and display what the artist wants to show ; and the viewer of the art will then interpret the art with their own feelings and memories.
Its the beauty of art to allow that.
Before art is commissioned and released of course you can decide what art you want to have on a card.
This does obviously not mean that anything should be put on a card, but the art was approved, accepted and got released, it was around for 25+ years, and then suddenly by events in the real world, decide to retroactive go ahead and ban the art, the card and make a giant fuss about it, doesnt do any good at all, so there is no point in doing that, only pandering to a mob that is asking for book burning and destruction of history.
Its much more valuable to keep a card like Invoke prejudice around, as the card is part of magics history and the act of erasing it entirely is just the surrender to your own incapability to deal with the cards meaning and history.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮