And does that change anything in terms of the arguments involved? At no point did I say 'you don't get it because X which I assume about you' (i.e. an ad hominem fallacy). It was a thought experiment - for the purposes of one, whether a person is in fact a person of colour or not has little bearing outside how directly it ends up corresponding to their experience. But it was also not a thought experiment on just taking the perspective of a PoC but being one in a situation like the one being described and also how the motivation would be to minimise chances for interactions of the kind being described. The argument does not hinge on such matters either way but it acts as a reminder of how some demographics being subjected to such situations would be more vulnerable to being made relevantly uncomfortable by them (i.e. reducing their engagement with the game and consumption of related products since WotC mainly cares for its bottom line). Let's say I did not mention said detail as part of the scenario. That risks distancing whoever is conceiving the situation from the relevant factors, which is not a failure of the argument as such since the points would still stand but it would be ineffective in practice if they missed the point as a result.
It's fine to point that out; I was mostly addressing Phitt with the example, though I will admit I made the assumption based on their rhetoric that they would be unlikely to be a Person of Colour.
Do note, however, that the 'speaker' in that instance is WotC. On a related note, I was considering earlier how interesting it is that people who claim that the changes they elected to make to their game are wrong since that was a statement made on part of WotC which may not be literal speech in the usual sense but certainly constitutes an expression of the values they want to project as a company. It is fine to criticise, of course - and that applies in both directions - but a decent amount of the time, the feel that gets conveyed is that those complaining are making the claim that WotC should not make such statements which is a form of attempted silencing in that respect (not censorship; the two are distinct). It is, to say the least, hypocritical, given the (usual) alleged reasons for said reactions involving how freedom of speech is being limited by public pressure.
Okay, so - the line that it is naive to believe that the decision was not made because of the protests is just a plain strawman. Of course it was done because of the protests. However, every detail involved in the choice relies on decisions made by WotC rather than anything demanded by anyone else (outside Invoke Prejudice which has been controversial for years). To then shift the blame to the protests for this happening and calling what they are doing a form of fascism requires (1) positing a hypothetical crowd which would have taken action against WotC unless these specific changes were implemented, and (2) generalising that the actual protesters and people sympathetic to their cause are in fact equivalent to this hypothetical crowd. Why am I stuck on talking about these specific changes? Because the whole discussion was started by the accusation that the specifics of what WotC implemented were unreasonable and ridiculous. Now, as far as I am concerned, those seem like they might even have been made based on some intern's 2-hour dive into Gatherer and a few execs skimming through the list to pick Invoke Prejudice and probably Jihad out as high risk cards (whether justified in the latter case or not) and then considering how to make the list extensive enough to seem like they're trying while keeping the cards involved minimally significant for anyone's collection and play experience. The majority of these cards are - as pointed out in the original message - crap people hardly even remembered existed and that no one had felt any interest in playing for a decade or so. Fixating on them now is just inane since whether they are playable or not is materially insignificant. You cannot even really make a slippery slope argument about how next they will demand/do this or that since these were picked out from among all the cards in the existing pool based on a threshold which is already being criticised for involving a stretch of the imagination. Going forward, if WotC is more mindful of their naming schemes and such, no one is still getting hurt or losing cards that could have been, unless they just really wanted one called 'Holocaust', for example.
In the case of Cleanse, I think a parallel with Mass Calcify and Saltblast is in order. If we went strictly by the wording of the card text, those would be considerably more 'unfortunate' in terms of their implications. However, the framing is very different just because of the name. Imagine, if you will, that Mass Calcify was instead called 'Purge'. Yes, it is a generic term in a vacuum but once you imagine playing it and stating 'I use Purge to destroy all non-white creatures', I should hope the thought makes you at least a little uncomfortable. If not, imagine being a person of colour when some edgelord or even just white person you don't know does that in your table, perhaps with even a hint of glee (whether from the edginess or just the triumph and relied of finding a card to answer the board state). The situation is comparable when you replace 'Purge' with 'Cleanse' and 'non-white' with 'black' - especially when anyone playing Cleanse at this point would have been doing so as a statement since the card is just not really worth playing otherwise because of its niche applicability. WotC basically just wants to ensure sufficient dissociation between the card text and the card name to minimise the chance of such unfortunate interactions in the context of their game.
When it comes to the term 'gypsy', perhaps your local community (and I assume they do indeed exist) is a special case or perhaps in your native language (since I cannot assume it is English when it comes to all of Europe), there are more positive implications to the equivalent term. However, I recommend reading this decently researched piece to get an idea of how complicated that issue is. Yes, it is not considered offensive by everyone but there are certainly people hurt by it and it appears there is less of an identification with the term over alternatives even among those who do not mind it. That imbalance is a decent reason to play it safe and avoid the term - whether there are also other uses for it or not since in the context of card names, people are only going to see the word and not the totality of the possible nuanced differences in its usage.
Firstly, remember that those actions have not been demanded by anyone (with the exception of axing Invoke Prejudice for a variety of reasons) and they are just companies making symbolic gestures based on their own ideas about what would be appropriate. Remember not to equate what they elect to do with the demands of the movements which prompt such actions. It's not any kind of 'new fascism' since it's not being imposed; it's just panicked attempts to try and garner sympathy with symbolic gestures, some of which are a positive if a minor one.
Secondly, being European, I can tell that 'gypsy' is absolutely a slur for the Roma people. It's not ridiculous just because you do not understand the reasoning. Some of those choices are arguable, for sure. But with Cleanse, for example, it's not just about 'destroy all black creatures' but also that in the context of the name of the card. You may have heard of something called 'ethnic cleansing'.
Thirdly, this topic has gotten basically every single thread where it comes up locked. Please be sensitive about how you're addressing it instead of jumping to hyperbole like calling the actions WotC has take of its own accord a 'new fascism'.
I see no reason to ostracise but if people with Peasant+ cubes feel they need their own corner to discuss which rates work best while retaining a certain power level, go for it. I was under the impression that some such threads about rates to include already exist, though.
I am a graduate teaching assistant in Philosophy. In other words, I am a seminar teacher and a PhD candidate, and I specifically study the sources of meaning in communication. This is also why I have a bit of an academic interest in the topic at hand since the normative restrictions on interpretations are something I had not given that much of a thought before. Obviously, language use is always normative to some extent but then there is this question of what can justifiably be expected of those whose judgements rely on their interpretations.
Okay, so my impression that there is a level of unrest with the fact that moderation of this sub-forum seems to come in these occasional peeks from the outside. This might be the wrong impression and perhaps the mods are actively monitoring the quality of the discussion. However, I imagine the image comes in part from the types of judgements being made: for example, as I mentioned, I think my joke was pretty borderline because I do not personally know _i0, but it was specifically flagged for flaming. Thus, while I accept there being legit reasons to question my judgement, the reason cited cannot help but feel off since it relies on the lowest common denominator. I study context-sensitivity for a living and as both guitarspider and Leelue have brought up, relying on purely formal signifiers is the most unreliable form of catching intent. Still, catching intent is hard at the best of times, and we might not be justified in demanding that (which was the other side of the debate in which I would be interested). I believe that in the aftermath of the Epic Debate (TM), a moderator cited how not only the actively contributing members are using the sub-forum and how their reactions to the content should also be considered.
For example, I think the example Leelue mentioned really shows how problematic judgement which depends on the lowest common denominators may be. On this occasion, the mod seems to also just have been wrong - they should have been expected to know better. However, what alternatives are there? As n00b mentioned, there could be a separate mod for this sub-community but that risks their judgement becoming skewed by the insider status and it would likely be wasteful if there are any costs associated with moderation. It might also just set a questionable precedent if other sub-communities feel misunderstood.
(Oh, and yeah - I remember those debates. To be fair, my CU/be started really... terrible. Like, genuinely terrible. While I retain the occasional outlier card like Zuran Orb (I can already feel that discussion brewing), the tough commentary did help me reconsider my priorities.)
This seems like the right place to discuss something I just noticed and which ties to certain events from some time back.
Essentially, I only realised a few days back that I had received a warning about flaming due to an admittedly badly thought out joke about seppuku in the Amonkhet spoiler thread. Basically, _i0 mentioned how he wanted to include Earthshaker Khenra and I told him tongue in cheek that he had disgraced the Peasant community in reference to the inside joke about Peasant+ Cubes not being true Peasant cubes. As mentioned, I did realise the joke was not exactly in good taste because of its gruesome punch line so this is by no means a comment complaining about the moderators' judgement. The more interesting point, I think, relates to how I also remember there having been comments about the moderators not understanding this sub-community in the aftermath of a certain Pauper spoiler thread. (On that one, I would tend to side with the moderators despite the absurdist hilarity of the extended argument.) Do people think we should expect a level of contextual understanding from judgements of (in)appropriate conduct or should we self-moderate with a contextually naive crowd in mind? (Again - more generally speaking. My case is a bad example since the joke was in pretty poor taste. Its ilk should likely be restricted to personal communication with close acquaintances.)
tl;dr - Do people think judgements of appropriate conduct should be based on what is said in a vacuum, or should we expect a level of contextual awareness?
Do note, however, that the 'speaker' in that instance is WotC. On a related note, I was considering earlier how interesting it is that people who claim that the changes they elected to make to their game are wrong since that was a statement made on part of WotC which may not be literal speech in the usual sense but certainly constitutes an expression of the values they want to project as a company. It is fine to criticise, of course - and that applies in both directions - but a decent amount of the time, the feel that gets conveyed is that those complaining are making the claim that WotC should not make such statements which is a form of attempted silencing in that respect (not censorship; the two are distinct). It is, to say the least, hypocritical, given the (usual) alleged reasons for said reactions involving how freedom of speech is being limited by public pressure.
In the case of Cleanse, I think a parallel with Mass Calcify and Saltblast is in order. If we went strictly by the wording of the card text, those would be considerably more 'unfortunate' in terms of their implications. However, the framing is very different just because of the name. Imagine, if you will, that Mass Calcify was instead called 'Purge'. Yes, it is a generic term in a vacuum but once you imagine playing it and stating 'I use Purge to destroy all non-white creatures', I should hope the thought makes you at least a little uncomfortable. If not, imagine being a person of colour when some edgelord or even just white person you don't know does that in your table, perhaps with even a hint of glee (whether from the edginess or just the triumph and relied of finding a card to answer the board state). The situation is comparable when you replace 'Purge' with 'Cleanse' and 'non-white' with 'black' - especially when anyone playing Cleanse at this point would have been doing so as a statement since the card is just not really worth playing otherwise because of its niche applicability. WotC basically just wants to ensure sufficient dissociation between the card text and the card name to minimise the chance of such unfortunate interactions in the context of their game.
When it comes to the term 'gypsy', perhaps your local community (and I assume they do indeed exist) is a special case or perhaps in your native language (since I cannot assume it is English when it comes to all of Europe), there are more positive implications to the equivalent term. However, I recommend reading this decently researched piece to get an idea of how complicated that issue is. Yes, it is not considered offensive by everyone but there are certainly people hurt by it and it appears there is less of an identification with the term over alternatives even among those who do not mind it. That imbalance is a decent reason to play it safe and avoid the term - whether there are also other uses for it or not since in the context of card names, people are only going to see the word and not the totality of the possible nuanced differences in its usage.
Secondly, being European, I can tell that 'gypsy' is absolutely a slur for the Roma people. It's not ridiculous just because you do not understand the reasoning. Some of those choices are arguable, for sure. But with Cleanse, for example, it's not just about 'destroy all black creatures' but also that in the context of the name of the card. You may have heard of something called 'ethnic cleansing'.
Thirdly, this topic has gotten basically every single thread where it comes up locked. Please be sensitive about how you're addressing it instead of jumping to hyperbole like calling the actions WotC has take of its own accord a 'new fascism'.
I am a graduate teaching assistant in Philosophy. In other words, I am a seminar teacher and a PhD candidate, and I specifically study the sources of meaning in communication. This is also why I have a bit of an academic interest in the topic at hand since the normative restrictions on interpretations are something I had not given that much of a thought before. Obviously, language use is always normative to some extent but then there is this question of what can justifiably be expected of those whose judgements rely on their interpretations.
For example, I think the example Leelue mentioned really shows how problematic judgement which depends on the lowest common denominators may be. On this occasion, the mod seems to also just have been wrong - they should have been expected to know better. However, what alternatives are there? As n00b mentioned, there could be a separate mod for this sub-community but that risks their judgement becoming skewed by the insider status and it would likely be wasteful if there are any costs associated with moderation. It might also just set a questionable precedent if other sub-communities feel misunderstood.
(Oh, and yeah - I remember those debates. To be fair, my CU/be started really... terrible. Like, genuinely terrible. While I retain the occasional outlier card like Zuran Orb (I can already feel that discussion brewing), the tough commentary did help me reconsider my priorities.)
Essentially, I only realised a few days back that I had received a warning about flaming due to an admittedly badly thought out joke about seppuku in the Amonkhet spoiler thread. Basically, _i0 mentioned how he wanted to include Earthshaker Khenra and I told him tongue in cheek that he had disgraced the Peasant community in reference to the inside joke about Peasant+ Cubes not being true Peasant cubes. As mentioned, I did realise the joke was not exactly in good taste because of its gruesome punch line so this is by no means a comment complaining about the moderators' judgement. The more interesting point, I think, relates to how I also remember there having been comments about the moderators not understanding this sub-community in the aftermath of a certain Pauper spoiler thread. (On that one, I would tend to side with the moderators despite the absurdist hilarity of the extended argument.) Do people think we should expect a level of contextual understanding from judgements of (in)appropriate conduct or should we self-moderate with a contextually naive crowd in mind? (Again - more generally speaking. My case is a bad example since the joke was in pretty poor taste. Its ilk should likely be restricted to personal communication with close acquaintances.)
tl;dr - Do people think judgements of appropriate conduct should be based on what is said in a vacuum, or should we expect a level of contextual awareness?