MTG Salvation

Interesting... I will probably just maintain my primers here just because they have some history and have been here for a while. There's lots of discussions and I believe that they'll still be useful if I'm still able to edit and maintain them. That being said, the staff here at MTGSalvation have made the experience and forums an amazing place and their dedication deserves way more merit and credit than can be given. I hope that, once MTGNexus is up and running, an announcement can be made and thus be able to create an account there (and hopefully no one takes my username ). It won't be easy juggling between being active in two different sites, but I will probably only be attentive here to my primers. If the exodus towards MTGNexus is a certain thing, then I will join that immigration.

Wow... it is very depressing to see the end of such a wonderful place. Thankfully the community can continue somewhat. Good luck to all and all your endeavors! I will try to clean up and polish and finish my Primers by then so that at least they can continue serving others when nothing new can no longer be added to this place.

It is Atraxa's best friend. It's 100% going in my Atraxa Superfriends EDH deck.

Fingers crossed for Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar legendary creature card in Dominaria

Quote from ISBPathfinder »

Generally speaking cards that don't show up have an issue on the card in the database and its not flagged as legal in the format you chose. I am working on Confluence right now and hopefully that will fix it moving forward.

EDIT: I am able to find Mana Confluence now after having fixed the card. I don't see anything wrong with Voltaic Key offhand but it might depend on what format you had selected when searching for it. If you have issues still please let me know.

Great job you guys are doing with this. I'm super excited at its prospect!

I think that Mana Confluence isn't in the data base. I can't find it.

I retract my feelings on the The Countdown Is at One. The only way I'll let it slide is that whoever cast it needs to play "The Final Countdown" by Europe on repeat during the Magic subgame until it's over.

I agree. There should at least be some reference material to justify what's being said. Otherwise that, which is the main point of the article (Jeremy is even mentioned in its title), is lost in issues that, while slightly relevant, take away from the main point.

This is why my favorite videos on youtube to laugh at are when SJW's are destroyed by logic. Yes, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are prevalent and they are issues in America. However, you can't protest for equality by singling out others. That's the definition of hypocrisy at best and bigotry at most. You can't say "straight white men are the problem" because that's inherently racist and sexist

The previous election was literally a rock-and-a-hard-place decision. Do I want someone who I don't fully trust like Hillary Clinton to win or do I want someone who will destroy the environment and pull out the red carpet for corporation and fat cats like Donald Trump to win? In all honestly, this election wasn't so much proTrump or proHillary as it was antiTrump or antiHillary. So one has to be very careful to put Trump supporters like the corruptly filthy rich or the NeoNazis and KKK in the same group as those who voted for Trump as a big F.U. to people like Hillary Clinton.

Curiously, with everyone at each other's throats, people miss that there is a common ground. The main problem is extremes. As for people being shunned for being edgy, it happens all the time. Hence the phrase "if you don't like what you see, change the channel." There are rules for what can be said/shown in public broadcasts. Hell, look no further than George Carlin's "7 Words You Can't Say on Television". Even then, that has changed. You can't show explicit sex on a channel like ABC but you very well see it on channels like Playboy and Spice. You can't drop an F-Bomb on Fox but you can drop as many as you want on HBO. Being censured is not necessarily the same as having your freedom of speech revoked or inhibited; there's a clear distinction. However, there's nothing yet for this on the internet. This is new ground. On radio, you'd have no idea if the people broadcasting were naked or not; they just couldn't say a certain list of words. On TV, you can't say those same words, but you can't show lewd things to a certain degree (or violent/graphic things, either). Eventually, the same will probably happen for the internet.

So true.

I agree; if you don't want to start an open war or any kind of negative effects, you can't do things in an extreme way. And yes, Jeremy can't be at fault for what other people do (unless he was explicitly inciting them to do so). That being said, Jeremy needs to understand (as well as a whole bunch of people need to, apparently) that sexist comments are as offensive as racist comments, etc. Telling a person, public or not, "you're a 6/10" is not really all that offensive (although some people for some reason will still find it offensive) but, as you say, she's presenting herself visually. So it's no less harmful than judging a beauty pageant and giving a contestant 6/10. However, in the same fashion, you wouldn't put in your judge's remarks on the ballot "6/10; I wouldn't even rape this contestant" as a valid justification for your grading. That is the problem. You can criticize her on her looks, give her a numerical assessment, etc. etc. etc. But literally saying "I wouldn't even rape you" is beyond bad tastes, beyond rude, and it's borderline misogynistic. That is the offense. If she were in a cosplay contest and received a 6/10, nobody bats an eyelash. If a critic or anybody else personally gave her a 6/10, nobody would care. Some may even be mean-spirited and criticize her harshly. Yes, she'd have to deal with that because that is a possibility. However, saying "I wouldn't even rape you" to anyone, and then expect to not get called out on it, is very deluded thinking; it's practically irrational. You can't do trollish things for the sake of being a troll and then get surprised at the backlash. It's like kicking around a wasps' nest and not expecting to get stung.

Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to verbally assault someone anymore than the right to bear arms gives you the right to just up and shoot someone. Mental and emotional abuse is punishable, not just physical abuse.

I agree on some of the points you made. Yes, many of the SJW's are hypocritical and their double standards know no bounds. I am not a "white, straight male" but that doesn't mean that I'm going to invalidate anyone's opinion who is one. Equality means that everyone is the same. If I call said people racist simply because they're not in the minority, I'm being equally bigoted. However, just because people throw you into that hate group doesn't mean you have to defend that hate group; just make it very clear that you're not in it. The problem lies in the extremists on either side of the social divide. White supremacists are just that - they want white people as the supreme race. You being white doesn't make you a white supremacist. However, agreeing in what they believe in technically makes you a racist. Extreme feminists are no worse than misogynists because they're the other side of that coin. I remember the Lorena Bobbit case and how so many women applauded her. That's ridiculous. The mutilation of female genitalia is abhorrent but not if it's an angry wife against her husband? People also made a big racial issue with OJ Simpson. They took away from the fact that it was a high profile case concerning a celebrity killing his ex-wife and lover. But the race card took away from the major issue because he was black and she was white. Here, Jeremy is taking attention away from the issue by playing the SJW victim card. That's something I can't agree with being as it's equally hypocritical. You can't criticize Cristine for feeling harassed when she's being harassed while defending Jeremy for being harassed when he's being harassed. You either defend anyone who's being harassed or you don't. You can't just choose as you please who is and isn't victim of harassment and choose who to defend or not. People are being too biased. They should instead be more objective.

I agree that exaggerating this issue to the point of neo-Nazis in America is unnecessary. It takes away from the entire point which is how responsible is Jeremy towards the harassment received by Christine. This should be viewed objectively and not subjectively. Both by those defending and accusing Jeremy.

Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »

The fact that a comment makes someone feel harassed doesnt mean it is harassment.

Just because someone feels insulted, its not automatic evil in nature.

Most important, he never told to her directly, you literally have to seek out his channel to see the comments, so you actively have to search yourself to see negative comments about yourself.

The indisputable issue are the sick minded individuals that go over the top and do exactly that, email directly, twitter to her directly etc. They do the harassment, they are 100% guilty for it, and they qualify for it, as they indeed take a sadistic pleasure in doing that, its among the most harmful type of troll.


Then theres a difference between private people and people in public.
As a private person nobody has any public interest in what i do and so comments about my person would be out of context.

The moment what you are doing is part of a community, like cosplay at a grand prix and doing pictures of that etc. You present yourself in public and so comments about exactly that are clearly presented.
That alone is no harassment and its just as important to clearly draw a line between what people truly say and what is casually said, simply put, if you are talking to a group of people for hours, chances are you will say something stupid and someone will feel insulted ; so it has to be viewed in context and not just "oh god, look what he said" , and finger point exactly that and ignore anything else.


And especially for Jeremys channel, its clearly a form of topics and talking that you might easily find offending, others do not, some think hes right about a bunch of stuff, and i believe you can easily see he has a bunch of points.

All the so called harassment can be put down to context that gives it a background, so that is what makes the topic a lot more slippery than just believing its all crystal clear.

The idea of thinking its downright crystal clear and theres only black/white in it, is already short sighted, as you have to see more of the picture to get a real glimpse of the actual truth.

Well, I never inferred that he didn't have any points to any criticism he makes or has ever made. As for someone being a public person, that doesn't justify any harassment they receive; being a public figure just makes them easier to see and thus more susceptible to harassment. And I understand that logic. However, it's the same as saying, "if you don't want to get eaten by sharks then don't go in the ocean". Yet even then, you can't say "well, you're a public figure so deal with it" because that is equally short-sighted. Public figures being harassed by private people shouldn't be a given. That's precisely what's being discussed here. And, in any case, both Jeremy and Christine are public figures. Yet no one - public or not - should feel that they have any right whatsoever to harass anyone. Public figures have literally died being harassed.

I can also understand the point of "just because you feel you're being harassed doesn't mean you're being harassed". However, that doesn't translate from "just because you're being offended doesn't mean you're being harassed". Being offended and being harassed are two very different things. If someone makes a racist comment or a racist joke, you could very easily offend someone, which is why they should be avoided. However, to simply brush it off as a faux pas is too narrow-minded. Any workplace has very strict guidelines as to what behavior is and isn't tolerated. And guess what, if you make a racist comment at work - even if it offends no one - minimum, you're gonna have to meet with human resources. Again, being offensive doesn't equate to harassing.

It's true that there are some people who apparently live in a bubble and are easily offended by anything. Those people are equally annoying. But then again that all depends on culture. Take the infamous flagburning episode of Seinfeld. I have no doubt that may people laughed when the Puerto Rican flag was being burned because it was in a certain context. Other people found it appalling. There are even those that defend the scene. To this day, Jerry Seinfeld defends the scene - seeing nothing wrong with it. But I guess it's all just a matter of context. If you see an American flag burning, you may get offended. But what if it's the only viewpoint? Zooming out may reveal that it's on a sinking ship or part of a burning building, and that explains its burning. Okay, fine. But if you zoom out and it's burning because ISIS is burning it in a video, then it's a bad thing. Notice, same image, two different aspects. Once you have the entire picture, it does in fact become crystal clear. Personally, I don't care that they burned the Puerto Rican flag on Seinfeld - and I'm Puerto Rican. Even if you try to dissect it as some hidden or subtle way of being racist towards Puerto Ricans and that it was immoral, etc., I don't really care. I didn't see it that way. Accidents happen, which is what the scene tried showing. Was it in bad taste? Depends on the person. However, I can also accept that just because I "wasn't offended" doesn't mean that the scene wasn't offensive. There are worse things being done and said to Puerto Ricans that go beyond offending or harassing that aren't even being touched upon. That is something that pisses me off, though. But that's an entirely different topic.

I guess the point that I'm making is this: yes, it's true that just because you feel harassed doesn't mean you are in fact being harassed. Guidelines exist to identify harassment. So, if the entire picture doesn't show harassment, then it's not harassment (which is where it's good to have evidence). The reason I call it black and white and crystal clear is because harassment is defined. And as you yourself mentioned, yes, she was victim to actual harassment. Most people can agree to that. The debate is to what extent is Jeremy responsible for said harassment.

People keep mentioning Hitler and all these historical figures to overly exaggerate things like this. That's just warped logic. Obviously Hitler didn't directly kill millions of people. But he gave the order to. Yeah, that's known history. The same could be said for any genocidal maniac in power at any point in history: Atilla the Hun, Nero, Vlad the Impaler, Crazy Ivan, etc. You can demonize someone by comparing them to Hitler or the people following that person as Nazis to get your point across. But when trying to make a point people are just going off the tangent. You can't compare Jeremy and his followers to Hitler or to white supremacists. That's just baffling to me. You cannot compare hundreds of trolls harassing a cosplayer at MtG events to the holocaust. Period. However, Jeremy himself says he's a victim of the SJW movement which is equally blown out of proportion.

Obviously there's a lot of drama, so my bad for being Capt. Obvious (ooh, that would'be been a great card for Unstable). But is it directed at the right place? Is it okay for Jeremy to become this pariah? Did he bring it upon himself? How at fault are both sides of the argument? All of these may seem like grey questions but they're not. For one thing, Jeremy could've handled the situation very differently. Instead, he chose to dig a deeper hole. Should Christine have quit cosplaying at MtG conventions because of the harassment? If that was her prerogative, then yes. If she no longer derived any enjoyment from it because of the harassment then it's her decision. There's a lot of finger-pointing but people should be rational and objective. The right questions aren't being asked or answered.