- Registered User
Member for 5 years, 1 month, and 26 days
Last active Mon, Feb, 19 2018 19:52:26
- 4 Followers
- 3,127 Total Posts
- 281 Thanks
Feb 16, 2018Posted in: Multiplayer Commander DecklistsAnger and Filth to the list along with Entomb and Faithless Looting. What do you think?
The great thing about Anger and Filth is that you don't need to cast them. So they can have a cost of whatever and it's not a problem. If you run Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth then Filth becomes broken (it's what I use in my Sidisi deck). With so many wheels it'd be very easy to get them in the graveyard, too.
Feb 14, 2018DementedKirby posted a message on Sidisi, Brood Tyrant: Zombie horde and shenanigans! (Competitive, Budget, and Zombie Tribal - 3 versions!)Posted in: Multiplayer Commander DecklistsQuote from Voxoxoxov3 »I love the deck, but finding issues with the mana base, I think it’s trying to do too much. I’m not liking the artifact lands. I’ve found myself either mulling down to get all of my colors, or stuck on 2 and not being able to cast Sidisi. I’m cutting Sequestered Stadh, and the artifact lands. Adding in the 3 on color fetches, Phyrexian Tower, and Miren. The fetches help us get to our colors, and makes Life from the Loam so much better. Phyrexian Tower paired with Volrath’s Stronghold can help us stick a creature from play onto our deck, and can also save a creature from being exiled. Miren, simple for life gain and currently not willing to shell our for a Diamond Valley. Also not sure about Nykthos, most of our boardstate turns out to be Black Zombie Tokens that don’t help with devotion.
Thanks! Glad you like the deck!
As for the mana base, you could add the fetchlands if you like. When I play I'm not usually too worried about the mana base so long as I can play things. Having a three-colored commander can be difficult to cast early due to color screw. However, there aren't many multicolored spells in the deck and it is a bit balanced as far as colors go. The reason I include the artifact lands is due to them having a dual type. I can recur them from the graveyard with more cards than a normal land plus I can fetch them for free with Tezzeret the Seeker. Again, I'm not claiming that this is the most optimal way to go, but it is a way that has worked for me. I understand the allure of the fetchlands thanks to Life from the Loam and if you're running Chromatic Lantern and/or Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth then they're still usable even after fetching for all possible lands. They also help thin the deck of lands. However, I would rather have slots for utility lands than fetchlands especially when Tezzeret can fetch 3 of them for free.
The inclusion of Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx is because I do tend to have a couple of permanents in play that aren't zombie tokens so any lands that can give me a net mana advantage of more than 1 mana is good by me. It definitely goes a long way with the land untappers. That being said, if better lands come around, then the mana base could definitely see some changes.
Feb 11, 2018Posted in: Multiplayer Commander Decklists
Scapegoat is not simply for wrath protection. If you cast it at the end of the turn before yours, and bounce all your cheap, non-token vampires, then you can recast them during your turn for more value. So it serves a double purpose.
Feb 8, 2018DementedKirby posted a message on Sidisi, Brood Tyrant: Zombie horde and shenanigans! (Competitive, Budget, and Zombie Tribal - 3 versions!)Posted in: Multiplayer Commander DecklistsQuote from Blitzbold »Chains was more ment to be a disruption against opponents trying to draw additional cards in order to handle our board. Imagine a Brainstorm when Chains is down... We on the other side won't be affected at all. But maybe this isn't even necessary.
Yeah, I've never had a problem with opponents drawing. I'm more proactive than reactive but I do have some cards just to protect my strategies a bit - but only if it's in creature form (like Glen Elendra Archmage).
Feb 8, 2018DementedKirby posted a message on Sidisi, Brood Tyrant: Zombie horde and shenanigans! (Competitive, Budget, and Zombie Tribal - 3 versions!)Posted in: Multiplayer Commander DecklistsQuote from Blitzbold »Great primer, I love it. Thanks for all the effort you put into it!
This said, I am in the lucky position of playing M:tG for more than 20 years (with some breaks in between that is) now. Owning stuff from Legends and other older sets for more than 15 years now means there are nearly no budget constraints for me for this format. This leads me to the question whether you considered Adding a Chains of Mephistopheles somewhere in your 100? Also, when looking at the Satyrs, Mulch & Grisly Salvage, is there a way to incorporate Commune with the Gods? How fond are you on cutting Victimize?
Thanks! Yeah, it was my first primer and I had worked a lot on it! I'm glad it's helpful!
Maybe if I ran more enchantment cards I could consider Commune with the Gods. However, it's more or less balanced out with artifacts and planeswalkers while being the same amount as instants and sorceries. That being said, if you want to run it given that you have more of the same amount of enchantments than I do then yes, go for it; it is similar to Mulch, etc. in this sense.
As for Chains of Mephistopheles, I see it more of a card to use in decks like Nekusar, the Mindrazer or Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Vial Smasher the Fierce, etc. Very rarely would I draw more than one card in my turn and even less have 0 cards in my hand after doing so in order to self-mill. In the deck I don't like to draw or discard. I like to manipulate what goes into my hand and graveyard. I'm okay with cutting Victimize since my top priority for the deck is getting in as many creatures with abilities as possible.
Feb 7, 2018The reason I don't play Hedron Crab is because the first version of this deck ran cards that only self-milled. Although effective at self-milling, don't really do stuff on their own. However, other cards that self-mill do other things (like Mulch and the like). The Gitrog Monster is a great card and I previously tried it but didn't really like it because I don't want to be digging into the deck by drawing; I'd rather be filtering the top of the deck for things to toss to the graveyard or place in my hand. So I ended up cutting it. As for Food Chain, maybe I'm missing something? Sure, I could exile a whole bunch of zombie tokens for an extra mana each time but then I could only use the mana for creature spells. And there are no creatures I would actually exile considering that up to now, exiling is pretty much permanent removal. I would rather run Phyrexian Altar which would still give me 1 mana of any color, and I would be sacrificing creatures. Again, unless I'm missing or overlooking something with Food Chain.Posted in: Multiplayer Commander Decklists
Feb 6, 2018Posted in: Multiplayer Commander Decklists
Not if they are dead ;). Anyway CoA would be used as an alpha-strike tool in a scenario when you can kill with it but if you're worried about helping opps there is less potent but easier to play Obelisk of Urd or even Eldrazi Monument. You could even use Vampiric Fury. They are only examples to choose from thought.
Well sure, I get your point. But it'll be a bit hard alphastriking with beefy vamps when your opponents have beefy elves and/or beefy tokens . So there is some merit in evasion. I alphastrike with my Edric deck because they have evasion so when I pump them then I get the win.
Feb 6, 2018Posted in: Multiplayer Commander DecklistsQuote from ISBPathfinder »It sounds like you have an interesting meta. I guess I would say to watch out for having too many high cost cards but if you are playing through sisay tutors and wraths.deck you might have to adjust some things.
Yea, my meta is developed and diversified enough to face many strategies. Mana elves and tokens are common so Evincar fits here alright and Dictate is great against Narset and such.
I'd like to raise another topic though as I wonder about importance of evasion outlets you play and their value compared to removal and pumps. As for me cards like Reconnaissance, Cover of Darkness or Goblin War Drums are simply waste of space that could be used for removal (eg. Retribution of the Meak) or permanent pump effects like Coat of Arms. Wouldn't alpha-striking be more relevant than slow but steady beatdown? The former gives an opponent a chance to block (and lose his creatures in a process) while the latter gives him more opportunities to find an answer or wincon (if he's able).
If mana elves and tokens are common in your meta wouldn't Coat of Arms help your opponents as well?
Feb 5, 2018Posted in: Multiplayer Commander DecklistsQuote from arcane trouper »Thought I'd pop in to give my two cents.
I was trying to find room for World Shaper and Path of Discovery and was having trouble figuring out what to replace. I ended up settling on replacing Narcomoeba and Mortuary. While nice, neither one felt like they had a dramatic effect on game. They exception being when Altar of Dementia was on the battlefield, but Altar is good by itself as a sac outlet and a potential way to go infinite with Doubling Season.
Yeah, that combo is definitely a pet of mine. Although all three components can pull their own weight, you're right in that they're not dramatic effects. So if you do those swaps it would definitely be good for the deck. The deck does have a hard time finding cuts so eventually I'll have to make tougher choices with the release of more new cards.
Oh, and welcome to the forums!
Feb 3, 2018Thanks for that report! Besting a Purphoros token deck with Sidisi is commendable. Those tend to be ridiculously fast. But, since you were able to close the god then you turned the tables. This is why Clever Impersonator was in the deck the moment I built it. Against what happened to you with Atraxa it was probably bad luck especially with how well it went for that player. There really isn't a lot to do in the face of infect and once you get a single counter proliferate will get you. But I feel that it's too situational to make any changes to the deck about it. I am surprised that you won 5 games out of 11 in duel games; I did not engineer this deck to be for 1v1 matches.Posted in: Multiplayer Commander Decklists
Yeah, I take advantage of Sidisi being unassuming in order to not have to start being a problem from the get-go. The deck isn't really reactive although it has ways to deal with threats. I can play more or less regardless of what's happening elsewhere on the board because once it's set up and you're not in any immediate danger, you can generally win the match, similar to how it happened for you in leviathan. That's what's good about multiplayer. Sure, you have more threats against you, but similarly, so does everybody else. And people don't usually proactively waste resources on the player who can simply recover those things destroyed; they tend to save them for when you're the aggressor. But by the time you become the aggressor, it's too late.
Feb 2, 2018Posted in: Multiplayer Commander Decklists
I'm not completely discounting Pontiff of Blight because it has a unique lord ability. If you have a bunch of tokens and/or creatures that have extort, then it becomes a great mana sink for Cabal Coffers and/or Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx that essentially functions as an Exsanguinate. Analyzing it in that light, I would consider Pontiff of Blight for players who run Exsanguinate as a potential swap for it. (Well, imagining that you can only pay black mana for the X in Exsanguinate's casting cost.)
Jan 31, 2018I agree with Oathsworn Vampire & Vampire Lacerator > Gifted Aetherborn & Bishop's Soldier. For one thing, Vampire Lacerator costs half as much as the other two and has the same power. The life loss during each upkeep is negligible in 40-life multiplayer EDH. Secondly, Oathsworn Vampire coming into play tapped isn't a problem because the deck is more about attacking than blocking. So it not being a blocker the turn it comes into play isn't really that important. Additionally, it's easier to cast than Gifted Aetherborn, so that's points in its favor right off the bat. Comparing it to Bishop's Soldier, who has similar stats for similar cost, I'd go with Oathsworn Vampire simply because if you manage to gain life during a turn in which it's in the graveyard, casting it nets you a 1/1 token thanks to Edgar Markov. Bishop's Soldier can't do that. Even if it were situational, it's still a better situation that just having lifelink on a 2/2 for 2.Posted in: Multiplayer Commander Decklists
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Dec 15, 2017Posted in: ArticlesQuote 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!
Dec 5, 2017I 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.Posted in: Articles
Dec 1, 2017DementedKirby posted a message on If You Can't Take Criticism of Jeremy Hambly, You're Part of the ProblemI 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.Posted in: Articles
Dec 1, 2017DementedKirby posted a message on If You Can't Take Criticism of Jeremy Hambly, You're Part of the ProblemThis 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 sexistPosted in: Articles
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.
Dec 1, 2017DementedKirby posted a message on If You Can't Take Criticism of Jeremy Hambly, You're Part of the ProblemSo true.Posted in: Articles
Dec 1, 2017I 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.Posted in: Articles
Dec 1, 2017Freedom 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.Posted in: Articles
Nov 30, 2017I 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.Posted in: Articles
Nov 30, 2017I 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.Posted in: Articles
Nov 30, 2017Posted in: ArticlesQuote 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.
Nov 30, 2017There's a very clear difference between harassment and freedom of speech. This is why harassment is illegal but not freedom of speech. There are even laws and protocols concerning cyber-bullying and any kind of bullying between minors. You can express whatever you want online or other media, but if becomes harassment or similar behaviors, there are repercussions.Posted in: Articles
Although some may argue that there's a fine line between criticism and harassment, it's actually very clear. Criticism doesn't have to be pink or constructive for it to not be harassment. You can harshly criticize something without it becoming harassment. Harassment is "the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious." This type of behavior is liable for lawsuits, i.e.: it's illegal. Freedom of speech isn't illegal. Ergo, you can't pander harassment as freedom of speech.
For those defending Jeremy for lack of evidence, I'm sorry to say but you're just ignoring the facts or have some other agenda (or maybe you're just deluded). In Jeremy's case it's very easy to find proof of his harassment towards Cristine because he performed his harassment and calls for harassment online, where so many people were witness and screenshots also exist. His comments and incitement clearly caused her distress and anxiety. Not only that, but even if you were to dissect the things he's said or done, they're very clearly harassing in nature. That's not opinion, but fact. It's one thing to criticize the director of a movie for making a piece of garbage and quite another to incite people to harass that director due to your opinions of that person (or to personally attack said director). Calling to boycott a movie is not harassment. Telling people to not go watch that piece of garbage of a movie is not harassment. But demeaning, degrading, and insulting the director that made the movie is. Having people actively attack the director as well is harassment. Notice the clear and distinct difference.
As for those demonizing the asking for proof of harassment, I think that's being too extreme; some kind of proof needs to be evident. For all those throwing historical facts around, look no further than the Salem witch trials. If someone disliked someone else all they had to do was accuse them of witchcraft, something which of course could have no possible findings or evidence. You'd then have a kangaroo court where the following logic would be: burn them or drown them; if they die they were innocent. Instead of proving the accused was a witch, the accused had to prove they were not a witch. However, it should be the accuser who has to present proof, not the accused. Without demanding proof, you're just accepting the hearsay of the accuser and condemning an innocent person to be burned at the stake or drowned.
This situation is very black and white so referring to the current situation of the United States is a bit irrelevant; it's just muddying up the clear waters. Doing so is blowing this way out of proportion. (I imagine it's being called into question because Jeremy is trying to defend his actions due to the current situation of the country, which is quite honestly a huge cop-out. But I digress.) Sure, there are similarities with mob mentality and the extremes of the "left" and the "right" but then again all extremes are wrong. However, that's a whole other can of worms. As far as the main point of the article is concerned, yes, undoubtedly Jeremy is in the wrong. It's not a matter of opinion; it's just a fact. This shouldn't be pulling on the strings of neo-Nazi or neo-Marxists agendas. There is some connection but it detracts from the main point, which is something that should be avoided. Whether or not the president of the United States is a racist, misogynist, bigot, etc. or not is not the point here. Whether extremist groups like the neo-Nazis, white supremacists, or KKK want their view points to be considered freedom of speech and opinion instead of hatemongering and racism is also another point altogether. Whether SJW's have double-standards and are hypocrites is yet another point altogether. When you boil it all down, one question remains: "was he or wasn't he harassing Cristine?"
For those who still continue to contend that "she's just thin-skinned" and "he did nothing wrong" I'm sorry to say but you are the not the victim here; she is. And no, I'm not "white-knighting her", it's actually very logical. Just as people can't tell you what to think or how to feel, you can't tell her to do the same. Because then you'd be a hypocrite and your double standards would be showing. It's very convenient to single out someone as "easily triggered" and "quick to feel insulted" yet get insulted yourself when someone singles you out for your behavior. The fact is that if she felt the way she did, then it completes the definition of harassment. Jeremy's harassing actions led to Cristine feeling harassed. Hence, the cycle is complete. Putting all opinions aside, the evidence is in fact there; the cause had an effect and here we are.
Another problem is that Jeremy continues to dig his hole even further instead of trying to climb out. He wasn't smart enough to understand that he could've very easily defused the problem before letting it blow out of proportion. Instead, he continued to make it worse. In order to deflect his actions, he decided to make this situation reflect the current chasm in American society. Thus, the reason why the current sociopolitical topic of the United States is touched upon in the article. Almost everyone (this includes both sides of the argument) happen to agree that it has nothing to do with it. Thank goodness that there's common ground. Because it doesn't.
You can't pick on someone you don't like and then use faulty logic to defend your actions. Period. You can't use the argument of "oh, if she feels that way then it's her own fault". Um, no; every action has a consequence. You can't bully someone and contend that they're weak hence it's their own fault for getting bullied. You can't contend that "they should get stronger in order to defend themselves against that bully". That argument is literally against itself; you are conscious and aware that the person is being bullied. Again, the bully shouldn't be attacking anyone in the first place. Should the victim learn to defend themselves? Of course. Life isn't fair, life isn't nice, and it's a dog-eat-dog world out there. However, that fact doesn't obscure that bullying is wrong. If we transpose that logic to Jeremy and Cristine it's the same thing. You could argue that she should just ignore him and his followers that are harassing her. That's true; she can. But she doesn't have to. She's not in the wrong for not doing so. Jeremy is in the wrong for harassing her to begin with. He's the beginning of the problem, not her. Not everyone is equally strong, this is why rules and laws exist, to create common ground.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.