MTG Salvation

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.

There'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.

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.