Kinda surprised there's a Robin Hood reference of all things in here. I mean, sure, Rob's probably the second best known British folklore character after King Arthur, but he's not really a fairy tale nor Arthurian per se. Then again, this same set has Bear Suplex.
Right, this argument has gone on long enough. It's clear that you people are among those who think an eye for an eye is an acceptable way of balancing past injustices. You won't be satisfied unless we spend a good few centuries with men suffering the way women did in centuries past, even though men today didn't cause the suffering back then and do not deserve to suffer for it. Well I'm done talking about it. I'm not budging on my stance. A fair society comes from people of all sexes, races, orientations, etc. getting actual equal treatment, not reverse privileges for certain groups. I started the argument by bringing up a controversial opinion, and now I'm finishing it. It's over. Anyone else who brings it up will be reported and blocked. Now get back to talking about the card.
Well, my choices are 1) just accept the trend I find troubling and not say anything, or 2) bring it up in a place where people who need to see it will actually see it. My indignation is at someone else's assertation that it's progressive to favor one sex, but not the other. I think it's oppressive either way, and I'm trying to make it clear that that mentality does not sit well with me. And yes, I would say the exact same thing if we were talking about races as opposed to sexes, because being part of one race doesn't give you a right to oppress another race either.
I brought the subject up because I want people to think rather than just nod, accept, and try to assert that oppressing this group is okay now because some people of this group oppressed people of another group in the past. It doesn't matter whether the groups are men and women, whites and blacks, cats and dogs, or apples and oranges. Oppression is wrong, no matter who it's aimed at, no matter who it's coming from, I don't care what excuse is being used to rationalize it.
I find it perplexing that when I say "I'd like men and women both to be represented as dominant some of the time", I'm met with "no, women should be dominant all of the time". We are supposed to be moving past demographic biases like racism and sexism, yet so-called "progressives" are themselves trying to establish and enforce demographic biases. Again, I point to my statement that equality needs to be allowed, not forced.
I have a right to be indignant when I'm told "you should be submissive because you're male", just as much as women have a right to be indignant when they're told they should be submissive because they're female. A "person of color" has a right to be indignant if they were told they should be submissive because of their race. Every person has a right to be indignant at being told what they should or shouldn't be, especially when that decision is based on some physical attribute that, until recent history, they had no control over. I can't change the fact I was born a straight white cis male. And why would I want to? I am what I am. I don't want to change my race, my sex, or my sexuality. But what I am does not determine who I am.
I'm gonna give you a thought experiment. Let's say I'm a black woman. I come into this topic and see a card depicting a black woman being dominated by a white man. That bothers me, because I've seen it a lot since I started playing the game, yet I never see a black woman dominating a white man. I bring this up, I receive a response that says black people being dominated by white people is "progressive" and the other way around is "regressive", I respond with indignancy. Then you come along and tell me I shouldn't interject "subversive" thoughts into a forum about a game in a discussion about a card game. I'm a black woman who feels black women are not being given fair representation in the game's art, and you're saying I'm wrong for bringing that up? You're saying I'm wrong for becoming indignant when someone says I should be submissive because I'm black? Does any of that sound at all okay to you?
By the way, I'm only using the word "subversive" because the responder used it first. Since being "subversive" is apparently okay, I'm being "subversive" towards a "subversive" mindset. You gonna use fire, I'm gonna use it too.
People want me to choose one "side" or the other, the sides in this case being the sexes, and choosing either is sexist to me, so I'm choosing a third path here, one that sits in the middle and sees a problem with both extremes. You're only seeing the part of me that opposes the female extreme, because that's the extreme at work here; if I saw a male extreme here, I'd be arguing in favor of more representation of women and female dominance in the game, because my focus is on being fair. My focus is on making it so everybody can embrace the roles they want, and right now that's not the case. I ask for more instances of male dominance in a game that predominantly leans towards female domination and has for years, and I'm told "no, men shouldn't be dominant". That is not a fair, just, or equal mentality, that is a sexist mentality, just as sexist as if it was the other way around. How about instead we say "Both men and women can be dominant or submissive"? That's fair and equal. Same goes for race, orientation, whatever.
And I find it funny that nobody addresses the complications that trans people add to the equation. In my system, trans people are simply people, and they have a right to be dominant or submissive as much as anyone else. But if the issue is one hinging on fundamental differences in gender, then what's your ruling on these people? Does a trans man lose his "right" to be dominant because he stopped being a woman? Funny how almost nobody ever thinks of how the feminist and LGBT "causes" might occasionally grind against each other.
Frankly, I don't care if I get responses that make me indignant. I care about being able to speak my mind freely, indignant or not. If you're gonna say something that makes me indignant, then go ahead and say it. Speak your mind, and I'll speak mine. That's what Freedom of Speech is all about.
I just thought you were making a joke about card art or something, so I did a quick search to see if I could "get it". Now I have a naughty joke about the old man with a small piece of wood in his hand. That sure don't look like a +2/+2 to me, more like a +1/+0, know what I mean?
Anyhoo, I made my controversial "subversive" comment of the day, so let's get back to the topic at hand.
The card itself isn't anything fancy, just a neat little tool for blue decks to use against each other.
tl;dr: Women dominating men = progressive. Men dominating women = regressive.
I'm not even going to start touching upon the BLM movement, because we're skating on thin ice here as it is.
I will however point out that your statement is incredibly sexist, and demonstrates the problem I have with the feminist movement. They are basically trying to replace one kind of sexism with another. I'm supposed to be submissive to a woman simply because I was born male and she wasn't? My sex dictates the role I'm supposed to play, now? How long before "cultural subversion" becomes the culture to be subverted? How long before we're "allowed" to have a "masculinist" movement to return rights to men? And how long before that movement becomes just another reverse sexism movement to be countered by another feminist movement?
Not to mention there's extreme moral myopia at play here. *****es like Liliana are allowed to get away with their ***** because it's "subversive"? If we had "Davriel's Caress" showing him telling a woman that it might not hurt as much if she doesn't fight, everybody would have thrown an utter *****storm over the heavy undertones of sexual assault. But since it's a woman telling a man not to fight, it's okay?
See, I'm asking for a fairly even representastion of men and women in dominant roles, and I'm being told "no, women should be dominant now". You choosing whether someone should be dominant or not based on their sex, and relative to another character's sex at that, is the very definition of sexism. What you're doing is trying to balance out one wrongdoing with another. You want to counter historic pro-male sexism with pro-female sexism. Basically, the old "Eye for an eye". And when men like me get sick and tired of being told "no, you're men, you should be submissive", just like what happened to women in centuries past, we're gonna fight back. And then we're gonna have another round of counter-sexist *****fighting, followed by another round of counter-sexist revolution. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseam.
At what point will men have suffered enough? At what point will we all have suffered enough? And why should the men of tomorrow have to suffer for the sins committed by the men of yesterday? That's even more sexist, the idea that I have to be submissive because men who lived 100 years ago were forcefully dominant. Hell no! That's the exact kind of mentality Judeo-Christians use as an excuse to oppress women, because don't you know, Eve tempted Adam to commit the original sin, so now all women are guilty!
As long as society has the attitude that one sex or the other should be dominant or submissive, it's a sexist society, and therefore problematic. We can only truly be a fair, just society if we quit trying to force roles upon one sex or the other. And right now, you're advocating forcing roles upon somebody because of their sex. You are trying to establish a fundamental difference in status and role between men and women, which is exactly what the patriarchical societies of old did, but for a different sex. That is not fair, that is not just, that is not progressive, that is not right! Sex-based oppression (or oppression of any kind, for that matter) isn't right when it's done against women, it isn't right when it's done against men, it isn't right at all.
And this isn't even taking into account transgenders and transsexuals. A transgender man is supposed to be submissive to a woman even though biologically he was once a woman himself? A transgender woman is allowed to be dominant now because she's no longer a man, or didn't identify as one to begin with? And how the flying fuzz do nonbinaries figure into the whole picture? Why are we choosing whether or not someone is "supposed" to be dominant or submissive based on gender or sex? How about we judge based on a person-by-person basis instead?
People need to learn the difference between allowing equality and forcing it. Allowing equality creates a benevolent, progressive system where people can choose their role and express themselves without fear of being prejudiced and punished. Forcing "equality" creates an oppressive, dictatorial system driven by arbitrary quotas that ignores actual personal merit, dismisses complaints of unprotected demographics, and punishes anybody who dares to speak out against the system's dogmas. Right now I'm living in a society that forces "equality", where the very idea of a person of one particular sex being dominant is viewed as regressive purely because of the sex in question rather than the actual personal dynamic at work.
The funny thing is, if I was a woman writing all this, you'd be telling me I should be dominant because I'm a woman. All I have to do is undergo a sex change and suddenly I qualify for the dominant role, even though I'm still the same person on the inside.
This post is most likely going to get moderated because it's controversial and barely on-topic. Normally I'd spoiler such a lengthy post for the sake of sparing scrolling, but I want my statements to be seen and heard before they get nuked. I'm not going to let fear of punishment silence me prematurely. I have a right to speak out against a perceived injustice, just as everyone else does, and I'm going to exercise that right to the fullest extent possible. I'm saving screencaps of our comments for posterity.
Should Seller of Songbirds and Oak Street Innkeeper count as Citizens, or Peasants? My instinct is Citizen since Ravnica's a city plane (seriously, three visits and they have yet to do Citizen tribal on the city plane?), but elsewhere I'm guessing Peasant will be their creature type of choice for Humanoids with no class. Although, the traditional definition of "peasant" is specifically "a poor farmer of low social status", basically those folks you see wearing dingy brown potato sacks for clothes in Medieval cartoons, so perhaps Magic will reserve Peasant for farmers specifically as well.
Pretty sure thats the bbw of eldraine. Hope we get more loves wolves.
This shorthand had me doing double/triple/quadruple-takes at the spoiled cards because I thought I had missed something, well, big. Sorry, but bbw is not Big Bad Wolf...
Well, if you're a furry, then the two aren't mutually exclusive.
But yeah, Wicked Wolf gets big, and it's bad for your opponent, so it could very well be the Big Bad Wolf of Eldraine.
Vraska: You could try showing your hair more often. Some girls like the "tousled intellectual" look.
Lochmere Serpent: L...O...C...phlegm...
*Surrak suplexes ten huge Bears, just because he can.*
Well, what's a castle made of?
Kind of a pity the Wicked Stepmother isn't a legendary, I'm sure some fans looked forward to building a commander deck around a cruel taskmaster.
Really, kind of a pity this set doesn't have more legendary creatures in general, fairy tale-themed commanders would be fun to build around.
Well, my choices are 1) just accept the trend I find troubling and not say anything, or 2) bring it up in a place where people who need to see it will actually see it. My indignation is at someone else's assertation that it's progressive to favor one sex, but not the other. I think it's oppressive either way, and I'm trying to make it clear that that mentality does not sit well with me. And yes, I would say the exact same thing if we were talking about races as opposed to sexes, because being part of one race doesn't give you a right to oppress another race either.
I brought the subject up because I want people to think rather than just nod, accept, and try to assert that oppressing this group is okay now because some people of this group oppressed people of another group in the past. It doesn't matter whether the groups are men and women, whites and blacks, cats and dogs, or apples and oranges. Oppression is wrong, no matter who it's aimed at, no matter who it's coming from, I don't care what excuse is being used to rationalize it.
I find it perplexing that when I say "I'd like men and women both to be represented as dominant some of the time", I'm met with "no, women should be dominant all of the time". We are supposed to be moving past demographic biases like racism and sexism, yet so-called "progressives" are themselves trying to establish and enforce demographic biases. Again, I point to my statement that equality needs to be allowed, not forced.
I have a right to be indignant when I'm told "you should be submissive because you're male", just as much as women have a right to be indignant when they're told they should be submissive because they're female. A "person of color" has a right to be indignant if they were told they should be submissive because of their race. Every person has a right to be indignant at being told what they should or shouldn't be, especially when that decision is based on some physical attribute that, until recent history, they had no control over. I can't change the fact I was born a straight white cis male. And why would I want to? I am what I am. I don't want to change my race, my sex, or my sexuality. But what I am does not determine who I am.
I'm gonna give you a thought experiment. Let's say I'm a black woman. I come into this topic and see a card depicting a black woman being dominated by a white man. That bothers me, because I've seen it a lot since I started playing the game, yet I never see a black woman dominating a white man. I bring this up, I receive a response that says black people being dominated by white people is "progressive" and the other way around is "regressive", I respond with indignancy. Then you come along and tell me I shouldn't interject "subversive" thoughts into a forum about a game in a discussion about a card game. I'm a black woman who feels black women are not being given fair representation in the game's art, and you're saying I'm wrong for bringing that up? You're saying I'm wrong for becoming indignant when someone says I should be submissive because I'm black? Does any of that sound at all okay to you?
By the way, I'm only using the word "subversive" because the responder used it first. Since being "subversive" is apparently okay, I'm being "subversive" towards a "subversive" mindset. You gonna use fire, I'm gonna use it too.
People want me to choose one "side" or the other, the sides in this case being the sexes, and choosing either is sexist to me, so I'm choosing a third path here, one that sits in the middle and sees a problem with both extremes. You're only seeing the part of me that opposes the female extreme, because that's the extreme at work here; if I saw a male extreme here, I'd be arguing in favor of more representation of women and female dominance in the game, because my focus is on being fair. My focus is on making it so everybody can embrace the roles they want, and right now that's not the case. I ask for more instances of male dominance in a game that predominantly leans towards female domination and has for years, and I'm told "no, men shouldn't be dominant". That is not a fair, just, or equal mentality, that is a sexist mentality, just as sexist as if it was the other way around. How about instead we say "Both men and women can be dominant or submissive"? That's fair and equal. Same goes for race, orientation, whatever.
And I find it funny that nobody addresses the complications that trans people add to the equation. In my system, trans people are simply people, and they have a right to be dominant or submissive as much as anyone else. But if the issue is one hinging on fundamental differences in gender, then what's your ruling on these people? Does a trans man lose his "right" to be dominant because he stopped being a woman? Funny how almost nobody ever thinks of how the feminist and LGBT "causes" might occasionally grind against each other.
Frankly, I don't care if I get responses that make me indignant. I care about being able to speak my mind freely, indignant or not. If you're gonna say something that makes me indignant, then go ahead and say it. Speak your mind, and I'll speak mine. That's what Freedom of Speech is all about.
Anyhoo, I made my controversial "subversive" comment of the day, so let's get back to the topic at hand.
The card itself isn't anything fancy, just a neat little tool for blue decks to use against each other.
I'm not even going to start touching upon the BLM movement, because we're skating on thin ice here as it is.
I will however point out that your statement is incredibly sexist, and demonstrates the problem I have with the feminist movement. They are basically trying to replace one kind of sexism with another. I'm supposed to be submissive to a woman simply because I was born male and she wasn't? My sex dictates the role I'm supposed to play, now? How long before "cultural subversion" becomes the culture to be subverted? How long before we're "allowed" to have a "masculinist" movement to return rights to men? And how long before that movement becomes just another reverse sexism movement to be countered by another feminist movement?
Not to mention there's extreme moral myopia at play here. *****es like Liliana are allowed to get away with their ***** because it's "subversive"? If we had "Davriel's Caress" showing him telling a woman that it might not hurt as much if she doesn't fight, everybody would have thrown an utter *****storm over the heavy undertones of sexual assault. But since it's a woman telling a man not to fight, it's okay?
See, I'm asking for a fairly even representastion of men and women in dominant roles, and I'm being told "no, women should be dominant now". You choosing whether someone should be dominant or not based on their sex, and relative to another character's sex at that, is the very definition of sexism. What you're doing is trying to balance out one wrongdoing with another. You want to counter historic pro-male sexism with pro-female sexism. Basically, the old "Eye for an eye". And when men like me get sick and tired of being told "no, you're men, you should be submissive", just like what happened to women in centuries past, we're gonna fight back. And then we're gonna have another round of counter-sexist *****fighting, followed by another round of counter-sexist revolution. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseam.
At what point will men have suffered enough? At what point will we all have suffered enough? And why should the men of tomorrow have to suffer for the sins committed by the men of yesterday? That's even more sexist, the idea that I have to be submissive because men who lived 100 years ago were forcefully dominant. Hell no! That's the exact kind of mentality Judeo-Christians use as an excuse to oppress women, because don't you know, Eve tempted Adam to commit the original sin, so now all women are guilty!
As long as society has the attitude that one sex or the other should be dominant or submissive, it's a sexist society, and therefore problematic. We can only truly be a fair, just society if we quit trying to force roles upon one sex or the other. And right now, you're advocating forcing roles upon somebody because of their sex. You are trying to establish a fundamental difference in status and role between men and women, which is exactly what the patriarchical societies of old did, but for a different sex. That is not fair, that is not just, that is not progressive, that is not right! Sex-based oppression (or oppression of any kind, for that matter) isn't right when it's done against women, it isn't right when it's done against men, it isn't right at all.
And this isn't even taking into account transgenders and transsexuals. A transgender man is supposed to be submissive to a woman even though biologically he was once a woman himself? A transgender woman is allowed to be dominant now because she's no longer a man, or didn't identify as one to begin with? And how the flying fuzz do nonbinaries figure into the whole picture? Why are we choosing whether or not someone is "supposed" to be dominant or submissive based on gender or sex? How about we judge based on a person-by-person basis instead?
People need to learn the difference between allowing equality and forcing it. Allowing equality creates a benevolent, progressive system where people can choose their role and express themselves without fear of being prejudiced and punished. Forcing "equality" creates an oppressive, dictatorial system driven by arbitrary quotas that ignores actual personal merit, dismisses complaints of unprotected demographics, and punishes anybody who dares to speak out against the system's dogmas. Right now I'm living in a society that forces "equality", where the very idea of a person of one particular sex being dominant is viewed as regressive purely because of the sex in question rather than the actual personal dynamic at work.
The funny thing is, if I was a woman writing all this, you'd be telling me I should be dominant because I'm a woman. All I have to do is undergo a sex change and suddenly I qualify for the dominant role, even though I'm still the same person on the inside.
This post is most likely going to get moderated because it's controversial and barely on-topic. Normally I'd spoiler such a lengthy post for the sake of sparing scrolling, but I want my statements to be seen and heard before they get nuked. I'm not going to let fear of punishment silence me prematurely. I have a right to speak out against a perceived injustice, just as everyone else does, and I'm going to exercise that right to the fullest extent possible. I'm saving screencaps of our comments for posterity.
Anyway, counterblue Mana Leak is counterblue Mana Leak. Whoop-de-doo.
Well, if you're a furry, then the two aren't mutually exclusive.
But yeah, Wicked Wolf gets big, and it's bad for your opponent, so it could very well be the Big Bad Wolf of Eldraine.
I'm kinda surprised Blow Your House Down doesn't involve land destruction.