If your narrative concerning counterspell involves banning other cards to make it safe for modern or nullifying the rules concerning legailty in modern then the answer is "YES counterspell is too good for modern".
Channers are deliberately, perpetually, maximally, vitriolic and distasteful as a way to shield themselves from marketers and schoolmarms. This allows them to discuss mundane topics like video games and anime while insulating themselves from certain aspects of broader “normal” culture like inauthenticity, pervasive branding, or perpetual outrage (channers might seem angry all the time, but this is in part a way to drown out “outrage cues”). In contrast SJWs are cultural imperialists who are hypersensitive to transgressions against their own cultural norms, even within completely foreign groups. Meanwhile they attach little importance to their own transgressions against the rules, values, or laws of the non-SJW communities they operate in.
SJWs escape consequence for their behaviour through “backroom” networking with local community leadership and or public shaming to outside communities. If you’re reading this, it’s likely because you’ve noticed your community leadership has suddenly and arbitrarily started enforcing unstated rules imposed by outsiders, while giving certain maligned members exemption from community rules.
While I don't agree with everything Moxon writes I think he makes some good arguments here.
FrostDragon4-You have frequently mentioned the "oppression of women", I would argue that the whole concept of the oppression of women as it exists in academia now is BS. Informed fundamentally by the same logical fallacies that underpin marxism. That who (defined by demographics here) holds leadership positions trumps how power is actually used or who has control over their lives.
I'm arguing that people don't have as much of a right to their state school spot as you all seem to think. It seems like you're all placing an undue emphasis on an individual's right to the state school enrollment spot.
I have read two articles now from men who have suffered lifelong consequences (social, occupational, financial) from an accusation made to their college, even though they were never charged or even had a hearing.
I imagine you have heard the claim that there are no laws in international waters (I don't know if there is any truth to it, that's irrelevant) We both can agree that torturing someone to death is wrong right, heck pure evil. Would it seem odd to you that people are upset that someone tortured someone to death in international waters and the victim's family has no legal means of redress. It didn't somehow become NOT EVIL just because of a loophole that prevents charges from being brought against the perpetrator. The reason why our constitution protects us from a trial without these protections is because it would be profoundly unjust. I understand the motivations behind those who created this system, who view themselves as fighting an evil white male conspiracy etc. and that is its own bag of crazy, I also understand their warped two wrongs make a right version of justice. It may not have yet been deemed unconstitutional by a court but it certainly should be.
When we're talking about disciplinary proceedings by a state actor against an employee, it's an issue of the employee's property rights versus the state's interest in the case law. Some states may handle it differently, but it's ultimately a contract dispute, as it would be in the case of a state school.
What I find so perverse is the Title IX law was created to protect people against gender discrimination that would prevent/hinder their participation in higher education and it has been transformed via social justices up is down, war is peace, jackassery into a weapon to discriminate against a gender.
I choose this source because it is a feminist source, like most of the media (even Fox News) it's relationship to feminism is that of a pastor to the church bulletin board.
The Rolling Stone was simply following feminist/anti-rape advocacy to the letter...
Believe the survivor (Survivor itself is a pre-judgement) unquestioningly.
Ignore the rights and wellbeing of the accussed (such as the harm done to those who are falsely accused).
Spout a ton of BS statistics and nonsensical BS about a rape epidemic.
Now they are unfairly being labeled as having set women back and somehow being uniquely foul when they were simply doing exactly what they were no doubt told to do.
Did the Rolling Stone's do anything feminists didn't in fact want them to do? Other then having stumbled upon a false accusation (supposedly so rare so as to not exist-yet keeps happening on a regular basis).
Hacksworth-GG supporters including women who are game developers are getting death/rape threats, they are being blacklisted for no other reason then expressing support for GG. This is simply censorship for the same reason that censorship is always pushed in a political debate so one side can have an advantage by silencing it's critics/opponents, hiding behind faux moral outrage about threats isn't fooling anyone.
As far as the confirmation bias thing goes, I had a look and the impression I'm getting is that women tend to get more gendered harassment and are victims of stalking at a greater rate than men. Should be pretty obvious considering stuff like "The Fappening".
As with pretty much everything in society, if you're not-white you get a worse deal than if you're white, and if you're trans, god help you. Men also seem to commit most of the harassment, no matter the target.
Maybe the people collecting the data actually care about women getting threats and couldn't care less about men getting threats and thus like the literally hundreds of papers from this same exact sect in academia is questionable. In fact it seems fair to say that all the research from gender/womens departments is really just propaganda given that it is done in such blatent bad faith.
The latest feminist argument embodying why I could never take anything like your source seriously was the feminist response to research showing that boys are just as likely as girls to be sexually abused. It went like this; Since males who are sexually abused are more likely to become abusers it makes perfect sense to devote all resources to girls as this research shows they are in even more danger.
As for privilege theory and its use in your post it is relevent (given the context of this thread) to point out that privilege theory is really just a continuation of critical theory with special emphasis on the master suppression techniques. http://i.imgur.com/sWYjYjz.png?1
Man recently whenever I see stuff like this discussed online I see more threats thrown at women than at men, even when it's a man in the wrong and a woman calling him out. That kind of pattern gets me thinking that threats towards women (or gender-based social inequalities generally) are a key overarching part of the issues being discussed, which is why I mentioned them.
Men receive threats but don't get the media attention that women get when they receive them. On a feminist website I received several death threats just for posting a link to an article from an anti-racist female advocate describing why modern feminism is not about gender equality in a discussion about teaching feminism in UK schools. Not to mention the several hundred "I hope you get raped" messages from feminists both men and women I receive.
On a side note I don't believe you could care less about death threats (it's just convenient poo to throw) and your own post demonstrates the neo-marxist worldview that is being discussed in this thread.
I agree. Most of the WalMarts I've been to are completely incompetent though, and usually won't have it on the shelf for 2-3 weeks after the release date.
Third party vendors stock these products not Wal-Mart. In my area they were available at four retailers (2 x Walmart, Target, and Shopko) the day before there release date for msrp ($35).
Don't we have exactly as much reason to expect that you are always going to side with the "smaller number is better" when theorizing on how many rapes go unreported?
Sort of, you should question my motivations and bias etc. The thing about MRAs is we both want rapists/assaultists brought to justice and victims to get help but we are also very commited to protecting due process and making sure no-one gets railroaded. In truth boys and men are getting the shaft in all the above. A hysteria one way or the other is a bad idea for us as male victims are already going to be doubted due to the culture of viewing males as the "perpetrator sex" and the already ongoing war on men's due process rights.
The worst thing that could happen to this post is to have it be used as convenient feces to fling at the Blue Tribe whenever feces are necessary.
Umm honestly, tough get over it. The author's a blue triber and doesn't want people pointing it out that some blue tribers are like this, I don't care.
Maybe to be more empathetic everyone gets called out in the comments and I'm OK with you calling me out, as I know you will.
Can we also admit that the current conviction rate is ridiculous (in the sense of how hard it is to actually get justice)? I'm not advocating a criminal change in the law, but we really need to examine the system as a whole.
If your talking about the cases that go to trial they have a conviction rate better then a lot of crimes. This whole canard about under reporting is just a way to manufacture a hysteria. NO ONE really knows how many rapes go unreported and feminists are well lets be honest here always going to side with the "bigger number is better" when theorizing on how many rapes go unreported. Personally I think the critics of the 1 in 5 number (like Christina Hoff Sommers) are right and it is probably an exageration of female victimhood to the degree of 50 times greater then what conventional research techniques find. The study that produced the 1 in 5 has a LOT of obvious problems.
-Self selection bias as students were asked to participate in the study in the name of fighting sexual assault.
-The study didn't ask if they had been assaulted but vague questions like "have you engaged in sexual activity after consuming 1 or more alcoholic beverage(s)?". The results are then "interpreted" by sexual assault experts who have stated that these women are incapable of knowing whether or not they have been sexually assaulted bcause they live in a patriarchal culture.
-Follow up studies find the vast majority of "victims" do not view themselves as having ever been assaulted, traumatized, etc.
This should shed some light on the silliness of comments like "Al Qaeda was our ally" which is 100% false and a lot of the problems people are having here.
https://www.notehub.org/2014/12/30/to-begin-with-a-note-on-language-im-goin
Channers are deliberately, perpetually, maximally, vitriolic and distasteful as a way to shield themselves from marketers and schoolmarms. This allows them to discuss mundane topics like video games and anime while insulating themselves from certain aspects of broader “normal” culture like inauthenticity, pervasive branding, or perpetual outrage (channers might seem angry all the time, but this is in part a way to drown out “outrage cues”). In contrast SJWs are cultural imperialists who are hypersensitive to transgressions against their own cultural norms, even within completely foreign groups. Meanwhile they attach little importance to their own transgressions against the rules, values, or laws of the non-SJW communities they operate in.
SJWs escape consequence for their behaviour through “backroom” networking with local community leadership and or public shaming to outside communities. If you’re reading this, it’s likely because you’ve noticed your community leadership has suddenly and arbitrarily started enforcing unstated rules imposed by outsiders, while giving certain maligned members exemption from community rules.
http://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/149/150
While I don't agree with everything Moxon writes I think he makes some good arguments here.
FrostDragon4-You have frequently mentioned the "oppression of women", I would argue that the whole concept of the oppression of women as it exists in academia now is BS. Informed fundamentally by the same logical fallacies that underpin marxism. That who (defined by demographics here) holds leadership positions trumps how power is actually used or who has control over their lives.
I have read two articles now from men who have suffered lifelong consequences (social, occupational, financial) from an accusation made to their college, even though they were never charged or even had a hearing.
I imagine you have heard the claim that there are no laws in international waters (I don't know if there is any truth to it, that's irrelevant) We both can agree that torturing someone to death is wrong right, heck pure evil. Would it seem odd to you that people are upset that someone tortured someone to death in international waters and the victim's family has no legal means of redress. It didn't somehow become NOT EVIL just because of a loophole that prevents charges from being brought against the perpetrator. The reason why our constitution protects us from a trial without these protections is because it would be profoundly unjust. I understand the motivations behind those who created this system, who view themselves as fighting an evil white male conspiracy etc. and that is its own bag of crazy, I also understand their warped two wrongs make a right version of justice. It may not have yet been deemed unconstitutional by a court but it certainly should be.
There are Title IX claims in some cases, federal in others (when the loses were over $75,000), etc. http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/list-of-lawsuits-against-colleges-and-universities-alleging-due-process-violations-in-adjudicating-sexual-assault/
What I find so perverse is the Title IX law was created to protect people against gender discrimination that would prevent/hinder their participation in higher education and it has been transformed via social justices up is down, war is peace, jackassery into a weapon to discriminate against a gender.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1209-goldberg-uva-rape-false-allegations-scottsboro-20141209-column.html
and
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html
http://mic.com/articles/105838/rolling-stone-may-have-set-the-fight-against-college-sexual-assault-back-decades?utm_source=Mic Check&utm_campaign=cf0e40ad8e-Mic_Report_12_5_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_51f2320b33-cf0e40ad8e-285389813
The Rolling Stone was simply following feminist/anti-rape advocacy to the letter...
Believe the survivor (Survivor itself is a pre-judgement) unquestioningly.
Ignore the rights and wellbeing of the accussed (such as the harm done to those who are falsely accused).
Spout a ton of BS statistics and nonsensical BS about a rape epidemic.
Now they are unfairly being labeled as having set women back and somehow being uniquely foul when they were simply doing exactly what they were no doubt told to do.
Did the Rolling Stone's do anything feminists didn't in fact want them to do? Other then having stumbled upon a false accusation (supposedly so rare so as to not exist-yet keeps happening on a regular basis).
Maybe the people collecting the data actually care about women getting threats and couldn't care less about men getting threats and thus like the literally hundreds of papers from this same exact sect in academia is questionable. In fact it seems fair to say that all the research from gender/womens departments is really just propaganda given that it is done in such blatent bad faith.
The latest feminist argument embodying why I could never take anything like your source seriously was the feminist response to research showing that boys are just as likely as girls to be sexually abused. It went like this; Since males who are sexually abused are more likely to become abusers it makes perfect sense to devote all resources to girls as this research shows they are in even more danger.
As for privilege theory and its use in your post it is relevent (given the context of this thread) to point out that privilege theory is really just a continuation of critical theory with special emphasis on the master suppression techniques. http://i.imgur.com/sWYjYjz.png?1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Men receive threats but don't get the media attention that women get when they receive them. On a feminist website I received several death threats just for posting a link to an article from an anti-racist female advocate describing why modern feminism is not about gender equality in a discussion about teaching feminism in UK schools. Not to mention the several hundred "I hope you get raped" messages from feminists both men and women I receive.
On a side note I don't believe you could care less about death threats (it's just convenient poo to throw) and your own post demonstrates the neo-marxist worldview that is being discussed in this thread.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Third party vendors stock these products not Wal-Mart. In my area they were available at four retailers (2 x Walmart, Target, and Shopko) the day before there release date for msrp ($35).
Take Hornet Sting for example, it meets those three criteria.
Chaos Warp is flavorful, no other card in red does what it does, but it is pretty efficient so ya it is worrisome.
Song of the Dryads seems even weaker then Chaos Warp from what I can see, what with it being an aura.
Marky Mark has some power and say, Why not push for the color pie to be better protected is what I would ask him.
Sort of, you should question my motivations and bias etc. The thing about MRAs is we both want rapists/assaultists brought to justice and victims to get help but we are also very commited to protecting due process and making sure no-one gets railroaded. In truth boys and men are getting the shaft in all the above. A hysteria one way or the other is a bad idea for us as male victims are already going to be doubted due to the culture of viewing males as the "perpetrator sex" and the already ongoing war on men's due process rights.
Umm honestly, tough get over it. The author's a blue triber and doesn't want people pointing it out that some blue tribers are like this, I don't care.
Maybe to be more empathetic everyone gets called out in the comments and I'm OK with you calling me out, as I know you will.
If your talking about the cases that go to trial they have a conviction rate better then a lot of crimes. This whole canard about under reporting is just a way to manufacture a hysteria. NO ONE really knows how many rapes go unreported and feminists are well lets be honest here always going to side with the "bigger number is better" when theorizing on how many rapes go unreported. Personally I think the critics of the 1 in 5 number (like Christina Hoff Sommers) are right and it is probably an exageration of female victimhood to the degree of 50 times greater then what conventional research techniques find. The study that produced the 1 in 5 has a LOT of obvious problems.
-Self selection bias as students were asked to participate in the study in the name of fighting sexual assault.
-The study didn't ask if they had been assaulted but vague questions like "have you engaged in sexual activity after consuming 1 or more alcoholic beverage(s)?". The results are then "interpreted" by sexual assault experts who have stated that these women are incapable of knowing whether or not they have been sexually assaulted bcause they live in a patriarchal culture.
-Follow up studies find the vast majority of "victims" do not view themselves as having ever been assaulted, traumatized, etc.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/