2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on [2XM] Thoughtseize (unofficial spoiler)
    @War:
    Quick question why do you belive thoughseize shouldn't be downshifted but some other cards should?
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on [2XM] MTG twitter - Master of Etherium and Reshape
    It's a bit offtopic but relevant MTGGoldfish has a Live running EV sheet for Double Masters for reference.
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bZH7LLtVd4HIiElm6ui0hKiymkDE2orRcoGMXtEiuzY/htmlview?pru=AAABc5XMqu8
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Wizards cuts ties with artist Terese Nielsen
    Jihad as a word is guilty by association in regards to your story. You associate that card with that word to your story. You say that to argure that its not raching to ban that card because of it. Hence arguing for guilty by association is a thing one should be vary of.

    Nielsen liking a post about how Jews secretly running the world, or how the black power movement is the same as the white power movement is association at its bare minimum. In the first case guilt by association (The word to your Story) is justified and in the second case (Nielsen actively liking at the bare minimum ignorant and bigoted twiter posts) somehow is not.

    And thats just the bare minimum as in liking something is more akin to endorsment than just association alone.
    When you like that they put more burly men or sea creatures in a set doesn't that mean you endorse them doing so?

    Furthermore relying on the Guilt by Association Fallacy Argument is weird because arguments with that nature go in the way of
    A Supports B and A Supports C Therefore B Supports C (Which is wrong)
    When this case is more
    A supports B and A Supports C Therefore A Supports B and C
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Wizards cuts ties with artist Terese Nielsen
    Removing Jihad is not reaching at all.

    I’m Lebanese and I can’t even keep count of how often that term has been used in a racist connotation against me since 9/11.

    Two years ago I declined a date with a white guy who said “that’s not how we do things here in America, if you want to be a dirty sand N***** go back to your country and take your Jihad with you. I hope Allah sends you to hell”

    I’m catholic btw and Allah is the Abrahamic god in general...


    So this is ok and not guilty by association (You associating a name of a card with a personal story)
    (Which I agree actually is not reaching)
    But someone putting a like i.e an endorsement wich is more than Just association is ok. Got it.

    So for you it would be ok for someone who works higher up at some company to like a post that said we should eradicate all the Gays. Since "Oh hes not homophobic its just guilt by association" Got it
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Katingal: Plane of Chains
    Feign is worded awkwardly as die would also implicate sacrifice and -x/-x would still trigger it but it wouldn't: ( I think with this wording -x/-x would let you get a copy into your graveyard and still die and sacrifice would just trigger feign normally, which seems you didnt Intend) So I would word it similar to Totem Armor.
    So sth like this Feign(If enchanted creature would be destroyed, search your library for a card named ~ and put that into your graveyard instead. [~ gets indestructable until end of turn] if you can't ~ is destroyed.

    In both iterations Death and ETB won't trigger but I guess thats what you were going for.
    Posted in: Custom Set Creation and Discussion
  • posted a message on Don’t know if this is the right place to put this.
    All you come about is the slippery slope and that goes both ways both with banning and not banning cards.
    Invoke prejudice is ok so next hey casual swastika is ok, i mean some people are just more sensitive than others right so why should that be banned.
    Or outright porn I mean this game is catered to kids but hey you cant be insensitive if you always argue that others are to sensitive.

    And if your argument is that they wouldn't do that because of some reason why can't that reasoning be applied to the bannings as well?
    How is it harmful to the Integrity of the game to ban those cards? How does it hurt the fantasy setting how does it hurt the art?
    How does it hurt freedom of expression? Noone is banned from making art cards its a company saying yeah we dont want that art (anymore)? Similar to what I said before freedom of expression does not mean everything you make MUST BE Published/considered. And similar to that its the companies freedom of expression to say yeah thats not who we are as a company whether its pandering wheter its for moral reasons wheter its for simply not wanting to be associated with something does not matter its their freedom to say "yeah no"

    At some point people have to let go and deal with the present and care for the future,

    Thats what they do since for those people those issues are still in the present and they fight for a better future
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Don’t know if this is the right place to put this.
    To bring this back to talking about the actual game (and I hope this point wasn't addressed already, I only had time to skim through the pages):

    When a player plays a card that depicts horrible actions or concepts, does that make you think that player condones such actions or concepts in real life?

    I believe that's the question it comes down to in this game, as well as in the entertainment industry as a whole.


    That Misses the point of these bannings entirely, the point being context and connotation.
    What we've already discussed here (since you haven't been reading everything and who can blame you its at 6 pages already) it's not the actions depicted on the cards /names it's the context. Major Teroh is not a controversial card for killing all black creatures nor is Planar Cleansing for containing the word cleansing However Cleanse with the combination of killing all black creatures is due to the fact that Etnic cleansing is a talking point in white supremacist circles.

    So my question to you is whats the harm in banning these cards in official settings?

    Edit:
    In short, is it possible for us to acknowledge the good in WotC's proclaimed goal while still criticizing their chosen method do achieve that goal? Or will we always automatically claim that whoever has a problem with the action is automatically also against the intended outcome of those actions?


    You can disagree with the method so far noone has "automatically claimed that you are automatically against the intended outcome" they just argued for the method.

    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Don’t know if this is the right place to put this.
    If something is racist, ALL the racist variations need to be addressed, not just a sub-group that is more important than another (as that is in itself racist to make such a distinguishing).

    Agreed if you have the context for banning a card that can be viewed as racist against whites by the same standards have at it. Keep in mind that cleanse isnt just because it kills all black creatures, its the additional context.

    I also agree that all racism needs to be adressed. But If a house is burning you don't go to extinguish the neigbours candle because all Fires must be adressed. If one issue is more pressing you handle that issue. If you only come up with men's rights when womens's rights are discussed that paints the picture of a Kid who only plays with the ball when his brother wants to play , he doesn't care about the ball he just cares that his brother cant play with it.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Don’t know if this is the right place to put this.
    In what world do you want to live in.

    - A world with thousands of banned words, banned signs and banned art.
    - Or a world in which everything is allowed and everyone is free to make up their own mind.


    Yeah again with the slippery slope acting as if magic taging away a card is banning a word entirely, wotc is not the government.

    If someone has the intention to hurt you, thats tremendously worse than, than someone that means no harm gets suddenly branded.

    If someone does not mean harm to you but still harms you harm is still done and you can call that someone out for it. Yes it is worse if harm was meant. But just because no harm was meant doeesn't mean no harm is done.
    I agree that if you acidentally shoot someone its less bad that to actively do it. But that doesn't mean just because you didnt mean to doesn't mean someone isn't shot. And if you acidentally shoot someone you still call him out since you know manslaughter isn't murder buts its still a crime and its still bad thing.

    All I can see in your arguments is its bad to call someone racist/nazi bad and makes people do bad things to them, but saying/doing racist things will not make people do bad things to different people. Like you said either everything is equal or nothing is.


    edit
    someone might throw that person out of the store, insult them, claim they are racists, and make their day really bad.

    Get thrown out of the store, like racists do with people of a different race. Make their day really bad you mean like people like tiro and the jihad thing which he is reminded of when he sees the card. You know the same consequences.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Don’t know if this is the right place to put this.


    Being directly and personally insulted and attacked is just that, an insult and is actual even illegal to do no matter the context.
    Nobody has to be directly and personally insulted or should be.

    However, if a card displays something and by proxy someone feels insulted by that, they are explicitly not directly and personally insulted, but by proxy claim to be insulted[/b], which is an entirely different animal.

    As by this "by proxy insulted" notion you can be insulted by absolutely everything, as long as you claim to be insulted and you can claim ownership over being a victim and weaponize that.
    If nobody means any harm to you and you blame them for insulting you, thats just terrible wrong and does nothing good, its toxic and destructive to any good relationship.


    So you are in the camp that intention is bigger than effect, so if you do harm but mean no harm its ok.
    What when the people who point out that those things might be racist did not mean harm but wanted to point that out as in hey that card has racist connotations and then they blame them for insulting them as racist. To me it still looks like its the same thing but one of those things is ok and the other is not?


    At this point the artists of these labeled as "racist" cards are attacked personally by people, as by proxy, the artist is transformed into a racist too, no matter what their intention was in the art and its even less relevant if they actually are what they are blamed for ...


    First besided Harold mc Neil who Heavily uses Nazi and White Supremacy iconography see here they are hardly attacked and if at all for their art and not personally. Since the art context is mainly problematic for Invoke prejudice.



    Theres a real danger in doing that and its fairly easy to realize how wrong it is to do that.
    The Nazis did the very same to jews. They just blamed them to be "evil" and the entire nation followed that narrative and see what we got, a entire nation that suddenly by proxy hated on jews and caused one of the most evil acts in human history.

    With the differende here beeing twofold:
    1. It was a government not a company who used it as propaganda
    2. Their "reasoning" was made in such a way that they are evil because who they are here their reasoning is not your evil because you are a racist it's hey those are not nice things to do. In the first they can't change out of being who they are in the second they have the chance to either change their opinion or double down on it or realize that they were ignorant in somethings. The jews didn't have agency when someone is called a racist they do.


    What we get with the current racism trope is very much like that and it gets more and more violent and crazy every day by now.
    People that mean absolutely no harm are labeled and blamed for almost everything , and suddenly violence against them is "justified" , even encouraged, and the mob is destroying monuments, property and throwing rocks at people.
    Its the same stupidity as Nazi Germany did against the jews, its labeling a enemy out of thin air and completely goes over the rails to lash out.


    See above, if you take away peoples agency they tend to get frustrated and if people who have agency say "theres nothing we can do" the people without agency get frustrated even more. While I don't condone violence I can see where it comes from.



    WotC here by proxy declares these cards and names of the cards as "racist" , by proxy labels the artists of these cards as racists and instigates an entire group of people to rally against a straw man, all in the name of fighting racism.

    So the end result is, you just created more racism out of thin air, more hate against people and either side of the argument is going to radicalize over it and lesser minds will even resort to violence.


    No no you did not, just because someone labeled something racist does not add a racist thing into the world it was already there someone just pointed it out. If the offended people have no right to be offended nobody should be offended by being called racist/nazi.



    So yes, if someone is directly and personally attacked by any means, i am among the first to defend that person.
    And freedom of speech means you are not restricted in what you say, as you do no harm in that, its strictly positive to be able to talk about whatever is in your mind, everyone that thinks different is free to do the same and oppose your arguments.

    As someone else already pointed out Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, if plattform owners don't like what you say they are within their right to say yeah buddy not here. And freedom of speech also applies the other way around if you say hey thats not racist I can sey hey thats racist.



    If someone suddenly claims the color red is a symbol of hate, and by that its banned, do we ban everything red from magic to pander to that claim ?
    Its simply insane to go that way, as its an ever increasing list of banned words, banned things, banned hand-signs and at some point you are not allowed to do anything as it might somehow be offensive to somebody in the world.

    As I said before in 2 points its not the government that bans this it's the company/plattform and if that plattform deems hey that's not what they are about it is within their right to do so as it is their freedom of speech. And even if that "slippery slope" argument comes true as with your personal freedom of speech they also do not have freedom from consequences so lets say they ban the color red and people don't like it guess what they are not entitled tho those people still being paying customers.





    The claim to fight against racism is by definition divisive and damaging on its own, especially if its too broad and cloudy defined.
    It gets even worse looking way in the past and using todays standards to retroactive "fix" the past, as it doesnt fix anything, but attacks and damages the history and brands all the people as "Bad" that honor that history.

    Thats not how it works as the less you do the more real racists feel empowered to be openly racist. This is what brought us in this situation we are in rn.



    At some point people should just throw all that garbage away and get together, have fun and play the game.
    A lot of people dont want to deal with any outside-world problems at all at a table of magic.
    I dont care what color your skin has, i dont care what your sexual preferences are and i absolutely dont care what your politcal views are, we can all get together and play the game, and thats the point, thats whats so positive.
    If you cant do that, you ostracize yourself and others, and thats just plain bad to do, as its the exact opposite of welcoming and inclusive.


    Yes alot of people don't want to deal with outside world problems but when those problems get in your game of magic you can't really use it as escapism.



    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Don’t know if this is the right place to put this.

    This is not a function of the word, but a function of the context.

    The n-word is also a good example. When black rapper use this word I doubt that anyone would argue that they their intend is to dehumanize black people. But if a clansman uses the same insult it gets a diffrent connotation.

    So insults change meaning depening on who uses them and who is on the receiving end.

    The problem is that magic cards lack a good amount of context: art, artist, card text, including flavor. Thst is pretty much all you can go by. Invoke Prejudice is probably the clearest example of a truely racist magic card, given who drew the art what is depicted and what the card does...

    Beyond that I can see Crusade and Jihad as controversial topics. The card about Gypsies I can also understand.

    The problem is where you have to assume more and more context to the other examples.

    I just don't think that is a healthy path to go down.


    I agree that cards have limited context. But context clues aren't read the same by everyone Cleansing is a good example you wouldn't read the context but many people might. What makes that so different from Jihad, crusade, invoke prejudice. Someone might have not gotten the / assumed the context Invoke prejudice has racist undertones so it's ok to make it/leave it be?
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Don’t know if this is the right place to put this.


    But what I find less pleasent is that many people do not see Nazis as humans and they see themselves in the right to disregard their opinion, threaten them or outright use violence against them.


    By labeling someone a Nazi (justified or not) you essentialy dehumanize that person. And I can see people objecting to this kind of treatment.

    See all the other dehumanizing insults.
    I agree that the word is thrown around lightly but the fact is that people find that insult to be one they can be sensitive to but when other insults are thrown its always hey dont be so sensitive i didn't mean it like that etc.. That people feel strongly about beeing called a nazi shows that not every Insult is the same. And It shows that while you disagree that something is harsh or not always depends on the one who is hit by it.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Don’t know if this is the right place to put this.
    Quote from LuckyJoe1988 »


    I can not answer for him but wish to respond to your question with my own perspective, but "pseudo-insults" as you put are just that, insults. When one resorts to ad hominems in an attempt to work against another's arguments and the other person retaliates, doesn't make them that thing. I am guilty of this too as I have called others names that was in an effort to get a reaction out of them. Resorting to insults on that level, especially when they are not true, tears the argument down and brings it to a point of both sides simply bickering, rather than communicating and trying to understand the perspective or underlying issue that could help the other. Even though certain notions can be black and white, communication and understanding isn't, and that is why talking about things matter, no matter what you are for or against.

    I agree but the reason I asked is that on the one hand he says that people shouldn't be so sensitive to pseudo insults, then says being labeled nazi is a joke and is "insulted" by it. That seems hypocritical to me.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Don’t know if this is the right place to put this.


    Its not an issue, it will just ensure that somebody disagrees.

    So does not having them. And what is the reason people would disagree with more inclusivity? What do they have to gain/lose? What does the company gain/lose when choosing to either increase or decrease inclusivity?

    What did they loose that they banned cards in official tournaments? What did they gain?
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Don’t know if this is the right place to put this.


    See, this crap is exactly the point.
    Whoever you want to, suddenly is blamed as a Nazi, like its a joke.

    If you cannot have any argument at all, and think that making such horrendous claims is doing anything, you will forever breed and increase the hate among people.


    But giving words that much power over yourself is not helping anybody.


    If that is your opinion why are you giving the word Nazi so much power. Why do are you "Being hyper sensitive to pseudo insults is only making matters worse"?
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.