-
- Xaios
- Registered User
-
Member for 13 years, 7 months, and 9 days
Last active Sat, Dec, 14 2019 09:07:37
- 0 Followers
- 1,746 Total Posts
- 192 Thanks
-
Sep 10, 20187
boombox_smk posted a message on Assassin's TrophyCalling it now, I'm going to use 'Astro' as the verb. Astro your Teferi.Posted in: The Rumor Mill -
Sep 10, 201815
Manite posted a message on Assassin's Trophy"Sorry I turned your leader to stone. Here's some land."Posted in: The Rumor Mill -
Jul 26, 2018
12
theMarc posted a message on Yennett, Cryptic SovereignObligatory: Oh man, I can't even.Posted in: The Rumor Mill -
Apr 5, 20185
Horrornick posted a message on Grand Warlord Radha - MTGMuddstah spoilerdeath by snu snuPosted in: The Rumor Mill -
Apr 3, 2018
6
User_100016880 posted a message on Naban, Dean of Iteration .:. MtG Goldfish PreviewPosted in: The Rumor MillQuote from AnImAr_ »Quote from boombox_smk »Quote from AnImAr_ »Wizardharmonican.
Wizharmonicon. So close. I feel like you were almost there. Do it again.
Wizharmonicon. I did it!
Perfect. Now do it again. -
Mar 14, 20186
thatmarkguy posted a message on Masters 25 boxes not properly randomized?Posted in: The Rumor MillQuote from DrendDragonspawn »I opened a pack that was all white once. Weirdest damn thing. We were drafting too.
Lol. "Damn, this guy shipped me 13 white cards. That's the clearest signal I've ever seen that he's not playing White. D'oh!" -
Feb 12, 20182
idSurge posted a message on Banned and restricted announcement Feb 12 JtMS unbannedNobody killed your dog Tiro. Buy it or dont, but nobody stole anything from you here.Posted in: The Rumor Mill -
Nov 29, 2017
9
thememan posted a message on Christine Sprankle and Harassment in the MTG CommunityPosted in: Magic GeneralQuote from Legend »If the gender roles were reversed, none of this would be happening.
Impossible to say. Also, utterly meaningless to bring up in this conversation.
Jeremy seriously made his own bed, and is a self-proclaimed edgelord who does and says things to offend people, on purpose. He is hardly a victim of some great conspiracy against him by SJWs. If anything, it's surprising it took this long for it to blow up on him. Contrary to what you may think, sometimes people deserve what comes to them. This isn't a crusade against a haplass individual who accidentally said something off-color. This is somebody who has a serious hate-on for Sprankle, and contrary to what he and his supporters say has made derogatory unprovoked remarks about her over a sustained period of time, up to and including when this whole thing blew up.
He has nobody to blame but himself that people don't want anything to do with him, and his constant blathering about being a victim is hollow. As I said before, Eric Cartman is not a laudable personality, and people should not be rewarded for being Eric Cartman. Eric Cartman deserves all of the derision he gets for being Eric Cartman, and yes that includes punishment if his Cartmanning goes too long and causes too many problems. He needs to grow up, act like an adult, stop being an edgelord, and stop obsessing about imagined slights. The world doesn't owe him anything, and the reason why the larger community wants nothing to do with him has nothing to do with politics, but rather because he is a downright miserable human being. Of course they don't want to hang around him or support him. It's downright childish to think that they even should.
He whinges and moans about how Wizards won't invite him to the Community Cup or give him previews, or blacklist him from being listed as a content creator on their site. Any half-sane person would see that he flipped WotC off in a video he made, jokes about rape, used an image proclaiming Rosewater is a pedophile and sexual predator for a video, insults their employees by name, and constantly screams and bemoans how Wizards is destroying Magic. In what sane world would a corporation even acknowledge said person, let alone in a positive light?
-
Nov 27, 20172
rujasu posted a message on Christine Sprankle and Harassment in the MTG CommunityPosted in: Magic GeneralQuote from GloriousGoose »it's the systemic toxicity in this and other male nerd dominated hobbies that continues unabated.
Anything male-dominated, really. It's not limited to nerds and it's not limited to hobbies. -
Nov 27, 20172
Marquisd posted a message on Christine Sprankle and Harassment in the MTG CommunityPosted in: Magic GeneralQuote from Monkey222 »Quote from DirkGently »
In, for example, stand-up comedy, there are plenty of "offensive" things being said and taking offense is generally derided to be a sign of being too thin-skinned. Many comics mock either groups of people or even specific people (usually celebrities or members of the audience), but any kind of backlash about their being offensive tends to be pretty rare, and usually isn't taken very seriously.Quote from Monkey222 »At the same time, imagine you're walking along a beach and toss a rock over the next rise. Your intention was to throw the rock. Nothing more. You hit someone with the rock. Should you apologise? Your intention wasn't to hit them with the rock, but you did. Are they less hurt because you didn't intend to hit them?
Many people (myself included sometimes) fail to realise that your intentions have little bearing on the reaction you received. If you hurt someone, it's not their fault they were hurt.
I'm curious where people think the difference is (or if there is one)? Is it because comedy doesn't tend to incite other people to violence and threats of violence like online harassment does? Or is it that victims are unable to escape being harassed online compared to being mocked by a comic? Or maybe another reason I haven't considered?
I'm not trying to make any statement about the actual events over the weekend, I'm just curious why people think these two things are treated so differently.
In my opinion, it's all about context. When you go to a stand up show, or watch anything by an established comic, you understand that it's an act. That their material doesn't reflect their personality.
With people like Jeremy, however, he isn't established as a satirist, or someone who is trying to point out flaws in a constructive way. He's seen as a bully. Especially when he doesn't back down and say 'Yeah, you're right, I crossed the line.'
His 'material' also tends to appeal to people who are not joking when they make these comments. People who do have issues with women, minorities, whoever, and either can't see he's joking, or refuse to acknowledge that it's not real.
My 2 cents anyway.
The other thing to note is some comedians like Lenny Bruce or George Carlin, their intention is to actually offend. The point being to create a response they hope will challenge the persons way of thinking. An insult comic like Don Rickles is a challenge to yourself image, to not take yourself so seriously.
Jeremy does none of that. He says you shouldn't be offended, not I didn't mean to offend. There's a difference. He wants to say what he wants but not bear any of the responsibility for it. There's no deeper meaning to his comments than that. When he talks about men are giving money to Sprankle because they want to have sex with her, and they're idiots because they never will. He's saying this not because he honestly thinks she's using her subscribers, but because he's jealous. Wizards hired her to be the face of Avacyn for SOI they hired her to be the face of Chandra at PAX. They wanted her to represent the brand at HAScon. Wizards of the Coast sees value in what she does. They don't see value in what Jeremy does hence them dropping him form any sponsorship.
He's trying to de-legitimize what she brings to Magic. That's not a joke, nor should an attempt to affect her ability to make a career out of this be something she needs to grow a thicker skin about. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
2
2
1
5
1
Back in early 2004, the 1st offensive line of the Vancouver Canucks was comprised of 3 players: Markus Naslund on left wing, Todd Bertuzzi on right wing, and Brendan Morrison playing center. Naslund was the finesse playmaker, Morrison was support and Bertuzzi was the power forward. Together they were known as the "West Coast Express" (named after a commuter train in Vancouver) and, at that point in time, they were the most productive offensive line the Canucks had ever fielded.
In early 2004, the Canucks were playing a game against the Colorado Avalanche. At that point in time, Naslund lead all players in the league in points, and Bertuzzi wasn't far behind. Naslund was skating through center ice reaching for the puck when he was hit by an Avalanche player, Steve Moore. While there was no penalty called on the play (and review of video footage by the league would later confirm that it was a legal hit), Naslund was injured and had to sit out the next 3 games to recover. Several of the Canucks' players and staff were furious, believing that Moore had targeted Naslund in order to injure him deliberately.
Less than a month later, they played again. Late in the game, the Canucks were losing. Badly. Eventually, Todd Bertuzzi (a relatively large and imposing man) started tailing Moore, trying to goad him into a fight. When Moore didn't take the bait, Bertuzzi stalked him around the ice. Eventually, Bertuzzi grabbed Moore's jersey from behind and took a swing at him, landing a punch to the back of Moore's head.
If you've ever watched hockey, you know that fights are a fairly common occurrence. You also know that, because it's really hard to swing a punch at someone while skating on ice without falling over, those fights almost always occur with each player involved holding onto the other player with one hand while swinging with the other, in order to maintain balance. However, in this case, because Moore and Bertuzzi weren't stationary but rather moving in the same direction, they fell, with Bertuzzi landing on top of Moore. Two other players rushed in, Andrei Nikolishin (Colorado) and Sean Pronger (Vancouver) rushed in, and also ended up on top of the pile.
When all was said and done, Steve Moore ended up with a concussion, facial cuts... and 3 fractured vertebrae. He lay motionless on the ice for 10 minutes before being carried off on a stretcher. He would never play again.
To this day, we don't really know exactly what caused the injury which ended Moore's career. It might have been the punch to the back of the head (unlikely, but not impossible). It might have also been Moore falling onto the ice face-down with Bertuzzi falling on top of him. Alternatively, it could have happened when Nikolishin and Pronger piled on both of them. It could also simply be a combination of all three.
Ultimately though, it doesn't matter. We know that Bertuzzi clearly intended to hit Moore. He probably didn't intend to fall on top of Moore afterwards, and he almost certainly didn't intend for two more players to pile on top of them. Regardless of which part of the chain of events caused Moore's injury, every event that followed was a direct result of the Bertuzzi's instigating punch on Moore. Moore's hit on Naslund earlier in the season may have been unsavory, but it was deemed to be in accordance with NHL rules. What Bertuzzi did, however, was nothing short of assault. For his actions, he would miss the next 20 games, was forfeited half a million dollars in salary, and was banned from playing hockey internationally and abroad by the IIHF for the rest of 2004 and 2005. Everyone, including the league, the IIHF and Bertuzzi himself, recognized that, whatever the exact cause of injury was, it stemmed from Bertuzzi's actions and that he was ultimately responsible for the chain of events that followed.
Here's where things get interesting. I said earlier that recognized Bertuzzi's fault. That was a lie, or at least not the whole truth. Everyone eventually recognized Bertuzzi's fault. However, because Bertuzzi was a very popular player at that point in time, there was a lot of pushback, including from yours truly. At the time, I reasoned that it was probably Nikolishin and Pronger's dogpiling on top of Moore and Bertuzzi that actually caused the injury. It took a lot of growing for me to recognize that, even if they do bear some fault, Bertuzzi is the one who is ultimately accountable for everything that happened. He chose to take action, and as such, everything that followed from his choice, whether or not he could foresee the consequences (and I'm referring specifically to the two other players landing on top of the pile), is ultimately on his shoulders.
At this point, I doubt anyone will have any difficulty unpacking the who's who in this metaphor.
2
1
1
...
Well, at least it'll have great character creation. The quality of every other aspect, however, is anyone's guess.
1