MTG Salvation

After looking more into the history of the #BlueLivesMatter movement, how it has been used, and how it is culturally understood, we are allowing slogans of #BlueLivesMatter as a statement of solidarity to slain police officers and as a statement of support for our uniformed officers.

While we understand and are sensitive that #BlueLivesMatter has been coopted as a counter-movement, and can be used dismissively in counter to #BLM, we feel that the Movement itself is not explicitly a counter-movement based on its history and formation. Just as we do not hold how other groups have coopted #BLM in ways that do not reflect upon the primary movement, so too should the coopted uses of the #BlueLivesMatter not be held against the movement itself.

Context will of course matter in all situations. Using any slogan in a manner to incite aggression, dismiss others, or otherwise harass, troll, or violate our policies will not be supported.

This is a complicated topic, and the decisions made regarding it are nuanced. We are receptive to hearing any feedback from our users, especially to how they are affected by these topics and statements. If you have any concerns, please let members of the staff know your concerns or how these statements affect you or reflect your own experiences.

Thank you,
-bobthefunny

Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »

Spamming messages like :

#BLM
#DefundThePolice

In perspective that Antifa associates themselves with BLM and shouts DefundThePolice for years, is putting a massive negative on this entire topic.

If political discussions are not wished for, this is downright insulting to anybody which friends these protesting terrorists attacked, hurt and which stores and homes these sick people are destroying and burning down.

This is not helpful at all and pushing blindly in a direction is upsetting a lot of people that wish nothing more than working and living together respectfully (and especially #BLM is anything but respectful).

Either be consequential and make all political associations not allowed or downright opt in to a extreme radical position that is spreading nothing more than hate, pain and misery in the world.

Thank you TheOnlyOne652089 for joining this conversation. Your input is appreciated.

Antifa is Antifa. Terrorists are terrorists. It would be incorrect to assign the actions and values of one group upon another, just as it would be wrong to hold #BlueLivesMatter accountable for the actions the Proud Boys.

In order to hold a meaningful discussion on this matter and start from an equal footing, I would like to present a brief history of the three #LivesMatter movements, as my best understanding goes.

=== History ===

#BlackLivesMatter

#BlackLivesMatter (wiki (1)), often abbreviated #BLM has its earliest recorded usage in 2013. It began as a movement after the death of Trayvon Martin in 2012 to bring attention to systemic racism and the plight of minorities in the United States, who have more frequent physical encounters with police, an increased rate of fatal shootings by police, and are incarcerated at considerably higher percentages and rates than the economic and population distribution would suggest normal, and typically receive longer and harsher sentences for similar crimes committed by Caucasian criminals. Like the following movements, #BLM has deeper and wider roots than the movement started in 2013. In 2016, Collin Kaepernick's movement to kneel for the anthem achieved national headlines as another movement to raise awareness. Similarly, the history goes much further back. Comedian Richard Pryor's observations about police in 1979 is eerily similar to what we see today (2). Likewise, Dave Chappelle's police skits are altogether strikingly on point, bridging the gap.
To put historical context in perspective, the 15th amendment gave African Americans the right to vote in 1870, however, many states and regions prevented African Americans from exercising those rights through various means of profiling. This was not amended until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (3). This was only 55 years ago. There are people still alive today who were blocked from exercising their right to vote. And there are people still alive today who prevented them from voting.

#BLM is generally regarded as a non-violent protest group raising awareness for social inequities. The main controversy regarding the #BLM movement is in the name, where detractors equate it as saying that other lives don't matter. In part, this is part of the origin of the name of the #AllLivesMatter movement. The counter to this argument is that #BLM is not saying that only black lives matter, but rather that black lives matter as well, which has not been historically demonstrated. President Obama explains it best: "I think that the reason that the organizers used the phrase Black Lives Matter was not because they were suggesting that no one else's lives matter ... rather what they were suggesting was there is a specific problem that is happening in the African American community that's not happening in other communities."


#AllLivesMatter

#AllLivesMatter (wiki (4)) in contrast has its beginning in 2014, as a deliberate counter-movement to #BLM. As a direct counter to #BLM, #ALM is often used to dismiss or demean #BLM protests. It is important to take the context into account here. There was no #AllLivesMatter before #BlackLivesMatter. #ALM is a direct counter to #BLM, to assign incorrect meaning and assumptions to the name of the BLM movement in order to discredit it. Then general societal view accepts this. Facebook banned #ALM slogans in 2016, Walmart has removed sales of all #ALM merchandise this year (5). #ALM is generally viewed as a divisive statement, meant to divide.

This is not to say that #AllLivesMatter as a slogan is without merit. There are several examples of prominent figures who have used AllLivesMatter as an inclusive form to say that everyone matters - or rather, that all lives SHOULD matter. In a 2015 poll (1), 78% of poll takers identified more with All Lives Matter, while only 11% identified with Black Lives Matter (note: 2015 is much closer to the 2013 start of the movements than today. Exceptionally high support for #BLM has grown over the last two years, I would be curious to see the poll results if repeated today). Several proponents have said that #BLM is divisive in its choice of name, and should update the name to more accurately reflect the goals of the movement.

There are multiple articles that explain the false equivalence between BLM and ALM, and why saying ALM is not as inclusive as you might think. Here are a few examples:

• Why saying "all lives matter" communicates to Black people that their lives don't - CBS News
• The philosophical flaw in saying “All Lives Matter” - Prospect Magazine
• Why you should stop saying “all lives matter,” explained in 9 different ways - Vox
• Saying ‘All Lives Matter’ doesn’t make you racist, just extremely ignorant - Cleveland.com

#BlueLivesMatter

The #BlueLivesMatter (Wiki) slogan similarly began in 2014, and is used used as a counter-movement to #BLM. However, unlike #ALM, the #BlueLives movement originates as a movement to highlight that Police are often profiled and are victims of crimes based on their professions, and #Blue was started in direct reaction to the murder of two police officers in 2014 (7). As such, the movement has notable links towards supporting a difficult and dangerous job, which has come under increased scrutiny in recent days due to the evaluation of the use of police force. #BlueLivesMatter as a movement is often equated as comparing the dangers that officers face to the dangers that minorities face.

Criticisms of the movement point out that becoming a Police Officer is a choice of profession. One of which the officer (to be) is informed and makes a choice to enter a profession which they know is dangerous. In comparison, African Americans do not have that choice. Criticisms point out that while the dangers of the job of a Police Officer are real, and need to be supported, using the slogan as a counter to the #BLM movement, especially in the face of police brutality is dismissive of the racial biases and problems that exist today (8).

Like #BlackLivesMatter, the Blue Lives movement has considerably deeper roots. The symbol for Blue Lives movement is a black and white American flag, with a one stripe colored blue. This is a reference to "the thin blue line." A view point that puts the Police as the line between society and anarchy. The origins of the thin blue line extend back to 1922, but was popularized in 1950 by Police Chief William H. Parker (9) as part of his public relations program. Since then, the saying, as well as various versions of the flag of a blue stripe on a black field have been used to show support for officers slain on duty. However, today the flag is now equated to the Blue Lives movement, and as opposition to the Black Lives Movement. As such it has taken additional meaning in forms of being dismissive towards the value of Black Lives. This has been shown on a historical level as well (10).

Some companies have banned the use of #BlueLivesMatter, such as GoodYear, though GoodYear later reverted that policy. A woman who was wearing a #BlueLivesMatter start pointed remarks against a person wearing #BLM attire on a Delta Flight (11). Delta has banned that woman for life, and shown support to the #BLM user.

=======

Conclusion


This is simply a quick high level overview based on some fast and dirty research I did to better explain the stances as I see them. Other moderators, and the site Owners likely have their own set of research and sources. Based on these sources, I am confident that our current approach of accepting #BlackLivesMatter as a slogan, but not the other two, is consistent with the current meanings and current understanding of these terms by the general population.

Note that this applies directly to the specific slogans, their use, and their current connotations. Claiming support for all, regardless of creed or color; or showing support to our uniformed officers that uphold the law with dignity and honor is not being demeaned - however, when supporting these movements, it is important to know the context, history, and connotations and impact they have on others.

I hope this helps to explain why the stance is currently as it is. If you disagree with this stance, or these sources, or have additional sources you would like me to read, I encourage you to share these sources with me, such that I can better educate myself on the topic.


====

Sources, again.
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter]wiki
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWulvchFpYs&ab_channel=NetflixIsAJoke
(3) https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/voting-rights-act

(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter
(5) https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/06/29/walmart-ends-sale-all-lives-matter-merchandise-indefinitely/3282035001/
(*) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/all-lives-matter-black-lives-matter/
(*) https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/philosophy/black-lives-matter-essay-why-is-saying-all-lives-matter-wrong
(*) https://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12136140/black-all-lives-matter
(*) https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/2020/06/saying-all-lives-matter-doesnt-make-you-racist-just-extremely-ignorant.html

(6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Lives_Matter
(7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_killings_of_NYPD_officers
(8) https://www.reformer.com/stories/letter-racist-symbolism-behind-the-blue-lives-matter-flag,608759
(9) https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/06/08/the-short-fraught-history-of-the-thin-blue-line-american-flag
(10) https://gothamist.com/news/inside-seething-white-heart-blue-lives-matter-movement
(11) https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2020/09/04/black-woman-was-confronted-about-blue-lives-matter-flight-delta-gave-her-black-lives-matter-pin/

Quote from FlossedBeaver »

I'd really like to get your thoughts and impressions on this post:

Quote from H3RAC71TU5 »

... but a lot of the threads you mention being locked got started because people on the political right posted off topic and heinous comments. We've been directed by the mods to just ignore these posts and not talk about politics at all, then in different instances been told it's okay so long as it stays respectful, which is of course impossible if one side's view is inherently disrespectful. If the policy is to ignore these types of posts, then in practice the effect is that people make these remarks, they're eventually deleted or snipped, and the other side's point of view is not expressed. In other words, the policy is actually not neutral and unbiased; right-wing narratives will continue to be expressed and the counter points will not. Locking threads does not actually solve the problem so it continually recurs, leading to an overall forum community annoyed with political posts. But there's another reason why this is the approach used. Right-wing players are a sizeable audience on this site. Locking threads does not threaten their continued ad-viewership, but keeping threads open might.

---

#BLM
#DefundThePolice

Hi FlossedBeaver,

Thanks for your question! First off, I would like to apologize for the delay in responding to you. I have been out of town, so my personal thread here has been unmonitored during my absence.

Political threads continue to be a difficult topic to approach, and even trickier to handle properly. Ideally, we wish to distance ourselves from politics as much as possible - as this is not a political site, and not intended for political debate. It is of course difficult because nothing is ever so easily divided, especially as several recent decisions by Wizards have reached into political spheres. We of course wish to allow discussion of Wizards' decisions and their impact. This makes monitoring that line of where discussion is Magic appropriate to be a difficult case, and needing evaluation on a shifting basis as new topics and decisions are introduced. We hope to maintain the standard to discussion that remains Magic related and oriented however, and not open the site to political rallies.

The American political spectrum today is very divisive, and the post quoted does make the valid point that not all stances are inherently respectful or equal. This is one of many reasons we wish to not engage or encourage these discussions on this site. This is a family friendly site, and disrespectful and dismissive views can not, and should not be tolerated here. As such, those posts need to be deleted in order to maintain a family appropriate content.

This however also touches on one of the difficulties of moderation - visible moderation leaves a record and example of content that gets infracted - but leaves also unacceptable content on the site where minors or other vulnerable demographics can see the content. Deleting or otherwise removing the content allows the discussion to continue without the objectionable deviations, however there is then no visible action shown and people may assume no moderation is taking place. Removing content can also give the impression of implicit censorship, or silencing of a specific viewpoint. This is especially difficult in a political sphere, where as the user stated, not all sides are inherently equal or respectful. It is always a struggle as to how to best handle each and any given situation. Building and fostering a community is always a difficult task, for all those involved. From the moderators who volunteer time and have to take action, but also to the very members of the community who shape the community and discussion in the messages they choose to post and spread, as well as reporting what they feel objectionable and detrimental to the community.

As far as the view that the site is leaning in one direction or another - there have always been allegations of various viewpoints that the site leans in a direction opposite of where the user feels they personally stand. This is often the case when trying to hold a centrist or non-partisan position. We have been accused of being anywhere and everywhere on the political spectrum, from allegations of far-right, to allegations for far-left extreme liberalism. The hope is that the balance of these allegations shows that we do hold that central line. Historically speaking, I believe that the majority of the staff has tended to lean slightly to fairly liberal, all things considered, however the staff has had representation from the full spectrum of political beliefs. We have never had any sort of "official" survey on the matter, however our off topic chats, as well as various discussions on how to handle certain tickets (especially political) has shown that we are a fairly diverse group in terms of beliefs.

===

I hope this answers your questions as to our general views, and why we take the stances we do on political discussions.

There's no point in mono-colored deck, and even less in a colorless deck. Up that basic count so you can ramp more.

Prior to our shutdown, I was discussing my Linden deck with a member of my LGS. He then mentioned that he felt that the only reason the deck worked was because of some of the expensive staples (Land Tax), and it could never be built on a budget. Now, the current list is a bit outside of budget at $400, but can easily be brought to $200 by removing a few non-key cards with easy replacements (as it is a mono-W deck, the fetch lands are not necessary, and Sword of Light and Shadow is easily replaceable with some other recursion, such as Emeria Shepherd). That's still not quite 'budget', but is certainly achievable by my estimation, but then I was surprised to hear him say that he did not consider Sun Titan budget at that time, as it had then crept up to $3-5, and claimed that most of his decks sat under $100. This obviously went to show that every person's 'budget' can be quite different.

Well, Sun Titan has again been reprinted, and that brought back up that old discussion in my mind. Since a number of my LGS players tend to be on a stricter budget, I decided to notify my Facebook group of recent reprints and good new cards that were good budget considerations.

I figured I would share those findings with you. Even if it's not something that applies to you directly, you can also pass along the information to other new players who might not be as easily connected. Or, maybe you have a few favorites that I've missed.

I hope to go into Single Target removal and Ramp soon enough in the future, to really round out what can be good additions for new players to help improve their decks.

Recent Reprints!

Recent Card Draw Additions!

Budget pickups: Mass Removal Edition

MTG Salvation is a community for discussing Magic: The Gathering. Towards this end, we try every day to help build a community with a culture of inclusiveness and non-discrimination. It is important to all of us here at MTGSalvation that all can feel welcome to share their thoughts and love of the game here. However, we are only the beginning. Everyone is involved in making a community come together — from the posts each of us make, to helping monitor and report posts that breach our ideals to help foster the kind of community we all want to have.

We will say this simply and up front: Racism, Sexism, Misogyny, and any other forms of prejudice or predatory behavior is not welcome here. We extend our hand to the community: help us spread these values in the positive messages we post, and report any posts that violate these policies and ideals. If you have any doubts about whether a post violates our rules, or there is something that makes you uncomfortable on the site — please talk to us in the Staff Inbox, or message a moderator or admin directly to let us know of your concerns.

In general, we try to keep MTG Salvation free of in-depth political discussion. These discussions often have little bearing on Magic: The Gathering topics, and this is not the place to debate contentious issues or convince others of your viewpoint. However, sometimes the reality is that the two can get caught up together. When this occurs, the moderator team tries to keep the topic focused on the impact to the game first and foremost as much as possible — while closing threads that get too heated or go too far afield. While we know that these are passionate topics, we ask you to please help us in keeping the discussion level headed and on the topics of how these topics influence the game.

It has been two weeks since Wizards of the Coast has removed racist depictions from their site by removing the art of several problematic cards. It has been brought to our attention that our own databases still maintained the old art. As racism has no place on this site, we are following Wizards' example, and are likewise removing the art of the following problematic cards:

• Invoke Prejudice
• Cleanse
• Stone-Throwing Devils
• Pradesh Gypsies
• Jihad
• Imprison
• Crusade

MTG Salvation is a gaming forum, and we want to foster a community that welcomes a wide variety of views. Posts and comments that hinder this goal are not welcome here.

Keep in mind the original announcement mentions the art in particular as part of the problem. Note that they are not removing the cards - they are removing the art of the cards.

Quote from ShotgunAndTwoRedShoes »

Why Crusade when Honor of the Pure? I just hope if its possible that they "reprint" some cards with different names and art.

Keeping in line with the art being part of the problem (though I'm sure the titles, and to some extent the abilities and feel of the cards), I'm going to say that Crusade has two strikes against it above Honor the Pure:

1. The name Crusade is evocative of a real historical event and genocidal war, and thus while a "Crusade" can be a general term (Cathars' Crusade), a card simply titled "Crusade" as a solitary proper noun brings additional potential connotations. Especially when joined with number 2 below:
2. The art features real life religious symbols - Most new sets (such as the Avacinian church, or Theros deities) now use newly created symbology as well. Aside from using and existing religious symbol, tied with the first point it absolutely solidifies the card as being tied to the historical event as well.

Quote from Fallback2analog »

What about the flavor text on 7th ED Persecute or forced march

I believe forced march is a good candidate for removal as well. Notably to me it invokes the "Trail of Tears" - a forced march of Native Americans that resulted in a catastrophic amount of deaths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

Quote from Macabre »

Here is where I saw the comment about someones personal Elenda deck.

Thank you! A very good source. (adding it to OP)

Again, I reiterate my current stance on rules savviness. I don't see this as a push to make one person's deck work - but rather that this was first hand exposure to the Rules Committee that how Commanders and Dies works wasn't very intuitive, and an opportunity to make the rules work the way people expect that they should when first introduced to it.

I will anecdotally back that up, in that explaining that Commanders don't count for 'dies' to new players was perhaps one of the first Commander intricacies to have to explain - then explaining that Decree of Pain DOES count it (because it counts creatures that are destroyed, not that died), and then explaining how certain exile and return effects will work with Command Zone (Banishing Light) while some do not (Oblivion Ring)!

That's a lot of nitpicky rules interactions to explain, which this change greatly improves.

In that end, I would then count this interaction between the CAG and RC to be a success for the program. The RC is very, very rules savvy, and rather experience dense. That can make it easy to overlook how complex a lot of these interactions that some of take for granted are, and how often they need to be explained. If having access to the mindset of people who are not as rules savvy has led to a net benefit change for the vast majority of players (keep in mind that simply by interacting online, YOU are already greatly more enfranchised than most other players), I can only see this as a Win.

Comment Hidden