Are you going to address the differnce between someone participating in a public discussion on equal footing with everyone else and someone imposing their world view on others from a position of power?
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Can you rephrase?
Quote from Fan-of-"Fanservice »
Are you going to address how you heavily implied that people who express their liking gratuitous artwork are automatically people who harass others in real life?
That's still really not what I wanted you to take away from that, and I've clarified a number of times now and in several different ways. The point isn't that you're automatically a bad person, or that you're going to engage in harassing behavior in real life, it's that there are very real consequences even in a virtual space, and even when you think your commentary is only being directed at an inanimate expression of real life. People are reading this, and people do feel judged by what you say, whether you realize it or not.
Quote from Fan-of-"Fanservice »
Are you going to address that this game's generally intense graphic content is in direct contradiction of the idea that it's safe for innocent minds, if I may put it that way, to engage in?
I already did. To say that violence and sexism are equal barriers to inclusion, or that they both contribute equally to an an unsafe space, is patently false. Unless it resembles domestic violence, that is.
1) You linked to an article about a person in power imposing their world view on people that said person had the responsiblity to teach something, and compared that to people expressing their preferences within a public discussion, where they are decidedly *not* in a comparable position of power over anyone participating in that same discussion.
2) That is what I took from it, though, whether you like it or not. It would help choosing you words more carefully, which does *not* equate using more complicated or barely used words, mind you.
3) Again, I am not comparing two issues, no matter how much your narrative needs you to strawman me into doing so. Your point is that us "prurient" types need to spare the minds of others with our sinful thoughts, while we are talking about a game that constantly confronts its audience with intensely graphic scenes, whether they be of violent or sexual nature. Are you still going to call this comparing rather than clarifying context?
2) That is what I took from it, though, whether you like it or not. It would help choosing you words more carefully, which does *not* equate using more complicated or barely used words, mind you
I feel like on some level this should prove his point to you? You took from it what you did despite what he intended. In the same way there could be someone reading your post, and they will take from that what they will. Not necessarily what you intended the post to be.
2) That is what I took from it, though, whether you like it or not. It would help choosing you words more carefully, which does *not* equate using more complicated or barely used words, mind you
I feel like on some level this should prove his point to you? You took from it what you did despite what he intended. In the same way there could be someone reading your post, and they will take from that what they will. Not necessarily what you intended the post to be.
1) You linked to an article about a person in power imposing their world view on people that said person had the responsiblity to teach something, and compared that to people expressing their preferences within a public discussion, where they are decidedly *not* in a comparable position of power over anyone participating in that same discussion.
You already took exactly what I wanted you to from that article, going so far as to confirm as much when you said "Wow, okay, so by stating what I do or don't like I am fundamentally shaping the minds of other people, is that it?". How you derived anything beyond that from a basic article about U.S. constitutional history is beyond me.
Quote from Fan-of-"Fanservice" »
2) That is what I took from it, though, whether you like it or not. It would help choosing you words more carefully, which does *not* equate using more complicated or barely used words, mind you.
Well, that's a first. I don't think most people would read one of my posts and accuse me of not thinking it through, whether they agree with the underlying premise or not. I did explain myself a number of times, though, and in a number of different ways (as I mentioned before), so maybe the onus here isn't on me as much as you think it is.
>>>>>>>>>>
Quote from FlossedBeaver »
Yes, anyone else who hears that comment can file a complaint, even if it wasn't directed at them.
Quote from FlossedBeaver »
Why should that be any different here? You may be commenting on a piece of artwork, but there are women actively reading your posts.
Quote from FlossedBeaver »
And, keeping in mind it's not an actual person, that kind of statement still comes with all of the baggage already pointed out by @mikeyG and myself.
Quote from FlossedBeaver »
In the same way that if you make your opinions known about the way a fictional character looks, others who conform to that depiction will likewise feel judged?
Quote from FlossedBeaver »
I have a daughter... and I don't want her growing up to think she only has value if she wears garters and dyes her hair pink.
<<<<<<<<<<
I'm not seeing what's so complicated about, well, any of that.
Quote from Fan-of-"Fanservice" »
3) Again, I am not comparing two issues, no matter how much your narrative needs you to strawman me into doing so. Your point is that us "prurient" types need to spare the minds of others with our sinful thoughts, while we are talking about a game that constantly confronts its audience with intensely graphic scenes, whether they be of violent or sexual nature. Are you still going to call this comparing rather than clarifying context?
No, you prurient types need to spare the minds of young women who will come to believe that their only value is in how they look. Heaven forbid anyone who shares Melissa McCarthy's body type comes here and reads your earlier posts. If you can't see how that would have real consequences on someone's confidence or self-esteem, then I don't know what else to tell you at this point. Except to say, of course, that PG-13 depictions of violence are not a barrier to inclusion in the way that I'm specifically advocating for these forums. If you don't like strawman arguments, then perhaps you should stop distracting from my actual point.
yawgmoth seems perfect for this deck, actually i think we run a lot of the same combos here as we would there.
there's more than a few low casting cost persist creatures that synergize well with mazirek, cathar's crusade, bloodspore thrinax and renata.
we'd need to mitigate the life loss from nikara somehow, but that too should be very easy in these colors given things like zulaport cutthroa, blood artist, corpse knight, and is it cartel aristocrat? whatever that one currently in standard is with the funny hat.
carrion feeder is a no brainer, we'd need a few other sac outlets too of course, probably the staple ones and a few others. all in all the curve should end up being pretty low with just a ****ton of oops i wins pretty easily
will it be tier 0? hell no. but i think it stands a good chance of wrecking a slower edh game and being durable in most situations
1) You linked to an article about a person in power imposing their world view on people that said person had the responsiblity to teach something, and compared that to people expressing their preferences within a public discussion, where they are decidedly *not* in a comparable position of power over anyone participating in that same discussion.
2) That is what I took from it, though, whether you like it or not. It would help choosing you words more carefully, which does *not* equate using more complicated or barely used words, mind you.
3) Again, I am not comparing two issues, no matter how much your narrative needs you to strawman me into doing so. Your point is that us "prurient" types need to spare the minds of others with our sinful thoughts, while we are talking about a game that constantly confronts its audience with intensely graphic scenes, whether they be of violent or sexual nature. Are you still going to call this comparing rather than clarifying context?
I feel like on some level this should prove his point to you? You took from it what you did despite what he intended. In the same way there could be someone reading your post, and they will take from that what they will. Not necessarily what you intended the post to be.
Welcome to the internet
You already took exactly what I wanted you to from that article, going so far as to confirm as much when you said "Wow, okay, so by stating what I do or don't like I am fundamentally shaping the minds of other people, is that it?". How you derived anything beyond that from a basic article about U.S. constitutional history is beyond me.
Well, that's a first. I don't think most people would read one of my posts and accuse me of not thinking it through, whether they agree with the underlying premise or not. I did explain myself a number of times, though, and in a number of different ways (as I mentioned before), so maybe the onus here isn't on me as much as you think it is.
>>>>>>>>>>
I'm not seeing what's so complicated about, well, any of that.
No, you prurient types need to spare the minds of young women who will come to believe that their only value is in how they look. Heaven forbid anyone who shares Melissa McCarthy's body type comes here and reads your earlier posts. If you can't see how that would have real consequences on someone's confidence or self-esteem, then I don't know what else to tell you at this point. Except to say, of course, that PG-13 depictions of violence are not a barrier to inclusion in the way that I'm specifically advocating for these forums. If you don't like strawman arguments, then perhaps you should stop distracting from my actual point.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
there's more than a few low casting cost persist creatures that synergize well with mazirek, cathar's crusade, bloodspore thrinax and renata.
we'd need to mitigate the life loss from nikara somehow, but that too should be very easy in these colors given things like zulaport cutthroa, blood artist, corpse knight, and is it cartel aristocrat? whatever that one currently in standard is with the funny hat.
carrion feeder is a no brainer, we'd need a few other sac outlets too of course, probably the staple ones and a few others. all in all the curve should end up being pretty low with just a ****ton of oops i wins pretty easily
will it be tier 0? hell no. but i think it stands a good chance of wrecking a slower edh game and being durable in most situations
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffRetired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek