Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »An employee is about making money, its a business.
If a person is not advocating for your company, they are very well free to do whatever they want.
If the artist is gay, trans, democrats or republican, a jew, muslim, black or white, asian, or physical disabled.
All of that doesnt matter nor should it matter for an employer, as it has nothing to do with the work.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »expressing your believes and opinions is NEVER evil, its your damn right to do that.
And before someone jumps around the corner with : "Its freedom of speech, but not freedom of consequences"
Keep in mind that nobodies life should be destroyed by expressing your opinions.
If you cannot speak out as you risk losing your job, or endure massive financial ruin, or even people actively harassing and attacking you physically, they even translate that hate on your family and everyone around you.
Thats not reasonable consequences, thats straight up terrorism, fueled by the deepest and most evil hatred.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »Maybe we will get a similar story like with (The Rebecca Guay Controversy) , just maybe.
Quote from H3RAC71TU5 »The crux of it is this: systemic problems require systemic solutions. If you don't recognize that a problem is systemic in nature, your treatment will be overly superficial (e.g., "I'm not prejudiced because I have black friends, therefore all racism in society is solved. Done!"). Prejudice is an aspect of racism, but it has to be understood in terms of the broader societal context. Note that the context is a constant regardless of the scale, an understanding which is missing from your analysis.
Quote from H3RAC71TU5 »Note that I'm here making a good faith effort to explain everything, far from the attitude that "it's not my job to educate you." And I don't think that the left really has a choice in its strategy of using language correctly. So while I understand where you're coming from I think you should consider more why the left's ideology has the features it does.
Quote from Flisch »In conclusion, I wish they'd add more variety (even if it's just hinted at for future revisits) to each culture and race rather than just making a stereotype seen on four-six cards and call it a day.
Quote from H3RAC71TU5 »It's not "changing" the definition. The qualification that racism is necessarily systemic is a decision which was made collectively by intellectuals in their discussion of the issue of racism. It follows naturally as a consequence of analyzing the social issue in which merely defining it as prejudice would not adequately describe or explain many phenomena. Racial inequities in society are a product of racism, but it is reductive to say they are a product of some individual's prejudices against a given race. The causality of racial inequities is just more complicated than coming down to just prejudice, they would exist and continue to exist even if every individual did not hold those prejudices. Insofar as "racism" is a word which is employed for the express purpose of defining a social problem, narrowing its definition to prejudice would make it fail to define the problem. It is a standard practice in intellectual discourse to refine language as needed by the subtleties involved in the topic at hand. Defining racism as only prejudice also opens to door to white people complaining about prejudice directed toward them, which is not a comparable social issue to solve (in fact, it is relatively trivial in importance) and needlessly derails the discussion. The technical use of the word "racism" by intellectuals might be more difficult to understand for uneducated people who are accustomed to their colloquial usage. But if someone takes the trouble to explain it to them, one would hope they'd listen and try to understand.
Quote from Urabrask »• A brand new planeswalker (from a plane we’ve visited)
Quote from Rosy Dumplings »Honestly, I do not understand Zendikar's appeal at this point.
I like the idea of "Adventure world" and am fine with the tribes being used in the setting but... I'm not really sure what else there is to say. Lots of the flavor of "adventure world" came from the actual setting itself... which has been largely wrecked.
Quote from Flisch »I'm on the fence about this. On the one hand, I'd love for the locust and the scarab god to be redeemed. On the other hand I'm genre savvy enough to doubt that. Unlike the other 5 gods, the three corrupted gods were changed pyhsically, which usually means they have become irredeemably corrupted, see Brisela and, well, basically most fantasy stories.
Quote from 5colors »Second your kinda hit on the reason for this being brought up. People are saying Vivien being against hunters is unreasonable since they are getting food when its not really gone over. All references to hunting seem to be for the sport hunters. WhileBushmeat Poacher might be a food hunter but also likely doing it for profit on the black market and likely not providing the city with needed sources since the lore (and not just from Vivien) doesn't suggest that.
Its likely humans can and will eat monster meat but thats never brought up on how Vivien feels on that.
Quote from 5colors »Often when writing a fictional world you have to balance between using words that your audience understand and whats true to the world. As Mullerornis said poachers is used as a shorthand for "illegal hunter" to give us the audience a quicker way to figure out this card.
I had a similar talk in a writing workshop where people didn't like using the term atheist for a nonbeliever in a fantasy world with real gods and thought apantheon or antipantheon would be a better term, while the against argument was that it might be a another term for someone needs to learn long with the other fantasy terms going on and a more familiar word might be better used here.
Quote from Mullerornis »For Skysail, White and Green are represented by their sense of community and peacefulness, while the Black is likely manifesting through their desire for independence, again pretty opposite to the Abzan.