There's a thing that exists: black people as a group. Groups exist.
So a gang member of the Bloods or Crips is just part of the "black group" ?
Interesting that I posited the existence of black people as a group and your first reply is to mention gangs.
They have very different issues, and its always the individual that is about to fix their own misery in life.
Get away from gangs, get away from violence, get away from drugs.
Get a job and make a lawful living, helps a lot.
Thanks, elementary school DARE speaker. That was illuminating.
Non of these issues have anything to do with the "black group" , they are individual issues and everyone has to fix them on their own personal level.
Except for all of the issues that do have to do with the black group and are impossible to solve at a personal level. Like how white supremacists have infiltrated police forces around the country in order to institutionally target black people for incarceration, violence, and even murder.
The group think is a petty excuse to not fix anything and just blame everything on being oppressed as a group, which is silly by nature, as the supposed group is not a group at all, as each of them is an individual with its own background, its own history and capabilities.
You're creating a false dilemma between "group think" and acknowledging the individual. You can actually do both.
You cannot fix anything by group think, as some people in that group will have the problems you try to fix and others do not, but you give all of the people the same treatment, which is unfair by nature, as it does not take the individual into account.
Yes, this is actually right. You do have to take the individual into account because treating them all the same is unfair. That's exactly my premise. The only difference is the "group think" we're engaging with. You're grouping all people under the category "individual," a universal which is stripped of all the particular content actual individuals have.
It would be a mistake on the other hand to essentialize individuals according to the groups of which they are a part. It would be a mistake to generalize every member of the group being identical. But I'm not proposing either.
Any law and action that is only looking at a group and not the individual is DOOMED to be unjust and unfair.
True. But as the laws and actions in question aren't "only" looking at a group and do also look at individuals, this is a nonissue.
There is nothing funny about it. And its sick to think these issues are funny in any way.
You either have proper justice, or you have mob rule that will jump and attack everyone before any justice is spoken at all.
It's not "haha funny." It's "peculiar funny," as in, it's very odd that you don't think those crimes are racist. Almost as though some bizarre race-based cognitive error is preventing you from seeing the racist nature of the crime...
Mob rule is the worst kind of proclaimed justice you can ever have.
You would expect people learned from history that this only produces more hate, aggression and utter chaos.
And yet, no one has suggested "mob rule."
There is not a single magic card that is explicitly racist.
That's a pretty ridiculous position, considering Invoke Prejudice. It's also irrelevant; what about implicit racism?
For art that is explicitly racist, just google for these images you will find them aplenty.
If art displays a historic event accurately even if it shows racism, the art itself is not racist.
I asked you to provide an example of something that is racist. You keep on telling me things that aren't racist. Please answer the question.
This kind of violence is disgusting, pathetic and the essence of evil.
Oh, but there is no such thing as "that kind of violence." It's only stuff that happens to an individual committed by an individual, right?
Being blind to color is being blind to the injustices perpetuated because of it. It's not deep; it's not even shallow.
No.
Being blind to color would mean you threat everyone as a person, and individual.
If someone is discriminated, its a individual, and you solve the issues.
And here we have the ontological individualist.
There's a thing that exists: black people as a group. Groups exist. The existence of groups does not diminish the individuals that comprise them, but makes them be the individuals that they are in their full, concrete existence. You can't solve everything just by treating the individual situation; you must treat the causes, not the symptoms.
If a person gets hurt, in todays age, a entire mob jumps on the issue and proclaims its a racist crime, while its nothing remotely like that, its just a crime, no racism at all.
That's a funny thing to think, given the statistics of those crimes.
So a lot of issues get inflated and overblown into a topic of racism thats simply not real and it is pushing the entire argument in a direction that is not grounded in reality.
And if baseless or speculative claims are made that something is supposedly racist, while its not, then there is nothing to fight against, but the mob is still attacking anybody based on that claims ; and thats a fight that cannot end, as there are no winners and everyone loses, it ends in pure destruction, anarchy, blood and death ; it completely derails anything into utter chaos, thats 100% not helpful to anybody.
So you think the banned cards aren't actually racist. Alright, I have a challenge for you. Define for me something that would actually be racist.
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.
Let me preface this by saying that I don't actually disagree with you here; the structural/systemic elements of racism have adressed poorly so far and are definitely the ones that need the most attention right now. In my original post I mentioned the problem of placing "medium-sized" actors - organizations like the KKK, other supremacist groups, racist or at least strongly prejudiced communities - but of course these can only "be a thing" because they're imbedded in systems that somehow allow them to exist. But in the end, racism is both a bottom-up and top-down issue, that's why I think it's not helpful to completely cut one half of it out of the definition.
I'm trying to think of an analogy here. Let's say Johnny's mom tells Johnny he needs to wash his hair. Johnny knows washing his hair involves using shampoo, which is a liquid. He sees a bucket of mercury, which is a liquid. Ah! Shampoo! He dumps it on his head. No Johnny, mom says, that's not shampoo. But it's a liquid! You can't redefine shampoo to not be a liquid! Maybe the mercury is getting to him.
You're right, it's a top-down and bottom-up issue, and both need to be integrated together into the whole for our understanding.
On the smaller, more personal level, comments like "that's racist (of you)" are most commonly understood to refer to "small r racism", similar to "that's homophobic." It would be good if people didn't always take it as a personal attack and instead saw it as an opportunity to reflect on their own biases and the context of their daily lives, but frankly I don't think it's possible with such a loaded term. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, I don't know.
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.
Oh, the bit about the "it's not my job to educate you" was in reference to the Twitter threads and the general debate on this topic. I appreciate that you're taking your time with this, although I think we're pretty much on the same page. A lot of online/media debate is focused on "winning" an argument, "destroying" / "canceling" someone, "exposing" them for what they really are, etc. While there definitely are many people that you simply can't get through to, I do think that those judgments are often made too quickly. Of course Twitter with its low character limit encourages this from all participants in any given conversation.
Accusing someone of being racist is a surefire way to get their back up and force them into becoming defensive. That particular individual can in the long term respond in two ways: double down on the racism to get back at people who bruised their ego (the narcissistic rage route), or reflect on what they said and adjust their language in the future (the developing social skills route). Especially over the internet, we often don't know how an individual will handle criticism. But unless it's a conversation in a PM, other people will be influenced seeing these discussions and may be helped by seeing racism identified through the example of the criticized individual. Still, the effectiveness of the rhetoric can be a mixed bag, since culturally right-wing people have solidarity with one another in the effort to resist the "libs." No outside voice will penetrate into that community. They take it as a principle to never compromise, value faith over reason, etc. They've all collectively decided to double down, the way the situation is unfolding makes it unlikely for peaceful resolution to be possible.
I agree that cancel culture is toxic. But I think it derives more so from immaturity than ideology.
The reason I keep asking if you understood the context of my post is because I’m alluding to Breonna Taylor, a young black woman who was gunned down in her own home by plainclothes officers executing a no-knock warrant. Breonna Taylor didn’t get the benefit of a safe space where she could just stop being black long enough for a night’s sleep, let alone talk about fantasy card games. I get that this thread and this conversation is an obstacle to your escape from reality - whatever that might be - but it’s still absolutely critical that we have it, even here, on a random Magic forum.
Which is sad, tragic, and unfortunate event to that person.
As for the ‘tags,’ I obviously can’t speak for you, but: it’s simply no longer acceptable on our part to say “I don’t see color,” because that implies that the social and economic barriers people face on a daily basis don’t fundamentally shape their lives.
Wrong. The hurdles in your life may shape you, but that does not ultimately define you.
He didn't say a person was defined by them. He was talking about how their life experience was defined.
No one is saying you can't be a mystical existentialist if that's what you really want. In fact, probably the stupidest and most irrational thing about racism is the idea that skin color has any casual relationship to moral character. Yet that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that real people do believe such things and act accordingly. The reality of our society is that people of color are treated differently because of their socially designated race. Are you really seeing a person's "inner light" if you refuse to acknowledge that they also have those experiences?
Being blind to color is being blind to the injustices perpetuated because of it. It's not deep; it's not even shallow.
I'm not sure I have a clear grasp on what you think the distinction is between "organic" equity and the alternative. I have absolutely no interest in Hollywood award categories? Whether or not Olympic sports are split between male and female athletes is an issue that has close to zero material impact on anybody. I'm talking about stuff like addressing cycles of poverty that are perpetuated by an elite class who profits from doing so (which, incidentally, will also help poor whites). The existence of that factor in society is a pretty big reason to doubt that if we sit around and do nothing our "equality" will "organically" produce more equity. It wont; it hasn't.
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.
For many people, the term "racism" encompasses everything from what you've described as racial prejudice to full-fledged systems of oppression. It's an umbrella term that doesn't only apply to societies or systems, but actors on any part of the societal scale. Imo this should be taken as a fact of the world we live in, if you like it or not. When it comes to language, most people don't care about how certain terms are defined by intellectuals - they use them intuitively, based on how they've seem them used by others throughout their lives. Going against this is very difficult, especially when talking about a issue as big as racism. That's why I'm not sure if it's helpful to flat-out label the colloquial definition of racism as wrong. It leads to communication issues way too easily.
I've seen many instances where "racism" is used interchangeably with "systemic racism", basically as a snyonym. This can understandably cause confusion (and, by extension, frustration). Because if both both words mean the same - why specify? And if the only two options are personal prejudice and institutionalized racism, where do you put small-to-mid scale organizations?
I can understand that many activists may not be happy with using "systemic racism" because it's a word with less overall impact and makes people feel like they're not part of the problem. Almost no one wants to be a racist, so using just "racism" is suited better for grabbing people's attention. However, once you get past this initial stage of getting people involved (for better or for worse), I think a more granular use of language is very much beneficial. I've seen a lot of Twitter and forum threads derail because of the "reverse racism doesn't exist, educate yourself" response. For many activists, that's where they draw the line - they don't want to debate about the meaning. But to people on the other side, responses like this give off strong anti-vaxxer/flat-earther vibes. As a result, vocal activists are often accused of "only going by their ideology", "pushing an agenda" or being part of a marxist/socialist/communist conspiracy (which I find absolutely hilarious btw).
If you want to have meaningful conversations with people, the mutual battle line demarcations have to be overcome somehow. I understand that many minority actors are not OK with constantly being asked to make the initial effort that has a high chance of not paying off anyway (hence the "it's not my job to educate you" stance). But I don't think insisting on redefining an umbrella term to only have a very specific meaning is a winning strategy, really.
We should defer to the language of expertise as much as we are able because the meanings given therein relate to a critical theoretic understanding. If someone uses the word "racism" without understanding its systemic qualities, they don't understand what racism is. And that's a huge block to solving the problem. If people think that racism is only about holding an individual prejudice against others on the basis of race, and in their conscious assessment, they don't hold those prejudices, then they conclude they aren't racist. Even that racism doesn't exist at an institutional level, like the guy I was replying to. This is bad for two reasons: it creates a lack of reflection upon one's implicit bias, and it ignores the systemic structures which are the precise issue in need of being addressed. 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. White people, as a group, are not routinely subjected to race-based prejudice from a broad swath of social settings on the basis of their whiteness. Any prejudice an individual white person might encounter is not seriously comparable to that of people of color, so much so that it's grossly inappropriate to make that comparison.
Personally, I don't think people using the word colloquially would be an issue if they understood the proper, formal definition. But they rather manifestly do not understand, and even insist on the colloquial definition being right, and the formal definition being wrong, as the person I was replying to did. I never once said it was "wrong," I said it was inadequate for understanding the issue. If the right is going to deny that racism is systemic by definition, it is imperative that we are very clear that nothing could be farther from the truth. It's true that going against the grain with popular consciousness is difficult, but in this case, it is absolutely necessary.
I don't have much of an opinion about the granularity of language re "systemic racism" vs. "racism." That's a stylistic choice that's largely up to the individual. It's up to you how redundant you want to be talking about it. If anything, the colloquial usage would be in need of higher granularity, so that the burden is on those people when they want to talk about "small r racism," since while this usage is more common, its application is less relevant. It should be stated that part of the reason so much online arguments revolve around this issue stems from liberalism as a political philosophy, which has played a huge historical role in influencing discourse in our society. In liberalism, the basic unit of analysis is the individual. Roughly, all people are ethically entailed equal rights because all people are of the same category individual and the category of individual has rights as an entailment. The rights the category of individual entails are all the so-called negative liberties (freedom from someone doing something to you). As long as the state applies them equally to everyone, liberalism regards society as equal. But the category is an abstraction. Actual concrete individuals are, as a consequence of being individuals, all different. This is where the individual analysis breaks down and cannot recognize systemic causes of difference. Such causes have their own corresponding ethical entailments -- positive liberties. Liberal political theory considers these to be unfair because they aren't entailed by the universal category. This is why, for example, it is common for people to object to affirmative action (to policies aimed at restoring equity). Then some theorists took it even further and developed libertarianism, going on to claim such things as "there is no such thing as social justice because only individuals exist, and groups have no ontological reality, so the only justice is that for the individual." If you're committed to that as a principle, you're going to deny that systemic racism exists at all costs. Frankly, that view is divorced to reality to an extreme that it might not actually be possible to fruitfully discuss anything with those sorts of people. But that's why the left is so emphatic about discussing the systemic causes of social issues, so that people gain a theoretic understanding and are less likely to adopt such a principle.
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.
I sometimes look on these forums here and there, and wanted to make an account to make this post, as I wanted to address a few things other users have posted and bring about some points to the table.
Reverse-racism is NOT a correct term. It is just "racism" in it's truest form when broken down. Some have made comments pertaining to racism only being from the top down, when in actuality, up until a few days ago on some "official" sites, it was changed in an effort to appease individuals of minorities.
I have seen others saying minorities have been fighting for equity, when a simple google search shows many protests over the decades, including the civil right protests have been for equality, not equity. Changing the narrative can only work so far when one's who believe they are right think so highly of themseves.
Going back on the topic of racism, it was always a two-way street. Racism is the prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group. One can add the part of only to "minorities" to add to their cause, but you are changing what the definition of what the word actually is. Much like how people changed the term "literally", to mean "figuratively" over the years, which is ironic in this case.
One can not change the rules during the middle of a game, thinking the opponents are clueless, and not expect any blow-back, and then think you are morally superior and have the high ground as if on cue to justify a dangerous ideology.
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.
I have to admit, I'm taken aback at people rejecting the notion of the value of equity. Equality as a concept is impoverished if it doesn't include dimensions of equity; equity makes equality ethically robust. Now if someone could demonstrate to me what equality actually loses by including equity, that would be a fascinating discussion.
The United States itself is not institutionally racist. Yes, there are parts of US history that is troubling of course, but it's foundation in and of itself have never been racist.
Since you're defining racism as prejudice, which is something only a person can have, and a "foundation" is not a person, this claim is guilty of begging the question.
What happened to George Floyd was a very sad issue, but worse is with what happened afterwards was much worse because of the riots. People being offended where no aggression was meant is a sadistic form that has become more and more invasive in the world, and growth will never happen if people cannot look beyond their situations let alone problems that they never had to deal with. The events of the last few weeks is going to perpetuate "racists" much worse, and on both sides.
Well, there you have it. You value black lives so little that you prioritize them after the damage to property done by riots.
There are quite a few bad eggs, but that is on both sides of the spectrum, politically, and on the racial scale, and to think otherwise is redundant and silly to argue with, especially when the wrong "facts" are brought up in an effort to work with their narrative. Other users have asked that you listen and try to understand their side, but those other users before as I mentioned keep bringing up useless facts that are not supporting their argument one bit. Ironically, even the "alt-right nazis" as claimed by those same users here can be spoken with as compared to the ones that won't even give them the time of day, and then bring up points of "consequences" to what people say? That is hypocrisy. That is pure form of toxicity on this site, and why people like myself rarely, if ever comment, and just watch.
It's not toxic to get mad at someone for making racist arguments. But it certainly can be toxic to insist on saying whatever you want and never be criticized for it by anyone.
What WOTC is doing now, is as many have said, it is pandering, plain and simple. They are a business first, and foremost, and will do what they believe, with or without data, is best for their company. No one is refuting that they are a private company and can do this, but rather if they should. This topic does not bar them from being appropriately criticized on the matter. Some cards, sure, have racist connotations to it, but some of the others, well, it is always interesting where one's look to be offended, when again, no offense was ever meant. Any form of critical thinking will help one understand that.
Agree.
Lastly, rather than look at other forms of media, particularly ones that have been proven false on many occasions, think for yourselves,and look for the best in others, rather than thinking every little thing a white individual does is racist. Racism and slavery existed LONG before the modern use of it was ever utilized, and from many races and cultures.
Why exactly is it so important to you to trivialize black slavery by comparing it to other historical examples? And what does that have to do with whether or not everything a white person does is racist?
Some themes just play very well generally and are desirable to repeat, other themes might be a little more niche in their appeal
If the colour pairs all have some standard themes it's easier to map out the right diversity of different strategies and playstyles. Switching up one might require changes to others balance it out (e.g. too much aggro, too many +1/+1 counter archetypes).
Having common fallbacks for limited pairs makes it easier to focus development time and player attention on the unique set themes
Consistent limited archetypes make it easier for newer players to approach new sets if there are familiar strategies to work with
Consistent themes for colour pairs helps convey the flavour and mechanics of the colour pie
A reasonable list. The last two are sound justifications (if a bit weak), though I think the first three are flimsy excuses. Not that you're wrong, I'm sure WotC would offer similar reasons, I just don't find them compelling to barely attempt shaking up the BR theme for limited for quite some time.
Why is in particular this consistent? Possibly because this archetype is very popular, possibly because WotC feels it works very well for , possibly because attention has just ended up elsewhere recently.
It's certainly popular (if Aristocrats constructed decks are any indication), and it certainly works, I just think they need to consider innovating soon before the theme feels completely rote. BR, in my opinion, has struggled to be as diverse mechanically as other color pairs and the shallowness of it's Limited themes is a symptom of that. Another example is RW's tendency to just be the "attacking matters" pair (though at least Ikoria gave it a cycling theme for some spice).
Meanwhile, some pairs are really dynamic and get to have a variety of Limited themes. UR, in particular, seems to have different ones all the time (instant/sorcery matters, when you cast a spell on someone else's turn, Elemental tribal, when you draw your second card each turn). I think there's a better balance to be struck. Consistency can be good, but repeated ad nauseum I think it loses its appeal.
Actually it's been bothering me for some time that the same color pairs revisit the same archetypes over and over again. I think a set would really stand out as having unique design if they went out of their way to interpret the color pairs into nontraditional archetypes. In particular, using a setting with a heavy emphasis on color pairs as an alternative to Ravnica. I know there's been some talk around here about wanting to see a more controllish Boros, for example. And I'd personally like to see a variant on WB that focused more on disruption and permission-style of play.
The biggest reason to do something like this is the variety. It's important to shake things up once in awhile when your sets start to get a little stale. It's also less taxing on design space when you're pushing color pairings in a direction that they don't go as frequently, less design space is required in this case to come up with cards that feel fresh. Of course, the danger lies in being overly cautious and not printing anything appealing enough to break people out of familiar archetypes, leading to a weak set.
On the one hand, elves and goblins all the time would be (and was) boring. It's important to mix things up a bit. Cat dinosaurs do make sense in the context of this plane, but in general just stapling together two types of creatures isn't going to resonate as much as a more organically conceived creature type. There's a difference between coming up with a type of creature that has, say, feline and dinosaur traits and calling it "X," versus just typing it as cat and dinosaur. The latter just speaks to mutated fusions, which is what Ikoria is and was always going to be (and might not be everyone's cup of tea on that basis). But when the typing is "X," the combination becomes a thing in itself, and the focus is now on "X" and not X's components. All creations are just a synthesis of components which we've seen before, which differ only in their composition. But a creation is more complete and novel as its own thing when it clicks mentally as "X" and not merely "cat + dinosaur," that is, when its identity is more than the sum of its parts. Overall, settings will resonate more when creatures are typed as new things than mashing together old types. But sometimes, as in Ikoria, the mashing together is thematically appropriate.
As I replied to the other person, mechanically, using preexisting creature types and mashing them together, can be more interesting than just adding a new one. The addition of naga as a creature type was not worth it when they could have just been made snakes and been more mechanically relevant with more cards.
That isn’t to say new creature types shouldn’t be made, I just think they need to be significantly different from anything else to really be worth it.
I personally think Naga is worth it. You lose out on some Snake tribal synergy, oh well. "Snake" is too general if it includes Naga. There is an issue with consistency. For example, Rakshasas were typed as "Cat Demon" in the same context of Tarkir block. If someone potentially could have "Naga" but not "Snake" as their favorite creature type, then it's worth it.
My rule of thumb is this: if it's a distinct type of fantasy creature, give it its own card type. Otherwise, pre-existing types with tribal synergy are preferable. Or if it's a MtG-specific fantasy creature where there's no real-world lore to resonate with, mundane creature types are also fine in that case.
after i saw this card and this artwork i thought "what happened to magic?"
i am usually not that kind of guy, being all nostalgic, but to me making a cat dinosaur feels so lazy and uncreative, as if wizards isnt even trying anymore.
just randomly smash creature types together and all the old lore with goblins, elves and angels doesnt matter anymore. no, nowadays we get angel,horror,eldrazi,warlock, single mom creature types.
its not that i cry about "in the past everything was better", it is just that i feel this is lazy work. cant really discripe it, but this is making me lose interest in magic. in the past cards were designed clear and distinctive. (at least to me). now they print out every trash they can imagine and want us to be hyped and pay over the top prices for colored paper. i feel more like "this aitn worth it anymore", which is sad, cause i actually really like the game.
... what one trash card can "trigger"
I would argue it takes more creativity to make up something like cat dinosaurs than using tired old fantasy tropes such as goblins, elves and angels.
I think you both have a point.
On the one hand, elves and goblins all the time would be (and was) boring. It's important to mix things up a bit. Cat dinosaurs do make sense in the context of this plane, but in general just stapling together two types of creatures isn't going to resonate as much as a more organically conceived creature type. There's a difference between coming up with a type of creature that has, say, feline and dinosaur traits and calling it "X," versus just typing it as cat and dinosaur. The latter just speaks to mutated fusions, which is what Ikoria is and was always going to be (and might not be everyone's cup of tea on that basis). But when the typing is "X," the combination becomes a thing in itself, and the focus is now on "X" and not X's components. All creations are just a synthesis of components which we've seen before, which differ only in their composition. But a creation is more complete and novel as its own thing when it clicks mentally as "X" and not merely "cat + dinosaur," that is, when its identity is more than the sum of its parts. Overall, settings will resonate more when creatures are typed as new things than mashing together old types. But sometimes, as in Ikoria, the mashing together is thematically appropriate.
The biggest crime of this card is how boring it is. Jeskai is probably the hardest wedge to design for, but still. I feel very let down by this card and they need to spend some time thinking about how to explore this wedge's identity more.
The comparison to Rampant Growth that people keep making is really inaccurate to me. Growth you cast it and immediately get the land in play. This you have to cast it, hope it sticks a round of the table, hope it can get through And then you get the land into play. And then you have to use up some of that mana to continue doing it. And let’s not forget that Rampant Growth isn’t a dead card if you happened to win the dice roll. I think this is an easy cut when improving the precons and probably shouldn’t get added to other decks.
Say it louder for the people in the back, apparently.
A hasteless creature that has to connect combat damage is not a valid comparison to an instant with the same effect. The creature is much slower and universally easier to stop in every color than the instant.
Now, it could still be the case that a drawback of some kind is still appropriate for this cost and effect in white. Maybe "Return it to your hand unless you discard a card or pay 1W." But the drawback as printed is going to push deckbuilding to more competitive options.
I think they should focus on the Smothering Tithe design for White ramp. Have it generate artifact token mana rocks at an efficient rate so that it gets the benefit of the ramp but more vulnerability to removal and no deck thinning. That way Green gets to stay king of ramp while White gets ramp that's at least playable if not as much value as options in Green.
This card is bad, but it represents the floor of what they're allowing White to do with land ramp now. It can only go up from here.
I guess the reason it returns to your hand is like a reference to falconing? There's some flavor to it but making the ramp conditional on your opponent's board state is already enough of a drawback, it doesn't need more piled on.
Interesting that I posited the existence of black people as a group and your first reply is to mention gangs.
Thanks, elementary school DARE speaker. That was illuminating.
Except for all of the issues that do have to do with the black group and are impossible to solve at a personal level. Like how white supremacists have infiltrated police forces around the country in order to institutionally target black people for incarceration, violence, and even murder.
You're creating a false dilemma between "group think" and acknowledging the individual. You can actually do both.
Yes, this is actually right. You do have to take the individual into account because treating them all the same is unfair. That's exactly my premise. The only difference is the "group think" we're engaging with. You're grouping all people under the category "individual," a universal which is stripped of all the particular content actual individuals have.
It would be a mistake on the other hand to essentialize individuals according to the groups of which they are a part. It would be a mistake to generalize every member of the group being identical. But I'm not proposing either.
True. But as the laws and actions in question aren't "only" looking at a group and do also look at individuals, this is a nonissue.
It's not "haha funny." It's "peculiar funny," as in, it's very odd that you don't think those crimes are racist. Almost as though some bizarre race-based cognitive error is preventing you from seeing the racist nature of the crime...
And yet, no one has suggested "mob rule."
That's a pretty ridiculous position, considering Invoke Prejudice. It's also irrelevant; what about implicit racism?
I asked you to provide an example of something that is racist. You keep on telling me things that aren't racist. Please answer the question.
Oh, but there is no such thing as "that kind of violence." It's only stuff that happens to an individual committed by an individual, right?
And here we have the ontological individualist.
There's a thing that exists: black people as a group. Groups exist. The existence of groups does not diminish the individuals that comprise them, but makes them be the individuals that they are in their full, concrete existence. You can't solve everything just by treating the individual situation; you must treat the causes, not the symptoms.
That's a funny thing to think, given the statistics of those crimes.
So you think the banned cards aren't actually racist. Alright, I have a challenge for you. Define for me something that would actually be racist.
I'm trying to think of an analogy here. Let's say Johnny's mom tells Johnny he needs to wash his hair. Johnny knows washing his hair involves using shampoo, which is a liquid. He sees a bucket of mercury, which is a liquid. Ah! Shampoo! He dumps it on his head. No Johnny, mom says, that's not shampoo. But it's a liquid! You can't redefine shampoo to not be a liquid! Maybe the mercury is getting to him.
You're right, it's a top-down and bottom-up issue, and both need to be integrated together into the whole for our understanding.
Accusing someone of being racist is a surefire way to get their back up and force them into becoming defensive. That particular individual can in the long term respond in two ways: double down on the racism to get back at people who bruised their ego (the narcissistic rage route), or reflect on what they said and adjust their language in the future (the developing social skills route). Especially over the internet, we often don't know how an individual will handle criticism. But unless it's a conversation in a PM, other people will be influenced seeing these discussions and may be helped by seeing racism identified through the example of the criticized individual. Still, the effectiveness of the rhetoric can be a mixed bag, since culturally right-wing people have solidarity with one another in the effort to resist the "libs." No outside voice will penetrate into that community. They take it as a principle to never compromise, value faith over reason, etc. They've all collectively decided to double down, the way the situation is unfolding makes it unlikely for peaceful resolution to be possible.
I agree that cancel culture is toxic. But I think it derives more so from immaturity than ideology.
He didn't say a person was defined by them. He was talking about how their life experience was defined.
No one is saying you can't be a mystical existentialist if that's what you really want. In fact, probably the stupidest and most irrational thing about racism is the idea that skin color has any casual relationship to moral character. Yet that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that real people do believe such things and act accordingly. The reality of our society is that people of color are treated differently because of their socially designated race. Are you really seeing a person's "inner light" if you refuse to acknowledge that they also have those experiences?
Being blind to color is being blind to the injustices perpetuated because of it. It's not deep; it's not even shallow.
I'm not sure I have a clear grasp on what you think the distinction is between "organic" equity and the alternative. I have absolutely no interest in Hollywood award categories? Whether or not Olympic sports are split between male and female athletes is an issue that has close to zero material impact on anybody. I'm talking about stuff like addressing cycles of poverty that are perpetuated by an elite class who profits from doing so (which, incidentally, will also help poor whites). The existence of that factor in society is a pretty big reason to doubt that if we sit around and do nothing our "equality" will "organically" produce more equity. It wont; it hasn't.
We should defer to the language of expertise as much as we are able because the meanings given therein relate to a critical theoretic understanding. If someone uses the word "racism" without understanding its systemic qualities, they don't understand what racism is. And that's a huge block to solving the problem. If people think that racism is only about holding an individual prejudice against others on the basis of race, and in their conscious assessment, they don't hold those prejudices, then they conclude they aren't racist. Even that racism doesn't exist at an institutional level, like the guy I was replying to. This is bad for two reasons: it creates a lack of reflection upon one's implicit bias, and it ignores the systemic structures which are the precise issue in need of being addressed. 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. White people, as a group, are not routinely subjected to race-based prejudice from a broad swath of social settings on the basis of their whiteness. Any prejudice an individual white person might encounter is not seriously comparable to that of people of color, so much so that it's grossly inappropriate to make that comparison.
Personally, I don't think people using the word colloquially would be an issue if they understood the proper, formal definition. But they rather manifestly do not understand, and even insist on the colloquial definition being right, and the formal definition being wrong, as the person I was replying to did. I never once said it was "wrong," I said it was inadequate for understanding the issue. If the right is going to deny that racism is systemic by definition, it is imperative that we are very clear that nothing could be farther from the truth. It's true that going against the grain with popular consciousness is difficult, but in this case, it is absolutely necessary.
I don't have much of an opinion about the granularity of language re "systemic racism" vs. "racism." That's a stylistic choice that's largely up to the individual. It's up to you how redundant you want to be talking about it. If anything, the colloquial usage would be in need of higher granularity, so that the burden is on those people when they want to talk about "small r racism," since while this usage is more common, its application is less relevant. It should be stated that part of the reason so much online arguments revolve around this issue stems from liberalism as a political philosophy, which has played a huge historical role in influencing discourse in our society. In liberalism, the basic unit of analysis is the individual. Roughly, all people are ethically entailed equal rights because all people are of the same category individual and the category of individual has rights as an entailment. The rights the category of individual entails are all the so-called negative liberties (freedom from someone doing something to you). As long as the state applies them equally to everyone, liberalism regards society as equal. But the category is an abstraction. Actual concrete individuals are, as a consequence of being individuals, all different. This is where the individual analysis breaks down and cannot recognize systemic causes of difference. Such causes have their own corresponding ethical entailments -- positive liberties. Liberal political theory considers these to be unfair because they aren't entailed by the universal category. This is why, for example, it is common for people to object to affirmative action (to policies aimed at restoring equity). Then some theorists took it even further and developed libertarianism, going on to claim such things as "there is no such thing as social justice because only individuals exist, and groups have no ontological reality, so the only justice is that for the individual." If you're committed to that as a principle, you're going to deny that systemic racism exists at all costs. Frankly, that view is divorced to reality to an extreme that it might not actually be possible to fruitfully discuss anything with those sorts of people. But that's why the left is so emphatic about discussing the systemic causes of social issues, so that people gain a theoretic understanding and are less likely to adopt such a principle.
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.
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.
I have to admit, I'm taken aback at people rejecting the notion of the value of equity. Equality as a concept is impoverished if it doesn't include dimensions of equity; equity makes equality ethically robust. Now if someone could demonstrate to me what equality actually loses by including equity, that would be a fascinating discussion.
Since you're defining racism as prejudice, which is something only a person can have, and a "foundation" is not a person, this claim is guilty of begging the question.
Well, there you have it. You value black lives so little that you prioritize them after the damage to property done by riots.
It's not toxic to get mad at someone for making racist arguments. But it certainly can be toxic to insist on saying whatever you want and never be criticized for it by anyone.
Agree.
Why exactly is it so important to you to trivialize black slavery by comparing it to other historical examples? And what does that have to do with whether or not everything a white person does is racist?
Actually it's been bothering me for some time that the same color pairs revisit the same archetypes over and over again. I think a set would really stand out as having unique design if they went out of their way to interpret the color pairs into nontraditional archetypes. In particular, using a setting with a heavy emphasis on color pairs as an alternative to Ravnica. I know there's been some talk around here about wanting to see a more controllish Boros, for example. And I'd personally like to see a variant on WB that focused more on disruption and permission-style of play.
The biggest reason to do something like this is the variety. It's important to shake things up once in awhile when your sets start to get a little stale. It's also less taxing on design space when you're pushing color pairings in a direction that they don't go as frequently, less design space is required in this case to come up with cards that feel fresh. Of course, the danger lies in being overly cautious and not printing anything appealing enough to break people out of familiar archetypes, leading to a weak set.
I personally think Naga is worth it. You lose out on some Snake tribal synergy, oh well. "Snake" is too general if it includes Naga. There is an issue with consistency. For example, Rakshasas were typed as "Cat Demon" in the same context of Tarkir block. If someone potentially could have "Naga" but not "Snake" as their favorite creature type, then it's worth it.
My rule of thumb is this: if it's a distinct type of fantasy creature, give it its own card type. Otherwise, pre-existing types with tribal synergy are preferable. Or if it's a MtG-specific fantasy creature where there's no real-world lore to resonate with, mundane creature types are also fine in that case.
I think you both have a point.
On the one hand, elves and goblins all the time would be (and was) boring. It's important to mix things up a bit. Cat dinosaurs do make sense in the context of this plane, but in general just stapling together two types of creatures isn't going to resonate as much as a more organically conceived creature type. There's a difference between coming up with a type of creature that has, say, feline and dinosaur traits and calling it "X," versus just typing it as cat and dinosaur. The latter just speaks to mutated fusions, which is what Ikoria is and was always going to be (and might not be everyone's cup of tea on that basis). But when the typing is "X," the combination becomes a thing in itself, and the focus is now on "X" and not X's components. All creations are just a synthesis of components which we've seen before, which differ only in their composition. But a creation is more complete and novel as its own thing when it clicks mentally as "X" and not merely "cat + dinosaur," that is, when its identity is more than the sum of its parts. Overall, settings will resonate more when creatures are typed as new things than mashing together old types. But sometimes, as in Ikoria, the mashing together is thematically appropriate.
This card makes you work really hard just to get a Warleader's Helix. They could have tacked cycling onto it as well at least.
I do like that they seem to be making cycling a bit of a theme for RW and printing unprecedentedly cheap cycling costs for these colors at common.
It's the rite of bonding to the monsters. Eldha, I think.
Say it louder for the people in the back, apparently.
A hasteless creature that has to connect combat damage is not a valid comparison to an instant with the same effect. The creature is much slower and universally easier to stop in every color than the instant.
Now, it could still be the case that a drawback of some kind is still appropriate for this cost and effect in white. Maybe "Return it to your hand unless you discard a card or pay 1W." But the drawback as printed is going to push deckbuilding to more competitive options.
I think they should focus on the Smothering Tithe design for White ramp. Have it generate artifact token mana rocks at an efficient rate so that it gets the benefit of the ramp but more vulnerability to removal and no deck thinning. That way Green gets to stay king of ramp while White gets ramp that's at least playable if not as much value as options in Green.
I guess the reason it returns to your hand is like a reference to falconing? There's some flavor to it but making the ramp conditional on your opponent's board state is already enough of a drawback, it doesn't need more piled on.