Indeed. Your help in making these, to say nothing of what you've done for the forum have really been a solid support for us all. We'll miss seeing you in the mod cave.
I'm glad your last mod piece made it to publication though, and that you got to talk about Ephara.
-
- bobthefunny
- Staff
-
Member for 13 years and 6 days
Last active Sat, Feb, 24 2024 23:38:40
- 17 Followers
- 10,970 Total Posts
- 686 Thanks
-
Jan 11, 2015
bobthefunny posted a message on Word of Command #4 - Engines of CommandPosted in: Articles -
Dec 3, 2014
bobthefunny posted a message on Word of Command #3 - Welcoming New CommandersYour method of letting players tumble out into their own camps can be a good one when you have enough room to do it. People will naturally gravitate into the games that fit their decks' schedules.Posted in: Articles
In smaller environments where you may only have one or two pods going though, it can be a bit more difficult. Also, you then get problematic players like me who like to play across the entire spectrum.
I also believe that casual environments can provide excellent learning areas, but you have to be careful of it as well. One trap that my own group has been running into now is being too lenient on take-backs. Originally implemented to allow the newer players some freedom of thought and to help them work through what courses of actions to take. It can start to be abused into not fully thinking through a situation. An example being that one player cast Council's Judgment to remove my Commander. The second player voted for another permanent in order to set up a double exile option for player C, and player C then mistakenly selected a third permanent for more exily goodness, at which point I selected one of the other targets for my vote in order to save my Commander. Player C hadn't really thought things through (and I'd also quickly jumped the gun on my own vote, I'll admit), but we ended up rewinding that play so he could properly select his vote.
I find it helps best to properly (and as honestly as possible) represent the board state for newer players. For example, with cards with the Will of The Council, such as Council's Judgment, I find that it helps to explain to newer players what the consequence of their vote will do to the options the next player in line will be able to make. After a while, you can scale back the aid you give to after the play or game is over, that way they can learn from their own choices, but still have the benefit of a different viewpoint.
In one game, my brother should have had lethal on me since he had a pro-black creature, and he was paranoid about a Duplicant in my Chainer deck's graveyard... except that he misplayed having forgotten that Chainer would reanimate it as a black creature and opted to spread his equipments out instead. Since my brother should have known better, that was an observation I made at the end of the game (a few turns later). He has never forgotten it again.
These kinds of interactions though can really help all players improve their own levels of play. -
Nov 8, 2014
bobthefunny posted a message on Word of Command #3 - Welcoming New CommandersAbsolutely! The greatest way to truly learn anything is to teach it. It really makes you get an in-depth understanding of the subject.Posted in: Articles
I'm glad you enjoyed the article. -
Sep 28, 2014
bobthefunny posted a message on Word of Command #2 - KHAAAAANS!Should have been Corpsejack Menace, I guess.Posted in: Articles
Indeed, much thanks to the entire editorial staff, this wouldn't be possible without them. -
Mar 29, 2012
bobthefunny posted a message on Tibor & LumiaSol Grail, while getting points for being oldschool, has never impressed me in EDH. Here are a few alternatives (some less budget than others):Posted in: Deck Compilation
Coalition Relic - the most expensive of them, but far more useful.
Phyrexian Lens - a bit painful, but may be worth the added color utility
Star Compass - the best budget alternate. Taps for either color we have; CiPT, but costs 1 less, so same net mana gain when played.
Also, do not overlook Fire diamond and Sky diamond
Also, for storm count, do you have a Frantic Search? -
Aug 22, 2011
bobthefunny posted a message on Being a substitute teacher is no substitute to teachingTeachers have been cut, this means there are less teachers that are teaching to get sick; this also means there are more teachers now looking for work, and thereby more substitutes looking for work.Posted in: Stoogeslap Blog
A full time teacher's resume will look better when a school is looking for a sub, so they'll be called in first. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We have reviewed the resources provided. We remain steadfast with allowing #BlackLivesMatter on the site; Thus, to allow for balanced abilities for people to express themselves, we allow #BlueLivesMatter to keep rights of expression fair. Political disruptions of threads will still be closed down - we stand by the idea that this is a site for discussing Magic related topics, and that this is not a political discourse channel. Topics that do not contribute to that remain off-topic.
At this time, we will no longer accept debate about the validity of any of the positions in this thread. Any concerns about the site's policies, or additional resources you wish to provide to us for consideration will still be welcomed, but we ask that it be kept to an informational level. This thread is not a replacement for the (closed) debate forum.
BLM and Blue are intrinsically linked, as the two police officers killed were assassinated in reaction to assaults against BLM. This makes disentangling the two very difficult.
Wikipedia was a starting point for me as well, but the sources I listed in my earlier description of #BlueLives were brought in during further depth of research.
I would like to emphasize the second part of your quote from wikipedia as well: "It was started in response to Black Lives Matter after the homicides of NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu in Brooklyn, New York on December 20, 2014."
The current Blue Lives homepage has a concise mission statement: https://bluelivesmatternyc.org/pages/frontpage
This article has this quote towards the beginings of Blue: https://www.the-sun.com/news/992088/blue-lives-matter-racist-flag-blm-protests/
This article has this to say about several of the police support affiliations (emphasis mine): https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/06/08/the-short-fraught-history-of-the-thin-blue-line-american-flag
https://gothamist.com/news/inside-seething-white-heart-blue-lives-matter-movement
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/11/30/why-blue-lives-matter/
===
In going back to find these links, however, I have found the following article, which I plan to read more in depth, as well as forward to the ownership:
https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/03-Smith.pdf
I also found an archive of the original mission statement, which is considerably different than today.
https://archive.bluelivesmatter.blue/organization/
I will forward this to ownership as well.
===
You mean, like change against an oppressive Monarchy which treated some of its ctizens as inferior and denying them their rights? Perhaps running that society into the ground, and rebuilding a new one, not once, but twice?
Our history disagrees with what you consider to be occasionally necessary or not necessary.
So how is someone who is oppressed supposed to get attention then? Simply ask pretty please to the very people oppressing them?
So, someone crying victim while emptying an entire shipment of tea into a harbor would not be a meaningful message, historically?
The data and studies disagree with this assessment, still to this day.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-systemic-racism-in-charts-graphs-data-2020-6#the-wage-gap-between-races-also-interacts-with-the-gender-wage-gap-between-men-and-women-10
That is boggling, and naive, yes. Anyone can be racist.
BLM is not about making violence ok. It's about demanding change, for a continued injustice, which repeatedly continues to be ignored from a legal perspective, despite research and studies showing it to still be a problem. Violence has come into play in a remote and small subset of gatherings, due to the fact that peaceful protest over an extended period has failed. Repeatedly.
While this would be ideal, what happens when the oppressors refuse to listen to your peaceful protest? Historically speaking, well... examples abound. In our own history no less, and not that long ago.
I think we are working on different definitions here.
Perhaps I walked away with a different understanding of the example.
You've lost me here, and are making things more convoluted than necessary.
What I am saying is that each group needs to be judged on their own position and merits, and not on the actions of another group that uses their slogan. If we uphold this ideal for #BlackLivesMatters, by saying that the violence and riots are a separate entity from the entity of the movement, and do not reflect the goals and general acceptance of the #BLM movement (which has been largely, but not entirely, peaceful protests) then we should uphold the same standards for others, and not villainize them based on the actions of other groups.
I have never stated that #BLM or any of the peaceful protests, or even civil disobedience, or even straight up riots, were unnecessary. The movement has stepped up its attempts to gain attention for a decade now, and if simple acts of attention aren't enough, clearly larger acts are needed until the attention is given is deserved. Simply because something is necessary however does not mean that it is exempt from repercussion either.
There are also various contexts of violence that seem to be conflated here. (1) Excessive violence and use of force by the Police that has led to the wrongful deaths of individuals with no repercussions; (2) Regular violence and use of Police force in proper procedure when other deescalation methods have failed - No matter what your beliefs or ideals, there will always be some need to apprehend a non-compliant subject; (3) the violence of the protests; (4) the violence of the riots; (5) the violence by government authorities against the protesters (peaceful, non-peaceful, and riots); and (6) the violence of confrontations between protesters and counter protesters. At no point did I ever claim that these different situations and contexts of violence are equivalent in scope, context, or anything else.
=====
The general current accepted context does not seem to support this. If you have additional context to provide, I would be happy to pass it up and add it to the growing research that I have put together on this.
That first is why initially we did not accept #BlueLives. However, after doing some research, what we found is that the blue lives movement is for solidarity of assassinated officers, and was not explicitly started as a counter-movement to BLM. This is reflected in common usage, as companies have explicitly allowed #BlueLives, and/or explicitly rolled back previous disapproval of it. This is in stark contrast to ALM, which is explicitly a counter-movement, and is likewise seen in common usage where companies have been explicitly disapproving of it, with such disapprovals only consistently rising. Likewise with #WLM, which barely even deserves a mention.
An interesting analogy, and actually the exact one I had in mind and that I was alluding to when writing my post, as I had just seen this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY&ab_channel=TEDxTalks
That is a TED talk by a previously prominent Women's Rights Activist who created two feminist documentaries, and then went to research the MRA for a third documentary, examined her own biases, found that they actually had compelling points not covered by feminism, made a documentary about it, and then was ostracized for supporting that unpopular view.
In short, according to her, after doing the research for her documentary she discovered that No, the Mens Rights Activists are NOT the "alllivesmatters" of gender issues. They did have a separate point, and were not necessarily in contention with the feminist movements, and that men are not "already covered."
---
For reference, one of the other movements that I had in mind was something I had recently read regarding former Judge Aaron Persky, the judge who ruled on the Brock Turner rape case.
https://www.quora.com/In-light-of-the-evidence-was-justice-served-by-recalling-Judge-Persky-for-the-sentence-he-gave-Brock-Turner/answer/Jeremy-Arnold-4
A likewise interesting read, which showcases the dangers of being caught up in a popular opinion movement without doing your own proper research. Some quick googling shows that the general premise of this research holds merit, and that the Judge was following pre-set recommendations and standards, and that the general legal institution sided with him in the recall.
---
Likewise, it seems that #BlueLivesMatters has a separate point to make, which is not necessarily related to #BLM. I have not personally looked into whether or that point is valid, or to what degree, but it seems the general public is at least willing to currently give it due consideration.
I believe you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would claim to be for excessive violence. Police are no exception. Excessive police violence is never to be condoned - however policing is itself a job that comes into contact with violence frequently, and sometimes needs to resort to violence. It is important to separate the activism against the excessive and unnecessary violence.
Likewise, while policing in general has had racist results, it's important to separate that the police institution is not a racist institution - there is no racist agenda that they are fighting for. Policing is intended to be the institution that upholds the laws and protects the people - That this is not happening equally is the problem. The execution, not the vision or agenda. Not only that, but not every police officer is racist. Not every police officer ends encounters with minorities with gun shots. To say that these officers have no value of life? To compare them to Nazis? That is beyond harsh.
Your example of Nazism is also interesting. Even at its height, only about 10% of Germans were actually Nazis. Many more than that were German soldiers. Not every soldier actively believed in the Nazi ideal - this was a movement that grew over time, meticulously, and stamped out any dissent or opposition. To say that each of these people lose all claims of humanity is extreme. Many debates are had over the culpability of individual people in the movement, or even in mobs in general.
As I said earlier, policing is a dangerous job. Police Officers should expect to encounter violence, danger, and hardship in the line of duty. However, we can still recognize that they are making that choice. That remains a noble choice, of itself. Not only that, but #BlueLivesMatters is a step beyond that. It isn't just about police officers being killed for doing their job - it's a movement about bringing attention to officers who were gunned down - targeted by assassins and terrorists, outside of the normal line of duty.
Now, #Blue lives activists have taken the movement beyond that scope, pitting it as #BLM vs #BlueLM - that is despicable. But several groups have taken #BLM chants to violence as well, or even in seeking confrontation and violence in counter #BlueLM protests. These are extremists. If we say, rightfully, that they should not be held against #BLM - then those coopting #BlueLM should not be held against that movement either. - That is the position we have arrived at, and why Context matters. If #BLM were used in a harassing manner, it would not be allowed here. Using #BlueLivesMatter in a harassing manner won't be allowed either. But as a supportive statement, we have decided that they are valid.
While some cities and areas are inherently more dangerous than others, I think most can agree here. The dangers of an active warzone far outweigh the dangers of policing even the harshest areas. Dangers do exist, and part of the problem right now is that Soldiers are actually showing more restraint in a more dangerous situation than a large number of police officers.
This is well said.
These are good and important questions. Many human rights grievances need attention brought to them, many in different ways. Women's rights, LGBT rights, all have movements behind them advocating the changes we need. Sometimes they enter the spotlight, sometimes they get swept away a month later. Media attention and documentaries help bring these issues back into the light, but even those are fraught with controversy - especially when it is counter to current prevalent consensus. Veteran rights and issues have been brought up time and again, but the issues still persist. We can only try to keep bringing attention to the issues, and hope we find ways to improve them.
In terms of Police lives, it is only natural that as the Police come under scrutiny that they would wish to remind people of their side of the story, their sacrifices, and their problems. Since the spotlight is focused on them, they have gotten more attention of late.
Policing does need to change, and improve, towards #BLM violations. But while we are reexamining how we Police, why can we not fix other issues as well? Such as their mental health care, public image, or that they can be made targets? That there are other issues do not necessarily invalidate theirs. It's important to target the important changes first, but if we can fix more than one thing at the same time, I would be for it. My hope is that the Defund campaign will have an impact on how Police respond, and thereby lower the rate at which they are targeted.
This video is disturbing. I still cannot wrap my head around it. The individual here clearly has problems that need to be addressed.
Qualified Immunity is one of the things that needs to change. The simple truth is that the idea behind it, and how it is implemented do not match up.
This is one video that helped me learn a high level overview of the issue on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl6yXjdMlHI&ab_channel=LegalEagle
===
The people who have been incorrectly at the receiving end of this would beg to differ - and they are standing up to bring attention to it through their protests, and highlighting repeated instances proving that this is not miniscule. That this is NOT individual situations, but a history of repeated abuse.
The issue that is being campaigned is that this is consistent and repeated, and that the perpetrators are NOT being served justice in a proper manner. The system is currently not working as intended.
Current media dramatization and sensationalism is certainly a problem. Police violence is still a problem as well.
Why should the victims be the ones expected to forgive? Why should they forgive, when no impactful change has occured to stop them from being the victims? When no change has occurred, despite repeated examples and attention brought to this same issue, not for 5 years, not 10 years, not even 20 years, but well over 40 years with no meaningful change?
I think you have a misconception as to what #DefundThePolice entails.
The idea behind #Defund is that police are not the right service to call as first responders in many situations. Police Officers currently have more responsibilities than they should, and that is impacting their performance and their responses. It is placing an undue burden in the amount of different trainings they are expected to have.
Instead, #Defund suggests that other first response alternatives are more viable. Just as a Police Officer is not the primary response unit to a Fire, but rather we have firefighters for that, for a health check, or a mental health response, sending an armed police officer isn't necessary. A social worker or some form of medical personnel is more qualified to giving the care needed and addressing the needs of the situation.
If we move these duties into these new response units, then this removes a burden from the Police. A burden that they no longer need to commit training, personnel, gear, and monetary resources towards. This allocation needs to move out of the Police, where it does not belong, and into the initiatives where it will help.
#Defund is not about pretending that the same social health aspects can be done on a lower budget, but about allocating that budget into the services and initiatives that are best equipped to handle it.
Even Chicago's big push to disband the police force was taken entirely out of context. Many articles pushed forward the headlines of "What will Chicago do without a police department?!? It will be chaos!" They completely ignored that the context was to disband the police department, yes, that had been plagued with decades of documented corruption and incompetence, and instead allocate the funds into other social initiatives to replace those same areas of service, including looking into how to rebuild a department to handle routine policework, investigations, and crime prevention. It was all there already.
All the articles that claimed "Don't defund the police, rethink policing in Chicago and beyond" are missing the fact that it was exactly what the Defund movement was already all about! Rethinking how policing works. What Police are currently responsible for, and whether they should be.
And this is exactly what #Defund is trying to address.
The need is to get the money and funding to the right places, and train the right people, instead of putting more stress onto an already overburdened police force.
The fact that the racism continues today and is not fixed shows that it's not a miniscule problem, and that it hasn't gone away on its own. That means we need to examine if proactive steps will prove better or more effective - because what we have been doing, is not working.
BLM is bringing forth attention to an issue that has plagued our country for too long. Is it wrong for people to demand change when something is wrong?
Sure, sometimes people see a perceived wrong, and they stand up and demand change - the attention makes people examine the problem, and it's seen that the wrong is inconsequential or simply perceived, and that there is no problem... But that's not what happened here.
Multiple studies back up the claims. Multiple studies show that there is an issue. That's why so many people have gotten on board.
Are there group causes that go overboard? Yes. Are there group causes that go too far, based on inaccurate evidence? Yes. That's why it's important to look into who is supporting the cause, why it's being supported, and what the research is behind it.
In this case, when one side is being upheld by most research institutions, and the other is being upheld by self-avowed racists...
This is important. To have a counterbalancing point to ensure that things do not go too far in scapegoating.
Gonna need a source.
That's what people are doing. Campaigning their senators, governors, and local governments to change how we police, and examine the biases in our society and enact change upon it. That's literally what #BLM is about.
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
Our goal here should be in looking at how to best structure what kind of discussion should be had on the site, and how to respond to such things when they do arise, and how to prevent these things from disturbing the discussions about Magic.
Since this discussion is inherently political, and will require definitions and even discussions of current events in order to support or explain positions, I accept that there will be inherent political discussion in this thread - but please try to keep the end goal of how this can tie into the improvement of the site at least somewhere in mind. What I would like to avoid is simply having a migration of Political Debate into this thread, where it might drown out others who have questions or input for the site.
Thank you.
I'll try to read through and address the more political posts a bit later.
===
Thank you Rosy Dumplings for joining the thread!
What you have said is the hopeful ideal, and what we hope to strive for. We do know that ideals are often just that - ideal, however I feel it is important to still strive and aim for that ideal, even while we must keep our sights, and respect, on reality.
1 - We have attempted to revitalize the recruitment threads, as well as post some new threads in areas that are also lacking. Sadly, this kind of 'passive' recruitment has not yielded any results, as people are more likely to simply gloss over them. We have been in discussion as to how to best take a more active recruitment role, and the Rumor Mill is currently our top priority for it. We hope to reach out to several prominent members of the Community, and solicit some feedback and recommendations from them. We have also reached out to several users for nominations of other prominent members who are active, who we will then reach out to with the same request for feedback, ideas, and nominations.
We hope to use this information to identify and build up a kind of 'map' of active users who care about the community and are well respected within the community; from there we will reach out to several that stand out, and see if they would be receptive to taking a more active role.
This process is a new idea, so we're still working through it and learning as we reach out, but our hope is that this will lead to finding someone passionate, respected, and committed to the community.
2- This is always the difficulty of discussions overall, and especially over the internet. While I would love that everyone be able to approach every conversation calmly and politely - the truth is that not all people do. As moderators, our tools are a bit limited. From the punitive side, we have the ability to infract users, or remove them from the site, either temporarily or permanently. Punitive actions however, are not the best way to change behavior.
I believe this is where the staff, myself included, can improve more. When discussions veer off course and get heated, we still need to step in and take actions to correct the course if possible, or close the thread if needed and other courses don't work. We do still need to issue warnings and tickets to language that crosses the line.
Where I feel we can improve is our language and messaging when these actions take place. Explaining why a thread gets closed, or why a certain position or line is not acceptable. Rather than handing out simple punitive measures, to ensure that our actions are also educational to the best of our abilities. This can be difficult, as this takes more effort and time - but I believe this would be a good and necessary step.
3- Thank you for your kind words. It is good to know that we are having a positive impact, even if we realize that their is always room for improvement.
What I meant is that while each staff member obviously has their own views and biases, this should ideally not impact their capability to enforce the rules and views of the site, or to act with respect and dignity towards others, even when those views or biases might be challenged on a personal level.
If that makes sense?
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:
#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/
My apologies, what I meant was, that this should be that area. This is a gaming forum, for discussing a hobby and a past time.
I left it general. People when attacked will lash back, and this places stress on all who participate in the confrontation. Willingly or unwillingly.
Dogwhistles to alt-righty/bigoted attitudes is a problem. These have no place on this site. However, it should not be on users to confront them, as that type of confrontation only escalates the issue, entrenches them, and makes it even harder to moderate in the long run. We ask that you report this issues to the moderation staff. If the staff responses are not adequate, that itself is an issue, which hopefully can be addressed and improved through discussion with community members in the staff inboxes and helpdesks, such as this one, and seeing what other ways community involvement can be improved.
Thank you for your viewpoint here. I agree that it would be irresponsible to assume that confrontation would not occur. The point I was trying to make is that this type of confrontation in a digital environment often serves to escalate and exacerbate the problem. Having allies and showing support is important, but this is best served by showing solidarity with the victim than in antagonizing the aggressor. What I would hope to have occur is that the incident get reported to the moderation, such that the offender can be made aware of the issue in a way that would prevent escalation and reduce repetition of the behavior.
Having the behavior caught early puts the onus directly on the aggressor, while if there is escalation the aggressor will more easily shift the blame to those who attacked them, and more easily frame themselves a victim and in the right. This makes it more difficult to have meaningful discussions, and hopefully meaningful change.
The goal here is certainly not ostrich head in the sand, and certainly not lack of challenge. The goal is to keep this a place for the discussion of Magic, and allow a hobby that is a stress relief and escape from every day life to remain such.
Bigoted messaging is obviously a complete anti-thesis to that goal, and is not welcome on this site.
This is indeed a point of great friction. Part of the problem though is that having users try to take this on themselves most often leads to escalation, rather than resolution.
There is certainly a rift right now between staff and community, in part due to the current burden and capabilities of the staff. I recognized that there is much room for improvement, and I certainly hope these discussions can help be a step towards that improvement.
The more apt comparison here is that you are walking up to everyone in the store and saying it to their face. Repeatedly.
Antagonizing other customers is how people get asked to leave the store.
You are absolutely right that Black people cannot step away from being black. That women cannot stop being women. That gays, and Natives, and Muslims, and Christians, and Jewish people, and any other minority, or any group of people can stop being there what they are. This means we should work to create a safe place for them. Not create a toxic environment that repeatedly throws the fight back into there faces no matter where they go. This site is one of those places where people CAN step away from their problems. Behind a name on the internet, you can be anything - black, white, red, blue, or green - no one knows anything about you except what you choose to share. This is the one place where people CAN get away from their troubles, from their problems, from the politics - and enjoy a hobby they love, and share that enjoyment with others.
If a person trying to unwind is constantly attacked and not allowed to unwind, is it really surprising that they end up pissed off and stressed? That they end up pissed off at the very cause that "awareness" is being raised for? And pissed off at the person attacking them, for the manner in which they are constantly bringing up that "awareness"?
Consistently berating and attacking the other side is the exact opposite of creating a safe space for anyone. It creates a place where even the group in question cannot escape their issues. Believe it or not, they need to unwind as well. Creating a safe space means creating an environment where those people can be relax, not harassed, and not have to interact with the hateful rhetoric. In the context of this site, it means creating an environment which (1) does not have people and messages that disparage them, such as racist, misogynistic, or prejudicial messages - and (2) does not have people constantly bringing up the issue in the face of everyone else, which then instigates those very fights right in their faces - which, coincidentally causes those very issues to cut those wounds right back open again - in the very place that they hoped to find that very safety.
Systematic racism is not simply 'silence'. Systematic racism is denial. It is turning the other way and allowing problematic rhetoric to continue. Silence CAN be systematic racism, in that silence can be turning the other way and ignoring issues. In the context of this site and our position on these issues, what we are asking is NOT to ignore hateful rhetoric. If it exists, report it, and let us handle it. It is not welcome here. Period. Our request of 'silence' is to allow people to have a place where they can enjoy the hobby they came here to enjoy. A place where they can escape those troubles, and step out of the fight. If they want to go join that fight, if they have recuperated and want to go be an activist - there are better places than here to do it. Let them choose where they want to engage. This is not that place.
https://www.mtgnexus.com/viewtopic.php?p=101218#p101218
I especially want to highlight the beginning premise of his post:
You are correct H3RAC71TU5 that the views of the staff do not have a direct bearing to the site, and that was not the primary reason that I had brought that up. The context that I had wished to convey with that statement is one of diversity, and having representation of various walks when discussing new challenges brought upon by moderation. For example, I would be very concerned if the staff were to moderate content regarding a minority, without having the perspective of a minority to explain or provide context. Now, the staff is limited, and we do not have representation of every minority that exists - however, even having some minority context can be helpful to provide some amount of experience from a grander scheme.
As an example, earlier this year a series of posts was reported to us for having some slurs against a minority. I was unfamiliar with the terms, and requested some clarification from the user regarding those terms. The user was able to provide an impressively concise history, with additional reference for further reading. Fortunately, we also had a former staff member of that minority I was able to reach out to, and another staff member was also able to shed light on the tickets from previous experience as well. This allowed us to respond to the ticket and post appropriately, and I personally learned a bit more about these types of interactions - though I would hope that I would not need to use this knowledge in the future.
In a more pressing and closer to home example, recent political discussions have been quite in depth among the moderators as well. There are several solutions which have been proposed which have been debated, and given contrasting views as we thankfully have the diversity on staff to not simply railroad one set of values at the expense of others.
===
You are also correct about disproportionate representation of viewpoints. Media these days try to gain viewrship and clicks by presenting drama and strife, and do so by often saying that both sides of an issue need to be examined. It is important to examine both views, however this does not mean that both views are equal. Examining both sides simply means to not dismiss a contrary viewpoint out of hand - not to give it equal importance. Simply because two viewpoints are opposed, does not mean they have equal weight. For an extreme example, let's take Murder. If one side says "Murder is bad" and the other side says "Murder is good" - the morality of these points are not equal. Examining both sides may mean simply listening to the other argument, or acknowledging that it exists. However, it does not mean that both points have an equal ground, nor need to be given equal screentime. In fact, promoting both messages equally would be immoral in itself. Once the contrary arguments are heard, and debated, it is important to repeat the message that "murder is bad" and have that be the prevalent message that is shown.
That is why on this site that signs of solidarity for #BLM are allowed in user's signatures. Several members have opted to show solidarity within their signatures in respect with the sites rules.
However, the alternate slogan of
#BlueLivesMatter, which has been recognized as widely used as a hate slogan, is not allowed(edit 9/9/2020: Further research into the origins and history and current social usage of the slogan has been done, and we are allowing #BlueLivesMatter as a statement of support to slain officers and solidarity for our uniformed officers. See: https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/community-discussion/staff-helpdesks/814110-admin-bobthefunnys-strategic-chalkboard?page=2#c39 . Context is always considered, as with the usage of any slogan or phrase) (however, general support of the police IS allowed - there is rightful disagreement and discussion on HOW to best fix the police - what is not allowed is hatespeech/movements,which BlueLM is generally recognized as supporting(This statement is not necessarily accurate, and I apologise for it. -bob)).There is some division on the staff about #AllLivesMatter, as there are legitimate cases of its use in promoting racial equality and unity - however, as its main use has been as a slogan for "Racial Dismissal" or simply as a criticism of #BLM, we again ask that it not be used on this site.
There is also the case that simply by nature of the discussion, one side is more likely to be moderated, and thus that message will not be given equal representation. As such, moderation may provide a bias in what messaging appears on the site. An example of this could possibly be pro-LGBT messaging vs. anti-LGBT messaging. As pro-LGBT messaging is generally non-inflammatory and supportive, it is less likely to receive moderation than anti-LGBT messaging which is often inflammatory and divisive. As such, more LGBT messaging will show up on the site than anti-LGBT messaging. That said, we have had exceptional cases in the past where pro-LGBT users have posted messages that have been inflammatory in their own messaging and own right, and have had to be moderated on their own merits. Whether this presents an issue with the moderation methods, and whether a viewpoint is being dis-proportionally represented needs to be evaluated on a case by case merit. In the example presented, I see no issue in promoting an inclusive message over a hateful or dismissive one.
If you feel that a particular viewpoint is getting a disproportional representation, and that the representation given is harmful to the community, please let us know. We WANT to know. Drop us a line in the staff inbox. Post here (public). PM the administrators or your local mod directly. Report problematic or harmful posts, and let us know why. If it's a larger concern, give us plenty of details so we can discuss it amongst the staff, but also so we can discuss it with you.
====
When we say we want to accept all people on this site to discuss magic - what we mean is that we accept all people to come to the site and discuss magic. Much as Target or Walmart will allow any individual to enter their stores and shop regardless of their political affiliation, we allow any individual to browse this site and discuss magic regardless of their affiliations.
However, if an individual were to enter a Target or Walmart, and disturb other users by shouting political messages in their faces, or by knocking over stands of masks, they would be removed from the store regardless of their political biases. The same is true here. This site is not a political soapbox, and political bias has no merit in disrupting other users. Support towards a cause IS welcome here - unless that support itself is prejudicial or harmful.
Showing support and solidarity is great - much like wearing a T-shirt or face covering that shows your solidarity to a cause. However, if that solidarity itself is problematic or hateful, it is not welcome here either. Using the Walmart/Target example, this would be akin to someone entering the store with a Tshirt/Mask which is obscene, hateful, or contains a slur, those individuals can (and would) be asked to vacate the store.
Assaulting others is not ok, regardless of circumstance.
There are many issues today which should not be political issues, but they are. That is our reality. While we must certainly work hard to change this reality, and make the world a better place, ignoring it is an unrealistic proposition.
Everything you say about race, religion, and orientation being social issues is correct. It is also a political issue. It should not be, but it is. That minorities are oppressed is fact. It is a social issue. It is also a political issue. Magic players come from all walks of life. This is fact. This is not a political issue. Where I draw the line is you saying that this makes a difference on what is, and isn't on topic. Simply because someone is a minority, does not make discussion about that minority on the board on topic. What makes something on/off topic is only the topic itself.
I have a garden. Simply because I have gardened (very amaturely, fyi) does not mean that you need to hear about my basil plants. It does not mean that I need to discuss any sort of latest gardening news, tips, or controversies from the internet. Perhaps next set Wizards will print a set focused on gardening. In that case, gardeners might have some tie in to discuss how a magic card does or does not fit its gardening lore. For example, if a card based on a mint plant was created, someone would be on topic to discuss why the mechanics and lore of the card fit the medicinal or culinary natures of a mint plant. If the topic then devolved into how to garden and cultivate actual mint plants - that would be off topic, despite the tie in to the minty card.
Above is an obvious extreme and slightly satirical expression and illustration. When it comes to representation on cards, or political messaging provided by Wizards, the lines are obviously much more difficult to judge, never clear cut, and can actually shift, depending on cultural context. However, what matter is what the discussion is serving.
A poignant example: Recently, during the Eldraine set, Wizards placed a greater emphasis on diversity in their characters and cards. This was wonderful. Plenty of users came out in support of this inclusion, as they could more closely relate to a character than before, where they had perhaps not been so well represented previously. This is great! There was some discussion about diversity in Magic's history, how it has changed historically, and what it all means. This is great, too. However, there were also ... other... posts. There were detractors, who claimed this was all shameful pandering, or were otherwise non-inclusive, or even downright prejudicial. This was not ok, and often led to discussions devolving, and threads getting locked. There were messages that attacked and shamed some of the people who had come out and identified as being represented. This is not ok, and again was either non-inclusive, or downright prejudicial. Finally, there were people who assaulted those who were being prejudicial - while their motives might have been better, their method was not. This is also not ok (it's also not how you manage to convince or convert a person).
In the case of recent issues, this is a magic site. Using this site as a political soapbox will always be off-topic. Using the large store example above, if you were to enter a Walmart or Target, and then yell at other customers, you will get removed - forcibly, if necessary. It doesn't matter what your political opinion is, or even if your opinion IS political. You could argue/yell at people about why your favorite cartoon is so great - but if you assault other patrons, you will be removed from the premises. The same is true here. If a user is argumentative, assault other users, soap boxes whatever topic is not magic related, or overall bothers other users - they will be asked to leave. Forcibly, if necessary.
We want to make it absolutely clear - titles of that nature are not ok. This thread will be locked..