WotC bans cards for racism

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Maybe Wizards can start by hiring an external auditor to determine whether they truly do engage in discriminatory hiring practices. The second step of course depends on the results of that audit.

I said it before, you cannot neatly separate things in society and cast aside something because it's dealing with a "children's card game." Either you allow societal norms to develop or you don't.

And the external auditor is going to come back and say "nah, guy signing our paycheck, everything you did was cool and good. Please remember us next time you want to pawn off any introspection."

Edit: Lol, three page snipes now?

[Mr. Safety]

I respectfully disagree that company self-censoring to be more marketable leads to government control over your individual speech. But I also understand we are never going to see eye to eye on this topic. I think you're being ridiculous and you think I am being naive, don't really see a way forward since this is literally a debate about liberalism that has been going on since liberalism was a topic.

I agree with this comment about liberalism. I have very particular opinions on why the USA is moving in a totalitarian direction, but attempting to remove racism is not the cause.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

I agree with this comment about liberalism. I have very particular opinions on why the USA is moving in a totalitarian direction, but attempting to remove racism is not the cause.

It's about cowardice.

[Mr. Safety]

I think I've said close to everything I personally feel the need to say on this subject.

I will just say in closing, I really respect the level of discourse in this thread and feel like everyone I am interacting with here, regardless of whether I agree with them or not, is contributing to this discussion and myself personally in a positive way.

Even me?!?!?! I was so disagreeable! I am simply throwing in this for levity, I feel the same way. Good discussion, I have welcomed all your thoughts.

I'm surprised the thread has lasted this long...speaks to the maturity level of TheSource.

[Mr. Safety]

It's about cowardice.

Are you referring to me or someone else?

[H]

Maybe Wizards can start by hiring an external auditor to determine whether they truly do engage in discriminatory hiring practices. The second step of course depends on the results of that audit.

I said it before, you cannot neatly separate things in society and cast aside something because it's dealing with a "children's card game." Either you allow societal norms to develop or you don't.

Well, I agree they should do that.

And I agree with the idea that you should let norms develop. Part of that development, in all likelihood will be the excising of some things in the past that likely are now seen in with a negative connotation. I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with that.

[jmlima]

It's about cowardice.

I think it's more because the US never experienced it. I lived in an actually fascist country (longest fascist dictatorship in the world). Experience it and you will be certain to:
a) not want to go back
b) be very vigilant that it never comes back

[H]

I think it's more because the US never experienced it. I lived in an actually fascist country (longest fascist dictatorship in the world). Experience it and you will be certain to:
a) not want to go back
b) be very vigilant that it never comes back

Alright, I think we are straying from the topic at hand though. Lets try to refocus on Wizards and Magic in general please.

[Purple Blood]

Even me?!?!?! I was so disagreeable! I am simply throwing in this for levity, I feel the same way. Good discussion, I have welcomed all your thoughts.

I'm surprised the thread has lasted this long...speaks to the maturity level of TheSource.

Yes. Even you! I'm just a silly guy who thrives off of (respectful) disagreement.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Are you referring to me or someone else?

I'm referring to a collective group of people which I believe includes you.

[rufus]

...
Imagine a world where we didn't need to constantly have troubling conversations about injustice. Imagine a world where injustice gets smaller and smaller and the only place you read about it is in school. ...

That's what "Farenheit 451" is about, right? A world where people have chosen to avoid any and all uncomfortable thoughts.

I applaud WOTC for making an effort to be involved in social justice, it's awesome. I think they are smart enough to realize they know where the line is for being offensive.

I recall that Leshrac's sigil drew some controversy in its time, and it didn't make the list the ban list here. Even if there were really some magic line dividing offensive from not offensive, there's really no credible evidence that WotC knows where it is. (On the other side of the debate, people are talking about "opening pandora's box," when WotC changed the art on unholy strength ages ago.)

Until I'm presented with compelling evidence otherwise, I'm going to continue to believe that this move is not motivated by any sense of justice, and that WotC really only cares about things in terms of how they affect the bottom line.

Call me 'thick' or whatever, but I wasn't aware of this article from a former employee...

Ostensibly, that was referring to this, which isn't actually from an employee.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...QfBgnJGy74Xqkg

[Zoid]

Actually the answer to all of these is a resounding no.

However, society runs on normative claims. The normative claim in the US (I can't speak for everywhere) as far as I can tell, is that the answers would be maybe, mostly, unclear, probably. And so, that is what will be seen a normatively alright.

Well, that's the problem here.
Nobody knows what's acceptable since there is no absolute arbiter.
That's a good thing.

Society can only progress by challenging norms.
Some of these challenges will be deemed bad even by future generations but that is ok.
You have to push the bounds to find what is and what should be acceptable.
However it doesn't help to just erase parts of history that are not considered acceptable.
You need these examples precisely to show the boundaries and their dynamics.

Also, people are human and they make mistakes.
Acknowledging past mistakes and learning from them is one of the most important skills.
This is less about "we made mistakes in the past, but that is now part of us and we work to be better inf the future due to this realization" but more about, "quickly hide everything that could show us in a negative light in the future while doing maximum virtue signaling".
Instead of doing another nontransparent internal revision process, they should engage the community and discuss what is acceptable.
THAT is marketing and also comes for free.

Ironically, it shouldn't be us (assuming we all are white dudes from western countries - I know, it's racist as well) who discuss what is racist or not, but the people who are subject to that racism.
If black or other affected types of people say that it's not ok, than that's that.
Professional outrage tweeters who come from a white affluent background and have never worked hard a day of their live on the other hand can just ....

[morgan_coke]

Anyone remember when they pulled the Pentagram from Unholy Strength back in 4th ED? Crazy times, amirite?

[H]

Until I'm presented with compelling evidence otherwise, I'm going to continue to believe that this move is not motivated by any sense of justice, and that WotC really only cares about things in terms of how they affect the bottom line.

Well, yeah, of course. They are a business and their aim is do stay in, and do more, business.

I mean, are we going to stage a sort of reenactment of Plato's Republic and debate just what is justice and then move to note what is the mere appearance of justice? Wizards is a game maker, they make games, they are not arbiters or dispensers of justice, as far as I can tell, likely with whatever definition of justice we want to use.

[Mr. Safety]

That's what "Farenheit 451" is about, right? A world where people have chosen to avoid any and all uncomfortable thoughts.

Not sure, I haven't read Fahrenheit 451. Let me clarify: it would be better to learn about racism in school as an evil that was, rather than an evil that currently exist. Learn it, know its place as something that existed, recognize it as wrong, and actively try to prevent it. That is the end goal right? Eradicating racism? I don't think we need to keep Smallpox alive in a lab to understand it was bad.

I wasn't referring to racism as 'uncomfortable', so don't discuss it. I was saying it should be part of history class, not current events, because we actually made progress at eradicating it.

[H]

Well, that's the problem here.
Nobody knows what's acceptable since there is no absolute arbiter.
That's a good thing.

Society can only progress by challenging norms.
Some of these challenges will be deemed bad even by future generations but that is ok.
You have to push the bounds to find what is and what should be acceptable.
However it doesn't help to just erase parts of history that are not considered acceptable.
You need these examples precisely to show the boundaries and their dynamics.

Wait, why does all this not apply to your own position though? The norm before was that these card were OK. That has been challenged. Now the norm is that they are not OK. History is not "erased." No one takes your cards, no one claims they were not made.

Also, people are human and they make mistakes.
Acknowledging past mistakes and learning from them is one of the most important skills.
This is less about "we made mistakes in the past, but that is now part of us and we work to be better inf the future due to this realization" but more about, "quickly hide everything that could show us in a negative light in the future while doing maximum virtue signaling".
Instead of doing another nontransparent internal revision process, they should engage the community and discuss what is acceptable.
THAT is marketing and also comes for free.

Ironically, it shouldn't be us (assuming we all are white dudes from western countries - I know, it's racist as well) who discuss what is racist or not, but the people who are subject to that racism.
If black or other affected types of people say that it's not ok, than that's that.
Professional outrage tweeters who come from a white affluent background and have never worked hard a day of their live on the other hand can just ....

I never said they were or were not racist. I am not the arbiter. But Wizards is free to decide what is fit for their events, not me and not you. They have decided. And I see their decision as justified, even if their intention in doing it is flatly monetary or otherwise. What if they polled the community and 51% said the cards were fine. The idea that a majority is a moral mandate is spurious, to me. Consensus does not grant a moral justification as far as I am concerned.

[Cire]

Until I'm presented with compelling evidence otherwise, I'm going to continue to believe that this move is not motivated by any sense of justice, and that WotC really only cares about things in terms of how they affect the bottom line.

I don't think anyone on this thread thinks that the banning by WOTC was anything but wholey performative. Its a company with multiple issues in its hiring practices (Design, Art, Corporate, Etc.) that should be given a priority solving. The debate on this thread though was whether the banning was right or wrong despite it being wholey performative on WOTC's part. I think it was right and I think that the performance efforts are the bare minimum and that WOTC should work on more concrete equitable efforts going forward. Those who think it was wrong think it was wrong (or doesn't outweigh certain other considerations) either due to the fact that they think (IMO wrongly) that its a censorship issue, due to the fact that they think anything but true faith efforts should not be taken (and thus think, IMO impossibly, that market considerations should not be taken into consideration), and/or simply due to the fact that they somehow don't think there is an underlying issue to resolve.

[morgan_coke]

Not sure, I haven't read Fahrenheit 451. Let me clarify: it would be better to learn about racism in school as an evil that was, rather than an evil that currently exist. Learn it, know its place as something that existed, recognize it as wrong, and actively try to prevent it. That is the end goal right? Eradicating racism? I don't think we need to keep Smallpox alive in a lab to understand it was bad.

I wasn't referring to racism as 'uncomfortable', so don't discuss it. I was saying it should be part of history class, not current events, because we actually made progress at eradicating it.

I don't know how old you are, but compared to when I was a kid, we HAVE made massive, incredibly progress at eradicating racism.

To give some numbers for context, in 1920, 61 people were lynched in the US - mostly black, some whites who tried to help them were also lynched - (numbers from NAACP) out of a population of 106 million. In 2019, 10 unarmed black people were shot by the police, and from a quick scan of the reports, it looks like 5 were bad kills (numbers from Washington Post) out of a population of over 330 million.

In 1920, Woodrow Wilson's purge of blacks from the federal civil service was complete, and there was little popular outcry over the injustices facing black Americans. In 2020, there were massive worldwide protests against the racial injustices facing black Americans and other disadvantaged communities.

Like, it's just not even close to what it once was.

If not Farenheit 451, have you seen Equilibrium (Sean Bean, Christian Bale)? It's about a society that seeks to eliminate the sins of the old world by regulating emotion (weak philosophy, truly groundbreaking action sequences).

[Zoid]

Wait, why does all this not apply to your own position though? The norm before was that these card were OK. That has been challenged. Now the norm is that they are not OK. History is not "erased." No one takes your cards, no one claims they were not made.



I never said they were or were not racist. I am not the arbiter. But Wizards is free to decide what is fit for their events, not me and not you. They have decided. And I see their decision as justified, even if their intention in doing it is flatly monetary or otherwise. What if they polled the community and 51% said the cards were fine. The idea that a majority is a moral mandate is spurious, to me. Consensus does not grant a moral justification as far as I am concerned.

I would argue, norms are being challenged right now.
The outcome is yet to be seen.
That's why we are all posting in this thread.

In my opinion, hiding these cards in the gatherer is hiding/erasing history.


I also never argued for consensus.
I argue they should ask the community and react based on their feedback.
That doesn't need to be a majority or consensus.
All I want to see is people speaking out, that stuff is offensive to them and why.
Then WOTC has to make a decision.
It doesn't matter if it's not offensive to someone as long as it's offensive to someone else who is affected by it.
That doesn't include people that are offended by everything and always on someone else's behalf.

[phonics]

The thing is, I dont even think this is an issue of being "anti-racist", it is primarily a performative and low effort response to them being part of the BLM witch hunt. I think the result of this just makes the topic of racism more of a taboo subject, which is different from 'anti-racism'. Making it a taboo doesn't make it go away, it just polarizes the beliefs even more through segregation, making them more dogmatic. This isnt to say I dont understand why they are doing it, there is a market demographic that they are catering to as a business, virtues have little to do with it and so I dont think this is something that should be celebrated as anything more than "corporate diversity".

I think there is a distinction to be made between depicting racism and actually being racist, a distinction that has been continuously ground down to the point where it basically no longer exists in common discourse nowadays. I don't think that just because a card can be interpreted as depicting racism, it is therefore an endorsement for racism, I dont even consider Invoke Prejudice to be an explicitly racist card, despite it representing a function of being racist.

Also does anyone know the etymology of stone throwing devils as a slur? I have tried to do research on it but everything I have found is referencing the magic card.