Todd Stevens Accusations

[Mr. Safety]

Edited.

He has been fired from SCG and banned from the Tour for 3 years. In short, he has been accused of at least 4 specific instances of sexual harassment.

How do we as a community foster a civil and safe environment for all? Are there creeps in your circle if players?

Article link:

https://www.hipstersofthecoast.com/2018/10/mtg-todd-stevens-fired-from-starcitygames-for-allegedly-harassing-women/

[Barook]

To clarify a bit, the accusation is that he harassed women on after-tournaments parties. Maybe he was drunk as fuck, maybe not, but that isn't an excuse. SCG probably tried to save face and fired him/banned him from the tour.


Is our community truly this messed up?
Messed up people can be everywhere. The main difference is that the MtG community is full of unique snowflakes which immediately start drama and witch-hunts for everything, be it justified or not. The screws the perception alot.

[H]

In short, he has been accused of multiple (more than one, not clear on a number) instances of sexual harassment. It is by no means clear if they are real accusations or someone with an axe to grind.

What is the difference between a "real" allegation and what would consequently be a "fake" one? It an allegation. Some allegations are more credible than others. But there is no such thing as a fake allegation. You either allege it, or you do not.


Circumstantial evidence points that it happened (he was indeed fired, he was indeed banned from the SCG tour) but this wouldn't be the first time a simple accusation resulted in a job loss, rather than an airtight open-close case.

SCG is a company, not a court of law. No one claims that Todd murdered someone or something, there isn't going to be DNA evidence. 4 people made allegations. SCG viewed these allegations as credible and terminated their relationship with Todd. Do you think SCG did their due diligence? In other words, in the two weeks between the allegations being made and the decision made to terminate his employment, do we imagine they did nothing? Then, willy-nilly fired him? Doubtful. In reality, they probably corroborated the story, likely from people who are friends with Todd. Or, perhaps even, consider that Todd admitted it happened? Is that not possible?


Is our community truly this messed up?

No, the community is not "this messed up." But there are people in it who, like people outside it, do stupid things from time to time. Today though, as opposed to in the past, people are less likely to put up with stupid behavior. You want to get drunk and act stupid? Go for it. But don't expect people to be required to put up with your shit.

[Phoenix Ignition]

The most telling thing about our community is how many people jump to his defense and assume the article is clickbait without anything to back it up.


The main difference is that the MtG community is full of unique snowflakes which immediately start drama and witch-hunts for everything, be it justified or not.

This in itself tries to delegitimize allegations. The only snowflakes are the ones who get so upset when their fabricated heroes are fired for being pieces of shit.

[Barook]

This in itself tries to delegitimize allegations. The only snowflakes are the ones who get so upset when their fabricated heroes are fired for being pieces of shit.
Don't take the quote out of context. The MtG community isn't more or less "messed up" than anybody else, although it might appear so for the beholder if you only look at the shitstorms the community generates. Just because somebody acts like a shithead on a party doesn't mean the rest of the community is messed up in general. You merely put the spotlight on a shitty person.

As for an example for unjustified outrage I'm refering to, I remind you of the whole "Garruk tried to rape Liliana on Triumph of Ferocity"-controversy. Boy, that was fucking stupid.

Todd got fired and banned, so the allegations should have enough substance to be true.

[Mr. Safety]

What is the difference between a "real" allegation and what would consequently be a "fake" one? It an allegation. Some allegations are more credible than others. But there is no such thing as a fake allegation. You either allege it, or you do not.

Fair, I didn't phrase that well.




SCG is a company, not a court of law. No one claims that Todd murdered someone or something, there isn't going to be DNA evidence. 4 people made allegations. SCG viewed these allegations as credible and terminated their relationship with Todd. Do you think SCG did their due diligence? In other words, in the two weeks between the allegations being made and the decision made to terminate his employment, do we imagine they did nothing? Then, willy-nilly fired him? Doubtful. In reality, they probably corroborated the story, likely from people who are friends with Todd. Or, perhaps even, consider that Todd admitted it happened? Is that not possible?

I'm not sure on this part, was hoping for someone to actually fill in the gaps rather than posit more questions (not that I'm criticizing you, I have the same unanswered questions.)




No, the community is not "this messed up." But there are people in it who, like people outside it, do stupid things from time to time. Today though, as opposed to in the past, people are less likely to put up with stupid behavior. You want to get drunk and act stupid? Go for it. But don't expect people to be required to put up with your shit.

Well said. The 'messed up' part was in regards to not only this, but the Dan Lanthier cheating story recently as well. In a community that takes pride in it's acceptance of 'outsiders' it is alarming (to me) how it has become an unsafe place to let your freak flag fly.

[Mr. Safety]

The most telling thing about our community is how many people jump to his defense and assume the article is clickbait without anything to back it up.

We are haunted by echoes of Kavanaugh (he's such a nice man, he wouldn't do such a thing!) Nobody seems the type, until they are the type.




This in itself tries to delegitimize allegations. The only snowflakes are the ones who get so upset when their fabricated heroes are fired for being pieces of shit.

I tend to agree. In a world where accusations are dismissed more often than taken seriously it gets really easy to pick a side and call the other side 'snowflakes'. Doesn't do anybody any good.

[CptHaddock]

Don't take the quote out of context. The MtG community isn't more or less "messed up" than anybody else, although it might appear so for the beholder if you only look at the shitstorms the community generates. Just because somebody acts like a shithead on a party doesn't mean the rest of the community is messed up in general. You merely put the spotlight on a shitty person.

As for an example for unjustified outrage I'm refering to, I remind you of the whole "Garruk tried to rape Liliana on Triumph of Ferocity"-controversy. Boy, that was fucking stupid.

Todd got fired and banned, so the allegations should have enough substance to be true.

Don't be a dipshit.

The magic community is known for being absolute garbage. This is the same community that would constantly post misogynistic comments about Jackie Lee, Melissa DeTora and other female players whenever they are on stream or do well in the tournament. It harassed a number of players at a GP about their physical appearance. Harassed a female cosplayer out of the game and not to mention the whole mtghq nonsense that came along with it. The list is endless.

[Barook]

Well said. The 'messed up' part was in regards to not only this, but the Dan Lanthier cheating story recently as well. In a community that takes pride in it's acceptance of 'outsiders' it is alarming (to me) how it has become an unsafe place to let your freak flag fly.
The main problem with cheaters is that WotC is way too lax with them. Alex Bertoncini is the posterchild for this problem - a notorious, repeated cheater who is still allowed to play sanctioned Magic. The Dan Lanthier thing just put the spotlight on a much bigger problem - WotC's unwillingness to fight the rampant cheating.

[H]

Fair, I didn't phrase that well.

It's ok, but language is never neutral.


I'm not sure on this part, was hoping for someone to actually fill in the gaps rather than posit more questions (not that I'm criticizing you, I have the same unanswered questions.)

Well, there are only a relatively small amount of people who could even have plausible access to anything resembling facts. That is, SCG, Todd Stevens, one of the accusers, or someone who witnessed alleged behavior. None of them will likely be visiting here, unfortunately.


Well said. The 'messed up' part was in regards to not only this, but the Dan Lanthier cheating story recently as well. In a community that takes pride in it's acceptance of 'outsiders' it is alarming (to me) how it has become an unsafe place to let your freak flag fly.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. There are social norms, social expectations, of everyone when in social spaces. If "letting your freak flag fly" constitutes unwantingly touching other people, or making overt sexual comments to them, you are really not going to be welcome in many social situations. Unless those social situations are dictated by that being the norm. In which case, it wouldn't be "unwantingly."

If your "freak flag" is being a cheater at a card game, expect that the social norms will be against you as well. The expectation is that you are going to actually follow the rules of the game at hand. If your "freak flag" is that you like to eat mustard on a hamburger, then my all means, do carry on.

[Mr. Safety]

If your "freak flag" is being a cheater at a card game, expect that the social norms will be against you as well. The expectation is that you are going to actually follow the rules of the game at hand. If your "freak flag" is that you like to eat mustard on a hamburger, then my all means, do carry on.

I just mean people that are interested in things that are outside of the mainstream; Magic, cosplay, trekkies, etc. People interested in those things should be able to attend events without worry of being harassed or cheated.

[H]

I just mean people that are interested in things that are outside of the mainstream; Magic, cosplay, trekkies, etc. People interested in those things should be able to attend events without worry of being harassed or cheated.

Right, even aside this, women should be able to go places (forget even Magic events, anywhere) without being touched, propositioned, threatened, questioned and disbelieved. It really isn't about anything so nebulous as "safe spaces" (which I think are bullshit anyway) but about basic human decorum and civility. You don't need safe spaces, you need people to behave socially as if they are actually civilized human beings capable of interacting with other human beings in a manner that is constructive and respectful, even if you disagree or don't like with whatever they are doing.

[Dice_Box]

but this wouldn't be the first time a simple accusation resulted in a job loss, rather than an airtight open-close case of a personality conflict.
Really, this is the line you want to take? "SCG has banned him woe is he." There is no way this was not looked into before that choice was made and there is no way that choice was made for any reason other than a credible accusation. I do not for a moment think that SCG would walk into the shitstorm this was going to create without a dam good reason. SCG is a company run openly in the eye of the community. Its lifeblood is a good name, site traffic and overpricing cards. They don't want this shit.



The magic community is known for being absolute garbage. This is the same community that would constantly post misogynistic comments about Jackie Lee, Melissa DeTora and other female players whenever they are on stream or do well in the tournament. It harassed a number of players at a GP about their physical appearance. Harassed a female cosplayer out of the game and not to mention the whole mtghq nonsense that came along with it. The list is endless.
I saw something mentioned on this topic. "It is likely that we would be more outraged if he was caught cheating then we are over this." That's a point I actually think is true and says a bit more than I wanted to admit about this community.

[H]

Really, this is the line you want to take? "SCG has banned him woe is he." There is no way this was not looked into before that choice was made and there is no way that choice was made for any reason other than a credible accusation. I do not for a moment think that SCG would walk into the shitstorm this was going to create without a dam good reason. SCG is a company run openly in the eye on the community. Its lifeblood is a good name, site traffic and overpricing cards. They don't want this shit.

For all we know, which is just barely above nothing, Stevens might even have admitted guilt. Haven't seen many even contemplate that possibility though. Where in all this is his statement? It's not an admission of guilt, but it is curious.


I saw something mentioned on this topic. "It is likely that we would be more outraged if he was caught cheating then we are over this." That's a point I actually think is true and says a bit more than I wanted to admit about this community.

This actually isn't surprising. The community is a community of the game. The game has strict rules, relatively speaking. If you break them, it's clear. Real life isn't so clear, especially as it comes to sexual interaction/politics. It's why people like games and sports. Notice the same thing happens when athletes do terrible shit in real life, there is mostly a collective shrug. But should they do something bad in the game, or worse, transgress the rules of the game: keep in mind, people have been shot and killed for an own-goal. Would that same person have been shot for violating the sanctity of a woman's person? Possible, but very unlikely. Probably depends on how good the guy is in-game, really.

[Phoenix Ignition]

This actually isn't surprising. The community is a community of the game. The game has strict rules, relatively speaking. If you break them, it's clear. Real life isn't so clear, especially as it comes to sexual interaction/politics. It's why people like games and sports. Notice the same thing happens when athletes do terrible shit in real life, there is mostly a collective shrug. But should they do something bad in the game, or worse, transgress the rules of the game: keep in mind, people have been shot and killed for an own-goal. Would that same person have been shot for violating the sanctity of a woman's person? Possible, but very unlikely. Probably depends on how good the guy is in-game, really.

Great point, although very depressing.

[Mr. Safety]

Right, even aside this, women should be able to go places (forget even Magic events, anywhere) without being touched, propositioned, threatened, questioned and disbelieved. It really isn't about anything so nebulous as "safe spaces" (which I think are bullshit anyway) but about basic human decorum and civility. You don't need safe spaces, you need people to behave socially as if they are actually civilized human beings capable of interacting with other human beings in a manner that is constructive and respectful, even if you disagree or don't like with whatever they are doing.

I am 100% in agreement.

[Mr. Safety]

Really, this is the line you want to take? "SCG has banned him woe is he." There is no way this was not looked into before that choice was made...

No, this isn't the line I want to take. This is presenting both sides of the issue. I did not say anything remotely along the lines of 'woe is he.' I live and work in Maine, an at-will state, so anyone can be hired or fired for any reason aside from discrimination according to recognized protected groups. I could literally be fired for wearing a green shirt to work, no consequences to employer. I'm not sure what the rules are in Virginia. As you say, they probably 'don't want to touch this shit', so is it implausible that the company made a decision based on liability rather than being truly interested in doing the right thing? I am not making an accusation one way or another, but I've seen companies fire people for less severe situations based purely on potential liability, all facts aside.

If anything I am slanted heavily towards 'dude is likely a creep'. I understand this was looked into. Did you read the opening post? I recognized he was indeed fired, he was indeed banned. I also recognize this isn't a criminal case, but a case of 'he no longer represents our values, he's fired.'

[Dice_Box]

Nope, not a crimal case. But that's far from the point right now. We are reacting to what we know and what trickles out. When it was just one article I was not forthcoming with any strong view. Now we have his stepping away from his podcast, team dropping him and a statement SCG no longer wishes to work with him as data points.

I did read your post, I thought you worded it poorly.

[Mr. Safety]

Nope, not a crimal case. But that's far from the point right now. We are reacting to what we know and what trickles out. When it was just one article I was not forthcoming with any strong view. Now we have his stepping away from his podcast, team dropping him and a statement SCG no longer wishes to work with him as data points.

I did read your post, I thought you worded it poorly.

How would you have worded it?

[Dice_Box]

How would you have worded it?
I would have:
a) Read the article before I started a thread about it.
b) Not made a comment about how it's a possibly it may be a false flag affair as that's happened in the past without reading into it.

Sure, the evidence is certainly not air tight, but we have:
Todd said he was going to the latest SCG, he did not show.
Todd posts once a week on SCG almost like clockwork. His last article was 13 days ago.
A respected site was willing to risk its reputation publishing this, no one has come out to refute them.
BBD, who you would expect to have some access to SCG insiders all but confirmed it.
His team cut him lose.
SCG officially cut him lose.
He stepped away from his podcast.
He has no come out to defend himself in any way.

I would have looked at that before saying "Hey, shit like this has been false in the past, could be he's in the right." At the least I would have read the article.

Edit:
Personally I am unhappy with him. The decks he plays in Modern match up well to my own styles and enjoyment. I liked that he would tinker with things, update things. Set up decks to work like the Excavator, Azuza, GQ build that's my kind of thing. On a purely selfish level I am pissed at him for that. That he has, though his own actions removed that building expertise from the game.

But then I think about if it's worth it to keep him around. No. Nothing he offers balances out this behaviour.

[Mr. Safety]

I would have:
a) Read the article before I started a thread about it.
b) Not made a comment about how it's a possibly it may be a false flag affair as that's happened in the past without reading into it.

Sure, the evidence is certainly not air tight, but we have:
Todd said he was going to the latest SCG, he did not show.
Todd posts once a week on SCG almost like clockwork. His last article was 13 days ago.
A respected site was willing to risk its reputation publishing this, no one has come out to refute them.
BBD, who you would expect to have some access to SCG insiders all but confirmed it.
His team cut him lose.
SCG officially cut him lose.
He stepped away from his podcast.
He has no come out to defend himself in any way.

I would have looked at that before saying "Hey, shit like this has been false in the past, could be he's in the right." At the least I would have read the article.

Fair

[Mr. Safety]

OP edited.

[Brainstorm Ape]

Seems like he pissed somebody off given that there a numerous reports of misconduct over a long time, and yet nobody did anything beforehand.

Moral panics are a great time to settle grudges; just ask Abigail Williams or Tailgunner Joe.

[H]

Seems like he pissed somebody off given that there a numerous reports of misconduct over a long time, and yet nobody did anything beforehand.

Moral panics are a great time to settle grudges; just ask Abigail Williams or Tailgunner Joe.

At some point, especially if you do it often enough, you will harass someone who decides to actually do something about it.

Holding people accountable for their behavior isn't a "moral panic." There might be a panic if you are someone who can't control themselves. In that case, I'd say yeah, it's time for you to panic.

[Mr. Safety]

At some point, especially if you do it often enough, you will harass someone who decides to actually do something about it.

Holding people accountable for their behavior isn't a "moral panic." There might be a panic if you are someone who can't control themselves. In that case, I'd say yeah, it's time for you to panic.

I think this is the opposite of a moral panic; this is moral accountability. The panic happened right around when Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby were accused of assault. We're experiencing the follow-through of the 'MeToo' movement, which is a long overdue demand for accountability.

[H]

I think this is the opposite of a moral panic; this is moral accountability. The panic happened right around when Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby were accused of assault. We're experiencing the follow-through of the 'MeToo' movement, which is a long overdue demand for accountability.

It's just the historical continuance of general human nature toward anything framed as "liberal."

This usual fist shaking is nothing new:

Remember when it was OK to own human beings as property? Damn liberals.
Remember when it was OK to beat your own wife? Damn liberals.
Remember when it was OK to rape your own wife? Damn liberals.
Remember when it was OK that women didn't have any right to vote? Damn liberals.
Remember when it was OK that women didn't have any right to decide who she wanted to marry? Damn liberals.

Now you tell me that it is not OK for men to harass women, sexually or otherwise. Damn liberals.

It's actually something of a comedy at this point, but not the actually funny kind. That isn't to say that "liberalism" can't go to far. But it's to imagine that holding men to a standard higher than what it was before in relationship toward their conduct with women, considering how low the standard was before? Stretches disbelief beyond any sort of reason I can imagine.

[Ace/Homebrew]

I'm pretty shocked by this, but only because I assumed he is gay.

[PirateKing]

It's actually something of a comedy at this point, but not the actually funny kind. That isn't to say that "liberalism" can't go to far. But it's to imagine that holding men to a standard higher than what it was before in relationship toward their conduct with women, considering how low the standard was before? Stretches disbelief beyond any sort of reason I can imagine.

Won't somebody think of the children! Specifically in the sense of how useful they could be in the labor force. Tiny bodies work well to crawl into mines and boilers and chimneys and the like. It's a damn shame we let that one go. Jonathan Swift was onto something.

This whole thing seems like a non-story. Unless there's some refutation or any followup to counter the facts as they have been presented, this is just "man climbs over zoo fence into lion exhibit and gets eaten by lion". Unless the lion gets wire transferred a sum suspiciously half of the life insurance policy, then that's spicy.

But yeah beyond anything new it's just more BREAKING NEWS: ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. I'll pass.

[Mr. Safety]

It's just the historical continuance of general human nature toward anything framed as "liberal."

This usual fist shaking is nothing new:

Remember when it was OK to own human beings as property? Damn liberals.
Remember when it was OK to beat your own wife? Damn liberals.
Remember when it was OK to rape your own wife? Damn liberals.
Remember when it was OK that women didn't have any right to vote? Damn liberals.
Remember when it was OK that women didn't have any right to decide who she wanted to marry? Damn liberals.

Now you tell me that it is not OK for men to harass women, sexually or otherwise. Damn liberals.

It's actually something of a comedy at this point, but not the actually funny kind. That isn't to say that "liberalism" can't go to far. But it's to imagine that holding men to a standard higher than what it was before in relationship toward their conduct with women, considering how low the standard was before? Stretches disbelief beyond any sort of reason I can imagine.

I agree 100%. The new 'attack' on progressives/liberals is to call them 'sjw's' (social justice warriors) when people think they have gone "too far". People can call me anything they want, I really don't care, but if demanding respectful behavior gives me a seemingly derogatory label, bring it on.

[Mr. Safety]

But yeah beyond anything new it's just more BREAKING NEWS: ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. I'll pass.

Yes, this is the story in a nutshell. It's just unfortunate that the MtG community pays part of the price for his actions. Honestly, if SCG didn't fire him I would seriously consider boycotting them.

[H]

I'm pretty shocked by this, but only because I assumed he is gay.

This might be quote of the year and is most certainly signature material, but I cannot in good conscious add it to mine.


Won't somebody think of the children! Specifically in the sense of how useful they could be in the labor force. Tiny bodies work well to crawl into mines and boilers and chimneys and the like. It's a damn shame we let that one go. Jonathan Swift was onto something.

Good point. All my kids do is loaf around and play Fortnite, not to mention eat all our food non-stop. Working would definitely be better. Damn liberals.


This whole thing seems like a non-story. Unless there's some refutation or any followup to counter the facts as they have been presented, this is just "man climbs over zoo fence into lion exhibit and gets eaten by lion". Unless the lion gets wire transferred a sum suspiciously half of the life insurance policy, then that's spicy.

But yeah beyond anything new it's just more BREAKING NEWS: ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. I'll pass.

It's actually a fun epistemological paradox people present in saying we should not believe accusations without iron-clad proof. In that, they state that we cannot know for certain if the accused thing happened, while simultaneously asserting that we can be certain of what will happen in the future. That's a fantastic paradoxical situation where the future is actually more certain than the past.

It's also fun that they imagine that women systematically hate men and want to destroy them. As if it wasn't the case that none of us would be born if women didn't systematically, as a mater of fact, like men. They don't particularly like when men act like assholes though. I don't either, by the way. Interestingly enough I also don't like when women are assholes to men. There is no doubt that some women don't like men and look to harm them. And some men don't like women and look to harm them. But in the grand scheme of things, we are here today because this is generally false.

Now, I do think that there is something of a "cultural issue" at hand regarding how we systematically view both things termed "masculine" and things "feminine" in society. However, the issue of sexual harassment really is not one of those. Although there is no doubt that as a society we could do better to more clearly delineate what is, say, acceptable and reasonable "flirtatious" behavior and what is outright sexual harassment, but it is often a case of being able to clearly know it when you see it.

[CptHaddock]

Good point. All my kids do is loaf around and play Fortnite, not to mention eat all our food non-stop. Working would definitely be better. Damn liberals.


From speaking to boomers I have found that the solution to this problem is whoopings. :smile:

Pretty sure the real lesson is that you shouldn't trust people who get their aesthetic from terrible tv shows on USA.

[Brainstorm Ape]

At some point, especially if you do it often enough, you will harass someone who decides to actually do something about it.

Well yeah, that falls under the umbrella of pissing someone off.

I just find it unbelievable, given what the information presented, that SCG was harboring some kind of serial sex predator (who, according to Twatter, was an open secret); like it or not, they're on the ball about this stuff.

My guess is that this guy's offenses aren't some salacious shit (probably awkward passes at women, likely while drunk), and somebody just decided to build a case against him because nerds are petty, power-tripping losers that deserved to be stuffed in lockers.

But who knows, he could be a fucking rapist scumbag. Shocking that a site called "Hipsters of the Coast" did some shoddy work.


Holding people accountable for their behavior isn't a "moral panic." There might be a panic if you are someone who can't control themselves. In that case, I'd say yeah, it's time for you to panic.

Metoo has morphed into a textbook moral panic. It went from a specific critique of how certain power structures (and powerful people) enabled abuse and became a general airing of grievances to anything regarding sexual misconduct with all the media hysterics and "with us or against us" bullshit that follows. From a sociological standpoint, it's not much different than the Red Scare, War on Drugs, violence in TV/games, or any other recent moral panics in the US.

You might not like the tone of the term, but it fits.

[phonics]

This whole thing seems pretty pointless, nobody knows or will know anything outside of vague insinuations, so there is essentially nothing to discuss, but congratulations to whoever leaked it for creating a bunch of drama.

[Hopo]

I don't like the idea that you naysayers are allowed to roam in tournaments without any idea what is proper conduct and what isn't.

[H]

Metoo has morphed into a textbook moral panic. It went from a specific critique of how certain power structures (and powerful people) enabled abuse and became a general airing of grievances to anything regarding sexual misconduct with all the media hysterics and "with us or against us" bullshit that follows. From a sociological standpoint, it's not much different than the Red Scare, War on Drugs, violence in TV/games, or any other recent moral panics in the US.

You might not like the tone of the term, but it fits.

So the criteria for a "moral panic" is media sensationalism and tendency for people to radicalize? If that is the case, there is almost nothing now-a-days that does not qualify. Which is to say, if every issue is given these airs, then none of them are really a moral panic. In fact, you even labeling it as such is buying into the exact media bullshit you point out to be bullshit.

[Mr. Safety]

Metoo has morphed into a textbook moral panic. It went from a specific critique of how certain power structures (and powerful people) enabled abuse and became a general airing of grievances to anything regarding sexual misconduct with all the media hysterics and "with us or against us" bullshit that follows. From a sociological standpoint, it's not much different than the Red Scare, War on Drugs, violence in TV/games, or any other recent moral panics in the US.

You might not like the tone of the term, but it fits.

The difference is that the assault and harassment allegations are real. The red scare, war on drugs, violence in games/tv...all of that has been thoroughly debunked. Assault and harassment allegations are real and ongoing, at an alarmingly consistent rate. You're using equivocation, and it's flat out wrong.

Hell, look at the 80's with the 'satanic panic', of which MtG was caught up in. People were going to become Satanists, killing goats and small children, listening to heavy metal, and doing secret black rites. In a way, they were right, heavy metal has become my religion. But seriously, I haven't sacrificed a goat in like 2 weeks.

[Michael Keller]

The difference is that the assault and harassment allegations are real. The red scare, war on drugs, violence in games/tv...all of that has been thoroughly debunked. Assault and harassment allegations are real and ongoing, at an alarmingly consistent rate. You're using equivocation, and it's flat out wrong.

Hell, look at the 80's with the 'satanic panic', of which MtG was caught up in. People were going to become Satanists, killing goats and small children, listening to heavy metal, and doing secret black rites. In a way, they were right, heavy metal has become my religion. But seriously, I haven't sacrificed a goat in like 2 weeks.

I think this thread just died when a shamed, tie-wearing Magic: the Gathering player named Todd Stevens got tied in to Satanists, goats and the war on drugs in the 1980s.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Bowtie-wearing Magic: the Gathering player. The dude is definitely a satanic drug goat.

https://i.imgflip.com/2kxrsr.jpg

I'm all morally panicked over here! :eek:

[H]

I think this thread just died when a shamed, tie-wearing Magic: the Gathering player named Todd Stevens got tied in to Satanists, goats and the war on drugs in the 1980s.

Well, the thread was really never alive, but it reached living death status when someone implied that reporting sexual harassment is likely to actually be "grudge settling" and that advocating for moral accountability is akin to inciting moral panic.

[Phoenix Ignition]

Bowtie-wearing Magic: the Gathering player. The dude is definitely a satanic drug goat.

I'm all morally panicked over here! :eek:

I gotcha.
https://i.imgur.com/GYNgW91.jpg

That about cover it?

[Ace/Homebrew]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/4b/4b37f16168c9676bdc22ac502b52e7806873e2b1b0c3d9d36eeac54894bfa57f.jpg

I did thoroughly enjoy that show...

[Mr. Safety]

I think this thread just died when a shamed, tie-wearing Magic: the Gathering player named Todd Stevens got tied in to Satanists, goats and the war on drugs in the 1980s.

What do you have against Satanists?

[H]

What do you have against Satanists?

I think it's just the opposite. You did violence to the Satanists by likening Stevens to them...

[Michael Keller]

What do you have against Satanists?

https://www.tvovermind.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Satans-helpers.jpg

"Did anyone ever tell you that this is a private club for the Satan's Helpers?"

[Mr. Safety]

I think it's just the opposite. You did violence to the Satanists by likening Stevens to them...

Holy shit, you're right.

Many apologies.

[Mr. Safety]

https://www.tvovermind.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Satans-helpers.jpg

"Did anyone ever tell you that this is a private club for the Satan's Helpers?"

You sir, are awesome.

http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/59421b8a1600002100116437.jpeg

[Dice_Box]

Well that did not go where I expected. Anyway I think we are done here.