/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>29591910
It's a pretty silly thing and a stretch to say the least. The only cards that could be interpreted as vaguely prejudicial are probably Invoke Prejudice and maybe Cleanse, but that's a real stretch.

The others patently make no sense. Crusade and Jihad were real, historical events that got transliterated into MTG in the early days when they were trying to feel out if they were going to be more of a historical fiction type thing (a la Arabian Nights), or straight fantasy. Neither of those cards are meant to glorify those events any more than a game like Total War or Crusader Kings has them as events either.

Then it just gets more bizarre with things like Stone-Throwing Devils. I don't see how anyone could possibly interpret that along racial or prejudicial lines. It's so vague I don't even know why it's supposed to be offensive. Is it supposed to imply Palestinian children? Isn't it more racist to make that implication through the act of banning the card than simply letting it ride?

Gypsies are a real ethnic group, and are not disparaged in the card, merely represented. Isn't it more racist to erase their representation than to simply let them be part of the game, like a dozen other races are? Like, by that logic, shouldn't you also ban Niko Aris - the latest "non-binary" planeswalker from Kaldheim? Isn't it the same logic that you're exploiting a group of marginalized people for a game?

Anyway, I would buy Crusade, but it's already $50 on Ebay, and I don't want to pay that much for cardboard.

t. 25 year MTG player