[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.19507214 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

>Let’s start off with a statement directly from WotC’s style guide sent to all artists involved with Magic, one that’s been held up as matter of law for years in the way Magic presents itself through art and story; “Feel free to paint beautiful women, as long as they're shown kicking ass. No damsels in distress. No ridiculously exaggerated breasts. No nudity.”


Does it bother you that women 'in distress' are banned from magic?

>> No.19507243

No, not really.

>> No.19507260

What, are women not good enough to be put into dangerous situations? That's sexist as fuck!

>> No.19507266

Nope magic needs more strong womyn, all games do really.

>> No.19507273

Honestly...not really, no. It's true, if that was a woman being speared, it'd be a little uneasy. And I say that even after getting pissed over that whole "Durr rape" thing.

I am a complicated person with hypocritical feelings.

And another thing, I'm not sure that guy who wrote that article totally knows what he's talking about. I can think of a few cards where women are in distress. Whirlpool Whelm, for one. And there's a white card from Ravnica, I think, where Venser is sending a fairy to oblivion. Horrible. Also the card I'm posting now.

Oh and Moriok Scavenger blows "no huge titties" out of the water.

>> No.19507278

>dat awful incinerate

>> No.19507282


Because its a boring trope that's plagued fantasy products for years.

Also MtG attempts to keep the game relatively PG13. 'Damsels in Distress' stuff generally just comes across as 'torture porn' or 'slave girl' shit.

>> No.19507283

It's just more feminist propaganda. Trying to show women as the dominant ones, turn men beta, ingrain those images in people's minds.

It's pretty stupid, imo.

>> No.19507288

This is probably one of the more hilarious pieces of MTG art I've seen in a while.

>> No.19507291

You're pretty stupid, in MY opinion.

>> No.19507297

No, not at all. It's actually quite nice that they decided to take such a stance.

>> No.19507298

hurf to tha durf. That article is full of shit.

>> No.19507299


>>I have no idea what Feminism actually is but feel that it threatens me therefore it must obviously be about enslaving me to women

Really? Come on now. I expect better from /tg/.

>> No.19507301

it doesn't matter...people would still complain about everything.

>> No.19507303


Lolwut? Are you defending WotC for this by making personal attacks?

>> No.19507308

I think it's fucking awesome

If I could hang every terrible fantasy artist who drew chainmail underwear I would.

>> No.19507311

Yes. That is exactly what I'm doing.

>> No.19507319

no it does not even remotely bother me

I'm in this shit for wizards and dragons, not vulnerable princesses

>> No.19507320

>Moriok Scavenger blows "no huge titties" out of the water.



>> No.19507326


>If I could hang every terrible fantasy artist who drew chainmail underwear I would.

We aren't talking about semi-nude female warriors, we are talking about women with flaming spears through their chests. Does the latter bother you?

>> No.19507328


I know what feminism is. It leads to this kind of thing: ignoring the differences between men and women, and instead trying to portray women as being "exactly the same" as men in order to normalize that idea. Feminism claims men do this kind of thing to women, but then they turn around and do it to them.

>> No.19507336

And again! DURR, I SAY!

>> No.19507339


>I'm in this shit for wizards and dragons, not vulnerable princesses

I'd personally like for all fantasy tropes to be represented, and 'princess in danger' is definitely a significant trope.

>> No.19507340


Not really.

>> No.19507346

They got into enough trouble with the pentagrams, so they backed off the S&M.

>> No.19507355


You aren't proving anything.
Placing females in positions of weakness is definitely greatly discouraged by WOTC.

>> No.19507356

This one looks like my friend. Ha.

>> No.19507360

Not at all

shitty warriors are dead warriors, doesn't how they fuck

pexpref 1623

>> No.19507361

I do think it's ridiculous that people get so riled up over women being portrayed as weak, it's even worse when they complain about it in a setting where there are plenty of powerful women, as well as men in distress.

I don't hate true feminism, but I do believe the majority of self proclaimed feminists nowadays do more to hurt the movement than anything. I think we're definitely at the point where women and men are on an equal footing and people just need to realise that being equal doesn't mean being the same.

In relation to MtG though? No, I couldn't actually give less of a fuck.

>> No.19507367


>> No.19507370


I'm fine with no S&M or nudity. It's not intended to be an adults only game.

But OP's question was about "damsels in distress". What is wrong with having a damsel in distress, without necessarily making it blatant fetish fuel?

>> No.19507376


50 years ago, yeah, sure.


Nope, that's not it at all! That's the 'I'm an angry white man who is being oppressed' definition of it, though. Sorry! You're welcome to keep thinking that, though, since its your opinion and you're entitled to it. But its a bad one so you might want to change it.

>> No.19507383


>> No.19507389


Sheoldred and Liliana are both women torturing other women.


Congratulations, you found perhaps one of the few damsels in distress in all of Magic! Except she's most likely already dead.

>> No.19507393


Because 'damsel in distress' is blatantly fetish fuel purely on its own; it doesn't 'become' fetish fuel by adding something to it. The idea of it IS a fetish--its the idea that a beautiful woman needs to be rescued and will then instantly reward you for doing so by throwing herself at your feet.

>> No.19507396

I mean, come on. She's fucking DEAD homey.

>> No.19507404


These aren't 'damsels in distress,' though.

In fact this is exactly what you'd say Wizards WOULD want vs. some big tittied Princess Peach look a like bound in chains struggling against her clothes in an awkward 'come fuck me big boy' stance of some sort.

Instead, these are 'bad shit happens to people--in these pictures, those people are women.'

>> No.19507410


What's wrong with the trope, though?

And what I said really is a conclusion that many feminists arrive at. Why acknowledge those facts about what many feminists believe, but then turn around and deny them when someone challenges them?

>> No.19507413

>except she's most likely already dead
Uh that's kind of the point, they said they wont show women in pain/death. Obviously they're full of durr, as are you.

>> No.19507415


Wait, so all instances of damsel in distress is blatant fetish fuel? Even if they are IRL?

>> No.19507416

wat the wat in the wat??

>> No.19507417

I'm certain damsel in distress means more "princess chained to a rock guarded by a dragon while the hero valiantly emerges to save her" and less "female is skeletonized by a black/red spell".

>> No.19507426

I swear MtG's angels are some of my favorite art. I need to find all of them.


>> No.19507427

Is this thread about fetish fuel or feminism? Because putting feminist bias into your games is retarded, but putting in "blatant fetish fuel" can be pretty lame too...

>> No.19507428


>> No.19507434

>> No.19507439


We need more of that, though. Rescuing princesses doesn't have to be fetish fuel, it's just a naturally good story.

>> No.19507442



>> No.19507444

They don't seem to treat it as an unbreakable law, but they've made it known the judges will err on the side of more women kicking ass.

>> No.19507446


Because people who believe that are, generally, extremely right-wing with their beliefs.

Would you say all Republican voters, for example, are Severely God Fearing Xenophobic WASPs? No, they're just the ones that you hear from because they're the ones that make for good tv/entertainment. Same with Democrats--not all of them are homosexual hippies who live in the woods and cry when trees get cut down.

Your example of 'feminism' is the type used by people who fear equality because of what those in power share to lose--namely, power and prestige--based on cultural history. Instead, real feminism, the type that most people read, practice, and believe in, is the type that is oriented towards displaying that, yep, Western Culture is pretty Patriarchal and has been set up that way, and that women are more often treated as 'less than' objects than they are people--and that women AND men do it to women all the time because they are taught to believe its correct. The goal of feminism is to eliminate, correct, and result in equality by confronting the problem.

As for what's wrong with the trope? Read above. 'Damsel in Distress' is the personification of 'Woman as incapable human being who needs rescuing by a Man to survive.'

>> No.19507457

one of my favs, plus Gisela and Avacyn.

>> No.19507459

Doom Blade shows a clearly female angel getting killed.

I don't think it's about danger or even injury so much. It's basically asking that if you're gonna work for Wizards, the art you show them has to have a point beyond the presence of titties.

>> No.19507469

A little, but not enough to complain. And that little is caused by male characters being drawn into those situations all the time. Yeah, it's a double standard, but it's not going to change anytime soon.

However, the Triumph of Ferocity shitstorm really rustled me something fierce- anybody who knows those two understands that he is not going to rape her.

>> No.19507483


>> No.19507485


How is it a good story? Its a story-type that hasn't evolved in the history its been told, and it doesn't offer anything new, interesting, or remotely progressive in terms of story telling ability; you may as well just watch Disney films over and over instead of go 'hey you know this whole princess tied up to a rock thing is pretty fucking boring and also pointless / senseless.'

>> No.19507487

>that's sexism
>lets change history
>lets change traditional stories
>lets change grimms fairy tales
>lets burn all the books
>lets made a new symbol with the swastica
>lets blame the jews for everything
>lets invade russia in winter with no equipment

>> No.19507492


magic has its own aesthetic and storylines and it doesn't just need to be a dumb grab-bag of 'every fantasy trope' anymore

>> No.19507500

B-b-but I like the damsel in distress trope /tg/... I grew up watching and reading a bunch of fantasy material, and spent my free time as a kid fighting pretend dragons with a stick to win over my imaginary love. I even used to act this out with other kids in the neighbourhood, and the girls were more than happy to volunteer to be the damsels we rescued.

Am I... am I a terrible person?...

>> No.19507505

Oh yeah. I fucking hate you.

>> No.19507513


Yes you are. How dare you enforce that way of thinking by letting those girls willingly put themselves in danger, imaginary or not. You are the worst thing ever.

>> No.19507514

They should make a piece of art for a giant growth spell where the princess is beating the dragon over the head with the fuckhuge rock she's bound to while the hero looks on in befuddlement.

>> No.19507531

>poor girl is running for her life
>those creepy villagers trying to rape her

>> No.19507534

Lorwyn came and went, bro. That was the one place you'd see that.

>> No.19507536


Of course not. You're just a pretty much shining example (and your neighboring girl friends!) of the stuff mentioned in >>19507446. You were brought up thinking that way, and so were your neighbors, so you never questioned what the act really entailed or depicted--and the fact that the girls were willing to go 'sure I'll act helpless for you because that's what I'm supposed to do' is even more representative.

But now that you realized it you can at least stop fantasizing about that right?

>> No.19507577

His example of feminism is the dominant viewpoint in feminist cultural analysis. It isn't fringe.

As for the OP, yeah, it's annoying. Pretty obviously misandric trope - that it's fine to show huge amounts of violence towards men or show them as weak but if a woman is in the same situation it's somehow sexism. Ties into social conservatives/traditionalists too, since they hate seeing anything that depicts a women suffering violence.

>> No.19507578


How do you even tell when its winter in Russia? Isn't it always just as dark and bleak and cold?

>> No.19507606


So you want to tear down everything normal and enjoyable about our culture just because it *might insinuate* something you don't agree with? You think that culture is shaped as an anti-woman conspiracy, so you think that doing the exact same thing and shaping it yourself would rectify this? Even though men and women are known scientifically to think differently, and therefore a story showing women being rescued could be argued to have a greater appeal to the human experience than one where women in distress are deliberately made 100% absent?

And anyone who calls you out on this is spouting right-wing propaganda because they "fear equality"? You seem to be the one who is spewing propaganda, since you want to consciously reshape culture. And if anyone is afraid, it's you, since clearly you can't handle "extreme right-wing" people analyzing and criticizing your ideas and methods.

>> No.19507611


No, fuck you, I've got a princess to save.

>> No.19507658


The way he was brought up is the natural and right way. What if it's you who has been conditioned by feminists to fear the natural relationship between a man and a woman?

>> No.19507673

>But now that you realized it you can at least stop fantasizing about that right?

No, why should I?

See, this is what gets me at the end of the day. I'm not saying every single woman out there is a damsel in distress who needs rescuing, likewise I'm not saying that every man out there would be able to handle taking on a dragon to rescue her. I just like the idea of winning the love of someone by overcoming intense physical and mental challenges in the name of it.

So why is that wrong? Why should it not be represented at all?

You want to try and push the idea of woman taking stronger positions and looking more powerful? Perfectly fine with me, in fact a large number of said fantasies involve strong female adventurers who help take down the antagonists.

I'll save my princesses, and I'll enjoy doing it.

>> No.19507689


The problem is that unlike you, some players, and WoTC employees, most people don't know anything about Garruk and Liliana's ongoing conflict storyline. I don't even think the majority of players do.

Without that context, it just looks like a dude raping a lady in a forest.

>> No.19507694

Innistrad, and DKA even more so, has a LOT more "people in distress" than your everyday Magic set, since the theme is "humans are fucked". Obviously there's going to be women in the lot, but the theme makes it clear it's not just because they're going for the sexist trope.

>> No.19507727


You do a good job of putting words in people's mouths, so at least you've got that going for you! Have you considered politics?

Anyway, what I stated in my post is actually somewhat similar to what you've stated, but a lot less 'Doom and gloom' and a lot more 'recognizing the fact that for 2000+ years we've treated one half of the gender make up of our species like a lesser being.' Given the fact that current education trends show women out performing men in education and job performance, there really isn't that big of a problem anymore, but the fact is that pop-culture still represents women as usually 1 of 2 things: an over-sexualized object (damsel in distress, Megan Fox in Transformers, etc.) or a total bitch set on destroying everyone's happiness (Every 'Wicked Witch' character ever, almost every 'Woman in Charge' character).

In reality, though, what also happens is that men get chained to these specific roles as well; its just that most people (like yourself) don't want to recognize, or refuse to recognize, that the ways in which patriarchal power has solidified gender roles over the years has stripped men of much of their own agency in claiming anything for themselves; the reason that 'boys don't cry,' or that 'male nurse' is treated as a joke instead of a sign that you're working in a field that literally saves lives.

The pulse of feminism over the years (into different generations of it) goes from extremely militant to less so, and lately has tapered off because, yes, many of its goals have been accomplished, but there are many things that haven't been.


>> No.19507731

Rapists usually aren't revving up to drive their pointy gauntlet through the fist of their victims. Really, some people just try to find controversy in everything.

>> No.19507735


As far as it being propaganda, again, you're welcome to think that--but, the reality is that women have fought for and gained quite a lot of power and equality over the years, and will continue to do so. And men have also joined in, as well; it isn't just unshaven women burning bras anymore.

But, if you want to believe that men and women have 'proper places' that cannot be broken and shouldn't be, then that's just totally backwards and not at all in line with the reality that's sitting right in front of your face.

Alternatively, if your mother, sister, or any female relative is currently in college, or went, or holds a job of some sort that isn't 'cooking, cleaning, or child rearing,' have you ever wanted to tell them to stop that? Or are you proud of the work they do, or things they provide for you by doing them? Because if you are, you're a feminist, I hate to say.

>> No.19507744

I meant face.

>> No.19507757


So basically you want your ideal lover to be something you win?

So what happens after you save them? Is your entire relationship 'man remember that time I saved you? That was pretty cool huh?' for 50 years?

Have you considered the Olympics? I hear you can win quite a lot of things through extreme physical and mental effort there.

>> No.19507785


I'm fine with women working outside the home, but I don't consider myself a feminist. I believe men and women are different and should therefore be viewed and treated as different.

But even if you are a feminist, I have something for you, reposted from the sticky thread.

>> No.19507789


>> No.19507795

>And that little is caused by male characters being drawn into those situations all the time.
Last time I checked, Magic doesn't have a lot of weak but sexualized men waiting helplessly for a woman to save and fuck them either.

Again, damsel in distress =/= woman in danger or pain.

>> No.19507806

>And there's a white card from Ravnica, I think, where Venser is sending a fairy to oblivio

>> No.19507827

there are more male walkers oversexualized than female walkers.

>> No.19507831

To those who wish to read about the horrors of feminism from a female perspective, I highly recommend the following blog:


>> No.19507836

>Because if you are, you're a feminist, I hate to say
I'm not proud of my mother, sister, and fiance for working "non-traditional" jobs and being very successful at what they do because I see it as a step towards "righting some fundamental wrong", or because it's a "victory for women". I'm proud of them because they're my family and I love them.

Not everyone can be forced into a reductionalist feminist/nonfeminist dichotomy. To insist on forcing that dichotomy is a mistake.

>> No.19507842

>So what happens after you save them?

You develop the fucking relationship of course. I'm no longer 'the guy that defeated the dragon', and she's no longer 'the damsel in distress', you get to know each other and move past that stage.

>Is your entire relationship 'man remember that time I saved you? That was pretty cool huh?' for 50 years?

No, it's "We defeated the big bad guy so now let's live in this comfortable little home and raise a family for the rest of our lives".

>Have you considered the Olympics? I hear you can win quite a lot of things through extreme physical and mental effort there.

Do you understand what a fantasy is? Ignoring the fact that I'm physically fit and also an accomplished athelete (though of course, not anywhere near olympic level), how is this in any way relevent to the conversation?

>> No.19507849


In that case, I think you're misunderstanding a key tenet here, and something I was trying to tell you; Feminists don't seek to go 'Women HAVE to be viewed the same as men in ALL ASPECTS or BETTER' just that, at the end of the day, women and men can do the same things, and should be able to do them.

That's pretty much it in the boilerplate version; obviously there are things that women have to work harder at to do--muscle mass, for instance--but there is really no reason a woman can't be a construction worker, or that a man can't be a pre-school teacher. The idea that men and women MUST work in specific areas based on supposed 'inferiority' on one party is the problem.

I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear earlier, and if that's not what you hear from other people, then those people are also sadly misinformed of their own causes.

The basic idea is: you remember how people used to ask you, "what do you want to be when you grow up?" That question shouldn't have qualifiers on it based on gender. That's all.

As for the picture, I saw it; I don't agree with it, mostly because they seem to be contradicting themselves at the start--this is fantasy, but it isn't?

>> No.19507868


>men and women are different
>men and women can be the same

Contradiction detected.

>> No.19507877


Not that guy, but I think he meant extreme physical and mental challenges more like a sacrifice, rather than a competition. And the example of relationship you've given is realy a dick move. How about settling down, no more adventuring and dragon slaying. Having kids and a pet dog. Growing old and stuff alike.

>> No.19507887

Responding to a fragment of the sentence won't win you any points.

>> No.19507895


No? Again, you're looking for simple things you can take out of context.

In terms of physiognomy, women and men have obvious differences--men tend to be taller, for example--but you live in an age in which gender difference, or even physical difference, no longer matters in terms of what can be accomplished physically--a woman can construct a building, a road, or a car just as well as a man could.

For jobs that don't require physical exertion, you have even less of a boundary now--jobs that require education simply require dedication on the part of the pursuer; a male student and a female student have the same ability to complete coursework and become a lawyer, or doctor.

Stop reading for things you can try to poke through armor with and consider what's actually being said, maybe?

>> No.19507896


Do you do a lot of raping?

Listen, IANAR but I'm pretty sure that threatening someone with a weapon is something someone might to in the process of raping them.

>> No.19507906

Feminism seems kinda arbitrary to me. Why are women the same as men, exactly? Because propaganda in mainstream society(including MTG apparently) says so?

>> No.19507919


In the same vein, why aren't they, then? Because history says so?

>> No.19507922


Men and women are known to think differently, using different parts of the brain, and are susceptible to different hormones. Do you really think that external appearance is the only thing that differentiates them?

>> No.19507933



She corrupted his magic. He can't use his power without causing horrible, horrible harm to the creatures that he represents because of what she did.

He's not going to rape her. He's going to fucking murder her. It takes maybe five, ten minutes to find the nature of their relationship and realize that this is not a depiction of rape.

>> No.19507937

You aren't answering his main point.

>Feminists don't seek to go 'Women HAVE to be viewed the same as men in ALL ASPECTS or BETTER' just that, at the end of the day, women and men can do the same things, and should be able to do them.
>The basic idea is: you remember how people used to ask you, "what do you want to be when you grow up?" That question shouldn't have qualifiers on it based on gender. That's all.

>> No.19507942

huh, angels seem to be the favorite targets of black and red spells on art nowadays. Didn't it used to be drakes? now its angels that buy it. Makes sense, if you are going out to beat evil, well, sometimes evil beats you.

>> No.19507951



Even among Magic players, those who know the Garruk-Liliana backstory are in the minority. How many people do you really think read MTG books and comics? Seriously, there are like... twelve people who do that.

>> No.19507955



>> No.19507957

>physical difference no longer matters in terms of what can be accomplished physically
Not really so. That's not to say women can't fulfill those roles, but very few have the motivation to actually place themselves in those spots because of the work required on their end.

Maybe it's mental limits society places on them, or maybe it's just the way the female brain works.. I'm no expert on that subject.

>> No.19507965


The problem with your entire stance is that you seem to be openly dismissive of everyone that isn't automatically going for these new opened roles, you consider women who are fine with being damsels in distress to be brainwashed, you consider men who like the idea of having a stay at home wife to be sexist bastards, you just generally make a lot of dumb assumptions and act really abrasive about it.

The point of feminism is putting men and women on an equal footing, that means they can choose to be whatever the fuck they please. A man likes the idea of saving a damsel in distress and living the rest of his life with her? That doesn't mean he automatically considers women inferior. A woman likes the idea of having a strong man sweep her off her feet and out of danger? That doesn't mean she considers men superior.

"But why do they automatically consider the woman to be the damsel in distress!" you cry! "Why can't men be the damsel in distress" you comment. Well let me fucking answer that for you using simple logic, because the person fantasizing about it is most likely fucking heterosexual you God damn moron! Why would they be fantasizing about rescuing and marrying someone of the same sex?


>> No.19507966


I'd sooner believe actual history, than something that society and laws actively forces people to believe while claiming everything in history was just a patriarchal conspiracy.

>> No.19507971


So? Men and women think differently, yet they both seem to be able to say 2+2 = 4. In the event that they actually arrive at that conclusion in a different matter, would it not be beneficial for you to go to a male and female doctor, to see how and why they diagnose you the same way?

That difference--if legitimized--should be celebrated for allowing multiple ways to solve a problem or perform a task than just 'men's brains do A, women's do B, therefore women shouldn't do anything complicated.'

>> No.19507977

So why do women, in order to be "strong", have to perform the exact same tasks that men do, i.e. kicking ass? why can't women be "strong" in nurturing?

>> No.19507984


So you're saying that their assumptions are justified, and can't be argued against, because they don't care enough to get their "facts" (as much as a fictional story can have "facts") straight?

That's a horrible reason.

>> No.19507993


History also used to state that Earth was the center of the universe and that the planet was flat.

Just remember that History is written by the 'winners,' not the Truth.

>> No.19507997

>speaking without knowing whats really happening is now a valid point of view
you know guys, feminism is about humilliating the man and victimizing the women

Also, this pic. I don't know what i'm talking about, but is a 100% valid point of view and you all should respect it and praise it, because ignorance is the average.

PD: Yeah, i totally went full retarded.

>> No.19507999

>Listen, IANAR but I'm pretty sure that threatening someone with a weapon is something someone might to in the process of raping them.

Jesus christ, just look at that savage rape.

>> No.19508007


This. Men and women are different enough that they gravitate naturally towards certain things. As examples, men are strong physically, women are strong at nurturing. Women don't have to be capable of the same things as men to have a purpose in life; feminists fail to realize this.

>> No.19508015


Because whoever is making all the long abrasive posts getting angry over the damsels in distress thing is fucking retarded, all that matters is that the opportunity to do something else is there and open to a person should they want it. If they don't want to take advantage of it, then there is nothing wrong with that.

>> No.19508017

What would be a good finisher for a control deck after the titans cycle? i was thinking lone revenant mite b cool

>> No.19508018


So you really think that there is a universal male conspiracy to oppress women? Take off the tinfoil hat, and step outside bro.

>> No.19508021


Again, I don't think I ever said anything like that; there is a difference in your statement from what you (again) seem to believe that I'm saying, when I'm not. You've ignored the simplified statement 3 times now.

If a man wants to choose that, or a woman wants to choose that, that's fantastic. Go for it. If you want to choose to sleep with as many women as possible, or you wish to be the queen of your own harem of males, again, have at it. If you want to roleplay that fantasy, again, have a go at it.

But what is NOT okay, and what is the main point, is that it should not be ASSUMED, TAUGHT, or ORGANIZED in a way that men and women HAVE to do specific things.

At this point I'm going to probably move on, because I just don't think we'll ever reach a point of dialogue in which you'll admit anything I've said is legitimized; you've spent most of your posts trying to deflate my argument than making your own, or moving us closer to the middle ground. I've said my piece, and I'm sorry we couldn't come to a closer understanding, even if we disagreed in the end.

>> No.19508027

>> No.19508040

>in order to be "strong", have to perform the exact same tasks that men do, i.e. kicking ass?
And there's part of the issue - kicking ass, and really, a lot of typically 'badass' and 'strong' characteristics are typically portrayed in media as solely masculine qualities, making women who happen to have them anomalies.

Less fuss would be raised about female characters who were strong by being nurturing if more were also able to be strong by being plain old badass without being thought of as weird as a female character for it. (it's kinda shitty that it's so rare that female protagonists are a badass while male ones are a dime a dozen)

>> No.19508048

...They can? The point of feminism isn't to say "no woman can be a nurse" either. It's that they shouldn't feel pressured by society to go into those roles and those only.

>> No.19508050

I can't wait until transhumanism comes along and turn us all into sexless robots so this stupid fucking bickering horseshit can go take a hike.

>> No.19508054


But if the vast majority of men and women have certain biological and psychological talents and traits associated with their sex, then it should be taught that way. The idea that a picture depicting a trope can accidentally be anti-feminist propaganda is a bit delusional.

>> No.19508056

Isn't it sexist to assume that all women have to kick arse?

And can't have large breasts?

When will we come out the other side and realize that we can do anything.

>> No.19508057


I should have pointed this out but I wasn't who you were replying to, I was just annoyed by your overall attitude when responding to the majority of posters. Even if you like to believe you weren't advocating that position, it's certainly the impression you were giving off.

>> No.19508059

>> No.19508063


Have you never studied Christianity or its history ever?

I'm a bit tired of being taken out of context so I won't go into another one, but if you think everything in History is legit, then more power to you. Let me know how that goes when you tell a non-white person that they're some sort of subhuman species of primate or reptile.

Because, you know, history.

>> No.19508075

>> No.19508080

>Women don't have to be capable of the same things as men to have a purpose in life; feminists fail to realize this.
No, feminists realise that this is true, but also that the fact that a woman or man who acts against their gender's stereotypes gets considered lesser than their counterparts for nothing more than what's between their legs (Male nurses, female firepeople, etc.) is total bullshit.

>> No.19508082


> feminists fail to realize this.

You know that feminists just want a woman who desires to not be nurturing to have the oppotunity to do so, correct? (the not-crazy ones at least)

>> No.19508089


Christianity taught men to treat women with love and respect; far better than what the average pagan Roman would think.

And who said minorities are reptiles? That sounds like a troll post from /pol/, not something society at large actually believed...

>> No.19508092


>But what is NOT okay, and what is the main point, is that it should not be ASSUMED, TAUGHT, or ORGANIZED in a way that men and women HAVE to do specific things.

Extirpating societal roles from a people shatters inter-generational continuity. Social anomy becomes the norm, and many terrible things soon follow. I don't think you realize how extreme your sinister project is.

>> No.19508098

And for men who want to be nurturing to get a chance, too. (again, this is the vast majority, or as you put it, non-crazy ones)

>> No.19508102

I can only hope you don't actually believe in the existence of your strawman feminist. Obviously men don't meet with masks on in a dark room to discuss the downfall of women. Cultural biases are more subtle than that.

>> No.19508111


Actually, look up the popular science of the time. Non-whites were considered to be sub-human and they developed sciences to prove it. Popular sciences.

>> No.19508115


>men and women have different talents
>some choose careers that don't synergize with their talents
>feminists think that they should be treated the same regardless

Once again, "equality" is a completely arbitrary, constructed standard of how the sexes should behave and should be viewed by society.

>> No.19508119


Yeah I'm done.

Say goodnight, Gracie!

>> No.19508125

Oh, men have bigger salaries so that they can pay for the dates, that makes complete sense.

>> No.19508133


H. P. Lovecraft believed black people hatched from eggs like lizards and snakes.

>> No.19508142


>cultural biases

So society is not being biased consciously, but instinctively? So how do you know that a given culture's biases aren't natural? I'm pointing out that there's factual and empirical evidence for differences between men and women; you're effectively replying "you only believe that because of your culture." I hope you understand that you are falling into the feminist "stereotypes" you claim are "extreme right-wing" lies.

>> No.19508151

as is the case with modern misandry

>> No.19508153

>Christianity taught men to treat women with love and respect; far better than what the average pagan Roman would think.
I....I don't even...

Okay, first of all you're wrong. Christianity has for the vast majority of it's existence supported the idea that women are lesser being than men, from the very beginning of it's creation myth of the garden of Eden to, at best for the biggest branches, thirty to fifty years ago.
Second of all, there are so many, many, many varieties of the damn thing that making a blanket statement like that is incredibly stupid, as a number of them still hold that women are lesser.
Lastly, this image. Look at the section titled women, then look in a Bible if you want proof.

>> No.19508155




>HP Lovecraft

>> No.19508165


Consecrated Sphinx might be good for the few months it is standard legal.

>> No.19508166


>from the very beginning of it's creation myth of the garden of Eden

Cool selectivity bro.
What about that little story about how a human woman GAVE BIRTH TO GOD!


>> No.19508174

>> No.19508175

They most likely grabbed it from that Authority/Planetary crossover.

>> No.19508184

i'm looking for stuff for after the cycle
i need something to help handle the inevitable RG aggro with huntmaster, silverheart, and rancor.

fuck that shit isnt even going to be fun and everyone is going to use it but i don't want to blow all that money

>> No.19508187

When you're rectifying an age-old issue, you pretty much HAVE to go through a phase of over-sensibility until the problem is fully fixed. Yes, some things that are appropriate when applied to a member of the majority, but racist/sexist/otherwise inappropriate when applied to a member of the minority. Yes, that sucks. But it doesn't suck nearly as much as pretending we're living in an egalitarian utopia and there's nothing wrong with damsels in distress, monkey caricatures of black people or what have you.

>> No.19508200

>Implying that your gender determines entirely by itself what talents you do and do not have, as opposed to how you are raised, educated and treated by society, along with a small amount of natural ability which mainly comes from your genes rather than if you have a penis or not.

If this is true then every man on the planet should be some form of beast hunting, burly survivalist with an innate knowledge of how to murder everything in sight and every woman should instinctively know how to knit, cook and tend a farmstead as needed.

>> No.19508206



Here's some stuff about him. His racism is pretty well known; he changed his mind about things a bit before death but his works and life were problematic in this regard to say the least.

I only really mentioned it because he's one of the more obvious examples.

>> No.19508215

Gender roles hurt both genders, news at eleven. Believe it or not, feminists are your allies on that topic.

>> No.19508225


All those passages seem to suggest is that
1) Women shouldn't be pastors(again, if there are differences between men and women, why should we assume that Paul is wrong here?)
2) Women don't have to fulfill their vows to God if it would go against their husbands prior plans(pretty much beneficial for women)
3) Lot was an asshole(but still the only one worth saving in all of Sodom)

>> No.19508228

Protip: the part about women shutting up in church likely stems from the fact that women during temple services in biblical times howled like fucking banshees.

>> No.19508232

I think he was more asking for sauce on beliving black people were oviparous.

>> No.19508233

>I'm pointing out that there's factual and empirical evidence for differences between men and women; you're effectively replying "you only believe that because of your culture."
I don't know who you're arguing with. The same strawman that believes in a male conspiracy maybe? Feminists in this thread have agreed again and again that there /are/ empirical differences between men and women.

>> No.19508246

>Gender roles hurt

Nah. Roles come with expectations which help guide a person into adulthood while shaping him into a productive member of society. The 'anything goes' alternative hinders the maturation of a person while sowing disunity.

>> No.19508255


To be honest I forgot where I originally read it, but it does pop up as a joke in that above mentioned comic.

If I can find the source before I get bored I'll post it though.

>> No.19508270




So you're basically saying you'd prefer it if people were stamped with 'you go here and become this' instead of, you know, choosing?

Alternatively, how's that whole role thing coming along if you're here? Shouldn't you be in the military or building stuff?

>> No.19508289


>you'd prefer it if people were stamped with 'you go here and become this' instead of, you know, choosing?


>> No.19508297

rolled 72 = 72

You just grew to understand the logic of a conservatard. Individualism is great, but only for oneself. Everyone else must fulfill a role or be deemed a human failure.

>> No.19508324


We've seen the consequences of this "choosing" in society at large over the past fifty years. Single mothers everywhere, insufferable career women confused about what they really want. Yet breathe a word against it, and you're a monster bent on imposing "social constructs" on people.

People should have freedom, but destroying one's culture for some arbitrary goal unprecendented in all of history is what tears societies apart.

>> No.19508335

>you'd prefer it if people were stamped with 'you go here and become this' instead of, you know, choosing?

How many people like their jobs anyway? One percent? Would it be so bad to be expected to take up the family trade?

>> No.19508339

>Alternatively, how's that whole role thing coming along if you're here? Shouldn't you be in the military or building stuff?
Last time I checked, gaming is stereotypically a manly activity, and this is a gaming website.

The posters of your side has been coming with a bunch of stupid "comebacks" in this thread, I've noticed. Please, do stop trying, it's just plain ugly.

>> No.19508356


Strawman detected.

Conservatism (in the American sense) holds that people can be individuals and seek out lives for themselves, but there is a framework of right and wrong, and of natural law, that binds society in certain ways that cannot be changed without destroying it.

>> No.19508359


Considering my family's trade is crushing debt, I rather hope I don't take it up.

>> No.19508370

You're not a monster for being a conservative. Usually you're just an idiot.

Although you are right, the few conservatives I meet who are smart are autistic monsters who cannot understand human empathy and are extremely narcissistic. But thankfully they represent a minority among educated people.

>> No.19508383


If you want to take up a family trade I'd say you're either not American, since we don't produce anything anymore, or you're envisioning a time period that has long since left, and left well before any of the stuff we've been talking about even occurred. Industrial Revolution pretty much demolished that idea almost immediately.


Ok bro w/e you say. Go tell everyone you won an argument on the internet by repeating the same dull statements and then resulting to bizarre insults and denial in the face of logical discussion.

>> No.19508389


You come across as quite insulting. And I am an educated conservative, but am not autistic. How does that factor into your worldview?

>> No.19508399

Gaming has almost always been derided as an unmanly activity fit only for gelatinous blobs of neckbeards that have failed to be manly men. Male dominated maybe, but certainly not manly.

Also, roleplaying games are based on storytelling, character development, and other items which oftentimes are thrown into the 'feminine' category.

>> No.19508405

That card should really exile it's target if it dies or something.

>> No.19508427


>'feminine' category

Story telling was a male thing for like 10000 years......

I urge you to read-up on the transmition of oral traditions. You seem criminally misinformed.

>> No.19508440

>Also, roleplaying games are based on storytelling, character development, and other items which oftentimes are thrown into the 'feminine' category.

>storytelling is feminine
whoa amazing my computer is plugging into the bizza-oh wait no it's just people on the internet being retarded again

>> No.19508441


Not that guy, but it's the feminists in the thread who are failing to be logical. They've admitted men and women are different both physically and psychologically, yet they insist on them being arbitrarily equal. They claim history is unknowable because of "cultural male bias," yet are quick to viciously attack the Bible. By casting aside history that disagrees with them, they've basically abandoned argumentation in favor of waxing ideological.

>> No.19508454

Believe it or not, (high-functioning) autists actually have a strong sense of right and wrong, what with a natural tendency to take beliefs to their logical conclusion with little influence from (valid or otherwise) common sense. Teach an aspie Humanism and he'll out-humanist you any day.

>> No.19508455


In the Oral Tradition, yes, you're correct--except that style of culture died out in Plato's time.

After that, while male dominated because women weren't allowed to read, write, or participate in storytelling forms, it was never considered 'masculine' or even 'proper' to be a writer.

That only happened later, when the power of writing and storytelling became able to cause change in cultures, that it was respected as tool and a worthy profession; that also was around the time women and non-whites were allowed to openly partake in the medium, as well.

>> No.19508460

Why would I waste my time arguing with a group of people who lack empathy or logic? Arguing about conservatism is just a waste of time. There's a reason technological and intellectual progress causes a society to move left. The only people who don't understand why either are too stupid to make the proper connections or too devoid of empathy to want to make the connections in the first place.

I don't really blame either because they were probably born that way, but their resulting opinion is a mental defect, not a serious political opinion worth considering.

>> No.19508475

> They've admitted men and women are different both physically and psychologically, yet they insist on them being arbitrarily equal.
They've made their point multiple times in no uncertain terms. I can see why the other anon left, there really is no conversation to be had if it still isn't acknowledged.

>> No.19508489

okay so you're claiming that storytelling is feminine because there was a time when it wasn't looked up to, even though that time is neither the last hundred years nor during the birth and childhood of storytelling

that's dumb

>> No.19508491


You are quick to accuse the conservatives among us of lacking empathy, and yet the typical leftist embraces consequentialism--the notion that millions should be murdered if it helps create a better world.

>> No.19508494

Oh, you mean old wive's tales? And those crones who know all the old myths and plants that we call witches? Or America in the 1800's where women were supposed to see to the moral upbringing of their children so that they could be good citizens?

>> No.19508525

>yet the typical leftist embraces consequentialism--the notion that millions should be murdered if it helps create a better world
Yet <STRAWMAN ARGUMENT N°1565456>, you mean?

>> No.19508535

They aren't. Rules are broken constantly.

>> No.19508537

What non-hypothetical consequentialist reasoning makes that argument?

>> No.19508542


So basically you only pick and choose things to agree or disagree with, and piece together statements that you think are 'logical?'

Attacking the 'Bible' and history are the same; the Bible drives most of Western culture's history and creation. It is basically the key text of how Western history was developed and many of the problems in it, from sexism to racism and many other things.

As far as non-logical goes, the statement that men and women have SLIGHT physical / physiognomy differences is what has been stated. Men and women cannot do things that the other cannot, save giving birth. They possess the same bodies and genetics; if there were differences that were so massive it would prevent genders from doing similar things, you would have things like men having 4 arms or other major differences.

the people in this thread who have identified as feminists have stated that yes, there are some slight differences. Those differences, in a modern and advanced society like our own, do not matter, because we have managed to climb to a point where if a woman wants to bench press 400 lbs, she can, and if a man wants to sit at home and sew clothing all day, he can do that too.

There is no difference between both genders that is so distractingly big that it prevents people from doing whatever they want. Failing to recognize that fact seems to be the major problem for opponents in this thread.

>> No.19508548


Your snobbery makes me wonder if you are trolling. For people who claim to support equality and cultural relativism, leftists sure hate their own cultures.

>> No.19508568

Shh, don't acknowledge the tripfag.

>> No.19508572

I hate every single one of you and I hope you all die horribly.

Or go to /pol/, same thing.

>> No.19508594

Believing leftists support cultural relativism is false and a strawman. Such logical fallacies and inabilities to reason are further proof that you're probably part of the stupid camp, and not the lacking empathy camp.

Thankfully, most forms of stupidity can be more easily rectified than sociopathy. There is hope for you yet. Try, for example, engaging in mentally straining puzzles or logic based games on a weekly basis. Take up go or chess. Read some nonfiction to educate yourself on certain subjects. If you work hard enough, you can overcome your own handicaps.

>> No.19508605


Look at the battle of the sexes. Look at the misery of the single mother epidemic in our society. Differences between sexes have consequences, like it or not.

Then look at the glory of our civilization. Look how much these "evil" "sexist" "racist" Christian whites accomplished. Look at how much technological progess they achieved, in such short time, compared to the rest of the world. Western Civilization accomplished a lot, yet you have given in to culturally marxist ideologies that scorn it, and then ignore evidence in favor of civilization as "biased by evil white men," meanwhile ignoring your own biases.

>> No.19508613

Meh, I don't think it's really snobery at this point. Well, maybe I'm wrong in how I see conservatists, but to me they're attached to old values that aren't enforceable except by limiting technological progress and use. Amish being the hardcore ones who deny themselves even doctors and cars. And really, I'm completely okay with Amish, they at least don't try to impose on anyone but themselves their reactionary values.

>> No.19508644


They accomplished a lot by grinding 'lesser people' beneath their heels, be it the poor, the non-white, or the female.

So, congrats on that. A lot of stuff really was made and a lot of it was neat. That doesn't mean the way it was done was right or correct.

Since we're on /tg/, its probably pertinent to point out why settings like Steampunk use 'magic!' to fix all of those problems so that people can 'enjoy' those time periods without all the nasty racism, sexism, and abuse of the working class.

But, sure, golden age! real great. Totally better than today.

>> No.19508647


Conservatives can and do use tech. I'm using an advanced gaming laptop computer right now, with a cellular phone in my pocket. I don't see why conservatives would have to become Amish. We can have a conservative culture while retaining technology.

>> No.19508650

And of course, as we become more intelligent we evolve to become more liberal. That is for good reason, and only the low IQ or sociopathic tend to cling to conservativism because it gives them an edge they can't have on an even playing field.

>> No.19508669


>and abuse of the working class
Ah. Here comes the Marxism.

>> No.19508674

You'll just retard your own technological advancement by doing so.

>> No.19508684


>But, sure, golden age! real great. Totally better than today.

You'd have to be insane to believe the world is becoming a better place.

>> No.19508691

Name-calling isn't a proper form of argumentation.

>> No.19508692

>Look at the battle of the sexes.
I agree, this doesn't fucking makes sense, it's not like there is a river or an oil patch to fight over. No resources lost whatsoever, it's just plain cultural silliness.
>Look at the misery of the single mother epidemic in our society.
Mostly stems from financial problems. There is enough food in the world to feed every body. Yes, even the poor little Africans in their savannah. The rest is poor logistics, hoarding, and economics.

>Then look at the glory of our civilization. Look how much these "evil" "sexist" "racist" Christian whites accomplished. Look at how much technological progess they achieved, in such short time, compared to the rest of the world. Western Civilization accomplished a lot, yet you have given in to culturally marxist ideologies that scorn it, and then ignore evidence in favor of civilization as "biased by evil white men," meanwhile ignoring your own biases.
You are seeing the world in much too binary terms. This won't ever get clear to you until you stop seeing the world is such simplistic scales. Fact is, CURRENTLY, following the Bible to the letter (rather than in a spirit of love, sharing and compassion) is damaging. Extremely damaging. Maybe not to the society, but it festers individuals. And again, "Western Civilization" accomplishing a lot has almost nothing to do with the fact that it was Christian. Guns, germs, and steel however... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel)

>> No.19508698


Let's say it isn't even Marxism; what do you call the working conditions, from, say, Sinclair's the Jungle, which while a fictional book were taken from real accounts?

Or child labor in England for Chimney Sweeps? Factory labor pre-union?

Can you honestly justify the way those people were treated as 'well it was for the good of the upper class so it was obviously okay?'

Not even bringing Marx in here, despite you wanting to. Just want you to defend how the working / poor were treated in this supposed Golden Age before our own.

>> No.19508699

>Hey guys, Marx is scary, everyone be scared

Here comes the conservative, trying to appeal to emotion because he can't logically reason.

Again, the only two categories conservatives fall under are idiots and sociopaths, with some overlap of course.

>> No.19508706

>You'd have to be insane to believe the world is becoming a better place.
Define better.

>> No.19508711

Dear diary, today I learned that I'm insane.

I mean ok, on the very long term, we may get into serious trouble due to global warming, but that's not exactly something you can lay at the feet of feminism.

>> No.19508724

My God he actually believes this. I'm a liberal and I think you're full of shit. Here's a shocker - for the most part, conservatives are just PEOPLE WHO HAPPEN TO HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW ON THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT. Oh God, not differences of opinion in a democratic society!

>That being said, the current leaders of American conservatism seem less and less like true conservatives.

>> No.19508728

And what's your feelings on biotech? Or artificial intelligence? Are you okay with humans grafting themselves with new members, adapting themselves to space, optimizing their metabolism or becoming "artificially" more intelligent? Maybe you're fine with what you already have, but does that mean you'll be fine with what's to come?

>> No.19508731

I bet you're one of those annoying atheists.

>> No.19508737


Considering we're comparing now to an age of rampant plague, death before your 50s for most of the poor, vestiges of slavery, oppression, violence against one's spouse, education only for the wealthy and only for the male, and many other things, then...yeah?

Granted, if we continue doing a lot of things like we are (hi natural resources) its going to go from great to worse than ever before.

>> No.19508738

I've actually seen somebody make that exact argument.

>> No.19508748

I bet you're an idiot/sociopath.

I dare you to prove me wrong with some form of novel argument.

>> No.19508751

On the other hand, way the fuck better hats, awesome mustaches, and a society in which dueling is not only socially acceptable but socially praiseworthy.

>> No.19508754


It's not name-calling, it's recognizing the ideological source of a statement.

>> No.19508761

Why should I? The burden of proof lies on you, this is arguing 101.

>> No.19508770

I'm nearly as left as can be, and fuck me, you're fucking retarded. I won't ever bother with your arguments, but just so you know, there are actual studies made on why people lean towards progressivism or conservatism and they don't really agree with what you're saying.

>> No.19508781

It's not, in itself, an argument, although it presents itself as such ("you can discard his opinion, it's marxism").

>> No.19508792


Actually in the time period that the guy is arguing for being 'better' dueling was outlawed except in places like France. He's talking mostly turn of the century 1800s and 1700s, I believe. Dueling was illegal in many places at that time.

You are correct about hats and mustaches though.

>> No.19508793


All you've been doing this entire time is name-calling. Every time someone disagrees with you, you insult them rather than argue. Are you trolling, bro?

>> No.19508795

You're arguing with a conservative, you realize that, right? They literally think half of those things are positive aspects of society. Thus demonstrating they have zero empathy or don't know shit about history.

You guys see where I'm going with this, I'm sure, but I'm going to keep pointing it out until everyone understands: conservative ideology requires psychopathy or idiocy to survive.

>> No.19508798

It's not science when it doesn't agree with my stupid fucking opinions, you sociopath conservative dumb meanie person!

>> No.19508811


>you can discard his opinion, it's marxism
Well, Marxists did murder a hundred million people.....
I sympathize with trepidacious ones.

>> No.19508817

Dueling was nominally outlawed in France and Great Britain in those time periods, but it was almost never enforced. In Russia, dueling persisted until the 20th century. In any case, winning a duel would have earned you a good reputation (as long as the duel was justly fought on your part).

>> No.19508820


At the very least can we all agree that this tripfag is an idiot

I think both sides can admit to that

>> No.19508822

Yes. Yes he is.

>> No.19508825


You're just spouting off sensationalist phrases like "oppression" (even though they had a free market with actual legal rights, unlike this mess Obama and Bush have created) and "violence against one's spouse"(still happens today)

>> No.19508843


To an extent, yes.

There's a difference between gratuitous "damsel in distress" and a real (female) character in a real predicament. Case in point: Triumph of Ferocity. That image, in context, makes total sense to me. Garruk would beat the ever-loving hell out of Liliana if he got his hands on her. There is no way to completely eliminate it across the board and still be fair. It paints women in a clearly dominant light when most people would be all right with a balance. It's white knighting at it's purest.

That's not to say, though, that I don't understand why Wizards does it: they want to sell cards. If they can get the "womyn" into the shop to blow paper on their cardboard, then they're more than comfortable promoting this imbalance. The men who play the game will continue to do so, in my opinion, because they're either already fully addicted to the game or they don't care about the politics.

>> No.19508844

You're not talking about plague. Because really, that's the only thing that is actually better than before.

>> No.19508846

I think the oppression he might have been referring to is the fact that it was legal to own other human beings. Or maybe he was talking about the fact that society was ruled by a nobility and social mobility was low to non-existent.

>> No.19508847

God, conservatives make it too fucking easy.

Damn people, you don't need to advertise your stupidity all day. Give 4chan a rest for a while, maybe surf the Drudge Report.

>> No.19508859

Actually, most of the achievements were due to the use of technology and factories to multiply the productivity of your workers. The poor crushing certainly happened, the rest of the world was certainly mined for anything valuable and women weren't allowed political power, but that wasn't the cause of the massive growth that occurred with the Industrial revolution.

>> No.19508860

And Nazi Germany encouraged women to stay at home and have lots of kids. Let's stick to addressing the actual arguments.

>> No.19508865

>I think the oppression he might have been referring to is the fact that it was legal to own other human beings.
At least they were honest back then.

>> No.19508870

I'm not name calling, I'm pointing out why conservatism results from defects in someone's character by using examples present in these arguments.

For example, your inability to recognize what I'm doing is a perfect example of stupidity. Or more formally, your probably have a low IQ or just poor reasoning skills.

>> No.19508881


He included "vestiges of slavery" in there. But remember that Slavery was outlawed in that era; you can't universally blame 19th century society for it.

And about the nobility, you're thinking of the middle ages. You forget the rise of the middle class and the Industrial revolution allowed people not of noble blood to rise to the top through the free market.

>> No.19508883

Stalinism is called Stalinism because it was not Marxism (Marxism is unrealizable).

>> No.19508886


Keep it on topic and don't resort to personal attacks. It hurts your credibility more than it hurts that of anybody else.

>> No.19508887

For the love of God, take it to /pol/. Fucking Summerfags can't even into board-appropriate topics...

Saging to get this abomination out of my goddamn sight.

>> No.19508895

You're not pointing out flaws at anything, dude. You're just insulting them. Good show. Thanks, but we could do without you.

>> No.19508899


Oppression isn't a sensationalist phrase. I'm sorry you think it is, because you must really believe that.

However, it also isn't something that didn't happen. Just because there 'was' a Free Market didn't make it so. Nor did those workers have the legal rights you believe they did. There's a reason they had to fight for them, or even for the right to establish a minimum / working wage.

People are and were oppressed. The thing is, today that oppression is generally discovered more readily and, sometimes, dealt with. Other times, it isn't.

As for spousal abuse, yes, it still occurs today. However, there are also repercussions for it today, unlike back then.

>> No.19508911

You haven't actually posted anything of substance, I searched for your posts and they're just baseless claims and insults.

>> No.19508912

>As for spousal abuse, yes, it still occurs today. However, there are also repercussions for it today, unlike back then.
Well, there were. But they were usually more informal, less fair, and pretty random.

>> No.19508931


Spousal abuse was a crime back then.

And minimum wage is antithetical to a free market. It is not a right, it restricts the hiring policies of businesses. By rights I mean the ones that are trampled on nowadays: the right to resist false arrest, the right to own any type of firearm without the government's knowledge or licensing, the right to not have one's private conversations spied on without a warrant.

>> No.19508942

Yes, except that machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism are all connected to conservatism.


And IQ and political leanings are also correlated.


Whether or not they are directly or indirectly related is up for debate, of course, but the science seems to be against you.

>> No.19508946

Sexism in traditional games is a board-related topic, even if it requires people to bring in broader issues. Also, it's not like you can have intelligent conversations on /pol/. (Not that /tg/ is much better, but at least you *can* say something positive about sexism here.)

>> No.19508950

>And minimum wage is antithetical to a free market.
Good thing the free market is pretty much only supported by people on the Internet nowadays then.

>> No.19508956

Yes, it really robs the magic of the art, that being said, magic art has been on the decline since Lorwyn anyway.

>> No.19508960


The American people believe in the Free Market. Unfortunately, they are being spat on at every turn by every institution of society.

>> No.19508967

Also, do I get some special prize for being the only one to back up their statements thus far? Because as far as the rest of this thread is considered, the arguments have been baseless (although some coming from the left have been substantiated by common knowledge).

>> No.19508970

I was talking about actual science, not psycho/sociology.

>> No.19508974

>And minimum wage is antithetical to a free market. It is not a right, it restricts the hiring policies of businesses.
In the industrial revolution, it lead to an entire population of workers being paid just enough to survive (if you don't fall ill or suffer some other misfortune) and not one cent more, with no incentive to chance this until worker revolts. I like to think our society is a little more pleasant to live in than that, free market or not.

>> No.19508984

*no incentive to change

>> No.19508987

>The American people believe in the Free Market.
Really? Somehow I don't think they are. I think they're for other people building the roads they're using, then not pay the taxes that keep the roads usable. Like everybody else, ever, in the world.

>> No.19508990

Actually, a wholly free market cannot function - it is self defeating. The one thing you absolutely need to have a free market is anti-trust legislation, because otherwise a monopoly will inevitably arise that will crush other competition and establish pricing and practices that aren't in line with supply and demand. Hence, some government intervention is markets is necessary if you believe that free markets are necessary. The ideal conservative state, however, would essentially stop at anti-trust laws.

>> No.19508995


They were poor to begin with. Their countries had just come out of the Middle Ages. They worked in factories at subsistence wages, but if they went back to their farms, they would be subsistence farmers. Life was hard already, but it got easier as the gradual wealth of society increased over time.

>> No.19508998

This stopped being about that a LONG time ago.

Assholes arguing politics, take it to fucking /pol/.

Saging still because this thread has become an unholy abomination.

>> No.19508999


It was a crime with very little criminal reperucssions; were one to beat one's wife sparingly, it was considered your right and at times a duty as a husband.

However we're also globetrotting and picking and choosing.

While minimum wage is not a 'right,' it also protects people by allowing them to earn something that will allow them to survive; consider that for the majority of people earning it, they are either students working through school, or people working to feed a family.

Were it to be abolished, you would have businesses that would pay what they felt was fair--that doesn't mean it is fair, nor does it mean it would be anything that would allow people to survive. I'd like to believe that maybe it would be, but with the way that businesses and corporations conduct themselves, it would likely just be the death of many worker's ability to obtain income.

It also reminds me of when the 'Free Market' forced Jamaica to accept powdered milk from the US and Europe, which singlehandedly destroyed Jamaica's own native dairy production. That's not free, nor fair. Instead, people lost livelihoods and became dependent on a product that was sold first at 10c, then jumped to dollars once the dairy farms were shut down and rendered unable to ever operate again at a profit.

Marx would likely agree with your idea of a free market, because it means a free worker--a person who can manage their own destiny and earn a wage they deserve, that is fair. However, like Marxism (and not Leninism / Stalinism, as noted), that's more than likely a fairy tale that's untenable.

>> No.19509013

Nope. You hold a double standard. Nothing to do with hypocrisy.

>> No.19509028

Well, the Free Market would be a good idea if travel was instantaneous and didn't necesitate resources, since you could effectively join whichever entreprise actually giving fair pay.

>> No.19509029


Of course not. The "professionals" from the links you posted are a sociologist and an economist. If it were a neurologist, psychologist, or somebody with some manner of insight into the actual workings of the human mind, I might be inclined.

What is at work in your sources is pattern recognition, and you know what they say about statistics: Use the right ones, and you can prove Rhode Island is bigger than Alaska.

>> No.19509030

Oh, I'm sorry, you want me to cite studies regarding people's personality traits and IQs yet have it published in a physics journal? We're talking about politics anyways, sociology and psychology are the firmest grounds you have, otherwise you *are* talking about baseless unsubstantiated shit.

Besides, the methodology in both fields has improved significantly over the past 50 years. Both fields are doing wonderfully now.

>> No.19509047

>a science

>> No.19509050


Again: Your referenced professionals are a philosopher/sociologist and an economist.

>> No.19509053

But there *was* wealth in that society, wealth enough that those people wouldn't *have* to be paid survival wages. But it was in the hands of a tiny minority whose main hobby was eating ten-course dinner and cursing their gout. It got much more pleasant to live in England when laws were put in place to protect workers.

>> No.19509058

Psychology, Economics, Sociology, things like that, none of them are sciences. They're pseudo-science. They don't have models, they don't have theories, they have hypotheses. Hypotheses that aren't testable, nor falsifiable. Hence, not science.

>> No.19509077

So all of the arguments against the link I've posted have been flippant remarks about the fields of study rather than actually coping with the trends and correlations they expose.

I figured there'd be this level of flat out denial.

>> No.19509089

BAM. You tell those fuckin' economists where they stand. Oh, that hurts your feelings? TOUGH SHIT.

Hard science out.

>> No.19509105

>They don't have models, they don't have theories, they have hypotheses. Hypotheses that aren't testable, nor falsifiable.

This is the biggest lie I have ever heard in my life.

>> No.19509106

>what do you mean astrology is horseshit? It can't be wrong if it proves me right!

>> No.19509109

>I know because I heard my engineering friends make hollow unsubstantiated jokes about those fields.

>Tested hypothesis in one of my cited articles.

Are you even literate?

>> No.19509121

Trying to argue on the basis of sociological studies is like arguing about a Weekly World News or Daily Mail article. Why the fuck would we stoop that low? I'm an atheist, I'm not going to argue with a believer whether or not God exists, the point is that it is IRRELEVANT.

>> No.19509135

>comparing sociology with astrology

You are completely ignorant. Sociological studies are set up in the exact same way as any other science. A Hypothesis is formed, tested and then reviewed by it's peers and retested.

The fact that you just have absolutely no idea how sociology is studied shows you have no right to be saying what you're saying.

>> No.19509144

>Implying astrology provides reproducible results.
>Implying my studies didn't provide reproducible results.

Want to conduct science instead of bitching about it? How about you analyze the studies for flaws in their methodology or try and get the tests repeated?

Oh, sorry, doing either would require you actually conduct science.

>> No.19509164

Well now this thread is just stupid.

>> No.19509169

Really? I wonder how you can isolate a human being from his cultural environment to study his behaviour. Neuro-psychologists (actual scientists) has discovered than even vision is determined by culture. Go on. Do explain to me how the hell you intend to make "psychological studies" that aren't worth shit.

>> No.19509184


Flame on, summerfag. Flame on.

>> No.19509189

>implying sociology is a science
I know what I'm talking about, I'm a mathematician.

>> No.19509200

Forgot my image!

>> No.19509227


Uh the exact same way as every other science. Re-testable hypothesis.

If the results can't be reproduced then the hypothesis is flawed and needs to be re-examined.

This is elementary science and you're just not getting it.

>> No.19509244

Wow, you're a mathematician. I'm an astronomer if we're dropping credentials. There's more of an argument that math isn't a science than sociology and psychology since math doesn't typically deal with observation.

>> No.19509248

Mathematics isn't a science, so what do you know.

>> No.19509266

Get a load of these autists!

>> No.19509284


Go back to your Sudoku puzzles.

>> No.19509294

>math doesn't typically deal with observation.
But it does.

>> No.19509310

go back to the tripfag daft, your gay lover

lmao you're such a homo

>> No.19509363

Math doesn't typically deal with reality. It can be used by other disciplines as a tool to observe reality though.

>> No.19509537

Not the same guy, but the point you're replying to is that those hypotheses can't really be tested, because it's impossible to establish proper controls.

>> No.19511392

mathematical axioms are true by convention

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.