43
44

"An Apology" by Cedric Phillips (starcitygames.com)

THECrew42 が 投稿

全 143 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]jadoth 21ポイント22ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't understand how scg didn't see this coming a mile away.

[–]andelys2 31ポイント32ポイント  (2子コメント)

Cedric's pretty great.

Not coming down on either side of the article, its clear Cedric did use the tools he had available to him to evaluate its acceptability, and he acted on those results. I really cant fault him for that. Mistakes happen especially when dealing with material like this and i appreciate his willingness to publish content on the subject.

I appreciate the openness of the apology and I appreciate the work that went into checking the article before it was published. Cedric's a smart and hard working dude and magic as a whole is better for it.

[–]TjTheProphet 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Cedric is definitely a cool cat. I met him at on open once, he seemed pretty chill.

[–]RELcat 9ポイント10ポイント  (20子コメント)

What follows is an honest attempt to grasp the situation both here and in the world. I know nothing, if I am ignorant please just correct me with thoughtful reply, I am very open to the idea that I am ignorant.

Based on the comments to this article, it seems like the major disagreement that people have is whether it is more important that

A) The Visibility of Magic Represent Genders Equally.

or

B) The Process by Which People Become Visible in the Magic Treat Genders Equally.

So I think the issue on all of this is really, in an "ideal world", what would we expect the representation of women in Competitive Magic to be, as a general portion of the field? I am not denying that there are negative social attitudes going on, there are certainly men out there who are pretty toxic or ignorant with regards to women (I can only hope for the sake of my wife and daughter that I am not one of them), but it feels like there's a lot of more complicated stuff going on here that isn't unique to Magic.

Women are under-represented in Science and Math, for example. Now I know plenty of women Scientists that are a heck of a lot smarter than me, but this is a real statistic, and I can't help but feel that whatever is going on with it is related to what's going on with Competitive Magic, and I can't really grasp this recent SCG blow-up without a better grasp on it.

So, assuming this may be somewhat analogous, why ARE women under-represented in Science and Math? (Really, I don't mean this rhetorically, I'm legitimately asking, and I feel like this is a related question and this issue is more than just a Magic thing)

Is it just a cultural thing where we don't encourage them enough?

Are women less prone to be interested in these endeavors, meaning that in a world with no systematic bias we would still see them 'under'-represented?

Does the neurochemistry of a woman's brain have any correlation with what aspects of intelligence are most manifest or does gender not affect the distribution of various forms of intelligence at all? (Analytical, Emotional, Spatial, Etc)

Maybe it's because the men are already there due to historical inequities and being in a gender minority is innately discouraging?

I legitimately don't know the answer here, so if someone could explain to me why women are under-represented in Science and Math, I feel like only than can I really start to form an opinion on whether or not Davis' original argument was ignorant or on the money, because it seems like people are diverging on some assumptions related to these very questions.

[–]RidiculousIncarnate 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Women are under-represented in Science and Math

I really, really despise this statement because at best it is disingenuous to the endgame of the discussion.

I'd lay down money that they are also under-represented in extremely hazardous jobs as well. So where is the campaign to get them more involved? My father has worked in Custodial/Janitorial services most of his life and is currently the head custodian for a school. You know how many women he's worked with in that field over the last 30+ years? Less than 5 last I talked to him.

So again, should we be cheerleading women to up their representation in those jobs?

Ah, right, it's not as glamorous to tell girls that they should do the dirty work and it certainly doesn't get that delicious clickbait money to talk about how women are underrepresented in the Waste Disposal departments around the country.

Instead we talk about how hobby communities, STEM fields and corporate work places need better female representation.

why ARE women under-represented

I can tell you right now the most popular answers you're going to get are going to include the words sexism, misogyny, patriarchy/boys club or variations on that theme. Why? Because the hobby has traditionally been dominated by men, so its the easiest thing to point to as the main reason we dont see more women.

Personally I would say the reason is a little closer to the fact that communities take a long time to change for many, many reasons. The perception of a given community from the outside heavily influences who will make the effort to join. This takes a long time to change and it can have its own negative effects inside the community as well which makes it harder for new demographics to emerge. I'd say MTG is doing just fine, its slow, but it's happening. Albeit the lack of instant gratification upsets people.

On top of that, whether we like to admit it or not, we as children are influenced to enjoy certain things and even more relevant than that is there are now studies that show children of either gender are shown to be interested in "gender appropriate" things at ages where they are too young to have been influenced by society.

That argument could rage on until the heat death of the universe and I'm not interested in really getting into it here but the fact is that we really don't know what drives men and women to enjoy the things we do. Although you will find no shortage of people who are willing to tell you that not only do they know why they will also tell you how to fix it regardless of whether or not they are an authority of any stripe. The same goes for me, although I try to minimize it the best I can.

As far as the articles go, I want to point a couple things out.

If Meghan's article was fine to be published then why not Jim's? Because he questioned the accuracy or Meghan's assertions and offered other possible solutions?

Davis was not mean, he was not petty, he did not insult her. So why did this require a removal and an apology from the editor who approved the story? They are treating this like an international incident, something that could cost SCG dearly. Why is an opposing point of view treated like this?

I have my own ideas, I'll leave you to form your own.

I've already commented about Meghan's article but I'm just gonna bring up my biggest problem with it.

At the end of her article she has a couple headings, the first of which is "A Few Suggestions".

One of the best ways we can make competitive Magic a more welcoming place for women is by increasing female visibility, and we can do this by supporting and amplifying women's voices in the Magic community. This is by no means a comprehensive list, so please let me know of any voices I'm missing.

After that she vomits a list of female MTG players and nothing else. Why does this irk me, you ask? Because all this says is that I should subscribe to their content because of the way their genitals are configured. She says nothing about who they are, what they do, what they talk about or reasons why I should go and spend my time consuming their content instead of the people I already subscribe to.

Like Davis' article pointed out, this has nothing to do with their merit in the hobby of MTG but rather that people like Meghan are so desperate to "Even the Scales" and meet some arbitrary percentage of vaginas to penises that it doesn't matter how they do it, just that it is done.

For this reason alone I think it undermines any possible merit their argument has because this is inherently unhealthy for competitive communities.

Competition is about one thing, ONE THING and that is the merit of being at the top. If someone can be slotted into a prestigious position based on nothing more than their gender, then why even bother?

Now on the other hand TheProfessor did a community spotlight video in which he explains why he thinks these women deserved a portion of our sparse free time. I didn't go and check out their stuff because they were women, I went and watched because someone I trust told me that they were worth my time.

This is already going on quite long so I'm gonna skip a couple things and go right to the bottom of Wolff's article. The final section, Be A Cheerleader.

Encourage kitchen-table or casual players you know to give the competitive world a try. Acknowledge that, because of the issues outlined above, this may be difficult or daunting but, if competition is something they're interested in, it's a challenge that's worth it. Support them when they encounter negativity, and remind them that the good outweighs the bad.

You know what scares people away from trying something as nervewracking as a competition on the scale of a GP? Telling them in advance that they are likely to be harassed and girlfriendified (Or whatever the fuck that word was.), under-represented and generally ignored.

HAVE FUN!

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck that. Why would I want to go to a place like that? Why should they? When you talk at length, without specific proof I might add, how toxic and unwelcoming the MTG community is, you know what happens? People start to believe the press. If I was a young female MTG player and read Meghan's article, you know what I'd think?

"Well, that sucks. Guess I'll just stay at the kitchen table with my friends instead of dealing with all that at the LGS/GP/PRO Tour."

Some success, eh?

Lastly, this is one of the things that I think does the most harm out of all of this. Meghan and others who have written these articles, talked on podcasts at length or made youtube videos about it have a habit of treating female MTG players as "Other".

They treat them as a demographic who wants, nay NEEDS to be treated differently in order for them to fully integrate into the MTG community.

Can you see why that is harmful? They are not "Other" they are not different and they are not special and those articles demand that they are afforded special treatment and that we make room for them to get comfortable. A treatment that I can assure you, the majority of MTG players never received.

We'll end with a final quote from Meghan -

Star City Games® structures their articles to use “you” and “they” when talking about both their audience and the competitive field, while other writers like Reid Duke use feminine pronouns for hypothetical opponents. Video creators such as Sam Black and LSV use “my opponent” when facing an unknown player on MTGO, and Cardboard Crack features many ponytailed players in its comics. These small changes in the digital world go a long way towards making space for and acknowledging women in real-world competitive Magic.

If this is what is keeping you as an individual out of competitive magic then well... I'm out of ideas.

Sorry about the ramble, hopefully you get something out of it.

EDIT: One last point, if you think you are going to get balanced and nuance discussion in this sub on anything other than the minutae of magic, I would look elsewhere. As evidenced by the fact that my two responses in this thread are less than three minutes old and both downvoted as a way of disagreeing.

Dissent is not appreciated and this is how things will fail to change.

EDIT2: Naturally when I'm feeling cranky about the penchant for disagreement votes here you folks make me look like a dick. Thanks:) Always happy to be proved wrong.

[–]xdstyr 2ポイント3ポイント  (12子コメント)

In response to your Women in STEM. Science departments in colleges have a 2:1 hiring preference of Women to men. In a Nordic country they will periodically offer more money for women to go into STEM and after a certain period of level it will drop back down to the same numbers as before the funding. So based on this it is safe to assume that women in general do not prefer to go into STEM fields and would rather be doing something else.

I personally believe that the lack of Women in competitive magic is more due to sexual dimorphism than anything else. Men are hardwired for competition while women are more social as a whole.

I believe we should see if we can get a study commisioned into whether or not this hypothesis is accurate we could more accurately gauge the state of Women in competitive magic and the casual magic scene.

(Sorry for a lack of specifics I looked for the study but I couldn't find it.)

[–]EFroPoker 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do you care about the fact that when you "personally believe the lack of women is more due..." is factually inaccurate? Or are you just posting an opinion that you hope is right? "Men are hardwired for competition and women are more social" is just...well, let's say that it's inaccurate and cut it off there.

[–]Format137_BossMode 9ポイント10ポイント  (8子コメント)

Women are not innately less competitive then men. They are not innately worse at stem fields. There are no studies that are unbiased that show this.

There is cultural conditioning to push them out of stem fields, to discourage competition. That has zero to do with genetics and is completely about how society continues to push, subtley and unsubtley, gender roles.

[–]TreeRol 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

And unfortunately, in the USA at least, any attempt to counteract this cultural conditioning is met with cries of "reverse discrimination" or "white knight" or "who's the REAL sexist here?"

The problem will never get solved as long as those ridiculous conclusions are prevalent.

[–]squirrelinmygarret 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't know about you but in my community I see an overwhelming majority of young girls and adolescent girls competing in a variety of activities whether it be sports or debate or any other extra curricular activity. My niece for example does karate and when she didn't qualify for her black belt she was devastated but we told her to learn from it and do better and she will succeed.

There are an overwhelming majority of parents and adults who care about these kids and push them to be competitive. I think the problem is, nerd culture appeals mainly to men. I think there have been great strides in getting women interested in fantasy and sci-fi and I thinks that's awesome. However you are going to have to accept that change in perception from women will not come overnight. Right now Magic just isn't as popular with women as it is men. It's just that simple and wotc is trying to get more women involved and that is also awesome. The more people that play this game the better as far as I am concerned.

It's not inequality that drives women away from Magic it's lack of interest. It's OK that boys like cars and girls like dolls and it's also OK if some boys like dolls and some girls like cars. You can't shoehorn every woman into one catigory just like you can't do the same for men.

Certainly women who play Magic should be respected and where I come from that is the case and if I see that isn't the case and the woman can't stand up for herself damn right I'm going to defend her not because poor little Suzy can't take care of herself because she's a woman but because I would do the same for anyone of you regardless of race, creed or gender.

[–]bengland -4ポイント-3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Do you have unbiased studies to show this? Seems doubtful.

[–]Format137_BossMode 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, because to get a proper study you'd have to take hundreds of babies away from parents to raise them in specific ways. Unless a horrible government somewhere does that, you cannot at all claim "women are naturally less competitive". You cannot pull societal factors from genetic factors.

[–]fuqyu 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In your post above this, you definitively stated that women aren't innately less competitive than men, yet you then say there are no studies to prove it one way or the other. I think it's unfair to automatically rule out the possibility that women ARE wired differently than men just because, you know, equality. People seem to forget that being equal and being the same are completely different things. Do I feel that our culture pushes women away from scientific fields and competitive attitudes? Absolutely. Does that mean that women in general have the same propensity towards those activities as men? Absolutely not. I am not definitively saying that women are genetically less inclined to competitive activities, I am just saying it is erroneous to dismiss the possibility. I really would like to see a good study on this produced, because it is a question I have wondered about for a long time.

One thing we as male Magic players do need to keep in mind is that, male or female, whoever sits across from us is probably just as interested in beating you as you are them. Just because a gender may tend towards one particular end of the spectrum does not mean that all people of said gender conform to that stereotype.

[–]SarahPMe -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

They are not innately worse at stem fields. There are no studies that are unbiased that show this.

Out of curiosity, are there any unbiased studies that show the opposite? That investigate this to any meaningful conclusions whatsoever? You state it like a fact but I'm still unaware of any definitive conclusion whatsoever, and I don't see why either would be the null assumption.

(For the record, I'm a woman in a STEM field)

[–]Umutuku 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Professional Mechanical? Saw the username and had to ask haha.

[–]diabloblanco 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think what your example shows is that money is not a factor when trying to recruit women, not that women are not interested. Money may be a factor for men, but it is not as much one for women.

[–]elconquistador1985 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

lack of Women in competitive magic is more due to sexual dimorphism

No, it's not sexual dimorphism. It's the social expectations we have for what boys should do and what girls should do leads to boys doing what we think boys should do and girls doing what we think girls should do.

Your statement is identical to the statement that someone who can't throw a baseball "throws like a girl". No, they don't "throw like a girl". They throw like someone who hasn't been trained to throw. And, in general, girls aren't trained to throw in the same way that boys are. This leads to the idea that most boys can throw, most girls can't, and people who can't therefore "throw like a girl". It's not sexual dimorphism, it's society's expectations.

The lack of women in Magic has everything to do with the social idea that girls shouldn't play nerdy boys games. Society says girls should be cheerleading, playing dress up, and learning how to cook. It's purely a social construct, not sexual fucking dimorphism.

There is absolutely no innate biological reason for women to not be as successful at competitive games as men. It's ridiculous to imply that's the case.

[–]Kidror 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

This is the real thing that needs to be discussed, and more importantly how to fix/stop the things causing the lack of representation.

Also for reference 38% of magic players are female (Source: MaRos Blog ), so at a GP approximately 38% of the field should be female, the same at LGS's too. So what we have to question is what is causing the disparity between % of magic players who are female, and % of magic players who are female who attend GPs/LGSs. I could probably go on for a while about probable causes but I don't really have time to write an essay.

[–]TheBroccoliPlot 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I would be curious to see how they came to that number, namely their threshold for what constitutes a magic player.

[–]TuesdayRB 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd also be curious to know why it's a problem that different individuals choose to spend their free time in different ways.

I know plenty of magic players, men and women, who do not find the competitive circuits appealing. Perhaps WotC could do something about the fact that playing magic nonstop for a full day is somewhat uncomfortable and mentally exhausting for just about everyone.

[–]SarahPMe 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I have to 100% agree here too - we need to understand the problem before we can talk about the solution.

Here's the dilemma as I see it, and for the record, I am a woman, and am actually IN a scientific field (although not Biology, which may be important). At a brag, I consider myself smarter than most people, although I obviously don't have the most objective view on that so take it with a grain of salt.

I have long labored under the assumption that, at the end of the day, all of the bias I've encountered in my life aside, there is a reasonable probability - just based on observation - that there is SOME correlation between female genetics and analytical intelligence (nothing that should induce bias or prejudice, but that represents SOME factor). That if you were to simplify analytical intelligence (which is just one particular KIND of intelligence, mind you) to a one-dimensional variable, and were to line up the curve for Men and Women, that what you would see would not be a mirror image.

Now, I know how many people may take what I just said, and I could entirely be wrong, but we need to talk about each other's assumptions here if we're going to resolve this issue, even if we find them ugly, and these are mine. Bear in mind, however, THAT I AM A WOMAN and I consider myself "SMARTER" than most men (and women) that I know outside of a professional context. I am not attempting to promote social prejudice here, I do not think you can predict someone's analytical intelligence based on their gender, I'm simply saying I don't know if the effect of gender on this question is a perfect net neutral.

The relevant point here is that this quiet assumption that I have in the back of my head has never been directly countered by any hard science of which I am aware (maybe it exists and just needs to be more widespread, but I know of it not).

So, let's say I'm either RIGHT about this or WRONG.

If I'm RIGHT, I'm going to object to you giving me "special treatment" just because I'm a woman. (This is my current feeling on the matter, although it is not adamant) You can then point out that women aren't well represented in something like Magic the Gathering, to which I respond that that's not a justification for treating me with 'kid gloves', because in an ideal world women still wouldn't represent 50% of the field. You might call my reasoning sexist because I'm correlating being female with inhibited analytical ability so you'd dismiss my view (since we've all been programmed to reject prejudice immediately based on our history of abusing each other with it), and I'd be offended that you insisted that it wasn't reasonable that I might be exceptional enough not to need your assistance. WE MAKE NO PROGRESS.

If I'm WRONG, then I'm passively accepting a sexist status-quo and, because I will see the situation as the former. You can try to help me out by helping me overcome these invisible barriers, but I will be the hardest person in the world to help because by giving me the hand up I will feel like you're insulting me by defining me by a characteristic that I don't consider relevant, but I see you as associating with assumptions about my PERSONAL intelligence (which may have little to do with whatever gender I happen to be). WE MAKE NO PROGRESS

Frankly, I would argue that there is nothing we can do that is objectively helpful in resolving this problem until we investigate and probe WHY the disparity exists in the first place.

So yes, 100%. Both of the SCG Articles jumped the gun.

Step 1: Explain to me (and everyone else that doesn't have hard science on this stuff) WHY the disparity exists, and whether or not women (on AVERAGE, I am a Woman and I love Magic) are even as apt to participate in COMPETITIVE games of analytical intelligence as much as men.

Tl;dr - I feel like a long time ago in reaction to some serious ugly bigotry and oppression we all jumped on board the "no prejudice" band-wagon, and I feel like we forgot to come to mutual agreement and understanding of what biological and social differences race and gender actually constitute first, and like it or not I don't think we're going to resolve issues like this until we do.

I could easily be wrong about all of this. There is a VERY strong chance that I have simply fallen victim to a sexist cultural mindset that I have absorbed about my own gender's average ability in complex reasoning. But the alarming thing should be that no one has EVER presented me with solid science to the contrary!

Until someone does, I'm going to be slightly insulted at that "helping hand".

[–]Karmaze -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Step 1: Explain to me (and everyone else that doesn't have hard science on this stuff) WHY the disparity exists, and whether or not women (on AVERAGE, I am a Woman and I love Magic) are even as apt to participate in COMPETITIVE games of analytical intelligence as much as men.

Let me give you my theory. There's a LOT of social pressure put on woman to reach and maintain a high social status....not all women are vulnerable to this, of course, some reject it out of hand (I'm going to assume that you're one of these people, more or less). Magic, like most other similar pastimes/hobbies, is one of a relatively low social status. This is a MASSIVE barrier of entry for doing these things "in public", I.E. in a competitive setting.

In reality it's probably caused by a combination of these things...some sort of gender dimorphism as you mention, the whole social status thing (Toxic Femininity) and the environment that's often created for women...not just in Magic but our society at large because of gender roles and how we're expected to find romantic partners.

For what it's worth I fully support kicking the tires, putting a few women on air and see what happens. I just am not convinced that it's going to result in any sort of meaningful change, although I'd be happy to be wrong.

But I think people need to come to an understanding that most of this stuff is WAY beyond all of our pay grade, and we can only nibble around the edges. People are not going to get their dream of 50/50 representation to be able to show off how progressive they are.

[–]RidiculousIncarnate -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also for reference 38% of magic players are female (Source: MaRo's blog), so at a GP approximately 38% of the field should be female, the same at LGS's too.

This is absolutely a thousand times false and I really wish people would stop saying this like its the concrete truth.

Representation in one area of any field does NOT automatically mean that it will be the same across all areas.

Take a look at gaming for instance. Over the last year or two we've seen stories that now women make up more of the "gaming" market than men.

On the face of it, that statistic is true, but then you go and look at the number of Pro Gamers in any given situation. What do you see? Mainly men.

So then we go back to the statistic that tells us there are more female gamers now than men in an effort to discover why the discrepancy and we see it immediately.

Women only make up a larger percentage of gamers when you take into account MOBILE games and things like Facebook games otherwise they are very much a minority in the "hardcore" gaming market. Although they certainly make up a much larger part than they have in the past. This can be attributed to many things although personally I lean towards it being the general fact that Gaming as a hobby is far, far more accepted than it was 20-25 years ago.

We can argue until we are blue in the face about what constitutes a "gamer" but the fact is that the people who go on to compete in pro tournaments are NOT people that spend the majority of their time playing Kim Kardashians mobile game, Candy Crush or Farmville.

The obvious fucking problem with MaRo's statistic is that he did not, for whatever reason, publish the study itself so that we can actually see how they arrived at that breakdown of MTG players.

It's relevant because we need to know who they are counting as players and how they answered that survey. If %25 of those 38 play MTGO or DotP then I would say its probably fairly obvious why those players never make the jump into serious competitive magic. Not to mention the whole HOST of other criteria that make have skewed that study.

All we have is that goddamn %38 number and ABSOLUTELY NO CONTEXT WITH WHICH TO APPLY IT TO THE MTG COMMUNITY.

Therefore it is BEYOND useless when discussing the representation of women in magic.

[–]Cynooo[🍰] 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

The amount of comments that I read, both here and on SCG, that state that one side of this debate is objectively wrong, is just disgusting.

[–]hippomancy 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

...that's what a debate is. Each side denies that there is any debate to be had because they are correct. One perspective says that women in magic is a nonissue, the other side says that they are objectively wrong. Both sides are dismissive.

[–]barrinmw 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think that is how debate really goes. I think in a real debate, you acknowledge your opponents point and explain why logically, they are wrong or your way is better.

[–]391835 46ポイント47ポイント  (12子コメント)

This whole incident just reeks of corporate political correctness and trying to cover their ass so they don't get caught up in a "controversy." Phillips is apologizing for publishing an article because it didn't "further Meghan Wolff's message." Is that really a good reason to take down an article? Because it disagreed with another article and because people in the comments were upset?

Now that the article is down, instead of having two reasonable but different viewpoints and an interesting discussion led by published articles, we have one article and a corporate apology due to morally outraged morons in the comment section.

How is this productive to making Magic welcoming for women?

[–]Regelope 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

I didn't read the second article, what was so controversial about it?

Edit: read the article, still not seeing the controversy

[–]ChaosAintMe 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

On the one hand, it's good to have a public discussion on these matters. And a proper discussion will involve opposing viewpoints exchanged in a respectful manner.

However, I can completely sympathize with SCG's decision to drop the article as they feel the main thrust of the piece doesn't represent the companies viewpoint or what they wish to represent. It's completely okay for them to do that. If Jim really wants, he can put the article up somewhere else.

But most of all this required a better editing job. That is what they should be apologizing for. I was shocked the South Park flag image got through editing.

[–]Bacchus87 15ポイント16ポイント  (7子コメント)

This is the problem people have with modern feminism in the first place, any opposing views get shouted down. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the piece, it's an argument that should be aired, it doesn't help women in magic for any criticism to be censored, just argue your counter point. Discussion being stifled isn't going to help anyone.

[–]THECrew42[S] 8ポイント9ポイント  (6子コメント)

I don't really think it's contained to only modern feminism, but I understand your point. This is how people react to things now, and it's been going on for a while.

[–]Rotiart 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

This is how people have been dealing with things for the entirety of human existence. We laud what we support and decry what we don't. There is nothing new happening here, you are just on the wrong side of it.

Edit: The last part of my comment was a mistake, see below.

[–]THECrew42[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

What do you mean, I'm on the wrong side of it?

[–]Rotiart 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Apologies, I conflated your comment with part of another one. That sentence should have been removed.

[–]THECrew42[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Okay, thanks for the apology. I didn't want to be portrayed supporting something I don't, so I was a little concerned about my portrayal.

[–]Rotiart 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I left the screw up in my edit of the post, as I didn't want to hide my mistake. If you would like it edited out in total I will go ahead and do so. Quite embarrassed at the moment.

[–]THECrew42[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nah, it's fine. Don't worry about it!

[–]Piogre 16ポイント17ポイント  (9子コメント)

Looks like the GG/a-GG shitstorm that's currently poisoning the video gaming community is coming for the mtg community next. Already flame wars erupt from both sides. Duck and fucking cover. Anyone who has any reputation to uphold in the mtg community will be wise to not take a side in this fight, because if the precedent from the video gaming community is followed, only shit will come of it.

Educate yourself about internet opinion wars.

[–]Pogotross 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Interestingly, Derium did a video about this the other day, calling SCG out specifically for trying to stir the pot. Seems kind of silly if they're really doing it, though, considering their employee who went off on holocaust rant a while back. Seems like you'd want to keep that shit buried.

[–]NinjaTheNick 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

The subject is ugly so we shouldn't talk about it? Bullshit.

[–]391835 12ポイント13ポイント  (4子コメント)

You should really watch that video. That's not really his point.

[–]NinjaTheNick 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Anyone who has any reputation to uphold in the mtg community will be wise to not take a side in this fight

This is the part I have an issue with.

[–]Piogre 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

First off, /u/391835 was correct- watch the video. No, that's not a "you may", watch the video before reading the second part of this comment.

Second, /u/391835 was also right in that you missed the point. I didn't say this topic shouldn't be discussed; it's an important topic that merits discussion. My point is that there are useful and useless kinds of discussion. The farce of a "discussion" happinging in the gaming community right now, essentially two armies of people who took sides, each arguing against caricatures of the other (watch the video), is useless, destructive discussion that does not go anywhere.

[–]NinjaTheNick 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Now we're arguing about arguing. Reddit is quickly becoming my wife.

All jokes aside, you're right. I watched the video after I commented.

[–]Piogre 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Glad we could reach a reasonable discussion.

[–]Deranged_Hermit 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Everyone's so quick to pick a side and attack the other side. Congratulations, we're human beings.

[–]elantris 19ポイント20ポイント  (14子コメント)

I really appreciated Efro's comments:

"It was a mistake. Those things happen.

For those who don't understand why it was taken down or are saying it should be put back up...try to understand that SCG is a company. Their name is worth something. This was a really bad article. It upset a lot of people. Does that mean it shouldn't be published or shouldn't encourage debate in and of itself? No, of course not, there's tons of awful stuff out there. But understand why a company wouldn't want their names to be associated with that or believe to be supporting it. It's just not a good idea.

Unfortunately, the debates are often not healthy. There are people who believe that they are very well intentioned, like Jim Davis himself, I'm sure. They don't necessarily know what they are talking about, nor could they, since they are not in a position to know. I don't know who Jim Davis is...I've heard the name because I will listen to SCG coverage, but I'm not really sure who he is. It's unfortunate that something like this will be what someone is remembered for and not have a better chance to eventually build a name in the Magic world. In the end, however, hopefully lessons are learned.

There have been some fantastic responses, a great rebuttal piece, the beginning of the organization of a panel to discuss the gender issues in Magic, and lots of positive things to come out of such a poor article. For that, I am grateful. Also thank you to Cedric and SCG for posting Meghan's original article. While this one was a disaster, that one was truly excellent and a huge boon for the community to have it publicized."

Here is a link to the aforementioned rebuttal. It is a fantastic piece which helps articulate many of my personal frustrations/critiques of the original article. I recommend giving it a read.

[–]Darth_drizzt_42 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

LIke the original piece, the rebuttal article is lacking in it's evidence and logic as well. She states that there is less opportunity to succeed in magic for women than there is for men, but doesn't provide an example of this claim. She also says "the coverage booth has been staffed excsuvely by men because that is what society expects".

I would argue it has been staffed by men because Magic has always been a male dominate game where it's top players where men and it was designed by men for a predominantly male audience. Even if the ratio of men to women is 10:1 i'm certain it was orders of magnitude worse in the 90's, what female pro players were even there to provide commentary, should they have been called on?

She also states "we do not ask for special dispensation but for representation". When the commentary box is staffed by top levels players and celebrities of the sport and you advocate for women to be there in the name of equality, that itself is a special dispensation. I say this as a fact of logic rather than my personal opinion.

She also states that when a women is on screen she is heavily scrutinized according to society's expectation of a womens'a appearence. I don't know if she's aware but the general mental image conjured by the term "Magic the gathering player" is far closer to Crackgate Guy than it is to Brian Kibler, and the comments about the physical appearance of people at GP's usually isn't positive either.

Her closing paragraph states that Davis does not understand the problem and that MAgic is skewed towards men, yet provides no evidence about what barriers to progress exist for women players aside from the fact that it's a male environent.

While i'm glad that this community is having a debate, what i truly dislike about her article isn't that shes calling out Davis for WHAT his position is and HOW it differs from her but rather that it exists AT ALL. While Davis's efforts may have been misguided ( and i don't believe they entirely were) we can't let this debate slide into a war of us vs them, which this is quickly becoming.

[–]Kizzercrate 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

I have a lot of issues with this rebuttal. A lot of the opinions aren't factually-based.

Your first argument is against the necessity to have women in positions that are visible, in terms of coverage, feature matches and so on. What you have failed to realise here is that gender is an issue. For years and years, the coverage booth has been staffed exclusively by men, because that is the expectation that society has.

I'm not sure ESPN, and to a lesser extent, Fox, would agree with that at all. From SportsCenter to NBA and NFL coverage, there's two important things you look for: people who know what they're talking about, and people who know how to speak in front of a camera. Judging by the increase of woman sportscasters, I'd say society is actually supporting whomever can do the job well and be entertaining and engaging about it, regardless of gender.

The goal is equality between genders, but we are starting from a point that is already heavily biased in favour of males. In Magic, people should indeed be recognised by their merits, but do not forget that achievement is informed by opportunity, and opportunity while abundant for men, is far less so for women.

Considering that the playerbase in Magic in general, much more so competitively, has been massively male since pretty much its inception many moons ago, this is kind of disingenuous. The opportunity is there for any individual that wants to put the effort in to grab the brass ring; the probabilityof it being a difference between male/female getting there is a different story simply because the male/female player percentages aren't where they need to be yet.

We are not asking for special dispensation – what we are asking for is representation. And this is particularly pertinent with regards to your comment about saying that there may “some day” be a woman in a coverage position. There may not be many positions available, but the fact is that although we play the game, we do not enjoy the same luxury of representation that you do. And this is the kind of inequality that should be addressed rather than left to sort itself out on its own at some arbitrary point in the future.

It's not a luxury. The people that are in their spots got there from hard work and due diligence--they put in the time and effort and got the results necessary to build their resume to earn the spots they have now. Anyone of any gender can do exactly that, and some people may very well be well on their way, but these things do not happen overnight.

What are the criteria for having a match featured live on camera, exactly? Those matches are selected for a number of reasons, and often the position of the players on the standings is not primary amongst them – very easily proven by virtue of that Table 1 is not always featured in coverage. So why is it sexist to suggest that representation should be a factor in considering which matches are featured?

What? This is exactly how feature matches are chosen. Quality, proven players with either an undefeated, high ranking, or on-the-bubble-win-and-in players (or SCG points race) players are picked for feature matches. Actually, didn't SCG get put on blast during the last Players' Championship for showing a feature match of two people that weren't in the running to make the next round of qualifiers? Viewers clamor for engaging stories that involve battling for wins. Because of this, name alone doesn't necessarily mean anything.

You preface your response to “Girlfriendification” by saying that you are male and the problems do not directly affect you, so this already lessens all the arguments that follow. You have indeed not experienced these phenomena for yourself, and to argue that they do not exist because you have not personally experienced or witnessed them is naive.

He specifically said they exist and gave examples that are as close as he can possibly get without actually being a woman.

Put yourself in her position for a moment – she has just been insulted on the basis of her gender by an obnoxious player, and seated all around her are a bunch of that player’s friends. How comfortable do you think she would feel in calling the TO or a judge? Don’t blame her for “letting a few jerks ruin… [her] hobby” – blame the jerks for trying to ruin it in the first instance.

That's exactly what the TOs and judges are there for, though. While it is up to all of us to police each other, sometimes we can't catch everything, or sometimes a higher power with stricter penalties needs to be called in. No one gets magically absolved of their individual ability to report poor activity/sportsmanship and follow the chain of command in the Magic world.

You’ve used an example of Gerry Thompson’s hair to compare the body shaming that men undergo with that which women experience. Sure, there are a batch of people ripping on Gerry about his hairstyle. None of them talk about him being f— worthy. None of them are catcalling him.

And then Reid Duke or Brian Kibler or Joel Larsson get on camera.

The “nom” pales in comparison to the abusive remarks leveled routinely at women. The salient point here is that we are not arguing that men are never victim to body-shaming – but that it is often far more pervasive, and far more abusive in nature, when it is directed at women. As soon as a female player is on the screen, she is scrutinised according to the standards of acceptability imposed upon her by the male gaze, which again makes every aspect of her existence secondary to her physical appearance as judged by men. Surely it is clear that is problematic?

Let's be fair here--the amount of remarks directed at women solely for their appearance, Magic or otherwise, is indeed ridiculous and downright disgusting at times. But this isn't a male-only problem: society at large places an absurd amount of focus on female beauty, which is echoed down to every picture on social media praising women for their beauty, even in the most mundane of shots. THAT is problematic, and it takes all of us to remember that and work towards change at large.

And here’s a little tip – if it’s an environment in which women aren’t harassed, it will also be one in which men aren’t harassed

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, oh god. That's, uh, naive at best.

Respect is earned in any community. But that is not a valid argument to the point that in this community, women start off receiving less respect at the baseline than men do. And I hope you will be able to understand that.

This I can agree with. But it's still a long road to the top for all of us.

[–]lokimorgan 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I am 100% sure more guys make references about Kibler than the ladies. He is bromance material.

[–]Regvlas 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Are you trying to say you wouldn't suck his dick if given the chance?

[–]scryeye 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

This whole "controversy" just feels forced. MTG is game, a distraction, a hobby. MTG is not a social issue.

[–]THECrew42[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

But wouldn't you say that Magic is also used for social gatherings? I've made friends playing Magic, and the friends I've even had the opportunity to make were skewed somewhat by the perception and participation of men and women in the game.

[–]scryeye 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I just like playing the game. I'd be perfectly happy facing off against an intelligent orange. In general the people that are attracted to MTG are not people I would choose to socialize with.

[–]bandswithgoats -4ポイント-3ポイント  (2子コメント)

When you're the one that benefits most from the status quo, nothing is political.

[–]scryeye 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

How do you know I benefit at all from the status quo? What the hell is that comment even supposed to mean?

[–]Graingel 8ポイント9ポイント  (14子コメント)

I like people wanting a good, solid discussion on the matter when most of these comments are like "Blegh! Feminists! SCG is the devil! Conspiracy!"

I don't trust you guys to have solid discussions.

[–]RestrictedAxcess 5ポイント6ポイント  (13子コメント)

Exactly. Jim Davis's article didn't start a discussion, it catered to an echo chamber that is overwhelming shared by many Magic players

[–]Graingel 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wholeheartedly agree

[–]Pollinosis 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

And so the opinion "overwhelming shared by many Magic players" should be hidden away because it counters the views of a certain self-appointed elite?

[–]RestrictedAxcess -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Never said it should have. But there were plenty of people that were saying it fostered a discussion when it simply didn't

[–]Pollinosis 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Never said it should have. But there were plenty of people that were saying it fostered a discussion when it simply didn't

Did enough time pass to make that call? Had the article been allowed to stand, it might have encouraged others to write their own articles with their own conclusions. I'm not sure how an ongoing dialogue can form if certain perspectives are verboten. What good is a counterpoint, if the point it seeks to counter is forbidden?

[–]RestrictedAxcess 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

What good is a counterpoint, if the point it seeks to counter is forbidden?

I agree with this point. I think Jim Davis should be allowed to share his opinion. Do I think SCG has to be the platform to share on it? No. They have every right to take it down if it's not the kind of material they want to be supporting. I've never said that Davis's opinion was irrelevant or deserved to be silenced. My point was just that there wasn't really a discussion going on surrounding his article. It was either "Yeah, I agree! Well written" Or "Back off, this isn't your place to speak."

[–]Pollinosis -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

My point was just that there wasn't really a discussion going on surrounding his article.

And this point is well worth making. I hope I didn't come across as standoffish in my previous few posts. You've been polite and articulate, and I've used your posts to air my contrarian streak.

[–]TreeRol 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Way to take that victim role. I've seen discussions on this and the other thread. I assume you haven't read them, or if you have, you only saw what you wanted to see in order to be able to whine that you're being shut out of the discussion.

[–]vegetablestew -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Now that the other side has been stifled, there is no discussion here either is there?

[–]defdrago 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was about to post something, but I'll just agree with what you said. All the lipservice to "discussions" is so disingenuous. What discussion do you want to have exactly? One side is saying we should stop being sexist, the other side is saying "Nah, things are perfect as is." What discussion is there to have?

[–]addscontext5261 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

yes that explains the upvotes in this thread and the general trend of this conversation.

[–]Graingel -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

To be fair, I posted this 10 minutes before things turned around. Type of conversation above is the type that's actually good. Type of conversation below is where the tinfoil hats come out in force.

[–]vegetablestew -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

You know what, the same can be said about the other article. Or any article that features an opinion shared by many.

[–]Lissica 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

The article should have stayed up.

[–]NinjaTheNick 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

What is the point of posting an obviously opinionated article if you're this afraid of some backlash? What was Cedric expecting? Dissenting opinions on this subject are often treated with a huge amount of disdain and Jim's article was no different.

At the end of the day SCG is basically saying that Jim's opinion is invalid, and by doing this is almost officially discrediting an entire view of the subject. One that I and many others agree with.

Affirmative action is not equality and equality cannot be achieved through inequality. That is my view, and I have a right to have it. It is not an unhealthy view like "women shouldn't vote," it's simply an opinion on how equality should be attained. You have a right to disagree. What you don't have a right to do is treat me like shit because of it.

How can we solve anything by treating each other how we are now? It solves less than nothing.

[–]THECrew42[S] 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

Because, in the apology, Cedric noted that there was (mistakenly) a positive reaction to the article prior to posting. They pulled it because, as a business, they stand to be harmed by keeping up an article that provides such negative criticism.

[–]NinjaTheNick 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

I really like Matt Sperlings take on the article

He posted:

The piece was wrong, but what is the editorial policy here that all authors be correct? Do you takedown articles about Bant CoCo in modern if that deck proves far worse than the author expresses? I don't think a fair reading of the Jim Davis piece could conclude it was hateful or anything like it, just misguided in a way many members of our community seem to often be. What was a teachable moment for Jim and others is now an apology from the editor. The lesson is now not that Jim's idiotic but popular too-widely-held opinion was wrong but that Cedric was wrong for letting Jim express it. Talking about specifics, Jim failed to understand that equal treatment doesn't necessarily imply equitable treatment OR best outcomes. That's not hate. Shining a light there isn't a step backwards if we actually shine the light. SCG here extinguished that light with the logic of "if we don't see it, it doesn't exist." Not so.

[–]THECrew42[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

While it makes sense to keep the article up, it's pretty common from what I've experienced where articles that receive a negative backlash (not for being wrong, but for being actually upsetting) to be taken down. It's a PR thing more than anything else. And SCG has done this in the past, it's not a new practice for them.

[–]bevedog 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

https://twitter.com/KillGoldfish/status/612070153866514433

[–]TweetsInCommentsBot 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

@KillGoldfish

2015-06-20 01:31 UTC

JIM DAVIS: someone should respond to that women in mtg thing

GIRLFRIEND: well i've been playing for a wh-

JIM DAVIS: babe i got this

This message was created by a bot

[Contact creator][Source code]

[–]NATZIX 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

How Spineless.

Jim basically argued against a sort of affirmative action for women in Magic. Unsurprisingly, feminists freaked out and attacked him, as they do they anyone who disagrees with them. It says a lot about the feminism of today when even the tamest of criticize elicits such a response.

If SCG feared this ordeal would cost them customers they have certainly lost me.

[–]Graingel 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

....even though the comments section on the second article is entirely men except for one? You have eyes, right?

[–]not_anyone 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Men can be feminists too....

[–]thas_nasty 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Men can be feminists too.

[–]knobbodi -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Shh, don't let your logic get in the way of this angry dude's emotional reaction

[–]Graingel -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

he's got a whole lot of brand-loyalty feels

[–]ncs19 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Strongly recommend checking out Eric Frolich's comment on this article as well.

[–]grinningremnant 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

Shoulda stuck to his guns. "Women in magic" is such a blase issue. Either they'll play or they won't. No need to push for people of all kinds to get into something.

[–]Lazarius 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree. I understand diversity is good for Magic and Wizard's/Hasbro's pockets) as a whole but why try to force such an issue that is known to generate hate from both sides? Focusing entirely on somebody's gender takes away from them as a person. in my opinion.

[–]corkymcgee -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Exactly correct, which is why you're down voted.

[–]Graingel 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nawww, they're entirely open for discussion here- except if your opinion is different! Hooray! The system works!

[–]defdrago 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

He has 2 points... and a lot more in his reply below you. I can't believe the insane amount of downvotes!!

[–]defdrago 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, why would a company that makes its money selling Magic products want to push new groups of people to play Magic?

[–]mtg_liebestod 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

I don't know who Jim Davis is...I've heard the name because I will listen to SCG coverage, but I'm not really sure who he is. It's unfortunate that something like this will be what someone is remembered for and not have a better chance to eventually build a name in the Magic world.

What is EFro implying here? That Jim Davis is just going to be blacklisted within the Magic community somehow? He's comfortable with that?

The number of comments that basically say "Jim Davis needs to check his privilege before writing on these topics" is somewhat horrifying.

[–]Format137_BossMode 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

He doesn't understand his privilege, and that's largely why his article was so wrong. All the bro band brigading doesn't get it, but that largely is a wider societal issue.

[–]Infersader 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

He doesn't understand his privilege

I had to stop there, that term is just stupid and dismissive. No matter what race or gender you are you should be able to have basic human empathy. If you can't see why another human being finds something offensive it's not your "privilege" that's blinding you, it's the fact that you're an asshole.

All the bro band brigading

This is just more ad hominem. It's pretty ignorant to just assume anyone who disagrees with you must be part of some mouth-breathing dudebro hivemind. It's like people today don't realize the importance of challenging their own beliefs.

[–]mtg_liebestod 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

The reason why "check your privilege" is a joke of an argument is because it doesn't actually make any claims. What point did he make that indicated that he "doesn't understand his privilege"? Does Meghan understand his privilege better than he does? Why?

[–]EFroPoker 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That means I don't want people to attack the writer but only the article. Jim Davis is a "relative" "no name" in Magic and this shouldn't be branded as his legacy for writing one very poor article. Nothing more.

[–]PolishTamales 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

People tend to forget that the majority of these articles on MTG websites aren't written by journalists or writers. So there's barely any cited works, much less research beyond a deck lists and opinions.

People make mistakes & seeing how quickly Cedric offered an apology (before the writer), then I take it that something like this won't happen again.

[–]sentient8 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Conversations like this would be better for both parties if everybody could put their pitchforks and torches away for a few minutes and talk.

[–]Regvlas 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Pretty sure everyone should just drop the topic and move on. It's a magic website, not the place to discuss equality. too political.

[–]HorabFibslager 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Jesus H Tap-dancing Christ, who cares? Its a children's card game, not a social issues battleground. This whole circus is stupid and dumb.

[–]leapdaywilliiam 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I find it hilarious that so many of the comments are critical of his decision to take down the article. First accusations of sexism, then accusations of stifling discourse. Editors would be wise to avoid the comment sections.

For whatever my opinion is worth, stick to your guns for at least a day. Try and emulate old media at least a little. Post nightly edition obviously.

Also sell your cards for fucking less please.

[–]Surtysurt 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I can't help myself. I find a "controversial" article, dig deeper and deeper, only to be further disappointed. Girls play magic, the first one winning shouldn't be any bigger of a deal than any other sport statistic, 'last time that happened was in 2010!, back to you Bob'. What is the goal you're trying to achieve by commenting on this? Aren't we here to read about MtG? Someone's age, gender, ethnicity, etc. Isn't and shouldn't be a conversation piece. Stop writing about off topic things and you won't get in trouble. When in doubt if it's going to ruffle feathers, don't.

[–]PandaMania3 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The people who got emotional over an article needs to get a check on fixing their capability of handling their emotions.

[–]defdrago 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What about people who are freaking out that an article by someone they don't know was taken off of a website they don't own?

[–]ChairYeoman -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anyone have a mirror to the original article?

[–]JaJaJalisco -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

as a strictly MTGO player, I don't see race, weight, sex as an issue :)

[–]zarepath -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

After working with Jim, and running the article by numerous people, much like I did with Meghan's, I got a similar response to his article - overwhelming positivity that made the article seem like a no brainer to publish. After publishing the article and seeing the feedback, that clearly was not the case.

So he's really only sorry that we didn't like it. And he's shifted the responsibility to the "smarter than me" people that told him it was a great article, and he should run it.

It feels weird to call it an apology and then spend half the time explaining how he did it based on other people's feedback, and that he's only sorry because we didn't like it. To be fair he does come down on it being all his fault.

[–]Kereminde 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think this was quite an admission of fault so much as it was "I'm sorry to have put this out, when I probably should have known the Internet would explode".

Because that had to be obvious. Whether or not the article originally had any merit, the Internet was going to eat it alive.

[–]snargaggle -5ポイント-4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm glad that you put the words "An Apology" in quotation marks.

[–]THECrew42[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, I put it in quotes because it's an online article. There was no other intent behind that.