I have to admit when I first read your response I was confused… then amused. It seems you reacted to what you thought I said… and not what I actually wrote. In short, I feel your response said a lot more about you than about me.
I think this is where you went wrong. The issue of good sportsmanship is not political. I believe I affirmed that many times and frankly I’m not sure how you missed it. The topic of advocating for community improvement was not the issue. The choice of delivering the topic through the framework of Feminist gender theory was absolutely an issue and that is what makes it political. Again, this isn’t even a subtle nuance of what I said - it was, in fact, major content of my postings (of which I had several) so I’m not sure how you overlooked this distinction. But in order to make the statement you did, you had to.
To conflate my stated objection to this article and it’s overtly political frame and tone to be anything similar to disappointment with a deck recommendation that didn’t perform as well as hoped is frankly… astoundingly puzzling. It’s two entirely different premises and thus a sensible reaction to one wouldn’t intrinsically be a sensible reaction to the other. Furthermore, I never claimed it would be. I’m really at a loss to understand why you’d even write this.
You know, I don’t know you… but I have had two 3 year old toddlers in my lifetime. If you can show me a 3 year toddler who expresses reasoned objections and analysis like this, please be my guest. I assume since you believe it’s appropriate (as in, not condescending or otherwise against the TOS of Sixprizes) to make requests like this that I’m also at liberty to ask you to please develop some ability to accurate analyze and respond to a person you’re responding to, correct? I’ll spare the reference to any appropriate age group.
If you had read my comments closer, you would have noted that my response to Chris (addressing Sixprizes’ editorial choice to publish the article on their platform) detailed that I never said Sixprizes couldn’t run such an article, just that I was surprised they did and since they did, what concerns and appropriate actions in return I felt compelled to take. And far from your characterization of a tantrum, I engaged in dialogue with Chris and the other posters (like you, for example) in reasoned discourse (not unfounded accusations and insults).
You and Kenny can make this claim, but the claim itself is not proof. Neither you nor he provide evidence of it and my own experience (as well as apparently others here) contradicts it. That doesn’t make me “part of the problem” because you haven’t provided any evidence that women either in general or in specificity are disadvantaged or discouraged from taking part in the Pokemon tcg.
It’s been my experience that no one cares about who is sitting across the table from them. They play, someone wins, someone loses, and life goes on.
So… you agree that there was room to object to the article for being subjective and not factually presented.
Yet you took me to task for objecting? I’m not sure I understand this - but I think you just validated my position. You’re right, you just defeated your point. Thank you.
First, a truth claim requires proof. I don’t consider any effort to be “genuine” if it attacks one group to “help” another. If one espouses a common respect and dignity for ALL… then I expect them to uphold that. Even the common respect and dignity of those they say they have an issue with. Accusations of “toxicity” and blanket statements against a whole group in the community based on their sex fails that standard. And I said that before as well.
You haven’t established any proof that there are “vulnerable groups” in the Pokemon TCG. In fact, your very posting here (and your 2015 article on 60 cards) would indicate that female voices in the TCG are heard and given place to speak. That alone is very troublesome for your claim.
Thus, it is a VERY deniable premise (not “fact”) that this community is not the most conducive place for women. However, to be fair, since Pokemon is gender neutral - it begs the question of why must it be “conducive” to women and not simply - equally open to all who choose to participate of their own free will and interest? (as I would argue it is)
Are you saying that women can’t feel welcome in a activity or organization unless they are catered to? That is a very interesting line of thinking to follow. I’m happy to take it to it’s logical conclusions if you can’t (or won’t).
So, you consider it “problematic” for anyone to not simply accept a claim outright and instead, insist on reasoning it out and if it doesn’t make sense, rejecting it?
As I said before, if the author had penned an article on good sportsmanship, I’d have had no issues. But making a non-gender issue into a gender issue is not only unproductive, it is counter-productive.
And, laughably, you say that my objection (and thus spurring of discussion and debate) will discourage others from “contributing to the debate”. That makes no sense unless this comment was disingenuous on its face. You apparently only count “agreement” as legitimate contribution. Sorry, you’re not entitled to my agreement or silence. You have every opportunity to present your claims with reason and (actual) facts as I do. The fact that you (and Kenny) did not and have not is not my issue. It’s yours.
Well, ok, so you helicoptered into a thread to make a blasting statement devoid of fact, reason, or understanding and then helicoptered out? Ok then. I guess this is what passes for modern social bravery. This certainly didn’t build my respect of those who espouse divisive gender based politics.
You know, you’ve had an account here since Jan 25, 2015. If you had read the thread, this article wasn’t behind a paywall (a point Christopher made) and so there was no need to re-activate anything to express your point(s). But since you’ve set the precedent on calling others ignorant and backwards, I suppose I can say this: The severity of lack of attention to detail you’ve shown and (seemingly willful) sloppiness in understanding seem to indicate that you have no room to make accusations of ignorance or backwardness. Further, for a person who apparently wants to promote inclusiveness in the community, your quickness to accuse, label, and deride another member of the community indicates that your claims are suspect and you don’t practice what you preach.
Enjoy your reactivated Sixprizes account and thanks for making me aware to steer clear of subscribing to 60cards.net as well.