Why did Magic the Gathering become so prudish?

I bet you get salty over people occasionally wanting their food to be both nutritious and delicious.

Political correctness is the poison that ruins everything.

It could be argued that they just want the art style changed but the timing and how WoTC acts all signs point to trying to be "progressive" to appeal to a group that would never buy their product.

Before it was Christians calling everything demonic.

Man, I was building a 5c All-Women EDH deck and decided to throw her in just for the heck of it to piss people off. Too bad it never took off.

>but the timing and how WoTC acts all signs point to trying to be "progressive" to appeal to a group that would never buy their product.

How many years are people going to repeat this before they realize that Wizards isn't going under?

It was a continuous thing but I'd say around 2007 when "geek culture" really started gaining steam. It was probably part of the same shift towards trying to bring more people into the game along with Planeswalkers.

>"hey, can we maybe have a bit more sideboob or something?"
>"WOW WHAT A DISGUSTING FETISH EEWWWW"

You're either a prude or a raging homosexual.

There's internet now. If you want to look at pron open a new tab.

Alternatively, the standards for what are attractive have shifted. We live in increasingly conservative times with both far left and right polemics eating away at the liberated liberal consumer subject as seen in the post sexual revolution. Both missing the part where their desires are simply being repackaged with a different box into a diversified market.

Because art like that objectifies women.

That looks more retarded than sexy though.

Look, shit like that sets a tone, you can't just throw a random sideboob wherever without it compromising the overall feeling of the game. Art like that was fine when they were going for pulpy fantasy but right now pulp fantasy has niche appeal while everyone and their yaoi pillow grew up reading fantasy YA stuff where teenage girls with daemon familiars or orphan boys with a head injury are the hero and that's the tone they're going towards now.

This was censored by Wizards in 1997

Well yeah, that looks like shit.

you know what if this is the general quality of cheesecake from wotc then maybe it's good they stopped trying

>You can't market something for kids and have it be sexual in the US firstly.
The clothing industry disagrees.

When Wizards realized pandering to 0.5% of their player base really pays off to white knight nu-males.

When did Feminists become so Puritanical?

>This was censored by Wizards in 1997
B-b-but tumblr wasn't around in 1997!

Show me one ad with sexy clothing aimed at kids.

On second thought I don't want to end up on a watchlist

Firstly, you have to understand that all of these progressive group-advocacy movements always put the movement's survival over the loyalty to the groups they claim to advocate for.

But to answer you question, it all started when they started caring about gender roles. That's when feminism started becoming more choice-negative - after all, if the movement wants women to abandon traditional gender roles, women chosing to become housewives and prostitutes hurts the movement. And remember, the movmement always comes first. Once you become choice-negative, becoming sex-negative is the next logical step.

I can think of those 90's video game ads slapped in the middle of video game magazines.

>feminism as a unified body
>progressive as a pejorative
>clear separation between representation and population
>when they started caring about gender roles
>choice negative

there's so much retarded in this post it hurts

It was rhetorical. The whole "choice negative" spiel you just gave me has very little to do with it. When you track the movement you can see that it clearly derailed in the 70's and 80's and became a bourgeoise movement unaware of its own biases.

Have you never seen a toddler wearing yoga pants with "Juicy" written on the ass? Maybe don't answer if you want to avoid that watch list.

...

Same reason this board did. Moralfags everywhere.

...

Who else besides a liberal faggot would work for WOTC? Fantasy games aren't designed by engineers, they're designed by idealists.

>uses liberal to mean leftist
>associates leftism with idealism

It's kind of funny to hear stupid people talk.

The first one was a mistake; I meant to write feminists, not feminism in all. I know it's not monolithic.

I didn't use progressive as a pejorateve, although I can see why you'd think that. Honestly, I used progressive because it's an accurate representation of the group I described, and the label they themselves use.

You are confusing population of the advocacy group (what you call representation) and population the group claims to advocate for. Of the two, only the former is of any importance to the topic at hand, since they're the one shaping public discussion.

I don't get what's wrong with this point. Yes, when they started caring about gender roles. First they wanted sufferage, then they wanted employment, then they wanted to abolish gender roles.

I am also not sure what you meant with you last point, also. Do you have a problem with the words 'choice-negative,' or do you not believe me when I say that there are influential choice-negative feminists?

It has more to do with it than you imagine. When the movement becomes bourgeoise/elitist, its members think they know better than the population they advocate for. So when that population acts in a manner they disagree with, the members think it's the population who are wrong, not the other way around.

A lot of the original Magic Devs including Richard Garfield were mathematicians, and at least one of them was an Aerospace Engineer.

Leftism is unbridled idealism, what fuck are you taking about?

>embrace the notion of equality
>it's really just bastardized Christianity
>oh shit, turns out that people are objectively inferior or superior
>quick! we need a powerful state to make everyone equal
>shit fuck, it literally never works anywhere in the world
>but we're going to keep trying!

To a certain degree, it isn't even prudishness. Between Theros, Tarkir, Innistrad, Kaladesh, and Amonkhet, we have a lot more worlds based on real-Earth cultures. As a part of that, they tend to use clothing designs inspired by actual historical fashion, as opposed to random strips of leather meant to look sexy.

Now, admittedly, Amonkhet should have had more toplessness, but looking at Battle for Zendikar block will show you a lot of elves wearing even less than your pic.

And yet I regularly see women in even sluttier outfits at this mythical land of magic and mystery called "the beach".

Women objectify women. And I'm not exagerating, they LITERALLY objectify themselves.
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090216-bikinis-women-men-objects.html
>Brain scans revealed that when men are shown pictures of scantily clad women, the region of the brain associated with tool use lights up
To put this in simple English: if you whine about children's card games objectifying women but wear a bikini yourself, you're both literally and figuratively A FUCKING TOOL.

Kill yourself. No one wants you here /pol/ sissy.

Eat some pills. Bath with a toaster. Slit your guts.

Christ, you are literally unable to hear your own thought process and how cringey it sounds to non stormfaggots.

It works quite well when you focus on equality of opportunity, rather than equality of outcome.

It's so stormfag, you can't even tell if "it's just a bastardized Christianity" is supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing.

he's right

Yes, but his argument was fucking awful, so he hurt his "side" more than he helped them.

Is this just me, or does anyone else prefer people who are "wrong" to people who are "right" but can't explain why to save their life?

If you asked him to expound on what he was saying you would hear nothing but pseudoscience and cringe, and this is coming from a guy who favors a mandatory level of genetic engineering for the general populace.

In his defense, Classical Liberalism (i.e. the Enlightenment ideologies of Locke et. al.) was how the political left was born. So it's not entirely wrong to use "liberal" to mean leftist, it's just a little inaccurate.

That's also how the political left was born. Hell, you could even say conservatism arose as a reaction to the French Revolution. Yet nobody would call conservatism or fascism liberal. It's just that the age of liberalism completely transformed the political landscape. This is why people for example trace communism and fascism and modern republicanism to Rousseau. Not that he was a commie (Marx practically never cites him) but because the French Revolution changed everything.

This doesn't make the American definition of liberalism any less retarded or confusing. It's just yet another strange quirk of American society, like measuring distance in footsize or having creationism as part of the education system.

We both know that's not how he meant it.

They even made a joke card about back when companies were allowed to not take themselves so seriously

As the prior commenter's subsequent remarks indicate, his primary complaint with Liberalism is its embrace of the fallacy of the Tabula Rasa, and the effort to artificially impose an artificial equality on a society composed of unequal individuals and groups. This fallacy lies at the root of most Leftwing ideologies; from Classical Liberalism to Communism, so it's not unfair to lump them all together on that basis. The prior commenter may not have expressed the idea in that way, but it seems to be what he meant.

when did cardboard sorters forget to put "mtg" in the title or OP?

>artificially impose an artificial

Sigh... I need to stop trying to write when I'm tired.

>Yes, but his argument was fucking awful, so he hurt his "side" more than he helped them.
>I feel this way therefore it's right

You're gonna need a couple more lines of greentext before I can tell what the fuck you're trying to say.

My favorite kind of person is the kind who doesn't feel the need to start an ideological crusade wherever they go. I don't play MtG for insightful political commentary from WotC nor the playerbase.

I don't care if they are right or wrong, or if they agree or disagree with me, I do not want to hear about it. I came here for cardgames.

The prior commentator hates liberalism because social liberalism calls loudly for forms of legal equality that hurt his feelings. Stop trying to intellectualize this poster's position.

>combat bikinis
>clearly a healer class type
>on a card that heals you

is there any reason you haven't off'd yourself yet

Shit guys. My argument is that left-wing thought is fundamentally idealistic. The end goal of left-wing politics is a kind of utopian fantasy.

Why are cards so prudish? Well, because American leftists are the new Puritans. WOTC is a business based on the creation of fantasy worlds and left's new moral prescriptions bleed into them. Is it really so hard to believe that idealists enjoy creating their own fantasy worlds?

And you hate the prior commenter because he hurts your feelings by denying equality as an ideal and objecting to the use of the power of law (i.e the state) to enforce it. You both offend each other. However inarticulate his rhetoric, he has a fair point to make. As Aristotle once said, "The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."

It is an injustice to treat people as equals if they aren't actually equals. It's unfair to pay people an equal wage if they do unequal work. It's an injustice to treat a law abiding person the same as you would a criminal. Most fair minded people would agree with those statements. What trips us up is when we move beyond judging individuals and are forced to confront inequalities between groups. No one should be surprised that efforts to ameliorate inequalities between groups produce resentment and backlash within the groups being disadvantaged to ensure equality, as those disadvantages are a form of injustice in their own right.

The people that complain are in the vast majority of cases not creators themselves, but self-styled critics that care more about tearing down what they find disagreeable than building up what they find agreeable, and they don't support products that have changed to align with their complaints because they care nothing about the product (Marvel comics felt this particularly hard).

This sort of thing has been occurring across all mediums of entertainment, and the content is changing even when the creators are not. It is very obvious that companies are bowing to pressure when they make changes like what wotc has done with regards to depictions of women, and that this is not (or at least not entirely) a result of the beliefs of the creators changing.

No, he offends me because the ideas that he and his ilk have about the underlying metrics of superiority and inferiority are based on nonsense.

Have you considered that maybe she's dressed that way for her own comfort and not for your sexual gratification, you disgusting piece of shit?

Which metrics and values are you rejecting, exactly? IQ? Crime statistics? GDP? Literacy rates? Toliets per capita?

>nonsense

That's debatable, though I would acknowledge that metrics referencing I.Q. or earning power are certainly superficial. The real issue everyone dances around is the question of moral equality. Who is a better person or group? How do you define "better" in such a context? Such questions could be argued from any number of positions are not easily resolved. That being said I can understand the position taken by some that holding groups to be socially equal, when those groups do not make equal contributions to society, is it's own form of injustice.

Our desire for social equality is deeply rooted in western thought and custom. Western folk cultures were extremely egalitarian in terms of the social status of men within a tribe, clan, or other kin group. That tribal egalitarianism has manifested as a universalist ethos within western civilization; a desire to treat all people as equals or at least hold them to the same standards. Sadly, our history does not give a reasonable observer much hope that this is feasible when applied to all groups. Attempts to impose equality by tearing down aristocracies, or even race and gender based social barriers, has typically resulted in chaos, extremist regimes, and widespread blood shed instead of achieving the goal of an egalitarian society.

>unironically using "I'm offended" as an actual argument

Holy shit.

That offends me, user.

Does it offend you? Remember, offense, is not simply hurt feelings. It's the sense that what someone has done is a violation of some significant taboo. Do you think it is beyond the pale of civil discourse to cite moral outrage in response to some else's claims?

I warned the board about what would happen after D&D5th changed certain monster descriptions and depictions. Back then I received at least three angry answers from prudes and a possible feminist playing dumb about those implications. It's like they always played in those magical realm groups and the trauma left them scared of tits for life.

Hold your buttocks tight, cause WotC is going to kiddify things as much as they can in order to pander to new demographics.

Nigga, chill, I'm a moralfag and that doesn't mean that I'm for prudishness. In fact a measure of sexual elements is necessary for good roleplaying and world building.

...It's also important to note that the first ones to oppose this crap change were in fact moderate leftists and centrists. Remember the scandal that we still can't mention, the one that drove original moot away? Most people riding that train were in fact moderate leftists.

Sure, current critics of pop culture are from a very virulent strain of radical left but they don't represent all forms of idealism nor are the center of any broad group of political or economical beliefs.

I don't think it will get much worse. Sure, it's pretty shitty now but I am very skeptical that they will be hiring many more SJW types; not because of an ideological change in the company but because the hard left will soon be dying off.

There will still be dykes and "oooh don't you think having black people wear a suit means that ones that don't are thugs is racist?" running around but it won't be in vogue to act like that anymore and the ones that won't shift with the paradigm will be unhirable street shouting lunatics.

This is a collectible card game played exclusively by nerds, unless you go looking for it, YOU WILL NEVER SEE THIS ART. So why do you care?

tl;dr i'm butthurt

>uses half naked anime sleeves

we all know you're not a chad

I kind of know, still I believe it will drop somewhat, I just wanted to rub in their faces how the steady "sanitization" of the hobby has corresponded to drops in consistency which affects quality in general.

Without delving too much into /pol/ territory it's also sad how such a small group of people has done more damage to the moderate left than the right could in 60+ years. It's always good to have more than one than one opinion as long as both sides remain mildly civil.

Maybe people just want to be angry at something, IDK.

>orphan boy with a head injury

Kek, this is how HP deserves to be referred to.

>I came here for cardgames.
So did I, but instead I got a large serving of political propaganda with that. People criticizing WotC's decisions aren't the ones bringing up politics, they are talking about something that had already been brought into the hobby by the leftists.

I'm with you.

The problem is this hobby is filled with poorly socialized people who have been trained by parents and teachers to default to the social skills of people more socialized than them, this leads to those socialist nerds who work really hard and have no issue paying 40% income tax.

They seem not to understand a lot of the nuance of social issues and just default to what their allies believe and assume they are telling the truth.

>Censored

It wasn't censored, it was cropped though. That's nothing unusual since lot of full art submissions form artists get cropped to fit the card window e.g Living Wall.

What's censoring is changing the artwork from the original Nissa Revane planeswalker so her cleavage is hidden.

Look carefully at the artwork, and then the card.

It was cropped, yes, but it was also altered to hide her legs which would have been in the shot.

Actually you are right but I do not think the legs were altered for censorship but rather it would just looked weird in the cropped portrait.

How have you never heard the simple phrase "sex sells"

Card art has folks getting stabbed, blood splatters and sometimes twisted, mutilated zombie horrors BUT oh no breasts! (Also, nice "loose" instead of "lose" dip )

>implying we don't have legal equality in the USA

We do. And now that we do, people want equality of outcome.

No. It was censored.
Mark Rosewater has told stories about this card.

>Shit guys. My argument is that left-wing thought is fundamentally idealistic. The end goal of left-wing politics is a kind of utopian fantasy.
>Why are cards so prudish? Well, because American leftists are the new Puritans.

I'm sorry, but... *which* national party wants to regulate internet pornography as public health hazard again?

Wut?

>Reading comprehension

Actual jungle women have no body hair.

Actual jungle women are ugly as fuck though.

The man in charge of the franchise, Mark Rosewater, is a huge social justice cuckold.

>sex sells

not to 13 year olds with parents doing that parent thing where they make sure they have a handle on everything their child buys. like a parent

Sexism.

>When Wizards realized pandering to 0.5% of their player base really pays off to white knight nu-males.
Does it really? Serious question. SJWs certainly talk the talk, but do they back it up with enough business to matter?

>Implying chads and anime fans ever care about moral values of sketching.

Face the facts, it's mostly old western nerds that care and scream daily about this kind of stuff.

Was Magic really ever non-prudish? There are just two examples of revealing artwork in this thread so far and that for a game that has been around for over twenty years. Practically every company always tries to never offend anyone because they would lose lots of money.

i think you need to get out and get women friends

How are you gonna sunbathe (or bath) if you keep your clothes on?

You need to realize that neurology is still on its first babysteps and that a "region associated with tools lights up" isn't a sufficient proof of anything (what size is the region? is it exclusive?)

You also need to realize that you can't generalize the behavior of half of the Earth's population.

Why did they cover Liliana up?

Women can't stand competition even if its made of paper and appeasing ugly robots they'd never touch.

Seriously the freer they are to speak their minds the clearer it is women are devious, attention-starved, sex craving monsters. Socio-romantically dysfunctional and rottenly egotistical to the core.

The purity of women was a lie made by older men to ensure we procreate. Bitches want nothing more than to see a man destroy everything he holds dear for her pussy, like some cthonic, self-divinizing cunt cult.