An unpopular thought

There’s people all over the world who’ve died for the right to vote. Wars have been fought viciously over it. Revolutions have raged to give people a say.

Even in areas where there hasn’t been a war, people have died to vote. Take Emily Davison, the woman who threw herself in front of the King’s horse to assist women becoming enfranchised.

So it will always disgust me when people abstain from voting.

Let me be clear on this. If you have a choice between multiple candidates and you don’t like any, you can spoil your ballot. I don’t care if you write ‘Cunt’ beside every name. I don’t care if you draw a giant ejaculating penis.

However, if there is a choice between two candidates and one of those candidates is a fascist. It’s your moral duty to resist them.

Too many people on the left simply 'decline to vote.’ “I don’t believe in the system,” they say. Meanwhile you can count that voting en masse and the opposition abstaining is exactly what the right wing is after.

Key example:

I detest Jeremy Corbyn but if I was in England and the choice was between him and Theresa May. I’d be campaigning for Corbyn.

So for any people who are reading this and thinking I’m a cunt, please take your ego and shove it firmly up your arsehole.

Luckily for my arse, I’m in a country with a different option.

theuninvitedghost  asked:

ahzoh suggested using Treefolk over Hydra as the large green iconic. Can you do a poll? I find more often than not, I have anecdotal evidence that is directly counter to "market research". Also, you need to make palm-treefolk.

Online polls, like here on Blogatog, are a bit skewed because the audience heavily leans towards being enfranchised. Even with that bias, I’m not sure Treefolk beat out Hydra.

But why hypothesize. Which would you prefer as Green’s iconic creature?

a) Hydra


b) Treefolk

Also, why do you choose what you do?

A Response to Fail Night Magic

Stepping out of the Professor at Tolarian Community College’s video addressing FNM promos, I have some thoughts. It is clear to see that this is a serious issue for enfranchised players. Were it not, he would no have made his video. Were it not, no one would be talking about it. But I would like to do my best to offer some perspective. To put this in simple terms, this is not a change for you. In fact, this is so much not a change for you, that this outrage only fulfils the goals of the change. This change was to disincentivize competitive players. And in doing so to allow new ones to flourish. But as always, his is not a simple issue. Nothing is ever a simple issue. So in this, I would like to address the specific issues raised by the Professor. With hope, we can come to some sort of understanding that this is a necessary move.

To begin with, competition is not an incentive. Not everyone is so driven to win that the will continue to lose week after week in it’s name. What hope do I of winning, when I can’t spend $300 on a standard deck? When I can’t dedicate 3 hours of my day to the Limit Resource Set review. The Professor says that, competitive players must remain. Competition is what drives new players. I concede that to some this is true. Those born competitive people. But for the rest of us, to go 0-3 with our beloved Cat deck. There is discouragement in it, like it or not. A drive to win is not a quality we all have. So to this I say that, for FNM to flourish, we must diversify it.

This is all ignoring the outrageous cost on entry into non-draft FNM events. Like it or not, by and large, magic has a pay to win game. Formats are almost solved over night. Following Pro Tours and GP’s, the decks that win rise to the top, become bought out. Then, taken to FNM, all in the hope of winning a couple packs, and a promo. To reiterate, what hope does a new player, fresh with a starter deck, hope of winning, or even lasting a few turns. A 13 year old, without an income. Even me, paying bills, making due. I can only afford to draft. I can’t afford to have a fun standard experience and keep up with competition. In the end, this is not competition. A 1 v 1 match with two $400 decks is competition. My $30 budget build against Mardu vehicles is slaughter. So to that end disincentivizing competitive players isn’t to disincentivize competition. It is to give players, who never could have a chance, a chance.

The issue of a double sided token as the incentive to win, isn’t an issue. It isn’t an issue because this isn’t for you. Of course it is a strict downgrade in the promos that came before because it’s meant to be. I do not believe that this is a reward to attract a new kind of player. Instead, I see it as a lesser reward, and nothing more. It is something competitive players don’t want, but still MTG bling. You won. You got the unique shiny card. That is your reward. And you can use it in your deck.

The professor’s point on promos at the standard show down is a fair one. I will admit that. If this was their perceived incentive, they should move it to where they want the traffic. You want competition out of FNM; get rid of the promo. You want competition to be at the Standard Showdown; give them the promo. The choice to include a piece of foil art for a Rebecca Guay land is fantastic. The piece is chance in it’s non-foil version, and so it’s foil would only be more so. In fact, this may encourage competition in he standard showdown. A place for competition.

At this point, though, The Professor misrepresents the issue. Outright claiming that, given this single example, all will likely be land. But we don’t know this. In his Daily Update, Blake Rasmussen says that this is subject to change. “….we’re trying something new. That doesn’t mean we won’t re-evaluate in the future—we’re always evaluating what we’re doing.” To use the fact that lands may end up as a tired example is fair. But only in the conditions where someone states so. I foresee that it’s likely a the promos will end up in the packs. Only that this time Wizards wanted the promo to be a chase land. I may be speculating too, but my speculation regards varied alternatives. Not a single reality. There is no base for the Professor’s speculation on the continuation of lands. It feels as though he is clutching at straws.

From here, the rest of his points stem from speculation about why Wizards changed the promo. As he goes, he diverts further from the outlined reasons. I’m not pretending that Wizards tells everyone their reasons, all companies do. But using speculation, even good speculation, as a basis for fact is wrong. There is no mention of the quality of promos as a basis for change in either listed article. This is a clear strawman. And on top of that, a false one. The quality of promos has upset people. And it has been a factor in their absence at FNM. There is basis for the belief that quality of promo affects competitive attendance. I’m genuinely confused by where this came from, all the same. That Wizards are doing this because of complaints of quality. What’s more, The Professor doesn’t believe they’d make the smarter change. To improve the card quality.

To actually address this point, I recognise that quantity is important. This is especially the case in large stores. But in small ones it isn’t. Small stores has more than enough. There is an underlying problem here that Wizards needs to look into. But the level of micromanaging necessary, it’s clear why they don’t. It would take more effort than it’s worth to balance this between different size stores.

The professor’s third premise does raise some eyebrows because it’s a fair point. Wizards states that the quality increase of promo didn’t change attendance. The Professor then questions how can they correlate. How can promos and attendance relate if once quality changed, attendance didn’t? But Wizards isn’t correlating these two. They are correlating two things from this. That or new players and promo quality. And completion and promo quality. The implication lies in he next line. “….we don’t want players showing up just because they want the promo—we hope they’re there because they enjoy playing Magic…” It isn’t competitive players themselves they want to disincentivize. But competition. So to play for the sake of it.

He then talks about how the lack of change in data may be due to reputation. That, if Wizards doesn’t offer a good promo for long enough, no one expects one. And so the attendance doesn’t change. But were that the case, Wizards wouldn’t do anything. That data would mean that people who don’t like the promo aren’t going to FNM. It must be something else, otherwise their goals would have already met their goal.

To speculate some more, the lack of interesting promos may have been a subtle way to reach the same goal. To get people who are competitive out. Yet it didn’t work. Which would mean that they looked at more data than a single point. Like user reviews, or some such thing.

The professor’s final point about whether people go to FNM for the promos and only the promos is a fair. He does make it out to feel like FNM is dying, which it isn’t. But I have a few final points myself, because I conclude. If the promos weren’t that big a factor in attendance, why does it matter? This video address why they shouldn’t go, but not why they matter at all. If you want to simply play magic, shouldn’t the winning boosters, or personal victory be enough? To talk about having fun, and then complain about a lost promo; these topics don’t connect. FNM will be no less fun with the loss of the promo. And if some competitive players get so irate that they never go, and open the flood gates for new players. I’ll be happy. Because the more new players we get, the better the game will be. The better the next generation of pros will be. Or maybe they’ll pump WoTC’s profits. IDGF. We can’t expect everyone to want to keep winning for it’s own sake. And you can’t convince people to spend $400 on standard if they don’t see the fun in it. Competition is fun, but there needs to be an official casual space. And this is a push towards that.

Ultimately, The Professor does not give credit where credit is due. His arguments lack depth. Attacking the change, without acknowledging the reason. The removal of the promo was to stop it being a factor completely in competition. So that people who came to FNM, did it for the fun of FNM. Not only to win. The promo token is not to bring in a new audience, but to offer a no stakes prize. The standard showdown offered a home for competition. But they don’t need to move the promo there because the promo isn’t what brought competition. It was the idea of a powerful prize you can use. Saying the should move it, if they believe that and that alone, brought competition. It’s a wild over simplification of the issue and undermines Wizard’s decision.

I get being salty. But this is childish. It’s upsetting to hear that the way you play is not wanted were it used to be. But, misrepresenting the issue is unprofessional.

I think we did not use to agree in our political sentiments. My turn was rather more republican than yours when we used to converse together at Geneve, & unless you have changed, we are still at variance in our sentiments—but there is one thing I am persuaded from your humanity & love of justice you will grant me—I think that we Americans at least in the Southern cols, cannot contend with a good grace for liberty, until we shall have enfranchised our slaves. How can we whose jealousy has been alarm’d more at the name of oppression than at the reality reconcile to our spirited assertions of the rights of mankind the galling abject slavery of our negroes? I could talk much with you, my dear friend, upon this subject, & I know your generous soul would despise & sacrifice interest to establish the happiness of so large a part of the inhabitants of our soil, if, as some pretend, but I am persuaded thro’ interest than from conviction, the culture of the ground with us cannot be carried on without African slaves. Let us fly it as a hateful country and say ubi libertas i (paper torn in breaking seal) patria.

John Laurens to Francis Kinloch, spring of 1776 (according to the book ‘The life of Henry Laurens, with a sketch of the life of Lieutenant-Colonel John Laurens’ published in 1915)

At the bottom of the page it reads: “'Hateful’ written over a word which begins with a d, seems to have traces of an m in the middle and ends with a d!“


May 13th 1862: Robert Smalls’s escape from slavery

On this day in 1862, Robert Smalls made his escape from slavery by stealing a Confederate ship. Smalls, the son of a house slave and, allegedly, the plantation owner’s son, was raised in the family home. As a teenager, he worked as a day labourer and sailor on the waterfront in Charleston. When the American Civil War began in 1861, Smalls was hired as a deckhand on Confederate supply ship the Planter. Smalls meticulously noted details of the ship and planned navigation routes, preparing to make his escape. In the early hours of May 13th, 1862, while the white crew slept in the city, Smalls and a small group of slaves - which included his wife and children - sailed the Planter out of Charleston. Smalls applied his knowledge from months of working on the ship to provide the correct signals at checkpoints, enabling the ship to sail to the Union blockade. The Planter raised a white flag of surrender, and was accepted by the Union ships. Smalls brought him not just recently-freed slaves, but the valuable Confederate plans and weaponry found aboard the ship. His daring escape earned him accolades from Congress, and his subsequent speaking tour made him a visible spokesperson for African-Americans fighting in the Union army; Smalls himself served as a naval captain. After the war, Smalls bought his former owner’s house in South Carolina and established a business. He entered politics after the enfranchisement of African-Americans, and served in the House of Representatives from 1874 to 1879. However, Smalls’s political career was marred by racially-motivated accusations of corruption. Robert Smalls, war hero, black activist, and Congressman, died in 1915 aged 75.

captainsquirrel83  asked:

The new wording for O-Ring type cards is strictly superior. I am a very much enfranchised player and would even prefer functional errata to have all old cards work the new way. The "glitching" that exsisted before seems to appeal to some people - for me it's just a form of angleshooting that happens to be rules conform, and is against the intended spirit of the card. You are perfectly right in cleansing Magic from this stuff! It should about fun and strategy, not about rules-lawyering!

You and I agree.

Power Level in EDH

It is no secret that EDH is a very diverse format - probably the most diverse format out there. A deck builder can build almost any kind of deck imaginable - from the typical control, combo, aggro, and midrange decks; to decks like Stax, chaos, pillowfort, and anything in between. However, not all EDH decks are created equal - the possible disparity in power level between any two EDH decks is potentially as large as the difference between a bad draft deck and a tuned Vintage deck - and any sort of deck in between.

Most people tend to classify EDH decks as either “Casual” or “Competitve”, but the divide between the two is both subjective and blurry. However, a good way to classify EDH decks is needed in order to better communicate what kinds of decks you are playing to the rest of your pod or playgroup so everyone can have an enjoyable experience. It would also be good to have a metric for discussing certain cards or deck-archetypes. As such, I have decided to try creating my own classification system for EDH decks:

Type 1: Jank, Draft Chaff, and Gimmicks

Everyone was new to EDH at one time. Whether from inexperience or lack of funds, many players of EDH have decks that are barely functional - containing little more than draft chaff and starter-pack rares. Their curves are nonexistent, their decks are incoherent, and their cards are unsleeved. Some may  be monstrosities containing 65 random green creatures and 35 forests, or “troll decks” containing 5-drop removal spells and Divinations with literally zero win-con. Other decks of this type tend to be gimmicks or “theme decks”, created by a more enfranchised player as a form of self-expression. Decks like “Ladies Looking Left” or “Chair Tribal” or “Mono-Red Samurai” - full of a whole lot of flavor, but almost nothing else. Decks of this type are often composed entirely of cards most players would never give a second look at, and typically cannot stand up to anything much stronger than a precon, if that.

Type 2: Casual

As opposed to Type 1 decks, Type 2 decks tend to have some amount of selectivity in the cards they play. You probably aren’t going to see random French-Vanillas in a deck like this, and they typically tend to have some sort of strategy and coherence. This is actually where I would rate the precon decks that Wizards makes every year. I would also consider decks built with some sort of arbitrary restriction - EG “no rares” or “no cards over $2”, as well as builds of “grouphug” and “chaos” that just do not have a way to win to be in this category. These types of decks are typically not exactly “good”, still containing many suboptimal choices and often with abysmal mana-curves, but the decks still tend to have some bite to them. If there are any combos in these decks, they are horribly janky and inconsistent ones, requiring so many pieces to function that it feels fair.

Type 3: “75%”

The name of this type is based off the “75%” deckbuilding philosophy, that states that the way to build an EDH deck that can handle the most competitive of players while not being unfun for the most casual is to make one at 75% power. While such a deck is actually impossible to build (anything that wants to even attempt to have a chance at so much as participating in a game with the most competitive of decks has to run the sorts of cards that more casual players shun entirely), decks of this type can pretty happily sit at a table with anything from a “type-2” deck to a “type-4” deck. While not all 75% decks out there are of this type, and not all decks of this type are 75% decks, the types of decks that philosophy builds are exemplars of this power-level. These are probably the most common types of EDH decks out there, and if you are going into a new group or store blindly, your best bet is probably with one of these.

Type 4: Pubstomp

Y’know that guy who claims he is so amazing at EDH and that his deck is unbeatable? That guy that plays Kaalia or Jhoira or Rafiq, that you just can’t beat? Well, this is probably the kind of deck he plays. Type 4 is where the gloves come off and anything goes - MLD, combos, Stax, Infect, Extra Turns, and everything else under the sun. These decks are mean, and tend to crush more casual decks out there. If you asked the average player what the best decks in EDH are, they would probably list off decks of this type. And they would be dead wrong.

Type 5: CEDH

These are actually the best decks in the format. These decks are truly degenerate, capable of consistently winning on turns 3-5 through disruption. These decks are not fair in any sense of the word, full of a who’s who of broken cards and mechanics, and anything that can’t kill everyone at once is too slow.. Storm, Doomsday, Stax, Ooze Combo…decks more broken and tuned than most think is possible in this format. There is a good reason that decks like these are often referred to as “singleton Vintage” decks. But we promise we aren’t bad once you get to know us…

My Dear Kinloch,

I have just been perusing your last kind Letter, which fortunately for me has no date, (for I should be asham’d to mark the Length of my Silence_) and am very happy to find that you are pursuing a Plan of Study, in which I am engaged as far as my necessary Attention to the particular Laws of one Country will permit_ it is the noblest Employment of the Mind, and what our Country particularly requires of her Sons at this juncture_

I supposed that you have had satisfactory Answers long since, to all those Questions of Intelligence in your Letter_ the last Packet brought over Lady William Campbell and her Family.  She informs us that the Carolinians have given a thorough Repair to Fort Johnston, have erected a New Battery on Sullivans Island, which if you recollect, is opposite, have emptied the Town of all valuable Moveables, and dispersed their Wives and Children as they found it convenient in different Parts of the Country_ that they are determined to make the best Defense in their power, in case any Troops should be sent against them, and that her only Doubts on this head, are whether the Men of Property who seem to be firm and resolute, will be supported by the lower Class_ my Letters, one from Doctor Garden and the other from my Father, are very short_ not a word of Public Intelligence in either_

G. Britain has now collected all the Strength which she can consistently with Policy spare from home, which joined to considerable foreign Aid, she thinks will be sufficient to bring us into Subjection_ whether they will succeed or no depends upon the degrees of Virtue and Unanimity which the Americans are possess’d of_ if they are so great as we are taught to expect, all that the Mother Country can do will prove ineffectual_ the Destruction of the Sea Port Towns, or the greatest Part of them, and the Landing of Troops either under Cover of Men of War, or upon some defenceless shore of so vast a Continent, can scarcely be prevented; Britain may destroy our Riches, but what are these to Americans when set in competition with that Liberty for which they nobly sacrifice their Lives_ the Troops will not dare to penetrate the Country_ of what avail will it be to England that her Troops should here and there have footing upon an uncultivated Coast; cut off from Sustenance and Necessaries of every kind, but such as shall be sent them from home_ that her Ships mann’d and victualled at a vast expence, should now and then seize an American Straggler endeavouring to force a Trade_ is this the End to be answer’d, by such mighty preparations and such an immense addition to the national Debt_ and how long will they be able to continue it?_

the Americans have already Sacrificed their Luxuries, and many of them have gone farther, the longer They live in a frugal temperate manner & the longer they are accustomed to Arms_ the more will they despise Affluence and its Incidents, the more will they prize Liberty and the better able will they be to repulse their Enemies_ I should not be surprized if like Pelasgus and his followers they should retire to barren Rocks, sooner than yield_ and I should glory to be one of their Number_ In Men there must be always powerful Motives to produce great Actions_ if this Struggle continues America will abound with great Characters_ otherwise by our Trade with the Mother Country, consequent Riches and Introduction of her Luxuries, we should soon have advanced from Infancy, to the Corruption of an old and ruin’d State, without ever having had any intermediate Maturity_

You blame your Countrymen in many things, and so must every Man who is not utterly blinded by party_ _ prejudice_ but tell me my Dear Friend whether in a Dispute of this Nature, where the passions have been so much raised, Men can avoid falling into frequent Errors; considering the Provocation, consider the great and glorious Object for which we contend_ and tell me whether Men can be as considerate & moderate as they might be, were the Stake less [torn] By-Standers will undoubtedly see where Passion has taken [torn] of Policy, where the Liberty which is meant to be establsih’d has suffer’d a temporary Infringement_ but this has been invariably the Case in popular Struggles, and Slight Evils must be endured that greater Good may come_ Our Poverty, and Loss of Trade I shall never regret, provided we can establish, either in union with Gr. Britain, or without her, such a form of Government. as will best conduce to the good of the whole_

I think we did not use to agree exactly in our political Sentiments, my Turn was rather more Republican than yours when we used to converse together at Geneve, and unless you have changed, we are still at variance in our Sentiments_ but there is one Thing I am persuaded from your Humanity and Love of Justice you will grant me_ I think we Americans at least in the Southern Colonies, cannot contend with a good Grace, for Liberty, until we shall have enfranchised our Slaves_ how can we whose Jealousy has been alarm’d more at the Name of Oppression sometimes than at the Reality, reconcile to our Spirited Assertions of the Rights of Mankind, the galling abject of Slavery of our Negroes_ I could talk much with you my Dear Friend upon this Subject, and I know your generous Soul would despise and sacrifice Interest to establish the Happiness of so large a Part of the Inhabitants of our Soil_ if as some pretend, but I am persuaded more thro’ interest, than from Conviction, the Culture of the Ground with us cannot be carried on without African slaves, Let us fly it as a hateful Country_ and say ubi Libertas ibi Patria_ You and I may differ my Dear Kinloch in our political Sentiments but I shall always love you from the Knowledge I have of your Heart.  It has not fall’n in my way […] tho’ the Question of Charters you see, is not intirely laid aside_ I wish I could send you a Pamphlet lately publish’d by Doctor Price_ perhaps I may shortly have an Opportunity_ Adieu

J Laurens.


John Laurens to Francis Kinloch, in a letter dated April 12, 1776

Transcription provided by Greg Massey.  The bracketed ellipsis in the last paragraph indicates a part of the letter that survives but was cut off in the transcription I was provided.

Olive Schreiner (1855-1920) was a South African author and activist, best remembered for her novels which explore important issues of the day, and offer progressive views towards their resolution. Her most famous work is Story of an African Farm, which deals with controversial aspects such as religion and the treatment of women in society.

Other important works include Woman and Labour, with themes of socialism and gender equality, or From Man to Man, which extends to also include a condemnation of racism along with sexism. In 1907 she became the vice-president of the Women’s Enfranchisement League in Cape Town, but refused to continue working for them when other branches of the organization tried to exclude black women from the suffrage cause.

sendai45  asked:

You've explained to us that the data shows that the quality of the promo card doesn't affect FNM attendance. Why is the plan now to change the promo cards to affect attendance? Seems odd.

Here’s the part you’re missing. Highly valued promos attract a certain style of more competitive player. The influx of that style of player disincentives less enfranchised players from showing up. So while promos can bring in some players, the net effect doesn’t result in higher attendance.

flavoracle  asked:

A year from now someone says to you, "We don't need any main sets returning to Dominaria because every core set essentially IS a return to Dominaria flavorfully." How do you respond?

I have typed so many iterations of this and decided to go with a short and sweet three points. I’m about to go out for the night but I’d be happy to expand and elaborate on this stuff either later tonight or tomorrow. The fact that I’ve already typed a bunch about it and felt none of that was a proper answer means I have more thoughts on this than I woulda thought considering I don’t personally have any big emotional ties to any part of Dominaria (except Marit Lage, may her ice cube prison melt soon, and she could just show up on another plane anyway). So any way:

1. Players want it and they’ve wanted it since we had core sets in the past, showing core sets aren’t enough

2. Core sets aren’t enough because they don’t have the same focus of story, exploration of the world, etc.

3. The new core sets are no longer trying to skirt the balance of “is this for enfranchised players or new players?” Their mission statement involves being a bridge for newer players into expert expansions. If Wizards tries to also use it as a way to return to a place that it seems to me mostly matters to long term enfranchised players, they introduce that same old problem all over again.

4. turns out there’s a fourth one–the reprints won’t necessarily be flavored appropriately for Dominaria, which you wouldn’t see of any card on a proper return to Dominaria, and it’s even possible (however unlikely given the goals of a core set) that a core set could be made without any cards with flavor tie ins to Dominaria. That just happens to be the case from the past because the first half of Magic’s cards were printed for things that occurred on Dominaria

See what I mean? This is the short answer. If people want to talk about this I’m totally game.

“I discovered feminist writings from all over the world, but even more significantly I discovered that the Middle East had a feminist heritage of its own; it was not imported from the West as opponents of women’s rights sometimes claim. There was Huda Shaarawi, a feminist who launched Egypt’s women’s rights movement and publicly removed her face veil in Cairo in 1923; Doria Shafik who led fifteen hundred women as they stormed the Egyptian parliament in the 1950s then staged a hunger strike for women’s enfranchisement; Nawal Saadawi, an Egyptian physician, writer, and activist; Fatima Mernissi a Moroccan sociologist- all fierce advocates of women’s rights. They gave me a new language to describe what I was seeing around me…

When I write or give lectures about gender inequality in the Middle East and North Africa, I understand I am walking into a minefield. On one side stands a bigoted and racist Western right wing that is all too eager to hear critiques of the region and of Islam that it can use against us. I would like to remind these conservatives that no country is free of misogyny and that their efforts to reverse hard earned women’s reproductive rights makes them brothers-in-hatred to our Islamists. On the other side are those Western liberals who rightfully condemn imperialism and yet are blind to the cultural imperialism they are performing when they silence critiques of misogyny.

Criticisms of my essays are that they are in English. I don’t see these same criticisms in regards to articles that expose human rights violations or the failing economies in our region. The double standard is clear; when it comes to women’s issues, keep it between us in a language only we can understand so you don’t make us look bad.

While I am acutely aware of Islamophobes and xenophobic political right wingers who are all too glad to hear how badly Muslim men treat their women, I’m also acutely aware that there is a right wing among Muslim men that does propagate misogyny. We must confront both, not ally ourselves with one in order to fight the other.

Why do those men hate us? They hate us because they need us, they fear us, they understand how much control it takes to keep us in line, to keep us good girls with our hymens intact until it’s time for them to fuck us into mothers who raise future generations of misogynists to forever fuel their patriarchy. They hate us because we are once their temptation and salvation from that patriarchy, which they must sooner or later realize hurts them too. They hate us because they know that once we rid ourselves of the alliance of state and street that works in tandem to control us, we will demand a reckoning….”

Excerpts from Headscarves and Hymens by Mona AlTahawy

alaalba123  asked:

As a casual constructed player, I play with the subset of cards I buy specifically to make the decks I design myself. As does everyone else I know. We play with a wider range of cards than tournament players, but no one I know would play with anything as bad as Crabapple Cohort.

I used to do deck clinics at conventions where I looked at people’s decks and gave them advice how to make it better. It was eye opening. People play with everything. Everything!

We even have data on Magic Online (which leans more towards enfranchised players) that shows it’s true.

sillywhiteguy  asked:

Would it be fair to say that the promo, for me at least, adds a lot of value to fnm? I'm a super enfranchised player, but getting a literal card i can put in my deck that also has real monetary value associated with it feels like it's worth more then a foil token.

Without a doubt. But that’s the point. 

Like, I feel like people are missing that that is the point.

By not having that, the people who are super enfranchised lose that same incentive. In doing that you pave the way for easier access by less enfranchised players, who value a token as a prize. 

anonymous asked:

Okay but honestly Scott and Kira married with kids is the best thing ever and now I can't stop thinking about their adorable little babies!!!!!!

LISTEN okay they have three kids: twin girls and a little boy 

the twins are identical, so one insisted on cutting her hair really short like aunt malia, because she is totally life goals. aunt malia always holds their hands when they walk ANYWHERE because aunt malia is super protective.

the twins take after their mom a lot. they’re mad athletic and super into sports. scott and kira take them to the high school’s lacrosse games sometimes and they lose their minds. they talk more smack than the adults. it’s adorable.

their little boy looks more like kira than scott, but he actually ended up with melissa’s curly hair. he has joyful brown eyes and stiles has already enfranchised him into the star wars fandom. he has a han solo nightlight. for halloween, he wanted to be a space cowboy.  

the girls are older, but they always include their brother when they play together. they know that sharing is caring, and they’re equally invested in his toys. he asked for a motorcycle last christmas, one that looks exactly like his dad’s. he wants to be just like him. scott nearly weeps when his boy tells him he’s his hero. all three of his kids fight over the motorcycle toy. 

kira has an entire shelf dedicated just to cookbooks and she loves being the mom that can cook delicious gourmet meals for her kids. she also doesn’t believe in hiring babysitters, not when uncle stiles and uncle derek live so close. kira drops her kids off at their apartment during the summer before she goes to work because stiles works from home. the kids cling to kira’s legs and cry and beg her not to leave every single time, but eventually she peels them away and kisses their foreheads and promises she’ll be back soon. 

kira and scott regularly return to find derek sitting in his living room with pigtails and beaded necklaces around his neck and they can’t believe this is their life. uncle stiles and uncle derek also come over every sunday for family dinner. the girls are obsessed with uncle derek, mostly because he lets them paint his nails and put glittery clips into his hair.

melissa stays over for christmas every year and it’s the best. she takes the kids out for ice cream (only if they agree not to tell scott and kira they’ve spoiled their dinner). she takes them to the park where scott used to play. she teaches them spanish and helps scott hone the art of making perfect home made tacos.

aunt lydia helps them all with their homework. she teaches them advanced techniques that puts them ahead of their class. their teachers tell them they’re doing their math wrong, but lydia defends them. she convinces scott and kira to let them skip a grade. or two. 

their little boy follows uncle isaac around. he’s obsessed with isaac’s hair because it’s just like his hair. uncle isaac makes sure he’s into the coolest saturday morning cartoons and gives the kids the warmest of hugs, all bundled up in his knitted sweaters. 

it’s just really nice because scott can’t believe that he gets to walk by his kids’ rooms some nights and find them all curled up sleeping next to kira when she passes out reading their bedtime stories. he can’t believe he’s married to his high school sweetheart and has three bright, happy kids. everyone is safe and warm under his roof and he is finally content. 

Rhetorical Devices

I found my notes from AP English Language (actually one of my favorite classes ever) and thought some people might benefit from the definitions in there. A few are common knowledge and a few are probably things you’ve never heard of. Examples included! The ordering isn’t completely logical, but here you go.

Keep reading


July 15th 1858: Emmeline Pankhurst born

On this day in 1858, English suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst was born in Manchester. Born as Emmeline Goulden, her family had a tradition of radical politics, as did her husband Richard Pankhurst. In 1889, she founded the Women’s Franchise League, and in 1903 the Women’s Social and Political Union. The latter was far more militant in its demands for female suffrage, resorting to criminal activities like vandalism and arson. The suffragettes were known for their hunger strikes in prison, which resulted in violent force-feeding; Pankhurst herself was subjected to this while in prison on hunger strike. The actions of suffragettes appeared hysterical and fanatical to contemporary observers - especially Emily Wilding Davison’s death upon jumping in front of a horse at the 1913 Derby - and did not lead to female suffrage. Their tactics were more extreme when compared to the moderate suffragists led by Millicent Fawcett, and even divided Pankhurst’s daughters, causing a rift in the family. Upon the outbreak of the First World War, Pankhurst and the suffragettes actively supported the war effort in factories and encouraging enlistment, which resulted in enfranchisement of women over thirty in 1918. This was not on par with men, and Pankhurst continued the struggle for the female voting age to be reduced to 21. Pankhurst, who had devoted her life to the cause of female equality, died soon before this was achieved in 1928.

“The condition of our sex is so deplorable that it is our duty to break the law in order to call attention to the reasons why we do”