181–190 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "pseudoscientific mysticism" is just in response to the fact that many people don't see it as being subjective, but rather objectively measurable/common sense/blatantly obvious.
Surely common sense is subjective? And many blatantly obvious things are not objectively measurable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, alternate option, you can take it at face value in that he claimed a meat only diet helped him, using his public persona to push an agenda that is completely unsupported by science.
He wasn't "pushing an agenda". He was telling people about how a diet he went on helped him and his daughter. He explicitly stated multiple times that he wasn't a doctor and that his experience was anecdotal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, not the reason I said it but nice assumption.
Well until someone develops mind-reading technology, that's the most likely explanation someone reading your comment would have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/20325/will-in... See https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Ending_the_game : > 104.4b If a game that’s not using the limited range of influence option (including a two-player game) somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw. Loops that contain an optional action don’t result in a draw. One (very contrived) e…
That rule is exactly where the the construction used becomes interesting: it's built in such a way so that if the turing machine halts, the player who set it up wins the game. If it doesn't, by the rule above, it's a draw. So it's fundamentally impossible to tell the result of an arbitrary setup (and in practice you could set it up such that it halts iff some unknown conjecture is true). Regarding the oblivion ring l…
Oh wow, I should have realized that somebody would try it out online just to see what happens! I'm not surprised it ends up with some sort of clash; given that it's Turing complete, the game engine obviously can't detect whether a current state will end up halting or not...
> And here's the paper on the latest turing machine construction in mtg: https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09828
Awesome, thanks! I'll definitely check that out
Every time “Magic: The Gathering” is mentioned it seriously throws off my phrase parsing for like half a minute. What about “the magic”? What is “the gathering color wheel”? I wish “Magic: The Gathering” was in quotes.
Same for news involving Yahoo!!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He wasn't "pushing an agenda". He was telling people about how a diet he went on helped him and his daughter. He explicitly stated multiple times that he wasn't a doctor and that his experience was anecdotal.
Peterson does have a way of trying to tie all of his beliefs into a larger world view, and selling that, though. It's the same thing with the Mesopotamian gods and his beliefs about gender.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you said the Earth was flat you'd be wrong, if you said the Earth was a sphere, you'd also be wrong, but if you said the second was just as wrong as the first, you'd be more wrong than either. Yadda yadda. The article is flat Earth wrong. Garfield needed a design reason to force players to include and exclude whole swaths of cards. Separating them by some arbitrary distinction solved that. Then he slapped some fla…
You're using "wrong" to refer to the fact that the color pie was developed arbitrarily, and so can't be descriptive of humanity or people. The other poster, and the article, aren't claiming that the color pie was developed with humanity or culture as a basis. They don't think that people can be solely described by a color and a description thought up by Garfield as a background for a card game. They don't disagree wi…
And the metaphor isn't the point. So trying to defend the flat Earth model is missing the point of the metaphor entirely. It's an "ahksually" retort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Magic has terms for that too. Most decks aren’t mono-colored, people blend colors and those decks take a character and personality of their own. A Green/Blue hybrid deck is called “Simic” and does encompass both sides. It refers to a kind of cerebral approach to cultivating nature, like a biologist or a gardener. The faction is comprised of weird genetic engineered organisms. Black/White is called “Orzhov” and blends…
Interestingly, you can view both Nazism and Soviet Communism through a black/white lens, but they hated one another because the way black and white split were inverted. This means there’s more than one flavor of black-white - you get a pair of flavors for every dimension along which one can resolve the self vs other contradiction. Communism - white ideology (equality for all) led by a deeply black, self-serving Party…
Communism might have rules and be ruthless, but it's also a utopian ideology that motivated heavily by a desire for "freedom" in its anarchist framing. It's just that this state of freedom is deferred (basically indefinitely). There is also a huge element of technocratic management in socialist economics. I would actually categorize it as a Blue/Red ideology with splashes of Black once the tankies show up. These are Grixis colors, but Grixis in magic is predominantly Black with a bit of Blue and Red, while Communists would be predominantly Blue/Red with a splash of Black.
Nazism is must more White rather than Blue. It's a preference for order, hierarchy, and purity, which are all classically White. It's also violent and ruthless, which is classically Black. There is also some Green in there because of the emphasis on a belief in primordial racial groups having a "natural" hierarchy. Their idea of nature is completely at odds with how nature actually works, but they think that's how it works. They're pretty close to Abzan (https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Abzan_Houses) with the general militarism, the xenophobia, and the obsessive focus on lineage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was definitely the case in the early days. It is evidenced by the "boons", cards that cost 1 and do 3 of one thing the color is supposed to do best. The white one, Healing Salve, is very weak, it has later been replaced by a strictly better card. The red (Lightning Bolt), green (Giant Growth) and black (Dark Ritual) are very solid cards and were seen in most decks of their respective colors in the early days of Ma…
No blue also got the best cards afterwards. Jace the Mind Sculptor, True Name Nemesis, Delver of Secrets, Snapcaster Mage, Narset Parting Veil, Ponder, Urza, Oko, Uro, etc. Blue's color identity is just 'being really good at Magic' it seems
And that's a bit tongue in cheek, but in all seriousness blue is the color of mind tricks and the hacker mentality, so it makes sense blue prefers manipulating game state in ways other colors just won't think of doing, and unfortunately the game's designers grossly underestimated just how powerful "manipulating game state" is.
It is fun to see how much of this overlaps with the official guidelines for colors [0]. I think that the five colors are better explained in terms of deck strategies and win conditions. Crucially, by design, no color is best, nor is any combination of colors best. White represents not dying, both by preventing damage and by healing damage. White wins by having more health than their opponents, and outlasting them in…
There's more to these colors than your short summary says. In particular it doesn't say what colors can't do. White is really bad at destroying stuff directly unless it's artifacts or enchantments. It can destroy or tap lands, but typically ALL lands (2WW Armageddon). It's self-centered and when it affects enemies it's usually by placing rules, laws, constraints (Pacifism; cannot uptap; etc). Mass effects of various…
White also has a thing for destroying creatures engaged in combat, which is both an extension of its rulesetting ("fighting is against the rules, and if you break the rules, you die") and its preference for pacifism (enforcing non-violence via harsh punishments). White is also the only color besides Blue that gets counterspells, typically with a taxing condition (e.g. "counter target spell unless its controller pays {2}"). White, like any responsible government, collects taxes after all.
> Green is exceptionally bad at destruction and dealing damage. Its boons are often individual in contrast to white's, which is morel like a jungle than a society. Very early M:tg had cards like Stormseeker, they are notably absent in modern M:tg.
And when Green does get to deal damage, it's through creatures. It gets straight-up buffs such as good ol' Giant Growth, plus effects where creatures get to deal damage to targets equal to their power (nicknamed "one-sided fight", after the "fight" keyword where two creatures damage each other equal to their power).