Speaking of toast, I'm doing a collab with Disguised Toast from hearthstone Fame. There may be rumors that he paid me $500 for the podcast appearance. I will leave that up to him to validate.
I for one will gladly watch and support more of these Magic: the Gathering drama videos. Not only because I can support someone doing the work of actually gathering the data and presenting it nicely (powerpoint A+) but also because I really like your baseline of "not being mean". That is a bar most journalists and people doing huge essays and drama coverage have not cleared and I really admire you for being so human-positive about everything. Thank you!
@28:58 Because of the earlier point about how so much advertising is garbage, paying for no ads has improved peace of mind so much I'll never go back. Your sponsored game playthroughs are exactly what you described of a 3 way beneficial relationship, and is how it should be done.
Yeah. I really like how Jorbs handles ads, where they blur the line between advertisement and genuine recommendation. But the normalized situation of having completely unrelated ads interrupt the normal content every 15 minutes is horrible, and i would much rather pay for content than have to deal with that. I also appreciate how content creators that are "customer supported" are less likely to be beholden to advertisers and/or shareholders who do not care about the integrity of the content and only care about money. Similarly, I'm much more comfortable with a game that i have to pay a subscription or up front price for, rather than one that's "free", but has in app purchases and lootbox mechanics, but that's a slightly different topic. I hadn't thought about how the donations model specifically could result in such creepy interactions with individuals. That really sucks, and is definitely an argument against the donations model. I hope that having set levels of support like patreon has would limit the amount of power such an individual would wield, but there's also discussions to be had about the negative impacts being beholden to your fans can have on content creation too. There's definitely creative people who feel stuck doing one type of content because that's what their viewers pay for, even though they would rather be changing things up, which is tough.
I don't think you're being completely fair to Thunder Junction. They definitely consulted with a bunch of cultural advisors and concluded (almost certainly correctly) that any angle they would choose on this one would definitely cause a ruckus. Either they have to make a set that is completely about the genocide and oppression of the native American people (and not only cause a ruckus online but also completely change the vibe of the set, which was a 'villain set' first and a 'wild west' set second) or they could choose to tiptoe around the issue and basically ignore all of the horrible stuff and be really problematic because they would not be addressing the actual issues. I think that the idea that on this specific wild west world, having it be empty until the Omenpaths came to the world and woke the world up is basically the best possible way they could have done this without actually having a set be 'about' the way Native Americans are treated. I mean... Thunder Junction has lots of problems, some of which are due to the fact that they did lots of world building that they never brought to the public and so people start filling things out for themselves, and I do think it doesn't look great, but they definitely thought a lot about this and chose the safest route through this minefield.
They could have chosen not to build a new plane using the historical American frontier as a setting. The problems as you've described exist because decades of whitewashing and glamorization of this period. Perhaps the reality is not so romantic and wouldn't make a good fantasy setting full of optimism and fresh possibilities.
If your standard is that strict, then there's basically no acceptable setting for anything fantasy because everything has something you could interpret as problematic.
You will never get 100% acceptance across the entire community. Heck, even history itself has been hotly debated across the political spectrum for all of human history! The old adage "history is written by the victors" is often true of the broadest, most generalized sources and more serious research is required to find counter-narratives. I don't have a specific opinion regarding this expansion itself, but from what I've read about it, it seems like they tried to replace the more brutal aspects with varying success. My original point was that they didn't have to choose such a minefield of a setting. Just because every historical setting is problematic in some way doesn't mean all historical settings are equally problematic.
If you'll "never get 100% acceptance" is that not then an argument for ignoring the wokescolds on this particular issue and just letting Thunder Junction be what it is?
Why are you asking me? Wizards will do whatever they want to do, but that doesn't mean a discussion regarding why they may have erred isn't interesting. If you don't find it interesting, why are you even here?
Jorbs if you'd like I can comment on all your TH-cam videos, but I'm moving to a sponsored commenter and would have you pay me a fee of $500, this fee goes to covering my time, creating a comment, hitting the post comment button, and utilizing my decades of shitposting experience.
Adapting IPs into MTG has always been fascinating to me ever since it started because the amount I care about the cards is directly proportional to how much I care/know it. I didn't care at all about the Fallout set until I played Fallout 3 a little while after it came out (I had wanted to play for a long time, and now had sufficient motivation to try when it kept getting recommended to me while the set was being previewed). But when I heard that WOTC reached out to Brandon Sanderson about a secret lair themed around his books that Brandon responded to but never heard back from wizards, I suddenly never wanted anything more for Magic.
glad ppl are into it but personally Ihave the exact opposite experience, mtg has only ever been interesting to me when it was something new and original, smth like the fallout tie in just leads me to go "oh yeah its that thing i already know."
i'm old enough to remember when mark Company Man™ rosewater said they valued brand integrity over the money printer of crossing magic with other IPs a shame magic is owned by a multi billion dollar company instead of a non-profit trust.
40:00 we see this a lot from software developers too. There's some cosmic lure that draws smart people who can solve a difficult problem to believe that they can solve all difficult problems if they just think about it hard enough.
The podcast episodes in question, any reddit discussion around those episodes, and any social media updates from the podcast for the last few months has almost entirely been wiped. This video is just about the only remaining discussion over this situation that's left. Wild.
The amazing thing about Magic controversies is that despite actively playing this game every week and being in several Discord that talk about the game I had NO IDEA that any of this even happened.
it is completely unintentional but "hamas is not a government" followed up with "be well-informed, thoughtful, and supportive" is some pitch black comedy, and it's coming from a magic the gathering podcast.
From what I understand, Hamas was voted into power in Gaza the last time they had an election. They promptly decided to stop having election right after but what can you expect from an islamofascist regime? So yeah, technically, Hamas is at least the regional government of the Gaza strip.
this was a fascinating video, but there are a few points you made that i want to issue something of an argument towards 1. the somewhat odd point that a card representing the idea of the character optimus prime is distinct from Optimus Prime, "Hero of the Autobots." i understand this was a choice made to emphasize a neutral point, but... we're dealing with representational forms, here. Something is only a thing because we give it that name, a card meant to represent a fictional character from another IP is as much the Body of that character as an action figure meant to represent that character, or a cartoon featuring that character- it's not a Real Thing, the only way it exists is through representational forms, and necessarily none of those forms can be more legitimate than another. A card depicting Optimus Prime *is* Optimus Prime, because Optimus Prime is an idea and thus can only exist through the forms meant to represent that idea. 2. the general condescending tone about the whole "why is this magic podcast talking about genocide" thing. platforming someone who was pro-genocide, very bad idea. but being separate from the community you failed to realize one important point: Before the episode with the colonizer, there was an episode with essayist Spice8Rack, who spoke at length about Palestine from an anti-genocide perspective. The decision to host the following episode came from a strange "both sides" ism perspective, and Spice requested its episode be taken down so as not to be mired in the drama. People play magic all over the world, and the desire to talk about an ongoing genocide, to not want to let people forget about what is happening, I don't think that's something that should be off-limits. i think there's a way to cover the topic in a respectful and appropriate manner in any context, because we're a global community, the things happening Around the Globe are affecting. the rest of your points, especially regarding advertising, were very salient, this was just two things that got somewhat stuck in my craw.
> representational forms [none of which] can be more legitimate than another. Is Optimus Prime a transformer? Is White Knight a human (lore-wise, independently of rules-wise)? Is the terminator a robot? Is Spock half-vulcan? Is Yoda a Jedi master? Not every time traveling infiltration-and-assassination cyborg needs to look like an Austrian body builder, but it better be some kind of robot. Some characteristics of these figments of our imagination are those that define them as _those_ particular figments and not others. Otherwise none of them have _any_ defining characteristics, and all of them are equivalent: a normal representation of Yoda can be claimed to also be a representation of Optimus Prime and the terminator. But that makes no sense; the mind revolts. Now, _some_ characteristics can be changed without changing the defining essence of these figments: Yoda can jump all over the place, shoot lasers and wield a light saber, the terminator can be female(-looking), Optimus Prime can have M:tG-style magical powers while still preserving their defining characteristics.
@@jonaskoelker thank you for your insight! you make a good point, closeness to the idea is an important thing when creating different representational forms of the same idea. my point, though, was more intended to be along the lines of "what makes a magic card representing optimus prime 'not optimus prime' as per jorbs' words, where something like a cartoon or action figure *is* 'optimus prime.' is it merely closeness to the original idea-form? how do we define closeness to that original idea-form? who decides what characteristics of an idea-form are defining enough to make something a recognizable representation of it across mediums, etc. etc.
@@chloerosewilliams5225 > is it merely closeness to the original idea-form? I'd say yes, pretty much. > who decides Everyone, each for themselves, although many people will agree about a lot. For example, I suspect most people will agree that the terminator (any terminator) is some kind of robot, it's on a mission to kill, it can blend in among humans to some extent, but it can also be identified as non-human if it outs itself. Tonally it's menacing and ominous. Less central characteristics: it looks like Arnold. It operates in Los Angeles. It wields an uzi, nein millemeetah. It kills everyone who stands in its way. Of course, there may be disagreement about which characteristics are most central and which are most peripheral. But if people were to say things like "that's not the terminator I know and love" or "I don't like the way franchise X is going", what they're probably saying is that new representations deviate too far from what the speaker took to be essential about previous representations. Since I'm not familiar with transformers, I can't say how faithful the M:tG representation of Optimus Prime is. If there's no magic in the canonical transformers universe, some might say it's no longer Optimus Prime, while others might say it's OP in a new context. So I guess Jorbs' opinion isn't wrong, but neither is anyone else's: it's just an opinion (maaaan).
First 20 years of life, I'd prefer no upfront cost, watch ads. After getting a full-time job -> time seems more valuable so paying to not watch ads seems better. Also probably depends on socioeconomic status, whether you live in the US, etc.
5:00 - Manhattan is an island, but that's only one of the five boroughs of NYC (the others being Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Staten Island). Though Manhattan is usually what people think of when they think of NYC.
You're right, that podcast is an inadequate source for perspective about [the topic that will get this comment flagged for autoreview]. I rely on TH-cam comments for my world news and analysis, and that's never led me astray. Fellow viewers, please weigh in below.
It's not problematic for wizards to want a wild west inspired setting for their fantasy to not have to grapple with complex ethical issues so they decide that since it's entirely made up the area is completely empty of anything before the current occupants showed up.
I enjoyed hearing you talk about mtg drama. It is very fascinating. You set this up very well. I liked getting to hear all the backstory and the 'little oops' was a nice anticipation builder. Then you finally dropped the Big Oops and it definitely delivered.
This seems to me like it doubles as a case study on possible issues with independent content creators working at the border of journalism and entertainment. The same thing that allows people to instantly broadcast their views can lead them, willfully or through ignorance, to miss any understanding of ethics in those fields. This doesn't absolve established media sources of ethics issues: hidden money, pressure to kill stories or make puff pieces, and Harvey Weinstein-type abuse are infamous. But now we suddenly have a new set of essentially unchecked broadcasts with a worldwide reach making the same mistakes. Making it the responsibility of each content creator to hold themselves to ethical standards is where we've ended up, but platforms don't provide this kind of support and the pressure applied for a constant stream of content just to make a living makes this even harder. Looking at the information content creators provide as sources like in history class, we'd consider most of it as anecdotal at best, and propaganda at worst. I now by default almost completely discount anything I see when the line is blurred between journalism and entertainment media, in places like podcasts by non-journalists or on social media. It's not a perfect solution, as political issues affect everyone and activists trying to do good work also occupy this space. But, until modern platforms implement real ethical standards, I rely on Robert Fisk-types who I generally trust and who usually work in more established journalistic institutions since I don't have the time or sense of self-importance to work anything out from first principles either.
I prefer paying for content and not seeing ads, but I also recognize that most of the content I enjoy wouldn't be made with that model. Since I can't pay for every show or creator I watch, financially, it's just not possible, I accept ads so I can keep enjoying stuff.
That hadn't even reached my feed and I play magic so that was really interesting to find out about. I appreciate your more mediated approach to these things.
They side stepped the whole LotR issue russtling modern audiences by making every single named human and elf character Brown/Black which I thought was very telling lol
Platforming, in my opinion, means more than giving exposure to someone. It's giving them access to your platform to share/spread their ideology unchecked. With that, 42:22 my answer is 100% yes.
I dislike ads so much that I pay for YT Premium, and hard cuts to boilerplate ads in videos make me click off instantly. I still click Jorbs videos every time they come up on my feed, so I guess the model is working. I think platforming a cheater is not comparable to platforming Donald Trump (as with the example later re: platforming OBL vs platforming an Israeli advocate). Donald Trump is possibly the widest platformed person in humanity right now, and in addition he is bombastically unrepentant of all the things he's done. It's his only way out, really. I think an honest interview with Donald Trump is almost impossible. An honest interview with a cheater can give us insight into why people cheat, what drove this particular person to cheat, and what life is like after you are an exposed cheater - all of this could be interesting to a community.
I appreciate these random, digestible tangents quite a lot. As someone out of the loop w/r/t/ the magic community, it's WILD to see the stuff that comes out of the people who play my card game of choice.
I personally didn't object to the way Thunder Junction was handled. The problem with setting a work in a colonialist setting/time period and lionizing said colonizers is that it fails to acknowledge the harm done to the indigenous people of that setting. By making Thunder Junction uninhabited prior to *anyone* coming in, it removes that aspect of harm. And while I understand why some folks would call that a cop-out, I don't necessarily think that it means that the use of Wild West tropes and visuals like cowboy hats and six-shooters should be off-limits to anyone. If it's your view that any setting that uses visuals inspired by those times and settings is tainted, I respect that, but I *do* disagree with it.
See my issue is that they said no one lives there and then straight forward made natives to the plane in the Cactus Folk who have their own cities, trades with the colonizers, and helped them build in the land
@@hugmongerI think with the way colonialism sees indigenous people, those who have internalized that mentality don’t really see indigenous people as being people who inhabit the land. Idk if this make any sense
@@susiek4593 it does and this is the criticism I have of Thunder Junction... Like if they'd have had a side story where like Tommy met Bill and they fleshed stuff out showing the Cactus folks are complicit in their exploitation then it would make it make more sense as world building
I would argue that making it uninhabited IS lionizing the colonizers. Depictions of harm in a fictional setting don't directly harm anyone. The key word here is "directly" because the stories that we tell can absolutely cause real harm in the way that they make us think about the world. When Thunder Junction takes elements and inspiration from the real world wild west, the design implicitly communicates that even though the setting is fictional, it is still in some ways resembles the real world. That is, it resembles the real world, except this time, the colonizers are in the right! No one has claims to the land, and so the colonizers have every right to take it! Except that here we find that the fictional setting reflects real life more closely than we thought, because that is the exact idea that fueled American expansion out west. No one had any claims to the land after all, at least no one the colonizers cared about. Ignoring uncomfortable truths is kinda the bread and butter of colonialism, and Thunder Junction inherits that spirit perfectly. The problem isn't with fictional characters being harmed, the problem is choosing to ignore the fact that real people were harmed. Now I don't have particularly high expectations for my corporate owned card game when dealing with complex issues, but that doesn't make it any better. (There is also something very poetic about seeing the discussion around this set and people arguing that the Cactus folk can't be natives because they're not people. It's just like... man. Art imitates life. Not saying you're doing this because you're literally not. I've just seen it elsewhere.)
Lmao this video took a wild turn, I didn’t know the drama and could have never predicted they would do something so arrogant, ignorant, and asinine. 7/10 drama
Hi Jorbs! In the off chance you see this, do you remember the name of the 1300 page book you read about the Middle East? I would love to complicate my world view and realize even more how little I know about how truly complicated the world is lol, Thanks for the video and content, I 100% agree that MtG drama is absolutely fascinating, and I always love a Jorbs PowerPoint!
Im not a mtg person, but I am a lord of the rings person. You are slightly incorrect about your criticism of the lord of the rings movies. The daughter you mentioned (who is named ?frieda? I think) has a brief conversation with Eowyn so passing the bechdel test does not rely on using "mother" as a name. That's still not really good enough though. Its like 10 seconds of dialogue in 9 or 12 hours of movie. The movies do technically pass the incredibly low bar.
@@dirtydard4870 the purpose of the bechedel test was not to be something to check off a list for individual works, it was to criticize the american movie industry trend of failing to meet the very low bar across years and genres. it's fine to make Stand by Me or Star Wars, it's fine to make dozens of movies with skewed demographic representation, but it's real freaking weird if the vast majority of movies are all skewed the same way.
@@kaiserruhsam No, it isn't weird. It's orthodox. It would be weird if all the movies were to conform to an arbitrary academic standard. Almost every use of the bechedel test in the criticism of movies assumes that it would be better if the movie in question was balancing the scales of gender disparity, not simply using the test to gather information
I really enjoyed you talking about this! On a side note it would be appreciated if you could be a bit more careful about pumping the table this much while talking. Idk if others felt the same way as I did, but to me it felt irritating at times :)
Why must we always raise the stakes of inconsequential views? Wait, we're talking about magic players, much like poker players and short vampires they hate the idea of low stakes.
i kind of expected another 20 minutes with some sort of analytical conclusion but nah. you just came here to be like "woah this is kinda wild huh, heres my more-than-cursory-but-not-exhaustive thoughts on it"
I would hate to pay your bills. The internet is parasocial enough, imagine when you hit the unsub button you now have to wrestle with the fact that the person you enjoy listening to is getting a smaller paycheck because you got bored.
I don't know about this video. It sounds like you don't have much information outside of the show notes of one episode, and you can't ask interesting questions because of that. The last slide asks something big, but your only discussion is that you don't think interviewers are strictly responsible in all cases and that the podcast still has a bad title.
i don't really know what interesting questions you think there are to ask about people being mad at a small podcaster platforming zionist talking points. i talked about the things i thought were interesting about it.
This is technically true in that the PLO declared the State of Palestine in the '80s (constituted of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip), 75% of UN member states currently recognize the State of Palestine, and it has been a "non-member observer state" of the UN General Assembly for 12 years. The actual nature of that state in practice, though, is severely lacking. When people speak of the need for a Palestinian state, especially in the context of the two state solution, they usually mean a fully sovereign, independent state with full international recognition, one that is not subordinate to or dependent upon the Israeli state. Without even discussing the past 10 months, the Gaza Strip has been under blockade by the IDF since 2008, putting control over its borders, airspace, and access to resources and freedom of movement firmly in the hands of Israel. They have been subject countless airstrikes and military raids, even outside of the context of the numerous "retaliatory" campaigns. By no sensible definition can an entity under such conditions be considered a fully sovereign state. The West Bank enjoys more autonomy, but is still subject to Israeli military law, with a strong IDF presence at all times. A segregated road/highway system restricts the free movement of Palestinians within the West Bank, further compounded by numerous military checkpoints. There are also 700,000 Israeli settlers in settlements peppered throughout the territory, living not as immigrant residents under the Palestinian Authority but as Israeli citizens receiving the full support and protection of the Israeli state. If Israel were to tomorrow acquiesce to the formation of a fully sovereign Palestinian state along current territorial boundaries, it would require either A) for Israel to withdraw all Israeli settlers in the West Bank/East Jerusalem unwilling to liver under the Palestinian Authority (something Israel shows no willingness of), or B) the West Bank will have hundreds of Israeli enclaves within its borders, compromising its territorial integrity; if the non-contiguous nature of the UN partition plan in the 1940s was already contentious, this is an absolute non-starter for the Palestinians. One final thing worth noting is that there have been members of the Israeli government that have stated their refusal to consider any plan that includes an armed Palestinian state. Arguably, a state that lacks any means of militarily defending itself from foreign attack, especially one neighboring a state with a long history of aggression both against itself and other nations in the region, is not truly sovereign. In short, while Palestine technically does sort of, technically exist as a state, with state apparatuses that perform functions like maintenance of infrastructure, police, education, etc., the nature of that state is highly compromised and subordinate to Israeli intervention and control, such that continued calls for "a Palestinian state" are not without reason.
Without having watched the entire video yet and concerning the email. I think there needs to be a heavy distinction of who is offering the spot on the podcast. Imagine if I wrote to you, that I want to appear in an interview on your channel. Obviously you would say "why would I do that" and at best, "here are the conditions for this to work." In that context, it makes a lot of sense to ask for some payment.
There are reasons to ask for payment to be on a podcast but generally I think if a podcast interviews a certain type of person and that person requests to be on the podcast the answer should be either yes or no. In your example Jorbs would and should just say "no thanks" and not throw out some random hypothetical "well if you want to pay me maybe it changes my mind".
Agreed - payment to skip a line seems fine to me, especially if you do get networked - idk how popular it is, but id pay 500$ to be on JRE, but 5 million no, nor do i have... How do we hate the idea of payment, remember no one is forcing you to pay anything?! If the deal sucks dont take it, 'theyre profiting of your labour' uh yeah so dont pay them. Jorbs raised the only valid concern to the email is 'if' the viewers do not know. You give me 10$ to come work for me: the consumer can ask themselves if they want to pay for the experience. Overlooking the ability to not engage is wild. 'they should be paying you!!!' 😂😂 yeah so dont pay them, what a wild thought.
i'm sorry, you didn't LISTEN TO THE PODCAST EPISODE IN QUESTION??? you were literally just saying how you try your best to research these topics as well as you can. and you didn't watch the ONE THING THE DRAMA IS ABOUT? you are of course free to choose what media you consume, but making a 45 minute video about a controversial podcast that you HAVEN'T EVEN LISTENED TO is just wild to me.
Id tend to agree, for the thoughtful analysis throughout the video(why i watch jorbs), to get to a point where we take literal headlines, and then report on them leaves a weird feeling. Also is it not the podcaster who writes the titles for the sections? How do we know what actually comes out in those discussions? 'I see thing i think is bad and say its bad without evidence'. If you feel strongly about an issue, but dont want to listen to another persons perspective: don't report on it? Or was the point 'hey the podcast sometimes doesnt stay on topic' then show a bunch of examples? I felt like i heard something along the lines of 'we may have fundamanetal differences of opinion but lets still be empathetic'. You categorized someone without listening to them: feels apathetic to me? Is it not possible they were asked these questions by the interviewer, blindsided, and they gave their best effort? Are you supposed to have the enlightened opinion of 'hmm best not answer your question interviewer' as my background has nothing to do with magic? Should the onus should be on the intervewer? Interveiwee? Who knows!? Cause it wasnt listened to... As much as you shouldnt readily categorize peoples who you havent heard speak, i might even be okay you listen to 2 minutes hear points being made, understand some of the fundamental disagreements and say 'yeah im not going to listen to the rest of the downstream conversation' Classic jorbs engagement, great insight and then questionable comments randomly. i have no clue how hard it must be to post long videos though, it would be hard to stay consistent, but earlier in the video i feel like you advocated in opposition to yourself. I feel like you should have had to post 'hey so by the way i havent listened to it' before the video was made, to approach some standard of reporting, same as they do for advertising.
i find comments like these really uncomfortable, because it is obvious to me why a podcast that stipulates things like this one does in its episode title and summary is problematic, and i do not understand why it is not obvious to you. maybe you need to read up on the ongoing genocide in gaza a little, but i don't really feel like it's my job to teach you about that or like it is an appealing thing to include in the scope of this video.
i think i can state this most simply as: this is not a topic i think is hard for people in my audience to understand is problematic, and it feels weird to me that you feel i should treat it like it is.
@@Jorbs Thanks for responding but I do think you might have accidentally sidestepped my criticism again. I did try to make it clear it was not the topics that were discussed that were of importance, but who was doing the discussion and how the situation unfolded. I don't care about your perception of *the topic* i like many in your audience have read about it. I want to know what thing of substance has occurred. Is it the podcast host, the person invited onto the podcast. If you are reporting on an event, do some background leg work in reporting, and if your intention was not to report, you shouldn't bring things up without their appropriate context. Maybe i was mistaken but i thought it was presented in the start of the video as 'even my friends are hearing about it this piece of news is going around' Is it not possible to imagine being invited to a podcast, and having those lines of questions come up? As someone who speaks for a living to have anyone misconstrue my words would be a nightmare, and I have to imagine you have had this happen to you as well. Heres me captioning my imaginary podcast "Are apples blue" - "Are Bananas Orange?" Heres you reacting to my imaginary podcast: I didn't watch the podcast but Bananas being blue is so ridiculous on its face I won't engage with the podcast. If you're fine with that analogy, carry on. I just think for someone who generally has VERY good careful considerations of things, it feels off. Who knows on my podcast I could have argued with great complexity and made the universal relate to the particulars in clever ways (which if our analogy is to the conflict, we would refute). Or I could have scoffed and at its face disregarded the ridiculous statement of "Are apples blue" - Hopefully its crystal clear what my issue is with the way you approached the video. Reach out if you need more clarity, I hope I can speak for many but remember we watch your videos because we appreciate your way of thinking and insight. You get a comment from me because its 'odd' and out of character not because i think this is your intention.
While I too am not interested in listening to this podcast, I disagree with your implication that it should not have been published. You argue that it is not a good source of objective information, and that's true, but simply hearing one human's perspective can also be valuable. Nobody thinks this podcast is the New York Times, they're allowed to just talk about stuff imperfectly. You argue that Zionist perspectives are already well-represented - I disagree, I have seen many people who claim to care about this issue who believe misinformation and total falsehoods, exposing them to an opposing perspective is valuable.
Definitely disagree with the claims that the interview's stance is out of place (those views may be platformed plenty by the world at large, but not previously at all on the podcast), and that Humans of Magic retains the branding it began life with. I agree with the final conclusions but think his route to get there is not well structured, especially with the context of the Spice8rack video regarding the genocide. I feel that interview is fantastic as both a counterpoint to the episode being discussed in the video, as well as a critical piece of evidence that could explain why the interviewer may feel comfortable to discuss points they are unqualified to speak about
The funniest thing about this video is jorbs kinda ties to nag about the podcast not actually following the principle of the similar named blog project of showing random people and instead talking to mostly well known people. And the one time a guy is on the podcast most mtg players have never heard off they dont like it. funny how that works.
If you cut the completely irrelevant rambling then this video would be like eight minutes long. Which it should. I don't need the Wikipedia article on what humans of new york is read out to me, I am literate.
@@Jorbs cool incorrect assumption, the video was picked up by youtube's autoplay on my phone while I was washing the dishes. See how other people's experiences differ from your own? Next time just write "How dare you not love the sound of my voice as much as I do?!" Comes off as less condescending, shorter, and straight to the point.
I'm not a bot but I do really look forward to more powerpoint videos
That's what a bot would say 🤖
Be honest Jorbs, this was a poorly hidden toast sponsorship wasn't it?
Speaking of toast, I'm doing a collab with Disguised Toast from hearthstone Fame.
There may be rumors that he paid me $500 for the podcast appearance. I will leave that up to him to validate.
he sold me so well on toast. in a span of like 15 seconds i went from toast is fine to toast is clearly the solution to the fast food epidemic.
Jorbs juxtaposing Humans of New York with this podcast has me wanting to acrually just podcast with MtG randoms about stuff they like
I am a MtG player but not an active member of the magic community so I wish you'd said WHAT people were saying at the start of the video.
I for one will gladly watch and support more of these Magic: the Gathering drama videos. Not only because I can support someone doing the work of actually gathering the data and presenting it nicely (powerpoint A+) but also because I really like your baseline of "not being mean". That is a bar most journalists and people doing huge essays and drama coverage have not cleared and I really admire you for being so human-positive about everything. Thank you!
Oh boy was I NOT READY for where this video was going. Jesus Ka-rist.
@28:58
Because of the earlier point about how so much advertising is garbage, paying for no ads has improved peace of mind so much I'll never go back.
Your sponsored game playthroughs are exactly what you described of a 3 way beneficial relationship, and is how it should be done.
Yeah. I really like how Jorbs handles ads, where they blur the line between advertisement and genuine recommendation. But the normalized situation of having completely unrelated ads interrupt the normal content every 15 minutes is horrible, and i would much rather pay for content than have to deal with that. I also appreciate how content creators that are "customer supported" are less likely to be beholden to advertisers and/or shareholders who do not care about the integrity of the content and only care about money. Similarly, I'm much more comfortable with a game that i have to pay a subscription or up front price for, rather than one that's "free", but has in app purchases and lootbox mechanics, but that's a slightly different topic.
I hadn't thought about how the donations model specifically could result in such creepy interactions with individuals. That really sucks, and is definitely an argument against the donations model. I hope that having set levels of support like patreon has would limit the amount of power such an individual would wield, but there's also discussions to be had about the negative impacts being beholden to your fans can have on content creation too. There's definitely creative people who feel stuck doing one type of content because that's what their viewers pay for, even though they would rather be changing things up, which is tough.
I don't think you're being completely fair to Thunder Junction. They definitely consulted with a bunch of cultural advisors and concluded (almost certainly correctly) that any angle they would choose on this one would definitely cause a ruckus. Either they have to make a set that is completely about the genocide and oppression of the native American people (and not only cause a ruckus online but also completely change the vibe of the set, which was a 'villain set' first and a 'wild west' set second) or they could choose to tiptoe around the issue and basically ignore all of the horrible stuff and be really problematic because they would not be addressing the actual issues.
I think that the idea that on this specific wild west world, having it be empty until the Omenpaths came to the world and woke the world up is basically the best possible way they could have done this without actually having a set be 'about' the way Native Americans are treated.
I mean... Thunder Junction has lots of problems, some of which are due to the fact that they did lots of world building that they never brought to the public and so people start filling things out for themselves, and I do think it doesn't look great, but they definitely thought a lot about this and chose the safest route through this minefield.
They could have chosen not to build a new plane using the historical American frontier as a setting. The problems as you've described exist because decades of whitewashing and glamorization of this period. Perhaps the reality is not so romantic and wouldn't make a good fantasy setting full of optimism and fresh possibilities.
If your standard is that strict, then there's basically no acceptable setting for anything fantasy because everything has something you could interpret as problematic.
You will never get 100% acceptance across the entire community. Heck, even history itself has been hotly debated across the political spectrum for all of human history!
The old adage "history is written by the victors" is often true of the broadest, most generalized sources and more serious research is required to find counter-narratives. I don't have a specific opinion regarding this expansion itself, but from what I've read about it, it seems like they tried to replace the more brutal aspects with varying success.
My original point was that they didn't have to choose such a minefield of a setting. Just because every historical setting is problematic in some way doesn't mean all historical settings are equally problematic.
If you'll "never get 100% acceptance" is that not then an argument for ignoring the wokescolds on this particular issue and just letting Thunder Junction be what it is?
Why are you asking me? Wizards will do whatever they want to do, but that doesn't mean a discussion regarding why they may have erred isn't interesting. If you don't find it interesting, why are you even here?
Jorbs if you'd like I can comment on all your TH-cam videos, but I'm moving to a sponsored commenter and would have you pay me a fee of $500, this fee goes to covering my time, creating a comment, hitting the post comment button, and utilizing my decades of shitposting experience.
Adapting IPs into MTG has always been fascinating to me ever since it started because the amount I care about the cards is directly proportional to how much I care/know it. I didn't care at all about the Fallout set until I played Fallout 3 a little while after it came out (I had wanted to play for a long time, and now had sufficient motivation to try when it kept getting recommended to me while the set was being previewed). But when I heard that WOTC reached out to Brandon Sanderson about a secret lair themed around his books that Brandon responded to but never heard back from wizards, I suddenly never wanted anything more for Magic.
glad ppl are into it but personally Ihave the exact opposite experience, mtg has only ever been interesting to me when it was something new and original, smth like the fallout tie in just leads me to go "oh yeah its that thing i already know."
i'm old enough to remember when mark Company Man™ rosewater said they valued brand integrity over the money printer of crossing magic with other IPs
a shame magic is owned by a multi billion dollar company instead of a non-profit trust.
40:00 we see this a lot from software developers too. There's some cosmic lure that draws smart people who can solve a difficult problem to believe that they can solve all difficult problems if they just think about it hard enough.
The podcast episodes in question, any reddit discussion around those episodes, and any social media updates from the podcast for the last few months has almost entirely been wiped. This video is just about the only remaining discussion over this situation that's left. Wild.
The amazing thing about Magic controversies is that despite actively playing this game every week and being in several Discord that talk about the game I had NO IDEA that any of this even happened.
it is completely unintentional but "hamas is not a government" followed up with "be well-informed, thoughtful, and supportive" is some pitch black comedy, and it's coming from a magic the gathering podcast.
From what I understand, Hamas was voted into power in Gaza the last time they had an election. They promptly decided to stop having election right after but what can you expect from an islamofascist regime?
So yeah, technically, Hamas is at least the regional government of the Gaza strip.
this was a fascinating video, but there are a few points you made that i want to issue something of an argument towards
1. the somewhat odd point that a card representing the idea of the character optimus prime is distinct from Optimus Prime, "Hero of the Autobots." i understand this was a choice made to emphasize a neutral point, but... we're dealing with representational forms, here. Something is only a thing because we give it that name, a card meant to represent a fictional character from another IP is as much the Body of that character as an action figure meant to represent that character, or a cartoon featuring that character- it's not a Real Thing, the only way it exists is through representational forms, and necessarily none of those forms can be more legitimate than another.
A card depicting Optimus Prime *is* Optimus Prime, because Optimus Prime is an idea and thus can only exist through the forms meant to represent that idea.
2. the general condescending tone about the whole "why is this magic podcast talking about genocide" thing. platforming someone who was pro-genocide, very bad idea. but being separate from the community you failed to realize one important point: Before the episode with the colonizer, there was an episode with essayist Spice8Rack, who spoke at length about Palestine from an anti-genocide perspective. The decision to host the following episode came from a strange "both sides" ism perspective, and Spice requested its episode be taken down so as not to be mired in the drama.
People play magic all over the world, and the desire to talk about an ongoing genocide, to not want to let people forget about what is happening, I don't think that's something that should be off-limits. i think there's a way to cover the topic in a respectful and appropriate manner in any context, because we're a global community, the things happening Around the Globe are affecting.
the rest of your points, especially regarding advertising, were very salient, this was just two things that got somewhat stuck in my craw.
> representational forms [none of which] can be more legitimate than another.
Is Optimus Prime a transformer? Is White Knight a human (lore-wise, independently of rules-wise)? Is the terminator a robot? Is Spock half-vulcan? Is Yoda a Jedi master?
Not every time traveling infiltration-and-assassination cyborg needs to look like an Austrian body builder, but it better be some kind of robot.
Some characteristics of these figments of our imagination are those that define them as _those_ particular figments and not others.
Otherwise none of them have _any_ defining characteristics, and all of them are equivalent: a normal representation of Yoda can be claimed to also be a representation of Optimus Prime and the terminator. But that makes no sense; the mind revolts.
Now, _some_ characteristics can be changed without changing the defining essence of these figments: Yoda can jump all over the place, shoot lasers and wield a light saber, the terminator can be female(-looking), Optimus Prime can have M:tG-style magical powers while still preserving their defining characteristics.
@@jonaskoelker thank you for your insight! you make a good point, closeness to the idea is an important thing when creating different representational forms of the same idea. my point, though, was more intended to be along the lines of "what makes a magic card representing optimus prime 'not optimus prime' as per jorbs' words, where something like a cartoon or action figure *is* 'optimus prime.' is it merely closeness to the original idea-form? how do we define closeness to that original idea-form? who decides what characteristics of an idea-form are defining enough to make something a recognizable representation of it across mediums, etc. etc.
@@chloerosewilliams5225 > is it merely closeness to the original idea-form?
I'd say yes, pretty much.
> who decides
Everyone, each for themselves, although many people will agree about a lot.
For example, I suspect most people will agree that the terminator (any terminator) is some kind of robot, it's on a mission to kill, it can blend in among humans to some extent, but it can also be identified as non-human if it outs itself. Tonally it's menacing and ominous.
Less central characteristics: it looks like Arnold. It operates in Los Angeles. It wields an uzi, nein millemeetah. It kills everyone who stands in its way.
Of course, there may be disagreement about which characteristics are most central and which are most peripheral. But if people were to say things like "that's not the terminator I know and love" or "I don't like the way franchise X is going", what they're probably saying is that new representations deviate too far from what the speaker took to be essential about previous representations.
Since I'm not familiar with transformers, I can't say how faithful the M:tG representation of Optimus Prime is. If there's no magic in the canonical transformers universe, some might say it's no longer Optimus Prime, while others might say it's OP in a new context.
So I guess Jorbs' opinion isn't wrong, but neither is anyone else's: it's just an opinion (maaaan).
Your voice is super soothing, im definitely gonna keep up with this if youre doing more of it
Ended abruptly but weirdly feels like the right time for it to end 🤣
First 20 years of life, I'd prefer no upfront cost, watch ads. After getting a full-time job -> time seems more valuable so paying to not watch ads seems better. Also probably depends on socioeconomic status, whether you live in the US, etc.
5:00 - Manhattan is an island, but that's only one of the five boroughs of NYC (the others being Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Staten Island).
Though Manhattan is usually what people think of when they think of NYC.
You're right, that podcast is an inadequate source for perspective about [the topic that will get this comment flagged for autoreview]. I rely on TH-cam comments for my world news and analysis, and that's never led me astray. Fellow viewers, please weigh in below.
It's not problematic for wizards to want a wild west inspired setting for their fantasy to not have to grapple with complex ethical issues so they decide that since it's entirely made up the area is completely empty of anything before the current occupants showed up.
I enjoyed hearing you talk about mtg drama. It is very fascinating. You set this up very well. I liked getting to hear all the backstory and the 'little oops' was a nice anticipation builder. Then you finally dropped the Big Oops and it definitely delivered.
This seems to me like it doubles as a case study on possible issues with independent content creators working at the border of journalism and entertainment. The same thing that allows people to instantly broadcast their views can lead them, willfully or through ignorance, to miss any understanding of ethics in those fields.
This doesn't absolve established media sources of ethics issues: hidden money, pressure to kill stories or make puff pieces, and Harvey Weinstein-type abuse are infamous. But now we suddenly have a new set of essentially unchecked broadcasts with a worldwide reach making the same mistakes. Making it the responsibility of each content creator to hold themselves to ethical standards is where we've ended up, but platforms don't provide this kind of support and the pressure applied for a constant stream of content just to make a living makes this even harder.
Looking at the information content creators provide as sources like in history class, we'd consider most of it as anecdotal at best, and propaganda at worst. I now by default almost completely discount anything I see when the line is blurred between journalism and entertainment media, in places like podcasts by non-journalists or on social media. It's not a perfect solution, as political issues affect everyone and activists trying to do good work also occupy this space. But, until modern platforms implement real ethical standards, I rely on Robert Fisk-types who I generally trust and who usually work in more established journalistic institutions since I don't have the time or sense of self-importance to work anything out from first principles either.
Ah, the return of slideshow Jorbs... WITH A VENGEANCE!
Love these little presentations. Always hoping for more, thanks for putting this together!
I prefer paying for content and not seeing ads, but I also recognize that most of the content I enjoy wouldn't be made with that model. Since I can't pay for every show or creator I watch, financially, it's just not possible, I accept ads so I can keep enjoying stuff.
That escalated quickly...
That hadn't even reached my feed and I play magic so that was really interesting to find out about. I appreciate your more mediated approach to these things.
They side stepped the whole LotR issue russtling modern audiences by making every single named human and elf character Brown/Black which I thought was very telling lol
Definitely feels like part 1 of a longer video
44:55 I love “breached containment” as a description in this context😂
I'm here for Seminar jorbs. Thank you for the lesson
Platforming, in my opinion, means more than giving exposure to someone. It's giving them access to your platform to share/spread their ideology unchecked.
With that, 42:22 my answer is 100% yes.
I knew that Big Toast had Jorbs in their pocket the whole time...
I dislike ads so much that I pay for YT Premium, and hard cuts to boilerplate ads in videos make me click off instantly. I still click Jorbs videos every time they come up on my feed, so I guess the model is working.
I think platforming a cheater is not comparable to platforming Donald Trump (as with the example later re: platforming OBL vs platforming an Israeli advocate). Donald Trump is possibly the widest platformed person in humanity right now, and in addition he is bombastically unrepentant of all the things he's done. It's his only way out, really. I think an honest interview with Donald Trump is almost impossible. An honest interview with a cheater can give us insight into why people cheat, what drove this particular person to cheat, and what life is like after you are an exposed cheater - all of this could be interesting to a community.
The recap we were all waiting for!
I appreciate these random, digestible tangents quite a lot. As someone out of the loop w/r/t/ the magic community, it's WILD to see the stuff that comes out of the people who play my card game of choice.
I personally didn't object to the way Thunder Junction was handled. The problem with setting a work in a colonialist setting/time period and lionizing said colonizers is that it fails to acknowledge the harm done to the indigenous people of that setting. By making Thunder Junction uninhabited prior to *anyone* coming in, it removes that aspect of harm. And while I understand why some folks would call that a cop-out, I don't necessarily think that it means that the use of Wild West tropes and visuals like cowboy hats and six-shooters should be off-limits to anyone. If it's your view that any setting that uses visuals inspired by those times and settings is tainted, I respect that, but I *do* disagree with it.
See my issue is that they said no one lives there and then straight forward made natives to the plane in the Cactus Folk who have their own cities, trades with the colonizers, and helped them build in the land
@@hugmongerI think with the way colonialism sees indigenous people, those who have internalized that mentality don’t really see indigenous people as being people who inhabit the land. Idk if this make any sense
@@susiek4593 it does and this is the criticism I have of Thunder Junction... Like if they'd have had a side story where like Tommy met Bill and they fleshed stuff out showing the Cactus folks are complicit in their exploitation then it would make it make more sense as world building
I would argue that making it uninhabited IS lionizing the colonizers.
Depictions of harm in a fictional setting don't directly harm anyone. The key word here is "directly" because the stories that we tell can absolutely cause real harm in the way that they make us think about the world.
When Thunder Junction takes elements and inspiration from the real world wild west, the design implicitly communicates that even though the setting is fictional, it is still in some ways resembles the real world. That is, it resembles the real world, except this time, the colonizers are in the right! No one has claims to the land, and so the colonizers have every right to take it!
Except that here we find that the fictional setting reflects real life more closely than we thought, because that is the exact idea that fueled American expansion out west. No one had any claims to the land after all, at least no one the colonizers cared about. Ignoring uncomfortable truths is kinda the bread and butter of colonialism, and Thunder Junction inherits that spirit perfectly. The problem isn't with fictional characters being harmed, the problem is choosing to ignore the fact that real people were harmed.
Now I don't have particularly high expectations for my corporate owned card game when dealing with complex issues, but that doesn't make it any better.
(There is also something very poetic about seeing the discussion around this set and people arguing that the Cactus folk can't be natives because they're not people. It's just like... man. Art imitates life. Not saying you're doing this because you're literally not. I've just seen it elsewhere.)
Thunder Junction was inhabited by indigenous people who lived there before anyone else came. (Cactusfolk)
I'm a simple man I see jorbs dropping a presentation, I watch
Man, these totally not bots watch videos really fast and love your content Jorbs.
I love the magic and slideshow videos! Keep them up!
jorbs is my favorite youtube video essayist
indeed very fascinating
Wow jorbs I can't believe you're shilling for Big Bread now. Personally I believe most of us need to eat less carbohydrates, not more...
Lmao this video took a wild turn, I didn’t know the drama and could have never predicted they would do something so arrogant, ignorant, and asinine.
7/10 drama
Hi Jorbs! In the off chance you see this, do you remember the name of the 1300 page book you read about the Middle East? I would love to complicate my world view and realize even more how little I know about how truly complicated the world is lol,
Thanks for the video and content, I 100% agree that MtG drama is absolutely fascinating, and I always love a Jorbs PowerPoint!
Im not a mtg person, but I am a lord of the rings person.
You are slightly incorrect about your criticism of the lord of the rings movies. The daughter you mentioned (who is named ?frieda? I think) has a brief conversation with Eowyn so passing the bechdel test does not rely on using "mother" as a name.
That's still not really good enough though. Its like 10 seconds of dialogue in 9 or 12 hours of movie. The movies do technically pass the incredibly low bar.
Why would passing this test be a good thing? Is the purpose of art to conform to ideological precepts?
@@dirtydard4870 the purpose of the bechedel test was not to be something to check off a list for individual works, it was to criticize the american movie industry trend of failing to meet the very low bar across years and genres.
it's fine to make Stand by Me or Star Wars, it's fine to make dozens of movies with skewed demographic representation, but it's real freaking weird if the vast majority of movies are all skewed the same way.
@@kaiserruhsam No, it isn't weird. It's orthodox. It would be weird if all the movies were to conform to an arbitrary academic standard. Almost every use of the bechedel test in the criticism of movies assumes that it would be better if the movie in question was balancing the scales of gender disparity, not simply using the test to gather information
@@dirtydard4870 incredible. you're whining in favor of the status quo.
@@kaiserruhsam What do you suggest is better? I'm as radical as they come. I just don't agree with what you said
WHAT THE HELL is THAT twist.
I really enjoyed you talking about this! On a side note it would be appreciated if you could be a bit more careful about pumping the table this much while talking. Idk if others felt the same way as I did, but to me it felt irritating at times :)
I'm so hungry right now if he keeps talking about toast im gonna cry
PoG jorbs story time!
Boy do I love me some power points!
They just needed to make different series for Casuals and Professionals instead.... oh and maybe not that other thing
Why must we always raise the stakes of inconsequential views? Wait, we're talking about magic players, much like poker players and short vampires they hate the idea of low stakes.
POWERPOINT LETS GOOOOOOOOO
I'm not mad.
I also enjoy MtG drama, and my other interest in MtG is pretty much non-existent
i kind of expected another 20 minutes with some sort of analytical conclusion but nah. you just came here to be like "woah this is kinda wild huh, heres my more-than-cursory-but-not-exhaustive thoughts on it"
bro loves yapping instead of any kind of analysis and conclusions
Fuck I want some toast
Are you going to have to say "oh by the way I've played games with the devs now and again" whenever you stream spire 2?
i disclose that i'm friendly w/ the people at megacrit whenever it comes up.
More slide shows plz
Enjoyed the video!
New video!
I would hate to pay your bills. The internet is parasocial enough, imagine when you hit the unsub button you now have to wrestle with the fact that the person you enjoy listening to is getting a smaller paycheck because you got bored.
Wait this type of video is perfect for me as a guy that follows a couple people that are huge into MTG but has no clue about it other wise.
I don't know about this video. It sounds like you don't have much information outside of the show notes of one episode, and you can't ask interesting questions because of that. The last slide asks something big, but your only discussion is that you don't think interviewers are strictly responsible in all cases and that the podcast still has a bad title.
i don't really know what interesting questions you think there are to ask about people being mad at a small podcaster platforming zionist talking points. i talked about the things i thought were interesting about it.
“Palestine needs a state” Palestine has a state. It’s called Palestine.
they just want it to be somewhere else though. Like on the other continent or planet preferably
This is technically true in that the PLO declared the State of Palestine in the '80s (constituted of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip), 75% of UN member states currently recognize the State of Palestine, and it has been a "non-member observer state" of the UN General Assembly for 12 years. The actual nature of that state in practice, though, is severely lacking. When people speak of the need for a Palestinian state, especially in the context of the two state solution, they usually mean a fully sovereign, independent state with full international recognition, one that is not subordinate to or dependent upon the Israeli state.
Without even discussing the past 10 months, the Gaza Strip has been under blockade by the IDF since 2008, putting control over its borders, airspace, and access to resources and freedom of movement firmly in the hands of Israel. They have been subject countless airstrikes and military raids, even outside of the context of the numerous "retaliatory" campaigns. By no sensible definition can an entity under such conditions be considered a fully sovereign state.
The West Bank enjoys more autonomy, but is still subject to Israeli military law, with a strong IDF presence at all times. A segregated road/highway system restricts the free movement of Palestinians within the West Bank, further compounded by numerous military checkpoints. There are also 700,000 Israeli settlers in settlements peppered throughout the territory, living not as immigrant residents under the Palestinian Authority but as Israeli citizens receiving the full support and protection of the Israeli state. If Israel were to tomorrow acquiesce to the formation of a fully sovereign Palestinian state along current territorial boundaries, it would require either A) for Israel to withdraw all Israeli settlers in the West Bank/East Jerusalem unwilling to liver under the Palestinian Authority (something Israel shows no willingness of), or B) the West Bank will have hundreds of Israeli enclaves within its borders, compromising its territorial integrity; if the non-contiguous nature of the UN partition plan in the 1940s was already contentious, this is an absolute non-starter for the Palestinians.
One final thing worth noting is that there have been members of the Israeli government that have stated their refusal to consider any plan that includes an armed Palestinian state. Arguably, a state that lacks any means of militarily defending itself from foreign attack, especially one neighboring a state with a long history of aggression both against itself and other nations in the region, is not truly sovereign.
In short, while Palestine technically does sort of, technically exist as a state, with state apparatuses that perform functions like maintenance of infrastructure, police, education, etc., the nature of that state is highly compromised and subordinate to Israeli intervention and control, such that continued calls for "a Palestinian state" are not without reason.
Without having watched the entire video yet and concerning the email. I think there needs to be a heavy distinction of who is offering the spot on the podcast.
Imagine if I wrote to you, that I want to appear in an interview on your channel. Obviously you would say "why would I do that" and at best, "here are the conditions for this to work."
In that context, it makes a lot of sense to ask for some payment.
no, it doesnt
@@SweatyFujoshi why not?
There are reasons to ask for payment to be on a podcast but generally I think if a podcast interviews a certain type of person and that person requests to be on the podcast the answer should be either yes or no. In your example Jorbs would and should just say "no thanks" and not throw out some random hypothetical "well if you want to pay me maybe it changes my mind".
Agreed - payment to skip a line seems fine to me, especially if you do get networked - idk how popular it is, but id pay 500$ to be on JRE, but 5 million no, nor do i have... How do we hate the idea of payment, remember no one is forcing you to pay anything?! If the deal sucks dont take it, 'theyre profiting of your labour' uh yeah so dont pay them. Jorbs raised the only valid concern to the email is 'if' the viewers do not know. You give me 10$ to come work for me: the consumer can ask themselves if they want to pay for the experience.
Overlooking the ability to not engage is wild.
'they should be paying you!!!' 😂😂 yeah so dont pay them, what a wild thought.
Oooh!
If you don't like toast, can you promote a toaster if you call it a Pop-tarter?
White + blue vs red + black + green...
Magic is freakily too well positioned to a do an israel palestine set 😂
Would that be RBG aggro vs. blue-white control? [This comment may not be politically correct.]
i'm sorry, you didn't LISTEN TO THE PODCAST EPISODE IN QUESTION???
you were literally just saying how you try your best to research these topics as well as you can. and you didn't watch the ONE THING THE DRAMA IS ABOUT?
you are of course free to choose what media you consume, but making a 45 minute video about a controversial podcast that you HAVEN'T EVEN LISTENED TO is just wild to me.
controversial implies like, that there are two sides.
Id tend to agree, for the thoughtful analysis throughout the video(why i watch jorbs), to get to a point where we take literal headlines, and then report on them leaves a weird feeling.
Also is it not the podcaster who writes the titles for the sections? How do we know what actually comes out in those discussions? 'I see thing i think is bad and say its bad without evidence'. If you feel strongly about an issue, but dont want to listen to another persons perspective: don't report on it? Or was the point 'hey the podcast sometimes doesnt stay on topic' then show a bunch of examples?
I felt like i heard something along the lines of 'we may have fundamanetal differences of opinion but lets still be empathetic'. You categorized someone without listening to them: feels apathetic to me?
Is it not possible they were asked these questions by the interviewer, blindsided, and they gave their best effort? Are you supposed to have the enlightened opinion of 'hmm best not answer your question interviewer' as my background has nothing to do with magic? Should the onus should be on the intervewer? Interveiwee? Who knows!? Cause it wasnt listened to...
As much as you shouldnt readily categorize peoples who you havent heard speak, i might even be okay you listen to 2 minutes hear points being made, understand some of the fundamental disagreements and say 'yeah im not going to listen to the rest of the downstream conversation'
Classic jorbs engagement, great insight and then questionable comments randomly.
i have no clue how hard it must be to post long videos though, it would be hard to stay consistent, but earlier in the video i feel like you advocated in opposition to yourself.
I feel like you should have had to post 'hey so by the way i havent listened to it' before the video was made, to approach some standard of reporting, same as they do for advertising.
i find comments like these really uncomfortable, because it is obvious to me why a podcast that stipulates things like this one does in its episode title and summary is problematic, and i do not understand why it is not obvious to you. maybe you need to read up on the ongoing genocide in gaza a little, but i don't really feel like it's my job to teach you about that or like it is an appealing thing to include in the scope of this video.
i think i can state this most simply as: this is not a topic i think is hard for people in my audience to understand is problematic, and it feels weird to me that you feel i should treat it like it is.
@@Jorbs Thanks for responding but I do think you might have accidentally sidestepped my criticism again. I did try to make it clear it was not the topics that were discussed that were of importance, but who was doing the discussion and how the situation unfolded. I don't care about your perception of *the topic* i like many in your audience have read about it. I want to know what thing of substance has occurred. Is it the podcast host, the person invited onto the podcast. If you are reporting on an event, do some background leg work in reporting, and if your intention was not to report, you shouldn't bring things up without their appropriate context. Maybe i was mistaken but i thought it was presented in the start of the video as 'even my friends are hearing about it this piece of news is going around' Is it not possible to imagine being invited to a podcast, and having those lines of questions come up? As someone who speaks for a living to have anyone misconstrue my words would be a nightmare, and I have to imagine you have had this happen to you as well. Heres me captioning my imaginary podcast "Are apples blue" - "Are Bananas Orange?" Heres you reacting to my imaginary podcast: I didn't watch the podcast but Bananas being blue is so ridiculous on its face I won't engage with the podcast. If you're fine with that analogy, carry on. I just think for someone who generally has VERY good careful considerations of things, it feels off. Who knows on my podcast I could have argued with great complexity and made the universal relate to the particulars in clever ways (which if our analogy is to the conflict, we would refute). Or I could have scoffed and at its face disregarded the ridiculous statement of "Are apples blue" - Hopefully its crystal clear what my issue is with the way you approached the video. Reach out if you need more clarity, I hope I can speak for many but remember we watch your videos because we appreciate your way of thinking and insight. You get a comment from me because its 'odd' and out of character not because i think this is your intention.
While I too am not interested in listening to this podcast, I disagree with your implication that it should not have been published. You argue that it is not a good source of objective information, and that's true, but simply hearing one human's perspective can also be valuable. Nobody thinks this podcast is the New York Times, they're allowed to just talk about stuff imperfectly.
You argue that Zionist perspectives are already well-represented - I disagree, I have seen many people who claim to care about this issue who believe misinformation and total falsehoods, exposing them to an opposing perspective is valuable.
Definitely disagree with the claims that the interview's stance is out of place (those views may be platformed plenty by the world at large, but not previously at all on the podcast), and that Humans of Magic retains the branding it began life with.
I agree with the final conclusions but think his route to get there is not well structured, especially with the context of the Spice8rack video regarding the genocide. I feel that interview is fantastic as both a counterpoint to the episode being discussed in the video, as well as a critical piece of evidence that could explain why the interviewer may feel comfortable to discuss points they are unqualified to speak about
The funniest thing about this video is jorbs kinda ties to nag about the podcast not actually following the principle of the similar named blog project of showing random people and instead talking to mostly well known people. And the one time a guy is on the podcast most mtg players have never heard off they dont like it. funny how that works.
yeah man its almost like if you promote “random people” who spout harmful bullshit its also bad. crazy
"Frustration threshold" this guy can overthink anything 😂
If you cut the completely irrelevant rambling then this video would be like eight minutes long. Which it should. I don't need the Wikipedia article on what humans of new york is read out to me, I am literate.
i dunno apparently you don't understand how to close a browser window, seems unreasonable for you to expect me to assume you can read.
@@Jorbs cool incorrect assumption, the video was picked up by youtube's autoplay on my phone while I was washing the dishes. See how other people's experiences differ from your own? Next time just write "How dare you not love the sound of my voice as much as I do?!" Comes off as less condescending, shorter, and straight to the point.
@@franslair2199 bro when his automated background noise machine did not deliver perfect background noise 😡😫🙉
@@franslair2199probably if you’re busy washing dishes, that’s exactly when you do need a wiki read aloud …
@@AlleonoriCat misgendering right off the bat, nice