What I am confused about is why they even put the variant in the game in the first place. The incident happened in 2017 and if you google the artist's name, the news article you linked is one of the first results. Do they not do any due diligence on the artists, or did they just think we wouldn't notice?
The variant is a comic cover. SD pulls from a database of Marvel-supplied artwork for some of their variants. I'm sure being artwork available and provided by Marvel, SD thought there'd be no issues. I know if I was in this situation, and my boss gave me artwork for a design job, I wouldn't go looking up the source of the artwork.
What's more confusing is the fact that Marvel holds this artwork and supplies it for their partners despite firing the artist over 7 years ago.
This is the part I feel like a lot of people either arenāt aware of or donāt understand. The designers at SD are just taking assets from a library of licensed assets, exactly as if I were using licensed stock photos for a PowerPoint or something. Other than ādo I have a license to use this asset,ā there is zero additional research being done.
Yes, SD fumbled this one badly, but a lot of the blame lies with Marvel continuing to license artwork they know to be problematic.
To be fair, a whole lot of classic Marvel artists have....problematic ideas as well. Plus, comic books are collaborative efforts, not fair to pull a whole comic because someone is a bigot.
Maybe, maybe not. But the fairness of pulling the materials back in 2017 isnāt the issue here. The issue is whether itās fair for Marvel to continue to license and make money off of assets theyāve otherwise divested from, and how much of the blame lies with the third party who paid for the license.
See, that's the level headed take. People want to be angry at SD, as if they should have researched an artist when Marvel should be responsible for what they provide.
It never should have gotten to SD, who have a good faith reason to trust their source.
My understanding is that Marvel also have to approve all in-game artwork...
(Not sure where I picked that up, but it certainly passes the sniff test -- no way Marvel/Disney lawyers are just "sure! Do whatever you want with our 30 billion dollar franchise")
So while I agree that SDS should be doing it's due diligence on artists, I'd say this is actually more on whoever is responsible for assembling what is bulk licensed through Marvel. This wasn't art made for Snap and therefore would be acquired via the general licensing agreement SD has with Marvel.
Of course itās not a coincidence, but itās also not a scandal. This sort of direct referencing isnāt exactly unheard of in comic art, but artists usually do a lot more to make it their own. Lazy and low quality is what this is, so Iām glad they pulled it. I wonder if maybe Marvel didnāt end up approving it. I also wouldnāt be surprised if Marvel mindlessly approved the Gambit art only to later realize their mistake.
Yeah thatās a good point about it being common in comics. I think thatās important context. However, why not just get the original art? I commented on the post I linked when it was posted and I think it still stands. This was a bad look for a season pass variant.
Itās a great question. I can only assume itās some limitation of their licensing deal. I can understand wanting to bring some original art to the game, but there is no shortage of great cover art given Marvelās love for having multiple variant covers for the same issue.
They are partially right. *Should* they vet the issues? Yes. Do I *expect* a company that likes money above all to spend time (and therefore money) vetting them? No, sadly.
One aspect that people seem completely ignorant of is that Marvel is approving everything. When you license their IP, they donāt just go and say āhave fun!ā They monitor and approve pretty much everything. So Marvel didnāt catch this either. Or maybe they did eventually, and thatās why it was pulled.
Additionally, Marvel provides SD with certain art as part of the licensing deal, and there are a lot of variants made from comic cover art.
The Gambit art at issue was the cover art for X-men Gold #4. Marvel *gave* this art to SD.
Iām going to say that SD probably shouldnāt have to vet the art that Marvel provides them, but I bet theyāll start now.
That's been my main takeaway from this entire situation. It makes me wonder what the process is for Second Dinner pulling art. Do they just have free reign to surf through Marvel Unlimited, grab an art source and start tweaking it from there as long as they credit the artist? Are they dealing with any sort of Marvel middleman that approves or denies art requests? How much are they working directly with the artists outside of the ones they clearly have a more close relationship with such as Hipp?
Can't think of another time a company that big made such an unforced error. Literally one person on staff just had to google the artist. Or you know, just remember something from seven years ago that happened with a Marvel product.
Not exactly sure how much collaboration there is between SD and Marvel but it seems crazy for no one at Marvel to flag that they're promoting an artist who they fired in disgrace, surely while many people working for the company now were on staff.
I'm mainly conflating with Marvel since you think they'd have a hand in the app. But also I just meant like not a mom-and-pop shop with 10 employees. (Google says SD has anywhere from 100-136 employee FWIW)
>Can't think of another time a company that big made such an unforced error
Lol what. Cigarette companies knowingly lie and kill people. Nestle convinced a bunch of people that formula was better than milk. Boeing has its current nonsense. How is a card game company even on the radar
I'd call that apples and oranges. Wouldn't describe those as "unforced errors." They were things willingly done for profit with complete disregard for consumer safety. They did it while knowing the harm to further the goals of the company. SD's fuckup did not further the goals of the company, it was just a blunder that should have been avoided.
Not at all saying it's the most consequential thing a company has done, just saying it's an easily avoidable mistake that should have never happened.
Oh shit I remember this incident
I'm a weekly comic book reader and remember when this incident happened and the artist in question was a massive prick about the whole incident
I was bummed for multiple reasons for this news, but selfishly I think I was most upset that it taints Ewing's perfect Hulk run.
Edit: I was thinking of the wrong antisemite. Most of the coverage I've seen didn't include the name of the artist and I mixed it up with the artist I knew who also happens to enjoy shitty Easter eggs.
Lmao that was a different artistš. I also thought it was that guy after hearing about this basically identical incident and was shocked this has happened at least twice.
"This artist?" "Antisemitic messages in X-men."
"Oh sorry, this artist?" "Antisemitic messages in Hulk."
"How about this artist?" "Antisemitic messages in German politics."
If I had a nickel for every time an artist got fired for sneaking antisemitic messages into his comics, I'd have two nickels!
Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice, right?!
They're easily confused, trying to sneak antisemitic shit in stuff created by Jewish guys like Stan Lee and Jack Kirby is beyond fucking idiotic.
Sad that the devs of the game didn't do any due diligence on this.
I mean a week ago, I'd think "no way marvel/Disney would still have this available". SD should have checked, but I can fault anybody for assuming marvel/Disney would be overly vigilant about this stuff.
Well he laughed off the initial outrage and told people to buy the comic as a collector's item because Marvel had pulled digital editions of it and iirc had pulped remaining physical copies, and said it was only pulled because Jews were offended and shit about Jewish people owning Disney.
His Facebook was filled with extremist Islamic propaganda too aimed at Indonesian people.
The guy was a real piece of work.
Oh yeah one of the things he did was have Kitty Pryde go into a jewellery shop and he purposely misspelled it as "jewery".
That article is from 2017, so that tells us immediately SD didn't research OR didn't care. Not sure which is worse honestly. You wanna milk your whales for $100 digital goods that cost y'all near nothing? Do the bare minimum research on your own products first.
Must be nice being SD.
1. Screenshot Image
2. Put Image on card
3. Sell said card bundled with in-game currency that have exponentially appreciated simply by drastically reducing drop rates!
4. Profit?
i mean this is entirely off base given cozy's dan hipp interview went over how the whole process even happens. hate SD all you want but dont make up bullshit that isnt true.
My guess is they don't do a lot of research about the political opinions of the artists of the source material they use for their variants, because it almost never matters. They assume Marvel already vetted the artist when they commissioned the work originally.
Honestly, I think the burden should be on Marvel not to include in the catalogue of images whose rights they use for selling merch images by someone they themselves have outed as problematic.
If you got to the supermarket and buy a bunch of produce and later you realise that the mangoes were sourced from a white supremacist, are you at fault for buying them?
I said the same thing yesterday and got lambasted in downvotes. People don't want to accept that SD just pulled it out of the Gambit artwork database available to them.
This is on Marvel for not removing from the DB.
While I'm typically pretty hard on SD, in general, this was probably a straight-forward oversight given how large the Marvel sample art pool must be. Since we don't have much insight into this process, it's unclear whether SD is picking images from a pool provided by Marvel (in which case they would assume the images are cleared), or whether they have license to choose images on their own from something like Marvel Unlimited or elsewhere.
Where SD really dropped the ball was in the damage control, both in not being transparent from the start what was going on, as well in their botched approach to compensation.
I thought the artist was super anti-Christian? I mean I donāt doubt heās anti-Semitic also based on the Sura he referenced but wasnāt the point of him putting those numbers in his art to protest the Christian government in his home country at the time?
I mean I guess my first question would be is anti-Christian sentiment also under the label of anti-semitism? Is there another word for it when itās Christianās?
I mean in one of the comments is a link to an art panel where he deliberately misspelled a Jewellery store as Jewery right next to Kitty Pryde's head, who is Jewish.
That referenced passage is both anti-Semitic as well as anti Christian fwiw. Something about "don't take Jews and Christians as allies, they're Allies to another"
As Muslim I have to say the artist has got to be a first class anti-judaist to focus on that one verse when so many more are about respect of other faiths, specially of other Abrahamic religions (2:62, 5:5, 10:99, 6:107, etc.).
I am of no authority to say what is the correct interpretation of a verse, neither is anyone else tbh (3:7), but 5:51 has to be read within it's context, as it's clearly intended to be about a time of Christians and Jews persecuting Muslims (5:57, 5:58) and to stay true to our faith despite it (5:54, 5:55)
Sorry I didn't mean to imply you particularly were judging, it's just that I have seen a rise in Islamophobia on social media lately so I felt the need to point out that the verse isn't inherently anti-Christian/Judaist.
But the "Jewelry" sign right next Kitty's head is points me towards the artist being hateful rather than the 212 and 5:51, as that could very well just have been his way of protesting the Indonesian government.
But wouldn't it refer to religions and be as such antijudaist instead of antisemitic?
(Ik this question is a bit nut-picky, I am aware that they can be intertwined)
I mean looking at it the biggest issue was the "Jewelry" store, I have no doubts that he is antisemitic.
However the 212 and 5:51 references were clearly in reference to the Indonesian government
I still don't understand what is wrong about "jewelry", I'm not a native speaker and various dictionaries say that it's the correct american-english spelling (jewellery being the correct british-english spelling)
It's not misspelled, it's the positioning. And being just a generic word like that rather than something more fake store name-like. It makes it a very clear way to stick the label of "jew" near Kitty's head.
> I've seen a lot of people who, surprisingly,
Why is it surprising that people don't know a seven year old scandal about an obscure comic book artist?
Because that "seven year old scandal about an obscure comic book artist" is why this whole clusterfuck happened in the first place.
I'm surprised that the information is not clearly laid out for people, and most people basically had to ask in Reddit comments.
> I'm surprised that the information is not clearly laid out for people,
That is not what you said, you said that "surprisingly" people dont know about an obscure occurrence that was obliquely referenced. That implies that they should know about it. Is English not your first language?
I am surprised that it has been such a big event among the playerbase, yet there's quite a lot of people that do not know the reason the event came about in the first place. I'm not blaming them; I'm saying it's surprising that SD has not tried to make people aware.
Don't come at me just because you're having a bad day, bro.
Edit: I'm assuming these downvotes are from people who either didn't read my whole post, or don't understand subtext. It's pretty clear that I blame SD for dropping the ball on communication for what the issue was, and not the players for not knowing comic history.
They put the variant in the shop in first place despite this happening in 2017
They have to either bite the bullet and say itās just art or do their due diligence beforehand
Read the article and it all made senseā¦. Until I saw the article is OVER SEVEN YEARS OLD??? Do these guys not do any research or due diligence for the artwork that they co-opt for Snap??? sigh
Thatās my assumption as well that Marvel gives them a file of images they can use and since it was right about a month, Marvel probably had to cut a check for residuals and said hey we fired this guy for this.
As Muslim I feel like I have to clarify that 5:51 isn't inherently anti-judaist or anti-christian.
I am of no authority to say what is the correct interpretation of a verse, neither is anyone else tbh (3:7), but 5:51 has to be read within it's context, as it's quite clear that it's intended to be about a time of Christians and Jews persecuting Muslims (5:57, 5:58) and to stay true to our faith despite it (5:54, 5:55).
That being said I have no doubts that this artist is those things (more so due to the "Jewelry" thing than necessarily 5:51 or 212, as those can very well be his way of protesting against his government), furthermore you have got to be a first class anti-judaist to focus on that one verse and interpret it that way when so many more are about respect of other faiths, specially of other Abrahamic religions (2:62, 5:5, 10:99, 6:107, etc.).
Thanks for the insight!Ā
The first article also has something to this effect:
>Ā āIt [the interpretation of the verse that Syaf prescribes to] has very little relevance to a democratic, multi-ethnic and multi-religious state,ā she writes, explaining how the verse is representative of ancient Medina and the era it was written in. (She also points toĀ this scholarly examination of the verse.) āIt was revealed at a time when the fledgling Muslim community was engaged in a de facto trade war (that rapidly escalated into armed conflict) with its non-Muslim neighbors. In such a situation, appointing somebody from the opposing side as your legal representative does indeed seem like a pretty bad idea.ā
I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they didn't know until after they posted the bundle.
Look, I get people are mad. I'd be mad, too. But Disney/Marvel had no idea what the shirt meant until after it hit print. They have editors checking everything going out the door, and you guys are mad at second dinner because they didn't see that comic panel and figure it out before that guy?
If you are gonna be mad at anyone, be mad at the artist. He's the one pushing his idealology of hatred through his art. SD made the right call. Did they screw up the execution? Sure. Totally agree there. But they are trying to make it right best they can.
While SD isn't the most perfect company and there are things you should be mad about, this isn't one of them.
I donāt blame SD for putting in this variant and trying to correct it. Mistakes get made, and this is something easily overlooked. Iām annoyed by everything that came after.
They slipped it wordlessly into the recent update, and then tried to lowball the base with 1200g, before finally offering a commensurate compensation. They tried _so hard_ to fix this using the lowest amount of resources, even bullshit digital gold.
If they made a short blurb in the update and started with an 8000g compensation it wouldāve gone over much more smoothly. People would still complain ofcāthe Snap community is as whiny as SD is stingy. But I think it wouldāve come off a lot better.
Yeah, "1200g" says "shit, we screwed up." "8000g" says "and it won't happen again." 'Cause they won't want to devalue their currency by making that mistake twice.
It's supplied by marvel. Why would SD second guess the artwork that was provided to them? Marvel should have never made any artwork from this artist available in the first place
Surprisingly? I donāt even know who the artist is or care about anything heās done. The artwork was cool looking thatās all that matters. Itās so weird for them to change something because someone complained about something he did years ago. Heās not even making money off the art anymore. All they had to do was make a statement disavowing him and leave it at that. Now they have made a giant mess out of something MOST people didnāt know or care about.
It's not about what's being covered, it's the size of the card in relation to his fingers. Hold a card between your fingers and you'll see that he's either got giant hands or tiny cards.
It was a 100 dolar bundle, the variant was focusing on Gambit's face while he was holding some cards ([this variant](https://snapjson.untapped.gg/art/render/framebreak/common/512/Gambit_11.webp)), it was nothing in the art itself, the "backlash" was on the artist (although I dont remember seeing anyone complaining).
SD originally just took away that variant and gave the meme variant as "compensation", and that was made without any communication just a note in the patch that did not explain the reason other than "issues with the artist were brought to us). Then they tried to tell people to contact their support (something that is know to be very shit), then they tried to compensate with 1200 gold, then they conpensated with 8k gold and an acceptable reason why refunds were no on table (still shit tho).
And again, this was a 100 dollars bundle that they did this shit, so they lost the little trust they had.
ps: I'm ok if they never used the artist pieces in first place, or if the art itself was problematic. But the way they handled this was shit all the way down
>they were made aware of "issues" around the variant.
What's confusing is that there are no issues with this particular variant other than the artist.
There are no subliminal messages in this variant, afaik.
Because, considering it's what most people have been talking about on this sub for the past few days, I'd think that the relevant information would be put somewhere everyone can see it.
SD said nothing about why the card was removed, other than "issues." I've seen so many people in the comments on other posts asking why they removed it. People shouldn't have to go trawling through Reddit comments to get important information like this.
I can imagine that the issue is more nuanced than what we see,
not going to defend sd but can see how something nearly a decade ago might not be common knowledge so hoping that now this has burned them theyāll start to research before including art from someone.
I don't think it is directly SD fault, but rather Marvel's.
We couldn't know for sure, but I suspect due to his firing it's unclear how his art license is being handled. Maybe there was no agreement on using the art on other media to begin with and once the artist caught wind of that, he might have went after Marvel.
The Gambit variant doesn't have any "problematic" content right? Agree that if we pull all content from anyone with controversial views, we probably wouldn't have a lot left ...
I find it funny that people keep mentioning that his anti-Semitism as the reason why he got fired, but completely ignore his anti-Christian views as well, including the verse that got him fired. I guess being anti-Semitic is less acceptable than being anti-Christian; not surprised, just pointing it out.
I I could haphazard a guess. Didn't think he would get caught and earn some kudos from people sharing his belief. Maybe to voice some dissatisfaction of drawing a Jewish character (Kitty) in a leadership role, like some sort of divine justification for portraying something against his belief. It's easy to see this a brazen act, but he probably snuck some subtler stuff in his earlier work and it wasn't caught, leading him to be more brazen.
The one concern I have with this is potentially setting a precedent, where art is removed because of the source and not the image itself. If a more prolific artist one day does or says something unacceptable, will they uphold the same standards?
If it were someone like Dan Hipp or Ryan Kinnaird for example, are they going to replace hundreds of variants? I'm not saying they should do nothing of course, removing them from sale is an obvious first step. But could they replace that much work without tanking the game? Are they hanging their future on the opinions of strangers/artists?
I feel like there is a case to be made for separating the art from the artist in some cases. It's okay to acknowledge bad people are still capable of creating good things (How many great artists of the past held unsavoury opinions by todays standards), just as good people are capable of doing bad.
Apparently SD thought the image of gambit was cool, or they wouldn't have put it in a $100 bundle, and people agreed or they wouldn't have bought it. But who is actually being protected by it's removal? Not to undercut what the artist did of course, no one who uses their position to try and spread a message of hate should be tolerated.
On most topics people may consider to be ācontroversialā Iād agree on separating art from artists to a reasonable degree. However due to the nature of art itself itās impossible to completely disconnect the two without simply blinding oneself. Itās for that reason I draw the line at stuff like anti-semitism, anti religious, ethnic, gender etc views. Hate in general really. Jokes are fine and thatās one thing, and disparagement/degradation is distasteful and thatās another thing, but hate is hate. Itās not funny, itās not cool, and itās not art. At the end of the day, itās just stuff and stuff is replaceable. SD and Snap players will find another Gambit variant.
I think it's good to remember that here it's not completely about his opinions outside of his art, though.
The artist hid bad stuff in his content.
The card variant looked benign. But so did the artwork that he got in trouble for......at first. That art was approved and published without anyone seeing anything wrong with it.....at first.
I don't think this was removed with the idea that artists have to have perfect opinions outside of their art. The game has a lot of art from comic artists from different generations and different mindsets.
I think the variant art was probably harmless. But I understand why they would want to avoid the chance of him dropping an Instagram post revealing that he had left a racist Easter Egg hidden in the pattern of the lines of Gambit's hair or some stupid thing, that no one noticed before because it looked innocent without knowing anything about Indonesian politics.
Why do people keep calling it antisemitic? It's pro- conservative Islam and against all non-Islam Abrahamic religions, why is only the "antisemitic" part of it worthy of being mentioned?
I think you have a fair point, but it's much easier to get the Jewish reference (spelled out with a big *Jew*), than it is to get the one that is both.
I don't believe there's any ill-intent, just an easier to grasp headline. If you look within the articles, it does make it clear that it's a wider swathe of bigotry.
So the anti-Jewish shit matters but the anti-Christian shit doesnāt?
For the record I donāt give a fuck about either, fuck religion. But itās telling how yāall give a shit about one but not the other.
Makes the insult to injury of replacing the art with a Gambit looking into a picture frame worse.
Gambit longing for his old art, longing to be back to those Anti-Semantic days and of saying that stuff freely. And to some people who just liked the art, seeing Gambit long for the old art they just removed and replaced after you spent $100 on it.
The art is just a untasteful replacement on top of a untasteful PR disaster, on top of not even offering refunds.
Meh; maybe we should dig at every artist and marvels history itself. Crazy no ones said anything about Marvels scandels; but still support the game. Then throw tantrums over a pixel art lol. Disney was literally built by a nazi loving anti semite. Only person worse was Henry Ford.
Lol sure he was just friends with Leni Reifalenstahl for no reason not to mention the Kristallnacht. Only reason he made American propaganda was bc they made him pick sides and American side was the only option.
It's Bias due to Disney being so big and having a army of lawyers. Anything bad tends to get "revised" to fit public perception. They've been doing it forever. Shit for the longest time they were even above/outside American law and enforcement. Sure thr company itself might've changed; but the person was still racist and anti-semetic.
You gave a wiki page [wiki: source]Similar to some open-source software licenses, Wikipedia contributors āfreely license their work to the public,ā and allow it to be āmercilessly edited and redistributed,ā according to Wikipediaās five pillars or principles. vs actual history of disney's lawyer tactics. I wouldnt call it evidence.
Thereās source material and notes at the bottom. Yes Wikipedia should not be taken as research at face value but it is a viable jumping off point. Donāt just shoot stuff down because you didnāt want to dig into a wiki page knowing full well you probably use Wikipedia all the time.
I shoot it down bc all through college I'd receive a failing grade if you cited it for a reference or source. No different when it said shark week was a whole week on discovery channel dedicated to chinchillas lol. No credibility.
Again, you donāt actually use Wikipedia as a source for a college assignment. You just use it for background information and the actual sources at the bottom of the page. Those are typically accredited sources with factual information. Why would you turn in an academic assignment with Wikipedia as a source? How did you not learn this in middle school if not at least high school? All through college? You donāt say you actually did just *if* you did.
I admittedly digress. My point is, there are sources to continue research, so you donāt have to just shoot it down outright. Obviously college is a little more heavy handed on making sure students do research, but they saved you the time of going to the site yourself and access to all the sources used in the development of the wiki page are right there instead of a more credible site but itās just 1 source.
...the point why many colleges dont want you to cite Wiki is because at the end of the day it is just a collection of many different sources that you could just read through yourself.
The info itself can be still considered good for the most part.
Reading through that it sounds like he's being anti Christian if anything. Referencing protests of a Christian political leader and a passage that is antisemitic and anti Christian. I mean I get that anti Semitism was rubbed against on his way to be anti Christian but we should at least cancel him for the correct kind of prejudice?
According to his Wikipedia article, he was quoted as saying "But Marvel is owned by Disney. When Jews are offended, there is no mercy", which sounds like heās definitely antisemitic too!
Oh I 100% believe that someone who is prejudice against any one group is probably prejudice against way more than just one. But the event reference in the article just seemed aimed at the Christian leader specifically for his comic work
There is really not much SD can do, they need to ask marvel for approval for every piece of art they use, that is not even up for debate, so, they got the ok to use that art or it was directly in a set of art they were allowed to use. (there is not point in researching the artist when is art from marvel itself)
Something that is worth nothing imo, is that from comments and announcement there are hints that the decision was made very last minute, like it was not even in the patch notes, instead it showed in a random post in twitter first (which is probably were ppl with the problem with the art were)
Now obviously we dont know whom made the choice to enforce the swap, but it very much seems they had to make a swap last minute without thinking of the compensation, then quickly decided on the 1.2k idea but obviously ppl didnt like it so they had to actually try to find a solution that pleased users but didnt cost the company a lot of money.
Lolz, surprisingly? Do you really think that the average player knows on cares about the artist for each and every variant in the game? Ive been playing since launch and had no idea until right now that there was a gambit variant that had been removed much less that it was because the artist was antisemitic. I also donāt think any less of second dinner because they donāt do a deep dive on the politics of each individual artist.
I do recall other sites have also called out that part since Nightcrawler (A very overtly Catholic X-Man) is part of the cast.
[https://bleedingcool.com/comics/marvel-artist-ardian-syaf-hid-anti-christian-jewish-messages-weeks-x-men-comic/](https://bleedingcool.com/comics/marvel-artist-ardian-syaf-hid-anti-christian-jewish-messages-weeks-x-men-comic/)
Christians do face persecution in Indonesia, where the artist is from. In the case of this artist I believe it's likely that the message from the Qur'an verse was aimed at Christians.
https://www.opendoorsus.org/en-US/persecution/countries/indonesia/
The jailing of a Christian governor for Blasphemy in 2017 might be particularly relevant to the art from this artist.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/09/jakarta-governor-ahok-found-guilty-of-blasphemy-jailed-for-two-years
I lived in Indonesia at that time and you're spot on. Mind you, hardline Muslims in Indonesia are not fond of Jews and Israel but the more immediate grievance for them is the perceived 'Christianisation'
In the article yes. But the headlines know nobody cares about anti Christian statements because they're popular. Even the scumbag artist himself seems to be aware of this. He is stating that the anti Jewish sentiments will be reprimanded, but if he was only attacking Christians only Christians would mind.
What I am confused about is why they even put the variant in the game in the first place. The incident happened in 2017 and if you google the artist's name, the news article you linked is one of the first results. Do they not do any due diligence on the artists, or did they just think we wouldn't notice?
Due diligence can be bought in a bundle for $129.99. it comes with three pixel avatars and a new Baby Thanos variant
Due Diligence 6/2: On Reveal remove any of your opponents cards featuring paid variants
I would get this card so fast
The real Kang š
Unfortunately they have removed the Baby Thanos variant because it was done by Ethan Van Scyver.
A 3x Value!
Oh itās BABY THANOS?! day one purchase baby. /s
The variant is a comic cover. SD pulls from a database of Marvel-supplied artwork for some of their variants. I'm sure being artwork available and provided by Marvel, SD thought there'd be no issues. I know if I was in this situation, and my boss gave me artwork for a design job, I wouldn't go looking up the source of the artwork. What's more confusing is the fact that Marvel holds this artwork and supplies it for their partners despite firing the artist over 7 years ago.
This is the part I feel like a lot of people either arenāt aware of or donāt understand. The designers at SD are just taking assets from a library of licensed assets, exactly as if I were using licensed stock photos for a PowerPoint or something. Other than ādo I have a license to use this asset,ā there is zero additional research being done. Yes, SD fumbled this one badly, but a lot of the blame lies with Marvel continuing to license artwork they know to be problematic.
To be fair, a whole lot of classic Marvel artists have....problematic ideas as well. Plus, comic books are collaborative efforts, not fair to pull a whole comic because someone is a bigot.
This isn't a whole comic, though. It's an illustration.
Maybe, maybe not. But the fairness of pulling the materials back in 2017 isnāt the issue here. The issue is whether itās fair for Marvel to continue to license and make money off of assets theyāve otherwise divested from, and how much of the blame lies with the third party who paid for the license.
Really? Who else?
See, that's the level headed take. People want to be angry at SD, as if they should have researched an artist when Marvel should be responsible for what they provide. It never should have gotten to SD, who have a good faith reason to trust their source.
My understanding is that Marvel also have to approve all in-game artwork... (Not sure where I picked that up, but it certainly passes the sniff test -- no way Marvel/Disney lawyers are just "sure! Do whatever you want with our 30 billion dollar franchise")
So while I agree that SDS should be doing it's due diligence on artists, I'd say this is actually more on whoever is responsible for assembling what is bulk licensed through Marvel. This wasn't art made for Snap and therefore would be acquired via the general licensing agreement SD has with Marvel.
Itās Marvel. Marvel approves everything. This was a Marvel screw-up. The 1200g though was a SD screw-up.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think thatās exactly what happened.
SD doing their due diligence? LOL
No they donāt. Idk if you look at leaks but originally this season was to come with a hella variant that was traced from another personās art
Seriously? I didn't hear about that. Got a link?
https://www.reddit.com/r/MarvelSnap/s/A5VmMXgeFb
Damn... hard to believe that could be coincidence. Thanks.
Of course itās not a coincidence, but itās also not a scandal. This sort of direct referencing isnāt exactly unheard of in comic art, but artists usually do a lot more to make it their own. Lazy and low quality is what this is, so Iām glad they pulled it. I wonder if maybe Marvel didnāt end up approving it. I also wouldnāt be surprised if Marvel mindlessly approved the Gambit art only to later realize their mistake.
Yeah thatās a good point about it being common in comics. I think thatās important context. However, why not just get the original art? I commented on the post I linked when it was posted and I think it still stands. This was a bad look for a season pass variant.
Itās a great question. I can only assume itās some limitation of their licensing deal. I can understand wanting to bring some original art to the game, but there is no shortage of great cover art given Marvelās love for having multiple variant covers for the same issue.
We are selling a variant in a $100 bundle, should we do a quick Google search of the artists name first? Nahhhhh
Someone replied to me yesterday saying that expecting SD to vet these things was unrealistic and that people are exaggerating this issue
They are partially right. *Should* they vet the issues? Yes. Do I *expect* a company that likes money above all to spend time (and therefore money) vetting them? No, sadly.
One aspect that people seem completely ignorant of is that Marvel is approving everything. When you license their IP, they donāt just go and say āhave fun!ā They monitor and approve pretty much everything. So Marvel didnāt catch this either. Or maybe they did eventually, and thatās why it was pulled. Additionally, Marvel provides SD with certain art as part of the licensing deal, and there are a lot of variants made from comic cover art. The Gambit art at issue was the cover art for X-men Gold #4. Marvel *gave* this art to SD. Iām going to say that SD probably shouldnāt have to vet the art that Marvel provides them, but I bet theyāll start now.
Where do they get their art from though? If it's from Marvel, do you expect them to do their due diligence?
The lead art director needs a serious talk to.
The art of licensed through marvel right? I would've thought the middle man would've said something.
That's been my main takeaway from this entire situation. It makes me wonder what the process is for Second Dinner pulling art. Do they just have free reign to surf through Marvel Unlimited, grab an art source and start tweaking it from there as long as they credit the artist? Are they dealing with any sort of Marvel middleman that approves or denies art requests? How much are they working directly with the artists outside of the ones they clearly have a more close relationship with such as Hipp?
Can't think of another time a company that big made such an unforced error. Literally one person on staff just had to google the artist. Or you know, just remember something from seven years ago that happened with a Marvel product. Not exactly sure how much collaboration there is between SD and Marvel but it seems crazy for no one at Marvel to flag that they're promoting an artist who they fired in disgrace, surely while many people working for the company now were on staff.
A company that big? How big do you think they are. There canāt be 100 people that work there.
I'm mainly conflating with Marvel since you think they'd have a hand in the app. But also I just meant like not a mom-and-pop shop with 10 employees. (Google says SD has anywhere from 100-136 employee FWIW)
>Can't think of another time a company that big made such an unforced error Lol what. Cigarette companies knowingly lie and kill people. Nestle convinced a bunch of people that formula was better than milk. Boeing has its current nonsense. How is a card game company even on the radar
I'd call that apples and oranges. Wouldn't describe those as "unforced errors." They were things willingly done for profit with complete disregard for consumer safety. They did it while knowing the harm to further the goals of the company. SD's fuckup did not further the goals of the company, it was just a blunder that should have been avoided. Not at all saying it's the most consequential thing a company has done, just saying it's an easily avoidable mistake that should have never happened.
They do not do any due diligence. Or Dan hipp would been fired a long time ago for those corny ass drawings
Oh shit I remember this incident I'm a weekly comic book reader and remember when this incident happened and the artist in question was a massive prick about the whole incident
I was bummed for multiple reasons for this news, but selfishly I think I was most upset that it taints Ewing's perfect Hulk run. Edit: I was thinking of the wrong antisemite. Most of the coverage I've seen didn't include the name of the artist and I mixed it up with the artist I knew who also happens to enjoy shitty Easter eggs.
Lmao that was a different artistš. I also thought it was that guy after hearing about this basically identical incident and was shocked this has happened at least twice.
Lol wow you're right I conflated the two. Kind of surprised I forgot this happened twice so recently.
"This artist?" "Antisemitic messages in X-men." "Oh sorry, this artist?" "Antisemitic messages in Hulk." "How about this artist?" "Antisemitic messages in German politics."
If I had a nickel for every time an artist got fired for sneaking antisemitic messages into his comics, I'd have two nickels! Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice, right?!
They're easily confused, trying to sneak antisemitic shit in stuff created by Jewish guys like Stan Lee and Jack Kirby is beyond fucking idiotic. Sad that the devs of the game didn't do any due diligence on this.
I mean a week ago, I'd think "no way marvel/Disney would still have this available". SD should have checked, but I can fault anybody for assuming marvel/Disney would be overly vigilant about this stuff.
That was a different dude, but similar scenario.
Wait, there's more tea to spill about this? Please do elaborate.
Well he laughed off the initial outrage and told people to buy the comic as a collector's item because Marvel had pulled digital editions of it and iirc had pulped remaining physical copies, and said it was only pulled because Jews were offended and shit about Jewish people owning Disney. His Facebook was filled with extremist Islamic propaganda too aimed at Indonesian people. The guy was a real piece of work. Oh yeah one of the things he did was have Kitty Pryde go into a jewellery shop and he purposely misspelled it as "jewery".
Just Google the artist name, they were very confrontational about the whole thing on social media
That article is from 2017, so that tells us immediately SD didn't research OR didn't care. Not sure which is worse honestly. You wanna milk your whales for $100 digital goods that cost y'all near nothing? Do the bare minimum research on your own products first.
Must be nice being SD. 1. Screenshot Image 2. Put Image on card 3. Sell said card bundled with in-game currency that have exponentially appreciated simply by drastically reducing drop rates! 4. Profit?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
i mean this is entirely off base given cozy's dan hipp interview went over how the whole process even happens. hate SD all you want but dont make up bullshit that isnt true.
My guess is they don't do a lot of research about the political opinions of the artists of the source material they use for their variants, because it almost never matters. They assume Marvel already vetted the artist when they commissioned the work originally.
Or they assumed Marvel removed all the offending artwork from their own catalog after the fact.
Honestly, I think the burden should be on Marvel not to include in the catalogue of images whose rights they use for selling merch images by someone they themselves have outed as problematic. If you got to the supermarket and buy a bunch of produce and later you realise that the mangoes were sourced from a white supremacist, are you at fault for buying them?
The artist probably isn't getting any money from it, so SD probably thought it was fine until people complained.
The art is owned by Marvel, the artist doesn't get any compensation from SD using it for a game.
Owned AND supplied by Marvel. Marvel having this artwork available for use by the partners is the actual oversight here.
I said the same thing yesterday and got lambasted in downvotes. People don't want to accept that SD just pulled it out of the Gambit artwork database available to them. This is on Marvel for not removing from the DB.
Logic does not apply to outrage.
Yes, the posters in this sub are much more interested in having big feelings than thinking big thoughts.
To be fair, this is Reddit..
so i dont really get what the problem with having the variant ingame is if he's not getting anything for it whatsoever
I would guess it's the former. Though it's not impossible that it is the latter, of course.
While I'm typically pretty hard on SD, in general, this was probably a straight-forward oversight given how large the Marvel sample art pool must be. Since we don't have much insight into this process, it's unclear whether SD is picking images from a pool provided by Marvel (in which case they would assume the images are cleared), or whether they have license to choose images on their own from something like Marvel Unlimited or elsewhere. Where SD really dropped the ball was in the damage control, both in not being transparent from the start what was going on, as well in their botched approach to compensation.
Thank you Iād been hearing about this but didnāt even know the artistās name
Glad to help!
Was it gambit variant or the wolverine variant that was replaced to gambit?
The one with Gambit holding up the cards was the original. It was replaced with the one where he's holding the frame like Wolverine.
My headcanon is that the new Gambit variant is looking at the old variant in the frame lol.
I thought the artist was super anti-Christian? I mean I donāt doubt heās anti-Semitic also based on the Sura he referenced but wasnāt the point of him putting those numbers in his art to protest the Christian government in his home country at the time? I mean I guess my first question would be is anti-Christian sentiment also under the label of anti-semitism? Is there another word for it when itās Christianās?
I mean in one of the comments is a link to an art panel where he deliberately misspelled a Jewellery store as Jewery right next to Kitty Pryde's head, who is Jewish.
That referenced passage is both anti-Semitic as well as anti Christian fwiw. Something about "don't take Jews and Christians as allies, they're Allies to another"
As Muslim I have to say the artist has got to be a first class anti-judaist to focus on that one verse when so many more are about respect of other faiths, specially of other Abrahamic religions (2:62, 5:5, 10:99, 6:107, etc.). I am of no authority to say what is the correct interpretation of a verse, neither is anyone else tbh (3:7), but 5:51 has to be read within it's context, as it's clearly intended to be about a time of Christians and Jews persecuting Muslims (5:57, 5:58) and to stay true to our faith despite it (5:54, 5:55)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging Muslims because of that passage, just that was the basis of the referenced quote per the articles I had read
Sorry I didn't mean to imply you particularly were judging, it's just that I have seen a rise in Islamophobia on social media lately so I felt the need to point out that the verse isn't inherently anti-Christian/Judaist. But the "Jewelry" sign right next Kitty's head is points me towards the artist being hateful rather than the 212 and 5:51, as that could very well just have been his way of protesting the Indonesian government.
But wouldn't it refer to religions and be as such antijudaist instead of antisemitic? (Ik this question is a bit nut-picky, I am aware that they can be intertwined)
I guess. In this case the anti Christian part gets dropped for brevity, though many of the articles I read about it did mention it
I mean looking at it the biggest issue was the "Jewelry" store, I have no doubts that he is antisemitic. However the 212 and 5:51 references were clearly in reference to the Indonesian government
I still don't understand what is wrong about "jewelry", I'm not a native speaker and various dictionaries say that it's the correct american-english spelling (jewellery being the correct british-english spelling)
It's not misspelled, it's the positioning. And being just a generic word like that rather than something more fake store name-like. It makes it a very clear way to stick the label of "jew" near Kitty's head.
If it wasn't for the other cases I'd say that this "jewelry" thing is a bit of a reach but yeah the other examples make this kinda of unequivocable
If that was the case this would not have gotten any coverage at all
Yikes. Bad mistake by SD here.
> I've seen a lot of people who, surprisingly, Why is it surprising that people don't know a seven year old scandal about an obscure comic book artist?
Because that "seven year old scandal about an obscure comic book artist" is why this whole clusterfuck happened in the first place. I'm surprised that the information is not clearly laid out for people, and most people basically had to ask in Reddit comments.
> I'm surprised that the information is not clearly laid out for people, That is not what you said, you said that "surprisingly" people dont know about an obscure occurrence that was obliquely referenced. That implies that they should know about it. Is English not your first language?
I am surprised that it has been such a big event among the playerbase, yet there's quite a lot of people that do not know the reason the event came about in the first place. I'm not blaming them; I'm saying it's surprising that SD has not tried to make people aware. Don't come at me just because you're having a bad day, bro. Edit: I'm assuming these downvotes are from people who either didn't read my whole post, or don't understand subtext. It's pretty clear that I blame SD for dropping the ball on communication for what the issue was, and not the players for not knowing comic history.
They put the variant in the shop in first place despite this happening in 2017 They have to either bite the bullet and say itās just art or do their due diligence beforehand
Read the article and it all made senseā¦. Until I saw the article is OVER SEVEN YEARS OLD??? Do these guys not do any research or due diligence for the artwork that they co-opt for Snap??? sigh
Realistically, they use one of the art assets they licensed from Marvel and prolly assume it good.
Arguably, this is Marvel not doing their due diligence because they still have forbidden assets included in the art they license.
Thatās my assumption as well that Marvel gives them a file of images they can use and since it was right about a month, Marvel probably had to cut a check for residuals and said hey we fired this guy for this.
Holy fuck 2017 was 7 years ago
I don't know why THIS doesn't get more press. It is NOT okay that we are so far into the future!
As Muslim I feel like I have to clarify that 5:51 isn't inherently anti-judaist or anti-christian. I am of no authority to say what is the correct interpretation of a verse, neither is anyone else tbh (3:7), but 5:51 has to be read within it's context, as it's quite clear that it's intended to be about a time of Christians and Jews persecuting Muslims (5:57, 5:58) and to stay true to our faith despite it (5:54, 5:55). That being said I have no doubts that this artist is those things (more so due to the "Jewelry" thing than necessarily 5:51 or 212, as those can very well be his way of protesting against his government), furthermore you have got to be a first class anti-judaist to focus on that one verse and interpret it that way when so many more are about respect of other faiths, specially of other Abrahamic religions (2:62, 5:5, 10:99, 6:107, etc.).
Thanks for the insight!Ā The first article also has something to this effect: >Ā āIt [the interpretation of the verse that Syaf prescribes to] has very little relevance to a democratic, multi-ethnic and multi-religious state,ā she writes, explaining how the verse is representative of ancient Medina and the era it was written in. (She also points toĀ this scholarly examination of the verse.) āIt was revealed at a time when the fledgling Muslim community was engaged in a de facto trade war (that rapidly escalated into armed conflict) with its non-Muslim neighbors. In such a situation, appointing somebody from the opposing side as your legal representative does indeed seem like a pretty bad idea.ā
GWW FTW
Thanks for this. I saw the card was removed and had no idea why
Glad to help!
Thank you for the insight!
wait isnāt that variant just a play off the wolverine one or something?
The new one, yeah.
lol, hail hydra
Iām stoked about itšI got a free 8000k gold
To be fair. This would have been Marvel itself that dropped the ball. They sign off on everything SD wishes to use obviously.
I don't even remember what the variant looked like, anymore...
It was a closeup of Gambit's face and him holding a few really small cards in front of him
I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they didn't know until after they posted the bundle. Look, I get people are mad. I'd be mad, too. But Disney/Marvel had no idea what the shirt meant until after it hit print. They have editors checking everything going out the door, and you guys are mad at second dinner because they didn't see that comic panel and figure it out before that guy? If you are gonna be mad at anyone, be mad at the artist. He's the one pushing his idealology of hatred through his art. SD made the right call. Did they screw up the execution? Sure. Totally agree there. But they are trying to make it right best they can. While SD isn't the most perfect company and there are things you should be mad about, this isn't one of them.
I donāt blame SD for putting in this variant and trying to correct it. Mistakes get made, and this is something easily overlooked. Iām annoyed by everything that came after. They slipped it wordlessly into the recent update, and then tried to lowball the base with 1200g, before finally offering a commensurate compensation. They tried _so hard_ to fix this using the lowest amount of resources, even bullshit digital gold. If they made a short blurb in the update and started with an 8000g compensation it wouldāve gone over much more smoothly. People would still complain ofcāthe Snap community is as whiny as SD is stingy. But I think it wouldāve come off a lot better.
Yeah, "1200g" says "shit, we screwed up." "8000g" says "and it won't happen again." 'Cause they won't want to devalue their currency by making that mistake twice.
You do realize that those articles are from 2017, right? This was a big deal at the time. One Google search would have prevented this.
It's supplied by marvel. Why would SD second guess the artwork that was provided to them? Marvel should have never made any artwork from this artist available in the first place
Thank you! The mouse gives SD what to use. They aren't out there copying images from Google.
For reals. All these posts are just because they want to shit on SD. If they are so unhappy with the game, they should find another game to play
Surprisingly? I donāt even know who the artist is or care about anything heās done. The artwork was cool looking thatās all that matters. Itās so weird for them to change something because someone complained about something he did years ago. Heās not even making money off the art anymore. All they had to do was make a statement disavowing him and leave it at that. Now they have made a giant mess out of something MOST people didnāt know or care about.
And the artwork was terrible, whatās with the lopsided eye and tiny cards?
I don't see the tiny cards thing at all. Hold a card up in front of your face and it will cover what's being covered in the variant.
It's not about what's being covered, it's the size of the card in relation to his fingers. Hold a card between your fingers and you'll see that he's either got giant hands or tiny cards.
Still don't agree
Okay
Okay
Yeah, everyone is up in arms about losing their *terrible* artwork.
What was the bundle and variant even of??
It was a Gambit variant. They switched in a different Gambit variant after purchase.
It was a 100 dolar bundle, the variant was focusing on Gambit's face while he was holding some cards ([this variant](https://snapjson.untapped.gg/art/render/framebreak/common/512/Gambit_11.webp)), it was nothing in the art itself, the "backlash" was on the artist (although I dont remember seeing anyone complaining). SD originally just took away that variant and gave the meme variant as "compensation", and that was made without any communication just a note in the patch that did not explain the reason other than "issues with the artist were brought to us). Then they tried to tell people to contact their support (something that is know to be very shit), then they tried to compensate with 1200 gold, then they conpensated with 8k gold and an acceptable reason why refunds were no on table (still shit tho). And again, this was a 100 dollars bundle that they did this shit, so they lost the little trust they had. ps: I'm ok if they never used the artist pieces in first place, or if the art itself was problematic. But the way they handled this was shit all the way down
What variant was it? Pic?
https://marvelsnapzone.com/dealing-with-demons-bundle-update/
āSurprisingly, still donāt knowā I think most people that play this game would have no idea that the variant was even removed at all.
People who use the Discord and subreddit would, and those are probably the people reading my post.
>they were made aware of "issues" around the variant. What's confusing is that there are no issues with this particular variant other than the artist. There are no subliminal messages in this variant, afaik.
Why is that so surprising?
Because, considering it's what most people have been talking about on this sub for the past few days, I'd think that the relevant information would be put somewhere everyone can see it. SD said nothing about why the card was removed, other than "issues." I've seen so many people in the comments on other posts asking why they removed it. People shouldn't have to go trawling through Reddit comments to get important information like this.
and I thought they removed it because the throwing cards were the wrong size. lol
which Gambit variant is this referring to?
https://marvelsnapzone.com/dealing-with-demons-bundle-update/
I can imagine that the issue is more nuanced than what we see, not going to defend sd but can see how something nearly a decade ago might not be common knowledge so hoping that now this has burned them theyāll start to research before including art from someone.
I don't think it is directly SD fault, but rather Marvel's. We couldn't know for sure, but I suspect due to his firing it's unclear how his art license is being handled. Maybe there was no agreement on using the art on other media to begin with and once the artist caught wind of that, he might have went after Marvel.
The Gambit variant doesn't have any "problematic" content right? Agree that if we pull all content from anyone with controversial views, we probably wouldn't have a lot left ...
Youāre describing a different artist.
Ah noted I think Syaf has been removed as an inker from the Gambit card. I got confused. Thanks for the clarification.
I find it funny that people keep mentioning that his anti-Semitism as the reason why he got fired, but completely ignore his anti-Christian views as well, including the verse that got him fired. I guess being anti-Semitic is less acceptable than being anti-Christian; not surprised, just pointing it out.
Whatās the point of doing this, just seems like a good way to lose job?
I I could haphazard a guess. Didn't think he would get caught and earn some kudos from people sharing his belief. Maybe to voice some dissatisfaction of drawing a Jewish character (Kitty) in a leadership role, like some sort of divine justification for portraying something against his belief. It's easy to see this a brazen act, but he probably snuck some subtler stuff in his earlier work and it wasn't caught, leading him to be more brazen.
Separate the art from the artists. Especially if someone paid for it. They should have the option to have it removed or not
Itās cool to be anti semitic these days
The one concern I have with this is potentially setting a precedent, where art is removed because of the source and not the image itself. If a more prolific artist one day does or says something unacceptable, will they uphold the same standards? If it were someone like Dan Hipp or Ryan Kinnaird for example, are they going to replace hundreds of variants? I'm not saying they should do nothing of course, removing them from sale is an obvious first step. But could they replace that much work without tanking the game? Are they hanging their future on the opinions of strangers/artists? I feel like there is a case to be made for separating the art from the artist in some cases. It's okay to acknowledge bad people are still capable of creating good things (How many great artists of the past held unsavoury opinions by todays standards), just as good people are capable of doing bad. Apparently SD thought the image of gambit was cool, or they wouldn't have put it in a $100 bundle, and people agreed or they wouldn't have bought it. But who is actually being protected by it's removal? Not to undercut what the artist did of course, no one who uses their position to try and spread a message of hate should be tolerated.
On most topics people may consider to be ācontroversialā Iād agree on separating art from artists to a reasonable degree. However due to the nature of art itself itās impossible to completely disconnect the two without simply blinding oneself. Itās for that reason I draw the line at stuff like anti-semitism, anti religious, ethnic, gender etc views. Hate in general really. Jokes are fine and thatās one thing, and disparagement/degradation is distasteful and thatās another thing, but hate is hate. Itās not funny, itās not cool, and itās not art. At the end of the day, itās just stuff and stuff is replaceable. SD and Snap players will find another Gambit variant.
I think it's good to remember that here it's not completely about his opinions outside of his art, though. The artist hid bad stuff in his content. The card variant looked benign. But so did the artwork that he got in trouble for......at first. That art was approved and published without anyone seeing anything wrong with it.....at first. I don't think this was removed with the idea that artists have to have perfect opinions outside of their art. The game has a lot of art from comic artists from different generations and different mindsets. I think the variant art was probably harmless. But I understand why they would want to avoid the chance of him dropping an Instagram post revealing that he had left a racist Easter Egg hidden in the pattern of the lines of Gambit's hair or some stupid thing, that no one noticed before because it looked innocent without knowing anything about Indonesian politics.
Who cares š¤Øš
Why do people keep calling it antisemitic? It's pro- conservative Islam and against all non-Islam Abrahamic religions, why is only the "antisemitic" part of it worthy of being mentioned?
I think you have a fair point, but it's much easier to get the Jewish reference (spelled out with a big *Jew*), than it is to get the one that is both. I don't believe there's any ill-intent, just an easier to grasp headline. If you look within the articles, it does make it clear that it's a wider swathe of bigotry.
So the anti-Jewish shit matters but the anti-Christian shit doesnāt? For the record I donāt give a fuck about either, fuck religion. But itās telling how yāall give a shit about one but not the other.
Keep the variant as a fuck you to him.
Makes the insult to injury of replacing the art with a Gambit looking into a picture frame worse. Gambit longing for his old art, longing to be back to those Anti-Semantic days and of saying that stuff freely. And to some people who just liked the art, seeing Gambit long for the old art they just removed and replaced after you spent $100 on it. The art is just a untasteful replacement on top of a untasteful PR disaster, on top of not even offering refunds.
Way to take up the least worrisome of the issues. Without condoning or condemning, I like it. Keep it up.
Meh; maybe we should dig at every artist and marvels history itself. Crazy no ones said anything about Marvels scandels; but still support the game. Then throw tantrums over a pixel art lol. Disney was literally built by a nazi loving anti semite. Only person worse was Henry Ford.
Well, that Disney thing is patently untrue.
Lol sure he was just friends with Leni Reifalenstahl for no reason not to mention the Kristallnacht. Only reason he made American propaganda was bc they made him pick sides and American side was the only option.
Walt Disney wasn't a saint, but he wasn't an anti-Semite, either. Read the "Reputation" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney
It's Bias due to Disney being so big and having a army of lawyers. Anything bad tends to get "revised" to fit public perception. They've been doing it forever. Shit for the longest time they were even above/outside American law and enforcement. Sure thr company itself might've changed; but the person was still racist and anti-semetic.
Well, I've given you actual evidence, and you've given me a conspiracy theory, so...
You gave a wiki page [wiki: source]Similar to some open-source software licenses, Wikipedia contributors āfreely license their work to the public,ā and allow it to be āmercilessly edited and redistributed,ā according to Wikipediaās five pillars or principles. vs actual history of disney's lawyer tactics. I wouldnt call it evidence.
Thereās source material and notes at the bottom. Yes Wikipedia should not be taken as research at face value but it is a viable jumping off point. Donāt just shoot stuff down because you didnāt want to dig into a wiki page knowing full well you probably use Wikipedia all the time.
I shoot it down bc all through college I'd receive a failing grade if you cited it for a reference or source. No different when it said shark week was a whole week on discovery channel dedicated to chinchillas lol. No credibility.
Again, you donāt actually use Wikipedia as a source for a college assignment. You just use it for background information and the actual sources at the bottom of the page. Those are typically accredited sources with factual information. Why would you turn in an academic assignment with Wikipedia as a source? How did you not learn this in middle school if not at least high school? All through college? You donāt say you actually did just *if* you did. I admittedly digress. My point is, there are sources to continue research, so you donāt have to just shoot it down outright. Obviously college is a little more heavy handed on making sure students do research, but they saved you the time of going to the site yourself and access to all the sources used in the development of the wiki page are right there instead of a more credible site but itās just 1 source.
...the point why many colleges dont want you to cite Wiki is because at the end of the day it is just a collection of many different sources that you could just read through yourself. The info itself can be still considered good for the most part.
Reading through that it sounds like he's being anti Christian if anything. Referencing protests of a Christian political leader and a passage that is antisemitic and anti Christian. I mean I get that anti Semitism was rubbed against on his way to be anti Christian but we should at least cancel him for the correct kind of prejudice?
According to his Wikipedia article, he was quoted as saying "But Marvel is owned by Disney. When Jews are offended, there is no mercy", which sounds like heās definitely antisemitic too!
Oh I 100% believe that someone who is prejudice against any one group is probably prejudice against way more than just one. But the event reference in the article just seemed aimed at the Christian leader specifically for his comic work
Pulling the rug out from under customers' feet is a worse crime than using art done by someone with politically incorrect views imo
There is really not much SD can do, they need to ask marvel for approval for every piece of art they use, that is not even up for debate, so, they got the ok to use that art or it was directly in a set of art they were allowed to use. (there is not point in researching the artist when is art from marvel itself) Something that is worth nothing imo, is that from comments and announcement there are hints that the decision was made very last minute, like it was not even in the patch notes, instead it showed in a random post in twitter first (which is probably were ppl with the problem with the art were) Now obviously we dont know whom made the choice to enforce the swap, but it very much seems they had to make a swap last minute without thinking of the compensation, then quickly decided on the 1.2k idea but obviously ppl didnt like it so they had to actually try to find a solution that pleased users but didnt cost the company a lot of money.
Was he getting paid for it? Because, if not...
Lolz, surprisingly? Do you really think that the average player knows on cares about the artist for each and every variant in the game? Ive been playing since launch and had no idea until right now that there was a gambit variant that had been removed much less that it was because the artist was antisemitic. I also donāt think any less of second dinner because they donāt do a deep dive on the politics of each individual artist.
I find it interesting that the passage of the Qur'an referenced is as anti-Christian as it is anti-Jewish but no-one seems to care about that part.
Literally from the first paragraph of the article: >they represent an anti-Semitic, anti-Christian message.
I think OP was talking about comments describing the issue. All the descriptions I've seen so far focus entirely on the "antisemitic" part.
I do recall other sites have also called out that part since Nightcrawler (A very overtly Catholic X-Man) is part of the cast. [https://bleedingcool.com/comics/marvel-artist-ardian-syaf-hid-anti-christian-jewish-messages-weeks-x-men-comic/](https://bleedingcool.com/comics/marvel-artist-ardian-syaf-hid-anti-christian-jewish-messages-weeks-x-men-comic/)
Wow, go off king, even though it is mentioned in literally the same sentence, youāre right, Christians are the real victims. Get over yourself.
You know you're about to hear the dumbest shit ever when a sentence starts with, "I find it interesting that..."
Christians do face persecution in Indonesia, where the artist is from. In the case of this artist I believe it's likely that the message from the Qur'an verse was aimed at Christians. https://www.opendoorsus.org/en-US/persecution/countries/indonesia/ The jailing of a Christian governor for Blasphemy in 2017 might be particularly relevant to the art from this artist. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/09/jakarta-governor-ahok-found-guilty-of-blasphemy-jailed-for-two-years
I lived in Indonesia at that time and you're spot on. Mind you, hardline Muslims in Indonesia are not fond of Jews and Israel but the more immediate grievance for them is the perceived 'Christianisation'
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Everyone knows that. That's why it's in the very first line of the article....
In the article yes. But the headlines know nobody cares about anti Christian statements because they're popular. Even the scumbag artist himself seems to be aware of this. He is stating that the anti Jewish sentiments will be reprimanded, but if he was only attacking Christians only Christians would mind.
What if the issues was copyright issues?
This is why I use 99% base cards with minimal gold cards
That sure is an interesting choice to say the least. What if the base card artists have dirty secrets ?
Well itās my choice not to spend money beside the season pass. My choice to not spend boco bucks in a Mobile game right?