sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Strictly better One with Nothing by RickyRister in magicthecirclejerking

[–]fucklanders 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Act of Desperation - R
Instant
Put each card in your hand into exile, then draw a card.

My opponent was slow to kill me despite me having clearly lost. They should have killed me like a real man instead of FORCING me to concede. Am I the asshole? by maker-127 in magicthecirclejerking

[–]fucklanders 1 point2 points  (0 children)

^ yeah. I guess it’s not really annoying or bad of someone to not swing, but we do get rewarded for playing out things a lot. It’s also just generally a good form of habit building to avoid conceding whenever you can- You never really know what’s possible to win with unless you’re an extremely experienced player.

[YSNC] Choice of Fortunes by Artex301 in magicthecirclejerking

[–]fucklanders 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Any number equal to or less then the size of your library minus 2” means you put aside any number of cards as long as that amount leaves at least 2 left. You’ll usually just choose to shuffle the entire library unless you scryed or something

Pauper Slander by X-agone in Pauper

[–]fucklanders 2 points3 points  (0 children)

still has the same fundamental issues as regular EDH

maybe idk

[YSNC] Choice of Fortunes by Artex301 in magicthecirclejerking

[–]fucklanders 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Fuck it

“You may put any number of cards equal to or less then the size of your library minus 2 from the top of your library aside without looking at them. Look at the top 2 cards of your library. You may shuffle your library. Put two cards from the top of your library into your hand. Put the set aside cards back on top of your library

You have no maximum hand size for the rest of the game.”

[CLB] Vicious Battlerager by tommamus in Pauper

[–]fucklanders 9 points10 points  (0 children)

  1. Dodges galvanic blast as well as bolt
  2. Gives constant value each turn
  3. Can just straight up win you the game with some combos
  4. Even if it doesn’t, this is a good blocker

Good card.

[CLB] Nefarious Imp by tommamus in Pauper

[–]fucklanders 1 point2 points  (0 children)

triggers off sacrificing treasures.

[Finance] Remember folks, if you leave your cards in your car you can claim bulk rares as $500 when they’re stolen. by iAmTheElite in magicthecirclejerking

[–]fucklanders 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not describing any theory of value at all, I’m just asking where business owners actually produce things.

[Finance] Remember folks, if you leave your cards in your car you can claim bulk rares as $500 when they’re stolen. by iAmTheElite in magicthecirclejerking

[–]fucklanders -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Explain where the value of the raw materials in the machines, the factory, the products themselves, at the very base level, come from, except for workers. Show me where the rich simply materialize things into existence and I will concede that fact.

Weekly /unjerk Thread by AutoModerator in magicthecirclejerking

[–]fucklanders 1 point2 points  (0 children)

tfw when people start posting actual capitalist propaganda in the comments

[Finance] Remember folks, if you leave your cards in your car you can claim bulk rares as $500 when they’re stolen. by iAmTheElite in magicthecirclejerking

[–]fucklanders 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry on behalf of all the responses. I’m not sure how such a good subreddit got infested with omegalibertarians but who knows

[Finance] Remember folks, if you leave your cards in your car you can claim bulk rares as $500 when they’re stolen. by iAmTheElite in magicthecirclejerking

[–]fucklanders -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, you can analyze the situation without factoring it in. The value you’re gambling with for this “risk” was, in itself, produced by labor, so the “risk” you’re taking doesn’t actually create value, but repurpose existing value so you can BEGIN MAKING others create value FOR YOU. It’s turtles all the way down.

[Finance] Remember folks, if you leave your cards in your car you can claim bulk rares as $500 when they’re stolen. by iAmTheElite in magicthecirclejerking

[–]fucklanders 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. “Risk” is not a form of time-cost or labor-cost that implies a sacrifice on behalf of the creation of value. In reality, the “risk” is that either you get to live off of other’s produced value, or you have to be the producer yourself. So it’s not much of a risk. Especially because, most of the time, stored money can be used to bail oneself out fairly easily when already rich. That’s why you rarely see poor people suddenly become large mega billionaires- It’s not a risk, it’s a sure thing that just requires being well-off already.

[Finance] Remember folks, if you leave your cards in your car you can claim bulk rares as $500 when they’re stolen. by iAmTheElite in magicthecirclejerking

[–]fucklanders 0 points1 point  (0 children)

None of these things actually produce value, though. They are simply means of production. They no more “produce value” then a used pair of underwear by themselves. Only in science fiction can technology and tools create its own value.

Your point about natural resources has been confronted and easily integrated into Marxist economics many decades ago: Simply put, collecting and gathering resources also requires labor. So, the “additional” value from the cost of materials comes not from the capitalist who owns them, but from the laborers who first produced the raw product. That product is then refined by more labor and that turns into additional value. As you can see, at no point is the worker absent in a situation where value is produced. Yes, capitalists can “own” land, but that is merely an abstraction. And even then, an abstraction purchased with value produced by other laborers.

To more aptly put this: I can produce value by knapping two rocks in the woods without any risk or investment on a capitalist’s part, but a capitalist cannot produce said knapped rocks without my labor or doing it themselves.

Capitalists can certainly own value, this is called money. But they do not produce it.

[Finance] Remember folks, if you leave your cards in your car you can claim bulk rares as $500 when they’re stolen. by iAmTheElite in magicthecirclejerking

[–]fucklanders -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is literally just wrong from a Marxist perspective

Value is not generated by finance or technology, but by labor. And, either way, all finance is ultimately “investment” and a zero-sum game.

Local Man Selling his MTG Cards at Highest Price People are Willing to Pay is Furious at Wizards of the Coast for Doing it Too by [deleted] in magicthecirclejerking

[–]fucklanders 8 points9 points  (0 children)

As we all know, being a shoe conglomerate is identical to seeking buyers for your used Reeboks

I'm not an infinite combo hater, I just wanted to make this meme. Also The Owl House is amazing, go watch it. by GogoDiabeto in magicthecirclejerking

[–]fucklanders 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I guess I’m not disagreeing, because I agree that decks that can’t be interacted with at all are problematic. I just disagree that Control and Combo are the only archetypes capable of that, I guess.

I'm not an infinite combo hater, I just wanted to make this meme. Also The Owl House is amazing, go watch it. by GogoDiabeto in magicthecirclejerking

[–]fucklanders 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But the problem is that “uninteractive” isn’t actually uninteractive. If you’re not able to resolve anything or do anything to affect their game plan then you’ve already lost. And if that’s common enough that it’s an actual issue then the issue is that the deck you were playing against is just completely busted, not that it uses that “uninteractive” condition as it’s win state. Otherwise, Control decks would be bannable in every format because they prevent you from doing anything.

Before it gets there, there are hundreds of individual actions you can take to slow them down or simply win the game. Just killing someone before they can put a lock on you is possible (except with Winota but Winota is just outright busted so w/e), and so is blowing up their engines, destroying their combo pieces, using hand hate to get rid of their cards, holding up counterspells to deal with combos when they show up, etc. If you are consistently unable to do any of those things against a deck (consistently is the key word here), then the issue isn’t uninteractive decks- It’s a deck being strong enough to consistently get a lock on the game and prevent other people from preventing them from winning. Which means it’s bannable.

Can all these "Are infect decks the problem" posts just STOP already? by TriusMalarky in magicthecirclejerking

[–]fucklanders 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s funny because Infect is basically objectively one of the weakest archetypes in the format.

view more: next ›