Men Wear Masks and Women Wear...Very Little

The Mask You Live In is the sequel to Miss Representation, and it is about the same things Miss Representation is about, but regarding men. Here is a link to the trailer, I highly recommend the movie. It focuses in how men are taught to hide emotion and be aggressive. It discusses how men are all steered toward "boy" things, and away from "girl" things. It seems that it is more acceptable for a little girl to be into sports than it is for a little boy to be into dolls. Of course, neither is actually limited to one gender (although marketers seem to think so), but we have this perception that they are.

One thing I found interesting in the film was some information about depression. Statistics about depression say that women are more likely to be depressed than men, but it turns out that the traditional way to measure depression doesn't account for the way men tend to express depression. When a woman is depressed, she will express depression in the ways we think of it now. When a man is depressed, he will express it mostly through anger and acts of violence. He is taught that anger is the only emotion he can show and expresses his self-hatred or hopelessness through this outlet. I thought about this, and it seems that this would be bad in two ways. First, it's harder for them to be treated because their symptoms aren't screened for. Second, they are likely to get in trouble with the law or in their social group, which can lead to even worse situations for their mental well-being.

It is interesting that women's problems are amplified so much more in the media than men's. This is probably due to the sort of behaviors perpetuated in men: they aren't supposed to express when they are distraught about the way the system is going, and less likely to feel emotionally about the pressures on them. Conversely, when a man sees something he feels is wrong with the world, he is more likely to take action about it, while a woman is more likely to talk about the problem to express her emotions without doing anything about it. In reality, there is no reason both options couldn't be done together (perm), but some combination of nature and nurture made these the norm.

I feel that one shortcoming of The Mask is that it focuses heavily on toxic masculinity, men perpetuating hyper masculine behaviors to other men (calling each other pussies, ridiculing crying, etc.) but doesn't address enough why they feel the need to do this in the first place. Sure, these habits were probably perpetuated by other men, but it doesn't really address where the problem comes from. It seems that, just as the idea of what a woman should be is perpetuated by men, the idea of what a man should be is perpetuated by women. Even if men have more power overall, women still control which men they pick (I know that's heteronormative or whatever, but I'm talking about the population as a whole so what is true for the majority is most relevant).

I think this shows a really interesting parallel between the two, because both seem to aspire to be what the other is missing. Men are supposed to be assertive action-takers, something women are told they can't be. Women are supposed to be helpless damsels who are taken care of by others and who express their emotions freely and need a shoulder to cry on, things men are told they can't do. As far as sexuality goes, I think what each is supposed to be is actually a representation of what the other is. If a woman is a sexual object, an emotional relationship isn't necessary, something the ideal man doesn't have. If a man is supposed to be gentle, putting the woman first, than emotion is the most important part of the relationship. Both show their own ideas of what they should be in what they say the other should be. To summarize, everyone is perpetuating unrealistic expectations about everyone else, and all of those expectations show more about your own insecurities than about the other person.

If We Want to Stop Trump We Should Consider Voting for Him

Looking at the upcoming election, for me at least, it looks like another decision between the least of three evils. None of the remaining candidates are really anywhere close to having views that relate to mine. In fact, I'd say that all of them are more than 50% away from aligning with my views. When deciding who I will endorse, I try to look at the candidates from different perspectives, because seeing who I agree with the most is fruitless.

It seems that voters are good at expressing distaste with the system, but poor at choosing a candidate who will solve it. An article that discusses this, and the one that got me thinking about this sort of stuff in the first place, can be found here. A good example of this phenomenon is Mr. Trump, who draws mostly angry voters who are upset with the system. His policies, however, are sure to cause a number of issues and will be counter-productive, on top of just being racist. In fact, that article discusses this as well. He also isn't very presidential, using ad hominem attacks in excess and being generally rude. He has no filter.

All of these seem like reasons to vote against Trump. Why would we want a rude, obscene, obnoxious businessman whose policies will fail and whose mouth will evoke hatred from other countries as our president? Obviously we wouldn't. Perhaps a better question is why would current Trump supporters want a rude, obscene, obnoxious businessman whose policies will fail and whose mouth will evoke hatred from other countries as our president? It seems that, given enough time in office, Trump's policies will fail and likely be shot down by the supreme court. He will probably make enemies with every other head of state (he may have already done so in some cases) and thus decrease US hegemony and make America look bad in even Americans' eyes. It's hard to believe that the establishment Republicans in Congress will be too happy with this, and I don't think an impeachment is unreasonable. If this is true, it seems that current Trump supporters will think poorly of their decision once they actually see Trump as our president.

Why  is this eventuality preferable to one where Trump isn't elected in the first place? Without his failure as President, Trumpists won't have any reason to believe that Trumpism doesn't work. This means we are likely to see Trump again in future elections or people like him. The harm caused by a wave of disenfranchised voters supporting someone like Trump every four years outweighs the harm caused by Trump's temporary success.

If Trump becomes president, we will see a surge of politically disengaged people begin to identify as liberal, just as we have seen as Trump gains traction. This means a weaker Republican party and a stronger Democratic party, which I'm sure most of those reading this will be happy about even if I'm not.

Furthermore, in a situation where Trump creates global tensions with the U.S. we would see an increased overall dissatisfaction with the way the system is run. This means more different approaches to politics, and hopefully some positive change. It seems the only way to take down Trumpism is to endorse it and thus put it through trial by fire.

Green is Not a Creative Color: Merchants of Creativity

For those unaware, Don't Hug Me I'm Scared is a video series on Youtube that critiques different kinds of media. So far there are five episodes, and the sixth and final episode comes out in June (probably on the 19th, but that's just a hunch). I may do future videos on the 2nd-5th videos, but todays post is about the first one. Here's a link to the video. You should probably watch it if you want to understand this post.

The notepad opens with "What's your favorite idea?" then a very brief pause, then "Mine is being creative." It doesn't really want the characters to say their favorite idea, just to tell them they should be creative. Then, when it asks about the orange, it shows how to be creative by explaining that it sees a silly face in it. Once again, it's just telling them what they should think, not worrying about what the characters think. We see how the notepad controls their creativity when only after putting on the monocle, filtering their vision, do the characters see shapes in the clouds, and the same ones at the same time. Eventually, the characters start figuring out how to be creative, especially the yellow guy, the youngest of the bunch. He paints a picture of a clown. The notepad pours black paint on it, saying "it's time to slow down." The notepad clearly doesn't want them to learn to be creative. The most striking example is when they are spelling their favorite colors (or rather colours; this is a British series) and the yellow guy chooses green. The notepad tells him that "green is not a creative color." You should chooses your favorite color, but only from a small set of options.

It tries to tell the characters not just what to think, but how to act. "I use my hair to express myself." When the red guy says, "that sounds really boring, the response is "I use my hair to express myself." The notepad can't respond, just repeat what it is supposed to drill into the characters' minds, almost like hypnopaedia. Once they have been sufficiently conditioned, they are sent to let their "creativity" flow. They make art about death and eat flesh. clearly their conditioning has taught them to use their creativity positively. Perhaps that's a metaphor for them eating themselves, preventing themselves from reaching their potential.

There is one shot where the angle spins around and we see a camera and a sign that says "Don't Hug Me I'm Scared Take 1." It you hadn't figured it out already, this is evidence that the video is a commentary on children's media, and how it totally removes all parts of actual creativity. Nothing the notepad wants the characters to do is actually creative, it's all engineered by the notepad. The notepad, or children's media, is conditioning the characters to listen to it, not themselves.

The interesting part of this is how similar it all is to what's discussed in Merchants of Cool. It's not the teens who create teen culture anymore, it's the media. They're told how to express themselves, preventing any chance at actual self-expression. They look at themselves and others through the lens of the media, so when they make decisions about what to buy, they aren't really making a decision at all. Total Request Live is comparable to the part where they choose their favorite colors: it's a choice, but it's from a predetermined subset of options.

Even if there are some similarities, there's still one huge difference: merchants of cool have a goal of you buying their product, but merchants of creativity don't seem to have a goal. That's because their goal is much more long term. They don't want to make kids buy their product when they're young, they want to condition them to listen to everything the media says so they can get money out of them later. That's how much control they have, and their control of our lives is always proportional to the size of their wallets.

Alexander Hamilton vs. Thomas Jefferson: What Epic Rap Battles and Hamilton prove about the state of education in America.

In case you didn't know, I'm a big fan of a Youtube channel called Epic Rap Battles of History. Basically, they pit two historical figures or fictional characters who are related in some way against each other in a rap battle (an epic one). Some examples: Martin Luther King vs. Gandhi, Bill Gates vs. Steve Jobs, William Shakespeare vs. Dr. Seuss. Here's a link to what is, in my opinion, one of the best ones. They are hilarious, catchy, and informative, especially if you're the kind of person (like myself) who is likely to search for the meaning of every little reference that I don't get on forums and lyric-analysis sites.

Hamilton is a hip-hop musical (yes, such a thing exists (exactly one, in fact)) based around the life of Alexander Hamilton. It follows Hamilton from his arrival in America through his fatal duel with Aaron Burr. Along the way, we learn about the conflict between Loyalists and Patriots, the historic Battle of Yorktown, and Hamilton's debates with Thomas Jefferson while serving on Washington's first cabinet (in the form of rap battles, of course). Here's a link to the soundtrack.

Both of these are awesome, in their own way, and both are things I find myself listening to, watching, reading about, etc. over and over. There's something unique about these forms of media, and it's that they are educational. I have learned a lot about various historical figures from Epic Rap Battles of History, and I will never forget any of the topics sung about in Hamilton. Even if Epic Rap Battles doesn't directly teach you everything, it can act more as a hook to get you interested in a topic and inspire you to do more research, like I have countless times. For example, when I first listened to it I didn't understand the line in the Russian Leaders battle where Putin says, "the last man who attacked me lived a half-life so comrade come at me," but after looking it up I learned about the misfortunes that mysteriously befall Putin's enemies, and how ridiculously clever that line is. And as far as Hamilton goes, how many people who got into Hamilton (there are literally tens of millions) now know exponentially more about early America than they would have otherwise? Both franchises have  simultaneously entertained and informed.

Education right now is not customer-oriented. I encourage you to pull out your student handbook and look at the student rights, the parent rights, the teacher rights, and the staff rights, and then look at each group's responsibilities. Notice all of the ones that basically say "make sure no one does anything to change any school rules," and "The teacher is always right." Then take out a pen and write in all of the rights that should be there but aren't, and circle all of the responsibilities that haven't been carried out. Think about how school would look if it was actually designed to do what was best for the students (what a profound concept). Clearly we're not there right now. Do you ever feel like an information vacuum/blowdryer? Like you're just trying to absorb as much information as possible so you can spit it back out again? Or perhaps a word machine, one that has the task of arranging an endless stream of words into an order that will earn you the label of one of the letters you use in the words you manufacture. This is how school "teaches" students, by subtly forcing them to become robots if they want to deal with the heaps of homework, sacrificing leisure, physical health, and mental health to "succeed," whatever that means. Who could be expected to actually internalize anything of value in that environment?

When it's too easy to do well on the tests, students copy each others' homework. When it's harder to do well on the test, students still copy each others' homework, but this time they stay up way too late the night before the test trying to make sure they know what to do for the next day, but they are unlikely to internalize any of it. What, between these two scenarios, is the difference to the teachers and staff of the school? Absolutely nothing. There is no difference in what is learned, and their is no difference in the grades of the students. In fact, even if the kids did learn more in the second instance, there still wouldn't be a measurable difference to the school, because the students still got the same grades. The point is, all you change when you change the difficulty level of an undesirable task is the quality of life of the people who have to complete it.

In class, we've been talking about how there is a "clutter" or ads, and companies are always trying to find ways to break through the clutter. In The Persuaders, we learned about how marketing departments try to persuade us to persuade ourselves. We learned about Madison and Vine, the "seamless integration" of advertising into entertainment media. There is so much overwhelming, boring, regular advertising that it just doesn't work anymore. We learned that advertisers believe to have succeeded when consumers are actively seeking out their advertisements, not just forced to watch them because they really want to see the youtube video that comes after it.

Doesn't this seem to mirror, almost exactly, the situation in education? There is a clutter of work and of information, and none of it is stimulating to students. The solution isn't to keep on increasing the difficulty to encourage students to achieve better, the solution is to make the task desirable, to persuade us to educate ourselves. One way to do this? "Seamless integration" of education and entertainment, just like what Hamilton does. Then, students will want to seek out the education because it's also entertainment.

Obviously the advertising industry has figured this out a lot faster than the school system. Perhaps this is because companies rely on the opinions and feelings of their customers to succeed, where the school system couldn't focus less energy on it. That's because the school system will always exist, and the motivated/intelligent students will always do better than the others. This guarantees that, from the school system's perspective, it doesn't really matter what the school system is, unless by some miracle it starts caring about the well-being of students.

Banana Republican

I recently received the newest edition of Mad Magazine in the mail, and I was laughed pretty hard when I saw this bit.

 These are both parodies of clothing ads and jabs at the ex and not ex republican candidates.  The overall message is that Republicans' clothes should be as ridiculous as their policies. I'm not sure if these outfits are actually available from Banana Republic, but if they are then "Banana Republic clothing is as ridiculous as Republican Candidates' policies" might also be the message.

It is interesting that they use each thing as a way to shed light on how ridiculous the other is, like when it says under Ted Cruz's that "there's no denying this outfit will set you apart from other fanatical demagogues in the crowd." This shows how silly the outfit is, pointing out how you will stand out (which could be a good thing, but the outfit is kinda silly), and comparing it to standing out against other 'fanatical demagogues," attacking Ted Cruz for not actually advocating any productive policies.

It uses satire to make a political statement, a very effective tool, and it does it by comparing bad policies to pretentious or just silly clothing, implying that the policies are pretentious and silly, and the same of the candidates. Satire is a very effective way to make a political statement because people will internalize and remember something funny, but not necessarily something serious. This is why satire is an effective form of making a political statement.

There aren't too many implicit messages, because the goal is to make you laugh and not to make you buy something. One possibility might be that black people are lazy, because Ben Carson is the only black person in the piece and he's wearing pajamas while all of the others are dressed up. Also, women wear dresses and men wear suits. These are some implicit messages.

It is interesting to see the messages of a magazine dedicated entirely to satire, because they seem to be serious, even if delivered through satire. It seems like it is hard to have a satirical message, only a satirical delivery mechanism.

The Evitable Conflict: why so many cis, straight, white etc. guys are still so intolerant, bigoted, prejudiced, and how to stop it.

I was recently accused of mansplaining. I didn't think I was mansplaining, and after the fact I talked to some other people present who assured me that I wasn't mansplaining and the person who said I was had made a mistake. I was relieved. It didn't end up being a problem, but in the moment I felt really bad. I definitely didn't mean to do anything offensive, and I felt personally attacked when I was called out. I think this is the way a lot of guys, white people, cis people, other un-oppressed groups feel when the disadvantaged get mad at them.

Those who are oppressed (for simplicity I will call them minorities, even though that's not technically true for women and probably some other groups) have every right to be upset. They have every right to be angry when a cis white guy questions why they're at a prestigious university or why they care about which bathroom they go to. If I were you, I'd be mad too. I have had marginal experience with this sort of thing because I'm Jewish, but I'm not going to pretend that that's a common problem in the bubble I live in. The point is, I at least know how it feels, and I am in no way denying your right to be who you are without criticism. With that in mind, here are a few ways I feel one might cause others to be more receptive to their message.

Whenever I see a feminist get mad an ignorant guy (or in some cases an ignorant feminist get mad at a justified guy), all I can think is that there's no way he is ever going to be a feminist. When I see a queer person get mad at a cis guy for a homophobic comment, all I can think is that there's no way he is ever going to be an ally. This is because of exactly the feeling I outlined during the mansplaining incident. He said something that offended you, and it was probably ill-informed or maybe just wrong. Telling him he's a terrible person or implying that you think so is just going to make him feel like your group is out to get him, which, ironically, is much the same way you probably feel about his group. Where do you think a guy gets the idea that feminists hate men? He gets that idea when someone rants to him about how privileged and ignorant he is and how sorry he should feel or when he hears about that happening to someone else. This is where the media comes in. #meninism and feminist retweet didn't start because unprovoked guys just decided that feminists were generally anti-male, it started because guys felt personally attacked by certain feminists, even if that isn't representative of what feminism is. That feeling is exactly what caused you to become so adamant about your cause. That feeling, when used the other way, can make that person just as adamantly against you. Keep in mind that when you criticize all of the racists in the deep south as terrible, soulless people, you are doing to them exactly what you believe they do to minorities. To summarize, I'll borrow some words from the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. He said, "We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love." It's one thing to be right, and another to actually change things. 

A second thing that probably doesn't help the case to stand against oppression of any kind is how overwhelming the hundreds of demands from dozens of different groups are. When I scroll through twitter and see #blacklivesmatter and then #freethenipple and then #its2016andwestilldont I'm not particularly engaged by any one of them. I feel this is true for a lot of people. Obviously in an ideal world every single demand for equality and justice would be met, but if you want people to hear your message it has to be concise. If your mission statement is to make sure not a single person in the united states is bigoted, you're going to turn a lot of people off. Obviously the ideal solution is for everyone to rally behind one cause and one cause only until it's solved, starting with the one that causes the most harm and working down the line to the one that causes the least. This is very impractical, so I would recommend just keeping your list of demands short, starting with the most pressing issues, to keep your messag clear and concise. I think a lot of people who are currently indifferent might start drifting toward your side.

Finally, it's a lot easier for a friend to tell someone they made a mistake than an enemy or even an acquaintance. Even if it's a guy telling another guy they said something sexist, it's a lot easier to digest that a girl telling a guy. What I mean by that is that I'm confident that most women, queer people, or racial minorities are friends with someone outside of their group who is not intolerant. Even if you aren't, I'm sure one of your friends in the group is. Even if a guy is a feminist ideologically, when another guy is talking about how stupid feminists are, he usually doesn't want to get in an argument with him about it. Even though he may agree with feminist values, there are so many negative connotations associated with feminism, even in his eyes, that he won't actively associate himself with feminism. If the people preaching to either of those guys about feminism are girls, they will probably be less receptive than if they are told by guys. This is best illustrated in an example. If there are two friends, guys X and Y, and guy Y is friends with girl Z, and guy X says something sexist to girl Z, it's a lot easier for him to hear that he messed up from guy Y than from girl Z. 

I do not want this blog to discourage anyone from standing up for what is important to them. My intent is only to increase the support for progressive causes and decrease misunderstandings and ignorance as reasons to oppose these causes. You attract more bees wit honey than vinegar, or whatever that saying is. If your goal is to be right and alone, you can disregard this whole piece, but if you want to make a real positive impact, I urge you to consider some of what is written above. 

Lovemacs

A few weeks ago, the screen on my phone kinda popped off and I couldn't really use it. We took it in to the Genius Bar, and the Genius we got gave us the genius insight that our options were to buy a new screen or get a new phone. We decided to go for the "get a new phone" option. We went to the Verizon store, and the guy there suggested I get the Galaxy S7, which was cheaper, waterproofer, and overall a better phone than the iPhone 6. I decided to get the iPhone 6, but it got me thinking about why I prefer Apple products over others.

My family is an Apple family. Everyone in the family has an iPhone and a Mac, except for my mom who has to have a PC for work. I'm not entirely sure why we are so devoted to Macs, we just are. What confuses me most about it is that my dad is very computer savvy, and he would probably be better suited with a Linux, and come to think of it, it would probably be very helpful for me in developing my computer skills if I had a Linux too. So why don't we?

Seriously, I am baffled. I looked up lists of why Macs are better, and this is what I found.
Yeah.
The most compelling reasons include "prettier screens," "too many PCs to choose from," and "sturdier, more durable build quality" (I would hope so because they cost like three times as much). Perhaps the only real reason was that they are more secure, but again my family is pretty good with computers so I feel that wouldn't be as much of a problem, and the security gap is becoming increasingly smaller with time. Furthermore, I have had serious issues with my Mac recently, involving it not recognizing the existence of the battery, it being unable to find the startup disc, and it being generally slow and overheating a lot. The geniuses at the genius bar weren't able to do much more than my dad, so right now I have to be careful not to accidentally unplug my computer or it will shut off.

And as I briefly mentioned, Macs are significantly more expensive than PCs of similar ability, so it really seems strange that devoted Mac users are so set on Macs being the best use of their money. I guess they are very user-friendly for most people, but it just seems difficult to defend that they are better enough to warrant the extra dollars.

All this considered, it really makes no logical sense that I would continue to buy Apple products. Perhaps it's simply an issue of familiarity. I had no say in the decision of what kind of computer I got or what my first smartphone was, so I was kind of set up to be stuck with Apple products. What I mean by that is that I am forever inept at operating PC trackpads and can't stand the layout of Samsung phones. I don't see myself overcoming these hurdles any time soon, and I definitely don't see the greater population of Mac users realizing the truth of the matter. Let me know about your computer affiliations and such in the doobly-doo.

Loaded Language about Loaded Guns

When I read an article about legalizing drugs, or the war on poverty, and especially the education system, I like to think that the articles I find especially convincing or well-written are the ones that use the best argumentation; the ones who give solid logic and impeccable evidence. When I take a closer look however, I'm fairly confident that some of the most powerful articles are the ones that use powerful language, even if that language doesn't exactly accurately portray the objective reality. Two of the most emotionally charged issues right now are abortion and gun control; for this post, I will be focussing on gun control.
The article for gun control can be found here.
The article against gun control can be found here.

Before I look at the connotative language in the articles, I'd like to discuss connotative language in this debate in general. the term thrown around a lot is "gun control," which seems to have a slightly negative connotation taken by itself. In this context, however, I feel it is mostly neutral because both sides use the phrase, and even if it was originally intended as negative, it has become neutral through overuse. Some other less neutral terms are gun violence prevention, gun protection, and weapons ban for those in favor of gun control. For those against, gun freedom, gun rights, and gun owner protection. I'm sure there are more, these are just the ones that immediately come to mind. If I missed any important ones, feel free to let me know in the doobly-doo below.

With that out of the way, lets look at Ban Guns, End Shootings? by John Donohue. He, almost immediately, jumps to the term "mass shooting," which seems pretty objective but definitely invokes emotion at this point of use. He describes the NSA's influence over the decisions reached by policymakers in Congress as a "stranglehold," which feels like a definite exaggeration and is certainly not literally nor maybe even metaphorically true. He says that the gun culture "worship[s] the magical protective capacities of guns." This is definitely loaded with more than objective reality, especially the words "worship" and "magical," of which neither are true. He is painting a picture of a cultish group that believes in magic and is completely crazy. This is certainly a good strategy for convincing people to agree with you; they just don't want to be like the others. He uses words and phrases like "safe storage," "unsecure," "scientific evidence," "wisdom," "other advanced nations think so," "humane values," and other such terms. If you look at each of these terms on their own, it's very hard to disagree with them, which is evidence that they don't accurately represent the objective reality.

NRA Chief David Keene disagrees with Mr. Donohue, and he uses equally loaded, subjective language. He starts by calling legislation signed ny Lyndon B. Johnson restricting gun trading "draconian," and proceeds to say that it "prosecuted innocent gun collectors." Obviously not objective. He uses terms like "those hostile to firearms," "defend their rights," "government would threaten their way of life," 'firearm owners protection," "exploit the murders in Newtown," and "demonize." Once again, all of these things are pretty one-sided out of context; it's hard to be for the government "threatening [someone's] way of life." One thing I find particularly interesting in this article is when Keene seems to quote his opponents, saying, "draconian legislation imposed restrictions on "dealing" firearms." He is criticizing the loaded language of the other side, attacking the way they portray gun selling as similar to the drug trade, or shady and illegal. He is aware enough of loaded language to criticize it in his opponents, but not to find it in his own writing.

Both sides of the issue are equally guilty of this crime (there I go with the loaded language), and regardless of who provides the better substance, both seek primarily to persuade not with logic, but with connotation and connected emotion. 

#Paythepros

If you know me, you've probably heard the words "Magic: The Gathering" at some point in your life. Magic is a collectable/tradable/playable card game that is too complicated to explain briefly. Last weekend Wizards of the Coast, the company that owns Magic and is a subsidiary of Hasbro, held a quarter-yearly Pro Tour, which consists of the 400 or so best players in the world competing to see who is the coolest planeswalker (and for $150,000 in prizes). I followed the whole event at Twitch.tv/magic. For those who don't know, twitch.tv is a website where people livestream (like regular streaming, but live) themselves doing various things (usually playing video games). It's kinda like watching a football game on TV, except it's on the internet and it's a bunch of guys playing with cards. It was a great weekend. The metagame was awesome and my favorite player made it to the Top 8; the current format is the best it's been in a while. What wasn't so awesome was an anouncement that Wizards of the Coast made right before the final match.

Some background information is required to understand exactly why the announcement was so detrimental. Among the players at the Pro Tour are around forty players (38, exactly) who are at the top of the global rankings currently; we call them Platinum Pros. You can find the rankings here.
These players are given $3000 each from Wizards for every Pro Tour they show up to (for a total of $12,000 per year), because they literally make their entire living from prizes and sponsorships. These players are the heart of the community. They are the ones that get everyone else excited about Magic and give players aspirations, and the professional Magic circuit literally can't exist without them. They are just like the pro basketball, football, soccer, etc. players within Magic.

Right before the finals of last weekend's Pro Tour, one of the most epic Magic tournaments ever, Global Organized Play Director Helene Bergeot made some announcements regarding the appearance fees awarded Platinum Pros. You can find the video here (skip to about 2:30).
To summarize, the change involves cutting appearance fees from $3,000 per Pro Tour to $250 per Pro Tour. The big payoff? Next season, the World Championship prize pool increases by $100,000, and the season after that it increases by $250,000. This is problematic for a couple of reasons. First of all, there are 38 Platinum Pros currently (that number will increase before the season ends), and only the best 24 go to the World Championship. This leaves 15+ pros screwed out of very important money that they probably need to continue to be able to play magic, and no one is sure which ones that will be until the season is over, not even the pros, so they are really playing for a 60% chance at making the money they need to continue playing. Secondly, the prize pool increase doesn't affect the payout for the bottom 15 spots at the World Championship until two years from now, so pros have very little incentive to play the game competitively for a whole season.

As you can probably imagine, this caused quite a stir from the community. Even though the changes only directly affect a very small group of people, the ramifications of an empty pro circuit would be devastating to the community at large and even the ability of Wizards of the Coast to make magic in the first place. Twitter blew up. Content creators on Youtube were posting videos left and right about how angry they were at Wizards. One pro, Brad Nelson, who won $10,000 by making it to semifinals at the Pro Tour posted this:
This all seems very negative, but their is a different perspective to take on this, one that a few people in the Magic world have. It's that this game means so much to players that they were all willing to very outspokenly rally behind a cause for what they saw as the integrity of the game. It made me feel admiration for the Magic community to see the unity with which we tackled the problem.

My hope is that at this point all of you are pissed off at Wizards and really emotionally involved in the whole thing, and I'm just going to assume that that's true. Well, I'll put your mind at ease, because on Thursday Wizards released a statement retracting the changes for the upcoming season, entirely in response to community upheaval. You can find that here.

Now it looks like the whole problem has been resolved and everything's fine. However, the more inquisitive of you may have been wondering something along the lines of "Why did Wizards make the changes in the first place?" And to tell the truth, I'm not quite sure. In the announcement video, Ms. Bergeot says that they want to give the World Championship a larger prize pool because that seems fitting, and I can kind of buy that. That being said, the people at Wizards are certainly aware of community attitudes about professional players, and I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't realize the enormous reaction the community would have. The people at Wizards are members of the community themselves, and I can't imagine they wouldn't be upset by the changes too. And once they did make the changes, the turnaround was REALLY quick, about four days, which seems oddly quick to make such a drastic change, considering all of the bureaucratic nonsense a company that large has to go through to make a change in fund allocation. So why did they do it? My theory, and one shared by some members of the community, is that the Wizards team was pressured into the decision by higher-ups at Hasbro, and they felt the only option was to release the statement and let the community's reaction force them to backtrack. This theory obviously has some holes, but I've thought about this for a while and can't seem to think of anything. It is interesting to try to find out what's going on behind the scenes based entirely off of the public relations front enclosing the company. If you come up with anything, I'd love to talk in the comments. In the meantime, one of my favorite players is streaming on twitch.