Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It is of course fine to depict real world bigotry in fiction if the objective of the work is to thoughtfully examine and criticise it.

But shallow tie-in fiction for toy soldiers probably isn't a right place for that. If you want to examine serious topics, you need to do it seriously and with great care.

 Grimskul wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Racism is a problem in real life, and if it were present in the game most of us never would have stuck around to get to know the lore. The whole point of the 40k satire is to use fake Sci Fi bigotry and religious extremism that lets them comment on real issues without furthering the actual injustices they are lampooning.

Ah yes, racism should not be permitted in 40k because real people have been affected by racism.

Meanwhile, it's perfectly fine for 40k to feature genocide, because no one has ever been affected by that.

I mean it's the same reason why people in certain places want to ban or restrict access To Kill a Mockingbird over concerns over the fact there's racist content in the book, even though it's addressing the problems of racism but some people get so sensitive over the use of the n-word and the historical aspects of it that they want to memory hole it.

I don't think you really understand WHO wants to ban To Kill a Mockingbird. I'll give you a hint: it's the same people who want to ban the book And Tango Makes Three.

 Grimskul wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Racism is a problem in real life, and if it were present in the game most of us never would have stuck around to get to know the lore. The whole point of the 40k satire is to use fake Sci Fi bigotry and religious extremism that lets them comment on real issues without furthering the actual injustices they are lampooning.

Ah yes, racism should not be permitted in 40k because real people have been affected by racism.

Meanwhile, it's perfectly fine for 40k to feature genocide, because no one has ever been affected by that.

I mean it's the same reason why people in certain places want to ban or restrict access To Kill a Mockingbird over concerns over the fact there's racist content in the book, even though it's addressing the problems of racism but some people get so sensitive over the use of the n-word and the historical aspects of it that they want to memory hole it.

If you read the rest of BobtheInquisitor's quoted post that was conveniently trimmed by Vipoid, and stuff later in the thread, it becomes clear that a distinction is drawn between current, real-world racism and fictional racism that explores the same processes without using real world examples.

To take the 40k example: the Imperium is institutionally racist to abhumans. It is not institutionally racist to dark-skinned humans. Only one of those directly maps onto current issues affecting people on Earth. The other allows the same concept of racism to be explored much more safely without potentially furthering harmful stuff.

This applies to other bigotry beyond racism.

40K also benefits from those being “Othered” actually being a quantifiable threat. Not just to the wealth of the powerful, but to planets and systems as a whole.

An untrained, unchecked Psyker is at all times a potential warp breach or possession waiting to happen.

Dealings with Xenos can have far reaching ramifications, in different ways.

Part of the moral quandary is whether The Imperium could go about things in a less unpleasant and oppressive way.

For instance, Chaos Cults. Nobody goes from disaffected citizen to raving loonie over night. Not unless they get possessed. Instead, something as relatively innocuous as a Swinger’s Club can attract the attention of Slaaneshi Daemons. A martial arts school can attract the attention of Khornate Daemons. Someone whose loved ones are suffering from illness can attract the attention of Nurgle Daemons. Those wanting a fairer society can attract the attention of Tzeentch Daemons. The general misery of life in The Imperium amplifies those threats, where even pretty innocent pursuits can easily be twisted and escalated.

Consider the Satanic Panic and its wild claims, including “I was a satanist and I made sure Gary Gygax’s spells in D&D actually summoned demons”. Those are of course utter nonsense. But for The Imperium? Yeah it is possible an AD&D analogous game could contain the secrets of Daemon summoning, either by accident or design. When The Imperium says awful things about alien species? They’re often entirely right about the malign intent and possible outcomes.

That in turn allows it to justify a lot of proper evil, like exterminating a planet of Abhumans for being Not Quite Human Enough, or obliterating a Xenos species which was otherwise content to just mind its own business, and may have had zero capacity to threaten the status quo.

Which in the real world is analogous to claims that because someone convicted of a crime happens to be of a certain, non-majority ethnicity, that it must follow all members of that ethnicity must also be inclined toward criminality.

 Haighus wrote:

To take the 40k example: the Imperium is institutionally racist to abhumans. It is not institutionally racist to dark-skinned humans. Only one of those directly maps onto current issues affecting people on Earth. The other allows the same concept of racism to be explored much more safely without potentially furthering harmful stuff.

This applies to other bigotry beyond racism.

And doing it this way makes perfect sense. Even though "fictional bigotry" might be still be uncomfortable for some customers, same real world bigotry they face in their daily lives will definitely be way more uncomfortable. GW doesn't want to write fiction which depicts direct bigotry towards their potential customers.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
REMOVED.

So, what is the goal? In your opinion. Because you can’t just rubbish the stated intent without providing an alternative like that.

I already stated the intent, control of the institution, its always about control as "there is no truth but power" to these people, "the personal is political" "everything is political" etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Catulle wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
REMOVED.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does, every time its applied in praxis it results in the exclusion of one out group in favour of another in group.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
40K also benefits from those being “Othered” actually being a quantifiable threat. Not just to the wealth of the powerful, but to planets and systems as a whole.

I disagree that is a benefit. I think it actually serves to render the satire toothless and makes fascists find 40k more welcoming as they see the others they wish to exterminate as just as much of a quantifiable threat as the imperium does its others.

So, the othering in 40k is not actually satirising the othering of groups by totalitarian regimes. It is just depicting it completely straight from the point of view of the fascists, making them justified in their crimes.

Cyel wrote:
From what I have seen over the years (and I have met plenty of women gamers over multiple genres of the hobby, from RPGs and Larping to board games, miniature wargames and video games) to incentivize more women to join the hobby, you don't need more female models.

You need more cute animal models.

I was pretty active in Starship Troopers in the mid-00s, a game where the Mobile Infantry are canonically mixed-gender and the models reflect this. I knew one woman who was into the game. She played Arachnids.

What you're highlighting is that the fictional identity of the models is only a small part of how the game is presented. The super soldier in power armor who beats the gak out of everyone is a quintessentially male power fantasy. The high-heel fetish nuns are a quintessentially male sexual fantasy. The Imperial Guard are a historical military reference (a traditionally male-dominated space). Whether the models themselves are male or female doesn't change that many of the factions are designed to appeal to men, and it has never surprised me at all that I see more women playing Tyranids or Dark Eldar than Imperial Guard or Sisters.

Representation matters, and I like the change to Custodes in that it draws a clear distinction between them and Marines*, but it's also the most superficial form of inclusivity. I don't think female Custodes are going to bring women into 40K- making crochet patterns of assault rifles isn't going to bring men into knitting- but it does at least signal that this isn't meant to be a boy's club and helps draw a line in the sand against the exclusion that keeps many women out of hobby stores, and I think that's valuable.

*Frankly, I wish they'd lean more into the inherent satire of emotionally-stunted, testosterone-poisoned beefcakes, but I don't see that happening to the poster boys.

everything about trade offs, if you add here you remove from there, by introducing female marines you remove the male only representation, I have personally seen people openly advocate of the inclusion of females in marines not because of any other reason that it would represent a win for "their side".

Men should have control over their own space in the same manner as woman have control over their own space, both should, do and can fight for that space in an appropriate manner, there are also plenty of shared spaces. Now if we are talking about the lore then this is a male represented space and as such people have every right to advocate for it to remain that way.

The custodes question however is a different one as it never really came across as a brotherhood, more like a group of highly elite warriors as opposed to the Space marines warrior monks.

 Formosa wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
REMOVED.

So, what is the goal? In your opinion. Because you can’t just rubbish the stated intent without providing an alternative like that.

I already stated the intent, control of the institution, its always about control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Catulle wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
REMOVED.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does, every time its applied in praxis it results in the exclusion of one out group in favour of another in group.

But, GW owns the background and do whatever they wish with it. On account you can do pretty much whatever you want with your own fictional universe.

That they’re now doing stuff you don’t agree with is, frankly irrelevant, unless you’re a major shareholder of GW’s, and your deciding vote was ignored.

How does Custodes recruiting male and female infants now exclude anyone? Riddle me that at least.

But, GW owns the background and do whatever they wish with it. On account you can do pretty much whatever you want with your own fictional universe.

That they’re now doing stuff you don’t agree with is, frankly irrelevant, unless you’re a major shareholder of GW’s, and your deciding vote was ignored.

How does Custodes recruiting male and female infants now exclude anyone? Riddle me that at least.

Sure they can and just as you get people advocate for one side of things, you get people that advocate for the other, none of them will stop so its irrelevant who owns the IP, its about pressure and how much each can bring to bear, people power matters and has brought low bigger companies than GW, we all know this.

its not "now" they are doing things I disagree with, they have been doing things I disagree with for quite some time, the Australian price hike, 10th edition nearly as a whole, becoming more corporate and moving away from their grass roots, I have a laundry list of things I disagree with. As for being a major share holder, again irrelevant, pressure can and has been brought against such companies and made them change course, the current custodes change could be interpreted as an example of this though I am dubious myself that it is.

I did not say Custodes, I said space marines and was very specific as to why.

 Formosa wrote:

Catulle wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
REMOVED.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does, every time its applied in praxis it results in the exclusion of one out group in favour of another in group.

I don't believe you have fully developed your thinking regarding those terms.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
40K also benefits from those being “Othered” actually being a quantifiable threat. Not just to the wealth of the powerful, but to planets and systems as a whole.

I disagree that is a benefit. I think it actually serves to render the satire toothless and makes fascists find 40k more welcoming as they see the others they wish to exterminate as just as much of a quantifiable threat as the imperium does its others.

So, the othering in 40k is not actually satirising the othering of groups by totalitarian regimes. It is just depicting it completely straight from the point of view of the fascists, making them justified in their crimes.

Yep, fully agreed. "Imperium is horrible, but it is so by necessity" is not something I want to be taken seriously. It of course is what the Imperials in the setting beleive, but it should be shown to be misguided. This is not to say that there cannot be genuine treats, but the narrative should be that by being xenophobic totalitarian pricks the Imperium actually makes the situation worse.

 Formosa wrote:

But, GW owns the background and do whatever they wish with it. On account you can do pretty much whatever you want with your own fictional universe.

That they’re now doing stuff you don’t agree with is, frankly irrelevant, unless you’re a major shareholder of GW’s, and your deciding vote was ignored.

How does Custodes recruiting male and female infants now exclude anyone? Riddle me that at least.

Sure they can and just as you get people advocate for one side of things, you get people that advocate for the other, none of them will stop so its irrelevant who owns the IP, its about pressure and how much each can bring to bear, people power matters and has brought low bigger companies than GW, we all know this.

its not "now" they are doing things I disagree with, they have been doing things I disagree with for quite some time, the Australian price hike, 10th edition nearly as a whole, becoming more corporate and moving away from their grass roots, I have a laundry list of things I disagree with. As for being a major share holder, again irrelevant, pressure can and has been brought against such companies and made them change course, the current custodes change could be interpreted as an example of this though I am dubious myself that it is.

I did not say Custodes, I said space marines and was very specific as to why.

Right.

But Space Marines remain a Sosig fest, just as they’ve ever been. So……what’s your point? Becuase if you’re just getting upset at your own imagination, I don’t know how to help you with that.

But you did say inclusion must come with exclusion. And I, using the example of Custards, asked you who exactly has been excluded by that occurrence?

I can't really engage in the whole pseudo military discussion anymore. The positions are so far away from actual military experience, copious evidence (who was it that said western soldiers will just keep fighting if ordered to?) and 30 seconds of thought that its pointless. Changing would require bringing you to work for a few weeks before an appropriate level of sheepishness developed and you were sent home.

 MalusCalibur wrote:
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcLRqXE7Les

Puts it into better words than a lot of us can.

No, from where I watched up to it was mostly bonkers.

Though ironically trans stuff that gets a lot of people hot and bothered (man>woman, not the more common woman>man) fits right in, as the setting, whether it is shapeshifting assassins or dodgy medical procedures featuring added laser eyes, doesn't have a problem with it.

I would also genuinely love to know what are 'the other things' people are worried about? We already have main characters who are disabled, extra genders, robots, aliens, etc. GW has already toned the horror down to sell to children more. Would you be upset with more sex, or do you want things to be as asexual as possible (and most of the factions modifications seem to be towards celibacy and new life stringing from the vats, not the kind of large families needed to sustain the low life expectancies). Worried they might start showing every character having a dozen kids to keep the meat grinder going?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

I disagree that is a benefit. I think it actually serves to render the satire toothless and makes fascists find 40k more welcoming as they see the others they wish to exterminate as just as much of a quantifiable threat as the imperium does its others.

So, the othering in 40k is not actually satirising the othering of groups by totalitarian regimes. It is just depicting it completely straight from the point of view of the fascists, making them justified in their crimes.

Yep, the single greatest mistake GW ever made with the lore was portraying the Imperium's efforts as in any way justifiable. 40k hasn't been a satire of fascism for a long time. It's essentially capeshit where the majority of the fanbase are expected to cheer when their fascist good guy superheroes beat up their cartoonishly evil and less competent counterparts. In an effort to make 40k more marketable it has accidentally created a fascist power fantasy.

If it does not matter to you then why are you wanting it changed then?

is it because you know symbolism and representation matters? is it just wanting to take away something other people like?

what is YOUR motivation as we know its certainly not representation or inclusion as you are seeking to exclude those who do not want a change and deny them their representation.

as to your question, for decades the Custodes were a male organisation, many liked this for various reasons, now by changing it you are excluding those people who do not like the change when their views are just as valid as yours, are you ok with excluding people in such a manner or will you just label them with some epithet to justify it?

 MalusCalibur wrote:
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcLRqXE7Les

Puts it into better words than a lot of us can.

If the "it" in question is "brainless stupidity" then yes I suppose it does.

Well. A bit to unpack there.

Please point us to where I advocated for female Astartes. The best you’ll find is that I’m not against it, but hope we get some proper crunchy background changes which would necessitate the Chapters expanding the recruitment pools which have served well for the past 10,000 and a smidge years.

Custodes now have male and female members. Folk have every right to dislike that. But, at the end of the day, there’s nothing to say “you must accept that lore or be forever banished”. Because right now? The only person excluding anyone is you, excluding yourself. Nobody is kicking down your door to glue knockers onto your models. Nobody is sneaking around in the FLGS to change the shape of select codpieces on your Custodes. You. You are the one doing the exclusion, and in the words of a most excellent Radiohead song? You do it to yourself. And as such, you’ll get no particular sympathy from me.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Yep, the single greatest mistake GW ever made with the lore was portraying the Imperium's efforts as in any way justifiable. 40k hasn't been a satire of fascism for a long time. It's essentially capeshit where the majority of the fanbase are expected to cheer when their fascist good guy superheroes beat up their cartoonishly evil and less competent counterparts. In an effort to make 40k more marketable it has accidentally created a fascist power fantasy.

Fully agreed. That is the lore change I am upset about!

 vipoid wrote:
Ah yes, racism should not be permitted in 40k because real people have been affected by racism.

Meanwhile, it's perfectly fine for 40k to feature genocide, because no one has ever been affected by that.

This is certainly a very uncharitable way to understand the argument presented to the point this is almost bad faith.

The idea that real world racism should not be carried in a one for one in a fictional setting like 40K by the flagship and heroes of the setting (the Space Marines and to a lesser extend the Imperium in general) is non-controversial. If it were not the case it would turn off most decent human beings from the setting and the player base would be full of actual fascists which are very unpleasent to say the least to non-fascists driving away further decent human beings and creating a toxic gaming community.

To properly represent the insane and theo-fascist nature of the Imperium fantastical racism is used (racism that cannot be construed as supporting a form of real world racism). The same goes for genocide. The victims of the fictional genocides of 40K cannot be construed to be victims of real genocides and none of the genocide perpetrated in the 40K universe could be construed as supporting a historical or currently ongoing genocide in our world, the victims, means, history and motives for such genocide are completely different. In the same way, the religious fanaticism of 40K is represented through a fictional religion with fictional rules and tenets that aren't even clearly defined.

I think you would probably find it uncomfortable if every Space Marine in the setting was detesting Jews just as much as Goebbels himself and using the same language to talk about them; imagine replacing all reference to the power of Chaos to the schemes of the dirty Jews. It would be the same thing if suddenly instead of having Ork Boyz we had Ork N****** and all Genestealer cultist were suddenly and very explicitly coded as Indian. That would be rather offputting and no amount of "it's satire" or "it's grimdark, every faction is supposed to be evil and insane" would be enough to wash away the bad taste for there is such a thing as humor and satire in bad taste, or worst, schrodinger satire. Generally speaking, having your protagonist being explicitly and radically racist towards the same kind of people of who are victims of racism in the real world is a very stupid and even, in some cases, a very dangerous idea.

The same goes for sexism and other forms of gender discrimination too. Though, since sexism is generally more tolerated in society, especially by men and boys, than racism, some amount of it doesn't impact negatively the perception of the setting in the same way. Even then, the setting of 40K while certainly containing some amount of sexism, is actually fairly benign on that point. Sure, the Sisters of Battle are under the male gaze to a high a degree, but they are still represented, in general, as highly competent and likeable people and there are factions that are explicitly gender equal like the two Eldars. The idea that there might be a handful of female Custodian Guards, in my sense, makes sense. I don't think this tiny, largely aesthetical retcon (if it even was, since I don't think it was ever , is a big issue and only provides with players and writters a greater amplitude to design their characters and fluff. Diversity is always a plus for such thing. That's why Space Marines are so popular; they have a million different flavors and style and GW emphasis on the fact each Chapter can be its own style and culture allows people to make whatever they like and GW itself offers examples for the most common and popular tropes.

 Formosa wrote:

Spoiler:

Right.

But Space Marines remain a Sosig fest, just as they’ve ever been. So……what’s your point? Becuase if you’re just getting upset at your own imagination, I don’t know how to help you with that.

But you did say inclusion must come with exclusion. And I, using the example of Custards, asked you who exactly has been excluded by that occurrence?

If it does not matter to you then why are you wanting it changed then?

is it because you know symbolism and representation matters? is it just wanting to take away something other people like?

what is YOUR motivation as we know its certainly not representation or inclusion as you are seeking to exclude those who do not want a change and deny them their representation.

as to your question, for decades the Custodes were a male organisation, many liked this for various reasons, now by changing it you are excluding those people who do not like the change when their views are just as valid as yours, are you ok with excluding people in such a manner or will you just label them with some epithet to justify it?

Yeah, this is just paradox of tolerance BS. It in fact is fine to exclude exclusionists, and it is not hypocritical.

And of course even if female marines were possible, this in no way would prevent people making their own male-only chapters, if they felt all-male warrior brotherhood was crucial part of the theme of that chapter. And I think it legitimately can be for some, I think it for example make perfect thematic sense for Dark Angels. But as part of appeal of marines is their thematic flexibility, I do not for a moment buy that being all-male is thematically integral to the faction as a whole. If we can have viking marines, samurai marines, vampire marines (none of which BTW require male-only for their themes) we should also be able to have Amazon marines. Or just practical tacticool marines with mixed gender units.

 Crimson wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
40K also benefits from those being “Othered” actually being a quantifiable threat. Not just to the wealth of the powerful, but to planets and systems as a whole.

I disagree that is a benefit. I think it actually serves to render the satire toothless and makes fascists find 40k more welcoming as they see the others they wish to exterminate as just as much of a quantifiable threat as the imperium does its others.

So, the othering in 40k is not actually satirising the othering of groups by totalitarian regimes. It is just depicting it completely straight from the point of view of the fascists, making them justified in their crimes.

Yep, fully agreed. "Imperium is horrible, but it is so by necessity" is not something I want to be taken seriously. It of course is what the Imperials in the setting beleive, but it should be shown to be misguided. This is not to say that there cannot be genuine treats, but the narrative should be that by being xenophobic totalitarian pricks the Imperium actually makes the situation worse.

I also concur with this. The Imperium is supposed to be thoroughly dysfunctional and surviving only through sheer mass and inertia in spite of its utter incompetence. The threats it faces are still not supposed to justify the means it employs.

 Hellebore wrote:
The amount of hypocrisy in this thread is ridiculous.

Every single person here arguing that this is a retcon and is bad for being a retcon, has accepted without issue plenty of other retcons in 40k, and even in the custodes themselves.

Custodes never left terra until they retconned them in the codex to justify them as an army. They never guarded special people in the imperium, they never had blade guards or terminators.

But then bam they did and everyone lapped it up because it was a change that agreed with their sensibilities.

If they reversed the retcon and made them half naked cone heads again, would people be upset...


I can't help but think how this conversation would have gone if it had been racial rather than gender segregation in 4ok.

Custodes are all white men, no other man may join. But it's ok because we have an all black group called the brothas of violence for you non whites to enjoy. They are not only not super soldiers they're mentally repulsive to everyone around them, but they're your group you get to have so don't complain about not having black custodes.

I think given how wierd peoples identities have become and what they consider core to them, yep you would have. though obviously worded carefully.

When even the daily mail wants to use it for the dullest war ever (the culture war) you know things have gotten dumb. Still fun to read how they try and explain it, shoehorn Cavil in, fail to mention its a massive company and the comments. Really I was surprised that nothing in the hobby was found to cause cancer.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13313535/Wokehammer-gender-row-Games-Workshop-fans-army-squadron.html

There’s a fair chunk of my post excluded there, including that the question is whether the Imperium’s approach to those threats is completely justified, if not outright counter productive, with the general misery of existence playing straight into the hands of Chaos, by providing endless disaffected peons to corrupt and turn against their oppressor.

 vipoid wrote:
*snip* and all Genestealer cultist were suddenly and very explicitly coded as Indian.

Well we had the poor old Chaos dwarves get axed for being a collection of stereotypes that worried the company. Shame because they are my favourite blood bowl team.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

I disagree that is a benefit. I think it actually serves to render the satire toothless and makes fascists find 40k more welcoming as they see the others they wish to exterminate as just as much of a quantifiable threat as the imperium does its others.

So, the othering in 40k is not actually satirising the othering of groups by totalitarian regimes. It is just depicting it completely straight from the point of view of the fascists, making them justified in their crimes.

Yep, the single greatest mistake GW ever made with the lore was portraying the Imperium's efforts as in any way justifiable. 40k hasn't been a satire of fascism for a long time. It's essentially capeshit where the majority of the fanbase are expected to cheer when their fascist good guy superheroes beat up their cartoonishly evil and less competent counterparts. In an effort to make 40k more marketable it has accidentally created a fascist power fantasy.

Of course its justifiable. The imperium is the only thing standing in the way of mankinds extinction, its extremisn is entirely neccessay. The lore on the age of technology and the age of strife makes the point that mankind tried being nice and allying with aliens, letting a myriad of different 'free' societies exist and using AI and tech to do all manner of things, and it all ended up in the fall and near extinction of the human race.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

I disagree that is a benefit. I think it actually serves to render the satire toothless and makes fascists find 40k more welcoming as they see the others they wish to exterminate as just as much of a quantifiable threat as the imperium does its others.

So, the othering in 40k is not actually satirising the othering of groups by totalitarian regimes. It is just depicting it completely straight from the point of view of the fascists, making them justified in their crimes.

Yep, the single greatest mistake GW ever made with the lore was portraying the Imperium's efforts as in any way justifiable. 40k hasn't been a satire of fascism for a long time. It's essentially capeshit where the majority of the fanbase are expected to cheer when their fascist good guy superheroes beat up their cartoonishly evil and less competent counterparts. In an effort to make 40k more marketable it has accidentally created a fascist power fantasy.

Yeah, pretty much this. A universe where sexual deviants, religious minorities, and foreign immigrants will actually cause the downfall of the human race if not opposed with wild xenophobia is exactly what an actual fascist would write as fiction. If it's played straight, there's no satire.

Also, using fantasy settings as analogies for real-world social issues is hard to do well in the first place. If you're trying to do an allegory for real-world racism and your stand-in for a marginalized group has a statline that reads -4 Intelligence, there are some crass implications there. And a setting where you're objectively best off just committing genocide against them because otherwise they will become corrupted by demons and rise up to usurp your civilization probably really shouldn't be doing that allegory to begin with.

 Formosa wrote:

Catulle wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Catulle wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
we are talking about "equity" and "Inclusion" which in praxis (as in theory applied in real terms) means exclusion of a desired out group and pre determined outcomes one wants to achieve

No it doesn't.

Yes it does, every time its applied in praxis it results in the exclusion of one out group in favour of another in group.

I don't believe you have fully developed your thinking regarding those terms.

You know what this made me chuckle because this is the EXACT response I get every time when I use these terms from people either denying or downplaying that I am exactly correct in their use, I am using the literal academic terms used by the people that came up with these concepts, I can ping over in a PM the books I got them from if you want mate?

You are using in/outgroup at a very shallow level; expanding an ingroup (the process of inclusion) does not, as you claimed, necessitate identifying an outgroup to subsequently exclude. Participation is not a zero-sum game.

robbienw wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

I disagree that is a benefit. I think it actually serves to render the satire toothless and makes fascists find 40k more welcoming as they see the others they wish to exterminate as just as much of a quantifiable threat as the imperium does its others.

So, the othering in 40k is not actually satirising the othering of groups by totalitarian regimes. It is just depicting it completely straight from the point of view of the fascists, making them justified in their crimes.

Yep, the single greatest mistake GW ever made with the lore was portraying the Imperium's efforts as in any way justifiable. 40k hasn't been a satire of fascism for a long time. It's essentially capeshit where the majority of the fanbase are expected to cheer when their fascist good guy superheroes beat up their cartoonishly evil and less competent counterparts. In an effort to make 40k more marketable it has accidentally created a fascist power fantasy.

Of course its justifiable. The imperium is the only thing standing in the way of mankinds extinction, its extremisn is entirely neccessay. The lore on the age of technology and the age of strife makes the point that mankind tried being nice and allying with aliens, letting a myriad of different 'free' societies exist and using AI and tech to do all manner of things, and it all ended up in the fall and near extinction of the human race.

Not when it’s cyclical. Not when the hypothetical fall of The Imperium won’t necessitate the extinction of mankind. Not when The Imperium for all its inertia could be reordered to be less inwardly regressive and oppressive.

The horror is in not what The Imperium does, but how it goes about it, especially to its own citizens, those who’s security it’s claiming to be trying to achieve.