Da Boss wrote: Jackal90: the creators of the game put political themes into it, you know? Like the did it on purpose. Because it makes it more compelling.
And I think no one is really saying that 40K is going to turn people fascist or whatever, we are commenting on it being popular with fascists.
So what if it is? What's your point or end goal here? Is it to stop them being allowed to play or like the models?
One of the first lessons you learn if you have to manage an in-person group is that the worst ~3% of players will drive off 3x-4x their number of decent personable humans if you don't just kick them out.
And in the worst case, they'll get your group ejected from the store you probably use to host your games by doing the same thing they do with good players with paying customers.
Having a standard of behavioral decency is necessary for any group that wants to last.
Absolutely, and if people cause trouble in a store, then they should be kicked out. But it's nothing to do with their beliefs, and everything to do with behaviour. This is that popular fallacy that people who call themselves 'antifascist' must somehow be moral paragons simply because they assert themselves as so.
Karol wrote: There is something wrong in being Rhodesian?
You're a smart kid, I am sure you can google the significance.
I just tried that and failed to get any helpful results, to be honest. Not saying you're incorrect, it's just that all I can find is about diamonds or about a british colony?
hotsauceman1 wrote: No.
It's like the people who think Tyler Durden was a role model or that ceasers legion was a good choice for the mojave.
They missed the point, it's not the source materials fault they are stupid.
I dunno, it definitely does seem like there's a pattern of "the way something looks on the surface is all that matters to anyone" that shines through in all of these writings. You're not going to look at the cover of the 8th edition rulebook, point to the dude posed like God in the roof of the sistine chapel, surrounded by white light and go "ah yes, the bad guy."
It does seem like any time a villainous character is allowed to look cool and seem "savvy" or "smart" in a piece of media, there's a whole legion of idiots who will idolize them in a way they don't tend to idolize, say, Sauron from LOTR. They always seem to follow a similar pattern, too: Tyler Durden, Heath Ledger Joker, Hans Landa, The Punisher - them being Cool and Badass is the text, them being wrong is the subtext.
I also think it's pretty telling how many people will complain any time a character like that is portrayed like they reasonably would be - the reaction to Anakin Skywalker being portrayed as a whiny, bitchy manchild whose greatest victories in the films all involved murdering helpless, basically unarmed people was pretty negative because people just want Darth Vader to be a Cool Badass.
People often like anti heroes or villains as much as heroes. It doesn't mean anything.
I mean, there does seem to be a pretty strong correlation between people I meet who don't pay their child support, constantly tell stories about how they're the victim and everybody else is the bad guy, and can't handle any challenge to their ego and punisher skull and heath ledger joker car window stickers.
I'm in favor of the trend of purposefully trying to craft media that denies people like that villains to idolized.
A strong correlation of a limited subset?
A niche media with a niche fanbase with a niche forum in a niche sub forum?
No, mostly where I work, which is in a pretty large industrial park. So a lot of the folks I interact with on a daily basis are welders, truckers, delivery guys, polishers, etc. If I do end up starting to have to interact with someone who's just the worst kind of human scum, I can do a magic trick where I can tell you exactly what kind of car they drive and what kind of stickers are on the back with approximately a 75-85% accuracy rate.
Karol wrote: There is something wrong in being Rhodesian?
You're a smart kid, I am sure you can google the significance.
I just tried that and failed to get any helpful results, to be honest. Not saying you're incorrect, it's just that all I can find is about diamonds or about a british colony?
But again, what's your point? These people like those characters so we shouldn't make those characters, and that will stop people being 'scum'? Or these characters made those people scum therefore we should stop making those characters? Because neither one sounds good to me as someone who values freedom of expression for people to create whatever characters and stories they wish.
Karol wrote: There is something wrong in being Rhodesian?
I don't think I ever saw people play a "nazi" army outside of historicals, and non of the people that played those armies or ally armies like hungarians or italians had political views aligned with the german reich. In fact considering history it is really hard to be pro nazi or pro communist around here. Specialy the nazi thing.
It's really surprised me when I've found Russians who are both pro-communism and also pro-Stalin, to the point where I wondered if they're actually being serious.
Having Polish friends and having spent some time in Poland (great country, loved my time there) the folk I've come across, especially the older generation who grew up under communism, have a pretty different perspective. Speaking as a foreigner, it was almost like an internal cultural divide between the younger folk who have grown up in a more western society to the older folk who grew up under communism, it's not a divide I noticed in other countries I've been to.
Karol wrote: There is something wrong in being Rhodesian?
You're a smart kid, I am sure you can google the significance.
I am not smart, but we do learn about Rhodesia at school. And it was a country defended by a lot of polish war heroes from WWII that fought for its independance from communists till the very end. Some were burried on The Polish War Hero memorial after communism fell in 1989. So I am not really getting the bad part, how patriotic people defending their own country and their marks are suppose to be bad.
Da Boss wrote: Jackal90: the creators of the game put political themes into it, you know? Like the did it on purpose. Because it makes it more compelling.
And I think no one is really saying that 40K is going to turn people fascist or whatever, we are commenting on it being popular with fascists.
So what if it is? What's your point or end goal here? Is it to stop them being allowed to play or like the models?
One of the first lessons you learn if you have to manage an in-person group is that the worst ~3% of players will drive off 3x-4x their number of decent personable humans if you don't just kick them out.
And in the worst case, they'll get your group ejected from the store you probably use to host your games by doing the same thing they do with good players with paying customers.
Having a standard of behavioral decency is necessary for any group that wants to last.
Absolutely, and if people cause trouble in a store, then they should be kicked out. But it's nothing to do with their beliefs, and everything to do with behaviour. This is that popular fallacy that people who call themselves 'antifascist' must somehow be moral paragons simply because they assert themselves as so.
I will 100% grant that anyone who is such a cunning and skillful secret wacko that they carefully conceal their ideology and never take any action based upon it until the day they die is fine in my book.
Speech and painting your models is a behavior, however, and just because I might enforce restrictions on certain types of speech/clothing/paint schemes to help maintain a Family Store policy doesn't mean I have to be in favor of some across the board enforcement.
At the end of the day the reason we're able to come in to someone's private business and play a game for free and store many of the accessories for that game in that private business is because we bring in business rather than drive it away.
Well if those people attempt to start up the fourth Reich in a games workshop I would support the manager kicking them out.
Facetiousness aside, yeah, if you put swastikas on the models or something then yeah, again that's something the manager of the establishment could forbid, and would be sensible to do so.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: But again, what's your point? These people like those characters so we shouldn't make those characters, and that will stop people being 'scum'? Or these characters made those people scum therefore we should stop making those characters? Because neither one sounds good to me as someone who values freedom of expression for people to create whatever characters and stories they wish.
You're ascribing a lot of...I don't know, purpose to my opinion here? I just love seeing people like that get mad because some character they like gets 'ruined' or some new character comes out that makes them angry, because in my opinion they're the funniest people to see get red in the face about it.
This whole anti-fascist crowd/uprising is such a plague in the community. As an adult I can play a game and realize that the characters and lore have zero influence on who I am as a person. I can play 12th SS in FOW as much a I play US paras, Brit commandos etc, and realize that these little tiny soldiers that I roll dice for have zero effect on what I do/think in the real world.
It certainly seems that the current liberal extreme push in modern education has given these people a hammer and all they can see are nails. Glad none of them are part of my gaming group.
Queen Anne’s revenge: Then people need to remember it’s a fantasy setting and keep a divide between that and reality.
Not everything has an ulterior motive or hidden agenda, sometimes a game is just a game.
Sadly people can’t always do this though and try to find hidden meanings, no matter how much twisting it requires.
Also, reading into something does not inherently mean you agree or disagree with it.
I have read a lot of religious text simply because I find it interesting how different cultures perceive things through religion.
I myself though am not even slightly religious.
I simply believe in letting people believe in whatever they want.
They only time I will ever have an issue with it is if it has a negative impact on others around them or causes harm to others.
People can be civilised.
bullyboy wrote: This whole anti-fascist crowd/uprising is such a plague in the community. As an adult I can play a game and realize that the characters and lore have zero influence on who I am as a person. I can play 12th SS in FOW as much a I play US paras, Brit commandos etc, and realize that these little tiny soldiers that I roll dice for have zero effect on what I do/think in the real world.
It certainly seems that the current liberal extreme push in modern education has given these people a hammer and all they can see are nails. Glad none of them are part of my gaming group.
I think there is a difference between either though. See if you pick lets say a hungarian or Italian or even a waffen SS force to play with you are just making a table top choice, and they look historical the way they look. Now there are people here who think that communists and nazis should be erased from the common consciousness, but I don't think that would be right.
But when you take a space marine army, and make it to look like a Vlasovs Waffen SS brigade, then this is an outside of w40k choice. Now I understand that maybe this could be done for shock value. But at best I find it distasteful, same way as lets say artists claiming they do art by descareting religious objects of any religion. And in rare cases this maybe does mean that someone thinks that german nationalism is the way to go, but I really don't think that stance is a popular one.
Well Karol, that is certainly one reading of the history of Rhodesia, I will give you that.
To discuss this further would be OT so I will leave it there.
bullyboy wrote: This whole anti-fascist crowd/uprising is such a plague in the community. As an adult I can play a game and realize that the characters and lore have zero influence on who I am as a person. I can play 12th SS in FOW as much a I play US paras, Brit commandos etc, and realize that these little tiny soldiers that I roll dice for have zero effect on what I do/think in the real world.
It certainly seems that the current liberal extreme push in modern education has given these people a hammer and all they can see are nails. Glad none of them are part of my gaming group.
boy, it sure is funny though just how much louder and more numerous the complaints about these kinds of things seem to be than the things themselves.
"oh god, we found what looks like a troll meme subreddit 1% of the size of the two main warhammer subreddits where people make shitposts about how 40k is fascist! We have to destroy the....modern liberal extreme push in education?"
it's weird, I have never had to tell any bat-wielding antifa supersoldiers to feth off from my 40k gaming group over the years, and I live in one of the most RaDiCaLlY aNaRcHoBiDeNiSt parts of the united states.
bullyboy wrote: This whole anti-fascist crowd/uprising is such a plague in the community. As an adult I can play a game and realize that the characters and lore have zero influence on who I am as a person. I can play 12th SS in FOW as much a I play US paras, Brit commandos etc, and realize that these little tiny soldiers that I roll dice for have zero effect on what I do/think in the real world.
It certainly seems that the current liberal extreme push in modern education has given these people a hammer and all they can see are nails. Glad none of them are part of my gaming group.
I think there is a difference between either though. See if you pick lets say a hungarian or Italian or even a waffen SS force to play with you are just making a table top choice, and they look historical the way they look. Now there are people here who think that communists and nazis should be erased from the common consciousness, but I don't think that would be right.
But when you take a space marine army, and make it to look like a Vlasovs Waffen SS brigade, then this is an outside of w40k choice. Now I understand that maybe this could be done for shock value. But at best I find it distasteful, same way as lets say artists claiming they do art by descareting religious objects of any religion. And in rare cases this maybe does mean that someone thinks that german nationalism is the way to go, but I really don't think that stance is a popular one.
^this right here. "shock value" is definitely the intended goal as far as I can tell 99% of the time, and I don't care if it's an "Anatomically Specific" slaanesh army or minis modeled and painted to look like weird historical figures, if you're coming into a private business and trying to offend people and drive them off with your painting, you're going to get rightfully kicked out.
bullyboy wrote: This whole anti-fascist crowd/uprising is such a plague in the community. As an adult I can play a game and realize that the characters and lore have zero influence on who I am as a person. I can play 12th SS in FOW as much a I play US paras, Brit commandos etc, and realize that these little tiny soldiers that I roll dice for have zero effect on what I do/think in the real world.
It certainly seems that the current liberal extreme push in modern education has given these people a hammer and all they can see are nails. Glad none of them are part of my gaming group.
I think there is a difference between either though. See if you pick lets say a hungarian or Italian or even a waffen SS force to play with you are just making a table top choice, and they look historical the way they look. Now there are people here who think that communists and nazis should be erased from the common consciousness, but I don't think that would be right.
But when you take a space marine army, and make it to look like a Vlasovs Waffen SS brigade, then this is an outside of w40k choice. Now I understand that maybe this could be done for shock value. But at best I find it distasteful, same way as lets say artists claiming they do art by descareting religious objects of any religion. And in rare cases this maybe does mean that someone thinks that german nationalism is the way to go, but I really don't think that stance is a popular one.
I think in the historical context it does a disservice to forget the nazi party behind the soldiers. I occasionally build WW2 aircraft models, and I generally put swastikas on the tails of my German aircraft because it's historically accurate, even though the kit sometimes don't come with them.
In the "art" sense, using nazi iconography outside of the historical context, I think it's hard to decide where to draw the line. Is it okay in comical parody? Whilst I think painting 40k models with nazi icons would be taking it too far for me personally, I also try not to be judgemental of a person until I know them better than how they chose to paint their army.
Well it is all fine and dandy till that under 1% of people causes your whole country to be labeled as nazis around the world, block EU money, force you to change laws illegaly to your country laws, mess up traded deals with China "because it is immoral" etc.
Worse thing is those people work for companies that are western anyway, most of them can leave the country if they only want to, but will leave everyone else with the problems here.
1% is not equal to all other 1%. Sometimes the 1% is more important then 50%.
Edit: Ach, I better behave myself, I like this thread.
I would find a warhammer army painted with Swastikas and so on really distasteful and I would judge someone who had done that to their minis, for sure. At the very least for having poor taste and being lacking in common sense.
40k in and of itself does not encourage hatred/fascism, but the Imperium of Man is a bit of fascist's wet dream at its surface level. Yes it is a failing state that has survived for as long as it did solely on momentum and just being huge, but looking at several of its key aspects: racial purity, big strongman figure of the Emperor, heavily militaristic, downright brutal to anyone who speaks against it, and so on. All points of interest to someone with a fascist streak to them.
Of course, looking PAST the surface level you can see obvious points to go against this, but some people just like the surface level, and don't think deep enough to notice that Margaret Thatcher is trying damned hard to destroy some of the industrial heartlands of the Imperium and other things like that.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Da Boss wrote: Jackal90: the creators of the game put political themes into it, you know? Like the did it on purpose. Because it makes it more compelling.
And I think no one is really saying that 40K is going to turn people fascist or whatever, we are commenting on it being popular with fascists.
So what if it is? What's your point or end goal here? Is it to stop them being allowed to play or like the models? Because I would suggest that aswell as being impossible and unnecessary, it's also very illiberal and leaning towards that authoritarianism that I would assume you are very much against to attempt that. Why are people bothered about what other people believe? As long as it isn't affecting you directly, who cares? Trying to get them booted out of the hobby isn't going to change their opinions, so I assume it's just a matter of ideologically purifying your hobby space. The problem then arises, more often than not, that this devolves into a purity spiral with the window for what is acceptable getting smaller and smaller. (There is a very interesting BBC radio 4 podcast about this very thing happening to online knitting communities.) Just leave them be, if you don't like their ideas, don't associate.
This is the main problem I had with the statement in June. Those folks I deem to be ideological troublemakers took it as carte blanche to start attacking people on twitter, almost immediately.
The problem with what you are saying is that you are skirting into the Paradox of Tolerance. If one doesn't work to cast away intolerance, it can fester and grow, leading to Othering of groups and peoples. Its all cute and fun to say "oh you are being intolerant" to a literal fascist, but remember, fascists, neo nazis, racial purists, and their ilk actively believe SOME PEOPLE SHOULD NOT EXIST, and should be killed, enslaved, and dehumanized.
There is a very big difference between telling someone who espouses those views to please leave and not be welcome, when compared to what their end goal is. One is creating a safe space where people can enjoy themselves without fear or harassment. The other stance is literally "these [insert group/religion/culture/etc] should not exist, and are worth less than me and my [group/religion/culture/etc]."
And as you say, it would be impossible to just kick them out of the hobby - but stores and gaming groups can say "hey, you are a fascist / racist and we don't really feel like associating with you. Please leave."
And note, I am talking solely about actual fascists, neo nazis and racists, not people who happen to have different political views from me.
The IoM aren't the "good guys" unless you are just being anthropocentric, which ironically would be actual racism. Every faction in 40k universe are shades of grey, or rather grimdark, the IoM included. A lot of what makes them grimdark / dystopian was plagiarised from the history of communism actually. Eg: commissars, purges.
Wait so you want to tell me that the right stance to have, as I assume racism is the wrong stance, that being team human in w40k and real life is somehow the wrong stance to hold? w40k players should be pro eldar and orks?
Probably acknowledging that 40k is a fictional setting, and none of the factions are good guys.
Karol wrote:There is something wrong in being Rhodesian?
Rhodesia was a state built around white supremacy and apartheid. Its much like someone waving a Confederate flag - maaaaybe the person doesn't realize the subtext of the image, but more likely, they are just smugly showing how supportive they are of an intolerant society.
Jackal90 wrote: Queen Anne’s revenge: Then people need to remember it’s a fantasy setting and keep a divide between that and reality.
Not everything has an ulterior motive or hidden agenda, sometimes a game is just a game.
Sadly people can’t always do this though and try to find hidden meanings, no matter how much twisting it requires.
Also, reading into something does not inherently mean you agree or disagree with it.
I have read a lot of religious text simply because I find it interesting how different cultures perceive things through religion.
I myself though am not even slightly religious.
I simply believe in letting people believe in whatever they want.
They only time I will ever have an issue with it is if it has a negative impact on others around them or causes harm to others.
People can be civilised.
I'm unsure as to what you're disagreeing with me on here. We seem to be on the same page.
Jackal90 wrote: Queen Anne’s revenge: Then people need to remember it’s a fantasy setting and keep a divide between that and reality.
Not everything has an ulterior motive or hidden agenda, sometimes a game is just a game.
Sadly people can’t always do this though and try to find hidden meanings, no matter how much twisting it requires.
Also, reading into something does not inherently mean you agree or disagree with it.
I have read a lot of religious text simply because I find it interesting how different cultures perceive things through religion.
I myself though am not even slightly religious.
I simply believe in letting people believe in whatever they want.
They only time I will ever have an issue with it is if it has a negative impact on others around them or causes harm to others.
People can be civilised.
I'm unsure as to what you're disagreeing with me on here. We seem to be on the same page.
We are I believe.
I was just adding more to my original post.
Hoping that people will "get the joke" is not a guaranteed thing, as I said in my post back on page 5-6 using 4chan and incels as an example. This doesn't mean 40k will turn people into fascists*, but it will certainly appeal to them unless GW and the Community makes it clearer that the IoM is not a thing to emulate or admire. And the issue there is that GW themselves are basically doing nothing to address that whatsoever.
People earlier in this thread talk about how "obvious" it is that the Imperium is terrible and the bad guy, but I will bet good money you're all making these assumptions based on lore and background you read 20+ years ago. Try opening up and reading the 9th Edition Rulebook sometime and having a read of the lore. Sure, you can say it's written from an Imperial perspective, but there is no hint of irony or critique in it what presents, there are no smoking guns of "everything you just read is a load of bs". It is all presented as immutable and objective fact. The Imperium is justified in everything it does because of Apocalyptic Race War, Xenos are all to be exterminated and never to be trusted because of ancestral misdeeds and their inferiority to the superior Human form, the only way to avoid eternal damnation is to submit to worship of the Emperor completely and utterly and ask no questions. Nowhere is this more apparent in the lore for Marines, in both rulebook and Codex, where the negative aspects of them are completely downplayed and the usages of words like "Hero" and "Heroics" and "Defenders of Humanity" have increased tenfold. And this isn't even getting into the meta discussion surrounding Marines, where marketing on streams and Warcom will absolutely not address their problematic elements whatsoever. And of course it won't, because it's marketing, but it's basically the first thing people see and what they remember most. Hell, just look at how they market anything else; they're not afraid to address the scary or evil aspects of those things. Necrons are rightly treated as being evil and scary and that's a big selling point!
This thread is actually a perfect example of some not getting the joke or irony and the bringing up of Guilliman earlier encapsulates it perfectly. I won't repeat what others said about Guilliman's return and his portrayal being the most obvious example of turning the IoM into the good guys and how problematic that is, but in this very thread we've had people claiming that the tragedy of 40kIoM is how it fell from the lofty idealistic heights of the 30k Imperium. If you honestly believe that then congratulations you didn't "get the joke" and you didn't pick up on the "obvious" message. The Imperium of 10,000 years ago is just as vile and monstrous with the only differences being a slightly more efficient bureaucracy for 30k and the religious ideals of 40k being worn openly, rather than hidden behind some flimsy bs about the Imperial Truth (which in its entire structure is intensely religious and apes religious iconography and methods constantly anyway). If your skin didn't fething crawl in Horus Rising when Sindermann is giving a religious sermon that basically consists of saying "we're right because we're right and that means we are justified in anything we do" then yeah, I dunno. Or how about later in those early books with the Interex and how they live peacefully and in harmony with Aliens and how all of our PoV characters are disgusted and repulsed by it.
*Although in recent years I've seen an uptick of younger kids playing games in GW stores loudly and gleefully exclaiming how they're going to "purge the filthy xenos!" Which does make me a little uncomfortable I'm not gonna lie.
Absolutely agreed.
It doesn't matter if we know that 40k's "a joke" and if you don't get it, you're dumb - what matters is that there are people who don't see it as a joke, and do buy into the myth of the Imperium being good. And y'all can sit around on your hands and say "well, they're just stupid" or "I'm not going to impose on their freedoms", but that's all well and good when you're not the ones they're making racist comments about, is it?
queen_annes_revenge wrote:So what if it is? What's your point or end goal here? Is it to stop them being allowed to play or like the models? Because I would suggest that aswell as being impossible and unnecessary, it's also very illiberal and leaning towards that authoritarianism that I would assume you are very much against to attempt that.
You know what's also pretty illiberal? Bigotry and ethnocentricism.
If someone's belief is centred around the idea that their race is superior, that's not a belief that deserves any right to be defended.
Why are people bothered about what other people believe?
Uh, gee, I dunno, maybe when those beliefs are "you're subhuman scum because of how you look/love/live/where you come from", people might just have a reason to be bothered by them?
When someone genuinely believes that your life is inferior, and that's a core tenet of their beliefs, you're damn right I'm bothered by that.
As long as it isn't affecting you directly, who cares?
"Well, Aaron thinks that all *insert race here* should die. Buuuut I'm not part of that race, so who cares, amirite gamers?"
Trying to get them booted out of the hobby isn't going to change their opinions, so I assume it's just a matter of ideologically purifying your hobby space. The problem then arises, more often than not, that this devolves into a purity spiral with the window for what is acceptable getting smaller and smaller. (There is a very interesting BBC radio 4 podcast about this very thing happening to online knitting communities.) Just leave them be, if you don't like their ideas, don't associate.
Yeah, I don't associate by making sure they're not in my spaces.
You're damn right I'll purify my hobby space, because fascists don't belong in it, in society, in anything. (And when I say fascist, I mean fascist.)
queen_annes_revenge wrote:I'm sure lots of them like beer too, so, shall we ban them from buying beer?
If someone's belief is that it's okay to prejudice based on race, why should someone serve them?
Seriously, this is the kind of "sweeping under the rug" some of us are talking about - why on earth do y'all tolerate actual honest to god racists?
the_scotsman wrote:
bullyboy wrote: This whole anti-fascist crowd/uprising is such a plague in the community. As an adult I can play a game and realize that the characters and lore have zero influence on who I am as a person. I can play 12th SS in FOW as much a I play US paras, Brit commandos etc, and realize that these little tiny soldiers that I roll dice for have zero effect on what I do/think in the real world.
It certainly seems that the current liberal extreme push in modern education has given these people a hammer and all they can see are nails. Glad none of them are part of my gaming group.
boy, it sure is funny though just how much louder and more numerous the complaints about these kinds of things seem to be than the things themselves.
"oh god, we found what looks like a troll meme subreddit 1% of the size of the two main warhammer subreddits where people make shitposts about how 40k is fascist! We have to destroy the....modern liberal extreme push in education?"
it's weird, I have never had to tell any bat-wielding antifa supersoldiers to feth off from my 40k gaming group over the years, and I live in one of the most RaDiCaLlY aNaRcHoBiDeNiSt parts of the united states.
Yeah, it is strange that there seems to be more backlash towards people who want to get rid of fascists than there is towards the actual fascists.
Like, imagine outright saying "I oppose people who oppose fascists".
What I find more interesting is just to discuss why Warhammer is attractive to fascists and hear what others have to say.
I think it's fairly simple to answer that question.
Fascists believe in a strong military led government. Thus, they're pro-military and likely to be attracted to military simulations. So Warhammer is likely to have a higher proportion of fascists than, say, a knitting circle. I'd expect to find more fascists playing airsoft/paintball for the exact same reasons.
Now, does Warhammer (40k in particular) attract MORE fascists than other table top miniature wargames? Hard to say, but GW is the dominant game so that's where you're going to see the most of any kind of person and therefore it's easier to find a community of like minded people among the larger community of wargamers. If you're pro-fascist, you're more likely to find another pro-fascist among Warhammer gamers than the much smaller (and frankly older) FOW community.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:So what if it is? What's your point or end goal here? Is it to stop them being allowed to play or like the models? Because I would suggest that aswell as being impossible and unnecessary, it's also very illiberal and leaning towards that authoritarianism that I would assume you are very much against to attempt that. Why are people bothered about what other people believe? As long as it isn't affecting you directly, who cares? Trying to get them booted out of the hobby isn't going to change their opinions, so I assume it's just a matter of ideologically purifying your hobby space. The problem then arises, more often than not, that this devolves into a purity spiral with the window for what is acceptable getting smaller and smaller. (There is a very interesting BBC radio 4 podcast about this very thing happening to online knitting communities.) Just leave them be, if you don't like their ideas, don't associate.
This is the main problem I had with the statement in June. Those folks I deem to be ideological troublemakers took it as carte blanche to start attacking people on twitter, almost immediately.
The problem with what you are saying is that you are skirting into the Paradox of Tolerance. If one doesn't work to cast away intolerance, it can fester and grow, leading to Othering of groups and peoples. Its all cute and fun to say "oh you are being intolerant" to a literal fascist, but remember, fascists, neo nazis, racial purists, and their ilk actively believe SOME PEOPLE SHOULD NOT EXIST, and should be killed, enslaved, and dehumanized.
There is a very big difference between telling someone who espouses those views to please leave and not be welcome, when compared to what their end goal is. One is creating a safe space where people can enjoy themselves without fear or harassment. The other stance is literally "these [insert group/religion/culture/etc] should not exist, and are worth less than me and my [group/religion/culture/etc]."
And as you say, it would be impossible to just kick them out of the hobby - but stores and gaming groups can say "hey, you are a fascist / racist and we don't really feel like associating with you. Please leave."
And note, I am talking solely about actual fascists, neo nazis and racists, not people who happen to have different political views from me.
Exactly. It's all well and good to say "well, I don't want to impose on their right to speak, I can't be intolerant of them!", but when what they're speaking is that some people should not exist because of their race, sexuality, gender, religion, country of origin, etc, they're the ones being intolerant first!
If y'all care so much about "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", perhaps try telling fascists that, because they're the ones threatening it for others.
Da Boss wrote: Edit: Ach, I better behave myself, I like this thread.
I would find a warhammer army painted with Swastikas and so on really distasteful and I would judge someone who had done that to their minis, for sure. At the very least for having poor taste and being lacking in common sense.
i am sure a lot of asians that could read this will perfectly find your statement to be in poor taste aswell.
Meanwhile host the japanese flag in south east asia and you get a similar reaction.
Karol wrote: There is something wrong in being Rhodesian?
You're a smart kid, I am sure you can google the significance.
I am not smart, but we do learn about Rhodesia at school. And it was a country defended by a lot of polish war heroes from WWII that fought for its independance from communists till the very end. Some were burried on The Polish War Hero memorial after communism fell in 1989. So I am not really getting the bad part, how patriotic people defending their own country and their marks are suppose to be bad.
Of all the ridiculous bullgak in this thread, this is the one post that cannot be allowed to stand unopposed.
The white nationalist government of Rhodesia unilaterally declared independence from the United Kingdom in 1965 to avoid Rhodesia being reorganised by the UK into a Republic where black people were allowed to vote. The entire reason that Zimbabwe is such a mess today is because the civil war started because a bunch of racists in Rhodesia thought a multi-decade civil war was preferable to letting black people vote, the same way the American Civil War was unambiguously about slavery.
If you don't like being called a defender of fascists* or the far right, stop defending them. It's really that simple. Trying to reframe the Rhodesia civil war as being about brave patriots that tried to defend their country against communism is either monumental ignorance or outright malicious. The bad part isn't being a patriot (although Oscar Wilde's remark that "patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" seems rather apt here), it's being so racist that you'd (generic you) rather start a 15-year civil war than let black people vote. Maybe don't spread far-right talking points in a thread about the problem of people spreading far-right talking points?
*And before the pearl clutching begins, Portuguese dictator Salazar backed then-PM of Rhodesia Ian Smith against the UK, and if the argument that the Estado Novo of Salazar wasn't fascist is the hill you want to die on then be my guest.
Karol wrote: There is something wrong in being Rhodesian?
I don't think I ever saw people play a "nazi" army outside of historicals, and non of the people that played those armies or ally armies like hungarians or italians had political views aligned with the german reich. In fact considering history it is really hard to be pro nazi or pro communist around here. Specialy the nazi thing.
What I find more interesting is just to discuss why Warhammer is attractive to fascists and hear what others have to say.
I don't think it is more attractive, then anything else that people can do. There are probably more what ever counts as a fascist in MMA clubs and hooligan gym clubs, then in w40k. I still have no idea how w40k could appeal to someone who is a fasist or national socialist, as there is no such system in the lore. There is no communism or any form of democracy either. well maybe eldar are kind of a like the US pre civil war, but this is still a big kind of a and a maybe.
There is a theocracy and oligarchy in it. But I don't see many people who like those system play w40k, or it being popular in places where they are base of sociaty.
Sometimes I think that -isms are just buzz words nowadays, and that they don't really mean the definition of the word, but are just a nice replacement for a bannable insult to someone or something one doesn't like. And if it was true, depending on the viewer, anything in any facet of live is majority an -ism of some sort, which isn't very useful to go on with life, but a good thing to write about. As we are proving it now.
Can't tell if you are joking, but identifying with a badge of rhodesia pretty much says you support separation of races, and a return to segregation. They were a small unrecognized South African county that actively participated in attempting to prevent black africans from integrating in south africa. They had a military unit that went around and "enforced their intent" called the Selous Scouts. Their iconography is synonymous with the struggle for white power and white supremacy. Dylan Roof was a big supporter in his manifesto before the church shooting that made him infamous.
Hoping that people will "get the joke" is not a guaranteed thing, as I said in my post back on page 5-6 using 4chan and incels as an example. This doesn't mean 40k will turn people into fascists*, but it will certainly appeal to them unless GW and the Community makes it clearer that the IoM is not a thing to emulate or admire. And the issue there is that GW themselves are basically doing nothing to address that whatsoever.
People earlier in this thread talk about how "obvious" it is that the Imperium is terrible and the bad guy, but I will bet good money you're all making these assumptions based on lore and background you read 20+ years ago. Try opening up and reading the 9th Edition Rulebook sometime and having a read of the lore. Sure, you can say it's written from an Imperial perspective, but there is no hint of irony or critique in it what presents, there are no smoking guns of "everything you just read is a load of bs". It is all presented as immutable and objective fact. The Imperium is justified in everything it does because of Apocalyptic Race War, Xenos are all to be exterminated and never to be trusted because of ancestral misdeeds and their inferiority to the superior Human form, the only way to avoid eternal damnation is to submit to worship of the Emperor completely and utterly and ask no questions. Nowhere is this more apparent in the lore for Marines, in both rulebook and Codex, where the negative aspects of them are completely downplayed and the usages of words like "Hero" and "Heroics" and "Defenders of Humanity" have increased tenfold. And this isn't even getting into the meta discussion surrounding Marines, where marketing on streams and Warcom will absolutely not address their problematic elements whatsoever. And of course it won't, because it's marketing, but it's basically the first thing people see and what they remember most. Hell, just look at how they market anything else; they're not afraid to address the scary or evil aspects of those things. Necrons are rightly treated as being evil and scary and that's a big selling point!
This thread is actually a perfect example of some not getting the joke or irony and the bringing up of Guilliman earlier encapsulates it perfectly. I won't repeat what others said about Guilliman's return and his portrayal being the most obvious example of turning the IoM into the good guys and how problematic that is, but in this very thread we've had people claiming that the tragedy of 40kIoM is how it fell from the lofty idealistic heights of the 30k Imperium. If you honestly believe that then congratulations you didn't "get the joke" and you didn't pick up on the "obvious" message. The Imperium of 10,000 years ago is just as vile and monstrous with the only differences being a slightly more efficient bureaucracy for 30k and the religious ideals of 40k being worn openly, rather than hidden behind some flimsy bs about the Imperial Truth (which in its entire structure is intensely religious and apes religious iconography and methods constantly anyway). If your skin didn't fething crawl in Horus Rising when Sindermann is giving a religious sermon that basically consists of saying "we're right because we're right and that means we are justified in anything we do" then yeah, I dunno. Or how about later in those early books with the Interex and how they live peacefully and in harmony with Aliens and how all of our PoV characters are disgusted and repulsed by it.
*Although in recent years I've seen an uptick of younger kids playing games in GW stores loudly and gleefully exclaiming how they're going to "purge the filthy xenos!" Which does make me a little uncomfortable I'm not gonna lie.
Absolutely agreed.
It doesn't matter if we know that 40k's "a joke" and if you don't get it, you're dumb - what matters is that there are people who don't see it as a joke, and do buy into the myth of the Imperium being good. And y'all can sit around on your hands and say "well, they're just stupid" or "I'm not going to impose on their freedoms", but that's all well and good when you're not the ones they're making racist comments about, is it?
queen_annes_revenge wrote:So what if it is? What's your point or end goal here? Is it to stop them being allowed to play or like the models? Because I would suggest that aswell as being impossible and unnecessary, it's also very illiberal and leaning towards that authoritarianism that I would assume you are very much against to attempt that.
You know what's also pretty illiberal? Bigotry and ethnocentricism.
If someone's belief is centred around the idea that their race is superior, that's not a belief that deserves any right to be defended.
Why are people bothered about what other people believe?
Uh, gee, I dunno, maybe when those beliefs are "you're subhuman scum because of how you look/love/live/where you come from", people might just have a reason to be bothered by them?
When someone genuinely believes that your life is inferior, and that's a core tenet of their beliefs, you're damn right I'm bothered by that.
As long as it isn't affecting you directly, who cares?
"Well, Aaron thinks that all *insert race here* should die. Buuuut I'm not part of that race, so who cares, amirite gamers?"
Trying to get them booted out of the hobby isn't going to change their opinions, so I assume it's just a matter of ideologically purifying your hobby space. The problem then arises, more often than not, that this devolves into a purity spiral with the window for what is acceptable getting smaller and smaller. (There is a very interesting BBC radio 4 podcast about this very thing happening to online knitting communities.) Just leave them be, if you don't like their ideas, don't associate.
Yeah, I don't associate by making sure they're not in my spaces.
You're damn right I'll purify my hobby space, because fascists don't belong in it, in society, in anything. (And when I say fascist, I mean fascist.)
queen_annes_revenge wrote:I'm sure lots of them like beer too, so, shall we ban them from buying beer?
If someone's belief is that it's okay to prejudice based on race, why should someone serve them?
Seriously, this is the kind of "sweeping under the rug" some of us are talking about - why on earth do y'all tolerate actual honest to god racists?
the_scotsman wrote:
bullyboy wrote: This whole anti-fascist crowd/uprising is such a plague in the community. As an adult I can play a game and realize that the characters and lore have zero influence on who I am as a person. I can play 12th SS in FOW as much a I play US paras, Brit commandos etc, and realize that these little tiny soldiers that I roll dice for have zero effect on what I do/think in the real world.
It certainly seems that the current liberal extreme push in modern education has given these people a hammer and all they can see are nails. Glad none of them are part of my gaming group.
boy, it sure is funny though just how much louder and more numerous the complaints about these kinds of things seem to be than the things themselves.
"oh god, we found what looks like a troll meme subreddit 1% of the size of the two main warhammer subreddits where people make shitposts about how 40k is fascist! We have to destroy the....modern liberal extreme push in education?"
it's weird, I have never had to tell any bat-wielding antifa supersoldiers to feth off from my 40k gaming group over the years, and I live in one of the most RaDiCaLlY aNaRcHoBiDeNiSt parts of the united states.
Yeah, it is strange that there seems to be more backlash towards people who want to get rid of fascists than there is towards the actual fascists.
Like, imagine outright saying "I oppose people who oppose fascists".
100% agreed with what you say here, and far more eloquently spoken than I could do.
Karol wrote: There is something wrong in being Rhodesian?
You're a smart kid, I am sure you can google the significance.
I am not smart, but we do learn about Rhodesia at school. And it was a country defended by a lot of polish war heroes from WWII that fought for its independance from communists till the very end. Some were burried on The Polish War Hero memorial after communism fell in 1989. So I am not really getting the bad part, how patriotic people defending their own country and their marks are suppose to be bad.
And that is how 'antifa' make clever use of the equivocation fallacy.
Come on, what's wrong with it then?
You clearly have opinions on that matter, I'd be interested to see your breakdown on why simply opposing actual honest-to-god fascists is a problem for you.
I'd like to answer this question from a slightly different perspective, if I may - even if fascists like 40k, why does it matter?
Seriously, why does it matter if fascists enjoy 40k and idolise the Imperium of Man? Unless someone here has statistics that prove otherwise, fascists certainly don't seem to make up a large percentage of 40k players. Nor does 40k seem to be much of a recruitment tool even among wargamers, let alone for the general public. Seriously, can you imagine explaining the Imperium of Man to someone and trying to tell them - with a straight face - that it's something humanity should actually aim for?
I say this because I think people frequently lose sight of perspective and forget that a handful of fascist wargamers does not a serious political movement make. Indeed, I would argue that the current fear of fascism boarders on outright paranoia. Especially when the definition of fascist these days seems to boil down to "anyone who disagrees with my extremely left-wing views".
This might come as a shock to many, but 40k memes like the aforementioned 'God-Emperor Trump' are not shared exclusively by fascists. Indeed, I've seen them shared and enjoyed not only by non-fascist right-wingers but also by a great many centrists and left-leaning individuals. Hell, I'm not even sure that meme was inspired by the actual 40k lore, but rather by the title and the general aesthetic
It's a similar case with regard to many of the 'Heresy!' SM memes. Space Marines are quite recognisable, and many of their short, punchy phrases are almost tailor-made for memes. I don't believe the vast majority of people who post such memes have any serious interest in actually ushering in the Imperium of Man.
I say this not as any sort of defence of fascists/fascism, but rather because I believe that it's important to keep scale and perspective in mind when discussing this sort of thing. Not least because I think the means by which people would stop this tiny minority of fascists would in fact bring us far closer to an authoritarian, thought-policing government than anything the actual fascists could hope to achieve on their own. I also strongly suspect that far more innocents would end up suffering under such regimes, compared to actual fascists.
Hell, if anything I would have thought it would be preferable that fascists play 40k. That way, they can while away their time playing out their strange fantasies with miniatures on a board, rather than trying to bring them about in real life.
Bosskelot wrote: *Although in recent years I've seen an uptick of younger kids playing games in GW stores loudly and gleefully exclaiming how they're going to "purge the filthy xenos!" Which does make me a little uncomfortable I'm not gonna lie.
You say that now, but you might think differently when the Tyranids invade!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Exactly. It's all well and good to say "well, I don't want to impose on their right to speak, I can't be intolerant of them!", but when what they're speaking is that some people should not exist because of their race, sexuality, gender, religion, country of origin, etc, they're the ones being intolerant first!
If y'all care so much about "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", perhaps try telling fascists that, because they're the ones threatening it for others.
TBF, let them speak, by all means, considering the underlined part is allways the correct and meassured response in such a case and the most common by far so be it.
Freedom of speech works both ways. Maintaining it is one of the best tools to impede them.
Karol wrote: There is something wrong in being Rhodesian?
You're a smart kid, I am sure you can google the significance.
I am not smart, but we do learn about Rhodesia at school. And it was a country defended by a lot of polish war heroes from WWII that fought for its independance from communists till the very end. Some were burried on The Polish War Hero memorial after communism fell in 1989. So I am not really getting the bad part, how patriotic people defending their own country and their marks are suppose to be bad.
And that is how 'antifa' make clever use of the equivocation fallacy.
Come on, what's wrong with it then?
You clearly have opinions on that matter, I'd be interested to see your breakdown on why simply opposing actual honest-to-god fascists is a problem for you.
Because Antifa, atleast the local branch over here:
Does not care if they oppose real fascists-
Employs the same baseline concept and tactics like their supposed opponents did in the past.
Attack governmental institutions
Attack everyone THEY deem to be a fascisct simply because they can under the guise of doing good.
NO coming in with straight truth bombs followed by a follow up attack of common sense. I don't really have anything else to add except to re iterate my point about purity spirals from before, and when you consider that antifa are already coming from a pretty extreme position to start with, it's going to spiral fast
vipoid wrote: I'd like to answer this question from a slightly different perspective, if I may - even if fascists like 40k, why does it matter?
Seriously, why does it matter if fascists enjoy 40k and idolise the Imperium of Man? Unless someone here has statistics that prove otherwise, fascists certainly don't seem to make up a large percentage of 40k players. Nor does 40k seem to be much of a recruitment tool even among wargamers, let alone for the general public. Seriously, can you imagine explaining the Imperium of Man to someone and trying to tell them - with a straight face - that it's something humanity should actually aim for?
I say this because I think people frequently lose sight of perspective and forget that a handful of fascist wargamers does not a serious political movement make. Indeed, I would argue that the current fear of fascism boarders on outright paranoia. Especially when the definition of fascist these days seems to boil down to "anyone who disagrees with my extremely left-wing views".
This might come as a shock to many, but 40k memes like the aforementioned 'God-Emperor Trump' are not shared exclusively by fascists. Indeed, I've seen them shared and enjoyed not only by non-fascist right-wingers but also by a great many centrists and left-leaning individuals. Hell, I'm not even sure that meme was inspired by the actual 40k lore, but rather by the title and the general aesthetic
It's a similar case with regard to many of the 'Heresy!' SM memes. Space Marines are quite recognisable, and many of their short, punchy phrases are almost tailor-made for memes. I don't believe the vast majority of people who post such memes have any serious interest in actually ushering in the Imperium of Man.
I say this not as any sort of defence of fascists/fascism, but rather because I believe that it's important to keep scale and perspective in mind when discussing this sort of thing. Not least because I think the means by which people would stop this tiny minority of fascists would in fact bring us far closer to an authoritarian, thought-policing government than anything the actual fascists could hope to achieve on their own. I also strongly suspect that far more innocents would end up suffering under such regimes, compared to actual fascists.
Hell, if anything I would have thought it would be preferable that fascists play 40k. That way, they can while away their time playing out their strange fantasies with miniatures on a board, rather than trying to bring them about in real life.
Bosskelot wrote: *Although in recent years I've seen an uptick of younger kids playing games in GW stores loudly and gleefully exclaiming how they're going to "purge the filthy xenos!" Which does make me a little uncomfortable I'm not gonna lie.
You say that now, but you might think differently when the Tyranids invade!
I agree with you that not all memes = fascism, and that the Warhammer community as a whole has few of their ilk. However, if they are given a safe space to grow and thrive, you will see more fascists and racists feel welcome in the hobby space, to the detriment of all others. Once again, when your stance is "group X Y and Z are lesser than me and should not exist," even if the problem is tiny right now, you want to take some basic measures at least to make sure it doesn't become a full blown issue. When all it takes is saying "please don't espouse toxic rhetoric here," or "you are being toxic and telling someone they do not deserve to exist, please leave" to keep things safe and friendly, vigilance will pay off.
vipoid wrote:I'd like to answer this question from a slightly different perspective, if I may - even if fascists like 40k, why does it matter?
Seriously, why does it matter if fascists enjoy 40k and idolise the Imperium of Man?
In the same way it matters if fascists like anything.
Again, don't take this to mean "cancel everything because of the fascists!!", that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying "if you don't tell fascists to feth off the moment you encounter them, you're doing it wrong".
40k is a collection of smaller communities, yes. There isn't one single Warhammer Community worldwide, short of consuming GW products. But at the very least, can we all not agree that fascists do not belong in anyone's gaming tables, because, yanno, they're fascists?
I say this not as any sort of defence of fascists/fascism, but rather because I believe that it's important to keep scale and perspective in mind when discussing this sort of thing.
I'm well aware of the scale. Fascists make up a small minority of 40k players. Is it larger than some other fandoms comparatively? Almost certainly, no doubts, but yes, it's still small.
Guess what? It doesn't matter, as far as I'm concerned. If there was 1 or 1000 fascists, they're still fascists, and none of them should be tolerated.
That's literally all we're saying here - that fascist is not to be tolerated. Can we agree on that single thing?
I suppose the final solution to the problem of hypothetical fascists liking the same thing as apparent communists would be for Disney to buy GW. That cured Star Wars of fascism didn't it?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Yeah, it is strange that there seems to be more backlash towards people who want to get rid of fascists than there is towards the actual fascists.
Like, imagine outright saying "I oppose people who oppose fascists".
Communists oppose fascists. Am I allowed to oppose Communists? You bet I am. And do. Heck, I oppose both of them. They can both get bent.
The important question is "Are those people opposing fascism actually just communists?"
Not Online!!! wrote:Because Antifa, atleast the local branch over here:
Does not care if they oppose real fascists-
Employs the same baseline concept and tactics like their supposed opponents did in the past.
Attack governmental institutions
Attack everyone THEY deem to be a fascisct simply because they can under the guise of doing good.
I'm not talking about Antifa (capital A), or groups that call people they don't like fascists to gain power.
When I talk about antifa (lower case a), I'm talking the simple concept of opposing fascists. Literally, just that single factor.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:NO coming in with straight truth bombs followed by a follow up attack of common sense. I don't really have anything else to add except to re iterate my point about purity spirals from before, and when you consider that antifa are already coming from a pretty extreme position to start with, it's going to spiral fast
AlmightyWalrus wrote:If you don't like being called a defender of fascists* or the far right, stop defending them. It's really that simple.
Absolutely.
It's more than a little telling when some folks put more effort into defending fascists than defending the people fascists are gunning for.
Aside from blocking, exactly how do we purge "toxic" members or members that outright support the "Bad side". Being general here on purpose. But honestly asking, what is the best policy for self-enforcement of the community?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Yeah, it is strange that there seems to be more backlash towards people who want to get rid of fascists than there is towards the actual fascists.
Like, imagine outright saying "I oppose people who oppose fascists".
Communists oppose fascists. Am I allowed to oppose Communists? You bet I am. And do. Heck, I oppose both of them. They can both get bent.
The important question is "Are those people opposing fascism actually just communists?"
What's to stop you opposing both without siding with either one?
Who cares if the communists are also opposing fascists? No-one's telling you to be a communist.
Equivocation fallacy.. you're assuming the premise that antifa only 'oppose fascism' (despite that having its own problems with subjectivity) but this is incorrect as NO outlined above.
Not Online!!! wrote:Because Antifa, atleast the local branch over here:
Does not care if they oppose real fascists-
Employs the same baseline concept and tactics like their supposed opponents did in the past.
Attack governmental institutions
Attack everyone THEY deem to be a fascisct simply because they can under the guise of doing good.
I'm not talking about Antifa (capital A), or groups that call people they don't like fascists to gain power.
When I talk about antifa (lower case a), I'm talking the simple concept of opposing fascists. Literally, just that single factor.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:NO coming in with straight truth bombs followed by a follow up attack of common sense. I don't really have anything else to add except to re iterate my point about purity spirals from before, and when you consider that antifa are already coming from a pretty extreme position to start with, it's going to spiral fast
What's extreme about opposing fascism, sorry?
Because the Group with capital A doesn't get a bad rep for reasons for many people that use lowercase a.
It's a bit like corbyn got away with really "nice" views in regards to jewish people until very recently.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:If you don't like being called a defender of fascists* or the far right, stop defending them. It's really that simple.
Absolutely.
It's more than a little telling when some folks put more effort into defending fascists than defending the people fascists are gunning for.
Aside from blocking, exactly how do we purge "toxic" members or members that outright support the "Bad side". Being general here on purpose. But honestly asking, what is the best policy for self-enforcement of the community?
I would say exposure, spreading word and awareness about their actions, and then, as a collective, working to dispel their misconceptions, attempt to educate them and re-integrate them into a less bigoted society.
But first, yes, it is important to make the community aware of their toxicity, and to unilaterally stand in opposition to it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Yeah, it is strange that there seems to be more backlash towards people who want to get rid of fascists than there is towards the actual fascists.
Like, imagine outright saying "I oppose people who oppose fascists".
That's the thing, if only a lot of these people were actually fighting against fascism. Except they're not, they think anything that disagrees with their view is inherently fascist. White conservative? You're a fascist. This year has pretty.much highlighted the BS to the nth degree.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:Equivocation fallacy.. you're assuming the premise that antifa only 'oppose fascism' (despite that having its own problems with subjectivity) but this is incorrect as NO outlined above.
Lower case a, still.
No fallacy - you're pretending like I'm talking about an organisation. I'm not. I'm talking about simply opposing fascism. Is there a problem with that?
Not Online!!! wrote:Because the Group with capital A doesn't get a bad rep for reasons for many people that use lowercase a.
It's a bit like corbyn got away with really "nice" views in regards to jewish people until very recently.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Yeah, it is strange that there seems to be more backlash towards people who want to get rid of fascists than there is towards the actual fascists.
Like, imagine outright saying "I oppose people who oppose fascists".
That's the thing, if only a lot of these people were actually fighting against fascism. Except they're not, they think anything that disagrees with their view is inherently fascist. White conservative? You're a fascist. This year has pretty.much highlighted the BS to the nth degree.
But that's a strawman there.
Many of us in this very thread have been saying very clearly that when we're talking about *fascism*, we mean *fascism*, and yet there's still handwringing about that.
Look, you can worry about the people who are calling right-of-centre fascist, but that's not who we're talking about in this thread.
So, back to what I said - what is wrong is opposing actual honest-to-god fascists?
Basically, people that are in favour of antifa actions often do consider the wanton acts of Antifa to be acceptable and commendable, even IF the local bakery which was owned by a conservative got smashed to bits because feth the fash.
Who cares if the communists are also opposing fascists? No-one's telling you to be a communist.
Nobody but the communists. As I said, BOTH of them can get bent.
The term 'antifa' has been tainted by Antifa. I'd rather people tell me what they're FOR than what they're against.
I'm for fascists getting lost from my community. I'm for an inclusive community where not one member holds racist, sexist, bigoted views.
Is that a problem?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:Basically, people that are in favour of antifa actions often do consider the wanton acts of Antifa to be acceptable and commendable, even IF the local bakery which was owned by a conservative got smashed to bits because feth the fash.
I see - but is that enough to say that all people who oppose actual fascists should be discredited?
Who cares if the communists are also opposing fascists? No-one's telling you to be a communist.
Nobody but the communists. As I said, BOTH of them can get bent.
The term 'antifa' has been tainted by Antifa. I'd rather people tell me what they're FOR than what they're against.
I'm for fascists getting lost from my community. I'm for an inclusive community where not one member holds racist, sexist, bigoted views.
Is that a problem?
Depends, are you also policing that culturally . because as i stated, Da bosses statement about the swastika alllready could be considered from differing cultural background as bigoted, even if it was against bigotry.
kurhanik wrote: 40k in and of itself does not encourage hatred/fascism, but the Imperium of Man is a bit of fascist's wet dream at its surface level. Yes it is a failing state that has survived for as long as it did solely on momentum and just being huge, but looking at several of its key aspects: racial purity, big strongman figure of the Emperor, heavily militaristic, downright brutal to anyone who speaks against it, and so on. All points of interest to someone with a fascist streak to them.
Over the last few years I've observed a lot more people than I used to see argue that the Imperium is only in the state it is because of all the threats against it. That if it were able to exist on its own without being under constant attack, things would be better and it wouldn't be a failing state.
I'm not sure if it's intentional, but the argument perfectly mirrors fascist ideology, where the state must resort to extreme measures to deal with internal and external threats. The idea that a 'pure' society has been corrupted by evil both within and without is core to fascist thought and to the ethos of the Imperium. Which, I mean, given how the setting was originally on-the-nose satire, likely isn't a coincidence. It's just people swallowing that at face value that makes me think the satire is less recognized than it used to be.
Like I said before, if the setting is played straight rather than satirical, it's basically a fascist fantasy; a setting where their views are presented as completely necessary and justified. And while I completely doubt that that's GW's intent, there's only so subtle you can get with the satire before it stops looking satirical, especially when presented alongside completely straight-faced elements like Guilliman.
Not Online!!! wrote:Basically, people that are in favour of antifa actions often do consider the wanton acts of Antifa to be acceptable and commendable, even IF the local bakery which was owned by a conservative got smashed to bits because feth the fash.
I see - but is that enough to say that all people who oppose actual fascists should be discredited?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm for fascists getting lost from my community. I'm for an inclusive community where not one member holds racist, sexist, bigoted views.
Is that a problem?
Depends, are you also policing that culturally . because as i stated, Da bosses statement about the swastika alllready could be considered from differing cultural background as bigoted, even if it was against bigotry.
I oppose cultural racism and sexism, yes. No matter what culture or beliefs you hold, neither of those two are acceptable.
Karak Norn Clansman wrote: No it doesn't. It's taking the piss out on the most depraved aspects of human history. Relax, it's all fun and games, with good healthy irony galore.
Not sure if serious, but do you realize how privileged that statement is?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm for fascists getting lost from my community. I'm for an inclusive community where not one member holds racist, sexist, bigoted views.
Is that a problem?
Depends, are you also policing that culturally . because as i stated, Da bosses statement about the swastika alllready could be considered from differing cultural background as bigoted, even if it was against bigotry.
I oppose cultural racism and sexism, yes. No matter what culture or beliefs you hold, neither of those two are acceptable.
So you are frankly now culturally demanding a dominant right over budhists and a whole slew of south east asia. I'd say that would be culutrally not very inclusive of you.
I've honestly only skimmed it, but it does seem that way. lol
40k "encourages" hate the same way D&D "encourages" Satanism. Which is to say it doesn't. IDK if the OP was around for the "Satanic Panic" but that was every bit as silly as this is. Especially given GW's recent moves to make sure they are being more diverse and inclusive.
I've been in the hobby since the beginning. I have yet to meet this mythical person who takes things as seriously as the OP claims. I have met all kinds of people from all manner of countries, races and creeds. The one thing I haven't met was a fascist. Have I seen a few racist comments online? Yeah, and they are terrible and beed to be gone. But they are there because there are racists, not because 40K somehow encourages it in its players. If someone really did become a racist, fascist ideologue "because 40K encouraged them to", I would worry less about their socio-political leanings and more about the possibility of a mental deficiency of some sort.
TL;DR:
No. A game about toy soldiers does not encourage hate any more than a game about pretending to be wizards and knights encourages the real-life worship of demonic entities.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm for fascists getting lost from my community. I'm for an inclusive community where not one member holds racist, sexist, bigoted views.
Is that a problem?
Depends, are you also policing that culturally . because as i stated, Da bosses statement about the swastika alllready could be considered from differing cultural background as bigoted, even if it was against bigotry.
I oppose cultural racism and sexism, yes. No matter what culture or beliefs you hold, neither of those two are acceptable.
So you are frankly now culturally demanding a dominant right over budhists and a whole slew of south east asia. I'd say that would be culutrally not very inclusive of you.
What am I demanding? That all races and genders should be treated equally?
If me supporting inclusivity is "not very inclusive", then what about their lack of inclusivity that I'm opposing?
queen_annes_revenge wrote:Equivocation fallacy.. you're assuming the premise that antifa only 'oppose fascism' (despite that having its own problems with subjectivity) but this is incorrect as NO outlined above.
Lower case a, still.
No fallacy - you're pretending like I'm talking about an organisation. I'm not. I'm talking about simply opposing fascism. Is there a problem with that?
Depends on how you plan on opposing it. If you mean using reason, and logical discussion to show people why they may be wrong, absolutely. If you mean punching people or any other violent acts, then no.
Also, I don't support trying to kick people out of a hobby. You can refuse them access to personal groups or clubs, but you don't have a right to demand a public company do so on your behalf across the entire enterprise.
The irony is that as dreadfully dystopian as the IoM is, it is actually not as bad as historical communism / fascism. The 40kIoM is basically the Holy Roman Empire in space while its Horus Heresy backstory is the Fall of Rome. Big E is not Hitler or Stalin, he is the Emperor Constantine (Byzantine Empire) mixed with Leto II Atreides (God-Emperor of Dune). You all need to remember the 40k writers are looting their ideas from a much bigger pool of history and fiction than just WW2.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm talking about simply opposing fascism. Is there a problem with that?
Depends on how you plan on opposing it. If you mean using reason, and logical discussion to show people why they may be wrong, absolutely. If you mean punching people or any other violent acts, then no.
Reason and logical discussion first, yes. And if that fails, and they begin to act on their beliefs? You're damn right I don't have a problem going beyond words.
Also, I don't support trying to kick people out of a hobby.
I don't support people saying that Others shouldn't exist. Honestly, one seem far tamer than the other.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm for fascists getting lost from my community. I'm for an inclusive community where not one member holds racist, sexist, bigoted views.
Is that a problem?
Depends, are you also policing that culturally . because as i stated, Da bosses statement about the swastika alllready could be considered from differing cultural background as bigoted, even if it was against bigotry.
I oppose cultural racism and sexism, yes. No matter what culture or beliefs you hold, neither of those two are acceptable.
So you are frankly now culturally demanding a dominant right over budhists and a whole slew of south east asia. I'd say that would be culutrally not very inclusive of you.
What am I demanding? That all races and genders should be treated equally?
If me supporting inclusivity is "not very inclusive", then what about their lack of inclusivity that I'm opposing?
I think he means that by opposing someone who would paint an army with swastikas it would not be inclusive towards asian people, because the swastika was/is originally an ancient symbol of...luck i think (please correct me on this!). At least i think that was the point.
I remember a small comic strip about a facebook convo between Captain America and Tony Stark, and "When did it stop being ok to punch Nazi's in the face"? And Tony was all, what if they aren't hurting anyone? I wish I could find it.
Tiberias wrote: I think he means that by opposing someone who would paint an army with swastikas it would not be inclusive towards asian people, because the swastika was/is originally and ancient symbol of...luck i think (please correct me on this!). At least i think that was the point.
Ah - I only mentioned opposing cultural racism and sexism, not swastikas.
And yes, I *believe* it was a symbol of luck?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm for fascists getting lost from my community. I'm for an inclusive community where not one member holds racist, sexist, bigoted views.
Is that a problem?
Depends, are you also policing that culturally . because as i stated, Da bosses statement about the swastika alllready could be considered from differing cultural background as bigoted, even if it was against bigotry.
I oppose cultural racism and sexism, yes. No matter what culture or beliefs you hold, neither of those two are acceptable.
So you are frankly now culturally demanding a dominant right over budhists and a whole slew of south east asia. I'd say that would be culutrally not very inclusive of you.
What am I demanding? That all races and genders should be treated equally?
If me supporting inclusivity is "not very inclusive", then what about their lack of inclusivity that I'm opposing?
Because the swastika in that region is a symbol of luck. Still in use by budhists and hindus.
Da Boss wrote: Edit: Ach, I better behave myself, I like this thread.
I would find a warhammer army painted with Swastikas and so on really distasteful and I would judge someone who had done that to their minis, for sure. At the very least for having poor taste and being lacking in common sense.
This was his statement, the cultural context of a symbol also matters, all you have shown in your statement is really that you seem to lack shades of thinking and can be percived as ignorant, and i don't mean that as an attack on you but assume in this little scenario the following:
An army has swastikas on it,
Da boss judges that army.
The army comes from SEA region and belongs to a budhist.
Your statement is then that he has to adapt or feck off.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm talking about simply opposing fascism. Is there a problem with that?
Depends on how you plan on opposing it. If you mean using reason, and logical discussion to show people why they may be wrong, absolutely. If you mean punching people or any other violent acts, then no.
Reason and logical discussion first, yes. And if that fails, and they begin to act on their beliefs? You're damn right I don't have a problem going beyond words.
Also, I don't support trying to kick people out of a hobby.
I don't support people saying that Others shouldn't exist. Honestly, one seem far tamer than the other.
Yeah, but how often does that happen, people trying to start ethnostates in a games workshop?
I fundamentally disagree about trying to kick people out of the hobby. It probably sounds fine in your head, removing 'fascists' but the problem lies in the practicality, and the fundamental issue of subjectivity when it comes to political opinion. Consider some people on the left would ascribe anyone right of centre a 'fascist'. This is how the purity spirals begin.
And this is why the better option is to leave people with their opinion (if they aren't open to reasonable discussion) and exercise your freedom of association, or in this case, don't.
I've honestly only skimmed it, but it does seem that way. lol
40k "encourages" hate the same way D&D "encourages" Satanism. Which is to say it doesn't. IDK if the OP was around for the "Satanic Panic" but that was every bit as silly as this is. Especially given GW's recent moves to make sure they are being more diverse and inclusive.
As a side-note, it is just 1000% coconuts to me that there are people with US flags next to their name talking about the Satanic Panic in the past tense. Spreading conspiracy theories about your opponents being secret satanic baby-eating monsters is super on trend right now.
I agree with you that not all memes = fascism, and that the Warhammer community as a whole has few of their ilk. However, if they are given a safe space to grow and thrive, you will see more fascists and racists feel welcome in the hobby space, to the detriment of all others.
I fear I'm at a loss as to what you mean here. What is the "hobby space" exactly?
kurhanik wrote: Once again, when your stance is "group X Y and Z are lesser than me and should not exist," even if the problem is tiny right now, you want to take some basic measures at least to make sure it doesn't become a full blown issue.
But does that not also describe anti-fascists and anti-racists? i.e. those who would say that fascists and racists are less than they are and should not exist?
I understand what you are saying, but it seems even more dangerous to dehumanise people in this manner. Especially given that one can be accused of fascism or racism with flimsy or even non-existant evidence, without ever being challenged.
Perhaps you personally would not use these labels to dehumanise any and all political opponents, but there are many who not only would but already have done so.
kurhanik wrote: When all it takes is saying "please don't espouse toxic rhetoric here," or "you are being toxic and telling someone they do not deserve to exist, please leave" to keep things safe and friendly, vigilance will pay off.
Sure. It's perfectly reasonable for gaming groups to ask people to tone down rhetoric or not get heavily into politics.
My concern is that many people here want measures that go far beyond that.
vipoid wrote:I'd like to answer this question from a slightly different perspective, if I may - even if fascists like 40k, why does it matter?
Seriously, why does it matter if fascists enjoy 40k and idolise the Imperium of Man?
In the same way it matters if fascists like anything.
Again, don't take this to mean "cancel everything because of the fascists!!", that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying "if you don't tell fascists to feth off the moment you encounter them, you're doing it wrong".
40k is a collection of smaller communities, yes. There isn't one single Warhammer Community worldwide, short of consuming GW products. But at the very least, can we all not agree that fascists do not belong in anyone's gaming tables, because, yanno, they're fascists?
I say this not as any sort of defence of fascists/fascism, but rather because I believe that it's important to keep scale and perspective in mind when discussing this sort of thing.
I'm well aware of the scale. Fascists make up a small minority of 40k players. Is it larger than some other fandoms comparatively? Almost certainly, no doubts, but yes, it's still small.
Guess what? It doesn't matter, as far as I'm concerned. If there was 1 or 1000 fascists, they're still fascists, and none of them should be tolerated.
That's literally all we're saying here - that fascist is not to be tolerated. Can we agree on that single thing?
I have a question for you on this front - do you believe that all fascists are already beyond redemption?
Also, does it matter if they have not acted on their fascist beliefs in any way?
I ask because I find myself wondering if it is wise to try and ostracise them so completely from society. Surely making them into outsiders will only reinforce their negative beliefs with regard to society?
If anything, you might benefit from playing a few games with such individuals and realising that they are, in fact, still human. You may even find that your own desires are not so dissimilar from theirs, and that you can lead them towards a different, less-harmful path.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:Equivocation fallacy.. you're assuming the premise that antifa only 'oppose fascism' (despite that having its own problems with subjectivity) but this is incorrect as NO outlined above.
Lower case a, still.
No fallacy - you're pretending like I'm talking about an organisation. I'm not. I'm talking about simply opposing fascism. Is there a problem with that?
Depends on how you plan on opposing it. If you mean using reason, and logical discussion to show people why they may be wrong, absolutely. If you mean punching people or any other violent acts, then no.
Also, I don't support trying to kick people out of a hobby. You can refuse them access to personal groups or clubs, but you don't have a right to demand a public company do so on your behalf across the entire enterprise.
Curiosity here - Why?
is a demand somehow separate from other speech? Both I and my partner worked retail for a long time, and I can tell you we got some way, way zanier demands than what you're describing - do people not have a right to make demands? or are you using the word "right" in a different context than you seem to be using it with the rest of your posts?
Demanding that a company do something is free speech. That company then choosing what or what not to do is also completely within their rights, they own their platforms they can decide what to allow or not to allow.
I think he means that by opposing someone who would paint an army with swastikas it would not be inclusive towards asian people, because the swastika was/is originally an ancient symbol of...luck i think (please correct me on this!). At least i think that was the point.
Close, the issue is the judge part in da bosses statement and the wholesale adoption of smudge.
Basically he wants to be inclusive, yet would judge someone over a symbol that has a completely different cultural value attributed there with his own standards.
The irony is that as dreadfully dystopian as the IoM is, it is actually not as bad as historical communism / fascism. The 40kIoM is basically the Holy Roman Empire in space while its Horus Heresy backstory is the Fall of Rome. Big E is not Hitler or Stalin, he is the Emperor Constantine (Byzantine Empire) mixed with Leto II Atreides (God-Emperor of Dune). You all need to remember the 40k writers are looting their ideas from a much bigger pool of history and fiction than just WW2.
It was the Roman Empire during the Great Crusade. In current times, I would say it's actually on-par or worse than the empires you mention. You have to over-look a lot to think otherwise.
Off-hand, they sacrifice 1000 innocent psykers a day to the Big-E so that his chair keeps running, Mutants are typically hunted and killed on sight (sometimes just for sport), aliens are generally killed onsite as there's a strict no-tolerance policy, you have Inquisitors who will happily condemn a planet to death because "Someone did a Heresy", etc. Yeah no. It's actually pretty bad.
I still think you have to be pretty broke in the brain to think it's a "pro-fascism" universe (or maybe just struggle with certain things in print - I know some intelligent people who, for whatever reason struggle with certain concepts when they read), but to compare it to anything real life and say "well it's better than ...." no. It isn't. lol
A Town Called Malus wrote: The Hindu/Buddhist/Jainist swastika is not depicted at an angle like the Nazi swastika. It is also often more curved. They are very visually distinct.
Doesn matter, same ancestry of the symbol, even adopted into christian churches (which little Hitler got the symbol from) and then turned on it's head in meaning.
And therefore the demand can be considered frankly culturally exclusive
Is your army based around the iconography of ancient Siam? Huh, cool, might want to be careful with the swastikas considering the other connotations but it's abundantly clear from the context that's not what you were going for.
Are you throwing in swastikas where they make no sense for the sake of being edgy? Huh, cool, there's the door.
Context really does exist. I wish people would stop pretending it doesn't.
Not online - try not to remove context when highlighting someone’s point of view.
Not including the section that states “in a warhammer setting” dramatically changes it.
Historical and fantasy are entirely different.
Nazi iconography in a FoW type setting? That’s part of the games background and history.
The same in 40k? Why is it even there?
Inserting real world iconography or beliefs is just waiting for issues to arrive.
This is why people need to keep fantasy and reality separate.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is your army based around the iconography of ancient Siam? Huh, cool, might want to be careful with the swastikas considering the other connotations but it's abundantly clear from the context that's not what you were going for.
Are you throwing in swastikas where they make no sense for the sake of being edgy? Huh, cool, there's the door.
Context really does exist. I wish people would stop pretending it doesn't.
context is nowadays out, discussione more often then not devolves into shouting matches.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: What am I demanding? That all races and genders should be treated equally?
If me supporting inclusivity is "not very inclusive", then what about their lack of inclusivity that I'm opposing?
Because the swastika in that region is a symbol of luck. Still in use by budhists and hindus.
I never mentioned the swastika though.
What I *said* was "What am I demanding? That all races and genders should be treated equally?"
But, as you want to talk about the swastika, I would expect my reaction to be tempered with context.
Now - cultural racism and sexism, that I was *actually* talking about - no, they have no place.
An army has swastikas on it,
Da boss judges that army.
The army comes from SEA region and belongs to a budhist.
Your statement is then that he has to adapt or feck off.
Do you see the issue now?
How many Buddhists do you see drawing swastikas on their models? Genuine question. Secondly, I would want more context into this Buddhist - for example, how those swastikas have been painted, their background and, well, external context.
Because, yanno, if someone comes up with a black slanted swastika on a white circle over a red background, and tells me that they're Buddhist, so it's fine, and they don't see the problem with that - I don't believe a word of what they're saying.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:Yeah, but how often does that happen, people trying to start ethnostates in a games workshop?
It's not about doing it in Games Workshop. It's about someone doing it at all, and opposing them at every step.
You know, because they're trying to start an ethnostate, as you put it.
It probably sounds fine in your head, removing 'fascists' but the problem lies in the practicality, and the fundamental issue of subjectivity when it comes to political opinion. Consider some people on the left would ascribe anyone right of centre a 'fascist'. This is how the purity spirals begin.
Again, but I've made it very clear what I'm talking about, and who I'm talking about.
You're just obsessed with this idea of mispersecution instead of even agreeing that fascists have no place.
I think he means that by opposing someone who would paint an army with swastikas it would not be inclusive towards asian people, because the swastika was/is originally an ancient symbol of...luck i think (please correct me on this!). At least i think that was the point.
Close, the issue is the judge part in da bosses statement and the wholesale adoption of smudge.
Basically he wants to be inclusive, yet would judge someone over a symbol that has a completely different cultural value attributed there with his own standards.
Yeah thanks for clarifying. I didn't want to misrepresent your point.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:Equivocation fallacy.. you're assuming the premise that antifa only 'oppose fascism' (despite that having its own problems with subjectivity) but this is incorrect as NO outlined above.
Lower case a, still.
No fallacy - you're pretending like I'm talking about an organisation. I'm not. I'm talking about simply opposing fascism. Is there a problem with that?
Depends on how you plan on opposing it. If you mean using reason, and logical discussion to show people why they may be wrong, absolutely. If you mean punching people or any other violent acts, then no.
Also, I don't support trying to kick people out of a hobby. You can refuse them access to personal groups or clubs, but you don't have a right to demand a public company do so on your behalf across the entire enterprise.
Curiosity here - Why?
is a demand somehow separate from other speech? Both I and my partner worked retail for a long time, and I can tell you we got some way, way zanier demands than what you're describing - do people not have a right to make demands? or are you using the word "right" in a different context than you seem to be using it with the rest of your posts?
Demanding that a company do something is free speech. That company then choosing what or what not to do is also completely within their rights, they own their platforms they can decide what to allow or not to allow.
I don't think you have the right to demand a company ideologically cleanses itself to suit your beliefs.
Jackal90 wrote: Not online - try not to remove context when highlighting someone’s point of view.
Not including the section that states “in a warhammer setting” dramatically changes it.
Historical and fantasy are entirely different.
Nazi iconography in a FoW type setting? That’s part of the games background and history.
The same in 40k? Why is it even there?
Inserting real world iconography or beliefs is just waiting for issues to arrive.
This is why people need to keep fantasy and reality separate.
preciscly where have i removed context.
Why should someone in the SEA region be prohibitted to paint it on his potato face cdians?
Further, considering some of the heraldry of SM chapters should we also remove it because it reflects upon say the catholic church?
My issue with the argument was that supposedly objective drawing of a line in this matter is reallly not all that objective.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is your army based around the iconography of ancient Siam? Huh, cool, might want to be careful with the swastikas considering the other connotations but it's abundantly clear from the context that's not what you were going for.
Are you throwing in swastikas where they make no sense for the sake of being edgy? Huh, cool, there's the door.
Context really does exist. I wish people would stop pretending it doesn't.
Regarding context, what if someone modelled their IG army based on one of the armies of WW2? If they chose the German side, are they allowed to use swastikas then? Same goes for if they chose Russia (IG has Commissars, after all), are they allowed to use the sickle & star flag?
I fundamentally disagree about trying to kick people out of the hobby. It probably sounds fine in your head, removing 'fascists' but the problem lies in the practicality, and the fundamental issue of subjectivity when it comes to political opinion. Consider some people on the left would ascribe anyone right of centre a 'fascist'. This is how the purity spirals begin.
And this is why the better option is to leave people with their opinion (if they aren't open to reasonable discussion) and exercise your freedom of association, or in this case, don't.
Commies (like fascists) don't believe in either freedom of opinion or freedom of association. That's the real problem, I think. Their hive mind as identified GW as a territory to take over so now they mobilising a heresy hunt as a pretext for that. They don't really care about fascists because they are basically the same thing as fascists but "fascists" are a useful "baddie" to project on those they want to do over. If they wanted to take a little kid's pocket money or kick a puppy they would call them fascists first to make it okay.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: What am I demanding? That all races and genders should be treated equally?
If me supporting inclusivity is "not very inclusive", then what about their lack of inclusivity that I'm opposing?
Because the swastika in that region is a symbol of luck. Still in use by budhists and hindus.
I never mentioned the swastika though.
What I *said* was "What am I demanding? That all races and genders should be treated equally?"
But, as you want to talk about the swastika, I would expect my reaction to be tempered with context.
Now - cultural racism and sexism, that I was *actually* talking about - no, they have no place.
An army has swastikas on it,
Da boss judges that army.
The army comes from SEA region and belongs to a budhist.
Your statement is then that he has to adapt or feck off.
Do you see the issue now?
How many Buddhists do you see drawing swastikas on their models? Genuine question. Secondly, I would want more context into this Buddhist - for example, how those swastikas have been painted, their background and, well, external context.
Because, yanno, if someone comes up with a black slanted swastika on a white circle over a red background, and tells me that they're Buddhist, so it's fine, and they don't see the problem with that - I don't believe a word of what they're saying.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:Yeah, but how often does that happen, people trying to start ethnostates in a games workshop?
It's not about doing it in Games Workshop. It's about someone doing it at all, and opposing them at every step.
You know, because they're trying to start an ethnostate, as you put it.
It probably sounds fine in your head, removing 'fascists' but the problem lies in the practicality, and the fundamental issue of subjectivity when it comes to political opinion. Consider some people on the left would ascribe anyone right of centre a 'fascist'. This is how the purity spirals begin.
Again, but I've made it very clear what I'm talking about, and who I'm talking about.
You're just obsessed with this idea of mispersecution instead of even agreeing that fascists have no place.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm for fascists getting lost from my community. I'm for an inclusive community where not one member holds racist, sexist, bigoted views.
Is that a problem?
Depends, are you also policing that culturally . because as i stated, Da bosses statement about the swastika alllready could be considered from differing cultural background as bigoted, even if it was against bigotry.
I oppose cultural racism and sexism, yes. No matter what culture or beliefs you hold, neither of those two are acceptable.
So you are frankly now culturally demanding a dominant right over budhists and a whole slew of south east asia. I'd say that would be culutrally not very inclusive of you.
What am I demanding? That all races and genders should be treated equally?
If me supporting inclusivity is "not very inclusive", then what about their lack of inclusivity that I'm opposing?
Because the swastika in that region is a symbol of luck. Still in use by budhists and hindus.
Da Boss wrote: Edit: Ach, I better behave myself, I like this thread.
I would find a warhammer army painted with Swastikas and so on really distasteful and I would judge someone who had done that to their minis, for sure. At the very least for having poor taste and being lacking in common sense.
This was his statement, the cultural context of a symbol also matters, all you have shown in your statement is really that you seem to lack shades of thinking and can be percived as ignorant, and i don't mean that as an attack on you but assume in this little scenario the following:
An army has swastikas on it,
Da boss judges that army.
The army comes from SEA region and belongs to a budhist.
Your statement is then that he has to adapt or feck off.
Are you trying to write this into a HS paper of some sorts? It seems you've put thought into this.
You should read some of the Commissar Cain books or some of the more funny Ork lore than taking the material seriously.
I just made two separate posts about not taking it seriously. You said it's better than a lot of real life fascist situations, I simply pointed out that it's actually a really bad place to live that is, in many ways, worse for its citizens than those real life situations. That's the whole point of the Imperium and why 40K ISN'T a pro-fascist piece of work.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:Equivocation fallacy.. you're assuming the premise that antifa only 'oppose fascism' (despite that having its own problems with subjectivity) but this is incorrect as NO outlined above.
Lower case a, still.
No fallacy - you're pretending like I'm talking about an organisation. I'm not. I'm talking about simply opposing fascism. Is there a problem with that?
Depends on how you plan on opposing it. If you mean using reason, and logical discussion to show people why they may be wrong, absolutely. If you mean punching people or any other violent acts, then no.
Also, I don't support trying to kick people out of a hobby. You can refuse them access to personal groups or clubs, but you don't have a right to demand a public company do so on your behalf across the entire enterprise.
Curiosity here - Why?
is a demand somehow separate from other speech? Both I and my partner worked retail for a long time, and I can tell you we got some way, way zanier demands than what you're describing - do people not have a right to make demands? or are you using the word "right" in a different context than you seem to be using it with the rest of your posts?
Demanding that a company do something is free speech. That company then choosing what or what not to do is also completely within their rights, they own their platforms they can decide what to allow or not to allow.
I don't think you have the right to demand a company ideologically cleanses itself to suit your beliefs.
So you're a free speech purist that doesn't draw the line at people saying that they're for genocide or murder or whatever, but you draw it at people telling companies to ideologically cleanse themselves to suit their beliefs?
Do you not see that as a fairly outwardly silly position to hold? Surely I can use my free speech to tell a company to do whatever it wants, and they have the freedom to do whatever they want to their property. After all, people have the freedom to tell companies to do a lot of much sillier things, or else I would have gotten a lot of people sent to jail for telling the companies I've worked for to give away their property to them for free or else they'll give us bad reviews on social media. That's like...speech robbery. Do you believe in removing that right as well, You Authoritarian You?
vipoid wrote:I have a question for you on this front - do you believe that all fascists are already beyond redemption?
I believe that some can be convinced to see their misjudgements. But while anyone continues to hold those beliefs, they cannot be courted.
Also, does it matter if they have not acted on their fascist beliefs in any way?
Speech is still action.
I ask because I find myself wondering if it is wise to try and ostracise them so completely from society. Surely making them into outsiders will only reinforce their negative beliefs with regard to society?
If they espouse views that promote that some people should not being in their society, they're doing just the same.
If anything, you might benefit from playing a few games with such individuals and realising that they are, in fact, still human. You may even find that your own desires are not so dissimilar from theirs, and that you can lead them towards a different, less-harmful path.
Ironic, considering that they're the ones not recognising the humanity of others.
No. I would not court them with pleasantries, because their beliefs are *genuinely harmful and predicated on the idea that some people are sub-human*.
Not Online!!! wrote:Close, the issue is the judge part in da bosses statement and the wholesale adoption of smudge.
Basically he wants to be inclusive, yet would judge someone over a symbol that has a completely different cultural value attributed there with his own standards.
That's not what I said at all, unless you're talking about cultural racism and sexism.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Is your army based around the iconography of ancient Siam? Huh, cool, might want to be careful with the swastikas considering the other connotations but it's abundantly clear from the context that's not what you were going for.
Are you throwing in swastikas where they make no sense for the sake of being edgy? Huh, cool, there's the door.
Context really does exist. I wish people would stop pretending it doesn't.
Exactly. Context matters - just daubing on a swastika doesn't mean you're a Nazi, but you'd better have a good reason for doing it and why you're ignorant about the potential connotations.
Because, yanno, if someone comes up with a black slanted swastika on a white circle over a red background, and tells me that they're Buddhist, so it's fine, and they don't see the problem with that - I don't believe a word of what they're saying.
Oh then you are going to love the fact that in polish mountains of Tatry the swastika in a circle is on majority of homes, it is in churchs as mosaicas etc.
Now I ain't claiming that gorals aren't donkey-caves to everyone, because they are, but it is also part of their culture. Been part of it since like celtic times.
What am I demanding? That all races and genders should be treated equally?
I honestly don't understand how this is suppose to work in real life. If someone came up and said this are the marks you have to hit to be able to joing a sports school and they are the same for everyone, then in both cases you would end up with majority male schools. Women sports departaments would make no sense at all. Same with jobs, women have kids and have family life. If pre christmas or easters someone came up with an equality idea and said that on the 23ed everyone man or woman is going to work till 17:00, not female are not going to be let out of work at 14:00, like it always is, there would be a riot. The number of girls that are interested in joing the obligatory draft, and going through the very unfun health commission at 18 isn't very high either, in fact if someone said that draft is going to be enforced for both sexs there would be country wide riots.
Because, yanno, if someone comes up with a black slanted swastika on a white circle over a red background, and tells me that they're Buddhist, so it's fine, and they don't see the problem with that - I don't believe a word of what they're saying.
Oh then you are going to love the fact that in polish mountains of Tatry the swastika in a circle is on majority of homes, it is in churchs as mosaicas etc.
Now I ain't claiming that gorals aren't donkey-caves to everyone, because they are, but it is also part of their culture. Been part of it since like celtic times.
Gee. That sounds just like that context that I was just talking about!
@ smudge, i highlighted your answers to the issue at hand, Yes you were infact judging someone in that case on your own cultural standards , implying a lot of very unfortunate things.
Again, maybee you or i just have phrased that poorly but as it stands that is not inclusive of you.
Jackal90 wrote: Not online - try not to remove context when highlighting someone’s point of view.
Not including the section that states “in a warhammer setting” dramatically changes it.
Historical and fantasy are entirely different.
Nazi iconography in a FoW type setting? That’s part of the games background and history.
The same in 40k? Why is it even there?
Inserting real world iconography or beliefs is just waiting for issues to arrive.
This is why people need to keep fantasy and reality separate.
preciscly where have i removed context.
Why should someone in the SEA region be prohibitted to paint it on his potato face cdians?
Further, considering some of the heraldry of SM chapters should we also remove it because it reflects upon say the catholic church?
My issue with the argument was that supposedly objective drawing of a line in this matter is reallly not all that objective.
Look at your quoted text.
You have underlined the section you question, yet left out the piece that gives context to it.
Because there is a clear line between fantasy and reality, if you cannot see the difference, there is a much larger issue.
Adding elements of either into each other will cause problems, which is why the two are distinctively different.
If you need proof, there’s a reason you do not constantly see armies covered in religious or political iconography.
Most know how to keep the two worlds separate.
Because, yanno, if someone comes up with a black slanted swastika on a white circle over a red background, and tells me that they're Buddhist, so it's fine, and they don't see the problem with that - I don't believe a word of what they're saying.
Oh then you are going to love the fact that in polish mountains of Tatry the swastika in a circle is on majority of homes, it is in churchs as mosaicas etc.
Now I ain't claiming that gorals aren't donkey-caves to everyone, because they are, but it is also part of their culture. Been part of it since like celtic times.
I will never put Karol on ignore because I just can't get enough of my favorite news channel, Extremely Transparently Biased Weirdly Specific Eastern European Political Drama Fun Facts.
Please, Karol, tell me more about your opinions on Gorals from Tatry. How do they differ from the other peoples of Tatry? Can you tell them by their earlobe shape?
Not Online!!! wrote: @ smudge, i highlighted your answers to the issue at hand, Yes you were infact judging someone in that case on your own cultural standards , implying a lot of very unfortunate things.
Again, maybee you or i just have phrased that poorly but as it stands that is not inclusive of you.
I saw what you highlighted, my comments that culture does not excuse racism or sexism.
It would appear that you find my opposition to cultural racism and sexism "not inclusive."
Quick question though: if you think me standing *up* for inclusivity is "not inclusive", what do you think about those cultures literally being "not inclusive"?
Jackal90 wrote: Not online - try not to remove context when highlighting someone’s point of view.
Not including the section that states “in a warhammer setting” dramatically changes it.
Historical and fantasy are entirely different.
Nazi iconography in a FoW type setting? That’s part of the games background and history.
The same in 40k? Why is it even there?
Inserting real world iconography or beliefs is just waiting for issues to arrive.
This is why people need to keep fantasy and reality separate.
preciscly where have i removed context.
Why should someone in the SEA region be prohibitted to paint it on his potato face cdians?
Further, considering some of the heraldry of SM chapters should we also remove it because it reflects upon say the catholic church?
My issue with the argument was that supposedly objective drawing of a line in this matter is reallly not all that objective.
Look at your quoted text.
You have underlined the section you question, yet left out the piece that gives context to it.
Because there is a clear line between fantasy and reality, if you cannot see the difference, there is a much larger issue.
Adding elements of either into each other will cause problems, which is why the two are distinctively different.
If you need proof, there’s a reason you do not constantly see armies covered in religious or political iconography.
Most know how to keep the two worlds separate.
You come in , state i remove context, proclaim i underline text here, which i didn't so okay...
And in regards to fantasy and reality aswell as symbolisms, you realise what Black templars use as heraldry right? and they are quite a fan favourite i heard.
So again, please show me where i left out context, maybee i am missing something, since normaly i talk german, if you can't then i frankly do wonder what your goal was in your statement.
Gee. That sounds just like that context that I was just talking about!
Ain't that sweet.
No it isn't. Polish gorals, aren't buddists from the other part of the world, that have a drasticaly different culture or don't know what swastikas mean, or don't have a memory of what was happening in europe during WWII.
Because, yanno, if someone comes up with a black slanted swastika on a white circle over a red background, and tells me that they're Buddhist, so it's fine, and they don't see the problem with that - I don't believe a word of what they're saying.
Oh then you are going to love the fact that in polish mountains of Tatry the swastika in a circle is on majority of homes, it is in churchs as mosaicas etc.
Now I ain't claiming that gorals aren't donkey-caves to everyone, because they are, but it is also part of their culture. Been part of it since like celtic times.
I will never put Karol on ignore because I just can't get enough of my favorite news channel, Extremely Transparently Biased Weirdly Specific Eastern European Political Drama Fun Facts.
Please, Karol, tell me more about your opinions on Gorals from Tatry. How do they differ from the other peoples of Tatry? Can you tell them by their earlobe shape?
Not Online!!! wrote: @ smudge, i highlighted your answers to the issue at hand, Yes you were infact judging someone in that case on your own cultural standards , implying a lot of very unfortunate things.
Again, maybee you or i just have phrased that poorly but as it stands that is not inclusive of you.
I saw what you highlighted, my comments that culture does not excuse racism or sexism. It would appear that you find my opposition to cultural racism and sexism "not inclusive."
Quick question though: if you think me standing *up* for inclusivity is "not inclusive", what do you think about those cultures literally being "not inclusive"?
Just a cheeky Paradox of Intolerance for you.
last time i checked, lowering someones culture down is a practice associated with colonialism and racism. You judged by your subjective , completely removed standards, of this persons army, is therefore a demand that is contrary to your own point of inclusivity.
and for the question? I attempt to show you the pitfalls of your own position, i can hope you realise these or you remain ardently on your position, should you however go beyond words then the reaction will also go beyond words. There's a reason as to why free speech is a given in democratic societies but free action not so much.
Quick question though: if you think me standing *up* for inclusivity is "not inclusive", what do you think about those cultures literally being "not inclusive"?
Wait. First of all, why should all cultures be inclusive? That makes no sense. There are very few places in the world, where in theory inclusitivity maybe can be enforced, which doesn't even mean that it works or works good. There are more places in the world, where inclusivity ranges between stupidity to being dead harmful. How do you act inclusive, when you border people that are trying to kill you,as in actualy not in an imaginary way with words.
also deciding the worth of a culture on what ever is inclusive or not is some really messed up thing to do. Because it somehow implies that inclusive cultures are somehow better. And that is yet to be proven in action.
Such time and effort wasted on grand ideas that function no better than a large brush trying to fix problems that are small at local levels.
"Video Games don't cause violence"
"The gun company isn't liable for the shooting because it's with their gun"
And most importantly, "GW isn't responsible for the things crazy people are doing with their models or the feelings those individuals associate with their IP."\
I do agree that, maybe, some virtue signaling from GW might just enough to, very clearly, separate them from the undesirables. Maybe a sign at the door or a disclaimer on the product boxes would be nice. But I do not feel they need to dig into the lore and do anything for the sake of a community who can't go open a dialogue with individuals who may be making everyone uncomfortable and request they cease and desist their stupidity.
The moment we can blame a fantasy for radicalizing somebody is the moment all of entertainment becomes boring. Tap that guy on the shoulder, and ask him to 'stop it'.
Gee. That sounds just like that context that I was just talking about!
Ain't that sweet.
No it isn't. Polish gorals, aren't buddists from the other part of the world, that have a drasticaly different culture or don't know what swastikas mean, or don't have a memory of what was happening in europe during WWII.
I didn't say that *only* Buddhists used a swastika. I said that if you did, you need context, of which Buddhism can be one of many.
As for "don't know what swastikas mean" - no, I'm pretty sure they are aware, considering Nazis specifically sought to "Germanize" them.
I will never put Karol on ignore because I just can't get enough of my favorite news channel, Extremely Transparently Biased Weirdly Specific Eastern European Political Drama Fun Facts.
Please, Karol, tell me more about your opinions on Gorals from Tatry. How do they differ from the other peoples of Tatry? Can you tell them by their earlobe shape?
What other people living in tatry? There were no other people living in that area, till communist came. And they mostly removed people from the eastern part. I think you have the wrong idea about how populations work around the world. See most places aren't like the US, we don't have 20+ different nationalities living on top of each other.
And it isn't drama. You want examples from US. The Pueblos and the Navaho do the same thing. I only think the swastikas are more round and they are mostly on yellow circles not white.
And as for the earlobe shape, considering they are made up of clans and ear shapes are hereditary, you could track how many there are, on both sides of tatry.
As for "don't know what swastikas mean" - no, I'm pretty sure they are aware, considering Nazis specifically sought to "Germanize" them.
Oh they didn't have to. Himmler put them on the list of aryans, claiming they weren't slavic, but the descendents of ancient gotts, that didn't joing their brothers on the way to iberia and italy. Zakopane was the second biggest resort for german soldiers durning WWII. And the clans were so strong that not even the communists after WWII could get rid of nazi collaborators.
By what definition? Speaking is an action. It is a physical act of vocalisation.
you know what, next thing you are going to tell us that thinking is physical action too, because to think you need neurons to physical interact with each other. And this is step away from soviet teories that led to mass genocide.All done in the name of equality too, by the way. So equal that we are having the 50 anniversary of purges done on polish workers for being brazen enough to wrong thing. This wrong thinking cost over 200people their lifes and over 2000people were injured, when the military opened fired to workers returning to their factories.
Not Online!!! wrote:last time i checked, lowering someones culture down is a practice associated with colonialism and racism.
Last I checked, discrimination based on race or gender was not inclusive, but I guess you don't care about that, all of a sudden.
Or are you saying that if a culture is discriminatory that it's okay for them not to be inclusive now?
You judged by your subjective , completely removed standards, of this persons army, is therefore a demand that is contrary to your own point of inclusivity.
I didn't mention gak about someone's army. I only talked about cultural racism and sexism, and when an army was brought in, I mentioned a need for context.
Maybe actually read what I'm saying, and don't mix me up for someone else?
There's a reason as to why free speech is a given in democratic societies but free action not so much.
Speech is a form of action, and it's a shame that people don't recognise that.
Karol wrote:
Quick question though: if you think me standing *up* for inclusivity is "not inclusive", what do you think about those cultures literally being "not inclusive"?
Wait. First of all, why should all cultures be inclusive? That makes no sense.
Jesus Christ.
Because all people are created equal, perhaps? Have you heard of this thing called Human Rights?
Because it somehow implies that inclusive cultures are somehow better. And that is yet to be proven in action.
Bloody hell, you really are a piece of work. Okay, let me ask you this - why shouldn't all people be treated equally, irrespective of race, gender, sexuality, or other aspect of their immutable being?
And in regards to fantasy and reality aswell as symbolisms, you realise what Black templars use as heraldry right? and they are quite a fan favourite i heard.
You are projecting an Iron Cross but it is actually a Maltese Cross. The clue is in the name Black TEMPLARS. The historical crusading catholic knights of Malta happened to use that symbol too. A templar is a religious knight, literally one who fights for the temple.
Fun fact: the knights of Malta are still going after 900 years!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But speech? Saying to me that you believe that some people do not deserve to live because of their race? No, that is action.
I agree.
If someone says that to you, whether at a wargaming table or in a pub, it is for a purpose. They have an objective. That objective is finding likeminded individuals and trying to sway possibly sympathetic individuals towards those ideas.
If I say to someone that I like oldhammer it's not a random meaningless outburst, it's because I want to talk about oldhammer and see if they might like oldhammer too. I am trying to increase the amount of oldhammer-enjoyment and appreciation in my immediate vicinity.
And in regards to fantasy and reality aswell as symbolisms, you realise what Black templars use as heraldry right? and they are quite a fan favourite i heard.
You are projecting an Iron Cross but it is actually a Maltese Cross. The clue is in the name Black TEMPLARS. The historical crusading catholic knights of Malta happened to use that symbol too. A templar is a religious knight, literally one who fights for the temple.
Fun fact the knights of Malta are still going after 900 years!
i come from the german sphere of language-cultural background. I can differ between a maltese and an iron cross. I also know about the rather hillarious context of the crusades which can be regarded as an issue out of a cultural view.
Because all people are created equal, perhaps? Have you heard of this thing called Human Rights?
No they aren't. I am autistic, I was born like that. There is no way in the world for me to be equal to someone who was born without autism. At the same someone who was born a genius, like lets say the guy who made the polio vaccine is worth incomperably more to the world, then some dude that spends his life at the 24 alcohol store. People aren't and never will be equal, they are too different for it to ever be true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! 794924 11016456 wrote:
i come from the german sphere of language-cultural background.
I can differ between a maltese and an iron cross.
I also know about the rather hillarious context of the crusades which can be regarded as an issue out of a cultural view.
I am ortodox and I had a really fun time, when mr Pewdiepie was accused of being a nazi for wearing a Georgian cross.
I have asked this like five pages ago, but what is wrong with saying that in conclusion to OPs question: No, playing 40k does not support hatred or fascism.
There are however people among the fandom who have very problematic viewpoints, though they seem to be a minority. (I have not personally encountered them, but I believe the people who say they have)
If you encounter such a person, especially a younger person, the best course is to positively engage them and try to educate them that 40k actually serves as satire and a warning against fascism. If they don't listen or don't want to listen you can only avoid them and/or ask them to leave your gaming group.
How many people with swastikas all over their GW army mean it as a reference to Polynesian buddhists rather than a reference to nazis for shock value and/or support for fascism? We all know the answer to this one.
I don't think you have the right to demand a company ideologically cleanses itself to suit your beliefs.
So you're a free speech purist that doesn't draw the line at people saying that they're for genocide or murder or whatever, but you draw it at people telling companies to ideologically cleanse themselves to suit their beliefs?
Do you not see that as a fairly outwardly silly position to hold? Surely I can use my free speech to tell a company to do whatever it wants, and they have the freedom to do whatever they want to their property. After all, people have the freedom to tell companies to do a lot of much sillier things, or else I would have gotten a lot of people sent to jail for telling the companies I've worked for to give away their property to them for free or else they'll give us bad reviews on social media. That's like...speech robbery. Do you believe in removing that right as well, You Authoritarian You?
I don't really know how you've come to that conclusion regarding my opinion... You can hold the opinion that companies should cleanse themselves and their customers, but it's a silly one. Maybe you're confused, my response was personal rather than to do with rights in law
The only difference is context because they are the same symbol physically. The context of the Black TEMPLARS is crusading Catholic knights TEMPLAR. The Iron Cross is just the use of the Maltese Cross by the Kingdom of Prussia and continued by the German Armed forces of WW2. Context.
Tiberias wrote: I have asked this like five pages ago, but what is wrong with saying that in conclusion to OPs question: No, playing 40k does not support hatred or fascism.
There are however people among the fandom who have very problematic viewpoints, though they seem to be a minority. (I have not personally encountered them, but I believe the people who say they have)
If you encounter such a person, especially a younger person, the best course is to positively engage them and try to educate them that 40k actually serves as satire and a warning against fascism. If they don't listen or don't want to listen you can only avoid them and/or ask them to leave your gaming group.
I agree. I don't think that GW have done anything wrong, and I am happy that they are taking positive steps towards making things more inclusive. I don't think anyone has yet articulated what GW or the community should actually do differently about this.
But this thread has certainly been an eye-opener about some of the harmful voices in our hobby.
Tiberias wrote: I have asked this like five pages ago, but what is wrong with saying that in conclusion to OPs question: No, playing 40k does not support hatred or fascism.
There are however people among the fandom who have very problematic viewpoints, though they seem to be a minority. (I have not personally encountered them, but I believe the people who say they have)
If you encounter such a person, especially a younger person, the best course is to positively engage them and try to educate them that 40k actually serves as satire and a warning against fascism. If they don't listen or don't want to listen you can only avoid them and/or ask them to leave your gaming group.
nothing, infact i think you'd be commendable for that action, allbeit i'd even remove the age classifyier.
excluding them and therefore forcing them to organise and institutionalise separately will only lead to further radicalisation and polarisation.
which brings back the other obvious issue and that is that GW has lost the perspective as to what 40k was in favor of selling an heroic story for the IoM , which is pretty obviously not really the correct way to go about, but then again selling SM as heros and only that makes bank for GW:
However, OLDSCHOOL 40k had a nice perspective upon fasciscts , they were big, dumb, violent, morons for violences sake with no morality beyond might makes right.
yes i am talking about the oldschool stormboyz.
I think we can reference the Reece from FLG debacle here now. when he put forward a Knight he painted with a "Death's head" symbol. A rather strong resemblence to the Death's Head symbol used by the Nazis. He immediately engaged in exactly the same defense that so many here are making today.
1. Calling all accusers soft, whiney, alt-left babies.
2. Calling the whole thing a made up conspiracy
3. Asking where is the problem? It's just a skull.
4. Again attacking his accusers.
5. Deleting all records of his knight and saying he never painted it and refusing to talk about it again.
One of the leaders of the biggest Wargamming conventions in the US was called out as supporting the alt-right fascist movement, and he instantly attacks everyone, refuses to admit there is a problem, and then deletes all records of the event in the first place. But yeah, 40k doesn't have a problem. Nothing to see here.
No they aren't. I am autistic, I was born like that. There is no way in the world for me to be equal to someone who was born without autism. At the same someone who was born a genius, like lets say the guy who made the polio vaccine is worth incomperably more to the world, then some dude that spends his life at the 24 alcohol store. People aren't and never will be equal, they are too different for it to ever be true.
You are right, people are not equal. But the whole point of Human Rights is that all humans are worth the same regardless of that inequality. There are people that provide more to the world, there are people that provide less, but regardless of that fact they are worth the same, they have the same rights even if they don't have the same capabilities.
In fact, having less capabilities tends to afford even more rights to try to account for the inequality.
soviet13 wrote: How many people with swastikas all over their GW army mean it as a reference to Polynesian buddhists rather than a reference to nazis for shock value and/or support for fascism? We all know the answer to this one.
Also true, but how many Guard armies field commisars . the issue with symbols is that at most you can dictate 50 % the other 50 are interpreted by those regarding the symbol and what it is meaning
I don't think W40k serve as satire, it is only a concentrate of the worst of the worst of the worst the humans were able to create. For example the Imperial Truth is extremely similar to the atheistic ideology professed by the enlightenment and the way the Emperor erased every religion from Terra, is very close to the way the Jacobin government of Robespierre tried to eradicate the religion form France after the revolution; in fact the modern concept of genocide (but also the one of the political persecutions) was conceived during that time.
Anyway the history taught us that the worst persecutions and crimes against the humanity, were done by the people who wanted create a world without persecutions and crimes against the humanity.
Because all people are created equal, perhaps? Have you heard of this thing called Human Rights?
No they aren't. I am autistic, I was born like that. There is no way in the world for me to be equal to someone who was born without autism. At the same someone who was born a genius, like lets say the guy who made the polio vaccine is worth incomperably more to the world, then some dude that spends his life at the 24 alcohol store. People aren't and never will be equal, they are too different for it to ever be true.
That's not at all what "all people are created equal" means.
It means that all people have the *right* to be treated equally. ie, without discrimination.
vipoid wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Speaking is an action. It is a physical act of vocalisation.
I see context has been abandoned totally and we're just getting into ludicrous pedantics. Whatever, you do you.
The only ludicrous idea I see is that someone can say the most awful, heinous gak imaginable, and walk away scot free because "I only said it, it's not like it was real".
Horsegak. If you express racist beliefs, through word or fist, you are still expressing beliefs of racism.
In that case, all I will say is that you may find yourself regretting this line of thought - sorry, this line of action - in the future.
What have I got fear? I'm not a racist.
You may well find that the authoritarian measures you support being used against fascists today are used against you or those close to you tomorrow.
Ah, the old "don't say mean things about the Nazis because someone might say mean things to youuuuuu" chestnut. Do you also oppose prison sentences, because you might also be imprisoned?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think we can reference the Reece from FLG debacle here now. when he put forward a Knight he painted with a "Death's head" symbol. A rather strong resemblence to the Death's Head symbol used by the Nazis. He immediately engaged in exactly the same defense that so many here are making today.
1. Calling all accusers soft, whiney, alt-left babies.
2. Calling the whole thing a made up conspiracy
3. Asking where is the problem? It's just a skull.
4. Again attacking his accusers.
5. Deleting all records of his knight and saying he never painted it and refusing to talk about it again.
One of the leaders of the biggest Wargamming conventions in the US was called out as supporting the alt-right fascist movement, and he instantly attacks everyone, refuses to admit there is a problem, and then deletes all records of the event in the first place. But yeah, 40k doesn't have a problem. Nothing to see here.
Karol wrote: No they aren't. I am autistic, I was born like that. There is no way in the world for me to be equal to someone who was born without autism. At the same someone who was born a genius, like lets say the guy who made the polio vaccine is worth incomperably more to the world, then some dude that spends his life at the 24 alcohol store. People aren't and never will be equal, they are too different for it to ever be true.
You are right, people are not equal. But the whole point of Human Rights is that all humans are worth the same regardless of that inequality.
There are people that provide more to the world, there are people that provide less, but regardless of that fact they are worth the same, they have the same rights even if they don't have the same capabilities.
In fact, having less capabilities tends to afford even more rights to try to account for the inequality.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm for fascists getting lost from my community. I'm for an inclusive community where not one member holds racist, sexist, bigoted views.
Is that a problem?
You're still telling me what you're against rather than what you're for. Here's an example: I'm for a Liberal Democracy (Liberal as in Liberty). I'm for freedom of speech, equal treatment under the law for all, personal ownership of property, capitalism with regulations, the right to defend yourself and your property, social assistance to those in need, and a financially responsible government. Currently there is no government on Earth that offers all these things.
Being for Democracy basically puts me in opposition to fascism and communism by default, as well as a bunch of other things.
Being for equal treatment under law for all puts me in opposition to sexism and bigotry (I equate bigotry and racism as the same thing, I know some people thing racism requires power)
But saying you're against facism isn't useful information. Lots of terrible people, like Stalin, were against fascism.
No they aren't. I am autistic, I was born like that. There is no way in the world for me to be equal to someone who was born without autism. At the same someone who was born a genius, like lets say the guy who made the polio vaccine is worth incomperably more to the world, then some dude that spends his life at the 24 alcohol store. People aren't and never will be equal, they are too different for it to ever be true.
You are right, people are not equal. But the whole point of Human Rights is that all humans are worth the same regardless of that inequality.
There are people that provide more to the world, there are people that provide less, but regardless of that fact they are worth the same, they have the same rights even if they don't have the same capabilities.
In fact, having less capabilities tends to afford even more rights to try to account for the inequality.
Human rights are racist if it does not include all life, including plants.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think we can reference the Reece from FLG debacle here now. when he put forward a Knight he painted with a "Death's head" symbol. A rather strong resemblence to the Death's Head symbol used by the Nazis. He immediately engaged in exactly the same defense that so many here are making today.
1. Calling all accusers soft, whiney, alt-left babies.
2. Calling the whole thing a made up conspiracy
3. Asking where is the problem? It's just a skull.
4. Again attacking his accusers.
5. Deleting all records of his knight and saying he never painted it and refusing to talk about it again.
One of the leaders of the biggest Wargamming conventions in the US was called out as supporting the alt-right fascist movement, and he instantly attacks everyone, refuses to admit there is a problem, and then deletes all records of the event in the first place. But yeah, 40k doesn't have a problem. Nothing to see here.
In your example, Reece is the problem, not 40k.
... I thought we'd all agreed that 40k wasn't the issue, yes?
40k's fine, but the idiots who use it to express fascist beliefs are a problem - unfortunately, some people in this thread think courting fascists is fine.
Because all people are created equal, perhaps? Have you heard of this thing called Human Rights?
No they aren't. I am autistic, I was born like that. There is no way in the world for me to be equal to someone who was born without autism. At the same someone who was born a genius, like lets say the guy who made the polio vaccine is worth incomperably more to the world, then some dude that spends his life at the 24 alcohol store. People aren't and never will be equal, they are too different for it to ever be true.
I'll reiterate whoever it was earlier who said it: Jesus Christ.
Firstly, "equality" in this context does not mean everyone is exactly the same. That's obviously untrue. What it means is all people should be treated equally and no person is intrinsically worth less than another. Some people may make personal choices that diminish the happiness and wellbeing of themselves or others but the basic idea of inclusivity and equality is that they're still fundamentally human and not inherently lesser because of that. Being autistic doesn't make you less of a person than someone else. Also, people generally aren't born geniuses and it's tremendously reductive and dismissive to assume they are.
I mean this with all sincerity Karol, but I hope you find a way to expand your very narrow worldview and experience and understand more about humanity and different cultures as you grow up. I understand you're still young so the good news is time is most definitely on your side.
By what definition? Speaking is an action. It is a physical act of vocalisation.
I see context has been abandoned totally and we're just getting into ludicrous pedantics. Whatever, you do you.
In that case, all I will say is that you may find yourself regretting this line of thought - sorry, this line of action - in the future.
You may well find that the authoritarian measures you support being used against fascists today are used against you or those close to you tomorrow.
No, just no. You seem bizarrely unwilling to accept the difference between speech and thought. Why? Speech is clearly an action. It's a conscious decision to verbalise an idea or thought. Once verbalised we have some evidence for what a person believes, just as if they'd taken some other action that revealed them to be an intolerant jackass. The same cannot be said of thoughts, which is why nobody in this thread has advocated for policing thoughts.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm for fascists getting lost from my community. I'm for an inclusive community where not one member holds racist, sexist, bigoted views.
Is that a problem?
You're still telling me what you're against rather than what you're for. Here's an example: I'm for a Liberal Democracy (Liberal as in Liberty). I'm for freedom of speech, equal treatment under the law for all, personal ownership of property, capitalism with regulations, the right to defend yourself and your property, social assistance to those in need, and a financially responsible government. Currently there is no government on Earth that offers all these things.
Being for Democracy basically puts me in opposition to fascism and communism by default, as well as a bunch of other things.
Being for equal treatment under law for all puts me in opposition to sexism and bigotry (I equate bigotry and racism as the same thing, I know some people thing racism requires power)
But saying you're against facism isn't useful information. Lots of terrible people, like Stalin, were against fascism.
He told you he was for "for an inclusive community where not one member holds racist, sexist, bigoted views."
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think we can reference the Reece from FLG debacle here now. when he put forward a Knight he painted with a "Death's head" symbol. A rather strong resemblence to the Death's Head symbol used by the Nazis. He immediately engaged in exactly the same defense that so many here are making today.
1. Calling all accusers soft, whiney, alt-left babies.
2. Calling the whole thing a made up conspiracy
3. Asking where is the problem? It's just a skull.
4. Again attacking his accusers.
5. Deleting all records of his knight and saying he never painted it and refusing to talk about it again.
One of the leaders of the biggest Wargamming conventions in the US was called out as supporting the alt-right fascist movement, and he instantly attacks everyone, refuses to admit there is a problem, and then deletes all records of the event in the first place. But yeah, 40k doesn't have a problem. Nothing to see here.
I have no idea who Reece is, and know nothing about this event; but how did we (you) jump from painting a skull and crossbones (a relatively common symbol historically) on a model to supporting fascists?
soviet13 wrote: How many people with swastikas all over their GW army mean it as a reference to Polynesian buddhists rather than a reference to nazis for shock value and/or support for fascism? We all know the answer to this one.
Also true, but how many Guard armies field commisars . the issue with symbols is that at most you can dictate 50 % the other 50 are interpreted by those regarding the symbol and what it is meaning
Well it's not regardless of the meaning, is it. There is always a context.
I suspect that if Commissars were introduced tomorrow they might be seen differently. As it is they have the advantage of being a relatively small and inconspicuous part of the guard, and of having been a presence since practically the beginning. I'm not aware of anyone IRL being upset about them. But I am sure that turning up to your local GW with swastika guard would create a very different reaction.
The only difference is context because they are the same symbol physically. The context of the Black TEMPLARS is crusading Catholic knights TEMPLAR. The Iron Cross is just the use of the Maltese Cross by the Kingdom of Prussia and continued by the German Armed forces of WW2. Context.
But they have a different shape.
But the whole point of Human Rights is that all humans are worth the same regardless of that inequality.
But they aren't. Lets say one family has a healthy baby, who will grow up and will be able to help and take care of its parents when they are old. No super star, no mega sportsman. Regular person. the other family has a sick baby that doesn't die, the whole family is burdened with it their entire life, and when the parents die, the state has to pretend that it is taking care of it. There is no way the two people are equal. And this europe example. Imagine China where the son is socialy and by law responsible for taking care of their parents, when they are old, and a daughter is not. You want to tell me that when they had a 2+1 policy, a boy was not worth more the a girl? of course he was, the family would have to be either super rich, insane or have children outside of the prescribed ones to think otherwise.
And this is just normal good people. There is no way someone is going to tell me that the worth of some pedophile is the same as the children he hurt, and that he should have the same rights as everyone else. There is reason why guys like that die in prisons, prisons aren't places for nice people, but even those nice people know that "some weeds are to be pulled" as the saying goes. People are not even equal in super rich western sociaties.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think we can reference the Reece from FLG debacle here now. when he put forward a Knight he painted with a "Death's head" symbol. A rather strong resemblence to the Death's Head symbol used by the Nazis. He immediately engaged in exactly the same defense that so many here are making today.
1. Calling all accusers soft, whiney, alt-left babies.
2. Calling the whole thing a made up conspiracy
3. Asking where is the problem? It's just a skull.
4. Again attacking his accusers.
5. Deleting all records of his knight and saying he never painted it and refusing to talk about it again.
One of the leaders of the biggest Wargamming conventions in the US was called out as supporting the alt-right fascist movement, and he instantly attacks everyone, refuses to admit there is a problem, and then deletes all records of the event in the first place. But yeah, 40k doesn't have a problem. Nothing to see here.
I have no idea who Reece is, and know nothing about this event; but how did we (you) jump from painting a skull and crossbones (a relatively common symbol historically) on a model to supporting fascists?
Oh yeah, wow it's just a skull and crossbones. So I guess it's offended people that need to stop in that example.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think we can reference the Reece from FLG debacle here now. when he put forward a Knight he painted with a "Death's head" symbol. A rather strong resemblence to the Death's Head symbol used by the Nazis. He immediately engaged in exactly the same defense that so many here are making today.
1. Calling all accusers soft, whiney, alt-left babies.
2. Calling the whole thing a made up conspiracy
3. Asking where is the problem? It's just a skull.
4. Again attacking his accusers.
5. Deleting all records of his knight and saying he never painted it and refusing to talk about it again.
One of the leaders of the biggest Wargamming conventions in the US was called out as supporting the alt-right fascist movement, and he instantly attacks everyone, refuses to admit there is a problem, and then deletes all records of the event in the first place. But yeah, 40k doesn't have a problem. Nothing to see here.
I have no idea who Reece is, and know nothing about this event; but how did we (you) jump from painting a skull and crossbones (a relatively common symbol historically) on a model to supporting fascists?
Because all people are created equal, perhaps? Have you heard of this thing called Human Rights?
No they aren't. I am autistic, I was born like that. There is no way in the world for me to be equal to someone who was born without autism. At the same someone who was born a genius, like lets say the guy who made the polio vaccine is worth incomperably more to the world, then some dude that spends his life at the 24 alcohol store. People aren't and never will be equal, they are too different for it to ever be true.
That's not at all what "all people are created equal" means.
It means that all people have the *right* to be treated equally. ie, without discrimination.
vipoid wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Speaking is an action. It is a physical act of vocalisation.
I see context has been abandoned totally and we're just getting into ludicrous pedantics. Whatever, you do you.
The only ludicrous idea I see is that someone can say the most awful, heinous gak imaginable, and walk away scot free because "I only said it, it's not like it was real".
Horsegak. If you express racist beliefs, through word or fist, you are still expressing beliefs of racism.
In that case, all I will say is that you may find yourself regretting this line of thought - sorry, this line of action - in the future.
What have I got fear? I'm not a racist.
You may well find that the authoritarian measures you support being used against fascists today are used against you or those close to you tomorrow.
Ah, the old "don't say mean things about the Nazis because someone might say mean things to youuuuuu" chestnut. Do you also oppose prison sentences, because you might also be imprisoned?
I am not sure to be honest about the speech is an action thing, but the one thing that is very important to me to point out is that in basically every country on earth, there are limits to free speech, even in the US (as far as I'm aware). You can not incite violence against another person and commiting perjury is also prohibited, they are considered crimes in fact.
This might seem obvious, but my point is that it seems to me that your conversation about this topic with other uses boils down to where to draw the line of free speech. I do not have an answer to that question, I only know that a society has to think carefully about where to draw the line.
If I misread the conversation, or misrepresented a point then I apologize and feel free to correct me.
Well it's not regardless of the meaning, is it. There is always a context.
I suspect that if Commissars were introduced tomorrow they might be seen differently. As it is they have the advantage of being a relatively small and inconspicuous part of the guard, and of having been a presence since practically the beginning. I'm not aware of anyone IRL being upset about them. But I am sure that turning up to your local GW with swastika guard would create a very different reaction.
That is because in the west, that didn't get to expiriance the goodness of living in a soviet state, for some ununderstandable reasons soviets are not considers to be worse then nazis. Even with a higher head count, and bigger economic and social impact.
You can not incite violence against another person and commiting perjury is also prohibited, they are considered crimes in fact.
But that is just words. Yes the ruling party or the ones that control the courts can do it, but if the oppossition gets targeted in the same way, it just gets ignored. And that is true for every country from China and Russia to US or UK.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm for fascists getting lost from my community. I'm for an inclusive community where not one member holds racist, sexist, bigoted views.
Is that a problem?
You're still telling me what you're against rather than what you're for.
No, I'm pretty sure I made my "what I'm for" very clear - an inclusive community. Fascists violate that principle.
Here's an example: I'm for a Liberal Democracy (Liberal as in Liberty). I'm for freedom of speech, equal treatment under the law for all, personal ownership of property, capitalism with regulations, the right to defend yourself and your property, social assistance to those in need, and a financially responsible government. Currently there is no government on Earth that offers all these things.
Being for Democracy basically puts me in opposition to fascism and communism by default, as well as a bunch of other things.
Being for equal treatment under law for all puts me in opposition to sexism and bigotry (I equate bigotry and racism as the same thing, I know some people thing racism requires power)
Right. So why, when fascists oppose free speech and liberty (you know, the freedom and liberty of people they deem "lesser" than them) do you let them? It's not a violation of free speech to silence someone who threatens the freedoms of others, because they've already demonstrated their lack of respect for free speech and liberty.
If you defend my right to defend myself, then why do you oppose my wish to stand against fascism?
You're acting like the racists and fascists haven't broken the social contract you describe. They have. So what do you do about people who *do* break that social contract?
But saying you're against facism isn't useful information. Lots of terrible people, like Stalin, were against fascism.
Just because someone else is opposed to fascism doesn't mean they're like them though - which I what I've been saying this whole time against things like "Hitler was a vegetarian! All vegetarians are Hitler". What *was* said was "examine if there's a correlation between the two" - so, you know, unless you're implying that if you're opposed to fascism, you support Stalin, I'd suggest dropping that.
Saying and acting up being opposed to fascism I'd say ARE useful information. Or, more importantly, when people jump through hoops to say they're not opposed to it, that's even better information about them.
But all the different shapes are used by both the Kingdom of Prussia and successor states like the 3rd Reich as well as all the knights of Malta and related templars like the Teutonics who took part in the Northern Crusade that everyone forgets about because it was against pagans instead of Islams. All the shapes are an equilateral cross with arms with wider at the end than at the hub where they join. If you are interested in symbology the most ancient version of the cross is Solar Cross which dates back to the Neolithic period, way before Christianity was even invented. Clearly the Black TEMPLARS are reference to the TEMPLARS though. The clue is in the name.
No they aren't. I am autistic, I was born like that. There is no way in the world for me to be equal to someone who was born without autism. At the same someone who was born a genius, like lets say the guy who made the polio vaccine is worth incomperably more to the world, then some dude that spends his life at the 24 alcohol store. People aren't and never will be equal, they are too different for it to ever be true.
You are right, people are not equal. But the whole point of Human Rights is that all humans are worth the same regardless of that inequality.
There are people that provide more to the world, there are people that provide less, but regardless of that fact they are worth the same, they have the same rights even if they don't have the same capabilities.
In fact, having less capabilities tends to afford even more rights to try to account for the inequality.
The point of human rights is that we all receive equal treatment under the law, nobody gets more rights for any reason at least on paper. People are are inherently different, we are only equal in kind.
Tiberias wrote:I am not sure to be honest about the speech is an action thing, but the one thing that is very important to me to point out is that in basically every country on earth, there are limits to free speech, even in the US (as far as I'm aware). You can not incite violence against another person and commiting perjury is also prohibited, they are considered crimes in fact.
This might seem obvious, but my point is that it seems to me that your conversation about this topic with other uses boils down to where to draw the line of free speech. I do not have an answer to that question, I only know that a society has to think carefully about where to draw the line.
If I misread the conversation, or misrepresented a point then I apologize and feel free to correct me.
No, you're absolutely right, that's what I'm talking about.
Some people here seem to believe that all speech, including hatespeech, is justified under "free speech". I think that's utter horsegak.
If someone's speech (which is an action) expresses that someone's life is less valuable because of causes out of their control, they themselves are violating the social contract that all people are to be treated equally and with dignity. If they can't speak without violating that contract, then why does the freedom of speech contract apply to them?
As far as I'm concerned, the line is drawn the moment you start implying people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control. And, because fascism is rooted in the very concept of some people being "lesser", fascism is incompatible with free speech.
I've only read up to page 8, and this has been an insightful and reflection conversation, no matter what one's views might be. I'm glad this discussion is allowed to continue, as I feel introspection is an important facet of being a mature human being. And that extends to communities of all walks of life being allowed to hold up a mirror and ask themselves tough questions like the one the OP posses.
My thoughts are informed, in part, by reading The Authoritarians, which if the research is correct, suggests that people with strong authoritarian follower tendencies tend to form these tendencies as a consequence of their upbringing (which isn't of course at all surprising).
As such, 40K alone is not going to create an authoritarian individual. A great many other factors have to come together for that to happen. Perhaps the easiest thing to deduce from this is that such individuals might consume 40K stuff as comfort food of sorts, or identify with it as a re-affirmation of their beliefs (even though they are clearly missing the dystopian warning that 40K is). But 40K is not alone in this regard, as one can consume all manner of books, films, comic, artwork, music or indeed any other cultural artifacts and be influenced the same way.
That all said - I do think recent changes in the lore and presentation of 40K (starting maybe late 7th edition?) is starting to sanitize the "horror" and grimdarkness of the whole IP. Just looking at artwork across rulebooks it went from obviously satirical / outright comedic to clearly grimdark (where no image of the IoM was anywhere a sane person would want to be) and finally to a much cleaner and "heroic" look, especially with respect to space marines. I think this was done as a effort to make the game world more visually palatable to a brooder audience. How many parent's would be turned off by seeing a half-dead zombie man sitting on throne atop a pile of skulls with all sorts of "drugs" and such being pumped into him. It's not a happy time look, and might convince some parents that this is for "mature audiences" only.
But this mixing of imagery does nevertheless send mixed-messages. If you only understand the game, and the IoM specifically, based on the imagery and game rules, and don't actually read the lore, I could see people coming away with the wrong impression about the Imperium (i.e. thinking it is somehow better, when it is in fact pretty awful across the board). I don't think GW is trying to whitewash the brand at its core or pull the wool over their customers' eyes, as much as just trying to push more sales by making it visually more accessible.
Where, perhaps, GW and the broader 40K community can run into bigger problems is when imagery and symbols from the 40K universe are re-appropriated for uses that conflict with the values of the company and the community at large. That CAN cast the community in a bad light. If the general public knows nothing about GW or 40K or the lore but sees 40K content and IP taken out of context and used publicly to push a certain political agenda, they might easily make the conclusion that GW/40K is all some fascist/communist/totalitarian/authoritarian/feudal/monarchy power fantasy - when in fact the lore is warning us against those exact things.
At the end of the day, it is up to us as individual players, game groups, store managers/owners, and GW to provide the proper context, messaging and/or to push back against having the game's lore and symbols misappropriated and used in ways that might damage the community. I'm not sure what these actions would look like - but I think it's worth discussing the possibilities.
The point of human rights is that we all receive equal treatment under the law, nobody gets more rights for any reason at least on paper. People are are inherently different, we are only equal in kind.
but that ain't true either, not even in western countries. You guys have racial quotas, people from my country can't just waltz in to US just because they want a better paid job, but someone comming from Somalia or Mexico can. You have different rates for same crimes for men and women, different rates of incarcaration for different races. Some of your schools discriminate against asian folks, because if everything was equal, they would be dominating the whole school systems. there are no 5 foot 4 asian dudes playing basketball or football. Heck healthcare is a human right, well at least here, and in the US it comes with the suffix of it is a human right, if you pay for it. etc
Tiberias wrote:I am not sure to be honest about the speech is an action thing, but the one thing that is very important to me to point out is that in basically every country on earth, there are limits to free speech, even in the US (as far as I'm aware). You can not incite violence against another person and commiting perjury is also prohibited, they are considered crimes in fact.
This might seem obvious, but my point is that it seems to me that your conversation about this topic with other uses boils down to where to draw the line of free speech. I do not have an answer to that question, I only know that a society has to think carefully about where to draw the line.
If I misread the conversation, or misrepresented a point then I apologize and feel free to correct me.
No, you're absolutely right, that's what I'm talking about.
Some people here seem to believe that all speech, including hatespeech, is justified under "free speech". I think that's utter horsegak.
If someone's speech (which is an action) expresses that someone's life is less valuable because of causes out of their control, they themselves are violating the social contract that all people are to be treated equally and with dignity. If they can't speak without violating that contract, then why does the freedom of speech contract apply to them?
As far as I'm concerned, the line is drawn the moment you start implying people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control. And, because fascism is rooted in the very concept of some people being "lesser", fascism is incompatible with free speech.
again you assume that everyone has the same social contract. Considering how many philosophical schools there are alone in regards to the social contracts and how many differingly aged democratic countries it's fair to assume that is not correct.
That said a good meassure indeed is the point were some people start espousing views detrimental to the status of other citizens.
Tiberias wrote:I am not sure to be honest about the speech is an action thing, but the one thing that is very important to me to point out is that in basically every country on earth, there are limits to free speech, even in the US (as far as I'm aware). You can not incite violence against another person and commiting perjury is also prohibited, they are considered crimes in fact.
This might seem obvious, but my point is that it seems to me that your conversation about this topic with other uses boils down to where to draw the line of free speech. I do not have an answer to that question, I only know that a society has to think carefully about where to draw the line.
If I misread the conversation, or misrepresented a point then I apologize and feel free to correct me.
No, you're absolutely right, that's what I'm talking about.
Some people here seem to believe that all speech, including hatespeech, is justified under "free speech". I think that's utter horsegak.
If someone's speech (which is an action) expresses that someone's life is less valuable because of causes out of their control, they themselves are violating the social contract that all people are to be treated equally and with dignity. If they can't speak without violating that contract, then why does the freedom of speech contract apply to them?
As far as I'm concerned, the line is drawn the moment you start implying people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control. And, because fascism is rooted in the very concept of some people being "lesser", fascism is incompatible with free speech.
See I generally totally agree with you, but free speech really is a difficult topic. You say the line is drawn the moment someone implies that people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control. Ok, on the surface I absolutely agree with that, but what falls under "implying"? In my opinion the devil really lies within the details here and that is I think (correct me if I'm wrong!) is what some people were objecting to your point. Is painting a skull that resembles a totenkopf used by the nazis enough that someone crosses that line and automatically implies that this person thinks some people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control? Maybe, and if they do they should be called out for it, but you need to first engage them and consider the context.
Edit: so in this example I think it would be unwise to enact a policy to automatically remove such a person from a game store for example before first engaging them and considering context.
SolarCross wrote: The worst thing about the Nazis is that they carried out a genocide against jews, slavs and gypsies who are all white people.
The worst thing about the Commies is that they carried genocides against a much bigger bag of ethnics but by numbers most of the victims were asian.
If you think the nazis are bad for killing white people but the commies are okay for killing asian people then you just might be a racist because clearly you only care about white people and not asians.
Thanks for that contribution, but I've got no idea what that has to do with this.
Are we not all agreed that genocide is bad? Or, perchance, are you implying that people opposed to fascism are pro-Soviet communist regime?
The point of human rights is that we all receive equal treatment under the law, nobody gets more rights for any reason at least on paper. People are are inherently different, we are only equal in kind.
but that ain't true either, not even in western countries. You guys have racial quotas, people from my country can't just waltz in to US just because they want a better paid job, but someone comming from Somalia or Mexico can. You have different rates for same crimes for men and women, different rates of incarcaration for different races. Some of your schools discriminate against asian folks, because if everything was equal, they would be dominating the whole school systems. there are no 5 foot 4 asian dudes playing basketball or football. Heck healthcare is a human right, well at least here, and in the US it comes with the suffix of it is a human right, if you pay for it. etc
Between believing something is a human right and achieving it for a general population are miles in governance.
reality is at most shaped by the sphere of ideas. and morals / ethics are primarily in the ideal sphere.
Tiberias wrote:I am not sure to be honest about the speech is an action thing, but the one thing that is very important to me to point out is that in basically every country on earth, there are limits to free speech, even in the US (as far as I'm aware). You can not incite violence against another person and commiting perjury is also prohibited, they are considered crimes in fact.
This might seem obvious, but my point is that it seems to me that your conversation about this topic with other uses boils down to where to draw the line of free speech. I do not have an answer to that question, I only know that a society has to think carefully about where to draw the line.
If I misread the conversation, or misrepresented a point then I apologize and feel free to correct me.
No, you're absolutely right, that's what I'm talking about.
Some people here seem to believe that all speech, including hatespeech, is justified under "free speech". I think that's utter horsegak.
If someone's speech (which is an action) expresses that someone's life is less valuable because of causes out of their control, they themselves are violating the social contract that all people are to be treated equally and with dignity. If they can't speak without violating that contract, then why does the freedom of speech contract apply to them?
As far as I'm concerned, the line is drawn the moment you start implying people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control. And, because fascism is rooted in the very concept of some people being "lesser", fascism is incompatible with free speech.
The problem is that you are expecting all people to act equally with decency.
These days, it does not exist.
The common defence for people with no argument is to shout insults with no basis (as this thread shows) with the expectation that shock value alone will end the argument in their favour.
Sadly, ignoring it will make them assume you are in the wrong and fighting back against it will have you labelled as being “defensive”
It’s literally the most cowardly retort possible.
SolarCross wrote: The worst thing about the Nazis is that they carried out a genocide against jews, slavs and gypsies who are all white people.
The worst thing about the Commies is that they carried genocides against a much bigger bag of ethnics but by numbers most of the victims were asian.
If you think the nazis are bad for killing white people but the commies are okay for killing asian people then you just might be a racist because clearly you only care about white people and not asians.
While a bit of an over-simplification, there is truth in what you are saying. In the West, no one talks about the Japanese slaughter/rape of Nan-king, or the entire kamerh Rouge attrocities, because they didn't involve white people. We are even trying to white wash our own history to say the Native American's benefitted from our culture's clashing. Our society/ethnicity has a terrible past that we eagerly run away from.
You can not incite violence against another person and commiting perjury is also prohibited, they are considered crimes in fact.
But that is just words. Yes the ruling party or the ones that control the courts can do it, but if the oppossition gets targeted in the same way, it just gets ignored. And that is true for every country from China and Russia to US or UK.
You're wrong, at least about the UK (from personal experience) and the US (from indirect experience). The concept of freedom of speech is not perfectly applied even in countries that have in enshrined in their laws/constitution but in the vast majority of western democracies the basic principle is equally applied regardless of which side of the political spectrum the attack is targeted at.
Like I said earlier, I sincerely hope at some point in the near future you are able to explore some of these concepts in a more in-depth way and perhaps come to an appreciation of some different worldviews than the ones you've been exposed to.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think we can reference the Reece from FLG debacle here now. when he put forward a Knight he painted with a "Death's head" symbol. A rather strong resemblence to the Death's Head symbol used by the Nazis. He immediately engaged in exactly the same defense that so many here are making today.
1. Calling all accusers soft, whiney, alt-left babies.
2. Calling the whole thing a made up conspiracy
3. Asking where is the problem? It's just a skull.
4. Again attacking his accusers.
5. Deleting all records of his knight and saying he never painted it and refusing to talk about it again.
One of the leaders of the biggest Wargamming conventions in the US was called out as supporting the alt-right fascist movement, and he instantly attacks everyone, refuses to admit there is a problem, and then deletes all records of the event in the first place. But yeah, 40k doesn't have a problem. Nothing to see here.
I have no idea who Reece is, and know nothing about this event; but how did we (you) jump from painting a skull and crossbones (a relatively common symbol historically) on a model to supporting fascists?
Well thanks for providing some evidence for your claim, I guess.
But less thanks for accusing me of justifying support for fascism by simply asking a question.
I agree that it does look a lot like a totenkopf, and I probably wouldn't have painted that on a model. However, it does also looks like examples of non-totenkopf skull and crossbones seen elsewhere than on the SS.
As far as I can tell from googling it, Reece claimed that the resemblance to the totenkopf was unintentional, and unless you've got some other evidence that he's actually a secret fascist, I still don't see how you've come to the conclusion that he's supporting fascists? (and therefore presumably should have some action taken against him?)
Even if it was literally a totenkopf, and Reece selected that symbol very deliberately, I still don't see how you can claim to know that he supports fascism/fascists based solely on that single piece of evidence?
FWIW, Popper's own resolution to his 'paradox of tolerance' is that a tolerant society should tolerate intolerance until there is literally no other choice but violence to resist a takeover. He argues that for a society to be tolerant, it is necessary for them to engage intolerance solely through argument and public opinion for as long as possible.
Having read The Open Society And Its Enemies, I find it very odd how often Popper's critique of Plato's benevolent despotism (that unlimited tolerance leads to intolerance winning) is cited, but his actual in-text resolution (tolerate intolerance as long as possible) is left out, to imply that his conclusion is that intolerance should not be tolerated at all.
So... I don't know if you really want to be bringing up the paradox of tolerance here, because referencing Popper to argue that hateful speech should be met with action is like citing Marx to argue that the free market should be deregulated. He was pretty firmly on the 'just debate them in the Marketplace Of Ideas' side of this issue.
In any case, saying that speech is tantamount to action is pretty far out there; I don't see how that can be reconciled with the idea of free speech at all, so from the outset that's a pretty authoritarian way of looking at things. Maybe we're just getting too in-the-weeds about ideals- I don't think open racists, fascists, or other forms of bigots should be tolerated in gaming groups, and I don't think maintaining standards for acceptable conduct constitutes a slippery slope.
Lord Damocles wrote: I have no idea who Reece is, and know nothing about this event; but how did we (you) jump from painting a skull and crossbones (a relatively common symbol historically) on a model to supporting fascists?
I haven't seen the model in question, but the totenkopf is a specific type of skull-and-crossbones that one really can not replicate unknowingly. If someone has an actual death's-head on their model, it's almost guaranteed that they know exactly what they were doing. Same way if someone draws a straight-armed right-facing swastika canted 45 degrees, you know for a fact that they aren't innocently replicating a Buddhist symbol of luck; they've chosen the specific variant that represents hate.
Edit: Oh yeah, that's a totenkopf for sure. The appearance of the skull angled to the side is an atypical presentation and a dead giveaway. In situations like this I'm inclined to give benefit of the doubt if the person seems to recognize what they've done- if they're cagey about it or fall back on 'it's just a skull', that's suspicious.
That is because in the west, that didn't get to expiriance the goodness of living in a soviet state, for some ununderstandable reasons soviets are not considers to be worse then nazis. Even with a higher head count, and bigger economic and social impact.
It is pretty obvious, the West allied with Stalin of all people against the Nazis, that is how bad the Nazis were. Churchill literally said “If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons”. Churchill, being the British Imperialist he was, hated the Soviets more than any other British, but he hated the Nazis even more. You don't get to be more evil, more hated, than the Nazis as far as the Western worldview is concerned.
Also, while many people got to experience the goodness of living in the Nazi state, not many of said people survived it. The Nazis put Industrialized in Genocide after all.
I don't think you have the right to demand a company ideologically cleanses itself to suit your beliefs.
So you're a free speech purist that doesn't draw the line at people saying that they're for genocide or murder or whatever, but you draw it at people telling companies to ideologically cleanse themselves to suit their beliefs?
Do you not see that as a fairly outwardly silly position to hold? Surely I can use my free speech to tell a company to do whatever it wants, and they have the freedom to do whatever they want to their property. After all, people have the freedom to tell companies to do a lot of much sillier things, or else I would have gotten a lot of people sent to jail for telling the companies I've worked for to give away their property to them for free or else they'll give us bad reviews on social media. That's like...speech robbery. Do you believe in removing that right as well, You Authoritarian You?
I don't really know how you've come to that conclusion regarding my opinion... You can hold the opinion that companies should cleanse themselves and their customers, but it's a silly one. Maybe you're confused, my response was personal rather than to do with rights in law
Probably because this was a discussion about rights in law, and you said that people "don't have a right to demand something".
People have a right to demand whatever they choose to demand. Companies have a right to do whatever they want with what is their property. James Q Workshop, the one man responsible for all of warhammer who lives in my closet and dislikes me personally, could tomorrow decide that the extreme radial liberals have held him hostage for long enough, and from this point forward all space marine players must submit their miniatures to mandatory transgender catgirlification before they will be admitted to play at any warhammer 40,000 tournament, in an instant destroying the final free society in the world and fulfilling the ultimate goal of the antifa thoughtcrime police.
Because all warhammer is his property. Your warhammer, my warhammer, everyone's hammers even remotely related to or used for war is the property of Mr. James Workshop, inventor of hammers AND war, because we live in a glorious perfect capitalist society and that's how intellectual property freedom liberty works.
Not Online!!! wrote:again you assume that everyone has the same social contract. Considering how many philosophical schools there are alone in regards to the social contracts.
That said a good meassure indeed is the point were some people start espousing views detrimental to the status of other citizens.
Sorry, just so we're clear - the social contract is Article 1 of the UDHR: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
That is the simple core concept. Are you saying that it is acceptable that it is okay to not follow this contract?
Tiberias wrote:See I generally totally agree with you, but free speech really is a difficult topic. You say the line is drawn the moment someone implies that people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control. Ok, on the surface I absolutely agree with that, but what falls under "implying"? In my opinion the devil really lies within the details here and that is I think (correct me if I'm wrong!) is what some people were objecting to your point. Is painting a skull that resembles a totenkopf used by the nazis enough that someone crosses that line and automatically implies that this person thinks some people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control? Maybe, and if they do they should be called out for it, but you need to first engage them and consider the context.
Absolutely on board with context - and that context can also come from the response to being called out.
So, for example, someone accused of doing something racist can respond in several ways - one of those being to apologise, reflect on their miscommunication, elaborate their intent, and take on board the context that they should have been aware of. Another response could be to double down and blame "the loony left" for their own actions.
As I'm sure you can see, one of these is not like the other.
I'm not suggesting immediate "cancelling", is what I'm saying. But if someone's response to being called out for questionable actions is to suddenly go on the aggressive and not even consider their own errors, you can be damn sure my opinion of them will plummet.
Player wearing star of Rhodesia badge on jacket
Players using racist language in GW store, but playing it off as jokes
Same but homophobic or transphobic language
Models and units painted with clear Nazi or 3rd Reich iconography
Models and units painted/modelled to look like KKK members
Players getting upset/bothered because my guard/custodians had black and brown skin
Players actively making attacks against my female characters because they said "women don't belong on the battlefield"
Players that called my Tallarn Guard, Sand N-words.
40k is full of fascists and idiot children. But no, I do not think the hobby is racist or fascist. I do think it's got a rallying cry/dog whistle towards those people though.
I also think GW has done a LOT this year to stop that sort of stuff. This really helped me see it in a better light though:
Warhammer is for everyone, except people we don't like.
Not all genocides get equal air time though. Rwanda? Armenia? Cambodia? Korea? Even the ongoing genocides in Communist China against the Falun Gong and Uighars are memory holed... If they were white that would be a different story perhaps.
Tiberias wrote:I am not sure to be honest about the speech is an action thing, but the one thing that is very important to me to point out is that in basically every country on earth, there are limits to free speech, even in the US (as far as I'm aware). You can not incite violence against another person and commiting perjury is also prohibited, they are considered crimes in fact.
This might seem obvious, but my point is that it seems to me that your conversation about this topic with other uses boils down to where to draw the line of free speech. I do not have an answer to that question, I only know that a society has to think carefully about where to draw the line.
If I misread the conversation, or misrepresented a point then I apologize and feel free to correct me.
No, you're absolutely right, that's what I'm talking about.
Some people here seem to believe that all speech, including hatespeech, is justified under "free speech". I think that's utter horsegak.
If someone's speech (which is an action) expresses that someone's life is less valuable because of causes out of their control, they themselves are violating the social contract that all people are to be treated equally and with dignity. If they can't speak without violating that contract, then why does the freedom of speech contract apply to them?
As far as I'm concerned, the line is drawn the moment you start implying people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control. And, because fascism is rooted in the very concept of some people being "lesser", fascism is incompatible with free speech.
In the US hate speech doesn't exist, the logical conclusion is to keep expanding it from things that are obviously hateful to everything that people like you decide has to be destroyed. It is a nebulous and subjective thing used as a political weapon.
There is just speech and non speech, that's the line. What you are saying is that you want to use the force of government read threat of death, to suppress the rights it only exists to protect, all in order to push your own politics.
Player wearing star of Rhodesia badge on jacket
Players using racist language in GW store, but playing it off as jokes
Same but homophobic or transphobic language
Models and units painted with clear Nazi or 3rd Reich iconography
Models and units painted/modelled to look like KKK members
Players getting upset/bothered because my guard/custodians had black and brown skin
Players actively making attacks against my female characters because they said "women don't belong on the battlefield"
Players that called my Tallarn Guard, Sand N-words.
40k is full of fascists and idiot children. But no, I do not think the hobby is racist or fascist. I do think it's got a rallying cry/dog whistle towards those people though.
I also think GW has done a LOT this year to stop that sort of stuff. This really helped me see it in a better light though:
Warhammer is for everyone, except people we don't like.
No. The statement literally calls out people who are prejudiced, hateful or abusive. A more correct summary of the statement is Warhammer is for everyone, except the prejudiced, the hateful or the abusive. Seems fine to me.
Between believing something is a human right and achieving it for a general population are miles in governance.
reality is at most shaped by the sphere of ideas. and morals / ethics are primarily in the ideal sphere.
So let me get this straight for simple people like me. You think that people should think and act, as if equality was a thing, and not just a thing, but a good thing, when we have no example of a place where it works on any level of sociaty starting with the family and ending with the international community? that is reglious type of belief, worse we can't really check if any of the existing religions is right, but very much can check if inequality works in favour of certain people, groups or whole countries or civilisations. Russia and China were and will never be known for their equality, yet they are powerful countries a lot more powerful then most countries that claim to want equality.
It is pretty obvious, the West allied with Stalin of all people against the Nazis, that is how bad the Nazis were. Churchill linearly said “If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons”. You don't get to be more evil, more hated, than the Nazis as far as the Western worldview is concerned.
That is intersting because my people remember Stalin attacking us alongside the nazis,mass murdering polish citizents and sending poles to siberian death camps as early as winter 1939. And we kind of a had a military pakt with the british and the french to help us in case of an attack from the west or the east. And Stalin didn't become an ally of the west way until 1941.
Not Online!!! wrote:again you assume that everyone has the same social contract. Considering how many philosophical schools there are alone in regards to the social contracts.
That said a good meassure indeed is the point were some people start espousing views detrimental to the status of other citizens.
Sorry, just so we're clear - the social contract is Article 1 of the UDHR: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
That is the simple core concept. Are you saying that it is acceptable that it is okay to not follow this contract?
Considering that the UDHR is / was created by an institution that also can be considered to have been dominated with a massive eurocentrism/ western powergroup with a questionable trackrecord itself, yes, i indeed could criticise it for the inherent bias found within it.
Point in case to the "could" .
Like i said you can dislike it all you want but the universalism is not really applicable and there are valid reasons to question it.
catbarf wrote:FWIW, Popper's own resolution to his 'paradox of tolerance' is that a tolerant society should tolerate intolerance until there is literally no other choice but violence to resist a takeover. He argues that for a society to be tolerant, it is necessary for them to engage intolerance solely through argument and public opinion for as long as possible.
Having read The Open Society And Its Enemies, I find it very odd how often Popper's critique of Plato's benevolent despotism (that unlimited tolerance leads to intolerance winning) is cited, but his actual in-text resolution (tolerate intolerance as long as possible) is left out, to imply that his conclusion is that intolerance should not be tolerated at all.
So... I don't know if you really want to be bringing up the paradox of tolerance here, because referencing Popper to argue that hateful speech should be met with action is like citing Marx to argue that the free market should be deregulated. He was pretty firmly on the 'just debate them in the Marketplace Of Ideas' side of this issue.
In any case, saying that speech is tantamount to action is pretty far out there; I don't see how that can be reconciled with the idea of free speech at all, so from the outset that's a pretty authoritarian way of looking at things. Maybe we're just getting too in-the-weeds about ideals- I don't think open racists, fascists, or other forms of bigots should be tolerated in gaming groups, and I don't think maintaining standards for acceptable conduct constitutes a slippery slope.
I feel like I've mentioned it enough, but I have been very clear on "engage in discussion first". That doesn't mean I support the right to hatespeech, however.
The totenkopf is a specific type of skull-and-crossbones that one really can not replicate unknowingly. If someone has an actual death's-head on their model, it's almost guaranteed that they know exactly what they were doing. Same way if someone draws a straight-armed right-facing swastika canted 45 degrees, you know for a fact that they aren't innocently replicating a Buddhist symbol of luck; they've chosen the specific variant that represents hate.
Edit: Oh yeah, that's a totenkopf for sure. The appearance of the skull angled to the side is an atypical presentation and a dead giveaway. In situations like this I'm inclined to give benefit of the doubt if the person seems to recognize what they've done- if they're cagey about it or fall back on 'it's just a skull', that's suspicious.
Yup, agreed. There are definitely cues on if that's really as innocent as someone claims, and it's usually their reaction to it that prompts be biggest understanding about that person's intentions.
Is Reece a fascist? Doubtful. Were they acting under entirely benevolent intentions and had no idea what they were doing? Also very doubtful.
Not Online!!! wrote:again you assume that everyone has the same social contract. Considering how many philosophical schools there are alone in regards to the social contracts.
That said a good meassure indeed is the point were some people start espousing views detrimental to the status of other citizens.
Sorry, just so we're clear - the social contract is Article 1 of the UDHR: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
That is the simple core concept. Are you saying that it is acceptable that it is okay to not follow this contract?
Tiberias wrote:See I generally totally agree with you, but free speech really is a difficult topic. You say the line is drawn the moment someone implies that people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control. Ok, on the surface I absolutely agree with that, but what falls under "implying"? In my opinion the devil really lies within the details here and that is I think (correct me if I'm wrong!) is what some people were objecting to your point. Is painting a skull that resembles a totenkopf used by the nazis enough that someone crosses that line and automatically implies that this person thinks some people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control? Maybe, and if they do they should be called out for it, but you need to first engage them and consider the context.
Absolutely on board with context - and that context can also come from the response to being called out.
So, for example, someone accused of doing something racist can respond in several ways - one of those being to apologise, reflect on their miscommunication, elaborate their intent, and take on board the context that they should have been aware of. Another response could be to double down and blame "the loony left" for their own actions.
As I'm sure you can see, one of these is not like the other.
I'm not suggesting immediate "cancelling", is what I'm saying. But if someone's response to being called out for questionable actions is to suddenly go on the aggressive and not even consider their own errors, you can be damn sure my opinion of them will plummet.
Then I think there was just a misunderstanding or miscommunication with some other users you were conversing with and we can leave the topic behin with this. We have established that playing 40k does not encourage hatred. There are problematic parts of the fandom. If you encounter them, engage them positively, try to educate them about 40k actually being a warning against fascism and if they dont want to listen or don't care avoid them or remove them from your game group if you feel uncomfortable around them. If someone has potentially problematic iconography on his/her models, ask for context first, then either clear up misunderstandings or call them out on their bs.
I really think that clears up most points of contention.
Slipspace wrote: No. The statement literally calls out people who are prejudiced, hateful or abusive. A more correct summary of the statement is Warhammer is for everyone, except the prejudiced, the hateful or the abusive. Seems fine to me.
And who gets to define "the prejudiced, the hateful or the abusive"? You? Me? The UN?
When you add qualifiers to blanket statements, it ceases to be a blanket statement. I have no issue with GW deciding they don't want boogymen of the week to play their game, I have issue with them dancing around the issue.
Something I've found is that people take being called a racist as a slur against their character instead of a warning to examine their bad habits and correct them. I wish I wasn't racist, and I'm trying to work on it, but as Eric Lang suggests in the link in my signature, we're really soaking in it.
Nurglitch wrote: Something I've found is that people take being called a racist as a slur against their character instead of a warning to examine their bad habits and correct them. I wish I wasn't racist, and I'm trying to work on it, but as Eric Lang suggests in the link in my signature, we're really soaking in it.
The problem is that the term "racist" is only ever used as a slur, not a descriptor. I've been called racist for eating curry before, because I am not ethnically Indian. Turns out, being called something you're not tends to make people angry. To paraphrase Syndrome, "When everything is racist, nothing will be."
soviet13 wrote: How many people with swastikas all over their GW army mean it as a reference to Polynesian buddhists rather than a reference to nazis for shock value and/or support for fascism? We all know the answer to this one.
having a nazi army doesn't mean you support nazism/fascism. It means that either you play a historical wargame or you simply enjoy the aesthetic aspect of the army.
Not all genocides get equal air time though. Rwanda? Armenia? Cambodia? Korea? Even the ongoing genocides in Communist China against the Falun Gong and Uighars are memory holed... If they were white that would be a different story perhaps.
Oh, agreed, they don't all the get the attention they deserve, especially the Uighur genocide.
Or, perchance, are you implying that people opposed to fascism are pro-Soviet communist regime?
That's also possible.
Well, I think that's a ridiculous implication.
Irkjoe wrote:In the US hate speech doesn't exist
Well, there's your problem.
What you are saying is that you want to use the force of government read threat of death, to suppress the rights it only exists to protect, all in order to push your own politics.
Just to clarify, if someone says they're going to shoot the President, or perhaps fly a plane into something - you believe that the government shouldn't do anything until the gun is fired, or controls taken?
After all, it's "just speech".
Karol wrote:So let me get this straight for simple people like me. You think that people should think and act, as if equality was a thing, and not just a thing, but a good thing, when we have no example of a place where it works on any level of sociaty starting with the family and ending with the international community?
Uh, yes. Consider reading the UDHR, first article. I actually reference it earlier.
Russia and China were and will never be known for their equality, yet they are powerful countries a lot more powerful then most countries that claim to want equality.
Yeah, and I'm pretty happy calling the Russian and Chinese governments out for this human rights violations.
Just because other people get away with doing it isn't an excuse for others to ignore it. Otherwise, what, you think all crime should be legal because some people aren't punished for it?
Not Online!!! wrote:again you assume that everyone has the same social contract. Considering how many philosophical schools there are alone in regards to the social contracts.
That said a good meassure indeed is the point were some people start espousing views detrimental to the status of other citizens.
Sorry, just so we're clear - the social contract is Article 1 of the UDHR: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
That is the simple core concept. Are you saying that it is acceptable that it is okay to not follow this contract?
Considering that the UDHR is / was created by an institution that also can be considered to have been dominated with a massive eurocentrism/ western powergroup with a questionable trackrecord itself, yes, i indeed could criticise it for the inherent bias found within it.
Point in case to the "could" .
Like i said you can dislike it all you want but the universalism is not really applicable and there are valid reasons to question it.
I'm not asking you to question the entire UDHR though. I'm asking you if you question that first article. I'm asking if ANYONE questions that first article - that all humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Is that a questionable belief? Can you justify a group that does not believe in that?
That is intersting because my people remember Stalin attacking us alongside the nazis,mass murdering polish citizents and sending poles to siberian death camps as early as winter 1939. And we kind of a had a military pakt with the british and the french to help us in case of an attack from the west or the east. And Stalin didn't become an ally of the west way until 1941.
And Hitler then immediately invaded France, Belgium, Sweden, Netherlands, [insert minor Western Europe countries], and attempted to invade the UK while attacking its colonial possessions on Africa. The Nazis aren't exactly famous for only attacking Poland. Not to say the Soviets weren't murdering donkey-caves, but the Nazis were bigger on the whole murdering thing. The discovering of the extermination camps at the end of the war only further cemented the Nazis' reputation as literally worse than the Devil in the Western mindset.
FWIW, Popper's own resolution to his 'paradox of tolerance' is that a tolerant society should tolerate intolerance until there is literally no other choice but violence to resist a takeover. He argues that for a society to be tolerant, it is necessary for them to engage intolerance solely through argument and public opinion for as long as possible.
Having read The Open Society And Its Enemies, I find it very odd how often Popper's critique of Plato's benevolent despotism (that unlimited tolerance leads to intolerance winning) is cited, but his actual in-text resolution (tolerate intolerance as long as possible) is left out, to imply that his conclusion is that intolerance should not be tolerated at all.
So... I don't know if you really want to be bringing up the paradox of tolerance here, because referencing Popper to argue that hateful speech should be met with action is like citing Marx to argue that the free market should be deregulated. He was pretty firmly on the 'just debate them in the Marketplace Of Ideas' side of this issue.
In any case, saying that speech is tantamount to action is pretty far out there; I don't see how that can be reconciled with the idea of free speech at all, so from the outset that's a pretty authoritarian way of looking at things. Maybe we're just getting too in-the-weeds about ideals- I don't think open racists, fascists, or other forms of bigots should be tolerated in gaming groups, and I don't think maintaining standards for acceptable conduct constitutes a slippery slope.
[
Thank you for pointing this out. It grates me endlessly that poppers tolerance paradox is rolled out in these situations, 1: incorrectly, which you address here, and 2: as if it's some objective standard that we must adhere to, and not a philosophical enquiry that still requires deeper probing.
I didn't want to go down the rabbit hole earlier but I'm glad you did haha.
Nurglitch wrote: Something I've found is that people take being called a racist as a slur against their character instead of a warning to examine their bad habits and correct them. I wish I wasn't racist, and I'm trying to work on it, but as Eric Lang suggests in the link in my signature, we're really soaking in it.
The problem is that the term "racist" is only ever used as a slur, not a descriptor. I've been called racist for eating curry before, because I am not ethnically Indian. Turns out, being called something you're not tends to make people angry. To paraphrase Syndrome, "When everything is racist, nothing will be."
That's kind of my point, there's plenty of racists out there strongly believing that they're not racist because they're interpreting it as just another slur. And they're going to keep being racists because they don't think they are.
40k should have remained satirical instead of playing it straight for 27 years.
As a side note I've been racking my brain to come up with a way to create visual cues that my marines and other imperial forces without a shadow of doubt represent something very bad. It's hard to do sadly.
Nurglitch wrote: Something I've found is that people take being called a racist as a slur against their character instead of a warning to examine their bad habits and correct them. I wish I wasn't racist, and I'm trying to work on it, but as Eric Lang suggests in the link in my signature, we're really soaking in it.
The problem is that the term "racist" is only ever used as a slur, not a descriptor. I've been called racist for eating curry before, because I am not ethnically Indian. Turns out, being called something you're not tends to make people angry. To paraphrase Syndrome, "When everything is racist, nothing will be."
This.
Spend even 5 minutes on social media.
The second someone can’t win an argument with a valid point they resort to slurs.
The easiest one for them to find generally comes down to colour.
Calling someone racist for a racist comment is justified. (And racism is not acceptable for any reason)
Calling someone a racist with no basis other than you can’t think of anything else is again, not acceptable.
It comes down to the individual and how they act.
Someone will naturally get offended if they are branded as something that they are not.
That is a natural and expected response.
I could randomly select someone on this forum and call them a thief and a liar.
Their response would be defensive and likely, angry/upset.
If I have no basis for this, it makes it no better than a slur.
Moral of the story; some people have a tendency to be dicks and say whatever they need to for them to feel they have won.
Between believing something is a human right and achieving it for a general population are miles in governance. reality is at most shaped by the sphere of ideas. and morals / ethics are primarily in the ideal sphere.
So let me get this straight for simple people like me. You think that people should think and act, as if equality was a thing, and not just a thing, but a good thing, when we have no example of a place where it works on any level of sociaty starting with the family and ending with the international community? that is reglious type of belief, worse we can't really check if any of the existing religions is right, but very much can check if inequality works in favour of certain people, groups or whole countries or civilisations. Russia and China were and will never be known for their equality, yet they are powerful countries a lot more powerful then most countries that claim to want equality.
Equality before the law, yes.
As for china and russia beeing powerfull. See there's a thing called ideology, sometimes beliefs. Such beliefs f.e. equality before the law, non corrupt officals, separation of power, democracy, are just words in an internet forum about toy soldiers. And sometimes they start a fire, in many ways the words and associated interpretations of them and the values attributed to them become power, a soft power if you want. Soft power is to use a more applicable term, legitimacy. A state, or any type of institutionalised goverment for the most part relies upon soft power, because it is cheap, contrary to states which seem to lack legitimacy or the attribution of it torwards it's institutions. These states have to use hard power, or repression to maintain their positon.
Both russia and China are immensly powerfull indeed, but their power is brittle, based upon a harsh hand of repression in the case of russia , and a legitimising promise of increased wealth for china. You see however, they have to act even more excessive torwards their citizens when some things get awry or when they feel concern, like putin recently. Or china attempting to silence ciriticism torwards their new mao 2.0, especially party internal. Because Ideas are in many ways also like a plague, and both countries have had experiences with some of these ideas. And in the case of china , have an actual democratic paragon as one of it's modern founding fathers in Dr. Sun.
Democracies otoh, don't require these forcefull methods, governments fall if they lose legitimacy far easier and therefore the trust of the voters. It's why corruption is for governments in democratic states an issue that can topple it and then get's replaced, whilest these autocratic nations can seemingly stomach higher rates, in truth they still errode legimitacy and all they do is have a higher pressure for when the pressure cooker inevitably explodes. Remember though corruption beeing one exemple of something that can errode away legitimacy, there are other sources f.e. Unpopular wars, targeting minorities, etc.
ik0ner wrote: As a side note I've been racking my brain to come up with a way to create visual cues that my marines and other imperial forces without a shadow of doubt represent something very bad. It's hard to do sadly.
You could use a variation of the symbology used by very bad real life regimes.
Wait no, that would make you a supporter of those regimes.
catbarf wrote:FWIW, Popper's own resolution to his 'paradox of tolerance' is that a tolerant society should tolerate intolerance until there is literally no other choice but violence to resist a takeover. He argues that for a society to be tolerant, it is necessary for them to engage intolerance solely through argument and public opinion for as long as possible.
Having read The Open Society And Its Enemies, I find it very odd how often Popper's critique of Plato's benevolent despotism (that unlimited tolerance leads to intolerance winning) is cited, but his actual in-text resolution (tolerate intolerance as long as possible) is left out, to imply that his conclusion is that intolerance should not be tolerated at all.
So... I don't know if you really want to be bringing up the paradox of tolerance here, because referencing Popper to argue that hateful speech should be met with action is like citing Marx to argue that the free market should be deregulated. He was pretty firmly on the 'just debate them in the Marketplace Of Ideas' side of this issue.
In any case, saying that speech is tantamount to action is pretty far out there; I don't see how that can be reconciled with the idea of free speech at all, so from the outset that's a pretty authoritarian way of looking at things. Maybe we're just getting too in-the-weeds about ideals- I don't think open racists, fascists, or other forms of bigots should be tolerated in gaming groups, and I don't think maintaining standards for acceptable conduct constitutes a slippery slope.
I feel like I've mentioned it enough, but I have been very clear on "engage in discussion first". That doesn't mean I support the right to hatespeech, however.
The totenkopf is a specific type of skull-and-crossbones that one really can not replicate unknowingly. If someone has an actual death's-head on their model, it's almost guaranteed that they know exactly what they were doing. Same way if someone draws a straight-armed right-facing swastika canted 45 degrees, you know for a fact that they aren't innocently replicating a Buddhist symbol of luck; they've chosen the specific variant that represents hate.
Edit: Oh yeah, that's a totenkopf for sure. The appearance of the skull angled to the side is an atypical presentation and a dead giveaway. In situations like this I'm inclined to give benefit of the doubt if the person seems to recognize what they've done- if they're cagey about it or fall back on 'it's just a skull', that's suspicious.
Yup, agreed. There are definitely cues on if that's really as innocent as someone claims, and it's usually their reaction to it that prompts be biggest understanding about that person's intentions.
Is Reece a fascist? Doubtful. Were they acting under entirely benevolent intentions and had no idea what they were doing? Also very doubtful.
For what it's worth, the totenkopf is for sure a little more obscure than other classic symbols we recognize, and it isn't like there's an infinite number of ways to paint a skull + crossbones when you're having it looking to the side. It's a bad coincidence but it definitely doesn't seem intentional and for sure not one to get up in arms about.
Nurglitch wrote: Something I've found is that people take being called a racist as a slur against their character instead of a warning to examine their bad habits and correct them. I wish I wasn't racist, and I'm trying to work on it, but as Eric Lang suggests in the link in my signature, we're really soaking in it.
The problem is that the term "racist" is only ever used as a slur, not a descriptor. I've been called racist for eating curry before, because I am not ethnically Indian. Turns out, being called something you're not tends to make people angry. To paraphrase Syndrome, "When everything is racist, nothing will be."
100% agreed with that. People are quick to jump to insults of all kind when presented with differing opinions. And lets not forget that everyone assumes that everyone else on the internet is a white male apparently. Even if <insert ethnicity here> people say something that goes against the grain, they'll be labeled racists. (A black person criticizing BLM for example)
but that ain't true either, not even in western countries. You guys have racial quotas, people from my country can't just waltz in to US just because they want a better paid job, but someone comming from Somalia or Mexico can. You have different rates for same crimes for men and women, different rates of incarcaration for different races. Some of your schools discriminate against asian folks, because if everything was equal, they would be dominating the whole school systems. there are no 5 foot 4 asian dudes playing basketball or football. Heck healthcare is a human right, well at least here, and in the US it comes with the suffix of it is a human right, if you pay for it. etc
What part of equal treatment implies equality of outcome? Men and women commit crimes at different rates because they're different... men are more violent inherently. As for race, it has nothing to do with race, it's about poor inner city culture and the destruction of the family unit by the state creating people that commit crime regardless of race.
A short athlete is not entitled to the same amount of success as a tall one just because they can't control their height, his reality is he's too short to compete.
The quotas and school stuff are genuinely bad, I never voted for it and am against it entirely.
I disagree that health care is a right, no doctors owe me their work just because I exist.
@Sgt_Smudge
Threats and calling for violence are not speech.
ik0ner wrote: As a side note I've been racking my brain to come up with a way to create visual cues that my marines and other imperial forces without a shadow of doubt represent something very bad. It's hard to do sadly.
You could use a variation of the symbology used by very bad real life regimes.
Wait no, that would make you a supporter of those regimes.
I think I've missed something from earlier in the thread?
Not all genocides get equal air time though. Rwanda? Armenia? Cambodia? Korea? Even the ongoing genocides in Communist China against the Falun Gong and Uighars are memory holed... If they were white that would be a different story perhaps.
Oh, agreed, they don't all the get the attention they deserve, especially the Uighur genocide.
Or, perchance, are you implying that people opposed to fascism are pro-Soviet communist regime?
That's also possible.
Well, I think that's a ridiculous implication.
Then it's probably true. Fascism is dead, the last serious fascist was Fransisco Franco of Spain who was out of power by 1975. Communism however is a live threat to the whole world because China, DPRK and Cuba still exist. Consequently anyone whipping up hysteria about brown shirts under the beds is probably on team Communism and playing psyops for them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm for fascists getting lost from my community. I'm for an inclusive community where not one member holds racist, sexist, bigoted views.
Is that a problem?
You're still telling me what you're against rather than what you're for.
No, I'm pretty sure I made my "what I'm for" very clear - an inclusive community. Fascists violate that principle.
Then you DON'T want an inclusive community, you want an exclusive one - that excludes fascists, sexists and bigots. Inclusive isn't necessarily good and exclusion isn't necessarily bad.
Right. So why, when fascists oppose free speech and liberty (you know, the freedom and liberty of people they deem "lesser" than them) do you let them? It's not a violation of free speech to silence someone who threatens the freedoms of others, because they've already demonstrated their lack of respect for free speech and liberty.
If you defend my right to defend myself, then why do you oppose my wish to stand against fascism?
Straw man. I don't oppose your wish to oppose fascism, what I'm not doing is SUPPORTING you because I don't KNOW what YOU consider to be fascism.
Screaming 'I hate fascists' is NOT carte blanche to target people. Prove to me someone/thing is fascist if you want my support. Heck, tell me you think someone/thing is fascist and I'll investigate for myself.
You're acting like the racists and fascists haven't broken the social contract you describe. They have. So what do you do about people who *do* break that social contract?
Again, first you have to prove to me racism or fascism. You don't get to shout it and I take it as gospel. Second, the first thing I do is vote (democracy) for people who support my ideals/goals. So that they enact laws and hire police and lawyers to enforce the laws. If they're not doing these things, I protest. Lawfully. Only in the extreme breakdown of the system do I consider violence. Note we may differ on what we consider the extreme breakdown of the system, and what reformation of the system is ideal.
Just because someone else is opposed to fascism doesn't mean they're like them though
True. But by the same token, someone saying they're opposed to fascism doesn't mean they have GOOD INTENT either. That's why I want more information.
For example, the BLM movement in the USA. I agree, that black lives do indeed matter and that police shoot far too many black people by being trigger happy idiots. The BLM organization, however, is expressly Marxist. So I can support the BLM movement, but cannot support the BLM organization. Similarly with Antifa. Yes, fascism is bad. That doesn't make Antifa, or any anti-fascist, necessarily good.
For what it's worth, the totenkopf is for sure a little more obscure than other classic symbols we recognize, and it isn't like there's an infinite number of ways to paint a skull + crossbones when you're having it looking to the side. It's a bad coincidence but it definitely doesn't seem intentional and for sure not one to get up in arms about.
Is Reece a fascist? Doubtful. Were they acting under entirely benevolent intentions and had no idea what they were doing? Also very doubtful.
well he could have been looking for a skull a bones motif. found the WWI version, which had very little detail, checked the dragoon version . there is really nice picture of Victoria Louisa wearing what is called the Totten kopff uniform. But that one is kind of a big and cartoonish, and then he finds the SA, and later SS insignia used by Waffen SS Totenkopff, and it has this nice details , including the cracked skull and look 3d and nice, so he coppies that what is more esthetic. Kind of hard to diss nazi uniforms on an esthetical level, when they were designed by Hugo Boss.
Equality before the law, yes.
But it doesn't work like that. Anywhere. As I said women get lower sentances for same crimes. Same with important or pretty looking people. If me and a model stood in front of a youth court, he is getting social work hours and I get 3 years in the juvy. Heck all it takes to come from the wrong district, or the judge to be member of a group or minority or group that doesn't like your people. Good Luck getting a "equal" treatment as a gypsy in a eastern european country or as a catholic in northern irland.
Rihgu wrote: Yea, calling Sgt_Smudge a fascist is the exact sort of defensive tactic we see from actual fascists, and is not a good look.
Way to miss the actual point.
Do I seriously think Sgt_Smudge is a fascist? No.
However, he has openly supported authoritarian policies to remove certain groups from society, and has demonstrated a severe ignorance of history in assuming that the authoritarian measures he calls for today will never be used against him or anyone he cares about.
My point wasn't that he is actually a fascist. My point is that in the society he seems to want to create, all it would take is one accusation (whether true or false) to bring ruin (or worse) to a person's life.
He won't be able to find employment outside of gulags (you wouldn't employ a fascist, would you?).
He wouldn't be allowed to join any clubs or hobbies (as we've already established in this thread).
He wouldn't even be allowed to defend himself from the accusation, because it would involve giving a fascist a platform not just for speech but also for action, which would be reprehensible.
And all this is assuming that the accusation is not taken a step further. I don't want to blow your mind here, but a lot of the people arrested by thought-police in authoritarian societies aren't actually guilty. But while Sgt_Smudge may not be a fascist, you'd be surprised what people will confess to when you lock them in a cell, beat them, burn them, pull out their nails one by one etc.
Perhaps, like him, you think that this will never happen. In which case, feel free to continue pursuing increasingly authoritarian governments. Just don't be surprised if you wake up one day and realise that the utopia you've helped bring about looks an awful lot like the fascist regime you were trying to stop.
. Similarly with Antifa. Yes, fascism is bad. That doesn't make Antifa, or any anti-fascist, necessarily good.
Antifa achivments in my country go as follows, at least after 1989. Setting fire to two churchs, destruction of private and public property durning riots every 1st of may, beating up a priest durning mass, storming a church durning mass durning corona to put it all on social media. I really hope that other countries antifas are different, and not for the worse.
Heck healthcare is a human right, well at least here, and in the US it comes with the suffix of it is a human right, if you pay for it.
This old gem. A great deal of ignorance implicit in that statement. I grew up poor as dirt (in the U.S.), and couldn't pay for much of anything (especially after my parents got divorced and it was my single mom talking care of 2 kids and a deadbeat dad who didn't pay support/alimony), and yet I never wanted for things like healthcare. Even though we couldn't pay for it. But yeah - it's definitely not something you can get in the U.S. unless you're rich.
Doesn't seem like you live in the U.S.? Maybe do some research before you repeat something you heard on tv lol
But it doesn't work like that. Anywhere. As I said women get lower sentances for same crimes. Same with important or pretty looking people. If me and a model stood in front of a youth court, he is getting social work hours and I get 3 years in the juvy. Heck all it takes to come from the wrong district, or the judge to be member of a group or minority or group that doesn't like your people. Good Luck getting a "equal" treatment as a gypsy in a eastern european country or as a catholic in northern irland.
Now i don't think it is entirely as bleak as you bring on about. And like i explained with the legitimacy exemple, pull that too often , especially when a population beliefs that "SHOULD" be the the standards and watch sooner rather then later the fireworks.
Perhaps, like him, you think that this will never happen. In which case, feel free to continue pursuing increasingly authoritarian governments. Just don't be surprised if you wake up one day and realise that the utopia you've helped bring about looks an awful lot like the fascist regime you were trying to stop.
But friend he wants to do it for the good of everyone, while the fasists what and who ever they maybe are doing it to be evil. It is litteraly the same thing soviets said to us durning the 1920 war.
These issues come down more to authoritarianism Vs liberalism rather than left Vs right. I find nowadays that a lot of 'left' leaning be kind types are very authoritarian when it comes to the practical application of their ideas. Their opinions must be forced on others, or those others must be punished or have things removed if they refuse the ideology... Liberals would oppose this fundamentally. Everyone thinks their ideas are the ideas everyone else should hold, the difference is whether one believes they should be forced on others or not.
Nurglitch wrote: Something I've found is that people take being called a racist as a slur against their character instead of a warning to examine their bad habits and correct them. I wish I wasn't racist, and I'm trying to work on it, but as Eric Lang suggests in the link in my signature, we're really soaking in it.
The problem is that the term "racist" is only ever used as a slur, not a descriptor. I've been called racist for eating curry before, because I am not ethnically Indian. Turns out, being called something you're not tends to make people angry. To paraphrase Syndrome, "When everything is racist, nothing will be."
100% agreed with that. People are quick to jump to insults of all kind when presented with differing opinions. And lets not forget that everyone assumes that everyone else on the internet is a white male apparently. Even if <insert ethnicity here> people say something that goes against the grain, they'll be labeled racists. (A black person criticizing BLM for example)
It's fascinating that Eric Lang is Black, and in that twitter thread I linked to he points out how, even as a Black man, he has been racists and how it's something he needs to continually work on. I'm racist, and it's not something I'm particularly proud of, but it's something I'm working on. But the point stands, when you point out that someone is racist they take it as an insult and will perform any mental gymnastics to avoid engaging with the notion that they are in fact racist and that it is something they need to work on. As a former coach I shouldn't be too surprised, as getting athletes interested in their own performance to take advice was a long, tedious business; that anyone should take a stranger's advice is wildly out of the realm of expectation. As Principal Skinner from the Simpsons says: "Am I so out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong."
If anyone labels me a racist I should say "Yes, I am racist, and I'm working on it. How can I rephase/rethink/repeat what I had said without being racist about it? And maybe I shouldn't have said or done that thing in the first place, or perhaps there was something else I could have done.
Maybe if you think of it less like being labelled an 'donkey-cave' and more like being labelled 'out-of-shape' as something that you are even if you're pretty sure you are not. It's not a great analogy, but I'm trying to point at the notion of us all, me included, having lots of room to improve when it comes to racism.
Now i don't think it is entirely as bleak as you bring on about. And like i explained with the legitimacy exemple, pull that too often , especially when a population beliefs that "SHOULD" be the the standards and watch sooner rather then later the fireworks.
I am too stupid to work with potential or possibilities. I can barely grasp the world as it is for real. All I know that working on an assumption that is only theoretical, and isn't really used in practics, is a dangerous thing to do. Not that people don't try it. I have an older step sister that discovered at 18 that night on train stations there in deed are people that rob others. And my mom had arguments about it with her for over 10 years, practicaly as far as I can remember, that going to the station at night is not a good idea. She had to go to the psychologist for half a year after that, and unlike me she was normal all her life.
Ah and as someone who isn't smart or good looking, I would not mind a world where potentialy people all equal. I just don't think that will ever happen.
Canada's history classes seem to be overfocused on its own history (if i have to learn one more time about French+Algonquiens VS english+Iroquois.....).
We didn't learn about the various divisions of the nazi army, it was mostly just "nazi invaded poland, nazi's had concentration camps, nazi's got rekt in the end, hitler suicide in bunker. OH, and did you know that Canada used to be Upper-Canada and Lower-Canada???
I had heard of the deaths hand (outside school), just never say their symbol before (or i might have seen it but not realised it was anything more than a crossbone).
Heck healthcare is a human right, well at least here, and in the US it comes with the suffix of it is a human right, if you pay for it.
This old gem. A great deal of ignorance implicit in that statement. I grew up poor as dirt (in the U.S.), and couldn't pay for much of anything (especially after my parents got divorced and it was my single mom talking care of 2 kids and a deadbeat dad who didn't pay support/alimony), and yet I never wanted for things like healthcare. Even though we couldn't pay for it. But yeah - it's definitely not something you can get in the U.S. unless you're rich.
Doesn't seem like you live in the U.S.? Maybe do some research before you repeat something you heard on tv lol
pretty sure they meant that outside the US its a human right but that in the US its only a human right if you can afford it.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: These issues come down more to authoritarianism Vs liberalism rather than left Vs right. I find nowadays that a lot of 'left' leaning be kind types are very authoritarian when it comes to the practical application of their ideas. Their opinions must be forced on others, or those others must be punished or have things removed if they refuse the ideology... Liberals would oppose this fundamentally. Everyone thinks their ideas are the ideas everyone else should hold, the difference is whether one believes they should be forced on others or not.
Depends on which Left bubbles you are frequenting. The so called Dirtbag Left is very authoritarian, most Far-Left groups are.
Liberals meanwhile are still Left, but tend be more on the liberalism spectrum as their name implies.
It's fascinating that Eric Lang is Black, and in that twitter thread I linked to he points out how, even as a Black man, he has been racists and how it's something he needs to continually work on. I'm racist, and it's not something I'm particularly proud of, but it's something I'm working on. But the point stands, when you point out that someone is racist they take it as an insult and will perform any mental gymnastics to avoid engaging with the notion that they are in fact racist and that it is something they need to work on. As a former coach I shouldn't be too surprised, as getting athletes interested in their own performance to take advice was a long, tedious business; that anyone should take a stranger's advice is wildly out of the realm of expectation. As Principal Skinner from the Simpsons says: "Am I so out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong."
If anyone labels me a racist I should say "Yes, I am racist, and I'm working on it. How can I rephase/rethink/repeat what I had said without being racist about it? And maybe I shouldn't have said or done that thing in the first place, or perhaps there was something else I could have done.
Maybe if you think of it less like being labelled an 'donkey-cave' and more like being labelled 'out-of-shape' as something that you are even if you're pretty sure you are not. It's not a great analogy, but I'm trying to point at the notion of us all, me included, having lots of room to improve when it comes to racism.
Me saying that i disapprove of the looting and burning that were conducted during the BLM protests (not accusing BLM protesters of doing these things) was enough to be labeled a racist. I fail to see how this is a racist statement.
Only thing we learn about Canada in our lessens is the persecution of polish people by Candian Ukrainians since XIXth century, and split of the greek ortodox church after the visit of galician greek ortodox bishop in 1912 and an attempt on his life. And the history of terrorist movment in Quebec and how they were supported by Cubans and the Soviets.
But sitll I don't think I laughed, because you saw it for the first time, because schools. Nazis in practicaly every movie run around with those on their caps, specialy considering that Toten Kopff maned the death camps,and I don't think there are many western people that didn't see Shindlers List. I just don't know why I laughed. very strange. Well time to sleep.
I think liberals occupy the political centre, both up/down and left/right. My political compass test puts me almost dead centre, very slightly lib right. I feel like the term 'liberal' has taken on a negative connotation these days, often used by people on the right to insult those more left leaning, but classical liberalism as it emerged from the enlightenment is still the best and most balanced political system in my opinion, so I'm doing my bit to reclaim that term.
Karol wrote: Only thing we learn about Canada in our lessens is the persecution of polish people by Candian Ukrainians since XIXth century, and split of the greek ortodox church after the visit of galician greek ortodox bishop in 1912 and an attempt on his life. And the history of terrorist movment in Quebec and how they were supported by Cubans and the Soviets.
But sitll I don't think I laughed, because you saw it for the first time, because schools. Nazis in practicaly every movie run around with those on their caps, specialy considering that Toten Kopff maned the death camps,and I don't think there are many western people that didn't see Shindlers List. I just don't know why I laughed. very strange. Well time to sleep.
Most nazi movies i've seen have had all the symbology altered to not show the original ones for some reason. And i probably saw it before, just didnt associate it with nazism/didnt focus on that particular part of the attire.
Me saying that i disapprove of the looting and burning that were conducted during the BLM protests (not accusing BLM protesters of doing these things) was enough to be labeled a racist. I fail to see how this is a racist statement.
That's because capital BLM use the same clever equivocation as antifa that I mentioned earlier. You can't criticize them for being a political pressure group under the flimsy guise of a civil rights movement without that fallacy being rolled out .
queen_annes_revenge wrote: These issues come down more to authoritarianism Vs liberalism rather than left Vs right. I find nowadays that a lot of 'left' leaning be kind types are very authoritarian when it comes to the practical application of their ideas. Their opinions must be forced on others, or those others must be punished or have things removed if they refuse the ideology... Liberals would oppose this fundamentally. Everyone thinks their ideas are the ideas everyone else should hold, the difference is whether one believes they should be forced on others or not.
Depends on which Left bubbles you are frequenting. The so called Dirtbag Left is very authoritarian, most Far-Left groups are.
Liberals meanwhile are still Left, but tend be more on the liberalism spectrum as their name implies.
Since when are liberals on the left?
What? i am dealing with a constantly confused party system that has to constantly deal with angry people telling the government NO or YES and DO XYZ.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I think liberals occupy the political centre, both up/down and left/right. My political compass test puts me almost dead centre, very slightly lib right. I feel like the term 'liberal' has taken on a negative connotation these days, often used by people on the right to insult those more left leaning, but classical liberalism as it emerged from the enlightenment is still the best and most balanced political system in my opinion, so I'm doing my bit to reclaim that term.
Left/right are terms that are mostly used to speak of the far-right/far-left nowadays. Most people are moderate and these terms don't apply to them.
Rihgu wrote: Yea, calling Sgt_Smudge a fascist is the exact sort of defensive tactic we see from actual fascists, and is not a good look.
snipped
I'm not getting that vibe from anything Sgt_Smudge has posted at all. Fascists out themselves. No thought policing required. Nobody has advocated for a single accusation being all that's required to label somebody a fascist.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: That's because capital BLM use the same clever equivocation as antifa that I mentioned earlier. You can't criticize them for being a political pressure group under the flimsy guise of a civil rights movement without that fallacy being rolled out .
They are a political pressure group because any civil rights movement is a political pressure group. The whole point of civil rights movements after all is political change, and for that you need political pressure.
Not Online!!! wrote: Since when are liberals on the left?
What? i am dealing with a constantly confused party system that has to constantly deal with angry people telling the government NO or YES and DO XYZ.
Since the current political spectrum was redefined by social issues. No one campaigns on communism anymore after all.
Irkjoe wrote:@Sgt_Smudge Threats and calling for violence are not speech.
But why not? I'm just speaking them.
Or have you figured out what I'm saying?
SolarCross wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Oh, agreed, they don't all the get the attention they deserve, especially the Uighur genocide.
But they are all bad.
So you will boycott goods from China in protest?
Implying I don't already avoid external shipping and buying used goods? Also, not all Chinese are the *Chinese Government*, in the same way I oppose many Western governments, but not their people.
Then it's probably true. Fascism is dead, the last serious fascist was Fransisco Franco of Spain who was out of power by 1975. Communism however is a live threat to the whole world because China, DPRK and Cuba still exist. Consequently anyone whipping up hysteria about brown shirts under the beds is probably on team Communism and playing psyops for them.
Alternatively, you're more than happy to ignore neo-Nazis and rising fascist actions and opinions. That's also possible, I'm sure.
John Prins wrote:Then you DON'T want an inclusive community, you want an exclusive one - that excludes fascists, sexists and bigots. Inclusive isn't necessarily good and exclusion isn't necessarily bad.
An inclusive community requires everyone in it to be inclusive. If fascists, sexists and bigots can't be inclusive (which, by very definition, they can't be), then they don't belong in an inclusive community, and therefore, it's not exclusion. They simply *cannot* align with an inclusive community, so are incapable of being excluded from it.
All I'm doing is enforcing those rules.
Right. So why, when fascists oppose free speech and liberty (you know, the freedom and liberty of people they deem "lesser" than them) do you let them? It's not a violation of free speech to silence someone who threatens the freedoms of others, because they've already demonstrated their lack of respect for free speech and liberty.
If you defend my right to defend myself, then why do you oppose my wish to stand against fascism?
Straw man. I don't oppose your wish to oppose fascism, what I'm not doing is SUPPORTING you because I don't KNOW what YOU consider to be fascism.
In which case, how can you support what anyone says, as you can't be 100% sure if what someone else considers to be what you believe it is.
Free speech, for example - you can't say you're pro-free speech, because which version of free speech are you talking about?
Screaming 'I hate fascists' is NOT carte blanche to target people. Prove to me someone/thing is fascist if you want my support. Heck, tell me you think someone/thing is fascist and I'll investigate for myself.
It's not carte blanche to target people. It's carte blanche to target fascists.
Also, just to make this clear - when I am talking about fascism, I am actually talking about ethnocentric fascism. Actual racists and suchlike. Now I've made that clear, why don't you support that?
You're acting like the racists and fascists haven't broken the social contract you describe. They have. So what do you do about people who *do* break that social contract?
Again, first you have to prove to me racism or fascism.
Conveient little out for you, isn't it?
"Well, he just used the N-bomb several times and threatened to put him in slavery, but I don't think that's proof, really."
What makes you think I can trust your definition of it any more so than you can trust mine?
Only in the extreme breakdown of the system do I consider violence.
Agreed. And a racist claiming free speech is a breakdown of that system, as hate speech is not free speech.
Just because someone else is opposed to fascism doesn't mean they're like them though
True. But by the same token, someone saying they're opposed to fascism doesn't mean they have GOOD INTENT either. That's why I want more information.
Opposing fascism is good, irrespective. That's non-negotiable. It's like saying "well, just because you're opposed to racists or genocide doesn't make you good" - no, it absolutely doesn't mean that everything they do is good, but that doesn't change that opposing those things is good.
I'm not asking you to agree with everything anti-fascists do. I'm simply asking that you, you know, vocally oppose fascists.
The BLM organization, however, is expressly Marxist.
Well, since you mention Marxism, and not communism, I'd then have to ask what's wrong with Marxism specifically.
vipoid wrote:
Rihgu wrote: Yea, calling Sgt_Smudge a fascist is the exact sort of defensive tactic we see from actual fascists, and is not a good look.
Way to miss the actual point.
Do I seriously think Sgt_Smudge is a fascist? No.
So why did you claim it? Almost like you're as guilty as all those "fake fascist" claims so many rave about.
However, he has openly supported authoritarian policies to remove certain groups from society, and has demonstrated a severe ignorance of history in assuming that the authoritarian measures he calls for today will never be used against him or anyone he cares about.
By that same vein, you could call the actions of the legal system "authoritarian" for removing criminals from society.
If stopping racists and fascists is authoritarian, sure - but I think you ought to re-evaluate what's "authoritarian" and what's just "standing up for human rights", because you don't seem to know the difference.
My point wasn't that he is actually a fascist. My point is that in the society he seems to want to create, all it would take is one accusation (whether true or false) to bring ruin (or worse) to a person's life.
That's not what I said at all. I have very frequently expressed a need to verify all accusations with context and with more than just a witch trial that you describe.
Same as sex offenders - do you think that we shouldn't punish sex offenders because "all it takes is one accusation"?
He won't be able to find employment outside of gulags (you wouldn't employ a fascist, would you?).
As a proven fascist? Absolutely.
He wouldn't be allowed to join any clubs or hobbies (as we've already established in this thread).
As a proven fascist? Absolutely.
He wouldn't even be allowed to defend himself from the accusation, because it would involve giving a fascist a platform not just for speech but also for action, which would be reprehensible.
That's not how this works. First, you need to provide evidence. You seem to believe that I don't require evidence - which is simply a misrepresentation of everything I've said.
Perhaps you ought to read what I've said.
And all this is assuming that the accusation is not taken a step further. I don't want to blow your mind here, but a lot of the people arrested by thought-police in authoritarian societies aren't actually guilty. But while Sgt_Smudge may not be a fascist, you'd be surprised what people will confess to when you lock them in a cell, beat them, burn them, pull out their nails one by one etc.
So, violating human rights?
You're advocating for some very strange things that I've never mentioned. Sounds like you have torture on the mind. U ok, hun?
Perhaps, like him, you think that this will never happen. In which case, feel free to continue pursuing increasingly authoritarian governments. Just don't be surprised if you wake up one day and realise that the utopia you've helped bring about looks an awful lot like the fascist regime you were trying to stop.
Again, you're conflating any kind of rule-keeping and calls for a social contract as "authoritarian".
Did you call your parents "authoritarian" when they told you to go to bed?
Boy howdy, it sure is a trip to see just how much "thing affects my tiny bubble" impacts the severity with which people engage with a given topic.
Almost 2 months ago I was working at a poll booth where nearly every hour on the hour we had a threat called in, an instance of drive-by verbal intimidation, or a report that people were getting as close as they could and unloading guns into the pavement all in an effort to stop the people who weren't the color they liked from having themselves a democratic election.
Regardless of the outcome of that election: They did succeed. We only managed to stay open for roughly 2/3 of the time we were supposed to that day because legally the police stationed at the polling station had to investigate the threats.
We have elected members to our national congress who openly espouse the belief that a child molesting satanist cult that tortures and eats the children they kidnap has taken full control of the government, and the only solution is for every member of the opposing political party to be rounded up and put to death in an event they call the Night of the R-I mean the Storm, they call it the Storm this time.
But no, obviously "The Twitterati" is the authoritarian threat to freedom du jour, because it's something that might affect you in the form of *checks notes* GW not making miniature plastic women hot enough. Really makes you feel like you're living in a simulation and nothing is real.
Nurglitch wrote: It's fascinating that Eric Lang is Black, and in that twitter thread I linked to he points out how, even as a Black man, he has been racists and how it's something he needs to continually work on. I'm racist, and it's not something I'm particularly proud of, but it's something I'm working on. But the point stands, when you point out that someone is racist they take it as an insult and will perform any mental gymnastics to avoid engaging with the notion that they are in fact racist and that it is something they need to work on. As a former coach I shouldn't be too surprised, as getting athletes interested in their own performance to take advice was a long, tedious business; that anyone should take a stranger's advice is wildly out of the realm of expectation. As Principal Skinner from the Simpsons says: "Am I so out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong."
If anyone labels me a racist I should say "Yes, I am racist, and I'm working on it. How can I rephase/rethink/repeat what I had said without being racist about it? And maybe I shouldn't have said or done that thing in the first place, or perhaps there was something else I could have done.
Maybe if you think of it less like being labelled an 'donkey-cave' and more like being labelled 'out-of-shape' as something that you are even if you're pretty sure you are not. It's not a great analogy, but I'm trying to point at the notion of us all, me included, having lots of room to improve when it comes to racism.
The problem is that the term 'racist' can mean anything from implicit bias (as in your example) to actively seeking genocide of nonwhites. And in casual usage, tends to imply the latter much more than the former.
You can't expect people to react positively to a label that, in its most common usage, means that they are a Very Bad Person. There's a case to be made for normalizing the word so that people can understand it and unpack their implicit bias- but that's never, ever going to happen so long as it is commonly used to refer to people with the most extreme beliefs, and used as a brand to ostracize people with those beliefs.
Or put another way- if GW says they don't want racists, sexists, or fascists in their community, are you going to:
-Declare that you are, in fact, a racist, and accept that you don't belong in the 40K community, or
-Argue that a degree of racism should be tolerated?
I doubt this thread will change any minds, but FWIW:
Unless you think GW are advocating people embrace a totalitarian theocracy where everyone labours for glory of the Corpse Emperor (North Korea maybe?), I just find discussion of what "40k really means" to be in the eye of the beholder. It means nothing. It has no connections to anyone living or dead.
If reading 40k lore makes you have bad thoughts then don't do it. I find the concept a bit strange but people are different.
If you don't want to do what bad far right/alt right/edgelords on reddit are doing, that's fine. Unfortunately though it means that gaming's out, sports out and you better believe movies, books and television is out. I'm not really sure what you are left with, but there's always internet forums.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:Liberals would oppose this fundamentally. Everyone thinks their ideas are the ideas everyone else should hold, the difference is whether one believes they should be forced on others or not.
Exactly - and that leads to acceptance of things like racism and sexism, which themselves are illiberal.
I wouldn't have a problem with the concept of extreme liberalism, except that it would rely on those same liberals to call out those bigots who infringe on the liberties of others.
Fun fact! Those same liberals often turn around and say "well, that's their freedom of hatespeech."
So, I'm sure you can see why I roll my eyes when someone calls themselves a liberal without calling out fascists and racists.
Karol wrote:I would not mind a world where potentialy people all equal. I just don't think that will ever happen.
The first step isn't in dismissing it as impossible. The first step is working towards making it happen.
Rihgu wrote:Nobody has advocated for a single accusation being all that's required to label somebody a fascist.
Exactly, but that doesn't fit the "THOUGHT POLICE OMG DON'T PUNISH THE POOR RACISTS FOR SAYING RACIST THINGS" rhetoric.
I'm all for punishing the right people. I've said that frequently. All y'all don't see to think we *should* be doing that, because hate-speech = free speech?
Nurglitch wrote: Something I've found is that people take being called a racist as a slur against their character instead of a warning to examine their bad habits and correct them. I wish I wasn't racist, and I'm trying to work on it, but as Eric Lang suggests in the link in my signature, we're really soaking in it.
The problem is that the term "racist" is only ever used as a slur, not a descriptor. I've been called racist for eating curry before, because I am not ethnically Indian. Turns out, being called something you're not tends to make people angry. To paraphrase Syndrome, "When everything is racist, nothing will be."
100% agreed with that. People are quick to jump to insults of all kind when presented with differing opinions. And lets not forget that everyone assumes that everyone else on the internet is a white male apparently. Even if <insert ethnicity here> people say something that goes against the grain, they'll be labeled racists. (A black person criticizing BLM for example)
People embracing policies that actively hurt themselves is nothing new, though. I mean, I know for a fact we had homosexuals vote for Trump, and he's been actively against gay marriage, considered a human right, and wants it federally repealed and handled at state level. Ya know, human rights should be decided by the state after all. Oh, and people forgetting that universal Healthcare makes things cheaper for the average Joe in the long run but they won't do it because they're whipped by McConnell.
Oh and don't forget the classic conservative tactic of finding that small of the populace in the African American community and then saying "they're the good ones!", quite simply forgetting that, if most people think a situation is bad, the situation is bad.
the_scotsman wrote:Boy howdy, it sure is a trip to see just how much "thing affects my tiny bubble" impacts the severity with which people engage with a given topic.
Almost 2 months ago I was working at a poll booth where nearly every hour on the hour we had a threat called in, an instance of drive-by verbal intimidation, or a report that people were getting as close as they could and unloading guns into the pavement all in an effort to stop the people who weren't the color they liked from having themselves a democratic election.
Regardless of the outcome of that election: They did succeed. We only managed to stay open for roughly 2/3 of the time we were supposed to that day because legally the police stationed at the polling station had to investigate the threats.
We have elected members to our national congress who openly espouse the belief that a child molesting satanist cult that tortures and eats the children they kidnap has taken full control of the government, and the only solution is for every member of the opposing political party to be rounded up and put to death in an event they call the Night of the R-I mean the Storm, they call it the Storm this time.
But no, obviously "The Twitterati" is the authoritarian threat to freedom du jour, because it's something that might affect you in the form of *checks notes* GW not making miniature plastic women hot enough. Really makes you feel like you're living in a simulation and nothing is real.
Canada's history classes seem to be overfocused on its own history (if i have to learn one more time about French+Algonquiens VS english+Iroquois.....).
We didn't learn about the various divisions of the nazi army, it was mostly just "nazi invaded poland, nazi's had concentration camps, nazi's got rekt in the end, hitler suicide in bunker. OH, and did you know that Canada used to be Upper-Canada and Lower-Canada???
I had heard of the deaths hand (outside school), just never say their symbol before (or i might have seen it but not realised it was anything more than a crossbone).
If you've never seen the "are we the baddies" sketch, you owe it to yourself to correct that!
Don't even get me started on the dumb asses that believe QAnon STILL, even though our dear leader could save the election for himself if he used the Trump card (heh) of the wealth of info he would supposedly have.
Bosskelot wrote: Hoping that people will "get the joke" is not a guaranteed thing, as I said in my post back on page 5-6 using 4chan and incels as an example. This doesn't mean 40k will turn people into fascists*, but it will certainly appeal to them unless GW and the Community makes it clearer that the IoM is not a thing to emulate or admire. And the issue there is that GW themselves are basically doing nothing to address that whatsoever.
People earlier in this thread talk about how "obvious" it is that the Imperium is terrible and the bad guy, but I will bet good money you're all making these assumptions based on lore and background you read 20+ years ago. Try opening up and reading the 9th Edition Rulebook sometime and having a read of the lore. Sure, you can say it's written from an Imperial perspective, but there is no hint of irony or critique in it what presents, there are no smoking guns of "everything you just read is a load of bs". It is all presented as immutable and objective fact. The Imperium is justified in everything it does because of Apocalyptic Race War, Xenos are all to be exterminated and never to be trusted because of ancestral misdeeds and their inferiority to the superior Human form, the only way to avoid eternal damnation is to submit to worship of the Emperor completely and utterly and ask no questions. Nowhere is this more apparent in the lore for Marines, in both rulebook and Codex, where the negative aspects of them are completely downplayed and the usages of words like "Hero" and "Heroics" and "Defenders of Humanity" have increased tenfold. And this isn't even getting into the meta discussion surrounding Marines, where marketing on streams and Warcom will absolutely not address their problematic elements whatsoever. And of course it won't, because it's marketing, but it's basically the first thing people see and what they remember most. Hell, just look at how they market anything else; they're not afraid to address the scary or evil aspects of those things. Necrons are rightly treated as being evil and scary and that's a big selling point!
This thread is actually a perfect example of some not getting the joke or irony and the bringing up of Guilliman earlier encapsulates it perfectly. I won't repeat what others said about Guilliman's return and his portrayal being the most obvious example of turning the IoM into the good guys and how problematic that is, but in this very thread we've had people claiming that the tragedy of 40kIoM is how it fell from the lofty idealistic heights of the 30k Imperium. If you honestly believe that then congratulations you didn't "get the joke" and you didn't pick up on the "obvious" message. The Imperium of 10,000 years ago is just as vile and monstrous with the only differences being a slightly more efficient bureaucracy for 30k and the religious ideals of 40k being worn openly, rather than hidden behind some flimsy bs about the Imperial Truth (which in its entire structure is intensely religious and apes religious iconography and methods constantly anyway). If your skin didn't fething crawl in Horus Rising when Sindermann is giving a religious sermon that basically consists of saying "we're right because we're right and that means we are justified in anything we do" then yeah, I dunno. Or how about later in those early books with the Interex and how they live peacefully and in harmony with Aliens and how all of our PoV characters are disgusted and repulsed by it.
*Although in recent years I've seen an uptick of younger kids playing games in GW stores loudly and gleefully exclaiming how they're going to "purge the filthy xenos!" Which does make me a little uncomfortable I'm not gonna lie.
The thread has really taken a turn away from 40k in the last couple pages, so in an effort to bring it back:
This is exactly what I was saying, and IMO is the valid complaint about the way the IP is being treated recently. People saying "of course the Imperium is evil!" are people who have been around long enough that the IoM was terrible in their formative 40k years, or people who read every single 40k novel published. But that's not representative of how the IP is portrayed now, in the main IP materials. If you think otherwise, do what Boss suggests, and read through the 9th edition rulebook, and then the 9th edition SM codex. You may be surprised at how much the bad bits of the IoM and particularly Space Marines have been watered down or cut out completely from the main material someone coming into the game is going to see.
Again, ironically, this seems to be from an attempt to market the IP to a wider audience. But the result is that it is not nearly as obvious as it used to be that IoM is not who you should be cheering for, and in particular, Space Marines absolutely *are* being presented as the heroes in the setting in a way they didn't used to be. That doesn't make GW fascists, but it is not a coincidence that 40k attracted an alt-right following when it did, and not back in the 90s, when the IP was so clearly anti-fascist in orientation.
To put this another way: is anyone here actually OPPOSED to GW going back to its roots on this and making it more clear that the IoM really is a terrible organization and that Space Marines are not the heroes of the setting?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: [
Or, perchance, are you implying that people opposed to fascism are pro-Soviet communist regime?
That's also possible.
Well, I think that's a ridiculous implication.
Then it's probably true. Fascism is dead, the last serious fascist was Fransisco Franco of Spain who was out of power by 1975. Communism however is a live threat to the whole world because China, DPRK and Cuba still exist. Consequently anyone whipping up hysteria about brown shirts under the beds is probably on team Communism and playing psyops for them.
Alternatively, you're more than happy to ignore neo-Nazis and rising fascist actions and opinions.
That's also possible, I'm sure.
They exist I assume although funnily enough it doesn't actually appear anywhere except when a communist is pointing it out. If there were no communists would it even exist? Or maybe only communists are able to recognise fascism? I heard about an antifa drone who physically assaulted a person for having ginger hair. Apparently ginger hair is fascism but only the commies can see it. Curious.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Don't even get me started on the dumb asses that believe QAnon STILL, even though our dear leader could save the election for himself if he used the Trump card (heh) of the wealth of info he would supposedly have.
He still must fight Hillary Clinton in personal combat for the info that was stolen in that raid in Germany. And also a Chinese invasion was involved somehow? I admit I kinda lost the thread of the QAnon cult when the Far-Right forum I lurked banned politics because way too many calls for civil war.
Irkjoe wrote:@Sgt_Smudge
Threats and calling for violence are not speech.
But why not? I'm just speaking them.
Or have you figured out what I'm saying?
Are you conflating the concept of speech with the act of actually speaking? Threatening someone is not free expression just because you are physically speaking, it's an advocacy for violence. You are playing a weasely semantic game.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Don't even get me started on the dumb asses that believe QAnon STILL, even though our dear leader could save the election for himself if he used the Trump card (heh) of the wealth of info he would supposedly have.
He still must fight Hillary Clinton in personal combat for the info that was stolen in that raid in Germany. And also a Chinese invasion was involved somehow? I admit I kinda lost the thread of the QAnon cult when the Far-Right forum I lurked banned politics because way too many calls for civil war.
Ugh, just another example of that radical liberal communist censorship. What has the world come to where I can't even go into a privately owned forum and call for civil war in full view of god and their advertisers?
Irkjoe wrote:@Sgt_Smudge
Threats and calling for violence are not speech.
But why not? I'm just speaking them.
Or have you figured out what I'm saying?
Are you conflating the concept of speech with the act of actually speaking? Threatening someone is not free expression just because you are physically speaking, it's an advocacy for violence. You are playing a weasely semantic game.
But when someone is being racist, and advocating for racial hatred, or sexual violence, or ethnic violence, or homophobic violence, or transphobic violence - you know, hatespeech - that's free expression?
Which one is it? Is hatespeech allowed or not? Because you've been claiming that hatespeech is "just speech", so it's fine.
Irkjoe wrote:@Sgt_Smudge
Threats and calling for violence are not speech.
But why not? I'm just speaking them.
Or have you figured out what I'm saying?
Are you conflating the concept of speech with the act of actually speaking? Threatening someone is not free expression just because you are physically speaking, it's an advocacy for violence. You are playing a weasely semantic game.
OK, so threatening someone is not free expression, it's an advocacy for violence. 100% on board.
So here's a question: How euphemistic can I get before it's no longer an advocacy for violence?
What if, instead of saying "I'm going to get some of my buddies together, come over to your place, and kill your family" I just said that I was a kilfamilist. And then in a separate place, I wrote up The Constitution of Kilfamilism, where I state that kilfamilism is a doctrine advocating for getting some of my buddies together, coming over to your place, and killing your family?
A is a threat of violence, not free expression, and I define A = B, then declare myself an adherent of B, is there any difference between that and me declaring A?
Maybe, I could conceivably create a fantasy universe where bad things similar to A occur, and just start wearing all the iconography and admiring all the characters present in that fantasy universe.
Caradman Sturnn wrote: Alright, this has gone completely off rails, far too many posts that have no remote connection to Warhammer 40k or the Imperium.
Mods, either clean up the thread or just lock it already.
Just use the yellow triangle of friendship.
But yeah, This has gone from OP having an issue with douches and the way the 40k universe is portrayed to a political thread by proxy.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:Liberals would oppose this fundamentally. Everyone thinks their ideas are the ideas everyone else should hold, the difference is whether one believes they should be forced on others or not.
Exactly - and that leads to acceptance of things like racism and sexism, which themselves are illiberal.
I wouldn't have a problem with the concept of extreme liberalism, except that it would rely on those same liberals to call out those bigots who infringe on the liberties of others.
Fun fact! Those same liberals often turn around and say "well, that's their freedom of hatespeech."
So, I'm sure you can see why I roll my eyes when someone calls themselves a liberal without calling out fascists and racists.
No it doesn't. That's just a straw man used to attack liberalism. Liberals are only concerned with the sanctity and violation of natural rights. People can have whatever views they wish, so long as any actions they take don't violate the rights of others. Liberals would oppose those viewpoints, but it doesn't mean people who hold them need to be punished, as you seem to think.
Also, you assert 'hate speech' as if it has some objectively true definition, which it doesn't, which is the main reason people who oppose hate speech laws have the problem with them. It all comes down to who's defining it.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: People can have whatever views they wish, so long as any actions they take don't violate the rights of others. Liberals would oppose those viewpoints, but it doesn't mean people who hold them need to be punished, as you seem to think.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Liberals are only concerned with the sanctity and violation of natural rights.
Cool - like a racist's violation of someone's right to equality, freedom, and dignity?
People can have whatever views they wish, so long as any actions they take don't violate the rights of others.
Speech is an action though - or do you agree, as a liberal, that I could threaten to shoot a President, and not be charged until I actually fire the gun?
Liberals would oppose those viewpoints, but it doesn't mean people who hold them need to be punished, as you seem to think.
So, you oppose it, but won't do anything about it until it's too late, and ignoring the harmful effect of inciteful rhetoric?
Bosskelot wrote: Hoping that people will "get the joke" is not a guaranteed thing, as I said in my post back on page 5-6 using 4chan and incels as an example. This doesn't mean 40k will turn people into fascists*, but it will certainly appeal to them unless GW and the Community makes it clearer that the IoM is not a thing to emulate or admire. And the issue there is that GW themselves are basically doing nothing to address that whatsoever.
People earlier in this thread talk about how "obvious" it is that the Imperium is terrible and the bad guy, but I will bet good money you're all making these assumptions based on lore and background you read 20+ years ago. Try opening up and reading the 9th Edition Rulebook sometime and having a read of the lore. Sure, you can say it's written from an Imperial perspective, but there is no hint of irony or critique in it what presents, there are no smoking guns of "everything you just read is a load of bs". It is all presented as immutable and objective fact. The Imperium is justified in everything it does because of Apocalyptic Race War, Xenos are all to be exterminated and never to be trusted because of ancestral misdeeds and their inferiority to the superior Human form, the only way to avoid eternal damnation is to submit to worship of the Emperor completely and utterly and ask no questions. Nowhere is this more apparent in the lore for Marines, in both rulebook and Codex, where the negative aspects of them are completely downplayed and the usages of words like "Hero" and "Heroics" and "Defenders of Humanity" have increased tenfold. And this isn't even getting into the meta discussion surrounding Marines, where marketing on streams and Warcom will absolutely not address their problematic elements whatsoever. And of course it won't, because it's marketing, but it's basically the first thing people see and what they remember most. Hell, just look at how they market anything else; they're not afraid to address the scary or evil aspects of those things. Necrons are rightly treated as being evil and scary and that's a big selling point!
This thread is actually a perfect example of some not getting the joke or irony and the bringing up of Guilliman earlier encapsulates it perfectly. I won't repeat what others said about Guilliman's return and his portrayal being the most obvious example of turning the IoM into the good guys and how problematic that is, but in this very thread we've had people claiming that the tragedy of 40kIoM is how it fell from the lofty idealistic heights of the 30k Imperium. If you honestly believe that then congratulations you didn't "get the joke" and you didn't pick up on the "obvious" message. The Imperium of 10,000 years ago is just as vile and monstrous with the only differences being a slightly more efficient bureaucracy for 30k and the religious ideals of 40k being worn openly, rather than hidden behind some flimsy bs about the Imperial Truth (which in its entire structure is intensely religious and apes religious iconography and methods constantly anyway). If your skin didn't fething crawl in Horus Rising when Sindermann is giving a religious sermon that basically consists of saying "we're right because we're right and that means we are justified in anything we do" then yeah, I dunno. Or how about later in those early books with the Interex and how they live peacefully and in harmony with Aliens and how all of our PoV characters are disgusted and repulsed by it.
*Although in recent years I've seen an uptick of younger kids playing games in GW stores loudly and gleefully exclaiming how they're going to "purge the filthy xenos!" Which does make me a little uncomfortable I'm not gonna lie.
The thread has really taken a turn away from 40k in the last couple pages, so in an effort to bring it back:
This is exactly what I was saying, and IMO is the valid complaint about the way the IP is being treated recently. People saying "of course the Imperium is evil!" are people who have been around long enough that the IoM was terrible in their formative 40k years, or people who read every single 40k novel published. But that's not representative of how the IP is portrayed now, in the main IP materials. If you think otherwise, do what Boss suggests, and read through the 9th edition rulebook, and then the 9th edition SM codex. You may be surprised at how much the bad bits of the IoM and particularly Space Marines have been watered down or cut out completely from the main material someone coming into the game is going to see.
Again, ironically, this seems to be from an attempt to market the IP to a wider audience. But the result is that it is not nearly as obvious as it used to be that IoM is not who you should be cheering for, and in particular, Space Marines absolutely *are* being presented as the heroes in the setting in a way they didn't used to be. That doesn't make GW fascists, but it is not a coincidence that 40k attracted an alt-right following when it did, and not back in the 90s, when the IP was so clearly anti-fascist in orientation.
To put this another way: is anyone here actually OPPOSED to GW going back to its roots on this and making it more clear that the IoM really is a terrible organization and that Space Marines are not the heroes of the setting?
So, none in this thread exactly but I have seen opposition to that sort of thing in facebook groups. I can't say whether these people are fascists or not, because it could be a group of people who just really want some "heroic" aspect to the setting they can cling to because they like feeling heroic/supporting heroes and going back to a more obvious "these people are BAD" setting would take that away from them.
I will note that this is, I believe, technically a strawman by me because I haven't actually seen anybody say the above or anything like it (I think like 6 years ago on /tg/ there may have been some discourse like this, but I cannot confirm this with links).
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Also, you assert 'hate speech' as if it has some objectively true definition, which it doesn't, which is the main reason people who oppose hate speech laws have the problem with them. It all comes down to who's defining it.
How is this definition?
"any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor, and the use of hate speech in incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence".
pretty sure they meant that outside the US its a human right but that in the US its only a human right if you can afford it.
That's literally what they were saying yes. And my point is that this is patently false and spread by the media. I grew up poor as dirt (in the U.S.) and couldn't afford squat but somehow still had good healthcare. Please explain to me how this equals "it's only a right if you can afford it". It's one of the biggest myths there is about this country.
If someone cannot identify the difference between telling someone with abhorrent views that they're not welcome in a hobby space vs. persons said abhorrent views including the violence and murder of individuals because of genetics that are out of their control, then you can just ignore that person. They're either an ultra hand-wringing liberal so obsessed with the marketplace of ideas and who, back in the 60's, would have said MLK was too radical or they're actual fascists. Or at the very least fash-adjacent. Just block and move on. There is no equivalence between the two positions whatsoever. Especially as the person with horrible views can change them and improve and then be welcomed back in.
What Yukishiro said above about the recent changes being attempts to widen the appeal of 40k are interesting though because in my experience it's had the opposite effect.
Oh of course, 40k is more popular than ever, but its broader reach has also brought with a bigger negative reaction primarily because those negative viewpoints of the IoM have basically been removed. My partner is very supportive of my toy soldier hobby and is someone who likes a lot of sci-fi and fantasy, much of it of a darker nature. But she was pretty horrified reading a lot of the 8th and 9th ed stuff; not because the subject material was too grim (she's fine with that) but because the context of that material treated it as being a positive thing. Like I said; the rulebook and Codexes portray a lot of the information we're familiar with from 20+ years ago, but the negative aspects of those things are downplayed or outright removed. I keep saying it, but the Imperium is portrayed as being completely morally right and justified in its actions, the horror of what Space Marines are and represent has been replaced by them becoming Space Captain America's fighting for Humanity's FREEDOM and of course any flaws in the Imperium are solely because of a large byzantine bureaucracy, that needs a blonde-haired blue-eyed Strongman outsider to come in and drain the swamp and Make the Imperium Great Again.
I said earlier but the tabletop scene in my local and wider area is surprisingly diverse despite being historically a straight white man's hobby. But all of those different people are pointedly not playing 40k right now. We all know Marines sell well, but I'm curious how many people they actively drive away at the same time.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Also, you assert 'hate speech' as if it has some objectively true definition, which it doesn't, which is the main reason people who oppose hate speech laws have the problem with them. It all comes down to who's defining it.
How is this definition?
"any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor, and the use of hate speech in incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence".
By this definition all your posts in this thread are hate speech.
You are using speech to incite hostility toward fascists and racists (identity factors).
No it doesn't. That's just a straw man used to attack liberalism. Liberals are only concerned with the sanctity and violation of natural rights. People can have whatever views they wish, so long as any actions they take don't violate the rights of others. Liberals would oppose those viewpoints, but it doesn't mean people who hold them need to be punished, as you seem to think.
The main problem with this is that natural rights are obsolete as a concept. They are justified as "God-given" which is incompatible with the secular nature of Western governments. Also are to prone for interpretation.
I mean, would you say the right to healthcare, to homosexual marriage, to hormone treatment in the case of trans people, etc. is considered an extension of such natural rights? Even their application to women can be debated, as historically natural rights were afforded to men.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Liberals are only concerned with the sanctity and violation of natural rights.
Cool - like a racist's violation of someone's right to equality, freedom, and dignity?
People can have whatever views they wish, so long as any actions they take don't violate the rights of others.
Speech is an action though - or do you agree, as a liberal, that I could threaten to shoot a President, and not be charged until I actually fire the gun?
Liberals would oppose those viewpoints, but it doesn't mean people who hold them need to be punished, as you seem to think.
So, you oppose it, but won't do anything about it until it's too late, and ignoring the harmful effect of inciteful rhetoric?
So helpful. Gold star. A+ for effort.
No. Speech is not an action, unless specifically stated in the case of calls to action, fighting words, libel etc.
Your argument essentially boils down to the useful idiot argument which, although potentially having some stock in it, really doesn't bear out. And your alternative authoritarian, 'enlightened despotism' would likely just lead to the exact thing you want to avoid.
I just love seeing people like that get mad because some character they like gets 'ruined' or some new character comes out that makes them angry, because in my opinion they're the funniest people to see get red in the face about it.
