Karol wrote: okey, the thing is dudes like vikings, vampires, romans, knights etc. I have absolutly no idea what mass female buyers of GW would want. I have my doubts they would want vikings, but female or vampires, but female or knight but female. Because unlike SoB, that would be derivative.
It actually is that simple, Karol... Being shunted off into the miniature line for her is actually the thing female nerds do not like to see.
Karol wrote: ... how much more females does there have to be in w40k?
Balance, like ideal win rates, would be "about 50% across all factions". Just look at the screaming when somebody tilts over 70% in those terms!
nah that is not how it works. people are interested in different things. you are not going to get a 50/50 split in interior design. My aunts daughters all do ballet, guess how many performers are men vs women. There is no 50/50 split. w40k is a game about war. I don't know why, but stuff like that don't seem to be interesting to the female buyer. I also don't know one should change it, without making the setting less interesting to the already existing fan group.
I do wrestling at school, we are a mixed school, no asks for the gymnast division to be 1 per 1, same way with wrestling. One year of us is more then the entire female classes group.
It actually is that simple, Karol... Being shunted off into the miniature line for her is actually the thing female nerds do not like to see.
I am trying to draw parallels from my school life, and those don't always translate well. But I do know that if you tell a female athlet that maybe she should just lower the handlebars or lenghten the run up, they vocally against it. Even when guys from the older classes train with girls trainers, they don't want to have shorter bouts or certain moves not performed. I assume that if someone is already interested in something, something like a and this thing is just for women could sound of an insulting.
Karol wrote: Because there is probably some wierdo somewhere who has a specific font fetish.
I'm a Comic Sans fan myself.
yes, but how many and how do they work. There is no way in hell that pre robot necron were just humans with, something odd like a wierd skin colour or bone crest on top of their head.
A) Doesn't matter what genders Necrontyr society had, let people do what they want. B) Necrontyr were humanoids with intense and seemingly genetic super cancer.
they are made to be peak of super human warrior efficiency. it is not achivable with a woman. Same way a dude will never see as many shades of colours as a woman.
Spartans say hi. Don't apply modern understanding of science to SciFi, the Fi part is for Fiction.
okey, the thing is dudes like vikings, vampires, romans, knights etc. I have absolutly no idea what mass female buyers of GW would want. I have my doubts they would want vikings, but female or vampires, but female or knight but female. Because unlike SoB, that would be derivative.
Without going too far into this because *reasons*, different people like different things but generally people like to see themselves in the things they do when those things are based on humans. Currently, men/males can represent themselves well in 40k, women/females not so much. Overall 40k background has loads of precednent for more female-coded minis, GW just needs to capitalise better on it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Yeah, because your school life isn't the same as the rest of the world.
In the nicest way possible, Karol has just confirmed they are a teenager and a lot of what they write now makes a lot more sense.
Karol wrote: okey, the thing is dudes like vikings, vampires, romans, knights etc. I have absolutly no idea what mass female buyers of GW would want. I have my doubts they would want vikings, but female or vampires, but female or knight but female. Because unlike SoB, that would be derivative.
It actually is that simple, Karol... Being shunted off into the miniature line for her is actually the thing female nerds do not like to see.
"MASS" female buyers of GW don't exist and pandering to such a fictional customer group only alienates the present community.
Besides female players of 40K make up less than 1% of that hobbyist population.
A) Doesn't matter what genders Necrontyr society had, let people do what they want. B) Necrontyr were humanoids with intense and seemingly genetic super cancer.
Letting people do what they want is a very bad idea. There is a reason why some setting and some games are popular and others are not. Fiddle and change too much or make stuff free for all, and the setting will just die. There are example of fandoms that imploded after new creatores decided to go totaly off road with them.
Spartans say hi. Don't apply modern understanding of science to SciFi, the Fi part is for Fiction.
I am not following you here. What does the fact that spartan women trained has to do with anything? My older colleagues are used as training partners for some of out female team trainers. And they are rankers that took part in euro and world championships. If you make a warrior, then no matter how much science you put in to making them, there is no way for a female to end up being as strong as male. Even fiction has limits. Specially when the starter is human body.
Without going too far into this because *reasons*, different people like different things but generally people like to see themselves in the things they do when those things are based on humans. Currently, men/males can represent themselves well in 40k, women/females not so much. Overall 40k background has loads of precednent for more female-coded minis, GW just needs to capitalise better on it.
Okey, but starts to sound as if the supposed 50/50 split was to be done, to do it and not because people want it. There is difference between guys like vikings, let them play with a viking faction and we have to make half the vikings female, because of "reasons". By the way I absolutly no idea what those "reasons" could be. Plus am not really getting the represent the represent part. most of the factions, besides maybe IG, aren't really representing anyone, well maybe if someone is a contestent in mr Olympia or is Shaq sized. I am not even sure, what female players do want to play with. What if you make an all female guard regiment invest money in it, and then female buyers don't come ? Again I don't even know what a regular female could want out of w40k, most males aren't interested in it. Representation just for the sake of it, seems stupid, specially if it would mean changing of existing lore.
There doesn't need to be. If there's women interested, and there are, why should they be pigeon-holed into certain factions?
Well they shouldn't, but it is kind of a odd that, not even knowing if it works, existing lore is suppose to be changed just to have, I don't even know what. Retcons to have female custodes and marines ? There is already a ton of factions with females in them, why are the factions that are strictly without women suppose to be changed? It just makes no sense to me.
Really? You speak for all women?
I don't have to. They speak really well for themselfs. If women were interested in what w40k is, then they would be buying and playing the game in much larger numbers. I don't have to know the exact numbers to tell you that horse ridding schools have more female then male students. Doesn't mean there are no dudes there. But there is clear preference.
Why is including women making things less interesting to existing fans? Why is their enjoyment predicated on a lack of women?
Because making female custodes or female marines would require above Cawl primaris tier of changes to the lore? Space marines and custodes are something, there distinct traits they have, which then get even more specific when one goes down to specific chapters. Non of those include being a female.
Yeah, because your school life isn't the same as the rest of the world.
I find sports school or schools that prepare you to a specific type of work very transferable to real life. Specially when our older students already are being sent to real big events. And I really have my doubts that women who do sports are so drastically different from non sports doing ones, that the ones not doing sports would require and like the idea of being given a male modified product just for them.
Strg Alt wrote: Besides female players of 40K make up less than 1% of that hobbyist population.
That sounds a lot like "Not many of them like this, so why bother trying to bring them in?". I'm not saying that's what you meant, but that's what it sounds like.
I think there's something to be said about trying to reach out to different audience groups and demographics - I'm a firm believer in demographics personally - but at the same time I think that changing the core of what you have in order to attract a different demographic is the wrong way to go about doing things.
I mean, if Mattel decided that they wanted to court the young boy demographic with Barbie toys, so changed Barbie to be all about the military, with new jets and tanks... I don't think that would go over that well. That's an extreme example, but drastic change to court a different audience is never a good idea.
Karol wrote: Letting people do what they want is a very bad idea. There is a reason why some setting and some games are popular and others are not. Fiddle and change too much or make stuff free for all, and the setting will just die. There are example of fandoms that imploded after new creatores decided to go totaly off road with them.
How does the gender of a sexless murder machine kill 40k?
I am not following you here. What does the fact that spartan women trained has to do with anything? My older colleagues are used as training partners for some of out female team trainers. And they are rankers that took part in euro and world championships. If you make a warrior, then no matter how much science you put in to making them, there is no way for a female to end up being as strong as male. Even fiction has limits. Specially when the starter is human body.
Sorry, I should have been more specific, Halo Spartans say hi! And no fiction doesn't have limits. It's fiction.
Okey, but starts to sound as if the supposed 50/50 split was to be done, to do it and not because people want it. There is difference between guys like vikings, let them play with a viking faction and we have to make half the vikings female, because of "reasons". By the way I absolutly no idea what those "reasons" could be. Plus am not really getting the represent the represent part. most of the factions, besides maybe IG, aren't really representing anyone, well maybe if someone is a contestent in mr Olympia or is Shaq sized. I am not even sure, what female players do want to play with. What if you make an all female guard regiment invest money in it, and then female buyers don't come ? Again I don't even know what a regular female could want out of w40k, most males aren't interested in it. Representation just for the sake of it, seems stupid, specially if it would mean changing of existing lore.
Read the threads that have been done recently on this, I'm not getting into it here.
I find sports school or schools that prepare you to a specific type of work very transferable to real life. Specially when our older students already are being sent to real big events.
As an adult who has been in both secondary and higher education, I can tell you school is all about killing time until adult life where everything sucks. The only things I learned from school that were in any way applicable to real-life were basic comprehension of language and maths, everything else is optional.
Making a career out of athleticism is not an easy ride. You either make it or you don't, there is no middle ground where you show up sometimes and don't really work. It's a brutal industry to be in and one injury could end your entire career more so than any other job.
And I really have my doubts that women who do sports are so drastically different from non sports doing ones, that the ones not doing sports would require and like the idea of being given a male modified product just for them.
Gender roles are trash and shouldn't be enforced. Warhammer is not a "boys/men's hobby" by default, society influence is the reason for it being a men/male-dominated one. Taking away labels of who a hobby is for is the first step in making the hobby better.
Gert wrote: And no fiction doesn't have limits. It's fiction.
It does within the confines of the story. Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction. Are there space ships in Lord of the Rings? Can Frodo morph into Godzilla?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Yeah, because your school life isn't the same as the rest of the world.
In the nicest way possible, Karol has just confirmed they are a teenager and a lot of what they write now makes a lot more sense.
I am aware, but they do need reminding that the world is not always how they describe it.
Karol wrote:
A) Doesn't matter what genders Necrontyr society had, let people do what they want. B) Necrontyr were humanoids with intense and seemingly genetic super cancer.
Letting people do what they want is a very bad idea. There is a reason why some setting and some games are popular and others are not. Fiddle and change too much or make stuff free for all, and the setting will just die. There are example of fandoms that imploded after new creatores decided to go totaly off road with them.
And what has that got to do with Necrons canonically having women?
Spartans say hi. Don't apply modern understanding of science to SciFi, the Fi part is for Fiction.
I am not following you here. What does the fact that spartan women trained has to do with anything? My older colleagues are used as training partners for some of out female team trainers. And they are rankers that took part in euro and world championships. If you make a warrior, then no matter how much science you put in to making them, there is no way for a female to end up being as strong as male. Even fiction has limits. Specially when the starter is human body.
Gert is referring, I believe, to Spartans from the Halo franchise - as evidence that fictional super soldiers can be any gender, and would be just as competent.
It's fiction. They can be just as strong.
There is difference between guys like vikings, let them play with a viking faction and we have to make half the vikings female, because of "reasons". By the way I absolutly no idea what those "reasons" could be.
Those reasons being that women like Vikings too? I thought that was pretty obvious.
Plus am not really getting the represent the represent part. most of the factions, besides maybe IG, aren't really representing anyone, well maybe if someone is a contestent in mr Olympia or is Shaq sized.
Representation is not 100% analogous, for a start.
I am not even sure, what female players do want to play with.
The same breadth of options that the men have, I would guess - given how women are *people*.
What if you make an all female guard regiment invest money in it, and then female buyers don't come ?
All women guard regiments already exist. What we lack is the ability to make that with GW bits.
Again I don't even know what a regular female could want out of w40k
The same as men?? Women and non-binary folks interested in the hobby aren't that different from men, you know.
I'm really not sure where this whole "but how do we know what women would want!!" logic comes from - just treat them like *people*.
Representation just for the sake of it, seems stupid, specially if it would mean changing of existing lore.
Existing lore has been changing since 40k's inception.
There doesn't need to be. If there's women interested, and there are, why should they be pigeon-holed into certain factions?
Well they shouldn't, but it is kind of a odd that, not even knowing if it works, existing lore is suppose to be changed just to have, I don't even know what. Retcons to have female custodes and marines ? There is already a ton of factions with females in them, why are the factions that are strictly without women suppose to be changed? It just makes no sense to me.
Because those factions don't offer the same things that Astartes or Custodes do. If I squatted Grey Knights, and you complained, do you think I'd be justified in saying "you don't need Grey Knights, if you want psykers just play Thousand Sons or Eldar or Space Marines, they have psykers".
Really? You speak for all women?
I don't have to. They speak really well for themselfs.
In which case, you might want to listen to them, because whatever you're claiming isn't representative of women.
If women were interested in what w40k is, then they would be buying and playing the game in much larger numbers.
If men were interested in 40k, then all men would be playing the game.
Also, what a way to ignore the presence of existing women in the hobby.
I don't have to know the exact numbers to tell you that horse ridding schools have more female then male students. Doesn't mean there are no dudes there. But there is clear preference.
Preference born out of what? Biology? Innate urges to ride a horse? Or societal pressures and expectations?
And, again - what about the women who *are* attracted to the hobby?
Why is including women making things less interesting to existing fans? Why is their enjoyment predicated on a lack of women?
Because making female custodes or female marines would require above Cawl primaris tier of changes to the lore? Space marines and custodes are something, there distinct traits they have, which then get even more specific when one goes down to specific chapters. Non of those include being a female.
And is being male a distinct trait? I don't believe it is.
Again - lore changes. There is no status quo.
Yeah, because your school life isn't the same as the rest of the world.
I find sports school or schools that prepare you to a specific type of work very transferable to real life.
In certain very specific aspects, yes. But not the gender-reductive stuff you're pulling out, nor a lot of the stuff I've seen you claim as world-wide facts and attitudes.
The world is bigger than that. Perhaps try to have an open mind about that, and see that your own experiences aren't the only ones out there.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Strg Alt wrote: Besides female players of 40K make up less than 1% of that hobbyist population.
That sounds a lot like "Not many of them like this, so why bother trying to bring them in?". I'm not saying that's what you meant, but that's what it sounds like.
Agreed. Saying how small a group it is, and why that's an excuse not to cater to them, is most likely a strong reason why that group is so small in the first place.
I think there's something to be said about trying to reach out to different audience groups and demographics - I'm a firm believer in demographics personally - but at the same time I think that changing the core of what you have in order to attract a different demographic is the wrong way to go about doing things.
I mean, if Mattel decided that they wanted to court the young boy demographic with Barbie toys, so changed Barbie to be all about the military, with new jets and tanks... I don't think that would go over that well. That's an extreme example, but drastic change to court a different audience is never a good idea.
Drastic change, sure, but has anything proposed here really been a drastic change?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Gert wrote: And no fiction doesn't have limits. It's fiction.
It does within the confines of the story.
And what sets those confines? Can those confines be changed? Are those confines essential to have? Does the story only work with those confines?
Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction. Are there space ships in lord of the rings? Can Frodo morph into Godzilla?
Does the Lord of the Rings pride itself on being a setting for player freedoms and customisation, a sandbox for Your Dudes?
Would certain things being allowed harm the wider work of fiction?
I think there's something to be said about trying to reach out to different audience groups and demographics - I'm a firm believer in demographics personally - but at the same time I think that changing the core of what you have in order to attract a different demographic is the wrong way to go about doing things.
I mean, if Mattel decided that they wanted to court the young boy demographic with Barbie toys, so changed Barbie to be all about the military, with new jets and tanks... I don't think that would go over that well. That's an extreme example, but drastic change to court a different audience is never a good idea.
Demographics are all well and good but societal changes should also be considered. Look at G.I. Joe, for example, was a doll for boys (called an action figure because of societal pressures) that was based on real US military soldiers/pilots/sailors. However, post-Vietnam the brand changed to "The Adventures of G.I. Joe"/"Adventure Team" and focussed on a group that would have, well, adventures. It still had helicopters and jeeps but they weren't flat copies of real-world military vehicles. Then we come to the G.I. Joe we know and love today with all the laser guns, bright uniforms, punny names, and gimmicks. This G.I. Joe had male and female figures as well as many non-white figures as well. The core was still action figures but it wasn't limited to "for boys" or "for girls", at least not from my point of view at least.
GW doesn't need to make huge changes to 40k to make the range more representative, it just needs to flesh out what it already has then maybe add some more in places where ambiguity exists (which is all over the place).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: It does within the confines of the story.
Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction. Are there space ships in Lord of the Rings? Can Frodo morph into Godzilla?
Depends, when does the Transformers/LotR crossover come out? You know the point I'm making there is no need to be pedantic.
How does the gender of a sexless murder machine kill 40k?
Well in sports schools you make sports people. aka the peak efficiency of humanity at a given sport. I know of not a single sport, where the males wouldn't get a better results then the females. If you want to look how it works in practics, YT has a nice video of female gymnasts reacting to male doing female reutins. Being a marine or custodes just makes you more roided out and more trained. A female custode or marine, if they were possible to be created, would be inferior to their male counter parts, and considering how hard and inefficient it is to make either of those, wasting the time on trying to make the female custode or marine would be like building a Ferrari and then giving it an engine from a Lada.
Sorry, I should have been more specific, Halo Spartans say hi! And no fiction doesn't have limits. It's fiction.
Ok, but that is a different setting. I know nothing about Halo, besides the fact it exists. See Xboxs require good internet connection that never breaks. That is not a thing here, outside for a few big cities. Can't comment how they make, what ever a female spartan is, work when I don't know the setting. And I really hope it isn't "magic".
Read the threads that have been done recently on this, I'm not getting into it here.
Didn't knew there were any. Even If there were and I missed, I don't think I would change my way of thinking. I mean a product has to be ment for someone, and it also has to be bought. Just because someone has an idea that a product will be for someone, doesn't make it automaticlly something the group wants to buy. Ton of stuff got remade in the last few years and most of it was very popular, and all it did was making the people that were old fans really angry. I don't think that w40k players should get more angry. It is healthy or helpful.
As an adult who has been in both secondary and higher education, I can tell you school is all about killing time until adult life where everything sucks. The only things I learned from school that were in any way applicable to real-life were basic comprehension of language and maths, everything else is optional.
Making a career out of athleticism is not an easy ride. You either make it or you don't, there is no middle ground where you show up sometimes and don't really work. It's a brutal industry to be in and one injury could end your entire career more so than any other job.
Well then I would like to inform you that sports schools are different. You don't have free time. We still have to do all the hours in normal curriculum that other people have to do, and on top of that we have training. We have training camps in summer and winter, we have have events. You are ranked, you can lose scholarship if you aren't good enough. It is important to have good results, because without it there are fewer sponsors. You have to deal with diet and supplements, and on top of that you have normal life. There is killing time, unless you have a sports family or your parents are politicians, and you know you will not be kicked out, unless a power change happens. All the time we spend training, prepings ourselfs etc is to make become ready to join a Sports University, and some people become sportsman, some become trainers and some people just die at 35+.
Gender roles are trash and shouldn't be enforced. Warhammer is not a "boys/men's hobby" by default, society influence is the reason for it being a men/male-dominated one. Taking away labels of who a hobby is for is the first step in making the hobby better.
I am not sure what this has to do with gender roles. If you pick an avarge person from a male and female class doing the same kind of sports, the males always have better results. There is no role in it, just simple biology. Again I have friend that do judo, they are 16-17 years old they train with the girls trainers, and we even asked our trainers why the trainers don't train with each other, and he just told us that it wouldn't make sense, because in the same weight class men would always win and not just by a bit, the risk of injury would be great. The female trainers pick the 16-17y old guys, because why they are weaker, they have more expirance and can train being more technical to win. Plus the other way around it is just the same, non of the female rankers want males joing their divisions. If that is somehow a gender role, then everything is based on them, and then getting ridden of them would collapse the entire sociaty.
I mean, if Mattel decided that they wanted to court the young boy demographic with Barbie toys, so changed Barbie to be all about the military, with new jets and tanks... I don't think that would go over that well. That's an extreme example, but drastic change to court a different audience is never a good idea.
Doen't they already cover the dude part of their audiance with their toy lines for boys? Like I remember being obssessed about cars they make. Had a ton of them till my mom gave them out, when we had to move out from my dad house.
Karol wrote: Well in sports schools you make sports people. aka the peak efficiency of humanity at a given sport. I know of not a single sport, where the males wouldn't get a better results then the females. If you want to look how it works in practics, YT has a nice video of female gymnasts reacting to male doing female reutins. Being a marine or custodes just makes you more roided out and more trained. A female custode or marine, if they were possible to be created, would be inferior to their male counter parts, and considering how hard and inefficient it is to make either of those, wasting the time on trying to make the female custode or marine would be like building a Ferrari and then giving it an engine from a Lada.
That didn't answer the question. Answer the question next time.
Spoiler:
Ok, but that is a different setting. I know nothing about Halo, besides the fact it exists. See Xboxs require good internet connection that never breaks. That is not a thing here, outside for a few big cities. Can't comment how they make, what ever a female spartan is, work when I don't know the setting. And I really hope it isn't "magic".
You said women/females couldn't be super-soldiers, almost every other major SciFi setting says otherwise.
Spoiler:
Well then I would like to inform you that sports schools are different. You don't have free time. We still have to do all the hours in normal curriculum that other people have to do, and on top of that we have training. We have training camps in summer and winter, we have have events. You are ranked, you can lose scholarship if you aren't good enough. It is important to have good results, because without it there are fewer sponsors. You have to deal with diet and supplements, and on top of that you have normal life. There is killing time, unless you have a sports family or your parents are politicians, and you know you will not be kicked out, unless a power change happens. All the time we spend training, prepings ourselfs etc is to make become ready to join a Sports University, and some people become sportsman, some become trainers and some people just die at 35+.
Not sure what the point here is considering I literally said that becoming an athlete is an all-or-nothing deal.
Spoiler:
I am not sure what this has to do with gender roles. If you pick an avarge person from a male and female class doing the same kind of sports, the males always have better results. There is no role in it, just simple biology. Again I have friend that do judo, they are 16-17 years old they train with the girls trainers, and we even asked our trainers why the trainers don't train with each other, and he just told us that it wouldn't make sense, because in the same weight class men would always win and not just by a bit, the risk of injury would be great. The female trainers pick the 16-17y old guys, because why they are weaker, they have more expirance and can train being more technical to win. Plus the other way around it is just the same, non of the female rankers want males joing their divisions. If that is somehow a gender role, then everything is based on them, and then getting ridden of them would collapse the entire sociaty.
You need to stop with the school analogies. You have a single point of reference that doesn't apply to life outside of that very specific point of reference. You do not need a biological trait to like Warhammer.
Gert wrote: And no fiction doesn't have limits. It's fiction.
It does within the confines of the story.
And what sets those confines? Can those confines be changed? Are those confines essential to have? Does the story only work with those confines?
The Author sets the confines to prevent the story devolving into an incoherent mess of half-baked ideas as well as being in accordance with the themes and concepts he wants explored. So yes, they are kind of essential.
Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction. Are there space ships in lord of the rings? Can Frodo morph into Godzilla?
Does the Lord of the Rings pride itself on being a setting for player freedoms and customisation, a sandbox for Your Dudes?
There is a provision for that, actually. It's called fan-fiction
Would certain things being allowed harm the wider work of fiction?
I don't know what you mean by "certain things", but I do know that if you treat fiction as meaningless and open to inconsistency and last-minute changes you're going to end up with a lot of badly written stories.
And what has that got to do with Necrons canonically having women?
well necron aren't human. If say that necron males and females are just like metal humans, then I think a lot of their specific traits get lost. It is bigger version of lets say hollywood making a movie about eastern europe and not really understanding that Poles, Czechs, Slovaks etc are kind of not the same type of people. Making necrons just "metal humans" is IMO too diminishing. In w40k terms it would be like slaping boobs on a marine and saying presto, here is the female marine.
Gert is referring, I believe, to Spartans from the Halo franchise - as evidence that fictional super soldiers can be any gender, and would be just as competent.
It's fiction. They can be just as strong
Well to that degree yes. But then we are not entering the why. If it is they made it just because they could, and basic for it was still the human body. Then it really starts to sounds like an explanation that magic did it. It is bad lore and bad fiction. And there is already enough bad stuff with the cawl things, we really don't need more.
All women guard regiments already exist. What we lack is the ability to make that with GW bits.
Again I don't even know what a regular female could want out of w40k
The same as men?? Women and non-binary folks interested in the hobby aren't that different from men, you know.
Yes and I said it in my earlier posts, that there is a ton of factions who have females. And I see no reasons to remake marines or custodes to have females, instead , as I said it before, something like a female IG regiment. Am I not sure what non binary person is. People are binary, and females and males are different from each other. If they weren't then they wouldn't be picking different hobbies, jobes, careers etc.
I'm really not sure where this whole "but how do we know what women would want!!" logic comes from - just treat them like *people*.
So you mean they should get shity rules and unplayable factions followed by over powered stuff that breaks the game? I not sure what you mean by treated as people, because that is how GW treats it buyers. And GW is a company, it should produce stuff that sells, that people want. And to do that, they have to know what people want. I don't know what potential female buyers could want from a hobby like w40k. They clearly do not want the things that have been in it for the last few decades, because if they did, the hobby wouldn't be as dominated by by guys. I am what do you want me to say? that women want a 50/50 split in every army. Heck there is a possibility that something like a w40k hobby will never be interested to women. And this makes making drastic changes to the lore an odd thing to do.
Existing lore has been changing since 40k's inception.
Yes, but there are grades to everything. What is the chance that 50% of the primars suddenly turn out to be female? zero. Could GW write the lore that 100% of them are female? Of course it is their property. Should they do it? No, because it makes no sense.
Because those factions don't offer the same things that Astartes or Custodes do. If I squatted Grey Knights, and you complained, do you think I'd be justified in saying "you don't need Grey Knights, if you want psykers just play Thousand Sons or Eldar or Space Marines, they have psykers".
There is huge difference, between removing something that already exists in the lore and adding something that not only never existed before, but also changes retro activly a ton of the lore. There were no female space marines in the past, nor were the any custodes, and the lore was for decades that they couldn't be female. There is a difference between changing that, and removing any faction.
Really? You speak for all women?
I don't have to. They speak really well for themselfs.
In which case, you might want to listen to them, because whatever you're claiming isn't representative of women.
If women were interested in what w40k is, then they would be buying and playing the game in much larger numbers.
If men were interested in 40k, then all men would be playing the game.
Preference born out of what? Biology? Innate urges to ride a horse? Or societal pressures and expectations?
And, again - what about the women who *are* attracted to the hobby?
Doesn't matter. If something is not interesting to you it isn't. I don't like piccled onions. Does matter if it is the taste or my body knowing that I deal with a specific chemical in a bad way? no, just don't like them, so I don't eat them. And you are really not going to tell me that there is some sort of social pressures and expectations to ride horses or not play w40k. Now economical those I could imagine, but those barriers are the same not matter who you are.
As far as the women who already are in the hobby. there are already in the hobby. I assume this means they either already have an army, or are in the process of getting one. Which somehow they liked the game, the models etc enough to invest time and money in to the hobby.
And is being male a distinct trait? I don't believe it is.
Again - lore changes. There is no status quo.
You mean like bigger hand size, skeleton etc \those are litterally male traits. you can lay down a skeleton of a male and female next to each other and an archeologist or a doctor will tell you which one is which. And I already covered the lore changes. Yes some stuff can change. New stuff can be added. Core stuff should not and can not be changed without more or less killing the setting.
In certain very specific aspects, yes. But not the gender-reductive stuff you're pulling out, nor a lot of the stuff I've seen you claim as world-wide facts and attitudes.
The world is bigger than that. Perhaps try to have an open mind about that, and see that your own experiences aren't the only ones out there
You know I may not be smart. And I may not know much about world, the life. I may also not really get the social aspects of being human. But what I do know about is sports, physical activity, endurance and as I said it before, a woman is not the same as a man. And the differences between sex, as far as sports goes are huge. There is reason why you don't have mixed judo, wrestling, boxing, and any other sports. You don't because women would risk horrible injury, if they tried it. Including death. This is reduction of anything. The same way a guy at 13-14 will always get destroyed by a guy 2 years older. It is just simple biology, there is social aspect to it. They are just bigger, stronger and tougher then you.
Agreed. Saying how small a group it is, and why that's an excuse not to cater to them, is most likely a strong reason why that group is so small in the first place.
Well the question is always why ? any investment a company makes has to have returns. If the there are returns, then changes make no sense. Star Wars changed, replaced all the old characters with the ones. The new ones aren't liked. Worse the old ones were made to look bad while building up the new ones. So at the same time two things were achived. Old fans angry, new fans, not really liking the new stuff. A company like GW has that has to be very careful with what model lines they make. They can't risk to change the lore, make half the marine chapters female, only to find out that all the investment didn't bump up the sales. It is just not worht the risk for them. It is like giving a chance to a 8th or 9th rankers in an important match, when you can set up people number 1-4.
Drastic change, sure, but has anything proposed here really been a drastic change?
Female marines changes what 40 years of lore? You can't really go more drastic. You would have to turn the emperor in to an ork or an eldar to go further.
Does the Lord of the Rings pride itself on being a setting for player freedoms and customisation, a sandbox for Your Dudes?
Would certain things being allowed harm the wider work of fiction?
Well there is a difference between your dudes. Like lets say making your own IG regiment or a ranger character. And trying to make Gandalf and Radagast female. It stops being a your dude thing, when it impacts the entire settings.
Sorry, I should have been more specific, Halo Spartans say hi! And no fiction doesn't have limits. It's fiction.
Ok, but that is a different setting. I know nothing about Halo, besides the fact it exists. See Xboxs require good internet connection that never breaks. That is not a thing here, outside for a few big cities. Can't comment how they make, what ever a female spartan is, work when I don't know the setting. And I really hope it isn't "magic".
It works because the writer said it did, with whatever their super soldier process was.
Just like how 40k made up their own process, so did the design team of Halo - because at the end of the day, they're both fictional super soldiers, and appealing to reality is ultimately pointless. Women super soldiers are perfectly plausible.
As an adult who has been in both secondary and higher education, I can tell you school is all about killing time until adult life where everything sucks. The only things I learned from school that were in any way applicable to real-life were basic comprehension of language and maths, everything else is optional.
Making a career out of athleticism is not an easy ride. You either make it or you don't, there is no middle ground where you show up sometimes and don't really work. It's a brutal industry to be in and one injury could end your entire career more so than any other job.
Well then I would like to inform you that sports schools are different.
If they're different, then maybe you should consider how they're also different to real life in other places too, and aren't exactly always applicable.
Gender roles are trash and shouldn't be enforced. Warhammer is not a "boys/men's hobby" by default, society influence is the reason for it being a men/male-dominated one. Taking away labels of who a hobby is for is the first step in making the hobby better.
I am not sure what this has to do with gender roles.
The roles that women are "supposed" to like certain hobbies, and men are "supposed" to like others, and if you break those social rules, you are outcast.
If that is somehow a gender role, then everything is based on them, and then getting ridden of them would collapse the entire sociaty.
No, it really wouldn't. Society has enough automated labour that it wouldn't "collapse" if women took over traditionally male professions.
Gert wrote: And no fiction doesn't have limits. It's fiction.
It does within the confines of the story.
And what sets those confines? Can those confines be changed? Are those confines essential to have? Does the story only work with those confines?
The Author sets the confines to prevent the story devolving into an incoherent mess of half-baked ideas as well as being in accordance with the themes and concepts he wants explored. So yes, they are kind of essential.
I'm talking about *these* specific confines. What is it about *these specific confines* that we're talking about which are so essential to the running of the story.
Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction. Are there space ships in lord of the rings? Can Frodo morph into Godzilla?
Does the Lord of the Rings pride itself on being a setting for player freedoms and customisation, a sandbox for Your Dudes?
There is a provision for that, actually. It's called fan-fiction
Except that 40k specifically leaves a lot of room for Your Dudes, without it being immediately decanonised. Hell, GW are more than happy to share custom creations via their hobby showcases, they've done so with my own homebrews.
Would certain things being allowed harm the wider work of fiction?
I don't know what you mean by "certain things", but I do know that if you treat fiction as meaningless and open to inconsistency and last-minute changes you're going to end up with a lot of badly written stories.
And likewise, settings that refuse to change and needlessly cling to outdated and misguided principles often tend to be forgotten.
It's almost like asking for small adaptations wouldn't destroy the whole setting!
Karol wrote:
And what has that got to do with Necrons canonically having women?
well necron aren't human.
And? Why should that mean they don't have women?
Making necrons just "metal humans" is IMO too diminishing.
The *only* thing that's been said is that they have men and women. That's not enough to say they're just "metal humans".
What, are T'au blue humans because they have men and women too?
Gert is referring, I believe, to Spartans from the Halo franchise - as evidence that fictional super soldiers can be any gender, and would be just as competent.
It's fiction. They can be just as strong
Well to that degree yes. But then we are not entering the why. If it is they made it just because they could, and basic for it was still the human body. Then it really starts to sounds like an explanation that magic did it. It is bad lore and bad fiction. And there is already enough bad stuff with the cawl things, we really don't need more.
When you can tell me how to make a Space Marines or Spartan with our modern understandings of science, you can make these ridiculous biological arguments.
But fortunately, we don't have Space Marines or Spartans, because they're fictional, and therefore any of your ludicrous bio-essential arguments are meaningless, because *we literally don't know how to make Space Marines*.
Being able to make women super soldiers isn't bad fiction, and it's not any more "unrealistic" than making super soldiers in the first place.
All women guard regiments already exist. What we lack is the ability to make that with GW bits.
Again I don't even know what a regular female could want out of w40k
The same as men?? Women and non-binary folks interested in the hobby aren't that different from men, you know.
Yes and I said it in my earlier posts, that there is a ton of factions who have females. And I see no reasons to remake marines or custodes to have females, instead , as I said it before, something like a female IG regiment.
So why should Space Marines exist? If people want men, they can play Custodes or Guardsmen.
It's almost like Guardsmen aren't what people want.
Am I not sure what non binary person is.
Me - someone who does not fit into gender binaries.
People are binary
No, they're not.
and females and males are different from each other. If they weren't then they wouldn't be picking different hobbies, jobes, careers etc.
But women can have the same hobbies, jobs and careers as men. Men can have different hobbies, jobs, and careers from other men.
Perhaps the reason that people have different hobbies, jobs, and careers isn't because their gender dictates it, but because *everyone is different and likes different things*? Is that such an outlandish concept.
I'm really not sure where this whole "but how do we know what women would want!!" logic comes from - just treat them like *people*.
So you mean they should get shity rules and unplayable factions followed by over powered stuff that breaks the game?
If that's what everyone else gets, sure.
I don't know what potential female buyers could want from a hobby like w40k.
So what about potential male buyers - what could they possibly want?
They clearly do not want the things that have been in it for the last few decades, because if they did, the hobby wouldn't be as dominated by by guys.
And what about all the men who don't play?
Heck there is a possibility that something like a w40k hobby will never be interested to women.
There isn't that possibility at all, because there are women *in this hobby*.
Sorry, do you not think that there are women hobbyists out there?
What is the chance that 50% of the primars suddenly turn out to be female? zero. Could GW write the lore that 100% of them are female? Of course it is their property. Should they do it? No, because it makes no sense.
Space Marines don't make sense, but you accept that they do because it's a fictional universe. Why are women a step too far?
Because those factions don't offer the same things that Astartes or Custodes do. If I squatted Grey Knights, and you complained, do you think I'd be justified in saying "you don't need Grey Knights, if you want psykers just play Thousand Sons or Eldar or Space Marines, they have psykers".
There is huge difference, between removing something that already exists in the lore and adding something that not only never existed before, but also changes retro activly a ton of the lore.
Women Space Marines used to exist. Half-Eldar Ultramarines used to exist. Necrons used to be Chaos Androids.
Grey Knights also used to not exist too.
There were no female space marines in the past
Wrong. Look back at Rogue Trader.
the lore was for decades that they couldn't be female.
Which itself was a retcon.
There is a difference between changing that, and removing any faction.
My point, however, still stands - telling people to make do with something that isn't what they want isn't fair.
Really? You speak for all women?
I don't have to. They speak really well for themselfs.
In which case, you might want to listen to them, because whatever you're claiming isn't representative of women.
If women were interested in what w40k is, then they would be buying and playing the game in much larger numbers.
If men were interested in 40k, then all men would be playing the game.
Preference born out of what? Biology? Innate urges to ride a horse? Or societal pressures and expectations?
And, again - what about the women who *are* attracted to the hobby?
Doesn't matter. If something is not interesting to you it isn't. I don't like piccled onions. Does matter if it is the taste or my body knowing that I deal with a specific chemical in a bad way? no, just don't like them, so I don't eat them.
So what about the men who don't play 40k? Is that a biological reason? What about the women who do play 40k?
It very much does matter, because your argument is laced with bio-essential nonsense.
And you are really not going to tell me that there is some sort of social pressures and expectations to ride horses or not play w40k.
Yes, I am going to tell you that, because it's true. Even as simple as "blue is a boys colour" or "pink is a girls colour", or which films you show your children, or what hobbies are marketed towards them - you're goddamn right there's societal pressures to behave a certain way.
As far as the women who already are in the hobby. there are already in the hobby. I assume this means they either already have an army, or are in the process of getting one. Which somehow they liked the game, the models etc enough to invest time and money in to the hobby.
And what if those women want women Space Marines? Or the women who *would* be interested, and are interested in other similar hobbies, but avoid 40k because of the aforementioned issues?
And is being male a distinct trait? I don't believe it is.
Again - lore changes. There is no status quo.
You mean like bigger hand size, skeleton etc \those are litterally male traits.
Not all men are larger than women. You are making a biologically reductive argument.
you can lay down a skeleton of a male and female next to each other and an archeologist or a doctor will tell you which one is which.
Their *sex*, yes. Not their gender.
And I already covered the lore changes. Yes some stuff can change. New stuff can be added. Core stuff should not and can not be changed without more or less killing the setting.
And who determines what is "core stuff"? What is the "core stuff"?
In certain very specific aspects, yes. But not the gender-reductive stuff you're pulling out, nor a lot of the stuff I've seen you claim as world-wide facts and attitudes.
The world is bigger than that. Perhaps try to have an open mind about that, and see that your own experiences aren't the only ones out there
You know I may not be smart. And I may not know much about world, the life. I may also not really get the social aspects of being human. But what I do know about is sports, physical activity, endurance and as I said it before, a woman is not the same as a man.
And that doesn't mean that women are always weaker though. You fail to take into account variations within biological groups, and *also* fail to consider that sex is not the same as gender.
Your experience of sports is not generalisable to the rest of the world.
Star Wars changed, replaced all the old characters with the ones. The new ones aren't liked. Worse the old ones were made to look bad while building up the new ones. So at the same time two things were achived. Old fans angry, new fans, not really liking the new stuff.
You say that, but they made an absolute killing at the box office, and profits have only increased. The only one close to a flop was the latest SW film, but people were crying about sky falling down after the first of the sequels.
A company like GW has that has to be very careful with what model lines they make. They can't risk to change the lore, make half the marine chapters female, only to find out that all the investment didn't bump up the sales. It is just not worht the risk for them. It is like giving a chance to a 8th or 9th rankers in an important match, when you can set up people number 1-4.
If that's the case, then shouldn't GW just be ditching model lines that don't do well - like Grey Knights? If including women is such a risk, why are they adding them into the Stormcast? Why are we seeing increased women's representation everywhere else in the hobby if that's such a risk?
Drastic change, sure, but has anything proposed here really been a drastic change?
Female marines changes what 40 years of lore? You can't really go more drastic. You would have to turn the emperor in to an ork or an eldar to go further.
Primaris Marines change 40 years of lore. Destroying Cadia changes 40 years of lore. Reviving Guilliman changes 40 years of lore. These are so much more impactful than changing what you can do with your own little war dollies.
Does the Lord of the Rings pride itself on being a setting for player freedoms and customisation, a sandbox for Your Dudes?
Would certain things being allowed harm the wider work of fiction?
Well there is a difference between your dudes. Like lets say making your own IG regiment or a ranger character. And trying to make Gandalf and Radagast female. It stops being a your dude thing, when it impacts the entire settings.
But Gandalf and Radagast are existing characters, individuals. Space Marines are not individuals. Not every Space Marine has been named, identified, and had stories written about them. If, like you claim, we can't change Space Marines because they're not "Your Dudes", then how come I can make homebrew Chapters?
And how does adding women Space Marines impact the entire setting? Why would my Tau be affected by this? Why would my Guardsmen care who's inside the power armour suit that saves them from the equally uncaring Tyranids?
Karol wrote: If you make a warrior, then no matter how much science you put in to making them, there is no way for a female to end up being as strong as male. Even fiction has limits. Specially when the starter is human body.
Space Marines have about as much in common with a male homo-sapiens from a biological perspective as I do with a banana. And I am not a sapient and sentient banana with very good contacts in the computer accessibility industry.
The vast gulf between a space marine and a human makes the differences between men and women basically non-existent.
Plus, they're wearing powered armour. It doesn't actually matter how strong they are, the armour is doing all the work. In fact, from a logistics point of view, you want a leaner build as it means you can use less material for the same amount of protection as the circumference of the pieces of the armour will be less. And you also save on food as your soldiers have less of a calorie requirement to maintain their base physical state.
My headcanon is that the Emperor was a misogynist who wanted to be surrounded by beefcake, glistening in oil as they slap each other on the back and massage each others shoulders as they pump iron with their big, meaty biceps. Think a combination of Pumping Iron and the volleyball scene from Top Gun but with even more homoeroticism. He didn't think to even try and use women for his project as it would ruin his dreams of his boys only treefort full of rippling man muscle and grunting. And since the Imperium is so scientifically backwards and views all accomplishments of the past as superior, they never thought to try in the 10,000 years since.
Said interpretation also adds another layer of irony to the Imperium's obsession with the space marines as the ubermensch of their empire and the "sons" of the Emperor. Like all fascist regimes which were built upon eugenics, the ubermensch is born out of a fetishization of the traits valued by the ruling party. In this case, behind all the grand talk of great crusades and a galaxy spanning empire, it was just that the Emperor really liked stacked, beefy men and was willing to make a deal with dark gods to get him some.
Karol, I'm going to give you some advice that you should not continue with this line of discussion. It is in multiple threads in the Background Forum and has been put back on the banned topics list because certain people couldn't remain civil.
Space Marines have about as much in common with a male homo-sapiens from a biological perspective as I do with a banana. And I am not a sapient and sentient banana with very good contacts in the computer accessibility industry.
The vast gulf between a space marine and a human makes the differences between men and women basically non-existent.
Plus, they're wearing powered armour. It doesn't actually matter how strong they are, the armour is doing all the work.
You have seen someone of his second cycle of czech superanabolon. Plus you can't make, in w40k lore, a space marine out of banana , same way you can't make one out of a female. But you can make one out of a boy. That is the difference.
I haven't, does it fuse their bones and make them grow duplicate, redundant organs as well as some extra organs not present in humans? Does it allow them to eat the brains of their defeated opponents and absorb their memories? How about spit acid? Because I'm not talking about muscle mass. That is nothing to do with what actually makes a space marine a space marine, it is a side effect.
I joined the thread late but all i will say about what i've seen 40k's tone as is how i entered the hobby. Either Grim Dark or super goofy almost cartoonishly Over the Top. It was definitely Over the Top and cartoony in dawn of war 1 and that's how i feel it should be. Basically an Avatar of Khaine bursting into flames and shooting living guardsmen up hundreds of feet into the air only for them to fall on their backs and get up like it was a slight discomfort.
I'm not really a fan of hyper realism which doesn't make sense in fantasy sci-fi. If you want hyper realism it'd make more sense in Hard Sci-fi and that's not what 40k comes close to being.
Tonally 40k should be a Dark Comedy, following in footsteps of 2000AD and Brazil. It should be absurd and farcical, but executed in such a way that it retains comedic effort without coming across as edgy. Which is bloody hard to do right hence why GW seems to be going for the corporate-friendly-superhero approach.
When they split the Imperium in half I was hoping they would go for an Western and Eastern Roman Empire sort of thing, with the two halves of the Imperium diverging in drastic ways and lampooning different aspects of humanity. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case.
So I was having a little think about it since my last post and it occurs that 40k currently has 3 separate and distinct tones to it.
Heresy: almost a horror in tone as things are becoming increasingly desperate and bleak, this tone is later lost as the series goes towards the siege series though.
Sandbox: this is the majority of 40k, a backdrop with some vagueness to it, a thing to set stories in but not define those stories per say, for example tonally The space marine battles series is very different from Eisenhorn series to the extent it seems like they could easily be alternate dimensions.
Grim Dark: these are the dirty stories, the older ones to be fair from the late 90's to early 2000's and a few in modern times like the warhammer horror series, a few heresy books and parts of the new Dark Imperium books (not the whole books).
Tonally speaking 40k seems to be a bit all over the place right now but that is not a bad thing per say as its catering for many types of taste.
Overall though there does need to be a unifying tone for the franchise otherwise it will suffer in the same way SW, Trek and others have due to poor writing and creators not having a clue what people want, for what its worth the sand box approach seems to work best for me.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Tonally 40k should be a Dark Comedy, following in footsteps of 2000AD and Brazil. It should be absurd and farcical, but executed in such a way that it retains comedic effort without coming across as edgy. Which is bloody hard to do right hence why GW seems to be going for the corporate-friendly-superhero approach.
When they split the Imperium in half I was hoping they would go for an Western and Eastern Roman Empire sort of thing, with the two halves of the Imperium diverging in drastic ways and lampooning different aspects of humanity. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case.
I think it's a bit early to conclude anything yet as relatively little has been written about Imperium Nihilus. I expect GW to keep milking the Indomitus Crusade for awhile to come so we may continue to get little definite information about the other side of the Rift.
You can take 40k seriously, although I think that can hurt the ability to enjoy (or even tolerate) the over the top nonsense and awfulness that permeates the setting.
AnomanderRake wrote: Because the alternative is that we take all the neo-fascist burn-the-heretic stuff seriously and get really creeped out.
That's ludicrous.
It's fiction. You can take it seriously without buying into it.
Well, yeah. Your creeped out bar is clearly different from mine, but if I don't assume that 40k is on some level satirical then it's too depressing and I can't make myself care about any of it.
There's gotta be some level of skepticism levied at these big strong men telling themselves that there was no other way as they commit worse atrocities to deal with the consequences of the atrocity that came before it. Any other interpretation just makes me really sad.
AnomanderRake wrote: Well, yeah. Your creeped out bar is clearly different from mine, but if I don't assume that 40k is on some level satirical then it's too depressing and I can't make myself care about any of it.
Only thing in 40k that creeps me out are Cherubim, and even then because they're flying clone cyber-babies.
Arachnofiend wrote: There's gotta be some level of skepticism levied at these big strong men telling themselves that there was no other way as they commit worse atrocities to deal with the consequences of the atrocity that came before it. Any other interpretation just makes me really sad.
But in setting non of the factions members think that the stuff they do is an atrocity. It would be like a farmer getting sad that he killed a boar in real life. Each of the factions thinks that the others are out to get them and they are right about it. Making them 100% sure that they have to do what ever it takes to destroy the other side. It is not no more and no less sad, then stuff that happens in the real world on a daily basis. Only difference is that some factions don't considering stuff that happens to them as an attrocity, but mostly because something like orks or tyranids don't have the mind set to do it, and demons are extremly hard to kill and they don't care at all about the fate of their own kind, in fact they are fully willing to sabotage the bring on the banishment or destruction of their kin just to rise in power. A bit like modern day politics in any work place.
Because the alternative is that we take all the neo-fascist burn-the-heretic stuff seriously and get really creeped out.
Why is it even called that. There are no unions that gather both employers and employees in the same organisation, there are no state nationalised branches of industry, no cult of big family, no party organisation for adults and youths. Only thing it has in common with some forms of fasism is the leader cult, but that is hardly a fasist specific thing. Plus the way the church functions in the imperium makes no sense from a fasist view point. It is idependent and not separated from the state. That is like the two core tenents of dealing with churchs by those movment. Calling the setting fasist, makes as much sense as calling Tau communists, because one of them is running around in a red suit.
But then again I know only the european fasist movments, we don't really cover the south and north america and asia stuff all that well at school. So maybe it is different there.
Well there are a ton of other fasisms too, the spanish one, the polish 1926-39 one, all the different balkan ones. But okey, I am rather stupid when it comes to finding out the hidden meaning in what people say. I assume that is someone means fasism, they mean it and something else. It does confuse me a lot. But yeah the w40k is authoriatarian as hell, only tyranids aren't that and they are animals running on instincts.
I don't know maybe it is the closeness to places where bad stuff happened not so long ago or where it is happening right now. So I could be partially desensitized to stuff. 30 min listening to Bielsat or an Ukrainian Radio , and suddenly the w40k as a setting doesn't seem so surreal. But that doesn't mean people can't or shouldn't like the way w40k is right now. Of course anyone can wish for themselfs what ever they like, and dislike what ever they find bad.
Well it is a bit like the Eastern Roman Empire from around 650-900 , from the times it had its endless wars with the Umajjads. And imperial priests blessed the use of greek fire to burn the heretical fleets that attack Byzantium and the eastern emperors started hiring Wareg fleets to fight the Berber pirates.
At the same time the old protectors of the eastern empire, the knight families in small asia were slowly being destroyed by the burrocracy of the imperial seat, which would later end with them joing the turkish invaders en mass, because even the special heavy non beliver turkish taxs were lower then the imperial taxs. Well at least to me it feels like this. Constant wars with bulgars, slavs, hungarians, crusaders sacking stuff, ton of civil wars, great warrior emperors and weak willed bad politicians, all present religion and a heterodoxy war, common population worshiping icons against the what the high church and some emperors wanted. A very much "there is only war" setting. Which at the same time is wonderful art wise, thinks that the old ways were better, old science being used with the church being against any improvments. They even had an inqusition like organisation in the form of a secret police.
The IOM is a militaristic and dogmatic teocracy... With many pseudo feudal elements in place.
There arent many explicitly fascistic lore elements in the IOM, but alas the aesthetic is in many ways reminiscent of fascism (originally in a satirical way).
Nevertheless, nowadays people are going to get "fascist vibes" comming from the setting and the IOM in particular... Which makes sense since extreme right movements are on the rise on more or less globally.
An important reason not to present the IOM and SM as the good guys.
Fascism is a bit of a muddy term when applied to a setting like 40k since fascism is a conservative reaction to a rise in left-wing thought and the Imperium never had any left-wing thought to react to (Emprah put a stop to that in his conquest of Earth I'm sure). It's kind of the same deal as how the Roman Empire obviously isn't fascist by any useful meaning of the term but if someone's talking about the Roman Empire like it was a better, stronger time then you Have A Right To Be Concerned.
Granted saying this has just reminded me that the entire premise of the Imperium and the split between 30k and 40k is that We Were Strong Once, Before We Were Brought Low By Our Enemies. Which is ur-fascism at its core.
That's how it was to begin with, wasn't it? It's product of 80s British humour, and it would be a pity to see that lost out of some corporate attempt to "modernize it"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vatsetis wrote: The IOM is a militaristic and dogmatic teocracy... With many pseudo feudal elements in place.
There arent many explicitly fascistic lore elements in the IOM, but alas the aesthetic is in many ways reminiscent of fascism (originally in a satirical way).
Nevertheless, nowadays people are going to get "fascist vibes" comming from the setting and the IOM in particular... Which makes sense since extreme right movements are on the rise on more or less globally.
An important reason not to present the IOM and SM as the good guys.
I disagree, to me the aesthetic is mostly medieval with a heavy hit of industrialism. The aesthetic takes inspiration from many places, not just Fascist Italy and Germany.
This isn't a political post, sure it uses political words but its just looking at the history of 40k and the people who created and developed the setting. I think it's extremely difficult to remove the two when they are indelible. That's how people create stories and build universes.
The Imperium of man is just a natural progression of the politics of the 80s, particularly in the UK. And I think a lot of people now in the hobby seem to really struggle with that.
I think that is particularly the case with a global audience, particularly those who hold conservative views. And I think that is why people love to argue against the fascist elements of the imperium. They are really obviously there. They are there deliberately to remind you the imperium aren't the good guys. There is absolutely no reason to argue the toss about the semantics of fascism unless you aren't comfortable with the word and what it really means. If you can't read between the lines a little, then I don't think you'll ever properly understand that. Are people expecting the Emperor to just eventually wake up, crack a bleary eye after millenia on the throne and hoarsely croak "are we the baddies?".
Is that modern education and a lack of critical thinking at fault? Or is it just people never told how to read a source and work out what is really being said? Remember the arts and humanities are important kids.
Of course everyone living in the current decade where there are a *lot* of similarities to the 1980s and so now you have people saying "oh I see where they got that from" when they interact with the hobby. The trouble is you shouldn't have to live through something to be able to understand the point behind it.
Private greedy corporations sucking planetary resources dry. Earth itself a post apocalyptic wasteland after nuclear destruction. An ignorant wasteful humanity living among the stars with ordinary people toiling in unending drudgery until their short lives are eradicated. Those that have wealth living off that toil and growing as fat and corpulent as the government that keeps them in power. Endless billions sent to war while entire planets are ripped apart and mined to provide arms and armour for their pitiful struggle against an unending tide of darkness.
That's the tone of 40k, this 'grimdark' meme is made up by people who, at its core, just don't understand the lore and the universe. It's a cold hard look at a future that as we seem determined to relive the 1980s seem to be sliding ever close to.
The tone of 40k is bleak. The hopelessness of life in a galaxy of war and fear. And because that's so damn miserable, you need a lot of comic relief.
I think that is particularly the case with a global audience, particularly those who hold conservative views. And I think that is why people love to argue against the fascist elements of the imperium. They are really obviously there. They are there deliberately to remind you the imperium aren't the good guys. There is absolutely no reason to argue the toss about the semantics of fascism unless you aren't comfortable with the word and what it really means. If you can't read between the lines a little, then I don't think you'll ever properly understand that. Are people expecting the Emperor to just eventually wake up, crack a bleary eye after millenia on the throne and hoarsely croak "are we the baddies?".
Is that modern education and a lack of critical thinking at fault? Or is it just people never told how to read a source and work out what is really being said? Remember the arts and humanities are important kids.
They're only obviously there if you conflate fascism with authoritarianism, whilst remaining blissfully ignorant of regimes such as the Soviet Union, North Korea and arguably Robespierre's France. I find amusing how you accuse people questioning if the Imperium is fascist of lacking critical thinking whilst at the same time telling them to just accept your interpretation. Also, implying that those arguing for more accurate terminology with respect to history as being secretly fascist, classy.
But yeah, those traits are there to remind you that the Imperium isn't a good place to live, just as you wouldn't want to live in North Korea or during the Reign of Terror.
Granted saying this has just reminded me that the entire premise of the Imperium and the split between 30k and 40k is that We Were Strong Once, Before We Were Brought Low By Our Enemies. Which is ur-fascism at its core.
Is that ur-fascism though? Can't that be said of most civilizations?
The Imperium is a mix of all the worst stuff from history, which is why along with fascist race purity genocide it throws in a bunch of soviet themed evil as well. The writers were trying to make the worst regime imaginable after all. It's always been a satire to some extent and when I see it moving away from that I kinda understand how people who feel the game would be ruined if aspects of the background were changed must feel. To me that satirical edge is pretty critical to my enjoyment. I can still take the ideas and themes from a satire seriously though - it's not like they need Horus to take a cream pie to the face to let me know it's a joke.
One thing that really does confuse me is why people are so dedicated to arguing the toss about the Imperium being fascist. They're Catholic Space Commie Nazis from the Holy Roman Space Empire. Using the word fascist to describe them is fine.
The Imperium hits 9/10 of Umberto Eco's properties of fascism with the force of exterminatus. The only one it doesn't is "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class" and this is because in the Imperium there is no middle class. There is the ruling class and then there is everyone else who are just cogs in the military-industrial machine.
Not to blast this into the moon by going dead off topic here, but are you saying you can have non-authoritarian fascism? Merely fascist-lite?
Is that less carby than full fat fascism?
Hardly blissfully ignorant of the Soviet Union, NK or Robespierre, but thanks for playing the game of whatabouttery! Love that about being online. You did fall hook, line and sinker for it though eh?
I'm not telling people to accept my interpretation, that's up to different people to interact with 40k in their own way. I'm just putting it forward, I'd like to think with some degree of experience in the lore of 40k.
Everyone has a different world view and experience made up of their own interactions with life. So surely people will appreciate certain elements of 40k in different ways.
Can't force you into my interpretation I'm afraid, dead against that! I'm just saying if everyone listened to me and played by my rules, life would be better for everyone.
From what I've heard Fascism is everything belonging to the State, for it and nothing outside of it. The fact you try to say right wingers want this is absurd given we like companies not to be owned by the government or taken under control after a point by the government. Meanwhile China does this quite a lot.
As for the Imperium if I heard correctly the really want to be authoritarian but it's not easy to run an interstellar empire spanning a whole galaxy so instead they mostly self rule. Also something about the rogue traders but my knowledge on the lore is iffy. If I recall they're allowed wiggle room to do things.
Your definition of fascism is wrong flaming. The Nazis are fascist and they hated communism (state ownership of all assets). They killed communists in concentration camps. Large companies like Siemens and so on worked closely with the Nazis and benefited from slave labour but were not state owned.
Fascism is a form of extreme right wing politics in the same way totalitarian communism is a form of extreme left wing politics. To argue otherwise is to render language kinda meaningless.
From what I've heard Fascism is everything belonging to the State, for it and nothing outside of it. The fact you try to say right wingers want this is absurd given we like companies not to be owned by the government or taken under control after a point by the government. Meanwhile China does this quite a lot.
That's the thing. I heard in time those companies would've been dissolved too and made to go for the State. Thing is we fought a world war before it could really happen so it didn't get to that phase. I could be wrong. Just what I've heard.
It's Wikipedia. I'd prefer a dictionary which isn't constantly editedbased on an editor's leanings.
Because that's what it was originally meant to be, because it's fun and most importantly because otherwise it is just glorification of some really vile stuff.
Da Boss wrote: Your definition of fascism is wrong flaming. The Nazis are fascist and they hated communism (state ownership of all assets). They killed communists in concentration camps. Large companies like Siemens and so on worked closely with the Nazis and benefited from slave labour but were not state owned.
Not entirely true. Whilst they weren't owned by the state per se, corporate heads were members of the Nazi party. In fact I'm pretty sure you had to be a member of the Nazi party and work with them in order to function. So the corporate heads were arguably also part of the state. It is true though that fascism is against the Free Market (like communism) but is fine with Crony Capitalism (not like Communism)
From what I've heard Fascism is everything belonging to the State, for it and nothing outside of it. The fact you try to say right wingers want this is absurd given we like companies not to be owned by the government or taken under control after a point by the government. Meanwhile China does this quite a lot.
What you heard is so wrong that you should stop listening to whoever said that.
flamingkillamajig wrote: That's the thing. I heard in time those companies would've been dissolved too and made to go for the State. Thing is we fought a world war before it could really happen so it didn't get to that phase. I could be wrong. Just what I've heard.
It's Wikipedia. I'd prefer a dictionary which isn't constantly editedbased on an editor's leanings.
Love that for you mate but that's not how Wikipedia works. If you like you can go out and buy a pop up book about Fascism if that would help?
It's just what you wrote in your post is fundamentally wrong so looking at the basics of fascism to actually understand the concept is the best place to start.
Really going to underline this point, not being condescending at all but I really think you should look up what fascism actually is and not just a dictionary definition of the word. I'm afraid life requires context as well. This is what I mean about arguing the semantics. It's not just the word "fascism" it's everything which surrounds that as well.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The Imperium hits 9/10 of Umberto Eco's properties of fascism with the force of exterminatus. The only one it doesn't is "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class" and this is because in the Imperium there is pretty much no middle class. There is the ruling class and then there is everyone else.
The Imperium is fascist.
Which is one definition of fascism. Historians just can't agree on what it actually is. As Ian Kershaw once wrote "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall".
Pretty sure Eco also said that his list isn't to be used to identity fascism, but to identity what fascism may "coagulate around".
He also said you only need one of them, which is a bit of loose requirement but ok.
Da Boss wrote: Your definition of fascism is wrong flaming. The Nazis are fascist and they hated communism (state ownership of all assets). They killed communists in concentration camps. Large companies like Siemens and so on worked closely with the Nazis and benefited from slave labour but were not state owned.
Not entirely true. Whilst they weren't owned by the state per se, corporate heads were members of the Nazi party. In fact I'm pretty sure you had to be a member of the Nazi party and work with them in order to function. So the corporate heads were arguably also part of the state. It is true though that fascism is against the Free Market (like communism) but is fine with Crony Capitalism (not like Communism)
Membership of the party =/= the means of production being owned by the state. It also does not mean you are part of the state in the sense of being involved in the running of the state.
Did the Nazi party receive all of the profits made by Schindler's factories?
Or is Walmart owned by the Republican party as the Walton family are no doubt republican party members.
Olthannon wrote: Not to blast this into the moon by going dead off topic here, but are you saying you can have non-authoritarian fascism? Merely fascist-lite? Is that less carby than full fat fascism?
No, I'm not. I'm saying that not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. Those regimes I listed weren't an attempt at "whatabouttery" but examples.
I would never! I mean who loves accurate terminology and the minutiae of rules more than fascists right?
Or you know, scholars, scientists, engineers, bureaucrats...ok I'll give you that last one.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The Imperium hits 9/10 of Umberto Eco's properties of fascism with the force of exterminatus. The only one it doesn't is "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class" and this is because in the Imperium there is pretty much no middle class. There is the ruling class and then there is everyone else.
The Imperium is fascist.
Which is one definition of fascism. Historians just can't agree on what it actually is. As Ian Kershaw once wrote "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall".
Pretty sure Eco also said that his list isn't to be used to identity fascism, but to identity what fascism may "coagulate around".
He also said you only need one of them, which is a bit of loose requirement but ok.
Speaking of Ian Kershaw:
In his history of Europe in the first half of the 20th century, To Hell and Back, British historian Ian Kershaw, while noting the difficulties in defining fascism, found these common factors in the extreme Right-wing movements of the late 1920s and early 1930s, whether they called themselves "fascist" or not:
Hypernationalism - based on the integrated nation cleansed of the influence of ethnic minorities, "foreign" races, and other undesirable elements;
Racial exclusiveness - although not necessarily the biological racism of the Nazis - a cleansed nation would allow the unique or superior qualities of the people to come forth;
Complete destruction of political enemies - through radical and violent means, not only against Marxists, but also democrats, liberals, and reactionaries;
An emphasis on discipline, manliness and militarism - linked to authoritarianism and often involving the use of paramilitary forces.
Other features Kershaw found to be important, and sometimes central to specific movements, but not present in all:
The creation of a "new man" and a new society - requiring the total commitment of the population to the overturning of the existing social order and the building of a national utopia, in "a revolution of mentalities, values and will";
Irredentist or imperialist goals - not necessarily all expansionist in nature;
Anti-capitalism;
Corporatism - the reorganization of the national economy along corporatist lines, with trade unions eliminated and groupings of economic interests called "corporations" (i.e. Industrial and agricultural workers, Teachers and students, Lawyers and doctors, Civil servants, etc.) regulated by the state.
I disagree, to me the aesthetic is mostly medieval with a heavy hit of industrialism. The aesthetic takes inspiration from many places, not just Fascist Italy and Germany.
Well that is kind of a my problem with the assumption. Germany wasn't fasist, and neither it, nor italy or any other fasists state in europe had anything in common with how the empire functions. There was no hereditary offices, or parts of goverment existing outside of party control etc As I said, I assumed that maybe there are more similar types of it in south or central americas, and that is why the terms is being so used from US posters, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Again only in common thing they have is the leader cult, and that is something other political system have. Which makes really confused, because it starts to sound as if the term starts to mean , something I don't like. And then the term loses most of it meaning. It is like calling a circle, anything I want to call a circle. Not very useful in arguments either.
So the corporate heads were arguably also part of the state.
Krupp or Ford were definitly not state owned. That is why they had contests to build planes engines etc. It would be like saying that microsoft or amazon is the state, because at some point of it existance it took funding from the state or performed operations ordered or asked by the state.
I heard in time those companies would've been dissolved too and made to go for the State. Thing is we fought a world war before it could really happen so it didn't get to that phase.
Well only we can check the history books for that. The fasist regime started in Spain in the mid 30s, ended in the 60s or 70s. We can ask Galas about the precise date. Companies were nationalised in Spain, there was still private property. The same was with Italy, Poland (fasist regime for 13 years) etc. Yes some industries were nationalised, mostly state monopols to be sold off to Sweeden or France or US in return for loans, and anything related to the military industry. And even that wasn't a thing everywhere. We did it. But Musolini never took full state control of he Fiat.
as the cooperation goes. Neither El Duce or mr Mustache had problems with loaning engineers, loans , know how etc to the soviet state up until 1940s. So the hate must have not been that bad. Heck in out state under a military junta, communists got so chummy with them, that Stalin delegalized the Polish Communist Party and kicked them out of commintern. Well that and they were friends with Lenin and Trocky, and Stalin never liked people who were close to either of those two, after Lenins death.
Da Boss wrote: Your definition of fascism is wrong flaming. The Nazis are fascist and they hated communism (state ownership of all assets). They killed communists in concentration camps. Large companies like Siemens and so on worked closely with the Nazis and benefited from slave labour but were not state owned.
Not entirely true. Whilst they weren't owned by the state per se, corporate heads were members of the Nazi party. In fact I'm pretty sure you had to be a member of the Nazi party and work with them in order to function.
So the corporate heads were arguably also part of the state.
It is true though that fascism is against the Free Market (like communism) but is fine with Crony Capitalism (not like Communism)
Membership of the party =/= the means of production being owned by the state. It also does not mean you are part of the state in the sense of being involved in the running of the state.
Did the Nazi party receive all of the profits made by Schindler's factories?
Or is Walmart owned by the Republican party as the Walton family are no doubt republican party members.
That depends, is Walmart only allowed to exist as long as it's aligned with the Republican party and gives them funding?
Because Nazi corporation were punished if they went against the National interest. It was a form of light coercion; businesses were allowed to operate as the owner wished, but only if they supported the state's economic goals.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The Imperium hits 9/10 of Umberto Eco's properties of fascism with the force of exterminatus. The only one it doesn't is "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class" and this is because in the Imperium there is pretty much no middle class. There is the ruling class and then there is everyone else.
The Imperium is fascist.
Which is one definition of fascism. Historians just can't agree on what it actually is. As Ian Kershaw once wrote "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall".
Pretty sure Eco also said that his list isn't to be used to identity fascism, but to identity what fascism may "coagulate around".
He also said you only need one of them, which is a bit of loose requirement but ok.
Speaking of Ian Kershaw:
In his history of Europe in the first half of the 20th century, To Hell and Back, British historian Ian Kershaw, while noting the difficulties in defining fascism, found these common factors in the extreme Right-wing movements of the late 1920s and early 1930s, whether they called themselves "fascist" or not:
Hypernationalism - based on the integrated nation cleansed of the influence of ethnic minorities, "foreign" races, and other undesirable elements;
Racial exclusiveness - although not necessarily the biological racism of the Nazis - a cleansed nation would allow the unique or superior qualities of the people to come forth;
Complete destruction of political enemies - through radical and violent means, not only against Marxists, but also democrats, liberals, and reactionaries;
An emphasis on discipline, manliness and militarism - linked to authoritarianism and often involving the use of paramilitary forces.
The Imperium is fascist.
That's fair, but those elements could also arguably be found in the Soviet Union or North Korea (especially points 3 and 4), which would imply that whilst those traits are found in fascist regimes they are not unique to them.
Da Boss wrote: Your definition of fascism is wrong flaming. The Nazis are fascist and they hated communism (state ownership of all assets). They killed communists in concentration camps. Large companies like Siemens and so on worked closely with the Nazis and benefited from slave labour but were not state owned.
Not entirely true. Whilst they weren't owned by the state per se, corporate heads were members of the Nazi party. In fact I'm pretty sure you had to be a member of the Nazi party and work with them in order to function. So the corporate heads were arguably also part of the state. It is true though that fascism is against the Free Market (like communism) but is fine with Crony Capitalism (not like Communism)
Membership of the party =/= the means of production being owned by the state. It also does not mean you are part of the state in the sense of being involved in the running of the state.
Did the Nazi party receive all of the profits made by Schindler's factories?
Or is Walmart owned by the Republican party as the Walton family are no doubt republican party members.
That depends, is Walmart only allowed to exist as long as it's aligned with the Republican party and gives them funding? Because Nazi corporation were punished if they went against the National interest. It was a form of light coercion; businesses were allowed to operate as the owner wished, but only if they supported the state's economic goals.
Ah, so like Georgia threatening to remove tax breaks from corporations who criticised their new voter id laws.
Here's another definition of fascism, this one from Robert Paxton:
Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus at Columbia University, defines fascism in his 2004 book The Anatomy of Fascism as:
A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
In the same book, Paxton also argues that fascism's foundations lie in a set of "mobilizing passions" rather than an elaborated doctrine. He argues these passions can explain much of the behaviour of fascists:
a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions. the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it. the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external. dread of the group’s decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences. the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary. the need for authority by natural chiefs (always male), culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s historical destiny. the superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason. the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success. the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess within a Darwinian struggle.
Again, the Imperium fits.
Stanley G. Payne:
A. Ideology and Goals: Espousal of an idealist, vitalist, and voluntaristic philosophy, normally involving the attempt to realize a new modern, self-determined, and secular culture Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state not based on traditional principles or models Organization of a new highly regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence and war The goal of empire, expansion, or a radical change in the nation's relationship with other powers
B. The Fascist Negations: Antiliberalism Anticommunism Anticonservatism (though with the understanding that fascist groups were willing to undertake temporary alliances with other sectors, more commonly with the right)
C. Style and Organization: Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass single party militia Emphasis on aesthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political liturgy, stressing emotional and mystical aspects Extreme stress on the masculine principle and male dominance, while espousing a strongly organic view of society Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of the generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective
Starting to think the Imperium may be fascist, people.
The Imperium has Fascism on its worlds given the wide range of variance you would expect in systems of governance, the Imperium is not Fascist as it is anti revolutionary and hyper conservative by its very design, this means it cannot by definition be fascist as one cannot conserve a revolutionary ideology pre revolution, one can of course conserve the effects of that ideology post revolution which its possible to argue that the Imperium is a post revolution fascist state but since it has not implemented socialism that also cannot be true and does not work as a justification for calling it fascist, the great crusade was authoritarian/totalitarian but not Fascist either.
hypernationalism - based on the integrated nation cleansed of the influence of ethnic minorities, "foreign" races, and other undesirable elements;
Racial exclusiveness - although not necessarily the biological racism of the Nazis - a cleansed nation would allow the unique or superior qualities of the people to come forth
Doesn't happen in the imperium. As long as you pay taxs, neighter the goverment nor the church are very interested how you do it. There are planets where the emperor is a sky warrior god, where children human sacrifice are the norm and on other planets it is not. The imperium is as diverse as the many planets that make it up.
Racial exclusiveness - although not necessarily the biological racism of the Nazis - a cleansed nation would allow the unique or superior qualities of the people to come forth;
nagivators, ogryns, felinids , ratling etc would all be dead under a nazi regime. Ah and fasists did not care about the race most of the time. In Italy, Spain or Poland the loyality to the state was more important, then any racial or religion divivdes. Which makes sense considering how racially diverse all three of those countries are. So the imperium is neither fasist, nor a nazi entity.
Complete destruction of political enemies
That is hardly a fasist specific trait. Plus the imperium litterally has separatists faction which would not be accepted to exist in a nazi or fasist state. Something like a church, with state influance powers, not linked to the party would be a mind blowing idea to politicians in the 20s-30s in fasist states.
An emphasis on discipline, manliness and militarism
that makes majority of human sociaties recorded fasist. I can't think of a single entity that would not promot discipline and manliness to build a working sociaty. Maybe anarchists, but there never were any anarchist states ever created, and there never will be.
The creation of a "new man" and a new society
that is what every new movment does. XIV-XVth century church reformers talked about the time of creating new men. Early christians were creating new man in the 5th century. That is hardly a fasist specific trait. I mean at the same time communists were creating the homo sovieticus, that doesn't make them fasists.
"a revolution of mentalities, values and will"
That is a citiation from Trosky. Which I find amusing.
Irredentist or imperialist goals,Anti-capitalism;
that is double wrong, not only were fasists not anti capitalist, but neither is the empire. Private trade, private own companies, factories etc all exist within the empire.
Corporatism - the reorganization of the national economy along corporatist lines, with trade unions eliminated and groupings of economic interests called "corporations" (i.e. Industrial and agricultural workers, Teachers and students, Lawyers and doctors, Civil servants, etc.) regulated by the state.
That one is kind of a true. but the imperium has stuff fasists regimes would never tolerate. Mercenary companies, private industries in crucial industries related to military, engines production etc Plus it is kind of a restrictive too. Today if someone goes to any western country and they want to be a lawyer, doctor or electrician, they have to nostrify they diploma or the two countries have to have an agreement that they both aknowladge each other education systems to be the same. Saying just because one needs to be on the board of lawyers of a state, makes the state fasists sounds like huge stretch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Starting to think the Imperium may be fascist, people
Your picking professors who were or are either hard left, members of parties or both at the same time Krenshaw left the party because he found its policies twords brexit not left leaning enough. That is like taking professors from pre 89s and asking what fasism was.
Fasism movment were not anti communist, because of communism, as both had the same socialists root, and often had the same problems. Fasists just did not accept the fact that a parties policy can not be decided in Madrid or Rome or Warsaw, but in Moscov. That is why their beef was only with the local communists, neither of the fasist countries, not even Poland who had a history of war with soviets in the 1920s, had problems with cooperating communists in Russia or China.
That depends, is Walmart only allowed to exist as long as it's aligned with the Republican party and gives them funding?
Because Nazi corporation were punished if they went against the National interest. It was a form of light coercion; businesses were allowed to operate as the owner wished, but only if they supported the state's economic goals..
Why would a company which produces engines or vehicles be against the nationali interest? Mussolini comes to you, symbolically, and asks for X number of engines to build up the new italian air force. Why would you not build them? I mean the only way for this to happen, is if your company somehow benefited from other countries doing well, or if you were trying to make your country run bad. And I can't think of a single example of a company that did that between WWI and WWII. Plus this went for only crucial industries. If you, to be more on topic, created lead toy soldiers the state wasn't very much interested in it besides the usual safty regulations etc.
Here's another definition of fascism, this one from Robert Paxton:
Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus at Columbia University, defines fascism in his 2004 book The Anatomy of Fascism as:
A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
In the same book, Paxton also argues that fascism's foundations lie in a set of "mobilizing passions" rather than an elaborated doctrine. He argues these passions can explain much of the behaviour of fascists:
a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions. the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it. the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external. dread of the group’s decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences. the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary. the need for authority by natural chiefs (always male), culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s historical destiny. the superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason. the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success. the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess within a Darwinian struggle.
Isn't the first paragraph also applicable to various revolutionary movements? Is the Imperium a revolutionary movement? Also, what democratic liberties did the Imperium abandon? Because when the Emperor formed the Imperium there were no democratic liberties left, were there?
Those set of emotions are also applicable to revolutionary sentiment.
A. Ideology and Goals: Espousal of an idealist, vitalist, and voluntaristic philosophy, normally involving the attempt to realize a new modern, self-determined, and secular culture - Well the Imperium isn't secular. Also the same could be said of Revolutionary France and the USSR, which did try to get rid of religion. Funnily enough, it is applicable to Tau which is super secular and idealistic Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state not based on traditional principles or models Isn't the Imperium really traditional? To the point they won't even innovate new tech? The Tau though... Organization of a new highly regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist Not sure that's applicable to the Imperium because of how decentralized it is Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence and warThat's like, every faction in the setting The goal of empire, expansion, or a radical change in the nation's relationship with other powersOk fair enough, but again, so do most of the other factions. And real life civilisations, come to think of it.
B. The Fascist Negations: Antiliberalism Applicable to the higher levels of government, but arguably not on a local level. But anti-liberalism isn't fascist in itself anyway Anticommunism Does communism even exist in 40k? Anticonservatism (though with the understanding that fascist groups were willing to undertake temporary alliances with other sectors, more commonly with the right) Isn't the Imperium really conservative?
C. Style and Organization: Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass single party militia Applicable to the Imperium, I would think, but again not a fascist trait itself but a militaristic one Emphasis on aesthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political liturgy, stressing emotional and mystical aspects Definitely applicable, but again, is it uniquely a fascist trait? Extreme stress on the masculine principle and male dominance, while espousing a strongly organic view of society Not applicable, actually. The Imperium overall doesn't care if you are a man or a woman Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of the generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation Is that applicable? I'm not sure if it is to the Imperium as a whole Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective Arguably not specific to fascism either, and especially not uniquely applicable to the Imperium
I dunno man, just seems authoritarian to me. I will agree that there may be apparent "fascist" undertones (The Third Reich would have certainly been one of the sources of influence), but there are so many other undertones that calling it fascist as if the Imperium is a fascist state in it's entirety doesn't seem accurate to me. Those "fascist" undertones could have just as easily come from the Soviet Union, for example. Authoritarian hell-hole is an authoritarian hell-hole.
I did notice though that in that list some traits seem applicable to Tau. Which is amusing to me, because the meme (which is also inaccurate) is that they are Space Communists.
hypernationalism - based on the integrated nation cleansed of the influence of ethnic minorities, "foreign" races, and other undesirable elements; Racial exclusiveness - although not necessarily the biological racism of the Nazis - a cleansed nation would allow the unique or superior qualities of the people to come forth
Doesn't happen in the imperium. As long as you pay taxs, neighter the goverment nor the church are very interested how you do it. There are planets where the emperor is a sky warrior god, where children human sacrifice are the norm and on other planets it is not. The imperium is as diverse as the many planets that make it up.
Burn the heretic. Kill the mutant. Purge the unclean.
Gonna have to disagree on that one. Be born with a third arm, or horns, or a tail, or any other kind of mutation which they don't find useful and see how the Imperium treats you.
I did notice though that in that list some traits seem applicable to Tau. Which is amusing to me, because the meme (which is also inaccurate) is that they are Space Communists.
That is likely due to Fascism and Socialism being so close to each other philosophically, one is derived from the other after all, the formost expert Zeev Sternhill went into great detail explaining this and laying out the origins of Fascism and the socialists who lost "faith" in marxism who created it.
So similar that the NatSocs used to joke about "soon all the fascists will be out of the SA" and had a derogatory name for the Communists that joined them "Beefsteak N'zi" hell, even ANTIFA of the time joined up with the SA and NatSocs
I did notice though that in that list some traits seem applicable to Tau. Which is amusing to me, because the meme (which is also inaccurate) is that they are Space Communists.
even ANTIFA of the time joined up with the SA and NatSocs
I'm going to need a citation for that, that sounds improbable.
I know the Weimar Republic had some pretty crazy death throes, but that doesn't sound right at all, as ANTIFA was the militant wing of the German Communist Party.
Perhaps you are thinking of the time they both ganged up on the Iron Front? Though that wasn't really an alliance, that was more like getting caught in the middle of two rabid dogs.
Olthannon wrote: This isn't a political post, sure it uses political words but its just looking at the history of 40k and the people who created and developed the setting. I think it's extremely difficult to remove the two when they are indelible. That's how people create stories and build universes.
The Imperium of man is just a natural progression of the politics of the 80s, particularly in the UK. And I think a lot of people now in the hobby seem to really struggle with that.
I think that is particularly the case with a global audience, particularly those who hold conservative views. And I think that is why people love to argue against the fascist elements of the imperium. They are really obviously there. They are there deliberately to remind you the imperium aren't the good guys. There is absolutely no reason to argue the toss about the semantics of fascism unless you aren't comfortable with the word and what it really means. If you can't read between the lines a little, then I don't think you'll ever properly understand that. Are people expecting the Emperor to just eventually wake up, crack a bleary eye after millenia on the throne and hoarsely croak "are we the baddies?".
Is that modern education and a lack of critical thinking at fault? Or is it just people never told how to read a source and work out what is really being said? Remember the arts and humanities are important kids.
Of course everyone living in the current decade where there are a *lot* of similarities to the 1980s and so now you have people saying "oh I see where they got that from" when they interact with the hobby. The trouble is you shouldn't have to live through something to be able to understand the point behind it.
Private greedy corporations sucking planetary resources dry. Earth itself a post apocalyptic wasteland after nuclear destruction. An ignorant wasteful humanity living among the stars with ordinary people toiling in unending drudgery until their short lives are eradicated. Those that have wealth living off that toil and growing as fat and corpulent as the government that keeps them in power. Endless billions sent to war while entire planets are ripped apart and mined to provide arms and armour for their pitiful struggle against an unending tide of darkness.
That's the tone of 40k, this 'grimdark' meme is made up by people who, at its core, just don't understand the lore and the universe. It's a cold hard look at a future that as we seem determined to relive the 1980s seem to be sliding ever close to.
The tone of 40k is bleak. The hopelessness of life in a galaxy of war and fear. And because that's so damn miserable, you need a lot of comic relief.
So just to go back to my original post here in this thread and hopefully get this back on topic, we've got to yes there are fascist elements in the Imperium? The thing that I said. Wonderful.
Just to reiterate: it is absolutely pointless arguing the semantics of the word fascism. Where exactly does it lead? Going round and round the point because someone doesn't like the fact that the horrible future fascist authoritarian state in the fictional world of little plastic toys is bad? What's the point in this entire discussion?
Because there are clear fascist elements in the 40k lore concerning the Imperium. It is to remind you that the Imperium aren't the good guys.
"Um well all these things mean that the made up fictional state of the Imperium can't possibly be fascist so there!"
If you can only debate the word and not the entire context and history behind it then you aren't getting it. Again what I said in my original post. And so this will just go round and round and round until we all die of utter boredom. Unless of course I'm already dead and this is some weird corner of hell to be punished for my sins then I'd rather go help that lad Sisyphus. What a waste of time that would be eh?
I did notice though that in that list some traits seem applicable to Tau. Which is amusing to me, because the meme (which is also inaccurate) is that they are Space Communists.
even ANTIFA of the time joined up with the SA and NatSocs
I'm going to need a citation for that, that sounds improbable.
I know the Weimar Republic had some pretty crazy death throes, but that doesn't sound right at all, as ANTIFA was the militant wing of the German Communist Party.
Perhaps you are thinking of the time they both ganged up on the Iron Front? Though that wasn't really an alliance, that was more like getting caught in the middle of two rabid dogs.
I will PM you as I do not want to derail this thread that is supposed to be about tone lol
Automatically Appended Next Post: Are you arguing with yourself Olthannon ?
flamingkillamajig wrote: That's the thing. I heard in time those companies would've been dissolved too and made to go for the State. Thing is we fought a world war before it could really happen so it didn't get to that phase. I could be wrong. Just what I've heard.
It's Wikipedia. I'd prefer a dictionary which isn't constantly editedbased on an editor's leanings.
Love that for you mate but that's not how Wikipedia works. If you like you can go out and buy a pop up book about Fascism if that would help?
It's just what you wrote in your post is fundamentally wrong so looking at the basics of fascism to actually understand the concept is the best place to start.
Really going to underline this point, not being condescending at all but I really think you should look up what fascism actually is and not just a dictionary definition of the word. I'm afraid life requires context as well. This is what I mean about arguing the semantics. It's not just the word "fascism" it's everything which surrounds that as well.
Thing is the guy that said that about fascism read the book on what the creator of fascism said the ideology is about. He posted portions of it too. So I guess the creator of fascism is incorrect about what it is but a couple internet dudes disagreeing about what it is happen to be correct. Strange logic there but ok.
flamingkillamajig wrote: That's the thing. I heard in time those companies would've been dissolved too and made to go for the State. Thing is we fought a world war before it could really happen so it didn't get to that phase. I could be wrong. Just what I've heard.
It's Wikipedia. I'd prefer a dictionary which isn't constantly editedbased on an editor's leanings.
Love that for you mate but that's not how Wikipedia works. If you like you can go out and buy a pop up book about Fascism if that would help?
It's just what you wrote in your post is fundamentally wrong so looking at the basics of fascism to actually understand the concept is the best place to start.
Really going to underline this point, not being condescending at all but I really think you should look up what fascism actually is and not just a dictionary definition of the word. I'm afraid life requires context as well. This is what I mean about arguing the semantics. It's not just the word "fascism" it's everything which surrounds that as well.
Thing is the guy that said that about fascism read the book on what the creator of fascism said the ideology is about. He posted portions of it too. So I guess the creator of fascism is incorrect about what it is but a couple internet dudes disagreeing about what it is happen to be correct. Strange logic there but ok.
That Wikipedia page has 287 references, including a few dictionary. Wikipedia is a great source of information and when people just dismiss it, it’s just poor form.
There is a lot of work that goes into it, and lots of discussion about how it’s presented and information that may apply.
flamingkillamajig wrote: That's the thing. I heard in time those companies would've been dissolved too and made to go for the State. Thing is we fought a world war before it could really happen so it didn't get to that phase. I could be wrong. Just what I've heard.
It's Wikipedia. I'd prefer a dictionary which isn't constantly editedbased on an editor's leanings.
Love that for you mate but that's not how Wikipedia works. If you like you can go out and buy a pop up book about Fascism if that would help?
It's just what you wrote in your post is fundamentally wrong so looking at the basics of fascism to actually understand the concept is the best place to start.
Really going to underline this point, not being condescending at all but I really think you should look up what fascism actually is and not just a dictionary definition of the word. I'm afraid life requires context as well. This is what I mean about arguing the semantics. It's not just the word "fascism" it's everything which surrounds that as well.
Thing is the guy that said that about fascism read the book on what the creator of fascism said the ideology is about. He posted portions of it too. So I guess the creator of fascism is incorrect about what it is but a couple internet dudes disagreeing about what it is happen to be correct. Strange logic there but ok.
That Wikipedia page has 287 references, including a few dictionary. Wikipedia is a great source of information and when people just dismiss it, it’s just poor form.
There is a lot of work that goes into it, and lots of discussion about how it’s presented and information that may apply.
Exactly, wikipedia has it's negatives but as a basic tool for understanding the fundamentals of something, it is ideal.
And speaking of fundamentals, let's go into the basics of critical thinking. A perfect example is "the guy that said that about fascism read the book on what the creator of fascism said" versus a wikipedia article with 200+ references.
When we consider a source, there are a few things you have to also think about. This is known as the wider context. "The guy said" which guy? What is his underlying narrative? what arguments is he trying to bring forward? What is he not saying? What is the bias of the author?
"He read the book on what the creator of fascism said?" which book? What? What do you even do with that information? I can't even properly deal with that. Who has the time? Here's a mega helpful tip, try not to accept the first thing someone says about something. How is it that a guy who I am imagining said "here's why fascism is good actually" should be listened to but a well referenced wikipedia article is a conspiracy? This is the online version of "my mate down the pub said the government is trying to turn all of us into lizard people and it's all a big cover up, swear down."
Consider a well sourced article that has multiple sourced references - in this case a handy dandy wikipedia article (which have you actually looked at and ingested any of the information it presented? Please do the for love of feth).
Why are references important? Well it allows a secondary reader to then look at other information, not just the original author, that way they can make their own informed opinion based on further reading if they want to.
Wikipedia is an excellent base, it sets out most information clearly and then allows you to look for more information if the article didn't fully consider all of it.
Are you arguing with yourself Olthannon ?
No? I quoted my original post because the off topic discussion kind of blew past it. So I quoted it in my follow up there to highlight it again. Was that not obvious?
Personally I believe the rogue trader and 2nd edition imperium were absolutely fascists.
The actual Imperium has received much deeper analysis and now it functions more in universe as an authoritarian dysfunctional feudal intergalactic empire.
The Emperor itself was absolutely presented as a Fascist leader with his anti xenos rethoric, the golden future, the secularism, the creation of post-humans, and all the personification.
So personally for me is funnier how people puts the 30k imperium as "better" than the 40k when from our perspective it was basically the ideal fascist mythology as presented.
In 40k of course everything has gone to gak from an in universe perspective. I agree with something someone posted earlier. The actual day 40k imperium (well, actual and from 25 years ago and onward) is more of a Remix of the Best Authoritarian Regimes styles of all humanity history with things like commisars, roman imaginery, xenocide, exterminatus, religious fanatism, Inquisitions, etc...
Galas wrote: Personally I believe the rogue trader and 2nd edition imperium were absolutely fascists.
The actual Imperium has received much deeper analysis and now it functions more in universe as an authoritarian dysfunctional feudal intergalactic empire.
The Emperor itself was absolutely presented as a Fascist leader with his anti xenos rethoric, the golden future, the secularism, the creation of post-humans, and all the personification.
So personally for me is funnier how people puts the 30k imperium as "better" than the 40k when from our perspective it was basically the ideal fascist mythology as presented.
In 40k of course everything has gone to gak from an in universe perspective. I agree with something someone posted earlier. The actual day 40k imperium (well, actual and from 25 years ago and onward) is more of a Remix of the Best Authoritarian Regimes styles of all humanity history with things like commisars, roman imaginery, xenocide, exterminatus, religious fanatism, Inquisitions, etc...
That's a fair analysis. I'm not too familiar with Rogue Trader or 2nd ed, so I only have the current rendition to work with.
Tonally, in my opinion, I'm afraid GW has missed the mark nowadays; they "sanitized" the Imperium and made it less outright brutal and even noble at times, which undermines the whole concept of the Imperium being a satire of the worst parts of human history imaginable.
Given those circumstances, it's no surprise that people nowadays miss the point and actually think living in the Imperium would be desirable.
To use a rough crude analogy, GW took 1984 and turned it into Triumph of the Will.
Galas wrote: Personally I believe the rogue trader and 2nd edition imperium were absolutely fascists.
The actual Imperium has received much deeper analysis and now it functions more in universe as an authoritarian dysfunctional feudal intergalactic empire.
The Emperor itself was absolutely presented as a Fascist leader with his anti xenos rethoric, the golden future, the secularism, the creation of post-humans, and all the personification.
So personally for me is funnier how people puts the 30k imperium as "better" than the 40k when from our perspective it was basically the ideal fascist mythology as presented.
In 40k of course everything has gone to gak from an in universe perspective. I agree with something someone posted earlier. The actual day 40k imperium (well, actual and from 25 years ago and onward) is more of a Remix of the Best Authoritarian Regimes styles of all humanity history with things like commisars, roman imaginery, xenocide, exterminatus, religious fanatism, Inquisitions, etc...
That's a fair analysis. I'm not too familiar with Rogue Trader or 2nd ed, so I only have the current rendition to work with.
Tonally, in my opinion, I'm afraid GW has missed the mark nowadays; they "sanitized" the Imperium and made it less outright brutal and even noble at times, which undermines the whole concept of the Imperium being a satire of the worst parts of human history imaginable.
Given those circumstances, it's no surprise that people nowadays miss the point and actually think living in the Imperium would be desirable.
To use a rough crude analogy, GW took 1984 and turned it into Triumph of the Will.
It’s possible a bit of both, they Sanitised the setting a bit as people didn’t understand it all. And that in turn dilutes the setting tone and causes more misunderstanding.
Mix in writers who don’t understand it all ether and it’s a tough issue to keep up with, considering the setting try to mix in a lot as well. And just meh writing at times.
Especially when people looking in have external understanding, it’s not just itself that influence the market. But other media that also plays a part in it.
No? I quoted my original post because the off topic discussion kind of blew past it. So I quoted it in my follow up there to highlight it again. Was that not obvious?
flamingkillamajig wrote: That's the thing. I heard in time those companies would've been dissolved too and made to go for the State. Thing is we fought a world war before it could really happen so it didn't get to that phase. I could be wrong. Just what I've heard.
It's Wikipedia. I'd prefer a dictionary which isn't constantly editedbased on an editor's leanings.
Love that for you mate but that's not how Wikipedia works. If you like you can go out and buy a pop up book about Fascism if that would help?
It's just what you wrote in your post is fundamentally wrong so looking at the basics of fascism to actually understand the concept is the best place to start.
Really going to underline this point, not being condescending at all but I really think you should look up what fascism actually is and not just a dictionary definition of the word. I'm afraid life requires context as well. This is what I mean about arguing the semantics. It's not just the word "fascism" it's everything which surrounds that as well.
Thing is the guy that said that about fascism read the book on what the creator of fascism said the ideology is about. He posted portions of it too. So I guess the creator of fascism is incorrect about what it is but a couple internet dudes disagreeing about what it is happen to be correct. Strange logic there but ok.
That Wikipedia page has 287 references, including a few dictionary. Wikipedia is a great source of information and when people just dismiss it, it’s just poor form.
There is a lot of work that goes into it, and lots of discussion about how it’s presented and information that may apply.
Exactly, wikipedia has it's negatives but as a basic tool for understanding the fundamentals of something, it is ideal.
And speaking of fundamentals, let's go into the basics of critical thinking. A perfect example is "the guy that said that about fascism read the book on what the creator of fascism said" versus a wikipedia article with 200+ references.
When we consider a source, there are a few things you have to also think about. This is known as the wider context. "The guy said" which guy? What is his underlying narrative? what arguments is he trying to bring forward? What is he not saying? What is the bias of the author?
"He read the book on what the creator of fascism said?" which book? What? What do you even do with that information? I can't even properly deal with that. Who has the time? Here's a mega helpful tip, try not to accept the first thing someone says about something. How is it that a guy who I am imagining said "here's why fascism is good actually" should be listened to but a well referenced wikipedia article is a conspiracy? This is the online version of "my mate down the pub said the government is trying to turn all of us into lizard people and it's all a big cover up, swear down."
Consider a well sourced article that has multiple sourced references - in this case a handy dandy wikipedia article (which have you actually looked at and ingested any of the information it presented? Please do the for love of feth).
Why are references important? Well it allows a secondary reader to then look at other information, not just the original author, that way they can make their own informed opinion based on further reading if they want to.
Wikipedia is an excellent base, it sets out most information clearly and then allows you to look for more information if the article didn't fully consider all of it.
Are you arguing with yourself Olthannon ?
No? I quoted my original post because the off topic discussion kind of blew past it. So I quoted it in my follow up there to highlight it again. Was that not obvious?
I'll edit this later but he never said fascism was good or even remotely that but your perspective instantly makes you believe that. He merely said actual fascism is everything being packed into the State and only being within it.
I have no idea how you get a pro fascism comment out of that besides being a total extremist obsessed with fascism but fine.
He never said Wikipedia is a conspiracy and as far as reading it for certain politicized issues you can tell how full of crap and one sided it can be.
I'm not doubting normally many people have political leanings when writing books and they can say something is true when it's not whether it's one set of ideals that don't mesh with reality or another. However I find it rather amazing you think the dude that wrote what fascism is and created it doesn't know what Fascism is. This is akin to a writer not knowing what book he wrote was about....or saying Marx didn't know true Marxism.
As far as conspiracy goes while I imagine some exist I find it rather funny you don't see your own left leaning conspiracies: Hitler in Latin America and still alive, trump-russia collusion despite no conclusive evidence and seeing bigotry under every shadow and tree stump when often it could be explained away with other possible answers which are usually more likely. I'd go into more detail but this thread has already been derailed and looking for a lock.
I'm not saying the Imperium isn't authoritarian. However you guys don't understand what fascism is I think.
flamingkillamajig wrote: That's the thing. I heard in time those companies would've been dissolved too and made to go for the State. Thing is we fought a world war before it could really happen so it didn't get to that phase. I could be wrong. Just what I've heard.
It's Wikipedia. I'd prefer a dictionary which isn't constantly editedbased on an editor's leanings.
Love that for you mate but that's not how Wikipedia works. If you like you can go out and buy a pop up book about Fascism if that would help?
It's just what you wrote in your post is fundamentally wrong so looking at the basics of fascism to actually understand the concept is the best place to start.
Really going to underline this point, not being condescending at all but I really think you should look up what fascism actually is and not just a dictionary definition of the word. I'm afraid life requires context as well. This is what I mean about arguing the semantics. It's not just the word "fascism" it's everything which surrounds that as well.
Thing is the guy that said that about fascism read the book on what the creator of fascism said the ideology is about. He posted portions of it too. So I guess the creator of fascism is incorrect about what it is but a couple internet dudes disagreeing about what it is happen to be correct. Strange logic there but ok.
That Wikipedia page has 287 references, including a few dictionary. Wikipedia is a great source of information and when people just dismiss it, it’s just poor form.
There is a lot of work that goes into it, and lots of discussion about how it’s presented and information that may apply.
Poor form to dismiss Wikipedia?! Geez! Every schmuck can post something on Wikipedia. You need far better sources to obtain knowledge otherwise people won't take you seriously.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The Imperium hits 9/10 of Umberto Eco's properties of fascism with the force of exterminatus. The only one it doesn't is "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class" and this is because in the Imperium there is no middle class. There is the ruling class and then there is everyone else who are just cogs in the military-industrial machine.
The Imperium is fascist.
That definition of ideal fascism is so abstract that it can be applied to almost any fictional authoritariam regime.
Also Fascism only has full political sense in the context of the deep crisis of european capitalist societies in the interwar period. Since the 2008 crisis some elements of the interwar period have been mimic on the western world, therefore fascism is nowdays again an active political movement.
Fascism is obviously one element of inspiration of the IOM. But "in universe" it dosent make sense to describe it as fascism.
So you can call them fascist... To some degree and if you dont take that definition to literally... Clearly nowdays alt right activist will in many cases fill very confortable living in the IOM.
flamingkillamajig wrote: That's the thing. I heard in time those companies would've been dissolved too and made to go for the State. Thing is we fought a world war before it could really happen so it didn't get to that phase. I could be wrong. Just what I've heard.
It's Wikipedia. I'd prefer a dictionary which isn't constantly editedbased on an editor's leanings.
Love that for you mate but that's not how Wikipedia works. If you like you can go out and buy a pop up book about Fascism if that would help?
It's just what you wrote in your post is fundamentally wrong so looking at the basics of fascism to actually understand the concept is the best place to start.
Really going to underline this point, not being condescending at all but I really think you should look up what fascism actually is and not just a dictionary definition of the word. I'm afraid life requires context as well. This is what I mean about arguing the semantics. It's not just the word "fascism" it's everything which surrounds that as well.
Thing is the guy that said that about fascism read the book on what the creator of fascism said the ideology is about. He posted portions of it too. So I guess the creator of fascism is incorrect about what it is but a couple internet dudes disagreeing about what it is happen to be correct. Strange logic there but ok.
That Wikipedia page has 287 references, including a few dictionary. Wikipedia is a great source of information and when people just dismiss it, it’s just poor form.
There is a lot of work that goes into it, and lots of discussion about how it’s presented and information that may apply.
Poor form to dismiss Wikipedia?! Geez! Every schmuck can post something on Wikipedia. You need far better sources to obtain knowledge otherwise people won't take you seriously.
Indeed. I don't know how it is nowadays, but my professors told me not to use wikipedia as a primary source and to dig deeper. I take it my teachers were in poor form?
Well this conversation has gone into a disgusting road. I'd ask what you define as Alt Right since i've seen suggestions of many people i'd only consider a bit more right wing than me considered as Alt Right or Fascist.
This topic is well and truly done i think.
Not that it's worth anything but if my ideals are viewed as fascist then you're lost i think.
My ideals: Capitalism but breaking up monopolies, Freedom, Personal responsibility, Immigration but limited to what we need regardless of where they're from and what won't destroy our country (maybe a crap ton of migrants during a pandemic and during an economic crisis is a bad idea) and intervention from time to time in foreign affairs but not frequently and mostly just because we have the power to change things so with great power comes great responsibility. Also Race, Sex and Gender while good for identification and preferences imo shouldn't be indicators of Victimhood (as if you aren't just changing who's victim and oppressor) and for that matter aren't indicators of a good person whereas quality of personal character are. Honestly Sex, Race and gender outside of identification and sexual preferences should hold about as much importance as the number, size and color of freckles on someone's ass but some like to obsess over it i guess.
Um I’m confused? How do I turn of notifs, this conversation sends me emails. I want emails but not for this. Also how did this turn into a argument about alt right facism. I think I missed something. How do I turn off emails for this specific thread?
Matoro99 wrote: Um I’m confused? How do I turn of notifs, this conversation sends me emails. I want emails but not for this. Also how did this turn into a argument about alt right facism. I think I missed something. How do I turn off emails for this specific thread?
My first post was legit about me wanting 40k to be like how it was in Dawn of War 1. Goofy, cartoony and over the top with ridiculous gore added in. Sadly that's gone now.
This is sadly the fate of every thread now that reaches 8-10 pages or more. Re-treading old arguments and arguments of political extremism. Isn't 2021 grand?
For your question i'd say ask a mod. Maybe edit some posts and UnClick "Notify by Email" when reply is posted?
Well if you want to talk about that, I think warhammer should be bright and colorful in desgin, sort of like the heavy metal style in 2nd edition and RT, but he dark and gory like normal 40K. I edited the dawn of wars game to have them all have that desgin.
Lets take a real world regime that is near Fascism and Catholic rigorism... both of which are heavy inspiration for the IOM... Franco´s Spain.
Those this mean that the IOM is a sci-fi space version of Franco´s Spain? ... not at all.
Satirical fiction and political science are not the same medium.
The tone of 40K should be as satirical as possible... obviously you cant remain as edgy as in the 80´s, but dont pretend either that the 40K setting is something that can be taken with a full straight face.
Vatsetis wrote: Lets take a real world regime that is near Fascism and Catholic rigorism... both of which are heavy inspiration for the IOM... Franco´s Spain.
Those this mean that the IOM is a sci-fi space version of Franco´s Spain? ... not at all.
Satirical fiction and political science are not the same medium.
The tone of 40K should be as satirical as possible... obviously you cant remain as edgy as in the 80´s, but dont pretend either that the 40K setting is something that can be taken with a full straight face.
I'm glad to see a common shorthand for "brutal totalitarian regime that habitually commits war crimes and treats its people as expendable resources" has prompted so much discussion on whether the specific term "fascism" is technically accurate.
Vatsetis wrote: Lets take a real world regime that is near Fascism and Catholic rigorism... both of which are heavy inspiration for the IOM... Franco´s Spain.
Those this mean that the IOM is a sci-fi space version of Franco´s Spain? ... not at all.
Satirical fiction and political science are not the same medium.
The tone of 40K should be as satirical as possible... obviously you cant remain as edgy as in the 80´s, but dont pretend either that the 40K setting is something that can be taken with a full straight face.
I'm glad to see a common shorthand for "brutal totalitarian regime that habitually commits war crimes and treats its people as expendable resources" has prompted so much discussion on whether the specific term "fascism" is technically accurate.
The term fascism in it self is very problematic both in academic and common live use. This has always been the case but it is even more problematic today.
Which shouldnt surprise anyone since in many parts of the world today we have very storng extreme right wing political movements that at least share some of the most prominent elements of classical fascism (even doe they dont self describe as fascist nor are a carbon copy of the 30´s fascist regimes).
Nobody is saying the Imperium is 100% good. In fact all sides are bad. It is a grim dark setting after all. Most of the aliens are racists or evil too. Don't necrons view things that way and previously they were soulless robots. Eldar view other species as lesser and sacrifice millions or billions to save a handful of their own. Dark eldar torture others to extend their life and have husks for souls. Nids are just hungry. Tau have a lot more subtlety with their mind control, brainwashing and castration of some citizens. Chaos is basically selling your soul for power and is in many ways self destructive and does a lot of awful stuff.
Oh and orks just have fun fighting and killing everything.
Everything in the universe of 40k is bad or violent or just about.
-----
@matoro99: did you see my suggestion earlier a post or two ago?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I don't know how it is nowadays, but my professors told me not to use wikipedia as a primary source and to dig deeper. I take it my teachers were in poor form?
Emphasis on primary source. Wikipedia *is* incredibly useful in academic work as a repository for other primary sources. Yes, never cite your work as coming from Wikipedia, but you'd be foolish if you didn't see the use of Wikipedia in locating primary sources which you *can* quote from.
I don't think people in this thread are claiming to use Wikipedia as a primary source, only that dismissing it "because Wikipedia" is equally myopic.
In response to a subthread that started out with a poster who had not done any source reading citing "somebody told me" as a basis from which to argue with the scholarship and spawned such spicy takes as "No True Fascism" no less...
All that said, I think that how the game's various media *addresses* the spectre of fascism and other authoritarianism is pretty important to hitting the right tone for 40k in terms of whether it's doing something interesting and subversive, or just pedalling Triumph Of The Will nazi tripe in spaaaace.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Eldar view other species as lesser and sacrifice millions or billions to save a handful of their own.
So does the Imperium.
Dark eldar torture others to extend their life and have husks for souls.
So does the Imperium. How many people are sacrificed daily to fuel the Emperors chair?
Tau have a lot more subtlety with their mind control, brainwashing and castration of some citizens.
The Imperium also does all of this.
Chaos is basically selling your soul for power and is in many ways self destructive and does a lot of awful stuff.
See Space Marines. Also, the Inquisition.
So everything bad that the other species in 40k do, the Imperium does on top of all of the other awful stuff it does. It is effectively the combination of all of the bad traits of every other species in the setting, plus some extra on top.
There is no good/pure faction in 40k, and that is the tone, and the tone that should be maintained, with it's injections of satirical humour here and there. The best human characters the lore has ever created are all flawed anti-heroes who are guaranteed to cross the line.
The imperium is arguably the worst faction, though in regards to the best of the rest, it is not the Eldar or the Tau. The Eldar because they are just as fascist as the imperium, whilst the tau's experimentation on their own populace is only not on par with the imperium due to not having the same amount of population.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Eldar view other species as lesser and sacrifice millions or billions to save a handful of their own.
So does the Imperium.
Orks view every other species as guys worth fightin'. Except when they are weedy, then they are enslaved or killed or blown up.
Dark eldar torture others to extend their life and have husks for souls.
So does the Imperium. How many people are sacrificed daily to fuel the Emperors chair?
Orks fight and kill each other when bored or for other trivial reasons. They also like to sacrifice others to see if a new gubbin' works or just for the explosion.
Tau have a lot more subtlety with their mind control, brainwashing and castration of some citizens.
The Imperium also does all of this.
If you don't listen to your boss, he will punch you in the face or stomp on your head.
Chaos is basically selling your soul for power and is in many ways self destructive and does a lot of awful stuff.
See Space Marines. Also, the Inquisition.
Orks are self-destructive to go fasta, fly higher, have more dakka or get more scrap. Also their psykers (and vehicles, some guns and also some melee weapons) can pretty much explode at any moment and are just roughly pointed in the correct direction.
So everything bad that the other species in 40k do, the Imperium does on top of all of the other awful stuff it does. It is effectively the combination of all of the bad traits of every other species in the setting, plus some extra on top.
So do orks. Except they are doing it for their enjoyment.
Given the amount of reports this thread is generating and the round and round nature of the discussion, I've decided to lock this thread, we have well reachedJAMlevels right now and I'd rather not see this go FLOPSY BUNNY.
