This makes me think of all the folks cosplaying as storm troopers and Darth Vader. But everybody is fine with that. Even if they're a bunch of oppressive and murderous SOBs.
The main distinction is that almost every Darth Vader cosplayer is presenting as "the bad guy". That's the fun of it. The Galactic Empire are evil, their Emperor is one of the most comically villainous villains in fiction. Any agent of the Empire that has a shred of nobility eventually defects and almost every effort to humanize the Empire is tongue in cheek.
There's definitely been a rise in people somehow believing that there's some moral parity in the Star Wars factions in recent years, which is honestly rather concerning. People have fun with Star Wars cosplay because the bad guys know they're evil. Vader's coming for you..... to engage in a cool fight with laser swords. That's the fun in it; in having clear sides to fight against one another. Not in having justifiable characters to relate to.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: if we're talking about satire and the imperium being terrible, there's no reason why women shouldn't also be space marines— why let men do all the horrible things when Thatcher proved women can just as easily ruin lives! hashtag girl power
Sister of Battle already has that covered, I think. I'm pretty sure they commit more war crimes than space marines, being die-hard religious fanatics who love using fire and all.
Also inquisitors. They're like, living war crimes. They don't follow the Geneva Convention, they follow the Geneva Checklist.
right, so if there's no issue with women in the setting, then there's no issue with women being space marines!
StudentOfEtherium wrote: if we're talking about satire and the imperium being terrible, there's no reason why women shouldn't also be space marines— why let men do all the horrible things when Thatcher proved women can just as easily ruin lives! hashtag girl power
Sister of Battle already has that covered, I think. I'm pretty sure they commit more war crimes than space marines, being die-hard religious fanatics who love using fire and all.
Also inquisitors. They're like, living war crimes. They don't follow the Geneva Convention, they follow the Geneva Checklist.
right, so if there's no issue with women in the setting, then there's no issue with women being space marines!
Disingenious argument is disingenious.
Agreed-Sisters share some similarities with Marines, but they are NOT equivalent, in-universe or out-of-universe.
Da Boss wrote: If that's the case Hellebore, do you think being an Eldar player makes you feel contempt for other humans and value their lives less?
Does playing Dark Eldar make you more likely to want to engage in torture?
Does playing Orks mean you'll think violence is fun?
Does playing Tyranids mean you see everyone as biomass?
Or is it specifically that the Imperium is the human faction that makes it likely to cause a social shift by normalising violent political ideas?
The Imperium makes up 50% of the model line and 90% of the fiction. The majority of 40k fiction shows the Imperium fighting evil aliens or evil humans without looking at the fact that the Imperium itself is also evil. There are some books that show that but they are few and far between.
The idea that humans would associate more readily with Orks or Tyranids than other humans is just laughable. The reason people laughed off Orks in WW2 German gear is because Orks are the comedy faction of 40k. "Haha look they're trying to be people" is literally what that is, a chimpanzee in a top hat. They're also the baddies from like 90% of fantasy books.
You can no more identify with a Tyranid than a Xenomorph and GW designed the Nids to ape the design of the Xenomorph, the baddie from Alien.
The Imperium is all humans. Normal humans, religious humans, and special super humans who also happen to win all the fights. Power fantasy wrapped in human supremacy fantasy. It even comes with its own quotable slogans so people can pretend their RPing but they're actually being bigots.
This makes me think of all the folks cosplaying as storm troopers and Darth Vader. But everybody is fine with that. Even if they're a bunch of oppressive and murderous SOBs.
The main distinction is that almost every Darth Vader cosplayer is presenting as "the bad guy". That's the fun of it. The Galactic Empire are evil, their Emperor is one of the most comically villainous villains in fiction. Any agent of the Empire that has a shred of nobility eventually defects and almost every effort to humanize the Empire is tongue in cheek.
There's definitely been a rise in people somehow believing that there's some moral parity in the Star Wars factions in recent years, which is honestly rather concerning. People have fun with Star Wars cosplay because the bad guys know they're evil. Vader's coming for you..... to engage in a cool fight with laser swords. That's the fun in it; in having clear sides to fight against one another. Not in having justifiable characters to relate to.
That, and also there is a pretty big difference between 'cosplaying as Darth Vader is going to turn you into a sand-hating goosestepping fascist' and 'writing Darth Vader as wholly justified in his actions is weird, misses the point, and attracts a sort of fan who is really into the fascist-Empire-as-good-guys theme'.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: if we're talking about satire and the imperium being terrible, there's no reason why women shouldn't also be space marines— why let men do all the horrible things when Thatcher proved women can just as easily ruin lives! hashtag girl power
Sister of Battle already has that covered, I think. I'm pretty sure they commit more war crimes than space marines, being die-hard religious fanatics who love using fire and all.
Also inquisitors. They're like, living war crimes. They don't follow the Geneva Convention, they follow the Geneva Checklist.
right, so if there's no issue with women in the setting, then there's no issue with women being space marines!
Disingenious argument is disingenious.
Agreed-Sisters share some similarities with Marines, but they are NOT equivalent, in-universe or out-of-universe.
Not what i meant. The argument that we shall equalise all faction identity in the name of whatever is en vogue is stupid beyond the fact that it damages consistency.
Da Boss wrote: If that's the case Hellebore, do you think being an Eldar player makes you feel contempt for other humans and value their lives less?
Does playing Dark Eldar make you more likely to want to engage in torture?
Does playing Orks mean you'll think violence is fun?
Does playing Tyranids mean you see everyone as biomass?
Or is it specifically that the Imperium is the human faction that makes it likely to cause a social shift by normalising violent political ideas?
The Imperium makes up 50% of the model line and 90% of the fiction. The majority of 40k fiction shows the Imperium fighting evil aliens or evil humans without looking at the fact that the Imperium itself is also evil. There are some books that show that but they are few and far between.
The idea that humans would associate more readily with Orks or Tyranids than other humans is just laughable. The reason people laughed off Orks in WW2 German gear is because Orks are the comedy faction of 40k. "Haha look they're trying to be people" is literally what that is, a chimpanzee in a top hat. They're also the baddies from like 90% of fantasy books.
You can no more identify with a Tyranid than a Xenomorph and GW designed the Nids to ape the design of the Xenomorph, the baddie from Alien.
The Imperium is all humans. Normal humans, religious humans, and special super humans who also happen to win all the fights. Power fantasy wrapped in human supremacy fantasy. It even comes with its own quotable slogans so people can pretend their RPing but they're actually being bigots.
So, from your POV, what should be done? Do you agree that the Imperium is creating real world extremists due to how it's being written, and not just accidentally appealing to extremists that already exist?
Because personally, if I thought the Imperium was creating Neo-Nazis, I'd be all for just shutting it down, shuttering 40K and starting again with fiction that doesn't create fascists. It's really serious if the game is creating fascists and neo-nazis nowadays, and the game is so trivial it's absolutely not worth preserving if it is doing that.
That seems to be the stance implied by some of the arguments here. Now, I don't believe that real world neo-nazis are being created by the existence of a fictional fascist regime in a tabletop game, which is why I'm fine with it continuing to exist as is. If you think it really is creating extremists, allowing an environment for them to thrive, I just wonder why you think a trivial hobby is worth that risk?
StudentOfEtherium wrote: if we're talking about satire and the imperium being terrible, there's no reason why women shouldn't also be space marines— why let men do all the horrible things when Thatcher proved women can just as easily ruin lives! hashtag girl power
Sister of Battle already has that covered, I think. I'm pretty sure they commit more war crimes than space marines, being die-hard religious fanatics who love using fire and all.
Also inquisitors. They're like, living war crimes. They don't follow the Geneva Convention, they follow the Geneva Checklist.
right, so if there's no issue with women in the setting, then there's no issue with women being space marines!
Disingenious argument is disingenious.
Agreed-Sisters share some similarities with Marines, but they are NOT equivalent, in-universe or out-of-universe.
Not what i meant. The argument that we shall equalise all faction identity in the name of whatever is en vogue is stupid beyond the fact that it damages consistency.
It wouldn't make them the same.
Sisters have a distinct identity-they're the ultra religious battle nuns of the Imperium.
Marines are much more malleable in their identity-you have the religious zealots (Black Templars), you have the Vikings (Space Wolves), you have the Knights (Dark Angels), you have the vampires/angels (Blood Angels), you have the practical minded soldiers (Ultramarines)... Basically anything you can imagine, in terms of armies, can be found among the ranks of Marines.
Except women, because they apparently have cooties.
Sisters have a distinct identity-they're the ultra religious battle nuns of the Imperium.
Marines are much more malleable in their identity-you have the religious zealots (Black Templars), you have the Vikings (Space Wolves), you have the Knights (Dark Angels), you have the vampires/angels (Blood Angels), you have the practical minded soldiers (Ultramarines)... Basically anything you can imagine, in terms of armies, can be found among the ranks of Marines.
Except women, because they apparently have cooties.
This is, fundamentally, where the failure to understand things exists.
Sisters aren't "ultra-religious battle nuns of the Imperium".
Sisters are the ultra-militant arm of the Ecclesiarchy, acting as the standing army of the predominant religion of the Imperium. The entire organization exists as a loophole preventing men at arms.
Those Vikings you want? Knights? "Vampires"? Practical minded soldiery? All of those things can be found in the ranks of the Sororitas as well.
This makes me think of all the folks cosplaying as storm troopers and Darth Vader. But everybody is fine with that. Even if they're a bunch of oppressive and murderous SOBs.
The main distinction is that almost every Darth Vader cosplayer is presenting as "the bad guy". That's the fun of it. The Galactic Empire are evil, their Emperor is one of the most comically villainous villains in fiction. Any agent of the Empire that has a shred of nobility eventually defects and almost every effort to humanize the Empire is tongue in cheek.
There's definitely been a rise in people somehow believing that there's some moral parity in the Star Wars factions in recent years, which is honestly rather concerning. People have fun with Star Wars cosplay because the bad guys know they're evil. Vader's coming for you..... to engage in a cool fight with laser swords. That's the fun in it; in having clear sides to fight against one another. Not in having justifiable characters to relate to.
That, and also there is a pretty big difference between 'cosplaying as Darth Vader is going to turn you into a sand-hating goosestepping fascist' and 'writing Darth Vader as wholly justified in his actions is weird, misses the point, and attracts a sort of fan who is really into the fascist-Empire-as-good-guys theme'.
I have to apologize because I really don't have the time to respond in a more thorough way, but my observation would be that every time I see phrases like "Purge the alien" or "cleanse with holy fire" used, it's always (as I percieve it, anyway) in that same sort of gleeful playing-as-the-bad-guy sort of manner. Like, it's fun to play the bad guy and I think a lot of people can be on board with that. I think most proffessional actors, when asked, tend to agree with that. At least in many of the interviews I've seen.
The extra bit, to me at least, is that a well written bad guy will unually have some sort of arc or path that results in that character feeling justified in their actions. A bad guy with some sort of justification for their actions makes for a much more interesting story. Sometimes the best villains are ones that the audience can empathize with and follow their journey . . . up to that point where it all goes off the rails into horribleness, whatever the flavor is.
So then I think in 40k the Imperium-as-character is villainous, and it has its reasons to be villainous, and that makes the setting much more compelling. That and, in general, introducing 40k as "Imagine a universe where the Empire from Star Wars, but worse, are the good guys." was a fairly common line at some point.
Sisters have a distinct identity-they're the ultra religious battle nuns of the Imperium.
Marines are much more malleable in their identity-you have the religious zealots (Black Templars), you have the Vikings (Space Wolves), you have the Knights (Dark Angels), you have the vampires/angels (Blood Angels), you have the practical minded soldiers (Ultramarines)... Basically anything you can imagine, in terms of armies, can be found among the ranks of Marines.
Except women, because they apparently have cooties.
This is, fundamentally, where the failure to understand things exists.
Sisters aren't "ultra-religious battle nuns of the Imperium".
Sisters are the ultra-militant arm of the Ecclesiarchy, acting as the standing army of the predominant religion of the Imperium. The entire organization exists as a loophole preventing men at arms.
Those Vikings you want? Knights? "Vampires"? Practical minded soldiery? All of those things can be found in the ranks of the Sororitas as well.
Do they?
I'll grant you practical-minded soldiers. Not all Sisters are zealots to the point they ignore tactics and strategy, though most have enough zealotry that they can be goaded into making mistakes or poor decisions because of their faith.
But are there any stories or artwork of Sisters matching something like the Space Wolves? Or White Scars?
Is there the same encouragement from GW to make Sisters anything besides space nuns? Because there's a LOT of variation shown with Marines. I don't see that with Sisters.
But are there any stories or artwork of Sisters matching something like the Space Wolves? Or White Scars?
Is there the same encouragement from GW to make Sisters anything besides space nuns? Because there's a LOT of variation shown with Marines. I don't see that with Sisters.
Unfortunately I think the issue is twofold. A: Nobody gets as much attention as Marines, and B: GW seems to avoid explicit art that they can't sell you a model for.
But I agree that Sisters should be just as variable as Marines. But of course oh so much more the IG.
But are there any stories or artwork of Sisters matching something like the Space Wolves? Or White Scars?
Is there the same encouragement from GW to make Sisters anything besides space nuns? Because there's a LOT of variation shown with Marines. I don't see that with Sisters.
Unfortunately I think the issue is twofold. A: Nobody gets as much attention as Marines, and B: GW seems to avoid explicit art that they can't sell you a model for.
But I agree that Sisters should be just as variable as Marines. But of course oh so much more the IG.
Yeah. Ideally, all factions would be approximately equally represented, with every faction having lots of variety. No faction is too small for variety in how they play and look and all that.
But that's not how the world and GW work.
Da Boss wrote:So, from your POV, what should be done? Do you agree that the Imperium is creating real world extremists due to how it's being written, and not just accidentally appealing to extremists that already exist?
As a playerbase, *ensuring* that any sort of Imperium-larping style comments or behaviours aren't being used to mask any sort of IRL bigotry - and yes, honestly, that includes "edgy jokes". Sorry, but until we can ALL prove that we're smarter than Those Folks, we shouldn't give them be benefit of the doubt.
As a playerbase as well, we need to take seriously the growing rise of alt-right identities and personas in the hobby. I'm frankly appalled at the denial that I see going on here. Yes, it *is* ridiculous that people would be so hateful, but unfortunately, it's real. I don't care if it's just an online persona or if they're a lovely guy when you meet them in person - actions have consequences, and saying/expressing hateful comments online is no different. (And before anyone tries to suggest otherwise, no, I'm not talking "I disagree with this person, therefore they're a bigot", I'm talking about ACTUALLY bigoted comments - ie, trans people are mentally ill, women don't have the mental capacity for 40k, etc - all of which are comments that have been made on this site.)
As a company, GW should remove the major sources of ammunition that Those Folks use to support/propagandise their beliefs. Most of that comes from Space Marines - making Space Marines less of a specifically masculine power fantasy would help in that. Remove any shred of legitimacy that Those Folks can cling to. Outright retcon things, with explicit IRL statements of "we recognised that having XYZ was being used to empower groups who did not share our belief that Warhammer is for Everyone, and we do not condone their actions. We have taken steps to ABC in order to show those people that they are not welcome if they cannot tolerate the existence of people of all backgrounds."
Them stating "Warhammer is for Everyone" is a good statement, but without action and delegitimising further the folks who "will not be missed", it runs the risk of being empty air and signalling.
So, yeah, that's what I'd do.
Again, I don't think anyone is saying that 40k/The Imperium is *creating* Those Folks. However, it is providing a rallying point, aesthetic, and a legitimacy for the talking points and beliefs expressed by Those Folks. The solution is to remove that as a symbol or tool of legitimacy. It doesn't require "destroying all 40k" to do - but a more hardline stance in denying Those Folks a shred of power or idea that they have a place in 40k (and in wider society).
Kanluwen wrote:Those Vikings you want? Knights? "Vampires"? Practical minded soldiery? All of those things can be found in the ranks of the Sororitas as well.
Where? Please, I'd love to see these examples, and the same degree of aesthetic range that has been afforded to the Astartes on this. Oh, hang on...
Kanluwen wrote: I don't read Sisters fiction enough to say, but the core bit about them is simply that they're devotees of the Imperial Cult.
But are there any stories or artwork of Sisters matching something like the Space Wolves? Or White Scars?
Is there the same encouragement from GW to make Sisters anything besides space nuns? Because there's a LOT of variation shown with Marines. I don't see that with Sisters.
Unfortunately I think the issue is twofold. A: Nobody gets as much attention as Marines, and B: GW seems to avoid explicit art that they can't sell you a model for.
But I agree that Sisters should be just as variable as Marines. But of course oh so much more the IG.
Yeah. Ideally, all factions would be approximately equally represented, with every faction having lots of variety. No faction is too small for variety in how they play and look and all that.
But that's not how the world and GW work.
Sure, but I'd still argue that the best course of action is for GW to explore that variety, rather than continue pounding more styles/identities/expression into Marines.
But are there any stories or artwork of Sisters matching something like the Space Wolves? Or White Scars?
Is there the same encouragement from GW to make Sisters anything besides space nuns? Because there's a LOT of variation shown with Marines. I don't see that with Sisters.
Unfortunately I think the issue is twofold. A: Nobody gets as much attention as Marines, and B: GW seems to avoid explicit art that they can't sell you a model for.
But I agree that Sisters should be just as variable as Marines. But of course oh so much more the IG.
Yeah. Ideally, all factions would be approximately equally represented, with every faction having lots of variety. No faction is too small for variety in how they play and look and all that.
But that's not how the world and GW work.
Sure, but I'd still argue that the best course of action is for GW to explore that variety, rather than continue pounding more styles/identities/expression into Marines.
Why not both?
Make Marines be able to be any gender as a good first step, and work towards raising the prominence of other factions.
Insectum7 wrote: Sure, but I'd still argue that the best course of action is for GW to explore that variety, rather than continue pounding more styles/identities/expression into Marines.
Why not both?
Make Marines be able to be any gender as a good first step, and work towards raising the prominence of other factions.
Agreed. And, let's be completely honest, it will be MUCH quicker/faster for GW to include women Astartes than redesigning/meaningfully including variety into other factions - after all, it took barely any effort with Custodes.
But are there any stories or artwork of Sisters matching something like the Space Wolves? Or White Scars?
Is there the same encouragement from GW to make Sisters anything besides space nuns? Because there's a LOT of variation shown with Marines. I don't see that with Sisters.
Unfortunately I think the issue is twofold. A: Nobody gets as much attention as Marines, and B: GW seems to avoid explicit art that they can't sell you a model for.
But I agree that Sisters should be just as variable as Marines. But of course oh so much more the IG.
A: Is gw gonna flagship issue and not a reason to water down lore, alas again here is where the disingenious and actual slippery slope comes in as we have seen in this thread by some posters and B: CDS, chapterhous derangement syndrome is a thing for gw.
Should gw pad out other factions than marines? Sure, but it doesn't make sense to do so for them since they can ease their supply chain strain if they "only" need to produce one line of things for the most part. But then again GWs margines are so high they truly could lower their prices a lot as a plastics manufacturer even and make mass sales on the other factions aswell if they would put their mind to it, but it's probably not as high a pure earnings rate that way.
Make Marines be able to be any gender as a good first step, and work towards raising the prominence of other factions.
Lore consistency and by extent faction identity.
That is a good enough reason for a fictional universe alone. You don't have to like it but as it stands it would damage their current cannonised version of lore.
But are there any stories or artwork of Sisters matching something like the Space Wolves? Or White Scars?
Is there the same encouragement from GW to make Sisters anything besides space nuns? Because there's a LOT of variation shown with Marines. I don't see that with Sisters.
Unfortunately I think the issue is twofold. A: Nobody gets as much attention as Marines, and B: GW seems to avoid explicit art that they can't sell you a model for.
But I agree that Sisters should be just as variable as Marines. But of course oh so much more the IG.
Yeah. Ideally, all factions would be approximately equally represented, with every faction having lots of variety. No faction is too small for variety in how they play and look and all that.
But that's not how the world and GW work.
Sure, but I'd still argue that the best course of action is for GW to explore that variety, rather than continue pounding more styles/identities/expression into Marines.
Why not both?
Make Marines be able to be any gender as a good first step, and work towards raising the prominence of other factions.
Imo this is not the thread for it, and I think you can find my views and reasons in the fairly recent thread on the topic.
I've never thought of Space Marines being all-male as an important part of their faction identity. So much so that mine aren't. Are my Space Marines... not Space Marines, because they don't have the same "faction identity"?
Kanluwen wrote:Those Vikings you want? Knights? "Vampires"? Practical minded soldiery? All of those things can be found in the ranks of the Sororitas as well.
Where? Please, I'd love to see these examples, and the same degree of aesthetic range that has been afforded to the Astartes on this.
Oh, hang on...
Kanluwen wrote: I don't read Sisters fiction enough to say, but the core bit about them is simply that they're devotees of the Imperial Cult.
So, you made your statement up. Nice.
Yeah, no. The aesthetics of the Sororitas can be as varied as the Astartes and the Guard.
That they have not been is a problem in and of itself.
Make Marines be able to be any gender as a good first step, and work towards raising the prominence of other factions.
Lore consistency and by extent faction identity.
That is a good enough reason for a fictional universe alone. You don't have to like it but as it stands it would damage their current cannonised version of lore.
Lore consistency hasn't been a pressing point since 1987.
And what about Marines' themes forces them to be all male? They're the broadest faction, thematically speaking... Again, except for women.
Sgt Smudge: So your approach would be to make changes and statements that neo-nazis would disapprove of, so that they are no longer interested in 40K? Seems like you could just retcon the Imperium as a whole if you wanted that, just get rid of it and make it a more palatable far future civilisation. It's not that important that the Imperium exists, as it is fictional after all.
As to giving people the benefit of the doubt, I disagree there. I think it's good to give people the benefit of the doubt and not assume ill intent where you don't have to. But of course, everyone can draw their own line there, that's very much a personal thing.
As to giving people the benefit of the doubt, I disagree there. I think it's good to give people the benefit of the doubt and not assume ill intent where you don't have to. But of course, everyone can draw their own line there, that's very much a personal thing.
Guilty until proven innocent. What could go wrong?
Make Marines be able to be any gender as a good first step, and work towards raising the prominence of other factions.
Lore consistency and by extent faction identity.
That is a good enough reason for a fictional universe alone. You don't have to like it but as it stands it would damage their current cannonised version of lore.
Lore consistency hasn't been a pressing point since 1987.
And what about Marines' themes forces them to be all male? They're the broadest faction, thematically speaking... Again, except for women.
That is a bs argument easily disproven from the consistency on faction identity in most cases since 3rd onwards. Try again but with a real argument instead of browbeating attempts.
And no they are by design NOT the broadest faction just the one which minimal attributes got exagerated by gw to sell more types of the flagship to flagship.
Frankly, all this talk devolving back to previous locked threads on the FSM topic shows me that it's less about being interested about the current actual lore and factions of the setting and the fact that it should be actively shaped around what you demand as acceptable in terms of today's "modern" sensibilities.
In which case, why even bother engaging with this hobby and its lore at all? If you feel that it doesn't meet your needs or your expectations for what is considered suitably "diverse" or "anti-fascist", isn't it an inordinately more work for you to try and change a hobby to something you think it should be rather than just enjoying it for what it is? Or maybe get that fix in a different universe that isn't focused so much on warfare. Honestly, half this discussion about representation and identity politics can be better found in slice-of-life/non-war hobbies where it would actually be more relevant in a non-galactic war dystopian setting.
It's like going to a Korean restaurant and complaining there's no authentic Ethiopian dishes available and having a tantrum that you can't believe how racist and uncosmopolitan they are that they would exclude such options from their menu and looking to break down and change their offerings until the restaurant basically loses what made them successful to begin with.
Can we get back to the "Imperium enables closet authoritarians through misunderstood satire" thing, please? That hasn't been fully explored yet, imo. It'd be a shame to lose the thread to the FSM topic.
Insectum7 wrote: Can we get back to the "Imperium enables closet authoritarians through misunderstood satire" thing, please? That hasn't been fully explored yet, imo. It'd be a shame to lose the thread to the FSM topic.
I mean they still really haven't addressed the points made by Da Boss and myself regarding how they're basically using the same fallacious arguments of "videogames=kids becoming more violent" and the moral panic of the 80s' for DnD, so I think this is basically them shifting goalposts to try and avoid addressing that it's pretty ridiculous to assume that 40k is a direct gateway to become a far-right extremist and it must be purged by rainbows and diversity quotas to save the hapless fools that buy those damn cissy space marines. That or maybe they'll try and say Putin's invasion of Ukraine was inspired by a 40k match he had with Xi Jinping lol.
It's a bit funny considering that these people are the ones who would likely make fun of conspiracy theorists but end up looking just as crazy with their own take on this.
Kanluwen wrote:Those Vikings you want? Knights? "Vampires"? Practical minded soldiery? All of those things can be found in the ranks of the Sororitas as well.
Where? Please, I'd love to see these examples, and the same degree of aesthetic range that has been afforded to the Astartes on this.
Oh, hang on...
Kanluwen wrote: I don't read Sisters fiction enough to say, but the core bit about them is simply that they're devotees of the Imperial Cult.
So, you made your statement up. Nice.
Yeah, no. The aesthetics of the Sororitas can be as varied as the Astartes and the Guard.
So show me!
You can say all you like how "technically" they can look just as varied, but they are not given the design space to do so. On a *design level*, both aesthetically and mechanically, they do not have the same variety. Never have.
And, you know, perhaps that's intentional - because GW might WANT them to have a certain aesthetic trapping, as part of their "faction identity", as some other users have stated. However, whichever way you slice it, Astartes have ALWAYS had a bigger design space than the Sororitas. They've always had a much broader range of what their "faction identity" is, their aesthetic and mechanical design has always been very open ended. And perhaps that's by design too. Perhaps GW WANT Astartes to be their customisable, free range, "anything goes" faction.
In which case, is it not better for "faction identity" that Sisters keep their iconic aesthetic? After all - you've stated that their aesthetics "can be as varied as Astartes", but without any proof to say so.
Da Boss wrote:Sgt Smudge: So your approach would be to make changes and statements that neo-nazis would disapprove of, so that they are no longer interested in 40K? Seems like you could just retcon the Imperium as a whole if you wanted that, just get rid of it and make it a more palatable far future civilisation. It's not that important that the Imperium exists, as it is fictional after all.
That's not what I said at all.
*The Imperium* is fine as what it is. Its depictions are the problem. The question becomes how do we prevent the Imperium from being depicted as "good", "admirable", or in any way that can be co-opted by Those Folks.
If I may, let's talk about another setting, which very resoundedly said "this is an awful setting, and no, don't even try to defend it" - Trench Crusade. It's a WW1-esque game with demons and hell. Imagine the Crusades lasting for a thousand years, and demons and hellspawn being real. Obviously, with all the Christian imagery and 40k-isms, it was quite popular with Those Sorts of People, until the developers of that game vocally and loudly kicked out anyone who behaved like a bigot.
They *ensured*, as best they could, that the behaviour of Those Folks would not be tolerated, and removed any sort of endorsement of their beliefs.
Obviously, 40k is too big now to do the same thing. GW can't just block people on their discord. But they can do the same essence of behaviour - to vocally and actively oppose and deny their aesthetics and IP being used by Those Sorta Folk.
Adding FSM is *but one* of many things they could do to disempower those groups.
As to giving people the benefit of the doubt, I disagree there. I think it's good to give people the benefit of the doubt and not assume ill intent where you don't have to. But of course, everyone can draw their own line there, that's very much a personal thing.
The first time, yes, absolutely. But the same behaviour again, and again, and again, and again, and again? Sorry, but if you're purely waiting for someone to finally say "I unequivocally think *insert awful opinion here*", instead of couching it behind the third "joke" which hapens to feature some pretty loud dogwhistles, I think you're making a mistake. (Obviously, I'm not advocating for "you made a slightly sus comment, you get exterminatus'd" here.)
Grimskul wrote:Frankly, all this talk devolving back to previous locked threads on the FSM topic shows me that it's less about being interested about the current actual lore and factions of the setting and the fact that it should be actively shaped around what you demand as acceptable in terms of today's "modern" sensibilities.
Take it up with Leopold. They're the one who mentioned it, and I don't see you condemning their mention of it.
In which case, why even bother engaging with this hobby and its lore at all?
Because I was here before Those Folks made it into a hot button culture war topic.
If they want to make 40k "their" space, they can pry it from my glue-covered hands.
Insectum7 wrote:Can we get back to the "Imperium enables closet authoritarians through misunderstood satire" thing, please? That hasn't been fully explored yet, imo. It'd be a shame to lose the thread to the FSM topic.
You'll notice that quite a lot of users, myself included, already called for this.
Unfortunately, as mentioned, Leopold decided to bring it up.
Sisters have a distinct identity-they're the ultra religious battle nuns of the Imperium.
Marines are much more malleable in their identity-you have the religious zealots (Black Templars), you have the Vikings (Space Wolves), you have the Knights (Dark Angels), you have the vampires/angels (Blood Angels), you have the practical minded soldiers (Ultramarines)... Basically anything you can imagine, in terms of armies, can be found among the ranks of Marines.
Except women, because they apparently have cooties.
This is, fundamentally, where the failure to understand things exists.
Sisters aren't "ultra-religious battle nuns of the Imperium".
Sisters are the ultra-militant arm of the Ecclesiarchy, acting as the standing army of the predominant religion of the Imperium. The entire organization exists as a loophole preventing men at arms.
Those Vikings you want? Knights? "Vampires"? Practical minded soldiery? All of those things can be found in the ranks of the Sororitas as well.
where are the AdSor vampires??? if 40k had blood-drinking nuns, i have a feeling i would have seen that on tumblr already. where are the AdSor vikings or mongolian hordes? all the art i've ever seen of the faction is more or less the same aesthetic, sometimes in different colors
Insectum7 wrote: Sure, but I'd still argue that the best course of action is for GW to explore that variety, rather than continue pounding more styles/identities/expression into Marines.
Why not both?
Make Marines be able to be any gender as a good first step, and work towards raising the prominence of other factions.
Agreed. And, let's be completely honest, it will be MUCH quicker/faster for GW to include women Astartes than redesigning/meaningfully including variety into other factions - after all, it took barely any effort with Custodes.
the biggest barrier is The Lore, but all that would need is a campaign book or new edition launch trailer to establish that GW is doing something new now
Grimskul wrote: they're basically using the same fallacious arguments of "videogames=kids becoming more violent" and the moral panic of the 80s' for DnD
For the last time, *no-one's saying the Imperium is turning people into racists*.
What we are saying, if you cared to actually listen, is that it provides plausible deniability to the people who *already are*, who then use their perceived authority within their communities to influence more people to sharing their own ideology.
The fictional Imperium isn't "converting" anyone. Real people are - but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that.
it's pretty ridiculous to assume that 40k is a direct gateway to become a far-right extremist
You're right. That *is* ridiculous - because no-one's said that's what happening.
Please, do try to keep up.
and it must be purged by rainbows and diversity quotas to save the hapless fools that buy those damn cissy space marines
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, like Da Boss said earlier, and assume that you didn't mean to make a transphobic slur when you said that.
I'm going to chalk that up to a miscommunication or a bad choice of words, without intending to cause offence - but an apology would be accepted.
Like I said - giving the benefit of the doubt here.
First, the Satanic Panic and Vidya Games And Movies And *insert convenient music star here* Not Crap Parents am why kid bad.
Those….didn’t come from the same political wing as “trying to purge with rainbows diversity quotas”. Literally Quite The Opposite.
Now, for the next portion? Go read my immediately prior post on how GW Games can be the first time a nerdy kid first finds their ‘tribe’, and can be themself for possibly the first time without judgement.
Mostly that’s absolutely a positive thing, but can be, entirely apolitically, a dangerous thing.
See. When a kid has been shunned and rejected, and finally finds their ‘tribe’ comes that wholesome sense of belonging I genuinely hope everyone finds in life.
But, again apolitically, the threat, which is mostly only ever dimly perceived of that sense of belonging being taken away because They are now expressing an interest?
That is sadly fertile ground for bad faith actors to start manipulating, and magnifying, and frankly lying. Foisting their own worries, fears, paranoia and yes, bigotry, onto another.
Remaining entirely apolitical? That’s not behaviour exclusively owned by one or other political wing.
That is where the issues start to occur.
Talk of ‘gatekeeping’ and ‘forcing the normies out’. It can churn a person’s brain right up until it’s mulch. As with all elements of the carefully created and orchestrated culture war? It all rests upon presenting an extreme of opinion as “therefore all”, or worse “somehow against all available evidence, is actually moderate”.
That is what we as a community need to be aware of and switched on to help prevent. Radicalisation of any impressionable young mind is awful.
Well this is a ruined thread, why always the devolution to tedious culture war crap. The whole rest of the internet has that. This is supposed to be discussing the satire in 40k.
Grimskul wrote:Frankly, all this talk devolving back to previous locked threads on the FSM topic shows me that it's less about being interested about the current actual lore and factions of the setting and the fact that it should be actively shaped around what you demand as acceptable in terms of today's "modern" sensibilities.
Did you skip the majority of the thread where most folk were saying they preferred the old lore from the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's? The "40k is no longer satire" group mostly want the lore to stop changing.
Grimskul wrote:
Insectum7 wrote: Can we get back to the "Imperium enables closet authoritarians through misunderstood satire" thing, please? That hasn't been fully explored yet, imo. It'd be a shame to lose the thread to the FSM topic.
I mean they still really haven't addressed the points made by Da Boss and myself regarding how they're basically using the same fallacious arguments of "videogames=kids becoming more violent" and the moral panic of the 80s' for DnD, so I think this is basically them shifting goalposts to try and avoid addressing that it's pretty ridiculous to assume that 40k is a direct gateway to become a far-right extremist and it must be purged by rainbows and diversity quotas to save the hapless fools that buy those damn cissy space marines. That or maybe they'll try and say Putin's invasion of Ukraine was inspired by a 40k match he had with Xi Jinping lol.
It's a bit funny considering that these people are the ones who would likely make fun of conspiracy theorists but end up looking just as crazy with their own take on this.
Wow, what a strawman you realise there are more than 2 opinions in this thread right? Or maybe you don't, I'm not convinced you've read it.
Insectum7 wrote:Can we get back to the "Imperium enables closet authoritarians through misunderstood satire" thing, please? That hasn't been fully explored yet, imo. It'd be a shame to lose the thread to the FSM topic.
My perspective is that 40k by itself isn't radicalising anyone. But GW has slowly turned it from fascist satire to fascist apologia, and therefore handed actual fascists something they can easily adapt into propaganda to radicalise some vulnerable youths more easily than they might otherwise. I don't think it is a lot of people, and some of those would have been radicalised via other channels anyway, but it used to be a smaller issue in older GW lore.
In my mind, this is distinct from stuff like the videogame violence morale panic because there wasn't a group in position to capitalise on a source of free propaganda. This works on the converse for factions like the Drukhari- these are not apologia because there isn't a significant movement of hedonistic sadists actively trying to recruit members.
Dai wrote: Well this is a ruined thread, why always the devolution to tedious culture war crap. The whole rest of the internet has that. This is supposed to be discussing the satire in 40k.
how can we talk about 40k as political satire without talking about the politics it is or isn't satirizing?
I broadly agree, Haighus, that GW has strayed into fascism apologia, probably starting sometime in 5e. I think it's by accident, as I've said before, and I think strands of "these fascist bad guys are pretty cool though" have always been there.
Where I suppose I disagree or am unconvinced is that this is a big deal, or that there's widespread infiltration and people using it to radicalise "the yoof". The predominant POV I see on Warhammer reddit and gaming twitter I would characterise as socially liberal progressive. Anything other than that tends to get downvoted pretty hard, if not deleted. I'm sure there are places and so on where far right people meme about warhammer or talk about how awesome the Black Templars are, but I don't think that's a big deal or something that particularly needs addressing. People miss the point of this kind of fiction all the time, nobody can do much about it. GW have made statements about it.
I mean, if making female space marines will get rid of the infiltrating neo-nazis, have at it. I expect it probably would cause a few people to lose interest in the setting, but more likely they'd just carry it as a grievance and fuel for their pre-existing disdain for progressive causes.
Kanluwen wrote:Those Vikings you want? Knights? "Vampires"? Practical minded soldiery? All of those things can be found in the ranks of the Sororitas as well.
Where? Please, I'd love to see these examples, and the same degree of aesthetic range that has been afforded to the Astartes on this.
Oh, hang on...
Kanluwen wrote: I don't read Sisters fiction enough to say, but the core bit about them is simply that they're devotees of the Imperial Cult.
So, you made your statement up. Nice.
Yeah, no. The aesthetics of the Sororitas can be as varied as the Astartes and the Guard.
That they have not been is a problem in and of itself.
This is a huge problem that I think is important, a lot of factions have lots of themes to explore, but just don’t get it.
The sisters of battle and sisters of silence are to me a problem of this, why they are different they have through a bit of neglect end up similar as well. A discussion for other places.
But this also I think leads onto another issue that happens with a loss of satire, and that’s a Sanitised Politics. This is a huge issue within all nerd media honestly, a lot of writers don’t know enough about these subjects to really write them well within 40K.
They can’t depict the struggles women have in the setting, or Why space marines being just men is Horrifying since often they understand 40K, but not these issues.
So it’s glossed over, Sanitised with a imperium is bad to everyone brush.
It’s hard to discuss Satire without at least dipping into these discussions as well.
First, the Satanic Panic and Vidya Games And Movies And *insert convenient music star here* Not Crap Parents am why kid bad.
Those….didn’t come from the same political wing as “trying to purge with rainbows diversity quotas”. Literally Quite The Opposite.
Now, for the next portion? Go read my immediately prior post on how GW Games can be the first time a nerdy kid first finds their ‘tribe’, and can be themself for possibly the first time without judgement.
Mostly that’s absolutely a positive thing, but can be, entirely apolitically, a dangerous thing.
See. When a kid has been shunned and rejected, and finally finds their ‘tribe’ comes that wholesome sense of belonging I genuinely hope everyone finds in life.
But, again apolitically, the threat, which is mostly only ever dimly perceived of that sense of belonging being taken away because They are now expressing an interest?
That is sadly fertile ground for bad faith actors to start manipulating, and magnifying, and frankly lying. Foisting their own worries, fears, paranoia and yes, bigotry, onto another.
Remaining entirely apolitical? That’s not behaviour exclusively owned by one or other political wing.
That is where the issues start to occur.
Talk of ‘gatekeeping’ and ‘forcing the normies out’. It can churn a person’s brain right up until it’s mulch. As with all elements of the carefully created and orchestrated culture war? It all rests upon presenting an extreme of opinion as “therefore all”, or worse “somehow against all available evidence, is actually moderate”.
That is what we as a community need to be aware of and switched on to help prevent. Radicalisation of any impressionable young mind is awful.
The phrase "This is why we can't have nice things." comes to mind though.
It still seems like the argument is that the content of the product will somehow be taken beyond entertainment, internalized, and rearrange the worldviews of impressionable youth, which tbf, smacks a lot of the "videogames cause violence" argument.
Gotta sanitize the content because "Think of the children!".
Btw I don't see how the political wing from which the call to action comes from should have any bearing on it. The thought process appears to be the similarly faulty, regardless.
Kanluwen wrote:Those Vikings you want? Knights? "Vampires"? Practical minded soldiery? All of those things can be found in the ranks of the Sororitas as well.
Where? Please, I'd love to see these examples, and the same degree of aesthetic range that has been afforded to the Astartes on this.
Oh, hang on...
Kanluwen wrote: I don't read Sisters fiction enough to say, but the core bit about them is simply that they're devotees of the Imperial Cult.
So, you made your statement up. Nice.
Yeah, no. The aesthetics of the Sororitas can be as varied as the Astartes and the Guard.
That they have not been is a problem in and of itself.
This is a huge problem that I think is important, a lot of factions have lots of themes to explore, but just don’t get it.
The sisters of battle and sisters of silence are to me a problem of this, why they are different they have through a bit of neglect end up similar as well. A discussion for other places.
But this also I think leads onto another issue that happens with a loss of satire, and that’s a Sanitised Politics. This is a huge issue within all nerd media honestly, a lot of writers don’t know enough about these subjects to really write them well within 40K.
They can’t depict the struggles women have in the setting, or Why space marines being just men is Horrifying since often they understand 40K, but not these issues.
So it’s glossed over, Sanitised with a imperium is bad to everyone brush.
It’s hard to discuss Satire without at least dipping into these discussions as well.
violence against women hasn't been an aspect of the setting since the early 90s. the imperium is an egalitarian state where women hold power just as often as much as men, and this has been true longer than i've been alive. there's certainly a lot of odd sexist artifacts here and there, but those are attributable as much to out-of-universe factors as in-universe
i'm curious, why is it horrifying that only men can be space marines? i've never seen "horrifying" used to describe that plot point before
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: That is what we as a community need to be aware of and switched on to help prevent. Radicalisation of any impressionable young mind is awful.
The phrase "This is why we can't have nice things." comes to mind though.
Unfortunately - yes. But you know who's to blame for that? The people trying to turn 40k into fash apologia.
When people can play responsibly with their toys, they can be trusted to not being weird about it. Until then, I don't know why more of y'all aren't being clearer in saying "yeah, screw those fash folks, they don't belong here".
It still seems like the argument is that the content of the product will somehow be taken beyond entertainment, internalized, and rearrange the worldviews of impressionable youth, which tbf, smacks a lot of the "videogames cause violence" argument.
Gotta sanitize the content because "Think of the children!".
Again, that's not what's going on, and they're not the same argument at all.
Look, all I suppose I'm asking is "do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs"?
Da Boss wrote: I broadly agree, Haighus, that GW has strayed into fascism apologia, probably starting sometime in 5e. I think it's by accident, as I've said before, and I think strands of "these fascist bad guys are pretty cool though" have always been there.
I find the biggest shift to be from the 3rd ed Marine codex to the 4th ed one. The 3rd ed book had a number of tidbits in it about how ruthless the Space Marines were against human forces, specifically. It helped to frame Marines not merely as weapons of power attacking exterior threats, but as a horrific policing force of internal Imperial matters. I think most/all of that is absent from the 4th ed book.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: violence against women hasn't been an aspect of the setting since the early 90s. the imperium is an egalitarian state where women hold power just as often as much as men, and this has been true longer than i've been alive. there's certainly a lot of odd sexist artifacts here and there, but those are attributable as much to out-of-universe factors as in-universe
Very much true. Institutionally, the Imperium isn't sexist.
i'm curious, why is it horrifying that only men can be space marines? i've never seen "horrifying" used to describe that plot point before
Well, it *is* horrifying that children are turned into soldiers via awful genetherapies and so on.
What's less horrifying is that apparently the Imperium doesn't do it to women, or wouldn't try to. Is being turned into a biological weapon more horrifying if it only happens to men? Would it be less horrifying if that happened to women? Are women also barred from being servitors, because it's too horrifying, or not horrifying enough?
Da Boss wrote: So, from your POV, what should be done? Do you agree that the Imperium is creating real world extremists due to how it's being written, and not just accidentally appealing to extremists that already exist?
By appealing to those sorts of people it creates the environment for them to feel safe which in turn allows them to spew hatred and manipulate others into accepting their worldview. By unironically and overwhelmingly portraying the Imperium as the good guys it provides an "out" for people who support these views.
So all GW needs to do is stop making the Imperium look so good. It's not the Federation or the Rebellion where some bits aren't as nice as the rest, the whole thing is bad but GW isn't good at showing it.
Make the Imperium look bad, make it very clear, people look at the people who say the Imperium is good in the same way as people who think the Empire is the good guys.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: That is what we as a community need to be aware of and switched on to help prevent. Radicalisation of any impressionable young mind is awful.
The phrase "This is why we can't have nice things." comes to mind though.
Unfortunately - yes. But you know who's to blame for that? The people trying to turn 40k into fash apologia.
When people can play responsibly with their toys, they can be trusted to not being weird about it. Until then, I don't know why more of y'all aren't being clearer in saying "yeah, screw those fash folks, they don't belong here".
It still seems like the argument is that the content of the product will somehow be taken beyond entertainment, internalized, and rearrange the worldviews of impressionable youth, which tbf, smacks a lot of the "videogames cause violence" argument.
Gotta sanitize the content because "Think of the children!".
Again, that's not what's going on, and they're not the same argument at all.
Look, all I suppose I'm asking is "do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs"?
Ultimately I would rather have 40k as a setting that's morally complicated, even if some a**holes find excuses for their beliefs in it, than a more sanitized setting. I believe one of 40ks main selling points, essentially, is the sheer amount of edgelord in it. I think that's a strength. I much prefer challenging art/fiction over the alternative.
Insectum7 wrote: Can we get back to the "Imperium enables closet authoritarians through misunderstood satire" thing, please? That hasn't been fully explored yet, imo. It'd be a shame to lose the thread to the FSM topic.
I mean they still really haven't addressed the points made by Da Boss and myself regarding how they're basically using the same fallacious arguments of "videogames=kids becoming more violent"
Where has anyone said or even implied that GW writing 40K as apologetic to fascism is turning people authoritarian?
That is completely different from media that portrays authoritarianism in a positive light providing cover for people who hold those views IRL.
Like, so unrelated I don't see how a reasonable person could conflate the two, bordering on deliberate straw man.
By unironically and overwhelmingly portraying the Imperium as the good guys it provides an "out" for people who support these views.
So all GW needs to do is stop making the Imperium look so good.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Look, all I suppose I'm asking is "do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs"?
Ultimately I would rather have 40k as a setting that's morally complicated, even if some a**holes find excuses for their beliefs in it, than a more sanitized setting. I believe one of 40ks main selling points, essentially, is the sheer amount of edgelord in it. I think that's a strength. I much prefer challenging art/fiction over the alternative.
I struggle to see how having the supersoldier faction which is on the front of all the art have women in their ranks suddenly sanitises the fact that servitors, the Golden Throne, and the Black Ships exist, amongst everything else in the Imperium.
Having women doesn't make them suddenly "good" or "sanitised". And I don't believe that Space Marines being all-male is designed to be some kind of "challenging" thinkpiece or commentary - I think it's far more likely that it's a product of passive sexism, much like how Custodes used to be all-male, or how we only have male Tempestus Scion minis. But, that's a different matter.
Also, not to belabour the point, but you, uh, didn't answer the question I asked. Do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs?
So kill off the Primarchs that have come back and stop writing space marines as heroes in the novels and their codex fluff? Go back to art portraying them as sinister murdermachines rather than stoic and fierce angelic saviours?
That's what I'd do if I wanted to make it clear that the Imperium are bad. But GW want to have their cake and eat it.
They wouldn't need to kill off the Primarchs, the Lion was not a good person so that just needs to be continued and Guilliman just needed to not have that stupid giant halo. Guilliman's story is fine because his constant failure to "fix" the Imperium actually works to show how bad it is, it has a chance to be better but chooses not to because change loses people their political power.
And yeah stop having Space Marines be such heroes.
Spotting fascist 40Kers is a bit like hunting Bigfoot. There was that one cringy edgelord once that everybody (including GW) dunked on, and then a bunch of 'they surrounded our cabin in the woods and have ripe musk!' sightings...
Da Boss wrote:I broadly agree, Haighus, that GW has strayed into fascism apologia, probably starting sometime in 5e. I think it's by accident, as I've said before, and I think strands of "these fascist bad guys are pretty cool though" have always been there.
Where I suppose I disagree or am unconvinced is that this is a big deal, or that there's widespread infiltration and people using it to radicalise "the yoof". The predominant POV I see on Warhammer reddit and gaming twitter I would characterise as socially liberal progressive. Anything other than that tends to get downvoted pretty hard, if not deleted. I'm sure there are places and so on where far right people meme about warhammer or talk about how awesome the Black Templars are, but I don't think that's a big deal or something that particularly needs addressing. People miss the point of this kind of fiction all the time, nobody can do much about it. GW have made statements about it.
I mean, if making female space marines will get rid of the infiltrating neo-nazis, have at it. I expect it probably would cause a few people to lose interest in the setting, but more likely they'd just carry it as a grievance and fuel for their pre-existing disdain for progressive causes.
Eh, the female SM is a somewhat related tangent, I'm trying to avoid engaging in that before it locks the thread.
I agree that I don't think it is a huge issue, insofar as anyone being radicalised into fascism is a problem, but it is an issue that GW themaelves has exacerbated. I agree that was probably accidental, very much a death by a thousand cuts situation. I like the interpretation upthread that modern 40k is more or less an enthusiastic fanfic tacked on to the older lore.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: That is what we as a community need to be aware of and switched on to help prevent. Radicalisation of any impressionable young mind is awful.
The phrase "This is why we can't have nice things." comes to mind though.
Unfortunately - yes. But you know who's to blame for that? The people trying to turn 40k into fash apologia.
When people can play responsibly with their toys, they can be trusted to not being weird about it. Until then, I don't know why more of y'all aren't being clearer in saying "yeah, screw those fash folks, they don't belong here".
It still seems like the argument is that the content of the product will somehow be taken beyond entertainment, internalized, and rearrange the worldviews of impressionable youth, which tbf, smacks a lot of the "videogames cause violence" argument.
Gotta sanitize the content because "Think of the children!".
Again, that's not what's going on, and they're not the same argument at all.
Look, all I suppose I'm asking is "do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs"?
Ultimately I would rather have 40k as a setting that's morally complicated, even if some a**holes find excuses for their beliefs in it, than a more sanitized setting. I believe one of 40ks main selling points, essentially, is the sheer amount of edgelord in it. I think that's a strength. I much prefer challenging art/fiction over the alternative.
So this is the funny thing about this thread. I think that 40k has slipped into fascist apologia. The solution to that, in my mind, is not to "sanitise" it, as some folk seem to misconstruing, but the reverse. I think 40k should being out the nastiness and cruelty of the Imperium again, and backpedal on their justifications for why the Imperium is a hideous monstrosity. I.e reverse the sanitisation GW has already being doing in the aims of selling more plastic toys of indoctrinated child soldiers to little Timmy's mum.
Da Boss wrote:So kill off the Primarchs that have come back and stop writing space marines as heroes in the novels and their codex fluff? Go back to art portraying them as sinister murdermachines rather than stoic and fierce angelic saviours?
That's what I'd do if I wanted to make it clear that the Imperium are bad. But GW want to have their cake and eat it.
Yeah, pretty much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Damocles wrote: Spotting fascist 40Kers is a bit like hunting Bigfoot. There was that one cringy edgelord once that everybody (including GW) dunked on, and then a bunch of 'they surrounded our cabin in the woods and have ripe musk!' sightings...
I think they've just gone to ground over the last half-decade. 40k lore Youtube was pretty gnarly, like Arch, but seems to have moved onto alt-tech platforms.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Look, all I suppose I'm asking is "do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs"?
Ultimately I would rather have 40k as a setting that's morally complicated, even if some a**holes find excuses for their beliefs in it, than a more sanitized setting. I believe one of 40ks main selling points, essentially, is the sheer amount of edgelord in it. I think that's a strength. I much prefer challenging art/fiction over the alternative.
I struggle to see how having the supersoldier faction which is on the front of all the art have women in their ranks suddenly sanitises the fact that servitors, the Golden Throne, and the Black Ships exist, amongst everything else in the Imperium.
Having women doesn't make them suddenly "good" or "sanitised". And I don't believe that Space Marines being all-male is designed to be some kind of "challenging" thinkpiece or commentary - I think it's far more likely that it's a product of passive sexism, much like how Custodes used to be all-male, or how we only have male Tempestus Scion minis. But, that's a different matter.
I wasn't adressing anything specific regarding all-male SMs. Like you say, it's a different matter. Related, but different.
Also, not to belabour the point, but you, uh, didn't answer the question I asked. Do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs?
I answered it, just long form. The short form for your soundbyte is "I don't care. In fact, arguably, I prefer it."
I like the book Starhip Troopers too, though some people label it facist. I like reading authors that I can argue with, or propose off-putting questions or scenarios. Same sort of thing.
Oh, I think it is worth pointing out that any satire, including early 40k, can fall afoul of Poe's law, but the numbers who miss the satire are obviously going to be higher as the satire gets more subtle.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Also, not to belabour the point, but you, uh, didn't answer the question I asked. Do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs?
I answered it, just long form. The short form for your soundbyte is "I don't care. In fact, arguably, I prefer it."
It's a yes or no question though. You can say "I don't care" if people use 40k to support bigotry (why the hell you'd PREFER that is beyond me), but all I'm checking in on is that you're conscious and aware that people can/do do that.
Apparently, if I'm not mistaken (which is possible, because you didn't answer plainly), the answer is yes, and that you don't care. Which baffles me.
I like the book Starhip Troopers too, though some people label it facist.
I prefer the film.
I like reading authors that I can argue with, or propose off-putting questions or scenarios. Same sort of thing.
And where's the argument in 40k? What's the "debate" to be had here? /gen.
What's the point in *having* that kind of message when a sizeable amount of people say "hey, fascism is good!!" and you then self admittedly saying "you don't care"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haighus wrote: Oh, I think it is worth pointing out that any satire, including early 40k, can fall afoul of Poe's law, but the numbers who miss the satire are obviously going to be higher as the satire gets more subtle.
Absolutely. I'm very fond of the falsely attributed Verhoeven quote regarding Starship Troopers, now that Insectum brought it up.
"I want to make a movie so painfully obvious in its satire that everyone who understands it lives in perpetual psychological torment inflicted on them by all the people who don’t."
Kanluwen wrote:Those Vikings you want? Knights? "Vampires"? Practical minded soldiery? All of those things can be found in the ranks of the Sororitas as well.
Where? Please, I'd love to see these examples, and the same degree of aesthetic range that has been afforded to the Astartes on this.
Oh, hang on...
Kanluwen wrote: I don't read Sisters fiction enough to say, but the core bit about them is simply that they're devotees of the Imperial Cult.
So, you made your statement up. Nice.
Yeah, no. The aesthetics of the Sororitas can be as varied as the Astartes and the Guard.
That they have not been is a problem in and of itself.
This is a huge problem that I think is important, a lot of factions have lots of themes to explore, but just don’t get it.
The sisters of battle and sisters of silence are to me a problem of this, why they are different they have through a bit of neglect end up similar as well. A discussion for other places.
But this also I think leads onto another issue that happens with a loss of satire, and that’s a Sanitised Politics. This is a huge issue within all nerd media honestly, a lot of writers don’t know enough about these subjects to really write them well within 40K.
They can’t depict the struggles women have in the setting, or Why space marines being just men is Horrifying since often they understand 40K, but not these issues.
So it’s glossed over, Sanitised with a imperium is bad to everyone brush.
It’s hard to discuss Satire without at least dipping into these discussions as well.
violence against women hasn't been an aspect of the setting since the early 90s. the imperium is an egalitarian state where women hold power just as often as much as men, and this has been true longer than i've been alive. there's certainly a lot of odd sexist artifacts here and there, but those are attributable as much to out-of-universe factors as in-universe
i'm curious, why is it horrifying that only men can be space marines? i've never seen "horrifying" used to describe that plot point before
Why it isn’t really part of the setting now so much, it’s also entirely on setting for it to be part of it and saterised as a horrible thing.
There is message and meaning to it when done right. The big issue is that 40K honestly sucked at it.
Men in Regimes like the imperium are often used as both enforcers of the cultural rule, above it and victim to it all the same. A important aspect of the Satire in 40K I think.
It’s why I consider marine themes important to keep, I just don’t think 40K does it well. Maybe it never did.
Honestly it’s just huge discussion all around.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Also, not to belabour the point, but you, uh, didn't answer the question I asked. Do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs?
I answered it, just long form. The short form for your soundbyte is "I don't care. In fact, arguably, I prefer it."
It's a yes or no question though. You can say "I don't care" if people use 40k to support bigotry (why the hell you'd PREFER that is beyond me), but all I'm checking in on is that you're conscious and aware that people can/do do that.
Apparently, if I'm not mistaken (which is possible, because you didn't answer plainly), the answer is yes, and that you don't care. Which baffles me.
I like the book Starhip Troopers too, though some people label it facist.
I prefer the film.
I like reading authors that I can argue with, or propose off-putting questions or scenarios. Same sort of thing.
And where's the argument in 40k? What's the "debate" to be had here? /gen.
What's the point in *having* that kind of message when a sizeable amount of people say "hey, fascism is good!!" and you then self admittedly saying "you don't care"?
This response is a great example of why you are the only person on my ignore list. I just explained it, yet it's still "beyond" you.
The debates in regards to 40k Imperial policy is very clear to me. The questions (just several of many) include "Is there a point where extreme authoritarianism makes sense/become understandable?", "What decisions might be made in the name of species survival?" and "What are the potential knock-on effects of those decisions?" Not to mention "How does the seemingly natural human disposition for dogmatism and religious fervor play out across those contexts?". That's good ***t! Very engageable!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: What's the point in *having* that kind of message when a sizeable amount of people say "hey, fascism is good!!" and you then self admittedly saying "you don't care"?
This response is a great example of why you are the only person on my ignore list. I just explained it, yet it's still "beyond" you.
You really didn't explain it. Again, I don't understand why it was hard to give a "yes" or "no", and THEN elaborate if you so wanted to. And *still* haven't even confirmed if the assumption I made (which I really don't want to make, but you gave no concrete answer)!
I frankly don't care if you have me on an ignore list (strange if you're still responding to me though, not that it bothers me, I'm glad for dialogue), but if you won't *answer the questions I ask in good faith*, then I struggle to see how this is on me.
It was a yes or no question, and your paragraph didn't answer it. I appreciate the response, but it didn't answer the question I asked, which didn't need a whole paragraph which ultimately didn't answer it.
The debates in regards to 40k Imperial policy is very clear to me. The questions (just several of many) include "Is there a point where extreme authoritarianism makes sense/become understandable?", "What decisions might be made in the name of species survival?" and "What are the potential knock-on effects of those decisions?" Not to mention "How does the seemingly natural human disposition for dogmatism and religious fervor play out across those contexts?". That's good ***t! Very engageable!
But these are questions (at least some of them) with very simple answers at the end, and to answer otherwise are pretty bigoted perspectives.
40k isn't *that* deep. I don't see it as a big intellectual discussion or thesis on the nature of human morality and ethics. These questions aren't particularly complex, at least to me - or rather, perhaps I'd be more interested in talking about these matters if I didn't have to factor in that there's people who *DO* think the Imperium are the good guys, and that, apparently, folks like you *don't care*.
Until I can trust that people can actually discuss and engage with the "debates" presented in 40k, I don't think that it's a good environment for that sort of discussion.
(And trust me, I can yap on about plenty of my interests and apply literary discussion about them - but 40k isn't one of them, because its ethics and depth for discussion are frankly paper thin most of the time. Characters are more engaging for this sort of discussion rather than the power structures around them).
Insectum7 wrote: The debates in regards to 40k Imperial policy is very clear to me. The questions (just several of many) include "Is there a point where extreme authoritarianism makes sense/become understandable?", "What decisions might be made in the name of species survival?" and "What are the potential knock-on effects of those decisions?" Not to mention "How does the seemingly natural human disposition for dogmatism and religious fervor play out across those contexts?". That's good ***t! Very engageable!
"Is there a point where extreme authoritarianism makes sense/become understandable?"
Possibly. 40k doesn't have that, though-the Interex proves that the Imperium is its own worst enemy and certainly NOT the only way.
"What decisions might be made in the name of species survival?" and "What are the potential knock-on effects of those decisions?"
Plenty of decisions NOT made by humans in 40k. For instance-using diplomacy, understanding, and reason.
"How does the seemingly natural human disposition for dogmatism and religious fervor play out across those contexts?"
I suppose this is an interesting question one could ask about 40k, but it's still kinda undercut by how garbage the Imperium is when it didn't have to be that way to let humanity survive.
^I think the quality of debate is going to be much more about the person you are debating with, rather than whether or not one of "those people" (as you say) use the setting as a smokescreen.
And I disagree about the questions having easy answers, parricularly the authoritarian one. An analagous question to the 40k "purge the daemon with extreme prejudice" scenario is "How dangerous does a virus need to be for you to support forced vaccinations?" Which is not a simple discussion.
There's one point that seems to be brought up a lot in this that's seeming to go unaddressed, so I figured I'd chime back in for a moment.
I'm hearing a lot of it's bad to portray (primarily) Space Marines, but others too as "good guys" in the setting, and I don't think that's an entirely fair statement. It's bad to portray The Imperium as good, but just as in any real work fascist state, there can and will be good people forced to live their lives within that system that are nothing but cogs in the machine either through fear or ignorance.
One of my favourite stories in 40k is that of the Celestial Lions, the Space Marine chapter that spoke out against the Inquisition. On Khattar the Lion's wiped out a massive chaos cult that had taken control of the planet while sparing the majority of the civilian population, after they had withdrawn and claimed the planet re-conquered, the Inquisition decided to blow it up anyway, just to be sure. The Lions were stunned and immediately tried to bring the Inquisition to task for their actions, only to realize that for all their transhuman might, they were nothing in the face of Imperial bureaucracy. After their words fell on deaf ears, they suddenly started having "accidents" ships disappeared never to be heard from again, key chapter figures were assasinated, and they were constantly undersupplied and assigned to the most dangerous missions possible.
The Lions were and are still an arm of the Fascist Imperium, but one that did try and stand up and make things better, only to be crushed almost completely but the boot of their masters.
The reason why I think it's fine, in fact good, to have SOME stories when PEOPLE in the Imperium are at least good guy adjacent is because it amplifies just how far gone the Imperium is, that they can only ever do good on a small scale because the massive force of the Imperium itself has such a choke hold on everything in it's domain that even a force as strong as a Space Marine Chapter, as a Primarch, is so much smaller than the force of uncountable brainwashed trillions led by a ruling class that has a constant deathgrip on all the power.
The trouble with some stories in this is about perspective. Much of the stories are told from the POV of Imperial Citizens, and many of them are indoctrinated to specifically not understand what is so wrong and broken about their society. Not everyone seems to be able to write that angle well, to get the horror across to the reader, while keeping the characters ignorant of it.
Tawnis wrote: There's one point that seems to be brought up a lot in this that's seeming to go unaddressed, so I figured I'd chime back in for a moment.
I'm hearing a lot of it's bad to portray (primarily) Space Marines, but others too as "good guys" in the setting, and I don't think that's an entirely fair statement. It's bad to portray The Imperium as good, but just as in any real work fascist state, there can and will be good people forced to live their lives within that system that are nothing but cogs in the machine either through fear or ignorance.
One of my favourite stories in 40k is that of the Celestial Lions, the Space Marine chapter that spoke out against the Inquisition. On Khattar the Lion's wiped out a massive chaos cult that had taken control of the planet while sparing the majority of the civilian population, after they had withdrawn and claimed the planet re-conquered, the Inquisition decided to blow it up anyway, just to be sure. The Lions were stunned and immediately tried to bring the Inquisition to task for their actions, only to realize that for all their transhuman might, they were nothing in the face of Imperial bureaucracy. After their words fell on deaf ears, they suddenly started having "accidents" ships disappeared never to be heard from again, key chapter figures were assasinated, and they were constantly undersupplied and assigned to the most dangerous missions possible.
The Lions were and are still an arm of the Fascist Imperium, but one that did try and stand up and make things better, only to be crushed almost completely but the boot of their masters.
The reason why I think it's fine, in fact good, to have SOME stories when PEOPLE in the Imperium are at least good guy adjacent is because it amplifies just how far gone the Imperium is, that they can only ever do good on a small scale because the massive force of the Imperium itself has such a choke hold on everything in it's domain that even a force as strong as a Space Marine Chapter, as a Primarch, is so much smaller than the force of uncountable brainwashed trillions led by a ruling class that has a constant deathgrip on all the power.
The trouble with some stories in this is about perspective. Much of the stories are told from the POV of Imperial Citizens, and many of them are indoctrinated to specifically not understand what is so wrong and broken about their society. Not everyone seems to be able to write that angle well, to get the horror across to the reader, while keeping the characters ignorant of it.
along this same wavelength, i think it would be interesting if the main story of 40k, with Guilliman and so on, wasn't about "a good person saving a decrepit empire", but showing how frail the concept of "a good person" is. there's a lot of mileage to be had about the relative morality and how "good", for the majority of people in the imperium, especially those with power, doesn't mean making things better for most people, but making the system run better or have a better perception without fixing the underlying issues. but i think everyone in this thread, no matter where you stand on the matter, can agree that GW's writing just isn't there to handle such complex topics
Lots of pages of commentary since my last post, so in case anyone missed it, my argument against the equivalence of video games=violence to 40k=normalising intolerant ideologies is that they aren't equivalent.
There is a common issue in social discourse of false equivalence fallacies and I see that it really frustrates people. I see it in discussions on misandry, 'reverse racism' etc. The problem being that people focus on the logic and not the premise the logic is applied to. Something following the same logic doesn't make it right if the premise used is incorrect. It's that initial assumption that is the issue, not the logic that follows.
This applies to the aforementioned false equivalence of the argument that the moral panic of violent video games is exactly the same as the argument of intolerance normalisation.
If the pathway from exposure to violence and committing violence was the same as exposure to normalisation of intolerant ideologies increases the acceptance of those ideologies were the same, then yes, they are equivalent.
The context around those however, proves that they are not. Just as the social inequality between the sexes means that misogyny functions entirely differently to misandry in society and is therefore not equivalent in the real-world (something being an equivalent term in language has no bearing on how it applies to real-world actions).
We have huge structures built into society to break down and rebuild people to willingly hurt others. If the pathway from exposure to violence leads to violence was so simple, the military would not need to do this to make effective soldiers.
Ideologies are more pernicious because they're passive, they can sit internally for years, being reinforced with no outward commitment to do anything. This is why people are asking men to call other men on their misogyny - it disrupts that internal ideology and can affect change. Not immediately and not totally, but that's the problem with ideologies.
As to the satire of the setting, if GW wanted to get back to their satirical roots, they would need to start pulling modern political and social concepts into 40k to work. The further from the zeitgeist it was gestated in satire gets, the less context is available for the viewer to get it. For satire to be meaningful it needs to resonate with the audience. Context is key. GW froze the satire as a product to sell, losing the commentary for the image.
If they want to be get the satire back, they need to provide that commentary. Thatcher satire is useless to a 20-something in 2024. The kind of satire 40k started with requires modern commentary.
Sisters have a distinct identity-they're the ultra religious battle nuns of the Imperium.
Marines are much more malleable in their identity-you have the religious zealots (Black Templars), you have the Vikings (Space Wolves), you have the Knights (Dark Angels), you have the vampires/angels (Blood Angels), you have the practical minded soldiers (Ultramarines)... Basically anything you can imagine, in terms of armies, can be found among the ranks of Marines.
Except women, because they apparently have cooties.
This is, fundamentally, where the failure to understand things exists.
Sisters aren't "ultra-religious battle nuns of the Imperium".
Sisters are the ultra-militant arm of the Ecclesiarchy, acting as the standing army of the predominant religion of the Imperium. The entire organization exists as a loophole preventing men at arms.
Those Vikings you want? Knights? "Vampires"? Practical minded soldiery? All of those things can be found in the ranks of the Sororitas as well.
I want to dig further into this tangent- there are a few things at work here. First, I think it's helpful to separate aesthetic expression of faction diversity with expressions in mechanics and literature- they're three separate conversations- though they can (and should be) related. Sisters had strides forward mechanically in 8th/ 9th, movements in literature are not as edition locked, though we've seen strides there too. The final piece, aesthetics, hasn't seen any expressions of faction diversity.
So let's talk about what the subfaction identities are first:
Convent Sanctorum, Ophelia VII
Order of Our Martyred Lady- Cult of martyrdom
Valorous Heart- Stoicism/endurance
Bloody Rose- Close Combat
Convent Prioris, Terra
Ebon Chalice- Ritualists
Argent Shroud- Speed
Sacred Rose- Serenity and meditation
It's important also to note the history: it isn't like Marines (all soldiers descended from one of 20 distinct primarchs) or even Guard (Regiments raised locally reflecting the culture of the worlds from which they are recruited.
In the beginning, ALL sisters were Daughters of the Emperor with common training, and only one recruitment world. When Vandire remade them as Brides, it stands to reason he would want the Order to grow in number in order to better serve as a weapon, but there aren't a lot of sources that say so. The Age of Apostasy did not end when Dominica took Vandire's head; that merely drew the Reign of Blood to a close- the Plague of Unbelief, spearheaded by Carinal Buchariss was about to begin... And it happened while the Imperium was distracted with the Thorian Reformation and reconstruction.
What we do know is that during the reformation, the Daughters were split into two convents Prioris on Terra and Sanctorum on Ophelia VII. This is the first opportunity for divergence within the faction with Sisters in each location free to develop their own ways. We also know that by this point, their were enough available Daughters to split into two large forces, and that this is the era when Daughters of the Emperor (Post Vandire) became the Adepta Sororitas. They also simultaneously became the military arm of the Ecclesiarchy and the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Hereticus in this era.
But we're still only dealing with two groups of women.
Within the lifetime of some of the Matron Saints, each convent was large enough to split again- Sanctorum went Fiery Heart and Valorous Heart while Terra went Ebon Chalice and Argent Shroud. Saint Katherine's Martyrdom would forever alter the character of the Fiery Heart, transforming them into the Order of Our Martyred Lady and inaugurating the cult of martyrdom for which the order is known. This split was another opportunity for diversifaction within the faction... But remember, at this point in history, ALL Sororitas were given at least part of their training at one of these two massive convents.
But the sisterhood is growing; Preceptories are being established galaxy wide, each with its own network of Commanderies and countless Missions. This is where you start to see Orders Minoris... but likely only a few, because in M38, the final two Orders- Sacred Rose at Terra and Bloody Rose at Ophelia VII were inaugurated. Additional Preceptories would be established as these new Orders continued to grow into something resembling the patterns that we see prior to the Rift, and the majority of divergence would occur in this era... Though again, most Sisters are still doing some training in one of the two massive convents.
And that's the context.
Now, those identity hooks- we got rules that fleshed that out on the table in 9th. Of the 6 subfactions we had, four will be carried forward as detachments and two will have their identities merged with the lucky four. But in a system where mechanics are determined by detachment, there is no potential for further development of subfaction identity; if you weren't lucky enough to have it already, it certainly isn't coming because it just isn't relevant to the game anymore. It's a shame they waited until subfactions didn't matter to finally give us a named character from the Sacred Rose. It won't make a lick of difference what Order she belongs to in 10th since any sister in any Order can do the same things as any other sister in any other Order.
But how would you bring those Order Traits alive with Aesthetics if they did still exist and have in-game meaning?
Well, you could model your Valorous Heart with visible wounds and scars. Pose Sacred Heart as if in prayer, and use the calm, serene faces. Pose your OoOML in sacrificial poses, model the dead and bring plenty of Icons of Martyrs. Model Argent Shroud in running poses, and love your transports. Unit composition can augment these differences as well, but that isn't necessarily an aesthetic.
Another interesting idea I'll be exploring if I ever get around to painting and modelling it is using individual Triumph models to represent Canonesses. I know that the actual sisters in the Triumph are technically Pronatus, but the artifacts they carry were carried by the Matron Saints of their Orders so they could theoretically represent Canonesses of their Orders- which is why I'll be magnetizing my Triumph. This choice is interesting to aesthetics because each model IS representive of the Order, but they aren't all combat posed which helps create an identity beyond fighting style.
As for Black Library, I haven't read much and I've been disappointed in some of what I've read. The Triumph of Saint Katherine book by Dani Ware had enormous potential to really push the envelope for subfaction development, because each pronatus in the circle had to tell and become the story of their Matron Saint... But this was not well executed. Even in the game, the Triumph of Saint Katherine as a concept could have been handled differently. All six Matrons appear in the diorama, so it's only the corpse and the icon on the coffin that make this model the Triumph of Saint Katherine, rather than the Triumph of Saint Dominica, or Saint Mina. So why not market the kit that way?
And for the record? I would LOVE well written Age of Apostasy fiction. I'd want strong women who are fans of the lore and the game and who actively play and collect to write it- I don't think there's anyway that a man can write Vandire's hoodwinking of the Daughters with any kind of credibility, and it's a key anavoidable moment of the saga. I'd like to see the Triumph of Saint Katherine novel rewritten as a six book series where each book chronicles the development of the pronatus as they learn and live their corresponding Saint, but ALSO flashes back to the life of that Saint.
So yes, there is subfaction diversity in the sisters, but it was best exemplified in the rules for 9th edition; it has been attempted but poorly executed in the fiction and it has never really been given an associated aesthetic in the models, although there are ways that people can bit swap to lean into their order's schtick if they really want to, and unit choice can go some of the distance as well.
There are systemic reasons for a lack of diversity, however. Sisters are a young faction- they didn't exist until M36, so marines, guard, admech and Custodes all have millennia of history behind them that sisters lack. Sisters also use a centralized method of indoctrination and training which somewhat homogenizes regional and cultural differences.
Tawnis wrote: There's one point that seems to be brought up a lot in this that's seeming to go unaddressed, so I figured I'd chime back in for a moment.
I'm hearing a lot of it's bad to portray (primarily) Space Marines, but others too as "good guys" in the setting, and I don't think that's an entirely fair statement. It's bad to portray The Imperium as good, but just as in any real work fascist state, there can and will be good people forced to live their lives within that system that are nothing but cogs in the machine either through fear or ignorance.
One of my favourite stories in 40k is that of the Celestial Lions, the Space Marine chapter that spoke out against the Inquisition. On Khattar the Lion's wiped out a massive chaos cult that had taken control of the planet while sparing the majority of the civilian population, after they had withdrawn and claimed the planet re-conquered, the Inquisition decided to blow it up anyway, just to be sure. The Lions were stunned and immediately tried to bring the Inquisition to task for their actions, only to realize that for all their transhuman might, they were nothing in the face of Imperial bureaucracy. After their words fell on deaf ears, they suddenly started having "accidents" ships disappeared never to be heard from again, key chapter figures were assasinated, and they were constantly undersupplied and assigned to the most dangerous missions possible.
The Lions were and are still an arm of the Fascist Imperium, but one that did try and stand up and make things better, only to be crushed almost completely but the boot of their masters.
The reason why I think it's fine, in fact good, to have SOME stories when PEOPLE in the Imperium are at least good guy adjacent is because it amplifies just how far gone the Imperium is, that they can only ever do good on a small scale because the massive force of the Imperium itself has such a choke hold on everything in it's domain that even a force as strong as a Space Marine Chapter, as a Primarch, is so much smaller than the force of uncountable brainwashed trillions led by a ruling class that has a constant deathgrip on all the power.
The trouble with some stories in this is about perspective. Much of the stories are told from the POV of Imperial Citizens, and many of them are indoctrinated to specifically not understand what is so wrong and broken about their society. Not everyone seems to be able to write that angle well, to get the horror across to the reader, while keeping the characters ignorant of it.
along this same wavelength, i think it would be interesting if the main story of 40k, with Guilliman and so on, wasn't about "a good person saving a decrepit empire", but showing how frail the concept of "a good person" is. there's a lot of mileage to be had about the relative morality and how "good", for the majority of people in the imperium, especially those with power, doesn't mean making things better for most people, but making the system run better or have a better perception without fixing the underlying issues. but i think everyone in this thread, no matter where you stand on the matter, can agree that GW's writing just isn't there to handle such complex topics
I agree, but I suspect GW's writing could get there. Black Library has some decent talent, and it's not like GW couldn't hire more if the current stable just isn't up to the task. The problem, I'd expect, is in management's vision for the franchise. I suspect most of us fans would be happy for more challenging content (probably more in BL/WH+, as I'm not sure the codices and BRB would have enough space to really do that sort of thing well), but that might not mesh well with the "wow cool space gun go bang" crowd, and if that's who the C-levels want to get into the game...
(PS - For the record, I don't mean to say that the "wow cool etc." crowd aren't "true fans" or that they should be shunned or gatekept out of the hobby. One certainly doesn't have to get deep into the lore to enjoy the game, and GW's sculpts can certainly be worthy of purchase even if the buyer never gets into the game or backstory. I just don't think the execs would look at that crowd and expect to hook them in via the sort of content we're talking about in this thread, so I'd expect the execs to be less willing to spend time or money exploring said content).
@Hellebore: I'm sorry I'm out of time to respond atm. I didn't forget you though! I must say I'm having a difficult time finding the difference/distinction you are trying to make though. Trying to keep it in mind as I go about my other obligations.
Insectum7 wrote: @Hellebore: I'm sorry I'm out of time to respond atm. I didn't forget you though! I must say I'm having a difficult time finding the difference/distinction you are trying to make though. Trying to keep it in mind as I go about my other obligations.
Because the outcomes for video gaming is easy to measure - you should see an uptick in violence committed by gamers. Which we don't see.
The acceptance of and engagement with intolerant ideologies is a larger societal effect that is harder to measure, and it happens across years rather than the spontaneity of hypothetical violent gamers. As I said in the post I made yesterday, people often don't notice it until it's built too much momentum to be easily stopped.
However we have plenty of precedent for this happening in society and that it starts with small things like not calling people on their ideologies and the live and let live approach (the 'they came for the unionists but I wasn't one' aspect). It's popper's paradox of tolerance and it's been proven multiple times in different countries just in the last 100 years.
This is another example of a false equivalence - because I've described what could be called a slippery slope and many people would dismiss it on those grounds because other slippery slope arguments have been dismissed. But again, the context is key. We've actually got evidence in Germany, Italy, Cambodia, China, Korea, Argentina etc that this slippery slope actually happens.
Which is why it is important to examine the premise underlying the argument, rather than just looking at whether you can apply the same logic to both.
Tawnis wrote: One of my favourite stories in 40k is that of the Celestial Lions, the Space Marine chapter that spoke out against the Inquisition. On Khattar the Lion's wiped out a massive chaos cult that had taken control of the planet while sparing the majority of the civilian population, after they had withdrawn and claimed the planet re-conquered, the Inquisition decided to blow it up anyway, just to be sure. The Lions were stunned and immediately tried to bring the Inquisition to task for their actions, only to realize that for all their transhuman might, they were nothing in the face of Imperial bureaucracy. After their words fell on deaf ears, they suddenly started having "accidents" ships disappeared never to be heard from again, key chapter figures were assasinated, and they were constantly undersupplied and assigned to the most dangerous missions possible.
The Lions were and are still an arm of the Fascist Imperium, but one that did try and stand up and make things better, only to be crushed almost completely but the boot of their masters.
This reminds me of what happened to the Seekers of Truth Chapter: they were being used by the Inquisition to murder innocents, and their Chapter Master prayed for a way to know who was lying and who wasn't.*
I think part of the problem is that people tend to forget that while the Imperium itself is evil, I'd wager a great many of its citizens are not - even amongst the Space Marines. Your average Guardsman probably doesn't know a lick about what's going on in the wider galaxy, and may not ever have even heard the term 'High Lords of Terra' before. When someone shoves a lasgun in your hand and marches you in front of a Tyranid swarm, you don't get a lot of chances to think about the morality of the situation. Your average worker is content to toil away in their manufactorum.
The people are just so indoctrinated to trust their leaders that they don't even think to question their motives - something that, sadly, we've seen play out several times history.
However we have plenty of precedent for this happening in society and that it starts with small things like not calling people on their ideologies and the live and let live approach (the 'they came for the unionists but I wasn't one' aspect). It's popper's paradox of tolerance and it's been proven multiple times in different countries just in the last 100 years.
Yes. Those who spoke against the dogma were labeled heretics. Luckily, the Age of Reason allowed people to speak their minds with little consequence. Now people are called out on it.
In an honest attempt at clarity here: what is the point of satirizing something that is inherently not a laughing matter? People always ask, when has X comedian gone too far? When it's no longer funny.
Dave Chappelle stopped being funny to me when he began insinuating that it was ok to treat transgender folks as "less than" and started the "I have a trans friend!" trope every time he talks.
40k stopped being satire for me when 45 started putting his head on the Emperor's body as fan art that was official, and using slogans like "Unified Reich" or both-sides-ing literal Nazis in the street.
The reason 40k is such a basement hobby is because deep down, it's a hobby that glorifies faschistic thought, Sexism, Racism, and literally every "-phobia" in the book.
People bring up "The satanic Panic" like that's some sort of whataboutistic I WIN button. But it's not the argument you think it is. If DND was literally promoting satanic worship, or sacrificing blood rituals, then it would be the same. 40k glorifies all the tenants of the Faschistic style of governance. Thus it's not Satire any more.
If you want to put buzz words like Flanderization on it,(dumbest word of the year) then fine. But all you are saying is I want it to be cool and edgy and not feel judged when I espouse the tenants of the IoM in public.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: In an honest attempt at clarity here: what is the point of satirizing something that is inherently not a laughing matter?
Perhaps you don't know the whole definition of satire?
Sat·ire
/ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/
noun
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues:
"the crude satire seems to be directed at the fashionable protest singers of the time"
Humor is but one form of satire.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The reason 40k is such a basement hobby is because deep down, it's a hobby that glorifies faschistic thought, Sexism, Racism, and literally every "-phobia" in the book.
So what about every other minis game?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If you want to put buzz words like Flanderization on it,(dumbest word of the year) then fine. But all you are saying is I want it to be cool and edgy and not feel judged when I espouse the tenants of the IoM in public.
Hmm, nope. What we're saying is that we wished the satire hadn't been bleached out of the setting/lore/art (& sometimes even the minis!) over the decades.
Games definitely poorer for it.
I think that GW has moved away from the more in-your-fact aspects of 40K satire, but has not lost the plot entirely that it is a satirical setting. Still sitting at the core of 40K is that a super-dystopian government that views its citizens as little more than fodder in its great battle to save mankind from the elemental forces arrayed against it is doomed to fail because it is as much to blame for its inability to win as the forces arrayed against them. Remember the 10th Edition trailer where mankind's greatest defender ponders with no small amount of self-aware irony about victory?
This does not mean the more silly elements have not been smoothed out into a more coherent and story-friendly background. That being said, I wouldn't call it flanderized. Most elements are more nuanced than they used to be as opposed to being one-note versions of their prior selves (World Eaters being a notably flanderized exception).
srry, missed a few pages. Responding multiquote here.
Insectum7 wrote: An analagous question to the 40k "purge the daemon with extreme prejudice" scenario is "How dangerous does a virus need to be for you to support forced vaccinations?" Which is not a simple discussion.
I'm probably walking on eggshells in a power armor here but that discussion would be very simple; no real or imaginary danger will ever warrant state force of any kind and suggesting otherwise equates fascism.
Anyway, I think I notice a tendency in recreative franchises (wether it is videogames, movies or hobby) to try to reproduce reality (some more than others) for some reason to as the industry puts it generally; 'be relatable', I think that that is a big mistake.
If anyone wants to relate, then all you have to do is walk outside and talk to a living and breathing other, stick your fingers into the soil and plant a crop or swing from a treebranch or something, why does fiction have to look like reality? Then it won't be fiction anylonger.
So you (not literally you, just in general) have pink hair and a nosering and now you need a mini to look like that too or what? I will never get it. Just be you and let your mini's be whatever you make of them but why should an entire template be changed for that?
I personally am not fond of the "everything is resolved through a form of violence" default in practically every expression of toys, toons and games either.. I personally prefer cardgames/deckbuilding aspect etc.. and love to theorycraft though.., but things are what they are and if you want something different, look for something different rather than changing something that already exists into what you are looking for. Strangely, the opposite is being done non stop. Look at movie franchises with all the "creative changes" being made to lore.. the witcher series was a good example.. completely wrecked.
Not saying GW does this necessarily, but there are lobbys going around affecting creative content to a template, that is wrong. Creative content should be itself without all the apologetics and catering to the-next-thing hype or no.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: In an honest attempt at clarity here: what is the point of satirizing something that is inherently not a laughing matter? People always ask, when has X comedian gone too far? When it's no longer funny.
Dave Chappelle stopped being funny to me when he began insinuating that it was ok to treat transgender folks as "less than" and started the "I have a trans friend!" trope every time he talks.
40k stopped being satire for me when 45 started putting his head on the Emperor's body as fan art that was official, and using slogans like "Unified Reich" or both-sides-ing literal Nazis in the street.
The reason 40k is such a basement hobby is because deep down, it's a hobby that glorifies faschistic thought, Sexism, Racism, and literally every "-phobia" in the book.
People bring up "The satanic Panic" like that's some sort of whataboutistic I WIN button. But it's not the argument you think it is. If DND was literally promoting satanic worship, or sacrificing blood rituals, then it would be the same. 40k glorifies all the tenants of the Faschistic style of governance. Thus it's not Satire any more.
If you want to put buzz words like Flanderization on it,(dumbest word of the year) then fine. But all you are saying is I want it to be cool and edgy and not feel judged when I espouse the tenants of the IoM in public.
This is the type of guilt-by-association activism that does more harm than good.. you should hopefully come to realize..
And NOWHERE in 40k is fascism glorified, it is shown exactly as destructive as it is.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: if we're talking about satire and the imperium being terrible, there's no reason why women shouldn't also be space marines— why let men do all the horrible things when Thatcher proved women can just as easily ruin lives! hashtag girl power
Sister of Battle already has that covered, I think. I'm pretty sure they commit more war crimes than space marines, being die-hard religious fanatics who love using fire and all.
Also inquisitors. They're like, living war crimes. They don't follow the Geneva Convention, they follow the Geneva Checklist.
right, so if there's no issue with women in the setting, then there's no issue with women being space marines!
The issue is that it goes against the lore and thus makes it so the entire history of spacemarines has to be rewritten just because it has to portray the world of today for some reason..
So what if in a fictional army there are no women, what if a xenos has no women to begin with and are all androgyn? Should they suddenly also have women? Heh.
Them stating "Warhammer is for Everyone" is a good statement, but without action and delegitimising further the folks who "will not be missed", it runs the risk of being empty air and signalling.
What is the definition of -everyone- exactly if it doesn't include people who feel bolstered or comfortable in the theme? (aside from identified)
Again, I don't think anyone is saying that 40k/The Imperium is *creating* Those Folks. However, it is providing a rallying point, aesthetic, and a legitimacy for the talking points and beliefs expressed by Those Folks. The solution is to remove that as a symbol or tool of legitimacy. It doesn't require "destroying all 40k" to do - but a more hardline stance in denying Those Folks a shred of power or idea that they have a place in 40k (and in wider society).
So let's say someone likes the aesthetic of arnold schwarzenegger in the terminator, sporting a leather biker jacket and black glasses, walking around bopping his shoulders, does that make them a violent machine?
This whole "someone's preference may not be anywhere near this or that theme or they embody it irl" thing is ridiculous.. it lack such imagination..
The suggestion that there is some kind of emergence of an actual 40k empire just because people like the aesthetic of the ficticious and mind you overly exaggerated and obviously dismissive 40k empire cannot be staved on anything in reality.. the warhammer community is probably the least violent of all, I think that cannot be denied.. so where does this idea even come from that there exist some influx of "evil people trying to adopt the empire".. I think its a bag of hot air and a smear campaign, sorry.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: if we're talking about satire and the imperium being terrible, there's no reason why women shouldn't also be space marines— why let men do all the horrible things when Thatcher proved women can just as easily ruin lives! hashtag girl power
Sister of Battle already has that covered, I think. I'm pretty sure they commit more war crimes than space marines, being die-hard religious fanatics who love using fire and all.
Also inquisitors. They're like, living war crimes. They don't follow the Geneva Convention, they follow the Geneva Checklist.
right, so if there's no issue with women in the setting, then there's no issue with women being space marines!
The issue is that it goes against the lore and thus makes it so the entire history of spacemarines has to be rewritten just because it has to portray the world of today for some reason..
So what if in a fictional army there are no women, what if a xenos has no women to begin with and are all androgyn? Should they suddenly also have women? Heh.
any retcon that updates the lore to allow women to exist doesn't need to be retroactive (and in fact would have to be additive). have some trinket text about Cawl making new innovations to allow for more recruitment now that [insert 11th edition enemy faction] have brought the imperium to the eve of destruction. there. that's all we need, and then we can move on and pretend this game didn't spend 40 years scared of women cooties
Insectum7 wrote: An analagous question to the 40k "purge the daemon with extreme prejudice" scenario is "How dangerous does a virus need to be for you to support forced vaccinations?" Which is not a simple discussion.
Well, first we need need to acknowledge the use of the word "forced" in the context of vaccinations.
In a democratic state, an elected official acting on the advice of a qualified medical officer, may propose legislation that encourages vaccination, and votes will be cast through various chambers of checks and balances before becoming law. Each level of government- municipal, provincial/ state and federal will go through this process for legislation within their jurisdiction.
Some of the laws might include requiring vaccinations to enter or leave the country, or requiring vaccinations for certain jobs, or entry into certain protected spaces. Consequences for non-compliance may include fines, but usually just enforce limits on access- IE. law says you need a vaccine to work in an old age home, and the penalty for non-compliance is simply that you can't work in that old age home.
Now withing the context of a functioning democracy, people who don't like these laws will CALL them Fascist, and within the context of a democratically elected government, they will general be allowed to do so... But the majority of the population will see it for the hyperbole for what it is.
Because in a real Fascist state?
The deicion to vaccinate would likely be made by one dude without any votes or due process to challenge it, and no recourse to adjudication for constitutionality after the fact. This individual may have been duly elected, but is just as likely to have come to power by assassinating or otherwise eliminating all viable political rivals, engaging in voter suppression, misinformation or some combination of these elements.
The consequences for non-compliance could range from draconian imprisonment, disenfranchisement, torture or death.
The consequences for speaking out against the policy would be the same.
And it is fething ridiculous that in some of the most educated nations in the world, partisan a-holes refuse to acknowledge the difference between case A and case B.
But to take it back to Warhammer, your question actually provides for a cool campaign set in the era Indomitus. What if a cult of Nurgle is poisoning an Imperial world and seeking to summon both daemons and Death Guard to support the descent into disease. A planetary Governor has instituted mandatory vaccination, and the Arbites are rounding up and executing non compliant citizens- some of whom will be Nurgle Cultists, while others will belong to militarized religious orders.
You could create a vaccinated keyword that offers some protection vs. Nurgle's diseases, and some citizens disillusioned with the Imperial pogrom might join the Nurgle forces or succumb to corruption by another chaos power. Some within the Imperial forces may support them- ie. target priority against visibly mutated followers of Nurgle rather than the more human-looking infected but not yet mutated non-compliant citizens duped into supporting the very forces that are killing their fellow citizens by their "discontent" with Imperial governance.
They could all drive Cargo-8 transports to the hive city of Ottawaviticus to protest Imperial Governor Trudeaudonnai.
And that would bring satire back to 40k without GW needing to make a single change to lore or mechanics to facilitate it.
Insectum7 wrote: An analagous question to the 40k "purge the daemon with extreme prejudice" scenario is "How dangerous does a virus need to be for you to support forced vaccinations?" Which is not a simple discussion.
I'm probably walking on eggshells in a power armor here but that discussion would be very simple; no real or imaginary danger will ever warrant state force of any kind and suggesting otherwise equates fascism.
Anyway, I think I notice a tendency in recreative franchises (wether it is videogames, movies or hobby) to try to reproduce reality (some more than others) for some reason to as the industry puts it generally; 'be relatable', I think that that is a big mistake.
If anyone wants to relate, then all you have to do is walk outside and talk to a living and breathing other, stick your fingers into the soil and plant a crop or swing from a treebranch or something, why does fiction have to look like reality? Then it won't be fiction anylonger.
So you (not literally you, just in general) have pink hair and a nosering and now you need a mini to look like that too or what? I will never get it. Just be you and let your mini's be whatever you make of them but why should an entire template be changed for that?
I personally am not fond of the "everything is resolved through a form of violence" default in practically every expression of toys, toons and games either.. I personally prefer cardgames/deckbuilding aspect etc.. and love to theorycraft though.., but things are what they are and if you want something different, look for something different rather than changing something that already exists into what you are looking for. Strangely, the opposite is being done non stop. Look at movie franchises with all the "creative changes" being made to lore.. the witcher series was a good example.. completely wrecked.
Not saying GW does this necessarily, but there are lobbys going around affecting creative content to a template, that is wrong. Creative content should be itself without all the apologetics and catering to the-next-thing hype or no.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: In an honest attempt at clarity here: what is the point of satirizing something that is inherently not a laughing matter? People always ask, when has X comedian gone too far? When it's no longer funny.
Dave Chappelle stopped being funny to me when he began insinuating that it was ok to treat transgender folks as "less than" and started the "I have a trans friend!" trope every time he talks.
40k stopped being satire for me when 45 started putting his head on the Emperor's body as fan art that was official, and using slogans like "Unified Reich" or both-sides-ing literal Nazis in the street.
The reason 40k is such a basement hobby is because deep down, it's a hobby that glorifies faschistic thought, Sexism, Racism, and literally every "-phobia" in the book.
People bring up "The satanic Panic" like that's some sort of whataboutistic I WIN button. But it's not the argument you think it is. If DND was literally promoting satanic worship, or sacrificing blood rituals, then it would be the same. 40k glorifies all the tenants of the Faschistic style of governance. Thus it's not Satire any more.
If you want to put buzz words like Flanderization on it,(dumbest word of the year) then fine. But all you are saying is I want it to be cool and edgy and not feel judged when I espouse the tenants of the IoM in public.
This is the type of guilt-by-association activism that does more harm than good.. you should hopefully come to realize..
And NOWHERE in 40k is fascism glorified, it is shown exactly as destructive as it is.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: if we're talking about satire and the imperium being terrible, there's no reason why women shouldn't also be space marines— why let men do all the horrible things when Thatcher proved women can just as easily ruin lives! hashtag girl power
Sister of Battle already has that covered, I think. I'm pretty sure they commit more war crimes than space marines, being die-hard religious fanatics who love using fire and all.
Also inquisitors. They're like, living war crimes. They don't follow the Geneva Convention, they follow the Geneva Checklist.
right, so if there's no issue with women in the setting, then there's no issue with women being space marines!
The issue is that it goes against the lore and thus makes it so the entire history of spacemarines has to be rewritten just because it has to portray the world of today for some reason..
So what if in a fictional army there are no women, what if a xenos has no women to begin with and are all androgyn? Should they suddenly also have women? Heh.
Them stating "Warhammer is for Everyone" is a good statement, but without action and delegitimising further the folks who "will not be missed", it runs the risk of being empty air and signalling.
What is the definition of -everyone- exactly if it doesn't include people who feel bolstered or comfortable in the theme? (aside from identified)
Again, I don't think anyone is saying that 40k/The Imperium is *creating* Those Folks. However, it is providing a rallying point, aesthetic, and a legitimacy for the talking points and beliefs expressed by Those Folks. The solution is to remove that as a symbol or tool of legitimacy. It doesn't require "destroying all 40k" to do - but a more hardline stance in denying Those Folks a shred of power or idea that they have a place in 40k (and in wider society).
So let's say someone likes the aesthetic of arnold schwarzenegger in the terminator, sporting a leather biker jacket and black glasses, walking around bopping his shoulders, does that make them a violent machine?
This whole "someone's preference may not be anywhere near this or that theme or they embody it irl" thing is ridiculous.. it lack such imagination..
The suggestion that there is some kind of emergence of an actual 40k empire just because people like the aesthetic of the ficticious and mind you overly exaggerated and obviously dismissive 40k empire cannot be staved on anything in reality.. the warhammer community is probably the least violent of all, I think that cannot be denied.. so where does this idea even come from that there exist some influx of "evil people trying to adopt the empire".. I think its a bag of hot air and a smear campaign, sorry.
Nowhere glorified? The Space Marines are the literal "Good guys" in the overwhelming majority of the fluff. "Angels" and whatnot. How much more on the nose do you need it to be, Dante, The Ultras, Vulcan and his Merry band of "We don't kill Civilians troopers". Not even getting into the Astra Militarum nonsense, but the only Imperial faction routinely pointed at as "The Bad guys" are the Admech, because they are the "Greedy Corporate" trope faction. Always sacrificing everything to gain money, power, etc. There are very few books that actively portray the Astartes (Loyalist) or the rest of the IoM as "The Bad Guys".
Even GW marketing videos are glorifying the Sisters now, with the launch video of 9th. The Super Catholic Fem-Nazis. Those got a Trailer to look totally heroic/awesome.
But to take it back to Warhammer, your question actually provides for a cool campaign set in the era Indomitus. What if a cult of Nurgle is poisoning an Imperial world and seeking to summon both daemons and Death Guard to support the descent into disease. A planetary Governor has instituted mandatory vaccination, and the Arbites are rounding up and executing non compliant citizens- some of whom will be Nurgle Cultists, while others will belong to militarized religious orders.
You could create a vaccinated keyword that offers some protection vs. Nurgle's diseases, and some citizens disillusioned with the Imperial pogrom might join the Nurgle forces or succumb to corruption by another chaos power. Some within the Imperial forces may support them- ie. target priority against visibly mutated followers of Nurgle rather than the more human-looking infected but not yet mutated non-compliant citizens duped into supporting the very forces that are killing their fellow citizens by their "discontent" with Imperial governance.
They could all drive Cargo-8 transports to the hive city of Ottawaviticus to protest Imperial Governor Trudeaudonnai.
And that would bring satire back to 40k without GW needing to make a single change to lore or mechanics to facilitate it.
Not really, as the Imperium is still in the right in this case, which I'm pretty sure is what many in this thread are griping about. It would be more of a satire if there was no disease, it was just an imperial overreaction to a common cold instigated by an overzealous and paranoid inquisitor, and the vaccine being imposed was incredibly faulty. And the oppressed citizens do end up being tricked into joining Chaos, because that's how Chaos works, it exploit's humanity's own failings.
After all, the Imperium is great at making hells of its own making. That's like, the point of a grim-dark setting about the dark side and failings of human nature and civilization.
But to take it back to Warhammer, your question actually provides for a cool campaign set in the era Indomitus. What if a cult of Nurgle is poisoning an Imperial world and seeking to summon both daemons and Death Guard to support the descent into disease. A planetary Governor has instituted mandatory vaccination, and the Arbites are rounding up and executing non compliant citizens- some of whom will be Nurgle Cultists, while others will belong to militarized religious orders.
You could create a vaccinated keyword that offers some protection vs. Nurgle's diseases, and some citizens disillusioned with the Imperial pogrom might join the Nurgle forces or succumb to corruption by another chaos power. Some within the Imperial forces may support them- ie. target priority against visibly mutated followers of Nurgle rather than the more human-looking infected but not yet mutated non-compliant citizens duped into supporting the very forces that are killing their fellow citizens by their "discontent" with Imperial governance.
They could all drive Cargo-8 transports to the hive city of Ottawaviticus to protest Imperial Governor Trudeaudonnai.
And that would bring satire back to 40k without GW needing to make a single change to lore or mechanics to facilitate it.
Not really, as the Imperium is still in the right in this case, which I'm pretty sure is what many in this thread are griping about. It would be more of a satire if there was no disease, it was just an imperial overreaction to a common cold instigated by an overzealous and paranoid inquisitor, and the vaccine being imposed was incredibly faulty. And the oppressed citizens do end up being tricked into joining Chaos, because that's how Chaos works, it exploit's humanity's own failings.
the issue here is that it would be a hard story to tell without pandering to anti-vaccers— if the vaccine is for frivolous reasons, and has harmful effects, you're going to get people pointing at it and saying "see, that's just like the real vaccine!" and using it to justify their anti-scientific opinions. it's a very thin line to tread in order to make a story like this work without vilifying vaccines or real world vaccine mandates
StudentOfEtherium wrote: if we're talking about satire and the imperium being terrible, there's no reason why women shouldn't also be space marines— why let men do all the horrible things when Thatcher proved women can just as easily ruin lives! hashtag girl power
Sister of Battle already has that covered, I think. I'm pretty sure they commit more war crimes than space marines, being die-hard religious fanatics who love using fire and all. Also inquisitors. They're like, living war crimes. They don't follow the Geneva Convention, they follow the Geneva Checklist.
right, so if there's no issue with women in the setting, then there's no issue with women being space marines!
The issue is that it goes against the lore
The lore changes all the time. What is "against" the lore one day might change in five years.
Without falling back on the immutability of the lore, what are the issues with it?
thus makes it so the entire history of spacemarines has to be rewritten just because it has to portray the world of today for some reason.
Have the Custodes had their entire history rewritten? Did Space Marines have their entire history rewritten when Stormraven Gunships were introduced?
So what if in a fictional army there are no women, what if a xenos has no women to begin with and are all androgyn? Should they suddenly also have women? Heh.
Obviously not, and you know why not. You're being disingenuous.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Them stating "Warhammer is for Everyone" is a good statement, but without action and delegitimising further the folks who "will not be missed", it runs the risk of being empty air and signalling.
What is the definition of -everyone- exactly if it doesn't include people who feel bolstered or comfortable in the theme? (aside from identified)
Check Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.
"Everyone" presupposes that ANYONE/everyone is welcome in 40k, but if you are incapable of engaging with others and welcoming them, then clearly you have not bought into the social contract of "everyone".
Everyone isn't to say that "EVERYONE is a 40k fan", but that everyone/anyone *could* be if they so wished. That also doesn't imply that 40k is perfect and has no flaws.
Again, I don't think anyone is saying that 40k/The Imperium is *creating* Those Folks. However, it is providing a rallying point, aesthetic, and a legitimacy for the talking points and beliefs expressed by Those Folks. The solution is to remove that as a symbol or tool of legitimacy. It doesn't require "destroying all 40k" to do - but a more hardline stance in denying Those Folks a shred of power or idea that they have a place in 40k (and in wider society).
So let's say someone likes the aesthetic of arnold schwarzenegger in the terminator, sporting a leather biker jacket and black glasses, walking around bopping his shoulders, does that make them a violent machine?
Absolutely not. When someone happens to like the aesthetic of, say, a Commissar with iron crosses and a peaked cap (you know, like certain Real Life Ideologies), and starts going round shouting about killing the "heretic" and the "traitor", except those comments are all directed towards, let's say, as you put earlier, someone with "pink hair and a nose ring", and maybe seem to blur the lines between when they're "in character" and when they're not... ... but it's okay!!!! they're just pretending to be a Commissar of the Imperium, it's just a joke!!!11!
right?
This whole "someone's preference may not be anywhere near this or that theme or they embody it irl" thing is ridiculous.. it lack such imagination..
Huh?
The suggestion that there is some kind of emergence of an actual 40k empire just because people like the aesthetic of the ficticious and mind you overly exaggerated and obviously dismissive 40k empire cannot be staved on anything in reality..
Uh... you *do* know that a lot of Imperial imagery is based off of real life totaltarian regimes?
Yes, it's fictious. That's THE POINT. That's the smokescreen - that they're just "roleplaying" or "quoting" from the Silly Toy Soldier Game. Except those doctrines of "hate the mutant" and "tolerance is heresy" are a little bit more real than they say.
And yes, this *is* based in reality. I genuinely suggest you open your eyes.
the warhammer community is probably the least violent of all, I think that cannot be denied..
"Of all"?
Mate, what are you on?
so where does this idea even come from that there exist some influx of "evil people trying to adopt the empire".. I think its a bag of hot air and a smear campaign, sorry.
Again, I don't know what to tell you, but you're just plain wrong. Just a brief look online would show this. There's plenty of grifters using 40k to promote their brand of bigotry, and if you pretend like it's not real, then I can't take you seriously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
StudentOfEtherium wrote: the issue here is that it would be a hard story to tell without pandering to anti-vaccers— if the vaccine is for frivolous reasons, and has harmful effects, you're going to get people pointing at it and saying "see, that's just like the real vaccine!" and using it to justify their anti-scientific opinions. it's a very thin line to tread in order to make a story like this work without vilifying vaccines or real world vaccine mandates
Unfortunately true. People are so polarised (and media illiterate) that even the most obvious satire can fall flat (see: Helldivers 2).
But to take it back to Warhammer, your question actually provides for a cool campaign set in the era Indomitus. What if a cult of Nurgle is poisoning an Imperial world and seeking to summon both daemons and Death Guard to support the descent into disease. A planetary Governor has instituted mandatory vaccination, and the Arbites are rounding up and executing non compliant citizens- some of whom will be Nurgle Cultists, while others will belong to militarized religious orders.
You could create a vaccinated keyword that offers some protection vs. Nurgle's diseases, and some citizens disillusioned with the Imperial pogrom might join the Nurgle forces or succumb to corruption by another chaos power. Some within the Imperial forces may support them- ie. target priority against visibly mutated followers of Nurgle rather than the more human-looking infected but not yet mutated non-compliant citizens duped into supporting the very forces that are killing their fellow citizens by their "discontent" with Imperial governance.
They could all drive Cargo-8 transports to the hive city of Ottawaviticus to protest Imperial Governor Trudeaudonnai.
And that would bring satire back to 40k without GW needing to make a single change to lore or mechanics to facilitate it.
Not really, as the Imperium is still in the right in this case, which I'm pretty sure is what many in this thread are griping about. It would be more of a satire if there was no disease, it was just an imperial overreaction to a common cold instigated by an overzealous and paranoid inquisitor, and the vaccine being imposed was incredibly faulty. And the oppressed citizens do end up being tricked into joining Chaos, because that's how Chaos works, it exploit's humanity's own failings.
the issue here is that it would be a hard story to tell without pandering to anti-vaccers— if the vaccine is for frivolous reasons, and has harmful effects, you're going to get people pointing at it and saying "see, that's just like the real vaccine!" and using it to justify their anti-scientific opinions. it's a very thin line to tread in order to make a story like this work without vilifying vaccines or real world vaccine mandates
Still better than a story that paints the Imperium as justified in their treatment of their subjects. At least in my version both are guilty; the Imperium is guilty for their heavy-handed folly (as always), and the rebels are guilty for getting suckered by literal demons and end up causing even more damage as a consequence. No one is good here, they are both wrong.
You should try reading The Eye of Medusa, about the Iron Hands. It really makes you think "damn, these so-called defenders of humanity are indeed sociopathic, homicidal maniacs". Cold, inhuman, indifferent.
But to take it back to Warhammer, your question actually provides for a cool campaign set in the era Indomitus. What if a cult of Nurgle is poisoning an Imperial world and seeking to summon both daemons and Death Guard to support the descent into disease. A planetary Governor has instituted mandatory vaccination, and the Arbites are rounding up and executing non compliant citizens- some of whom will be Nurgle Cultists, while others will belong to militarized religious orders.
You could create a vaccinated keyword that offers some protection vs. Nurgle's diseases, and some citizens disillusioned with the Imperial pogrom might join the Nurgle forces or succumb to corruption by another chaos power. Some within the Imperial forces may support them- ie. target priority against visibly mutated followers of Nurgle rather than the more human-looking infected but not yet mutated non-compliant citizens duped into supporting the very forces that are killing their fellow citizens by their "discontent" with Imperial governance.
They could all drive Cargo-8 transports to the hive city of Ottawaviticus to protest Imperial Governor Trudeaudonnai.
And that would bring satire back to 40k without GW needing to make a single change to lore or mechanics to facilitate it.
Not really, as the Imperium is still in the right in this case, which I'm pretty sure is what many in this thread are griping about. It would be more of a satire if there was no disease, it was just an imperial overreaction to a common cold instigated by an overzealous and paranoid inquisitor, and the vaccine being imposed was incredibly faulty. And the oppressed citizens do end up being tricked into joining Chaos, because that's how Chaos works, it exploit's humanity's own failings.
the issue here is that it would be a hard story to tell without pandering to anti-vaccers— if the vaccine is for frivolous reasons, and has harmful effects, you're going to get people pointing at it and saying "see, that's just like the real vaccine!" and using it to justify their anti-scientific opinions. it's a very thin line to tread in order to make a story like this work without vilifying vaccines or real world vaccine mandates
Still better than a story that paints the Imperium as justified in their treatment of their subjects. At least in my version both are guilty; the Imperium is guilty for their heavy-handed folly (as always), and the rebels are guilty for getting suckered by literal demons and end up causing even more damage as a consequence. No one is good here, they are both wrong.
The thing that minimizes the "Imperium is right" is that they are executing those who dissent, which allows the campaign to be satirical: even if the desire to have citizens vaccinated is regarded as noble by some players, the Imperial policy of executing dissenters will not be seen as noble by most sane people.
The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems- It's why I posted the Hassle Free sci-fi Trump model a few pages back. If you are upset about a lack of satire in the game, play narratively and make your own satire.
If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then I'd have to say while it's certainly still thought provoking and engaging to participate in conversations like these, and that's the reason we have forums like this in the first place, it obviously isn't as much of a problem as the discourse would suggest, because if it was, more people WOULD actually find a way to take the radical step of taking matters into our own hands.
But to take it back to Warhammer, your question actually provides for a cool campaign set in the era Indomitus. What if a cult of Nurgle is poisoning an Imperial world and seeking to summon both daemons and Death Guard to support the descent into disease. A planetary Governor has instituted mandatory vaccination, and the Arbites are rounding up and executing non compliant citizens- some of whom will be Nurgle Cultists, while others will belong to militarized religious orders.
You could create a vaccinated keyword that offers some protection vs. Nurgle's diseases, and some citizens disillusioned with the Imperial pogrom might join the Nurgle forces or succumb to corruption by another chaos power. Some within the Imperial forces may support them- ie. target priority against visibly mutated followers of Nurgle rather than the more human-looking infected but not yet mutated non-compliant citizens duped into supporting the very forces that are killing their fellow citizens by their "discontent" with Imperial governance.
They could all drive Cargo-8 transports to the hive city of Ottawaviticus to protest Imperial Governor Trudeaudonnai.
And that would bring satire back to 40k without GW needing to make a single change to lore or mechanics to facilitate it.
Not really, as the Imperium is still in the right in this case, which I'm pretty sure is what many in this thread are griping about. It would be more of a satire if there was no disease, it was just an imperial overreaction to a common cold instigated by an overzealous and paranoid inquisitor, and the vaccine being imposed was incredibly faulty. And the oppressed citizens do end up being tricked into joining Chaos, because that's how Chaos works, it exploit's humanity's own failings.
the issue here is that it would be a hard story to tell without pandering to anti-vaccers— if the vaccine is for frivolous reasons, and has harmful effects, you're going to get people pointing at it and saying "see, that's just like the real vaccine!" and using it to justify their anti-scientific opinions. it's a very thin line to tread in order to make a story like this work without vilifying vaccines or real world vaccine mandates
Hmm... that could work with a bit of an extra angle and get both sides of it. The original story would be the beginning, where the vaccine does work and the plague is starting to dissipate. However, then some high up member of the Ecclesiarchy shows up claiming that the only thing people need to be saved is their belief in the Emperor, so they shut down all this "science nonsense" holding city-wide sermons and prayer sessions, only for the disease to come back twice as strong as before and overrun the planet.
But to take it back to Warhammer, your question actually provides for a cool campaign set in the era Indomitus. What if a cult of Nurgle is poisoning an Imperial world and seeking to summon both daemons and Death Guard to support the descent into disease. A planetary Governor has instituted mandatory vaccination, and the Arbites are rounding up and executing non compliant citizens- some of whom will be Nurgle Cultists, while others will belong to militarized religious orders.
You could create a vaccinated keyword that offers some protection vs. Nurgle's diseases, and some citizens disillusioned with the Imperial pogrom might join the Nurgle forces or succumb to corruption by another chaos power. Some within the Imperial forces may support them- ie. target priority against visibly mutated followers of Nurgle rather than the more human-looking infected but not yet mutated non-compliant citizens duped into supporting the very forces that are killing their fellow citizens by their "discontent" with Imperial governance.
They could all drive Cargo-8 transports to the hive city of Ottawaviticus to protest Imperial Governor Trudeaudonnai.
And that would bring satire back to 40k without GW needing to make a single change to lore or mechanics to facilitate it.
Not really, as the Imperium is still in the right in this case, which I'm pretty sure is what many in this thread are griping about. It would be more of a satire if there was no disease, it was just an imperial overreaction to a common cold instigated by an overzealous and paranoid inquisitor, and the vaccine being imposed was incredibly faulty. And the oppressed citizens do end up being tricked into joining Chaos, because that's how Chaos works, it exploit's humanity's own failings.
the issue here is that it would be a hard story to tell without pandering to anti-vaccers— if the vaccine is for frivolous reasons, and has harmful effects, you're going to get people pointing at it and saying "see, that's just like the real vaccine!" and using it to justify their anti-scientific opinions. it's a very thin line to tread in order to make a story like this work without vilifying vaccines or real world vaccine mandates
Hmm... that could work with a bit of an extra angle and get both sides of it. The original story would be the beginning, where the vaccine does work and the plague is starting to dissipate. However, then some high up member of the Ecclesiarchy shows up claiming that the only thing people need to be saved is their belief in the Emperor, so they shut down all this "science nonsense" holding city-wide sermons and prayer sessions, only for the disease to come back twice as strong as before and overrun the planet.
yeah, that certainly works! folly and hubris are classic ways to present satire
could even have an inquisitor come in and ban the vaccine on the basis of it being heretech, then later claim that it had been their idea to use it in the first place when it turns out it actually worked
I think people are overlooking the main vein of satire within The Imperium.
Despite all its horrific treatment of its own citizens. Despite its xenocidal nature. Despite its oppression and suppression of knowledge?
It’s still slowly dying. It’s breaking under its own weight and ignorance. The wildest dreams of the furthest right you can go, and it’s still failing. Even when the satanic panic has good reason to exist, suppressing knowledge and burning books and heretics isn’t working.
It’s riven with factionalism enough to make a Skaven blush.
The only reason it continues to this day is its sheer size. And as I’ve argued before, the return of Guilliman, a paragon of effective governance and strategy has changed….nothing.
It could be saved by Guilliman, but would require centralisation under his express command, and a whole heap of root and stem reorganisation from top to bottom. But it arguably now cannot be done. Those at the top have enjoyed such power and freedom, they’re not gonna give that up easily.
The Emperor is worshipped in a way He allegedly never wanted. And it’s that worship which is a significant factor in the cultural rot and atrophy. And there are genuine concerns that The Emperor stepping off his Throne and taking command would just make things worse, because sadly that’s how Theocracies tend to go. And that said theocracy is largely based on a book written by a confirmed Heretic only adds to the irony of the situation.
It’s almost an Orky inability to see the potential for any thing beyond warfare.
In actual point of fact: there was a sub story in one of the DOW books, where a lowly Data Shuffler was in receipt of a data transmission from a far off world, but she was too ignorant to understand it. She made it her life's mission to bring it to the "senior administrator" or whatever, because she BELIEVES the emperor tasked her with this, and basically gives it to him almost at the point of death. Person reads it, and says it's a request for support from a World that basically died/was overrun by chaos, over 50 years ago or something, so it was all worthless and pointless, unimportant. Her entire life spent in the pursuit of an ideal and belief, shown to be on the face of it, the same. This is about as satirical as the IoM can get in the fluff. People thinking they're making a difference, only to realize their body is being used as firewood for a ship's engine.
any retcon that updates the lore to allow women to exist doesn't need to be retroactive (and in fact would have to be additive). have some trinket text about Cawl making new innovations to allow for more recruitment now that [insert 11th edition enemy faction] have brought the imperium to the eve of destruction. there. that's all we need, and then we can move on and pretend this game didn't spend 40 years scared of women cooties
Plenty of cooties among the sisters, again.
Also, traitor slaaneshians (noisemarines) may have female spacemarines imho. go for it.
But to take it back to Warhammer, your question actually provides for a cool campaign set in the era Indomitus. What if a cult of Nurgle is poisoning an Imperial world and seeking to summon both daemons and Death Guard to support the descent into disease. A planetary Governor has instituted mandatory vaccination, and the Arbites are rounding up and executing non compliant citizens- some of whom will be Nurgle Cultists, while others will belong to militarized religious orders.
You could create a vaccinated keyword that offers some protection vs. Nurgle's diseases, and some citizens disillusioned with the Imperial pogrom might join the Nurgle forces or succumb to corruption by another chaos power. Some within the Imperial forces may support them- ie. target priority against visibly mutated followers of Nurgle rather than the more human-looking infected but not yet mutated non-compliant citizens duped into supporting the very forces that are killing their fellow citizens by their "discontent" with Imperial governance.
They could all drive Cargo-8 transports to the hive city of Ottawaviticus to protest Imperial Governor Trudeaudonnai.
And that would bring satire back to 40k without GW needing to make a single change to lore or mechanics to facilitate it.
Add some knowledged Eldar that have libraries full of research done ignored by the Empire that the Nurgle blessings aren't contageous but in reality gifted upon the population by each their own lifestyle merit.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think people are overlooking the main vein of satire within The Imperium.
Despite all its horrific treatment of its own citizens. Despite its xenocidal nature. Despite its oppression and suppression of knowledge?
It’s still slowly dying. It’s breaking under its own weight and ignorance. The wildest dreams of the furthest right you can go, and it’s still failing. Even when the satanic panic has good reason to exist, suppressing knowledge and burning books and heretics isn’t working.
It’s riven with factionalism enough to make a Skaven blush.
The only reason it continues to this day is its sheer size. And as I’ve argued before, the return of Guilliman, a paragon of effective governance and strategy has changed….nothing.
It could be saved by Guilliman, but would require centralisation under his express command, and a whole heap of root and stem reorganisation from top to bottom. But it arguably now cannot be done. Those at the top have enjoyed such power and freedom, they’re not gonna give that up easily.
The Emperor is worshipped in a way He allegedly never wanted. And it’s that worship which is a significant factor in the cultural rot and atrophy. And there are genuine concerns that The Emperor stepping off his Throne and taking command would just make things worse, because sadly that’s how Theocracies tend to go. And that said theocracy is largely based on a book written by a confirmed Heretic only adds to the irony of the situation.
It’s almost an Orky inability to see the potential for any thing beyond warfare.
Orks are actually a lot more like humans compared to the hyper-gloom of pre-necron-mentality transhumanist empire emperor-feet-kissers though..
Funny how we never hear any complaints about the Ork culture instigating alt right movements or something
And the Emperor is confirmed alive, and Cawl has rolled out new Marines that are stomping all over the extant threats, and other primarchs might return, and basically the precipice of annihilation at 999.M41 has been averted. There is now hope, and possibility for the Imperium to recover.
Getting into the weeds about whether it's likely or not that Guilliman can do any of that is irrelevant anyways, since story developments are at the behest of a company with a revolving door of writers and little concern for consistency. All we have in concrete is the current state and the current themes, and they don't strike me as particularly satirical.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: This is about as satirical as the IoM can get in the fluff. People thinking they're making a difference, only to realize their body is being used as firewood for a ship's engine.
It's more the subsequent essays about why it needs to be this way and how more rational paperwork will actually allow daemons to molest you in new and exciting orifices that reduces it from satire to just 'everything sucks (but the fascist empire is doing the right thing)'.
..
The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems-
And the counter point to that is that it’s not even working.
Worlds are attacked, depopulated and/or lost pretty regularly.
The Imperium was meant to be about protecting mankind. Forcibly pacifying a hostile galaxy so future generations might live in peace and prosperity.
Now? It has no actual regard for humanity. At all. The ignorance has taken over. Knowledge is jealously hoarded for sake of having more. But relatively little is done with it.
It’s endless cruelty to the very beings it’s meant to be protecting is done with no actual plan beyond “put out the next fire”, and in doing so, lighting a bunch of other fires.
Chaos Cults take root so easily because of the oppression. People live miserable lives of unending toil, with a decent percentage of humans, thanks to the population density of a Hive World, without ever seeing the sun or breathing fresh air.
It’s fighting, and sometimes it’s even the good fight, but not making anything better. Nothing is improving.
Even the return of Primarchs and the reveal of the Primaris has only maintained the stagnation and status quo. And for the vast majority of Imperial citizens? It’s not change a thing.
Again, the Imperium was never about protecting mankind. It was, from the very beginning, a genocidal fascist campaign of conquest for the glory of one person.
The same person who was meant to have been alive for millennia failed to learn the lesson of every single Empire in history, which is that when you expand by military force, your only reward is a greater circumference you have to defend.
The only reason there was a galaxy spanning human empire that actually had control (and do we actually know that actually existed in the form people assume?), was because it was not forged out of genocide of every species it encountered and so did not create brand new borders of a galaxy spanning war with every new system.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I agree it was genocidal and fascist, but the original plan has always been presented as a Means To An End.
Doesn’t change the means were immoral and horrific like. But it’s still a reason for it all, even if it’s by no means a good or just reason.
I disagree. The Emperor may have said it, but he was clearly lying. Just look at what he actually did and built.
Literally every fascist in history has said that their campaigns were a means to an end.
Judge people not by their words, but their actions. The Emperor is nothing more than a fascist warlord, just the most successful one but fundamentally no different in character.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I agree it was genocidal and fascist, but the original plan has always been presented as a Means To An End.
Doesn’t change the means were immoral and horrific like. But it’s still a reason for it all, even if it’s by no means a good or just reason.
I disagree. The Emperor may have said it, but he was clearly lying. Just look at what he actually did and built.
Literally every fascist in history has said that their campaigns were a means to an end.
Judge people not by their words, but their actions. The Emperor is nothing more than a fascist warlord, just the most successful one but fundamentally no different in character.
Do we know what the Imperium would have looked like if that little Horus Heresy thing didn't happen? Because what the Imperium is sure seems unintended.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: that's all we need, and then we can move on and pretend this game didn't spend 40 years scared of women cooties
Plenty of cooties among the sisters, again.
Not the same thing. Sisters were basically extinct as a playable faction for decades.
Also, traitor slaaneshians (noisemarines) may have female spacemarines imho. go for it.
Thank you for showing just how those sorts of "it's just the lore" comments can then reflect on the real world.
Having women Astartes is compared with the faction of depraved, hedonistic, daemon-worshippers. You conflated women Astartes as being "evil", "corrupted" and "perverse". You don't see why that's *maybe* just a bit of a bad reflection on presentations of women or non-masculine identities in 40k?
And then imagine when you start getting people who might start comparing IRL folks to these factions - deeming them similarly "depraved" or "hedonistic", or "perverse" - and then defending their comments as just being "lore jokes".
In fact, I don't have to imagine. A user was banned on this site for doing just that.
Do you see why this might be a problem?
When people are able to take elements of 40k and weaponise them, then the satire isn't working.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Literally every fascist in history has said that their campaigns were a means to an end.
Judge people not by their words, but their actions. The Emperor is nothing more than a fascist warlord, just the most successful one but fundamentally no different in character.
Do we know what the Imperium would have looked like if that little Horus Heresy thing didn't happen? Because what the Imperium is sure seems unintended.
It would still have been *built* on the foundation of oppressive regimes and xenophobic brutality. Regardless of what the Imperium was supposed to be at the end, it used the tools of fascism to attempt to build it - and never stopped trying to use those tools.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I agree it was genocidal and fascist, but the original plan has always been presented as a Means To An End.
Doesn’t change the means were immoral and horrific like. But it’s still a reason for it all, even if it’s by no means a good or just reason.
I disagree. The Emperor may have said it, but he was clearly lying. Just look at what he actually did and built.
Literally every fascist in history has said that their campaigns were a means to an end.
Judge people not by their words, but their actions. The Emperor is nothing more than a fascist warlord, just the most successful one but fundamentally no different in character.
I'm not so sure he was. The few times we really get into Big E's headspace is through some of his conversations with Malcador that we're told of in memories/flashbacks.
Malcador says that The Emperor's original intent was to conquer the galaxy and then step down, leaving humanity to be run by humanity, not by himself. Now you hear this kind of thing from tyrants all the time, so why should we believe this was Big E's plan. There are 3 reasons that come to mind for me, though there may be more I don't know about:
1) Malcador doesn't believe this will ever happen and tries to dissuade The Emperor from the idea. If Big E really wanted to rule everything forever, when Malcador, his closest confidant, in private council, is telling him that humanity will always need Big E to rule them why disagree and try to convince Malcador otherwise?
2) You start to see it at the end of the Great Crusade. One of the things that begins to stir the ire of some of the Primarchs at the end of the Great Crusade is that the unlimited power they used to possess over the Imperium is slowly being taken away and given to mortals. A little at a time, it is transitioning to a system run by people. It's absolutely still a horrible oligarchical system, but Big E is still voluntarily relinquishing some of both his and his son's sway over the Imperium at large.
3) Big E's always been around. Having been around for so long, if his goal was always total galactic conquest with himself at the head, why wait until when he did? Why not take over everything during the golden age of humanity when it would have been even easier to conquer the stars? He was certainly involved during that time, but very much behind the scenes, so it's hard to say how much of a role he played, but he is certainly plenty content to just do his own thing for long stretches of time without shepherding humanity.
We see so little inside the Emperor's head that it is hard to say definitively, but personally, I do think that after creating this exclusively human galaxy, he'd either fade back into the shadows with most or all of his space marines and let humanity run itself, or take them all beyond the rim of the galaxy and go find something else to conquer, because that "man" had ambitions and whose to say that Humanity's manifest destiny to the entire universe wasn't his next goal?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I agree it was genocidal and fascist, but the original plan has always been presented as a Means To An End.
Doesn’t change the means were immoral and horrific like. But it’s still a reason for it all, even if it’s by no means a good or just reason.
I disagree. The Emperor may have said it, but he was clearly lying. Just look at what he actually did and built.
Literally every fascist in history has said that their campaigns were a means to an end.
Judge people not by their words, but their actions. The Emperor is nothing more than a fascist warlord, just the most successful one but fundamentally no different in character.
Do we know what the Imperium would have looked like if that little Horus Heresy thing didn't happen? Because what the Imperium is sure seems unintended.
One line of argument there is “much like the 500 Worlds of Ultramar”. Which at least during the Great Crusade were well equipped and mutually supporting.
And we can’t know what The Emperor’s end goal truly was, because the Heresy ruined that. But given he was by all accounts really pleased with the 500 Worlds? We have some evidence it was indeed a means to an end.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: that's all we need, and then we can move on and pretend this game didn't spend 40 years scared of women cooties
Plenty of cooties among the sisters, again.
Not the same thing. Sisters were basically extinct as a playable faction for decades.
Incorrect. Sisters have had playable, though always kinda "meh", rules in every edition since 2e.
During 3e - 7th they'd go a few editions between getting their next "meh" updates & even then GW only invested the bare minimum of effort into them - as befitted a low selling model range*.
Sorta like "Well, we've still got this stuff in inventory. And we don't have anything better to fill a couple of WD pages with for the {month} issue. Or "Hmm, what's this PDF stuff all about?" "You there, Intern, write something up ruleswise for the SoB!"
*Wich of course is it's own feedback loop. "Meh" rules = low interest in the line wich in turn = low sales. Wich leads to little effort being invested in either new rules or new models. Wich loops back to low sales....
But the range was available for purchase & the rules were playable if one were determined to have a SoB army!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sisters were basically extinct as a playable faction for decades.
Incorrect. Sisters have had playable, though always kinda "meh", rules in every edition since 2e.
During 3e - 7th they'd go a few editions between getting their next "meh" updates & even then GW only invested the bare minimum of effort into them - as befitted a low selling model range*.
Sorta like "Well, we've still got this stuff in inventory. And we don't have anything better to fill a couple of WD pages with for the {month} issue. Or "Hmm, what's this PDF stuff all about?" "You there, Intern, write something up ruleswise for the SoB!"
*Wich of course is it's own feedback loop. "Meh" rules = low interest in the line wich in turn = low sales. Wich leads to little effort being invested in either new rules or new models. Wich loops back to low sales....
But the range was available for purchase & the rules were playable if one were determined to have a SoB army!
I'm mostly talking about the minis and the fact that rules were scant. Obviously, they weren't *dead*, but they were on life support. They've only really had love because of their new plastic range.
So, ultimately, I don't really think my statement was *that* off the mark. They were functionally unplayable to most people (short of proxying).
Tawnis wrote: I'm not so sure he was. The few times we really get into Big E's headspace is through some of his conversations with Malcador that we're told of in memories/flashbacks.
Malcador says that The Emperor's original intent was to conquer the galaxy and then step down, leaving humanity to be run by humanity, not by himself. Now you hear this kind of thing from tyrants all the time, so why should we believe this was Big E's plan. There are 3 reasons that come to mind for me, though there may be more I don't know about:
Transitioning power from a special golden not-god man to unelected bureaucrats largely drawn from Terra. Not the slam dunk you think it might be. The Webway might have helped reduce the stresses of an interstellar empire in terms of travel and communication but the Council of Terra wasn't going to switch to free and fair elections when the Emperor walked off.
The Xenophobia and genocidal tendencies would have remained along with the brutal suppression of anything considered "other".
3) Big E's always been around. Having been around for so long, if his goal was always total galactic conquest with himself at the head, why wait until when he did? Why not take over everything during the golden age of humanity when it would have been even easier to conquer the stars? He was certainly involved during that time, but very much behind the scenes, so it's hard to say how much of a role he played, but he is certainly plenty content to just do his own thing for long stretches of time without shepherding humanity.
He needed humanity to be desperate enough to let him be in charge. Golden Age humanity was at the peak of its power and would never have submitted easily to the Emperor. You can see it when the Imperium comes across similarly advanced societies during the Crusade who have weathered the Dark Age but either advanced or retained their cultures and tech.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: that's all we need, and then we can move on and pretend this game didn't spend 40 years scared of women cooties
Plenty of cooties among the sisters, again.
Not the same thing. Sisters were basically extinct as a playable faction for decades.
Also, traitor slaaneshians (noisemarines) may have female spacemarines imho. go for it.
Thank you for showing just how those sorts of "it's just the lore" comments can then reflect on the real world.
Having women Astartes is compared with the faction of depraved, hedonistic, daemon-worshippers. You conflated women Astartes as being "evil", "corrupted" and "perverse". You don't see why that's *maybe* just a bit of a bad reflection on presentations of women or non-masculine identities in 40k?
And then imagine when you start getting people who might start comparing IRL folks to these factions - deeming them similarly "depraved" or "hedonistic", or "perverse" - and then defending their comments as just being "lore jokes".
In fact, I don't have to imagine. A user was banned on this site for doing just that.
Do you see why this might be a problem?
When people are able to take elements of 40k and weaponise them, then the satire isn't working.
the funny thing is, i've joked in the past about "GW introduces female space marines specifically through EC, with GW proclaiming that only the most debaucherous legion would ever consider being transgender" as, like, an absurd joke about GW being bad at progressivism. never thought i'd see someone suggest that happen for real (granted, and to be fair to leo, they didn't mention trans people like my old joke did, but it's still not a great suggestion!)
Tawnis wrote: I'm not so sure he was. The few times we really get into Big E's headspace is through some of his conversations with Malcador that we're told of in memories/flashbacks.
Malcador says that The Emperor's original intent was to conquer the galaxy and then step down, leaving humanity to be run by humanity, not by himself. Now you hear this kind of thing from tyrants all the time, so why should we believe this was Big E's plan. There are 3 reasons that come to mind for me, though there may be more I don't know about:
Transitioning power from a special golden not-god man to unelected bureaucrats largely drawn from Terra. Not the slam dunk you think it might be. The Webway might have helped reduce the stresses of an interstellar empire in terms of travel and communication but the Council of Terra wasn't going to switch to free and fair elections when the Emperor walked off.
The Xenophobia and genocidal tendencies would have remained along with the brutal suppression of anything considered "other".
3) Big E's always been around. Having been around for so long, if his goal was always total galactic conquest with himself at the head, why wait until when he did? Why not take over everything during the golden age of humanity when it would have been even easier to conquer the stars? He was certainly involved during that time, but very much behind the scenes, so it's hard to say how much of a role he played, but he is certainly plenty content to just do his own thing for long stretches of time without shepherding humanity.
He needed humanity to be desperate enough to let him be in charge. Golden Age humanity was at the peak of its power and would never have submitted easily to the Emperor. You can see it when the Imperium comes across similarly advanced societies during the Crusade who have weathered the Dark Age but either advanced or retained their cultures and tech.
Oh, of course, it was just the replacement of one terrible system with another, my point was only that I do think he intended to step down himself.
That's a fair point on 3 and could very well be the case. It's hard to say since we know so little about what he was doing at that point in time.
We know he was waiting for humanity to be both technologically advanced but also desperate enough to accept his rule.
The Age of Strife allowed this to happen and while it certainly messed things up a bit, it also made the vast majority of human worlds desperate for stability.
Those who had created pocket empires or indeed had advanced their cultures and technology tended to resist the Imperium. Of course it didn't help that the Emperor was a big old space racist.
He saw no need to reveal himself when things were good, as mankind just didn’t need him. As a species we were prospering and expanding. Given whatever organised government or governments came before the Age of Strife were able to survive in a galaxy with pre-Fall Eldar and Orks ‘ard enough to survive pre-Fall Eldar? They must’ve been pretty bloody powerful.
Which also introduces the possibility The Emperor knew humanity at that point had the power to just do him in. Which brings all sorts of other what-iffery into play!
So we're calling the Emperor justified again? It's OK he took power and created the worst regime ever known, subjugating billions of humans many of whom were doing just fine, and eradicating similar numbers of Xenos many of whom were also not a threat to humanity?
Gert wrote: So we're calling the Emperor justified again? It's OK he took power and created the worst regime ever known, subjugating billions of humans many of whom were doing just fine, and eradicating similar numbers of Xenos many of whom were also not a threat to humanity?
Just because what he did and how he did it was awful, doesn’t mean he may not have had good intentions. And even if he did have good intentions it doesn’t justify how awful the regime he led was.
Some of the worst and most destructive zealots are those who thought their cause was righteous. C.f. Also tbh much of the Imperium (though there’s also plenty that don’t think they’ve a good cause).
The fact that the Emperor (and his immediate subordinates) thought they were justified is a key part of the warning inherent in the lore imo, it’s so easy to slip into doing bad things in the same of what you think is a good cause and end up with horrific and tyrannical results.
The Emperor is *wrong*, this is not a good way to protect humanity, but I think the intent is that he genuinely believes it is and that he can step down when it’s complete.
Ollanius has some good dits in the SoT series on some of the Emperor’s previous misadventures in this regards.
Whereas ‘yeah he was just a crazy egotist’ loses the message as people are less likely to see themselves in that.
The problem, as others have said, though is that the important ’the Imperium is bad and not the right way’ message frequently gets lost in all the ‘aren’t Space Marines awesome!’ nature of a lot of the fiction these days. Though there’s still some good stuff in the more lower level fiction (Warhammer Crime is excellent in this regard).
Remembering that the Emperor's literary origin is Paul Atreides, you should be able to take a lot of intention from him and Herbert's intentions for him.
One of the issues is that GW have spent so long trying to glorify and legitimise the imperium to make them the heroes of the setting, that people have bought into it and retroactively justified everything as necessary.
Because they can't be heroes if they did bad things that weren't necessary.
This again comes back to the premise on which the arguments are founded - either you start from the premise that they were trying to do good, and thus everything ipso facto must be necessary to get where they are (the fascist apologia), or they were not the heroes and thus have done bad.
What GW have done a pretty good job of doing is PR facelifting the imperium and its leaders in the same way any dictatorial leader uses the state controlled media to whitewash their image.
Thus the consumer buys into the lie and becomes its ardent defenders. GW then no longer has to defend its creation, because consumers will do it for them,
Insectum7 wrote: Sure, but I'd still argue that the best course of action is for GW to explore that variety, rather than continue pounding more styles/identities/expression into Marines.
Why not both?
Make Marines be able to be any gender as a good first step, and work towards raising the prominence of other factions.
Agreed. And, let's be completely honest, it will be MUCH quicker/faster for GW to include women Astartes than redesigning/meaningfully including variety into other factions - after all, it took barely any effort with Custodes.
Personally I hate the retcon stuff - Primaris etc. But if they were going to do it, they should have done it whilst trashing their IP with the Primaris range and floaty tanks.
Honestly though I would prefer they went the other way. Emphasise the problems with all male, fanatical close minded organisations. Can still be a 'fun' faction, and your poster boy, but the writing should leave you in no doubt why celibate pyscho conditioned all male forces are a bad idea, their fall to corruption in universe, but also sadistic excess, etc. etc. And get back the in universe fiction of having not a second thought about crushing all the babies heads of a city they are ordered to depopulate in order to save ammunition for any citizens who are resisting.
I'm probably walking on eggshells in a power armor here but that discussion would be very simple; no real or imaginary danger will ever warrant state force of any kind and suggesting otherwise equates fascism.
I thought in conventional political theory a western nation state has to hold a monopoly of violence, and uses coercive violent on a daily basis, but with the broad consent of the public. The classic example being policing.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I agree it was genocidal and fascist, but the original plan has always been presented as a Means To An End.
Doesn’t change the means were immoral and horrific like. But it’s still a reason for it all, even if it’s by no means a good or just reason.
I disagree. The Emperor may have said it, but he was clearly lying. Just look at what he actually did and built.
Literally every fascist in history has said that their campaigns were a means to an end.
Judge people not by their words, but their actions. The Emperor is nothing more than a fascist warlord, just the most successful one but fundamentally no different in character.
Technically this makes traitor legions the good guys (I agree with you btw)
StudentOfEtherium wrote: that's all we need, and then we can move on and pretend this game didn't spend 40 years scared of women cooties
Plenty of cooties among the sisters, again.
Not the same thing. Sisters were basically extinct as a playable faction for decades.
Also, traitor slaaneshians (noisemarines) may have female spacemarines imho. go for it.
Thank you for showing just how those sorts of "it's just the lore" comments can then reflect on the real world.
Having women Astartes is compared with the faction of depraved, hedonistic, daemon-worshippers. You conflated women Astartes as being "evil", "corrupted" and "perverse". You don't see why that's *maybe* just a bit of a bad reflection on presentations of women or non-masculine identities in 40k?
And then imagine when you start getting people who might start comparing IRL folks to these factions - deeming them similarly "depraved" or "hedonistic", or "perverse" - and then defending their comments as just being "lore jokes".
In fact, I don't have to imagine. A user was banned on this site for doing just that.
Do you see why this might be a problem?
When people are able to take elements of 40k and weaponise them, then the satire isn't working.
.
Wow, Nothing you fantasised here of what I "meant" with my post is in my post..
I just said female spacemarines could be slaaneshian because of all the marine factions they are the most feminine (see slaaneshian demons in AOS for instance) Eldar also have female troops like banshees (aos whitch elves apply) as so do the drukhari..
It's really just you trying to find something behind my post..
I'm probably walking on eggshells in a power armor here but that discussion would be very simple; no real or imaginary danger will ever warrant state force of any kind and suggesting otherwise equates fascism.
I thought in conventional political theory a western nation state has to hold a monopoly of violence, and uses coercive violent on a daily basis, but with the broad consent of the public. The classic example being policing.
Oh I agree there, that is why I am a localist and ignore all politics.
---
edit: Is this thread what a book club is like btw?
-
To get back on the "we have to prevent any content from possibly ever affecting someone's real life".. that is impossible, you would have to put a ban on thought and especially -imagination-, good luck with that.
The_Real_Chris wrote:Honestly though I would prefer they went the other way. Emphasise the problems with all male, fanatical close minded organisations. Can still be a 'fun' faction, and your poster boy, but the writing should leave you in no doubt why celibate pyscho conditioned all male forces are a bad idea, their fall to corruption in universe, but also sadistic excess, etc. etc. And get back the in universe fiction of having not a second thought about crushing all the babies heads of a city they are ordered to depopulate in order to save ammunition for any citizens who are resisting.
Space Marines as a concept are so close to a pitch-perfect parody of over-the-top toxic masculinity. An all-boys club of socially stunted child soldiers, so wracked with daddy issues that it takes only a nudge for half of them to turn evil. A super manly big muscly beefcake power fantasy, but also literally impotent, conditioned to redirect every emotional response into anger because their junk don't work. Framed that way, Marines being all-male is virtually necessary to their characterization.
But again, that implies satire, something GW seems hesitant to do in general, let alone with the poster boy faction.
Gert wrote: So we're calling the Emperor justified again? It's OK he took power and created the worst regime ever known, subjugating billions of humans many of whom were doing just fine, and eradicating similar numbers of Xenos many of whom were also not a threat to humanity?
LOL, no one said he was justified.
He was functionally a monster, but it's in those tiny moments when he's not that his lore is all the more frightening. If he was only a power mad dictator (which he absolutely was), it would be easy to write him off as a cartoonish depiction and move on, but it's those little moments of humanity that slip through the cracks that still make him seem like a person; one long since blinded by his own delusions of grandeur sure, but a person none the less. Those little moments that seem altruistic in the ocean of atrocities show us that beneath it all, he is still human, and while a human can't physically do what he can, that doesn't mean there could never be one that create what he did.
For another good example of this from another medium is the anime Overlord. Momonga is portrayed as this goofy and relatable gamer to immediately relate him to the audience, he just seems like someone stuck in way over his head. Yet as the series progresses, under his Ainz persona he goes from being a reluctant protector to a full on genocidal conqueror, all what still maintaining that bit of humanity beneath his actions that keeps him relatable.
That's the scary thing about stories like these. We think ourselves so much better than these tyrants, but power and ambition are slippery slopes, and everyone needs to be cautious of what we do in the pursuit of our goals, be in on as large a scale as a galactic one, or as small as a personal personal one.
Space Marines as a concept are so close to a pitch-perfect parody of over-the-top toxic masculinity. An all-boys club of socially stunted child soldiers, so wracked with daddy issues that it takes only a nudge for half of them to turn evil. A super manly big muscly beefcake power fantasy, but also literally impotent, conditioned to redirect every emotional response into anger because their junk don't work. Framed that way, Marines being all-male is virtually necessary to their characterization.
But again, that implies satire, something GW seems hesitant to do in general, let alone with the poster boy faction.
I can remember it being done explicitly only once with an IG commander despairing of his subordinate being in thrall to the crimson fist contingent that was there to hunt renegade marines, not prosecute his war. Said a bunch of similar things.
I very nearly posted something like Catbarf's post earlier. I see Space Marines as an expression of OTT toxic masculinity. So it works for me, having them be male and a "no girls allowed" club.
That said, I wouldn't be that bothered if GW changed that. They've changed loads of stuff from what I like in the setting over the years and I'm comfortable with headcanon as my solution.
Insectum7 wrote: @Hellebore: I'm sorry I'm out of time to respond atm. I didn't forget you though! I must say I'm having a difficult time finding the difference/distinction you are trying to make though. Trying to keep it in mind as I go about my other obligations.
Because the outcomes for video gaming is easy to measure - you should see an uptick in violence committed by gamers. Which we don't see.
The acceptance of and engagement with intolerant ideologies is a larger societal effect that is harder to measure, and it happens across years rather than the spontaneity of hypothetical violent gamers. As I said in the post I made yesterday, people often don't notice it until it's built too much momentum to be easily stopped.
However we have plenty of precedent for this happening in society and that it starts with small things like not calling people on their ideologies and the live and let live approach (the 'they came for the unionists but I wasn't one' aspect). It's popper's paradox of tolerance and it's been proven multiple times in different countries just in the last 100 years.
This is another example of a false equivalence - because I've described what could be called a slippery slope and many people would dismiss it on those grounds because other slippery slope arguments have been dismissed. But again, the context is key. We've actually got evidence in Germany, Italy, Cambodia, China, Korea, Argentina etc that this slippery slope actually happens.
Which is why it is important to examine the premise underlying the argument, rather than just looking at whether you can apply the same logic to both.
Ok, I have to say that I'm pretty uneasy with this line of thought. Like, you make the claim that the two scenarios are not the same (videogame violence vs. 40k authoritarianism) because one can't be measured, but then label the unmeasurable thing as being problematic. This strikes me as very "thought police-ish", and essentially rife with opportunity to become authoritarian because it enables actions to be taken without evidence.
There's also two immediate logical problems I see. The first is that this leaves open the possibility that violent video games actually can lead to more violence . . . except in some way that's not measurable. The second is that there ought to be some way to measure whether 40k players are somehow more authoritarian. Like, the data should be there if your claims are true. It might be hard to measure, sure, but still theoretically measureable.
And on authoritarianism, I just don't think it's something you cam stamp out by simply not looking at it. Everyone should learn about it from history, for starters. And if the subject is taught properly the lesson should include the contexts for it's rise in popularity during those historical events, to demonstrate it's seductivity. I'm gonna suggest that any rise in the popularity of authoritarianism is not going to be because it shows up in a fictional universe, but instead it's really just going to be a reaction to the environment. People being economically stressed, looking for reasons why they feel angry/afraid/etc, and somebody comes along with a scapegoat and a method of "correction" that just happens to involve an increase in persecution and consolidations of power.
A fictional setting or symbol or expression isn't going to be the underlying cause of authoritarianism, but rather might find itself an unwitting banner for authoritarians who, if said symbol wasn't there, would just find some other banner instead.
Imo it's probably healthier for society to have these fictional examples of authoritarianism floating about so that it can be engaged with and critiqued in a safe environment. It creates a non-high stakes environment where the bad ideas can be expressed, exposed, and countered. Most people will "get it", and some inevitably wont, but I don't think you can thought-police those types out of existence, and trying to do so probably just makes the problem worse.
Insectum7 wrote: An analagous question to the 40k "purge the daemon with extreme prejudice" scenario is "How dangerous does a virus need to be for you to support forced vaccinations?" Which is not a simple discussion.
I'm probably walking on eggshells in a power armor here but that discussion would be very simple; no real or imaginary danger will ever warrant state force of any kind and suggesting otherwise equates fascism.
I can respect that sentiment, but the scary part is that ultimately it's somwhat out of the individuals hands what collectives would decide.
The point isn't whether on not something is fascist. The point is more dangerously "under what conditions do people begin to choose authoritarianism." Which I think is often a society-level response to what's percieved as a civilizational trolly problem, real or imagined.
That's why "othering" is so important to such movements. The "other" is the occupants on the track of the trolley problem that the train will run over.
So the cartoon parody of 40k is called Space King, and it is hilariously on point.
In the first 2 minutes, the Space Marines invade the planet, steal all the young boys, and gather all the girls into sacks, which are thrown into lava pits violently. All the boys are subjected to "Holy Globule" insertion, and then "psycho armor". It's the perfect parody of all the worst parts of 40k.
Insectum7 wrote: An analagous question to the 40k "purge the daemon with extreme prejudice" scenario is "How dangerous does a virus need to be for you to support forced vaccinations?" Which is not a simple discussion.
Well, first we need need to acknowledge the use of the word "forced" in the context of vaccinations.
In a democratic state, an elected official acting on the advice of a qualified medical officer, may propose legislation that encourages vaccination, and votes will be cast through various chambers of checks and balances before becoming law. Each level of government- municipal, provincial/ state and federal will go through this process for legislation within their jurisdiction.
Some of the laws might include requiring vaccinations to enter or leave the country, or requiring vaccinations for certain jobs, or entry into certain protected spaces. Consequences for non-compliance may include fines, but usually just enforce limits on access- IE. law says you need a vaccine to work in an old age home, and the penalty for non-compliance is simply that you can't work in that old age home.
Now withing the context of a functioning democracy, people who don't like these laws will CALL them Fascist, and within the context of a democratically elected government, they will general be allowed to do so... But the majority of the population will see it for the hyperbole for what it is.
Because in a real Fascist state?
The deicion to vaccinate would likely be made by one dude without any votes or due process to challenge it, and no recourse to adjudication for constitutionality after the fact. This individual may have been duly elected, but is just as likely to have come to power by assassinating or otherwise eliminating all viable political rivals, engaging in voter suppression, misinformation or some combination of these elements.
The consequences for non-compliance could range from draconian imprisonment, disenfranchisement, torture or death.
The consequences for speaking out against the policy would be the same.
And it is fething ridiculous that in some of the most educated nations in the world, partisan a-holes refuse to acknowledge the difference between case A and case B.
But to take it back to Warhammer, your question actually provides for a cool campaign set in the era Indomitus. What if a cult of Nurgle is poisoning an Imperial world and seeking to summon both daemons and Death Guard to support the descent into disease. A planetary Governor has instituted mandatory vaccination, and the Arbites are rounding up and executing non compliant citizens- some of whom will be Nurgle Cultists, while others will belong to militarized religious orders.
You could create a vaccinated keyword that offers some protection vs. Nurgle's diseases, and some citizens disillusioned with the Imperial pogrom might join the Nurgle forces or succumb to corruption by another chaos power. Some within the Imperial forces may support them- ie. target priority against visibly mutated followers of Nurgle rather than the more human-looking infected but not yet mutated non-compliant citizens duped into supporting the very forces that are killing their fellow citizens by their "discontent" with Imperial governance.
They could all drive Cargo-8 transports to the hive city of Ottawaviticus to protest Imperial Governor Trudeaudonnai.
And that would bring satire back to 40k without GW needing to make a single change to lore or mechanics to facilitate it.
Nice.
I think my only note is that my question I think can illustrate how people can start to justify turning towards authoritarianism, which can allow the erosion of those checks and balances you lay out so well.
I also wonder about the necessity of a single leader for fascism, or if a beuraucratic system can evolve into a fascist state without one. My guess is that it can.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: that's all we need, and then we can move on and pretend this game didn't spend 40 years scared of women cooties
Plenty of cooties among the sisters, again.
Not the same thing. Sisters were basically extinct as a playable faction for decades.
Also, traitor slaaneshians (noisemarines) may have female spacemarines imho. go for it.
Thank you for showing just how those sorts of "it's just the lore" comments can then reflect on the real world.
Having women Astartes is compared with the faction of depraved, hedonistic, daemon-worshippers. You conflated women Astartes as being "evil", "corrupted" and "perverse". You don't see why that's *maybe* just a bit of a bad reflection on presentations of women or non-masculine identities in 40k?
And then imagine when you start getting people who might start comparing IRL folks to these factions - deeming them similarly "depraved" or "hedonistic", or "perverse" - and then defending their comments as just being "lore jokes". In fact, I don't have to imagine. A user was banned on this site for doing just that.
Do you see why this might be a problem?
When people are able to take elements of 40k and weaponise them, then the satire isn't working. .
Wow, Nothing you fantasised here of what I "meant" with my post is in my post.. I just said female spacemarines could be slaaneshian because of all the marine factions they are the most feminine (see slaaneshian demons in AOS for instance) Eldar also have female troops like banshees (aos whitch elves apply) as so do the drukhari..
It's really just you trying to find something behind my post..
Your response highlights exactly what I'm talking about.
Don't you think it's a bit of a problem that the "feminine" faction* (Slaanesh/Noise Marines) are ALSO the faction characterised by sexual deviancy, impurity, hedonism, and perversity? Like it or not, it is implying that to be non-masculine is to ALSO be all those other things - which is exactly the dogwhistle that Certain People use.
We're talking things like a certain picture that I 've seen crop up:
Eldar and Dark Eldar aren't "human", and therefore aren't used as dogwhistles/icons, unless they're to, again, Otherise people who deviate from the Strong Human Ideal.
Like I said - there's an issue in that the ONLY option for women Astartes "according to the lore" is to be a part of the faction of sexual deviancy, hedonism and perversity, but male Astartes can be *everything else*.
*also, I notice you don't bring Sisters in here. You're right - because they're not Space Marines. I'm just bringing this up in case someone tries to claim "Sisters are just women Astartes", when they're so much cooler than that.
I also wonder about the necessity of a single leader for fascism, or if a beuraucratic system can evolve into a fascist state without one. My guess is that it can.
I think you're right.
A political party can remove checks and balances to its power in the same way an individual can, but it is a bit more challenging, because a group of people will always look for consensus within the party, which may somewhat moderate the actions taken to eliminate the checks and balances.
However, even within a party, there can be unsavory activity that manipulates party members to conform to the will of a small subset within the party. Depending on what that activity is, this may take us back to the idea of the individual exerting fascist tendencies rather than the party as a whole, but from the outside, it may LOOK like a party decision.
I dunno, I don't think Eldar aren't quite alien enough and too human coded. They can very much be used to satirise other aspects of human culture/personality. I'd agree Dark Eldar are cartoon villains rather than satire though
I also wonder about the necessity of a single leader for fascism, or if a beuraucratic system can evolve into a fascist state without one. My guess is that it can.
I think you're right.
A political party can remove checks and balances to its power in the same way an individual can, but it is a bit more challenging, because a group of people will always look for consensus within the party, which may somewhat moderate the actions taken to eliminate the checks and balances.
However, even within a party, there can be unsavory activity that manipulates party members to conform to the will of a small subset within the party. Depending on what that activity is, this may take us back to the idea of the individual exerting fascist tendencies rather than the party as a whole, but from the outside, it may LOOK like a party decision.
Yah, agree. There definitely seems to be some of that going on in modern day entities.
He saw no need to reveal himself when things were good, as mankind just didn’t need him.
This is a reply to the idea that the Emperor waited until humanity was weakened so he could take over, portraying it as the idea that he was a saviour of mankind. He stopped Terra from being rubbish but then went out and conquered billions of humans who didn't want to be ruled by him, even those who had shown they didn't need the Imperium to survive and indeed thrive.
I'm sure MDG is playing devils advocate here but at no point should we consider the Emperor to be in any way justified for his actions.
Remember that The Great Crusade dealt with a number of hostile Xenos species. Species which, with the Warp Storms blown out with the birth of Slaanesh and Fall of the Eldar were suddenly a threat to the disparate worlds of mankind.
Does that justify his ‘join me, or die’ message and approach toward other human worlds? No, absolutely not.
Consider that not one such world or system was able to resist the Crusade Forces. That by definition means they were in turn no threat to the nascent and burgeoning Imperium, and likely never would be - especially not with so many worlds willingly signing up.
In theory, the systems could’ve been declared off limits, with no trade in or out allowed. Most would be able to continue on, as they must’ve been self sufficient to have survived at all. Then, when whatever nasty came across them that even the Legions struggled to defeat? Offer an alliance. Show them the benefit of a united Imperium. Especially when the power of a Planetary Governor can’t be all that different to that of someone ruling a pre-contact survivor planet.
Insectum7 wrote: @Hellebore: I'm sorry I'm out of time to respond atm. I didn't forget you though! I must say I'm having a difficult time finding the difference/distinction you are trying to make though. Trying to keep it in mind as I go about my other obligations.
Because the outcomes for video gaming is easy to measure - you should see an uptick in violence committed by gamers. Which we don't see.
The acceptance of and engagement with intolerant ideologies is a larger societal effect that is harder to measure, and it happens across years rather than the spontaneity of hypothetical violent gamers. As I said in the post I made yesterday, people often don't notice it until it's built too much momentum to be easily stopped.
However we have plenty of precedent for this happening in society and that it starts with small things like not calling people on their ideologies and the live and let live approach (the 'they came for the unionists but I wasn't one' aspect). It's popper's paradox of tolerance and it's been proven multiple times in different countries just in the last 100 years.
This is another example of a false equivalence - because I've described what could be called a slippery slope and many people would dismiss it on those grounds because other slippery slope arguments have been dismissed. But again, the context is key. We've actually got evidence in Germany, Italy, Cambodia, China, Korea, Argentina etc that this slippery slope actually happens.
Which is why it is important to examine the premise underlying the argument, rather than just looking at whether you can apply the same logic to both.
Ok, I have to say that I'm pretty uneasy with this line of thought. Like, you make the claim that the two scenarios are not the same (videogame violence vs. 40k authoritarianism) because one can't be measured, but then label the unmeasurable thing as being problematic. This strikes me as very "thought police-ish", and essentially rife with opportunity to become authoritarian because it enables actions to be taken without evidence.
There's also two immediate logical problems I see. The first is that this leaves open the possibility that violent video games actually can lead to more violence . . . except in some way that's not measurable. The second is that there ought to be some way to measure whether 40k players are somehow more authoritarian. Like, the data should be there if your claims are true. It might be hard to measure, sure, but still theoretically measureable.
And on authoritarianism, I just don't think it's something you cam stamp out by simply not looking at it. Everyone should learn about it from history, for starters. And if the subject is taught properly the lesson should include the contexts for it's rise in popularity during those historical events, to demonstrate it's seductivity. I'm gonna suggest that any rise in the popularity of authoritarianism is not going to be because it shows up in a fictional universe, but instead it's really just going to be a reaction to the environment. People being economically stressed, looking for reasons why they feel angry/afraid/etc, and somebody comes along with a scapegoat and a method of "correction" that just happens to involve an increase in persecution and consolidations of power.
A fictional setting or symbol or expression isn't going to be the underlying cause of authoritarianism, but rather might find itself an unwitting banner for authoritarians who, if said symbol wasn't there, would just find some other banner instead.
Imo it's probably healthier for society to have these fictional examples of authoritarianism floating about so that it can be engaged with and critiqued in a safe environment. It creates a non-high stakes environment where the bad ideas can be expressed, exposed, and countered. Most people will "get it", and some inevitably wont, but I don't think you can thought-police those types out of existence, and trying to do so probably just makes the problem worse.
No I was saying they are measured differently in different timescales. I'm saying there is incontrovertible proof from the last 100 years that societies that don't reject/criticise/protest/abhor etc intolerant ideologies enough or clearly, early in all facets of life see its acceptance and influence increase. You can plot this in modern western countries.
Read up on the tolerance paradox and you'll understand the problems. It's another false equivalence like the evolution debate, climate change debate etc. Giving equal voice to two arguments is not in any way a balanced approach in practice, where one side has no evidence and is purely ideologically driven. Too many people are focused on the definition of terms rather than their real world application - the aforementioned misogyny vs misandry. All these arguments start with the premise 'given an equal playing field then they hold the same value', but that's where it falls down. Because the previous examples both sides are NOT on an even playing field, men and women do not experience identical environments, young earth creationists do not have the same rigor or evidence in their position as evolutionary biologists, live and let live and 'kill anyone not like me' (which grows from - why shouldn't I be allowed to fight for an ideology where some humans get less rights than others) are not equivalent ways to live that affect society the same way.
These arguments are basically that futurama quote - technically correct is the best kind of correct. Technically, misogyny and misandry are definitionally equivalent. PRACTICALLY, they are not, because institutional power structures, social mores and physical power differences conspire to generate very different effects for men and women from technically identical concepts.
The paradox boils down to - if you have two ideologies, live and let live, and 'kill anyone not like us' in the same society, the live and let live will eventually be driven from society, due to how those two ideologies interact in society. One removes opposition, the other does not. So by dint of time, the oppositional removal ideology wins.
Does that justify his ‘join me, or die’ message and approach toward other human worlds? No, absolutely not.
Consider that not one such world or system was able to resist the Crusade Forces. That by definition means they were in turn no threat to the nascent and burgeoning Imperium, and likely never would be - especially not with so many worlds willingly signing up.
In theory, the systems could’ve been declared off limits, with no trade in or out allowed. Most would be able to continue on, as they must’ve been self sufficient to have survived at all. Then, when whatever nasty came across them that even the Legions struggled to defeat? Offer an alliance. Show them the benefit of a united Imperium. Especially when the power of a Planetary Governor can’t be all that different to that of someone ruling a pre-contact survivor planet.
That seems extremly impractical though. You need their resources and man power right now and not in a some moment in the future. Any potential threat that is big will just potential wipe them out or worse corrupt them and turn them against you. If something "nasty" comes along, there is no garentee, you will have the forces on the spot to help and keeping them around "just incase" is again another waste of resources. It is much more effcient to join the population and what ever it has in to your Imperium. On top of that the Emperors state was not a monolith. He may have been the avatar of the Machine God, but the Mechanicus had to be paid in resources, tech etc. Same with other organisations ranging from army generals, knight households and titan legions and ending with the empires own burocracy. All those people had to "paid" to work efficiently, while not hands on supervised every second.
There is also the small problem of old night expiriance and psykers/warp. Left unsupervised a population can wipe itself out just because a psyker felt bad one day and turned himself in to a warp gate for a demonic incrussion.
wasn't there a Sisters short story in the Omnibus about a planet of Emperor loving "ab-humans" who were devotional, always met their quotas, and were a very wonderful happy society, but the Sisters literally burnt the world to cinders because they were Abominations? Was it AI? I forget. In any event, it's a clear indication that the main character, who we're supposed to like and identify with, is a zealot, and part of a radical cult of psychopathic witches that follow a perverted variant understanding of the Emperors teachings? They might as well be the villians of a Guant's novel.
The paradox boils down to - if you have two ideologies, live and let live, and 'kill anyone not like us' in the same society, the live and let live will eventually be driven from society, due to how those two ideologies interact in society. One removes opposition, the other does not. So by dint of time, the oppositional removal ideology wins.
The problem with this are two fold. First there are more sides then two, and practicaly all sides want to "kill everyone not like us". Now normaly in any society the role of State and Goverment, is to channel people in to other activities then killing members of the same state. Problems start when the state either tries to side with just one group, and it doesn't matter which one by the way. And the second problem is that it is well and possible to be too nice to everyone. The west right now is paralyzed and reactive (and reactive societies always lose), because within the problem sub set the west has the main one is to, what ever one wants to do, try as hard as possible to seem to not be mean. Societies turn their heads around, ignore problems , devise reach around fixes to problems and it all goes bad, because it is neither rooted in reality, nor is the goal actual problem solving.
Two bonus things to that are the size of modern societies. Back in the day if a city was governed bad, 10k people had it bad. Now it can be milions. And that small difference in speed of technological and socio-biological development of humans as a race. The modern western society runs on laws that were ment to work 100-150 years ago. And part of those ideas can be good, noble etc but often they are impossible to translate in to the modern world.
Pension system(once ment for officers/officials/tech people) with a negative birth rate? Good luck with that. Ultra pricing of models for the high end customer, in the age of 3d printing getting better and better every year? Well one can only hope GW has plans for that. And because there are countless problems or "problems" like that they stack up. And in a world when most are afraid to act or even voice opinions, the end actions are always done by the fringe and the most insane. It has been like that in the and it is the same right now. And to make it most mind blowing it doesn't even matter, who the insane people are left, right, technocrats, religious zelots, both the methods and the end results somehow end up to give the same results for "The People".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: wasn't there a Sisters short story in the Omnibus about a planet of Emperor loving "ab-humans" who were devotional, always met their quotas, and were a very wonderful happy society, but the Sisters literally burnt the world to cinders because they were Abominations? Was it AI? I forget. In any event, it's a clear indication that the main character, who we're supposed to like and identify with, is a zealot, and part of a radical cult of psychopathic witches that follow a perverted variant understanding of the Emperors teachings? They might as well be the villians of a Guant's novel.
Abhumans can be sanctioned. Navigators are litteral mutants in a society that is "Kill the Mutant". I remember reading a short story about an IG troop transporter being attacked by orc and crashlanding on a high G planet. The two survivours find themselfs among a society of STC owning, but not knowing how to use it, "centuars". Humans whose ancestors moded their bodies to survive in high G. The good centuars fight with chaos centuars. But for the comissar they are both mutants, so he decides to raport them. He dies before he can fully send the mssg, and the IG trooper that was with him changes report from mutants to stone age tech xeno, knowing that the Empire will not come to purge some low tech xeno. But they would go out of their way to kill a mutant. And by the way this is a biological reaction in build in to every species. People talk a lot about fight or flight, but earth animals also have "kill that which is similar, but different". Even kind of a chill animals like squirls or mormots will go super aggro, if presented with a plush toy of their kind. Humans don't like "too real" looking robots, birds will peck to death a bird of the same kind, if it is of a different colour.
The_Real_Chris wrote:Honestly though I would prefer they went the other way. Emphasise the problems with all male, fanatical close minded organisations. Can still be a 'fun' faction, and your poster boy, but the writing should leave you in no doubt why celibate pyscho conditioned all male forces are a bad idea, their fall to corruption in universe, but also sadistic excess, etc. etc. And get back the in universe fiction of having not a second thought about crushing all the babies heads of a city they are ordered to depopulate in order to save ammunition for any citizens who are resisting.
Space Marines as a concept are so close to a pitch-perfect parody of over-the-top toxic masculinity. An all-boys club of socially stunted child soldiers, so wracked with daddy issues that it takes only a nudge for half of them to turn evil. A super manly big muscly beefcake power fantasy, but also literally impotent, conditioned to redirect every emotional response into anger because their junk don't work. Framed that way, Marines being all-male is virtually necessary to their characterization.
But again, that implies satire, something GW seems hesitant to do in general, let alone with the poster boy faction.
Flashgitz has lately been making warhammer spacemarine spoof videos that are -exactly- like that. ;D
(they called it 'space king' lol)
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So the cartoon parody of 40k is called Space King, and it is hilariously on point.
In the first 2 minutes, the Space Marines invade the planet, steal all the young boys, and gather all the girls into sacks, which are thrown into lava pits violently. All the boys are subjected to "Holy Globule" insertion, and then "psycho armor". It's the perfect parody of all the worst parts of 40k.
Holymoly you beat me to it
inb4 a certain someone in this thread jumps on this claiming that this will incite men irl to become like this.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Your response highlights exactly what I'm talking about.
Don't you think it's a bit of a problem that the "feminine" faction* (Slaanesh/Noise Marines) are ALSO the faction characterised by sexual deviancy, impurity, hedonism, and perversity? Like it or not, it is implying that to be non-masculine is to ALSO be all those other things - which is exactly the dogwhistle that Certain People use.
We're talking things like a certain picture that I 've seen crop up:
Eldar and Dark Eldar aren't "human", and therefore aren't used as dogwhistles/icons, unless they're to, again, Otherise people who deviate from the Strong Human Ideal.
Like I said - there's an issue in that the ONLY option for women Astartes "according to the lore" is to be a part of the faction of sexual deviancy, hedonism and perversity, but male Astartes can be *everything else*.
*also, I notice you don't bring Sisters in here. You're right - because they're not Space Marines. I'm just bringing this up in case someone tries to claim "Sisters are just women Astartes", when they're so much cooler than that.
There's literally nothing someone can say here that you cannot work with (or around) right?
Slaanesh also has men and everything inbetween, and what is wrong with that? Are there now people running around the streets trying to appease slaanesh too? Will we potentially get a slaaneshian government next? ... ..pfff...
The_Real_Chris wrote:Honestly though I would prefer they went the other way. Emphasise the problems with all male, fanatical close minded organisations. Can still be a 'fun' faction, and your poster boy, but the writing should leave you in no doubt why celibate pyscho conditioned all male forces are a bad idea, their fall to corruption in universe, but also sadistic excess, etc. etc. And get back the in universe fiction of having not a second thought about crushing all the babies heads of a city they are ordered to depopulate in order to save ammunition for any citizens who are resisting.
Space Marines as a concept are so close to a pitch-perfect parody of over-the-top toxic masculinity. An all-boys club of socially stunted child soldiers, so wracked with daddy issues that it takes only a nudge for half of them to turn evil. A super manly big muscly beefcake power fantasy, but also literally impotent, conditioned to redirect every emotional response into anger because their junk don't work. Framed that way, Marines being all-male is virtually necessary to their characterization.
But again, that implies satire, something GW seems hesitant to do in general, let alone with the poster boy faction.
Well that, and also because they are meant to be based on medieval warrior monk orders and Sardaukar, to go with the overall backwards medieval empire in space theme that the IoM has.
But yeah, being a parody of Rob Liefield-esque "hyper masculine" action heroes was a pretty big part of their theming.
I gotta agree with Smudge on this. Saying FSM have to be slaneshi is pretty much making the case that in order to be female, you have to be deviant, sexual, hedonistic, or warped in some way. The only way to be pure by that logic, is to be a science perverted ab-human freak monster thing. As long as it's "male". Talking about Astartes here.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I gotta agree with Smudge on this. Saying FSM have to be slaneshi is pretty much making the case that in order to be female, you have to be deviant, sexual, hedonistic, or warped in some way. The only way to be pure by that logic, is to be a science perverted ab-human freak monster thing. As long as it's "male". Talking about Astartes here.
LOL
Nowhere in my post did I suggest that FSM have-to-be slaanesh, I stated that they could be slaaneshi because it works with banshees too with the Eldar and of all the traitor legions the Slaaneshi are the most likely to accept women. Where else do female spacemarines apply? Ok.. granted.. Iron warriors then.
This is what is -reading into a post whatever you look for- which seems to be popular in the accusation-camp (against 40k lore in general)
You can find whatever in every text and claim that it has real world consequence, heck.. you can watch any kids cartoon today and find secret illuminati hand signs.. its just fiction for flip sake.
If anything is impure it is a science perverted ab-human freak monster thing that is male as in the marines of the empire.
Why would women have to get in there? Do women need to become science perverted ab-human freak monster things too or can they just stay pious slaaneshi demons.. gawd.
Leopold Helveine wrote: and of all the traitor legions the Slaaneshi are the most likely to accept women. Where else do female spacemarines apply?
That's... pretty much the point. Nobody's reading unintended meaning into your posts, they're asking you to think further than 'that's what the lore says, case closed'.
Insectum7 wrote: @Hellebore: I'm sorry I'm out of time to respond atm. I didn't forget you though! I must say I'm having a difficult time finding the difference/distinction you are trying to make though. Trying to keep it in mind as I go about my other obligations.
Because the outcomes for video gaming is easy to measure - you should see an uptick in violence committed by gamers. Which we don't see.
The acceptance of and engagement with intolerant ideologies is a larger societal effect that is harder to measure, and it happens across years rather than the spontaneity of hypothetical violent gamers. As I said in the post I made yesterday, people often don't notice it until it's built too much momentum to be easily stopped.
However we have plenty of precedent for this happening in society and that it starts with small things like not calling people on their ideologies and the live and let live approach (the 'they came for the unionists but I wasn't one' aspect). It's popper's paradox of tolerance and it's been proven multiple times in different countries just in the last 100 years.
This is another example of a false equivalence - because I've described what could be called a slippery slope and many people would dismiss it on those grounds because other slippery slope arguments have been dismissed. But again, the context is key. We've actually got evidence in Germany, Italy, Cambodia, China, Korea, Argentina etc that this slippery slope actually happens.
Which is why it is important to examine the premise underlying the argument, rather than just looking at whether you can apply the same logic to both.
Ok, I have to say that I'm pretty uneasy with this line of thought. Like, you make the claim that the two scenarios are not the same (videogame violence vs. 40k authoritarianism) because one can't be measured, but then label the unmeasurable thing as being problematic. This strikes me as very "thought police-ish", and essentially rife with opportunity to become authoritarian because it enables actions to be taken without evidence.
There's also two immediate logical problems I see. The first is that this leaves open the possibility that violent video games actually can lead to more violence . . . except in some way that's not measurable. The second is that there ought to be some way to measure whether 40k players are somehow more authoritarian. Like, the data should be there if your claims are true. It might be hard to measure, sure, but still theoretically measureable.
And on authoritarianism, I just don't think it's something you cam stamp out by simply not looking at it. Everyone should learn about it from history, for starters. And if the subject is taught properly the lesson should include the contexts for it's rise in popularity during those historical events, to demonstrate it's seductivity. I'm gonna suggest that any rise in the popularity of authoritarianism is not going to be because it shows up in a fictional universe, but instead it's really just going to be a reaction to the environment. People being economically stressed, looking for reasons why they feel angry/afraid/etc, and somebody comes along with a scapegoat and a method of "correction" that just happens to involve an increase in persecution and consolidations of power.
A fictional setting or symbol or expression isn't going to be the underlying cause of authoritarianism, but rather might find itself an unwitting banner for authoritarians who, if said symbol wasn't there, would just find some other banner instead.
Imo it's probably healthier for society to have these fictional examples of authoritarianism floating about so that it can be engaged with and critiqued in a safe environment. It creates a non-high stakes environment where the bad ideas can be expressed, exposed, and countered. Most people will "get it", and some inevitably wont, but I don't think you can thought-police those types out of existence, and trying to do so probably just makes the problem worse.
No I was saying they are measured differently in different timescales. I'm saying there is incontrovertible proof from the last 100 years that societies that don't reject/criticise/protest/abhor etc intolerant ideologies enough or clearly, early in all facets of life see its acceptance and influence increase. You can plot this in modern western countries.
Read up on the tolerance paradox and you'll understand the problems. It's another false equivalence like the evolution debate, climate change debate etc. Giving equal voice to two arguments is not in any way a balanced approach in practice, where one side has no evidence and is purely ideologically driven. Too many people are focused on the definition of terms rather than their real world application - the aforementioned misogyny vs misandry. All these arguments start with the premise 'given an equal playing field then they hold the same value', but that's where it falls down. Because the previous examples both sides are NOT on an even playing field, men and women do not experience identical environments, young earth creationists do not have the same rigor or evidence in their position as evolutionary biologists, live and let live and 'kill anyone not like me' (which grows from - why shouldn't I be allowed to fight for an ideology where some humans get less rights than others) are not equivalent ways to live that affect society the same way.
These arguments are basically that futurama quote - technically correct is the best kind of correct. Technically, misogyny and misandry are definitionally equivalent. PRACTICALLY, they are not, because institutional power structures, social mores and physical power differences conspire to generate very different effects for men and women from technically identical concepts.
The paradox boils down to - if you have two ideologies, live and let live, and 'kill anyone not like us' in the same society, the live and let live will eventually be driven from society, due to how those two ideologies interact in society. One removes opposition, the other does not. So by dint of time, the oppositional removal ideology wins.
Yeah I understand the tolerance paradox. The problem with its application is that while it's a useful exercise in illustrating the problem, it doesn't offer any solution. Erasing the idea of authoritarianism is impossible for starters, and as I pointed out you're going to find information on it through basic history, and any appropriate teaching on the subject will have to grapple with the "whys" of it, and the conditions in which it can foster. It also seems like the proposed solution is promoting creative censorship, which is a pretty touchy endeavor to say the least.
I also don't see how authoritarianism would automatically be getting "equal footing" in any sort of public debate. And if it somehow gets to that point I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's not because of a fictional universe that uses it as an excuse for an insanely violent setting for purposes of wargaming, but rather that societal conditions have degraded to the point where significant numbers of people are turning towards its ideas, and they would have arrived there anyways without such fiction.
Edit: Also, aplogies. I'm about to be beyond the reach of the internet for m a week, so I won't be able to respond for a while.
Guilty until proven innocent. What could go wrong?
