it seems that the recent female marine thread is gone. (Same happened to another feminism related thread recently.) I don't what happened, seemed somewhat civil last I saw it. In any case, please just lock threads, if you absolutely must, don't delete them. Some of us might want to actually read what was said.

Furthermore, it is unfortunate that any thread that has anything even remotely to do with feminism gets locked or deleted. It is not fair that couple trolls can shut down any discussion about such topics.

I am sure there are better places to discuss these pressing social issues other than Dakka?

 Sasori wrote:
I am sure there are better places to discuss these pressing social issues other than Dakka?

Well, it was basically about lack of female models in 40K.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I am sure there are better places to discuss these pressing social issues other than Dakka?

Well, it was basically about lack of female models in 40K.

It was more about Female Marines.

Not all female models need to be marines, but it's always the marines that people talk about.

To be fair, I have seen plenty of discussions on female marines, and those never end well and never yield anything productive.
I think the mods are right to delete such threads. The subject has already been discussed to death and tends to bring out the worst in people.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I am sure there are better places to discuss these pressing social issues other than Dakka?

Well, it was basically about lack of female models in 40K.

It was more about Female Marines.

Not all female models need to be marines, but it's always the marines that people talk about.

Right sure, whatever. No need to redo that discussion here. Point was that it was about 40K and thus appropriate topic for the board.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
To be fair, I have seen plenty of discussions on female marines, and those never end well and never yield anything productive.
I think the mods are right to delete such threads. The subject has already been discussed to death and tends to bring out the worst in people.

Could we just ban those 'worst people' instead? If certain people always flame about certain topics, it is the people who are the problem, not the topic.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
To be fair, I have seen plenty of discussions on female marines, and those never end well and never yield anything productive.
I think the mods are right to delete such threads. The subject has already been discussed to death and tends to bring out the worst in people.

It does seem there's been quite a lot of them lately, all trotting out the same points that always come up.

I certainly don't miss them being gone.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
To be fair, I have seen plenty of discussions on female marines, and those never end well and never yield anything productive.
I think the mods are right to delete such threads. The subject has already been discussed to death and tends to bring out the worst in people.

This. Modson most sites don't want to delete threads, but when said threads generate a lot of internal drama on the site and when one topic nearly always results in the same pattern of behaviour then its no surprise that the site might well remove such discussions and even ban further talks on the subject.

It's not that such discussions can't happy without civil discussion; its that its been proven time and again that the forums society as a whole can't achieve that.

In my experience mods try to keep things running smooth without fights; fights lead to punishments and lost members and bad feelings - often over very trivial points.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I am sure there are better places to discuss these pressing social issues other than Dakka?

Well, it was basically about lack of female models in 40K.

It was more about Female Marines.

Not all female models need to be marines, but it's always the marines that people talk about.

Right sure, whatever. No need to redo that discussion here. Point was that it was about 40K and thus appropriate topic for the board.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
To be fair, I have seen plenty of discussions on female marines, and those never end well and never yield anything productive.
I think the mods are right to delete such threads. The subject has already been discussed to death and tends to bring out the worst in people.

Could we just ban those 'worst people' instead? If certain people always flame about certain topics, it is the people who are the problem, not the topic.

It's better that we just don't have the topic come up over and over again with the same result. I've been on this board nearly 10 years, and it's never led to a reasonable discussion from any point of view, and always gets out of hand.. Just leave it alone, there is plenty other valuable content to be discussed on the boards.

 Sasori wrote:

It's better that we just don't have the topic come up over and over again with the same result. I've been on this board nearly 10 years, and it's never led to a reasonable discussion from any point of view, and always gets out of hand.. Just leave it alone, there is plenty other valuable content to be discussed on the boards.

Yeah, there are certain people who just don't want to this topic to be discussed. And instead of just not clicking the thread, they insist to trolling them to oblivion. That's not right.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

It's better that we just don't have the topic come up over and over again with the same result. I've been on this board nearly 10 years, and it's never led to a reasonable discussion from any point of view, and always gets out of hand.. Just leave it alone, there is plenty other valuable content to be discussed on the boards.

Yeah, there are certain people who just don't want to this topic to be discussed. And instead of just not clicking the thread, they insist to trolling them to oblivion. That's not right.

However, from another point, what's to say the people creating the threads aren't trolls themselves?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
However, from another point, what's to say the people creating the threads aren't trolls themselves?

It is really about being able to express one self civilly. Regardless of the topic, it is the people who are unable to do so which are the problem.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
However, from another point, what's to say the people creating the threads aren't trolls themselves?

It is really about being able to express one self civilly. Regardless of the topic, it is the people who are unable to do so which are the problem.

Despite civility, there's only so far any conversation can go. If the same points are being trotted out on both sides, even if it's completely amiable and non-aggressive, if neither side budges, then it's just going to become a grudge match where the same arguments are repeated ad nauseam. It's not conducive at all, and that'll keep building until it does eventually turn hostile.

Unfortunately, talking about such a topic here is next-to-useless, because it's an issue that no matter what we say, it's GW who gets the final say. All the people on Dakka can do is repeat the same points that always get made until it dies off. When several of those threads have been made lately, it's no wonder they're deleted before they get further. I personally don't have an issue with that.

Maybe instead of making it about feminism, it would be more productive to make one about the actual models you want to see.

While I am a bit baffled that the one last night was deleted, it went 11 pages without too much trading of barbs because most people were discussing models they want to see, rather than 'muh feminism'.

Most people are rather sick of some folks dressing up their desire to see female models by presenting it as a feminism issue.

It isn't like waac and caac or buff and nerf threads result in reasonable discussion or yield anything productive either, but those are allowed to fester for months and months.

Some of the posts in the female space marine thread were gross enough that I never wanted to click on it again but the ugly part of a community doesn't stop being there just because we can't see them anymore.

 Actinium wrote:
It isn't like waac and caac or buff and nerf threads result in reasonable discussion or yield anything productive either, but those are allowed to fester for months and months.

Some of the posts in the female space marine thread were gross enough that I never wanted to click on it again but the ugly part of a community doesn't stop being there just because we can't see them anymore.

Yep, this.

At the end the thread went totally off the rails. It wasn't wholly uncivil and to my surprise the few people talking to each other at the end were having a somewhat productive, though heated conversation, in spite of having radically different viewpoints. However, it went fully off-topic into US politics territory. The real problem, at least according to the current rules here, is that someone always brings it there. People just can't discuss something like gender representation in particular without someone making it the 2016 election specifically, not even just gender politics in general.

 Luciferian wrote:
At the end the thread went totally off the rails. It wasn't wholly uncivil and to my surprise the few people talking to each other at the end were having a somewhat productive, though heated conversation, in spite of having radically different viewpoints. However, it went fully off-topic into US politics territory. The real problem, at least according to the current rules here, is that someone always brings it there. People just can't discuss something like gender representation in particular without someone making it the 2016 election specifically, not even just gender politics in general.

Even then, why delete the whole thread? Wouldn't a lock suffice?

 Crimson wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
At the end the thread went totally off the rails. It wasn't wholly uncivil and to my surprise the few people talking to each other at the end were having a somewhat productive, though heated conversation, in spite of having radically different viewpoints. However, it went fully off-topic into US politics territory. The real problem, at least according to the current rules here, is that someone always brings it there. People just can't discuss something like gender representation in particular without someone making it the 2016 election specifically, not even just gender politics in general.

Even then, why delete the whole thread? Wouldn't a lock suffice?

It shows that such behaviour and attitudes are not tolerated on the site to the point that such content is removed. Rather than try to pick out the posts its easier to just remove the whole thread.

It also likely aims to help present the forums for what they are; an honestly safe and good place for people of either gender to come and share in the enjoyment of the hobby. Instead of showing the ugly side (which is often only the result of peoples poor choice of words and of arguments and emotions getting heated and out of control). Why let an internet argument - which is what often a day or two of heated madness - spoil the enjoyment of the many and turn new people away when its onyl the actions of a vocal, but tiny few, that led to the thread going off the rails.

Please continue to delete these threads, and please do so sooner.
Dakka isnt the place.

I'd be sympathetic with the "you shouldn't delete threads" complaint IF it was a topic that was simply a forum-specific thread and a discussion that only involved gamers. However, it's a public forum and any gakky comments a random user decides to make can (and likely will) be held up as an example of the entire community.

So the mods have to risk A) looking like asses for deleting threads or B) look like asses and have the entire community mischaracterized by 1 or 2 individuals.

The entire topic has become very agenda and politically driven. Since the topic itself is an attack on the community - indirectly - and inevitably discussion around it does devolve into direct attacks on the community, it makes sense to just remove it.

I think I've read one article on the topic, and it was mostly a direct attack on the gaming community - broadly insulting everyone within it and filled with childish insults.

If the online world wanted to have a civil discussion about it without attacks, it probably wouldn't be a problem. However, civil discussions don't generate clicks. 1 or 2 sexist comments will however, be plenty enough bait for a twitter screenshot and 1000s of insults on the community as a whole.

SirWeeble wrote:

Since the topic itself is an attack on the community

What?

 Crimson wrote:

SirWeeble wrote:

Since the topic itself is an attack on the community

What?

He's talking about the framing of the debate itself. The most vocal proponents of things like female space marines argue from the viewpoint that there is a widespread problem with misogyny within the 40k community, and that things like female space marines are necessary in order to break up the "boys club" that is table top gaming. Likewise, anything other than agreement in those assumptions is a motivated protection of the status quo of misogyny. That may not be how people represent the issue here, but it doesn't change the fact that it is how the debate is framed in culture at large.

When a thread asking for more representation results in the request or even the requester being insulted, and nothing happens to the insulters, but the original poster's thread and their plea for more representation is deleted, that's pretty much the textbook definition of systemic inequality.

There doesn't need to be active persecution, the rules and policies in place effectively marginalize and silence the underrepresented. It sends a clear, if unintentional, message that if you don't want more representation in the hobby all you have to do is gak up the threads asking for it and those threads will go away.

 Actinium wrote:
When a thread asking for more representation results in the request or even the requester being insulted, and nothing happens to the insulters, but the original poster's thread and their plea for more representation is deleted, that's pretty much the textbook definition of systemic inequality.

There doesn't need to be active persecution, the rules and policies in place effectively marginalize and silence the underrepresented. It sends a clear, if unintentional, message that if you don't want more representation in the hobby all you have to do is gak up the threads asking for it and those threads will go away.

That is definitely not how things usually go down. Like I said, certain people take any criticism or even inquiry about the subject that doesn't align with their narrative as motivated protection of misogyny, which precludes honest and civil discussion form the start. Even your comment assumes that one side is inherently correct and it is the other side who is always at fault. In reality, these thypes of thread usually start off with each side giving reasonable arguments for or against things like female space marines, and once those get hashed out the topic broadens to larger cultural and political issues. All it takes is one person to then say, "We can't have female space marines because Trump," and the thread is over.

We really don't need more "feminism" or "minority" thread. There had been enough threads like those, again and again. Please, let this hobby, this game, out of all this.

 godardc wrote:
We really don't need more "feminism" or "minority" thread. There had been enough threads like those, again and again. Please, let this hobby, this game, out of all this.

You know, you have the option of not clicking on or participating in threads that you aren't interested in. I'm not interested in Infinity, but I don't feel the need to go in and troll every Infinity related topic just because I know that if I do, the thread will get locked.

 Crimson wrote:
Furthermore, it is unfortunate that any thread that has anything even remotely to do with feminism gets locked or deleted. It is not fair that couple trolls can shut down any discussion about such topics.

The heckler's veto has been an effective tool the entire time I've been on Dakka and I don't see it going away anytime soon.

 Ouze wrote:

 godardc wrote:
We really don't need more "feminism" or "minority" thread. There had been enough threads like those, again and again. Please, let this hobby, this game, out of all this.

You know, you have the option of not clicking on or participating in threads that you aren't interested in. I'm not interested in Infinity, but I don't feel the need to go in and troll every Infinity related topic just because I know that if I do, the thread will get locked.

 Crimson wrote:
Furthermore, it is unfortunate that any thread that has anything even remotely to do with feminism gets locked or deleted. It is not fair that couple trolls can shut down any discussion about such topics.

The heckler's veto has been an effective tool the entire time I've been on Dakka and I don't see it going away anytime soon.

And if you aren't interested in male space marines, you have the option of not playing 40k and not participating in forums where there are no female space marines.
Seriously, do you see how childish it is ?
Especially as I usually don't participate in such threads. Do you remember me trolling "feminism" thread ?

Let's all be honest, female space marines threads are purpose made to cause controversy in the first place. If there were a "We need female guard and more female models in general" thread, it would consist of everyone saying, "OK, sounds great."

 Luciferian wrote:

He's talking about the framing of the debate itself. The most vocal proponents of things like female space marines argue from the viewpoint that there is a widespread problem with misogyny within the 40k community, and that things like female space marines are necessary in order to break up the "boys club" that is table top gaming. Likewise, anything other than agreement in those assumptions is a motivated protection of the status quo of misogyny. That may not be how people represent the issue here, but it doesn't change the fact that it is how the debate is framed in culture at large.

Yes, exactly. Additionally, when there are groups of people who have a vested interest in stirring up controversy and who aren't really interested in addressing a problem (be it real real or imagined), then there is no right answer in addressing the issue. Your civil discussion will be ignored. Any negative outliers will be held up as the norm for the community at large.

A no win situation you didn't asked to be involved in isn't something most people in the community are interested in. We just want to play with our plastic soldiers.

If someone wants to attack GW, let them. GW assumedly has publicity people to deal with it. A motley crew of forum goers aren't equipped for this fight.

 Luciferian wrote:
All it takes is one person to then say, "We can't have female space marines because Trump," and the thread is over.

Then moderate that one person who takes it to a place it shouldn't, and don't outlaw the entire topic.

 godardc wrote:
Especially as I usually don't participate in such threads. Do you remember me trolling "feminism" thread ?

No, I didn't intend to imply you (specifically) had. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

What I was referring to was that rhere is a very consistent trend of people seeing topics they don't like, going into the topic and showing their ass because they know perfectly well that the topic will be locked and they themselves more or less skate on their bad behavior.

Someone said on the last page that outliers shouldn't define the community, but when every single thread that discusses gender and wargames needs to be locked within 10 or 15 pages due to bad behavior, and it's repeatable over many years, that's not outliers any more - that's the actual community.

 Actinium wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
All it takes is one person to then say, "We can't have female space marines because Trump," and the thread is over.

Then moderate that one person who takes it to a place it shouldn't, and don't outlaw the entire topic.

Because its rarely that simple. The attack is often mixed with sensible points and counter arguments and oftne presented in a longer post; most often again it might be worded so that it can be interpreted in different ways. And when a post like that is thrown out there's often instant push back - by the time a mod gets there and starts reading there's already been back and forth between more than a few members (just like the thread we are in right now is showing).

So suddenly its not just a case of removing one person; its case of removing several who have likely dominated the discussion for the better part of two or three pages. In my moderating experience (on other sites) once you get to that stage the thread is dead. Even if you can remove the insulting content (whcih is a major hassle to try and prise it out of existing posts or leaves the thread with huge gaps) and ban/suspend or warn off the two or three arguing; the thread itself normally dies off at that point. Those watching the fight get bored; those wanting to debate feel soured by the moderation or the childish attitudes of those fighting and those who fought leave angry at the mods/site/membership etc...

Lock and remove - better than letting it fester.

 Overread wrote:
Lock and remove - better than letting it fester.

When bad actors can consistently shut down topics of conversation it's hard to see that other then a moderation strategy failure.

 Actinium wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
All it takes is one person to then say, "We can't have female space marines because Trump," and the thread is over.

Then moderate that one person who takes it to a place it shouldn't, and don't outlaw the entire topic.

I agree, but the mods have their reasons for the way they run things.

 Luciferian wrote:
I agree, but the mods have their reasons for the way they run things.

I suspect because it's just the easiest course of action, and to be honest I totally understand that. If I were Motyak or Apharius or whatever, I'd be pretty tired of spending every few days wading into yet another female space marine monkey gak fling. The urge to just lock it and move on makes a lot of sense.

 Ouze wrote:


No, I didn't intend to imply you (specifically) had. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

What I was referring to was that rhere is a very consistent trend of people seeing topics they don't like, going into the topic and showing their ass because they know perfectly well that the topic will be locked and they themselves more or less skate on their bad behavior.

Someone said on the last page that outliers shouldn't define the community, but when every single thread that discusses gender and wargames needs to be locked within 10 or 15 pages due to bad behavior, and it's repeatable over many years, that's not outliers any more - that's the actual community.

I would say this is definitely true, but I think it's vitally important to clarify that there is not a concerted effort of one side or the other - people of all political views and persuasions regularly engage in this tactic here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I agree, but the mods have their reasons for the way they run things.

I suspect because it's just the easiest course of action, and to be honest I totally understand that. If I were Motyak or Apharius or whatever, I'd be pretty tired of spending every few days wading into yet another female space marine monkey gak fling. The urge to just lock it and move on makes a lot of sense.

I also agree with this. It's the easiest without being totally unfair - just remove the conversation. I know a lot of people want to have that conversation, including myself, but unfortunately not everyone can keep a level head.

The reason we shouldn't have feminism threads is because even this thread, which is about the topic of feminism thread as opposed to an actual feminism thread, is already showing signs of going south by page 2.

There's just no point in retreading old ground towards the same inevitable destination.

 Ouze wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I agree, but the mods have their reasons for the way they run things.

I suspect because it's just the easiest course of action, and to be honest I totally understand that. If I were Motyak or Apharius or whatever, I'd be pretty tired of spending every few days wading into yet another female space marine monkey gak fling. The urge to just lock it and move on makes a lot of sense.

In general its not just that; there's often loads of mod discussion in the background. Trying to work out if a member is worth keeping or banning; trying to identify the people who really are trouble makers from those who just have a very poor way of typing out their thoughts. Trying to do all that takes time - so locking a thread helps stop it. Deleting or moving it out of view also helps stop people just start up the chat in another thread or derail another thread. It's an attempt to curtail chat to get a hold on the situation before it blows totally out of proportion.

If that behaviour and thread also shows a side that the mods don't want to be present on Dakka community then removing it from view and dealing with those who caused the problem is also valid.

Also don't forget many times warnings are given in a non-public manner. Many a person might be on a last warning or such without it overtly being known; heck sometimes people get suspended or banned and no one notices for ages.

In before lock... and delete?

The discussion was going nowhere, so the thread was closed.

If you are genuinely interested in advocating female Marines, maybe post a poll instead and see how many people actually want them in WH40k. It might not even be considered to be related to feminism if you exclude all that nonsense about mysoginy and justified fascism.

This way, you at least generate some data for hypothetical GW market researchers that hypothetically screen Dakka for new ideas.

From my limited experience of the "Fem Marine" threads the argument always seems to boil down to one side explaining that they like the lore as it is, with all male marines, while the opposing side believes the lore should be updated. There are players in both camps who are so passionate in their beliefs that they feel the opposing stance is almost insultingly wrong and this leads to extremely heated discussion and eventual arguing.

I think the topic of "what female models would you like to see" is a lot safer and more constructive and likely wouldn't get locked or deleted as quickly.

BertBert wrote:
The discussion was going nowhere, so the thread was closed.

If you are genuinely interested in advocating female Marines, maybe post a poll instead and see how many people actually want them in WH40k. It might not even be considered to be related to feminism if you exclude all that nonsense about mysoginy and justified fascism.

This way, you at least generate some data for hypothetical GW market researchers that hypothetically screen Dakka for new ideas.

Remembering that the active internet population is tiny compared to the real world population and the active portion of the internet community is even smaller. Even in very geeky hobbies most people are not chatting online. In most game clubs there's perhaps one or two members who are typically only ever active online; whilst some others might read but never reply or sign up to sites. So any market research that is generated purely from the internet is inherently going to be weaker than market research from more active real sites - such as GW's own stores.
This is without even touching on the accuracy of internet polls which can be abused with those using multiple accounts.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I think the topic of "what female models would you like to see" is a lot safer and more constructive and likely wouldn't get locked or deleted as quickly.

Until someone dares to suggest that a female model they'd like to see is a female marine...

I'd like to have a discussion about Female Space Marines without it having to be supported by some 'muh gender inequality' statement.

You want female Space Marines. Many people don't. You're not winning any points by trying to pretend it's some Civil Rights activism. You win no points by trying to claim that anyone who disagrees is a bigot.

It's plastic miniatures in a fictional world where people use chainsaw swords to kill space elves and horned daemons. If you honestly believe it has that much bearing on the real world, you need serious re-evaluation of both the significance of Warhammer 40k and and the Real World itself.

I'm glad these threads get locked and shut down, because at the end of the day- it's just a feeble attempt for someone to say, "Look, they hate women! They're all bigots! This proves we NEED feminism/female space marines/guys like me!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Until someone dares to suggest that a female model they'd like to see is a female marine...

Maybe if instead of getting upset because someone doesn't like what you want, you should accept that not everyone is going to agree with you or like what you do.

 Overread wrote:

BertBert wrote:
The discussion was going nowhere, so the thread was closed.

If you are genuinely interested in advocating female Marines, maybe post a poll instead and see how many people actually want them in WH40k. It might not even be considered to be related to feminism if you exclude all that nonsense about mysoginy and justified fascism.

This way, you at least generate some data for hypothetical GW market researchers that hypothetically screen Dakka for new ideas.

Remembering that the active internet population is tiny compared to the real world population and the active portion of the internet community is even smaller. Even in very geeky hobbies most people are not chatting online. In most game clubs there's perhaps one or two members who are typically only ever active online; whilst some others might read but never reply or sign up to sites. So any market research that is generated purely from the internet is inherently going to be weaker than market research from more active real sites - such as GW's own stores.
This is without even touching on the accuracy of internet polls which can be abused with those using multiple accounts.

I never said it would be worthwhile, but it's probably better than starting the same discussion over and over again without any significant change in the results.

 Crimson wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I think the topic of "what female models would you like to see" is a lot safer and more constructive and likely wouldn't get locked or deleted as quickly.

Until someone dares to suggest that a female model they'd like to see is a female marine...

Then don't do it lol? Or, if you must, do it in a way where you preemptively appease those who you know will be vehemently against such a thing by making it abundantly clear that it's your opinion only.

I admit it's difficult though, some people will argue against your opinion almost for the sake of it on here I think.

I think there should be more Alpha Legion specific models, more in line with the proportions and size of the larger Death Guard or at least Deathwatch models. Not so much spikes, but rather scaled armor over the power armor.

Oh snap, some folks may disagree with me!

Oh, well it's a good thing it's my opinion and I don't need the validation of every Tom, Dick, and Harry for it to exist.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Maybe if instead of getting upset because someone doesn't like what you want, you should accept that not everyone is going to agree with you or like what you do.

I don't even really want female space marines (I definitely want more equal gender representation in the game in general though.) But it is just tiresome that when ever someone dares to mention the subject there is a huge pile in of people that need to jump to tell that the person what the lore says (like they wouldn't know) or complaining about feminism destroying Star Wars or some unrelated nonsense like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I think there should be more Alpha Legion specific models, more in line with the proportions and size of the larger Death Guard or at least Deathwatch models. Not so much spikes, but rather scaled armor over the power armor.

If every time you mentioned such a thing a dozen people jumped to tell you how wrong you are to want such a thing, and would continue to troll the thread until it got locked and deleted, then perhaps you might be a tad annoyed about it.

 Crimson wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Maybe if instead of getting upset because someone doesn't like what you want, you should accept that not everyone is going to agree with you or like what you do.

I don't even really want female space marines (I definitely want more equal gender representation in the game in general though.) But it is just tiresome that when ever someone dares to mention the subject there is a huge pile in of people that need to jump to tell that the person what the lore says (like they wouldn't know) or complaining about feminism destroying Star Wars or some unrelated nonsense like that.

It's not relly unrelated, though. Star Wars and Marvel have set precedents that some people might not want to see become reality in Warhammer. If they are lashing out at anthing coming even vaguely from that direction, it might not be fair or justified, but it's very much understandable.

 Crimson wrote:
I don't even really want female space marines (I definitely want more equal gender representation in the game in general though.) But it is just tiresome that when ever someone dares to mention the subject there is a huge pile in of people that need to jump to tell that the person what the lore says (like they wouldn't know) or complaining about feminism destroying Star Wars or some unrelated nonsense like that.

Then maybe stop bringing up feminism, and instead say you want actual female Guard models (so do I), Sisters of Battle in plastic (so do I), and more female characters across the board (so do I).

Because it's either about the models, or it's about an ideology. Wanting certain models is fine, as you can see even I agree with you on those points. Most people actually do. But feminism has left a bitter taste in a lot of peoples' mouths, from the actions of some feminists. To say that peoples' reactions to that is unreasonable is being dishonest or willfully disregarding some things. Whether you agree or not, it's volatile. As soon as someone makes an argument and tries to support it with 'muh feminism', I automatically know that disagreeing is going to get me labeled a bigot, a woman-hater, a virgin, or something pathetic. I want this ideology as far away from my hobby as it can possibly get, because my hobby brings people together and feminism has done nothing but cause disputes with otherwise reasonable people caught up in the mix.

If you want to discuss feminism, there are places to do that. But it has no place at all in one of the few things that a multitude of people can get together and enjoy regardless of who they are, what they believe, how they vote, etc.

 Crimson wrote:
If every time you mentioned such a thing a dozen people jumped to tell you how wrong you are to want such a thing, and would continue to troll the thread until it got locked and deleted, then perhaps you might be a tad annoyed about it.

Are you mentioning feminism, or female models? Again, modern feminism isn't appealing to most people. And if you made 'Tau Space Marines for the Greater Good', or 'Orks Loyal to the Imperium' I'd be equally questioning the idea behind it, but where I like it or not has no bearing on whether you can make it. If you need others' approval to make certain things you want, then you are obviously in the hobby for the wrong reasons.

 Crimson wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I think there should be more Alpha Legion specific models, more in line with the proportions and size of the larger Death Guard or at least Deathwatch models. Not so much spikes, but rather scaled armor over the power armor.

If every time you mentioned such a thing a dozen people jumped to tell you how wrong you are to want such a thing, and would continue to troll the thread until it got locked and deleted, then perhaps you might be a tad annoyed about it.

Disagreement is not trolling on its face. If you present your opinion on a public forum, expect people to express their own. If you just want to state your desires without any kind of discussion, the shower is a good place.

BertBert wrote:

It's not relly unrelated, though. Star Wars and Marvel have set precedents that some people might not want to see become reality in Warhammer. If they are lashing out at anthing coming even vaguely from that direction, that might not be fair or justified, but it's very much understandable.

And then again, some people like what is happening in those franchises. Furthermore, one can be critical of the new Star Wars films, (I certainly have some quibbles) but if the main point of that criticism is that adding female characters in central roles is in itself a bad thing (rather than the specifics of how it was done), then that is pretty much textbook just misogyny. (And before anyone interprets this as me saying that only motivation for opposing female space marines is misogyny, I didn't say that. Now, if one is opposed to better gender representation in the franchise in general, then that is another matter.)

Ultimately I'd really like if it were possible to discuss how should the gender representation be improved in 40K franchise without all of those threads getting locked and/or deleted.

Lets not re-litigate the original thread, or female space marines or whatever specific item here - Nuts & Bolts isn't the place for it.

The topic is about the fact it's become de facto impossible to have a discussion about it anywhere else.

The really weird thing about this is that I'm sure most of us could agree on 90% of topics like better gender representation in the hobby. But those areas where we disagree are complete impasses.

Skating lightly here as don't really want another warning

Is it Feminism in 40k, or in the wider wargaming hobby ?

Many other games have better representation, heck Warmachine has a lady time traveller way before that was a thing, Guildball you can have almost all female teams, ditto Malifaux and many others

So is it really worth trying to change one game, admittedly the big one, when viable alternatives exist ?

 Crimson wrote:
Furthermore, one can be critical of the new Star Wars films, (I certainly have some quibbles) but if the main point of that criticism is that adding female characters in central roles is in itself a bad thing (rather than the specifics of how it was done), then that is pretty much textbook just misogyny. (And before anyone interprets this as me saying that only motivation for opposing female space marines is misogyny, I didn't say that.

Except when I say, "I dislike Rey because she's a Mary Sue with no personality whatsoever, and it seems like they're trying to make all the women super-awesome without really showing us why they're supposed to be awesome", you're going to see people that claim I just hate that they added female roles, or I hate women, or I'm a shrieking fanboy.

You say it's 'textbook misogyny', but it's always 'textbook mysogyny' when someone wants to misrepresent a valid criticism and disregard the statement's points.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Then maybe stop bringing up feminism, and instead say you want actual female Guard models (so do I), Sisters of Battle in plastic (so do I), and more female characters across the board (so do I).

Because it's either about the models, or it's about an ideology. Wanting certain models is fine, as you can see even I agree with you on those points. Most people actually do. But feminism has left a bitter taste in a lot of peoples' mouths, from the actions of some feminists. To say that peoples' reactions to that is unreasonable is being dishonest or willfully disregarding some things. Whether you agree or not, it's volatile. As soon as someone makes an argument and tries to support it with 'muh feminism', I automatically know that disagreeing is going to get me labeled a bigot, a woman-hater, a virgin, or something pathetic. I want this ideology as far away from my hobby as it can possibly get, because my hobby brings people together and feminism has done nothing but cause disputes with otherwise reasonable people caught up in the mix.

So you agree with my goals, but if I have those goals for wrong motivations, you're gonna fight me just out of spite?

Besides, it doesn't need to be mentioned. When people ask for better gender representation, or at least if they dare to mention the dreaded space female space marines, certain motivations will be assumed, correctly or incorrectly.

But sure, I'm a feminist, and luckily, like with the female Guard models, you'd probably agree with most of what that actually entails.

 Crimson wrote:

BertBert wrote:

It's not relly unrelated, though. Star Wars and Marvel have set precedents that some people might not want to see become reality in Warhammer. If they are lashing out at anthing coming even vaguely from that direction, that might not be fair or justified, but it's very much understandable.

And then again, some people like what is happening in those franchises. Furthermore, one can be critical of the new Star Wars films, (I certainly have some quibbles) but if the main point of that criticism is that adding female characters in central roles is in itself a bad thing (rather than the specifics of how it was done), then that is pretty much textbook just misogyny. (And before anyone interprets this as me saying that only motivation for opposing female space marines is misogyny, I didn't say that. Now, if one is opposed to better gender representation in the franchise in general, then that is another matter.)

Ultimately I'd really like if it were possible to discuss how should the gender representation be improved in 40K franchise without all of those threads getting locked and/or deleted.

Well, we shouldn't roll out the whole Star Wars debacle, but the way you put it is just not accurate. It's not that female lead characters per se that are the problem, those have been long established in Star Wars (Mara Jade and Ahsoka say hello), but it's the blatant pandering to certain political ideologies that results in he complete upturning of established themes and a general shift in tone that does not jive well with a large part of the fanbase, to the detriment of the whole franchise.

Now, if you want to discuss gender representation in WH40k, you'd have to find out if people consider this to be a problem in the first place.. Again, it's better to have some numbers on these things, so why not make a poll about whatever topic interest you:

Is there an issue with gender representation in WH40k - yes/no?
Should there be more female miniatures in WH40K - yes/no?
Should there be female Space Marines - yes/no?

A discussion can only really take place if there is a contentious point in the first place and the poll would be an actual indicator.

 Crimson wrote:
So you agree with my goals, but if I have those goals for wrong motivations, you're gonna fight me just out of spite?

Not so much. When your justification for it is 'feminism', it seems more like you're trying to sell what you want, and anyone who disagrees is a misogynist, and the reason you want it is some activist crusade.

It's like me trying to say that we need to change Commissars, because [insert horrible things from Soviet Union]. I don't like Commissars and want them to change, and I'm trying to sell that on an appeal to emotion and labeling anyone who disagrees a 'filthy Commie'.

 Crimson wrote:
Besides, it doesn't need to be mentioned. When people ask for better gender representation, or at least if they dare to mention the dreaded space female space marines, certain motivations will be assumed, correctly or incorrectly.

That's going to happen when you say 'we need this because feminism' rather than 'we need this because I like it'.

 Crimson wrote:
But sure, I'm a feminist, and luckily, like with the female Guard models, you'd probably agree with most of what that actually entails.

Show me egalitarianism, and I'll agree. But feminism's 'equality' is about as much 'equality' as ISIS is peaceful.

 Luciferian wrote:
Disagreement is not trolling on its face. If you present your opinion on a public forum, expect people to express their own. If you just want to state your desires without any kind of discussion, the shower is a good place.

I'm absolutely fine with having a discussion. Hell, I really don't even mind heated discussion, nor am I easily offended. The whole point of this thread was that it is impossible to have that discussion, if threads get locked and/or deleted!

I'd guess that the reason the mods deleted the previous thread was because it has been done to death and they could see no benefit of keeping it around.

If I made a recurring thread, such as "I think there should be female Orks for reasons" every week I'm sure they would also be deleted.

People don't want to have the same discussion time and time again. It becomes mundane and tedious and completely detracts from the point in the first place. I guess that's where the femmarine threads are at now?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Not so much. When your justification for it is 'feminism', it seems more like you're trying to sell what you want, and anyone who disagrees is a misogynist, and the reason you want it is some activist crusade.

Well, that is a bit extreme description. But sure, whatever. I think that more equal gender representation in media is overall a desirable thing. Quelle horreur! Does saying that somehow taint my desire to have female Guard models? How bizarre...

Show me egalitarianism, and I'll agree. But feminism's 'equality' is about as much 'equality' as ISIS is peaceful.

Feminism is about the equality of the sexes.

 Crimson wrote:

Show me egalitarianism, and I'll agree. But feminism's 'equality' is about as much 'equality' as ISIS is peaceful.

Feminism is about the equality of the sexes.

Right, in the same way that taking everyone's lunch away because little Johnny doesn't have a lunch is 'equality'.

This is the culture war. This is the discussion that's happening in comics, movies, TTRPGs CCGs and now wargaming. Just like it happened before in video games. Each area of fandom is just a microcosm of the whole. Unfortunately, the extremes of each side are framing the debate as a zero sum game.

On one side, those crusading for social justice are fighting against entrenched and pervasive social constructs of oppression, and anyone who opposes them is a reactionary apologist for the oppressors.

On the other side, people are defending themselves and their hobbies from what they see as unproven and unwarranted aspersions of bigotry in order to halt a campaign of ideologically motivated social engineering that is changing their leisure time pursuits into political bludgeons.

As long as that's how the discussion is framed, there's nowhere this can go.

It is extremely unusual for moderators on DakkaDakka to actually delete threads. We normally just lock them.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Right, in the same way that taking everyone's lunch away because little Johnny doesn't have a lunch is 'equality'.

The feminists took your lunch?

For example, in this context no on has asked removing anything, merely adding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is extremely unusual for moderators on DakkaDakka to actually delete threads. We normally just lock them.

Right, I know. Thus doing it here is even weirder...

 Crimson wrote:
For example, in this context no on has asked removing anything, merely adding.

'Adding'. Except it isn't, and we both know that. Everywhere it rears its head, it only 'adds' conflict. They can't create, they only want things to change for them.

Feminism is not egalitarianism. If it were, it'd be called 'egalitarianism'.

'Adding'. Except it isn't, and we both know that

And baseless assertion makes it so? Man wish I had the power to completely distort reality with internet posts.

I better go protest my local deli - clearly offering both ketchup and mustard is "taking away" from me somehow.

Hello!

Since I was involved in the discussion in question, please allow me to shed some light on what happened.

First, the way the thread began (something like, "we haven't argued about this for a while so ...") was not great. It was also posted in 40k General Discussion, which in a sense is appropriate. If you want to talk about why you think GW should make certain models then that is the right forum. But the discussion - as usual - drifted to why, from an in-setting POV, women cannot be made into Space Marines. So I moved the discussion to the 40k Background sub-forum.

But the in-setting arguement is actually not what people really want to talk about, I think. There are two ways to talk about this subject:

(1) talking about models; and

(2) talking about politics

I made some posts trying to steer the discussion more toward (1) but by the last few pages the thread was off the rails even by the standards of the OT board (including violating the current ban on discussing US politics). At that point, I locked the thread but simultaenously another moderator deleted it. So you can see the post in my post history where I locked it but you can't access the post or see in my post history any of the other posts I made in the thread.

As to why another mod deleted the thread: TBH it was really bad with posters making no pretense at talking about the 40k background or even the notion of femarine models. I thought about going through and deleting the offending posts but it would have meant deleting, one-by-one, about four pages of the thread! I can see why another mod would have concluded it wasn't worth the time pruning it back to something reasonable.

The main lesson here is if you don't want threads deleted then you have to avoid going off the rails and not respond to people who are driving a thresd off the rails.

Finally, a warning: this thread is not for discussing feminism; it is for discussing thread locks. If it keeps going off the rails (as it has for the last two pages) I'll just lock it. Thanks!

 Manchu wrote:
Finally, a warning: this thread is not for discussing feminism; it is for discussing thread locks. If it keeps going off the rails Oas it has for the last two pages) I'll just lock it. Thanks!

I think all threads that reference feminism should be locked, so please feel free to do so at your leisure. This entire topic is toxic, and nothing more than an excuse for some members to hurl baseless accusations and put down members who disagree.

If people want to discuss models they'd like to see, that'd be one thing. But this is a bunch of male feminists posturing.

As you can see, once the cult of feminism is questioned or attacked, the followers come out in force to attack people.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
This entire topic is toxic

I am inclined to agree. I have participated in and moderated femarine threads many times over the years and the main takeaway is that the ideological portion of the topic overwhelms the rest of the discussion without adding anything meaningful. OTOH one of the reasons this happens is because rather than ignoring arguments about social justice, posters tend to take the bait.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
As soon as someone makes an argument and tries to support it with 'muh feminism', I automatically know that disagreeing is going to get me labeled a bigot, a woman-hater, a virgin, or something pathetic. I want this ideology as far away from my hobby as it can possibly get, because my hobby brings people together and feminism has done nothing but cause disputes with otherwise reasonable people caught up in the mix.

Exactly the point I was making earlier. It has become an attack vector to attempt to drag people into a fight they can't win.

Years ago I would have called myself a feminist. I worked for a feminist organization that helped sexual assault victims. (not all were female, but a good 80% were) I helped people get their lives back together and seek justice. Helped panicked parents calm down and see that they had support, options for counseling, legal help. The more visible and vocal minority, the ones getting attention - they aren't helping people. They're predators feeding on outrage to generate clicks, or media execs using it to silence critics. They're commercializing outrage as a defensive strategy. They don't care that they're damaging legitimate rational feminist causes and debate because it helps them stuff their pockets.

 Manchu wrote:
OTOH one of the reasons this happens is because rather than ignoring arguments about social justice, posters tend to take the bait.

I will honestly say it is difficult, because where the 'Social Justice' topic is slimed into the argument- it's usually to disparage and slander anyone who disagrees with the original argument. I will be 100% honest. Social Justice isn't about good people caring about others, it's about people that want others to think they're good people and they will go to extremes to lash out at anyone who questions this.

I game in a group of men, women, Jews, Gentiles, black, white, hispanic, gay, lesbian, trans, democrats, republicans, etc. I have always gamed in diverse groups that have always gotten along just fine and had great fun despite our differences, even when we openly discussed our differences. SocJus/Feminism has done nothing but cause friction in otherwise diverse and happy gaming groups.

It. Is. A. Cancer.

And somehow a thread on a board about the mechanical workings of the DakkaDakka website has been derailed by an argument about whether Feminism works towards equality or positive discrimination/outright sexism. I can see why these discussions are deleted.

 Manchu wrote:
Hello!

Since I was involved in the discussion in question, please allow me to shed some light on what happened.

First, the way the thread began (something like, "we haven't argued about this for a while so ...") was not great. It was also posted in 40k General Discussion, which in a sense is appropriate. If you want to talk about why you think GW should make certain models then that is the right forum. But the discussion - as usual - drifted to why, from an in-setting POV, women cannot be made into Space Marines. So I moved the discussion to the 40k Background sub-forum.

But the in-setting arguement is actually not what people really want to talk about, I think. There are two ways to talk about this subject:

(1) talking about models; and

(2) talking about politics

I made some posts trying to steer the discussion more toward (1) but by the last few pages the thread was off the rails even by the standards of the OT board (including violating the current ban ln discussing US politics). At that point, I locked the thread but simultaenously another moderator deleted it. So you can see the post in my post history where I locked it but you can't access the post or see in my post history any of the other posts I made in the thread.

As to why another mod deleted the thread: TBH it was really bad with posters making no pretense at talking about the 40k background or even the notion of femarine models. I thought about going through and deleting the offending posts but it would have meant deleting, one-by-one, about four pages of the thread! I can see why another mod would have concluded it wasn't worth the time pruning it back to something reasonable.

The main lesson here is if you don't want threads deleted then you have to avoid going off the rails and not respond to people who are driving a thresd off the rails.

Thank you for the explanation. I feel that in such a situation it would be preferable to merely delete the offending posts rather than the whole thread, but I understand that is might not be worth the effort.

It is unfortunate that this topic seems to be so hard to discuss constructively.

Finally, a warning: this thread is not for discussing feminism; it is for discussing thread locks. If it keeps going off the rails Oas it has for the last two pages) I'll just lock it. Thanks!

But not delete it?

SirWeeble wrote:
Years ago I would have called myself a feminist. I worked for a feminist organization that helped sexual assault victims. (not all were female, but a good 80% were) I helped people get their lives back together and seek justice. Helped panicked parents calm down and see that they had support, options for counseling, legal help. The more visible and vocal minority, the ones getting attention - they aren't helping people. They're predators feeding on outrage to generate clicks, or media execs using it to silence critics. They're commercializing outrage as a defensive strategy. They don't care that they're damaging legitimate rational feminist causes and debate because it helps them stuff their pockets.

This. Exactly this.

There is a difference between doing good things for people, and 'wanting people to think you're a good person'.

Plus, outrage fetishism is the new way to weaponize idiots.

SirWeeble wrote:
It has become an attack vector to attempt to drag people into a fight they can't win.

The most powerful tactic on a discussion forum is to ignore. Don't get dragged into a toxic subject. If you do, you can only blame yourself.

And somehow a thread on a board about the mechanical workings of the DakkaDakka website has been derailed by an argument about whether Feminism works towards equality or positive discrimination/outright sexism. I can see why these discussions are deleted.

Yep, I can see exactly why these topics get deleted because no one wants to read a bunch of dudebro whining about how contrary viewpoints are personal attacks and part of a conspiracy against all gamerdom.

I mean we all like fictional universes, but that one is a bit out there.

 mrhappyface wrote:
And somehow a thread on a board about the mechanical workings of the DakkaDakka website has been derailed by an argument about whether Feminism works towards equality or positive discrimination/outright sexism. I can see why these discussions are deleted.

Well, it doesn't help that comments calling one side of the argument cultists, idiots, and a cancer are allowed to remain. The heckler's veto is bad enough without apparently a thumb on the scale tacitly egging it on, but I guess it is what it is.

 ScarletRose wrote:
Yep, I can see exactly why these topics get deleted because no one wants to read a bunch of dudebro whining about how contrary viewpoints are personal attacks and part of a conspiracy against all gamerdom.

I mean we all like fictional universes, but that one is a bit out there.

This is the exact sort of statement that should sell the mods on purging literally every feminism topic. It's not enough that we disagree, we're 'dudebros whining' and it's a 'conspiracy'.

This is why feminism is toxic.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, it doesn't help that comments calling one side of the argument cultists, idiots, and a cancer are allowed to remain. The heckler's veto is bad enough without apparently a thumb on the scale tacitly egging it on, but I guess it is what it is.

Calling an idea a cancer isn't wrong. It's an idea and it doesn't have feelings.

Cult-like behavior is cult-like behavior. No idea has the monopoly on it.

Outrage fetishists are actual idiots and I will never, ever think otherwise.

Well, it doesn't help that comments calling one side of the argument cultists, idiots, and a cancer are allowed to remain

Exactly, I think if anything points out the need for discussion on how the underbelly of the gaming community is harmful it's stuff like this. It's not just the direct trolls but the implicit assumption that one's sides insults are ok for some reason.

 Crimson wrote:
I feel that in such a situation it would be preferable to merely delete the offending posts rather than the whole thread, but I understand that is might not be worth the effort.

Well, mods can and do disagree. At the time, I just felt like locking it but at the same time I figured the posts were so off the rails that I might need to delete them. And at that point I was looking at deleting something like 30% of the thread, post by post. So I completely understand why another mod was like, EFF THAT - DELETED.

I think what we're seeing here is you have some posters who trot out the "agree with me or you are a misogynist" arguments and then you have other posters who take that bait, knowingly running with it to force a thread lock.

I think what we mods will have to do here is lay down a rule like "this is not a thread for debating the merits of feminism." But even then, it;s just going to be a race to thread lock. So at that point, we will have to start handing out suspensions.

 ScarletRose wrote:
Exactly, I think if anything points out the need for discussion on how the underbelly of the gaming community is harmful it's stuff like this. It's not just the direct trolls but the implicit assumption that one's sides insults are ok for some reason.

People who dislike the topic are not justification for the idea. Circular logic is faulty.

Sorry, guy. Some of us are just simply sick of this topic rearing its head where it's not welcome or wanted, just so that one party can label detractors 'the harmful underbelly of the gaming community'.

So please take your identity politics elsewhere.

OK one side says cultists and the other side says underbelly but each side can only see how the other is offensive.

So yes here's a demonstration of exactly why this topic is toxic.

 Manchu wrote:
OK one side says cultists and the other side says underbelly but each side can only see how the other is offensive.

So yes here's a demonstration of exactly why this topic is toxic.

Harmful underbelly.

Don't forget that. Disagreeing is pretty much terrorism or assault or something.

Can't you create a sub-forum on here called "KEEP YOUR DAMN POLITICS IN HERE!" and just let them run wild calling each other poo-poo heads?

 Manchu wrote:
So yes here's a demonstration of exactly why this topic is toxic.

By I think a reasonable measure, there are 3 or 4 "rule one" violations on this page alone. Right now they're mostly being ignored, but the fact they're still there makes it hard to read that as anything other than waiting for someone to respond to them and then saying "well, now it's a huge mess!" and then locking the thread.

So, the answer to the OP is "no".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Plus, outrage fetishism is the new way to weaponize idiots.

On that we can agree on.

I feel that when anything that even remotely smells like feminism is approached, a bunch of people get aggravated, and will drag all sorts of evildoings of 'SJW's real or imagined to the discussion, that had nothing to do with the original topic. I have to say that you have done this a lot. You, and many others, have a chip on your shoulder about the topic, and cannot just concentrate on what has actually been said.

If people barge in to threads blaming of evil feminist about all sorts of nonsense, then sure, I guess we will be discussing that and the tread gets derailed.

 Ouze wrote:
By I think a reasonable measure, there are 3 or 4 "rule one" violations on this page alone. Right now they're mostly being ignored, but the fact they're still there makes it hard to read that as anything other than waiting for someone to respond to them and then saying "well, now it's a huge mess!" and then locking the thread.

I believe you are confusing statements about ideologies and extremists with personal attacks. If your ideology needs to be protected this much, it's weak and has no place in reasonable discussions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
On that we can agree on.

I feel that when anything that even remotely smells like feminism is approached, a bunch of people get aggravated, and will drag all sorts of evildoings of 'SJW's real or imagined to the discussion, that had nothing to do with the original topic. I have to say that you have done this a lot. You, and many others, have a chip on your shoulder about the topic, and cannot just concentrate on what has actually been said.

If people barge in to threads blaming of evil feminist about all sorts of nonsense, then sure, I guess we will be discussing that and the tread gets derailed.

Feminists are annoying. That's about it. Annoying and divisive.

They aren't really ruining anything, and anything that's been 'ruined' by feminism (or anything) tends to get it in the end financially. Extremists of any sort are quite easily dealt with in the real world, all you have to do is make them feel unwelcome and tell them to kick rocks. Which is, exactly what people do to extremist feminists, conservatives, etc. in the real world. Online, there's a different sort of thing because there's a collection of places where extremists can coagulate and ass-pat one another, unlike the real world where we tell them to STFU.

And when I say 'outrage fetishists', keep in mind I wouldn't leave out the morons that believe every pundit on Social Media. I spend a lot of time talking to my conservative relatives about sensationalism and poorly-written misleading articles.

 Manchu wrote:

I think what we're seeing here is you have some posters who trot out the "agree with me or you are a misogynist" arguments and then you have other posters who take that bait, knowingly running with it to force a thread lock.

As much as is is said that that has been said, it is not actually said often. It is much more common for some people to start complain about 'feminist agenda ruining everything.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Sorry, guy. Some of us are just simply sick of this topic rearing its head where it's not welcome or wanted, just so that one party can label detractors 'the harmful underbelly of the gaming community'.

So maybe not just click the thread? If some people want to discuss female space marines, then let them. What do you care?

 mrhappyface wrote:
Can't you create a sub-forum on here called "KEEP YOUR DAMN POLITICS IN HERE!" and just let them run wild calling each other poo-poo heads?

Nope, not on DakkaDakka. It's big internet and folks can find somewhere else to run wild.

 Crimson wrote:
As much as is is said that that has been said, it is not actually said often. It is much more common for some people to start complain about 'feminist agenda ruining everything.'

It's not usually that direct, though.

Think about it this way, the justification for feminism is often dressed with how 'toxic' the gaming community is, or how it's a misogynist boys' club. Constantly.

That is not just an attack on me, that's on you, too. It's saying that either you're guilty of being a toxic person or complicit in its activity, and therefore still guilty. You and I have every right to put our feet down and say, "Wait, hold up- this is not how things are, it's not the norm, and if you're going to point out problems you'd better be prepared to substantiate it with evidence and name specific people and places. Otherwise we can't help you, and we're not going to start witch hunts."

So, no- it's never straight up 'agree with me or you're sexist'. It's more like, 'gaming has a problem'. And if you disagree, often we are reminded that those who benefit from the activity are blind to it. Come on, you and I both have seen this. You may not be guilty of it, but you've seen it.

IT HAS LITERALLY HAPPENED IN THIS THREAD.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
So maybe not just click the thread? If some people want to discuss female space marines, then let them. What do you care?

Because I would prefer not to see female Space Marines. That's part of the discussion, friend. And personally, the extremists of the feminism topic (and any other) should be made to feel very unwelcome. Reasonable people like you and I can discuss things and disagree.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Show me egalitarianism, and I'll agree. But feminism's 'equality' is about as much 'equality' as ISIS is peaceful.

It's interesting; I'd think a statement seriously comparing Eldar players or Star Trek fans or middle-aged divorcees or what have you to ISIS would draw a hell of a lot of blowback and some sort of colored text, and yet here it is, barely remarked on.

 Spinner wrote:
It's interesting; I'd think a statement seriously comparing Eldar players or Star Trek fans or middle-aged divorcees or what have you to ISIS would draw a hell of a lot of blowback and some sort of colored text, and yet here it is, barely remarked on.

Which one of those is an ideology? Those sound like specific groups of people, and not an idea.

If I can't attack feminism, would it be reasonable to say that a religion, book, political affiliation, etc. cannot be attacked?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
It's interesting; I'd think a statement seriously comparing Eldar players or Star Trek fans or middle-aged divorcees or what have you to ISIS would draw a hell of a lot of blowback and some sort of colored text, and yet here it is, barely remarked on.

Which one of those is an ideology? Those sound like specific groups of people, and not an idea.

If I can't attack feminism, would it be reasonable to say that a religion, book, political affiliation, etc. cannot be attacked?

Would it be reasonable to say that the ideologies espoused by Star Trek are similar to those espoused by ISIS?

I mean, come on. This is insane.

 Spinner wrote:
Would it be reasonable to say that the ideologies espoused by Star Trek are similar to those espoused by ISIS?

I mean, come on. This is insane.

"Star Trek is actual garbage, and it disgusts me. It's AIDs and Cancer and stepping on Lego, ISIS incarnate"

See? I attacked a thing.

If I said Star Trek fans are garbage, that would be a different story.

(FYI, I'm indifferent to Star Trek because I don't watch it a lot)

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
As much as is is said that that has been said, it is not actually said often. It is much more common for some people to start complain about 'feminist agenda ruining everything.'

It's not usually that direct, though.

Think about it this way, the justification for feminism is often dressed with how 'toxic' the gaming community is, or how it's a misogynist boys' club. Constantly.

That is not just an attack on me, that's on you, too. It's saying that either you're guilty of being a toxic person or complicit in its activity, and therefore still guilty. You and I have every right to put our feet down and say, "Wait, hold up- this is not how things are, it's not the norm, and if you're going to point out problems you'd better be prepared to substantiate it with evidence and name specific people and places. Otherwise we can't help you, and we're not going to start witch hunts."

So, no- it's never straight up 'agree with me or you're sexist'. It's more like, 'gaming has a problem'. And if you disagree, often we are reminded that those who benefit from the activity are blind to it. Come on, you and I both have seen this. You may not be guilty of it, but you've seen it.

IT HAS LITERALLY HAPPENED IN THIS THREAD.

Saying that some community has a problem, is not same as saying that everybody in that community is participating in creating that problem. But yes, sexism is a problem in many gaming communities, doesn't mean all gamers are sexist (or even most. It only takes couple of donkey-caves to poison things.)

And personally, the extremists of the feminism topic (and any other) should be made to feel very unwelcome. Reasonable people like you and I can discuss things and disagree.

Perhaps you should not preemptively assume that people are extremists. Might work better. I have seen very few such extremists on Dakka.

What I'm seeing ITT is a pretty good defense of the so-called heckler's veto - although I don't agree with that term because it's not "heckling" to disgaree with an accusation actually raised.

The basic issue is, Dakka Dakka is not an appropriate venue for mounting an attack on hobbyists generally that we are sexist because, presumably, some portion of us don't believe certain models should be released for the sake of making the world more equitable.

By raising this accusation, one is inviting an angry response. It's a poison seed that yields poisoned fruit.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Would it be reasonable to say that the ideologies espoused by Star Trek are similar to those espoused by ISIS?

I mean, come on. This is insane.

"Star Trek is actual garbage, and it disgusts me. It's AIDs and Cancer and stepping on Lego, ISIS incarnate"

And it's still a stupid, stupid thing to say.

I suppose the short answer is that we can't have these threads because people with a hyperbolic axe to grind come running in going on about how adding marines with different bits and bobs is the same mindset that lines up people in the street and executes them.

Or something like that.

 Manchu wrote:

The basic issue is, Dakka Dakka is not an appropriate venue for mounting an attack on hobbyists generally that we are sexist because, presumably, some portion of us don't believe certain models should be released for the sake of making the world more equitable.

Why is it bad to generalize about hobbyists, but not bad to generalize about feminists?

 Crimson wrote:
Saying that some community has a problem, is not same as saying that everybody in that community is participating in creating that problem. But yes, sexism is a problem in many gaming communities, doesn't mean all gamers are sexist (or even most. It only takes couple of donkey-caves to poison things.)

Saying that my neighborhood has a problem is sort of saying that I have a problem. The 'community' is us. All of us.

And it only takes a couple of jerks to ruin things if you don't have the balls to actually do anything about it. Otherwise, you are complicit in their activity. Look, dude- we don't have these problems in real communities because we deal with them.

If I may be frank, the people screaming that we 'have a problem' are the people that also claim to have the 'cure' for that problem. I've said this before, but it's snake oil salespeople. People looking to exploit the sensibilities of otherwise good folks like you and I. Simply stated, the very people that believe we have a 'problem' are the people who are here to make problems.

 Crimson wrote:
Perhaps you should not preemptively assume that people are extremists. Might work better. I have seen very few such extremists on Dakka.

I don't. I've lashed out at the one that reared its head here. They aren't here, or in most places because the system is working.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:
And it's still a stupid, stupid thing to say.

Well, good job missing the point there. If you confuse 'people' with an idea, then you aren't very reasonable or rational.

 Spinner wrote:
Why is it bad to generalize about hobbyists, but not bad to generalize about feminists?

Feminism. The idea. Not the people.

Wow, man- are you intentionally dodging the point?

How is saying that some gamers might be sexists attack on gamers in general? I mean you must know that some people are sexist, and it would be pretty weird assumption that 40K gamers alone in whole humanity would be completely free of that malady.

 Crimson wrote:
How is saying that some gamers might be sexists attack on gamers in general? I mean you must know that some people are sexist, and it would be pretty weird assumption that 40K gamers alone in whole humanity would be completely free of that malady.

No one disagrees that some gamers might be sexist. They might be thieves. Murderers, even. They are a collection of people, and just like any collection of people, there will be 'those guys' in the mix.

The problem is when we get our community reputation tarnished by fantastic articles like 'Tabletop Gaming has a White Male Terrorism Problem' or the 'problem' is grossly blown out of proportion by individuals who cannot seem to manifest names, locations, or any other shred of evidence.

The problem is when we have more people that would rather not have female Space Marines, and other individuals accuse them of being 'sexist' or labeling it as a misogyny problem.

Let's be fair, gaming communities are like any other. Some scummy people exist. But we're not plagued any more than any other, in fact we might be much better people by comparison. While we agree that the problem individuals must be dealt with when they arise- the difference is that one group of people says 'we shouldn't tolerate bad people', the other says 'we should change the game because of the bad people'.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Let's be fair, gaming communities are like any other. Some scummy people exist. But we're not plagued any more than any other, in fact we might be much better people by comparison. While we agree that the problem individuals must be dealt with when they arise- the difference is that one group of people says 'we shouldn't tolerate bad people', the other says 'we should change the game because of the bad people'.

Those things are tangentially related at best. Sure, we should not tolerate bad people and sure there should be better gender representation in the game. Both of those things would probably make the women feel more welcome, but they're not directly related (and the former issue is obviously much more important than the latter.)

 Spinner wrote:
It's interesting; I'd think a statement seriously comparing Eldar players or Star Trek fans or middle-aged divorcees or what have you to ISIS would draw a hell of a lot of blowback and some sort of colored text, and yet here it is, barely remarked on.

This thread is moving pretty fast now but this is my current take-away.

Well, this thread left me sadder and wiser.

 Crimson wrote:
Those things are tangentially related at best. Sure, we should not tolerate bad people and sure there should be better gender representation in the game. Both of those things would probably make the women feel more welcome, but they're not directly related (and the former issue is obviously much more important than the latter.)

Right. And there is one thing you need to keep in mind. Let's take you and I, for example.

We can easily sit here and say, "Dude, we could use more female guard models. Like, that'd mean they would have to make new guardsmen and that would be awesome". And "We don't have enough Inquisitors, it would be awesome to have female and male Inquisitor kits".

You could tell me, "Dude, that guy Larry in the back is saying something lewd and hateful", and I'd have your back.

We have zero disagreements here.

And neither one of us need 'feminism' to be this way. We are perfectly capable of being rational adults, dealing with problems, and expressing what we think would be cool without feminism coming into the equation.

Because there's a HUGE difference once 'feminism' comes into the game, and in my experience it is never enough for them. Feminists whined because we didn't have enough models. Then they whined about Eschers and the Darkoath Warqueen. They will whine and complain and never stop.

That's why you and I may agree on things, but I just don't want that ideology involved.

 Actinium wrote:
This thread is moving pretty fast now but this is my current take-away.

If you can't differentiate between an idea, and actual people- you will have a very difficult time.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, this thread left me sadder and wiser.

No, it didn't.

Feminism. The idea. Not the people.

Wow, man- are you intentionally dodging the point?

I don't. I've lashed out at the one [extremist] that reared its head here.

The "I'm not touching you" defense is kind of falling apart here huh?

Oh I just hate the idea that certain people are valid human being beings with rights, it certainly has no relation at all to these cancerous idiot extremists who are badwrong evil people.

See I'm just attacking the idea right?

--

This thread is moving pretty fast now but this is my current take-away.

That's the bottom line, apparently any troll can dish it out about those evil feminists, but anyone pointing out how that's exactly the problem (the generalizations, intentional misunderstandings and fabrications) is "attacking the whole community".

Oh boy.

 ScarletRose wrote:
The "I'm not touching you" defense is kind of falling apart here huh?

Oh I just hate the idea that certain people are valid human being beings with rights, it certainly has no relation at all to these cancerous idiot extremists who are badwrong evil people.

See I'm just attacking the idea right?

Yes, and I can pick that argument apart and tear into it. Just like any other idea. An idea does not need protection, if it does- it is a weak idea and should not only be torn apart, but mocked. Into oblivion, to the point where people would be outright ashamed to admit they believed in it.

 ScarletRose wrote:
That's the bottom line, apparently any troll can dish it out about those evil feminists, but anyone pointing out how that's exactly the problem (generalizations, intentional misunderstandings and fabrications) is "attacking the whole community".

Oh boy.

Anyone who disagrees is a troll. See how you're doing that?

Circular logic is a fallacy.

Just because people do not welcome your ideology does not mean they have a problem. Your ideology is not essential for civil adults to interact. Please take it elsewhere.

Not wanting feminism involved in your hobby =/= 'a problem'. It's only a problem for people who can't let that ideology go. It's actually no different than asking for no politics or religion involved in discussions at the FLGS. If you cannot leave it at the door, the community does not have a problem. YOU do.

Yes, and I can pick that argument apart and tear into it. Just like any other idea. An idea does not need protection, if it does- it is a weak idea and should not only be torn apart, but mocked. Into oblivion, to the point where people would be outright ashamed to admit they believed in it.

So completely pretend there wasn't a quote calling a person an extremist and stick to the pseudo-intelctual "It's all ideas" argument?

Ok.

Just because people do not welcome your ideology does not mean they have a problem. Your ideology is not essential for civil adults to interact. Please take it elsewhere.

You first, I'm sure there's some men's "rights" group looking for it's wandering knight.

You first, I'm sure there's some men's "rights" group looking for it's wandering knight.

There's irony in this post, but this topic has completely devolved down pretty much overtime as to be expected.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Right. And there is one thing you need to keep in mind. Let's take you and I, for example.

We can easily sit here and say, "Dude, we could use more female guard models. Like, that'd mean they would have to make new guardsmen and that would be awesome". And "We don't have enough Inquisitors, it would be awesome to have female and male Inquisitor kits".

You could tell me, "Dude, that guy Larry in the back is saying something lewd and hateful", and I'd have your back.

We have zero disagreements here.

And neither one of us need 'feminism' to be this way. We are perfectly capable of being rational adults, dealing with problems, and expressing what we think would be cool without feminism coming into the equation.

Because there's a HUGE difference once 'feminism' comes into the game, and in my experience it is never enough for them. Feminists whined because we didn't have enough models. Then they whined about Eschers and the Darkoath Warqueen. They will whine and complain and never stop.

That's why you and I may agree on things, but I just don't want that ideology involved.

Deciding that what Larry says is somehow a problem would be based on ideology whether you want to call it such or not. And you're seriously confused about feminism. Also, different people can actually have different opinions, even if they'd all identify as feminists. I'm sure there were some feminists who didn't like the Eschers or the Warqueen and plenty of others who did. Individual's opinion does not define the core of the ideology.

 ScarletRose wrote:
So completely pretend there wasn't a quote calling a person an extremist and stick to the pseudo-intelctual "It's all ideas" argument?

That person was an actual extremist and I'll gladly stand by that accusation, regardless of what anyone thinks. And yes, ALL ideas. No idea is beyond question, criticism, or even mockery. If so, it is a weak idea and deserves every shred of ridicule thrown at it.

 ScarletRose wrote:
You first, I'm sure there's some men's rights group looking for it's wandering knight.

Well, throw in 'Alt-Right' and you've got the whole shebang.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Deciding that what Larry says is somehow a problem would be based on ideology whether you want to call it such or not. And you're seriously confused about feminism. Also, different people can actually have different opinions, even if they'd all identify as feminists. I'm sure there were some feminists who didn't like the Eschers or the Warqueen and plenty of others who did. Individual's opinion does not define the core of the ideology.

Well, there's a pretty common standard on what's acceptable to say in certain environments, so we'll have to decide Larry's that actual pig/perv/douchebag.

Also, I'll concede that feminism is what you say. Maybe there are all different sorts. I would say I know feminists who are great, and they are focused on actual womens' rights and encouraging women to succeed, while bringing attention to women suffering in places with limited rights for women. Those are good feminists.

However, I think a clear view of what I want is "No identity politics in my community". A feminist like I mentioned above, and even you would be welcome. Someone whose entire purpose in the community is to rabble-rouse and invent problems like 'microaggressions' or twist peoples' words would not be. In other words, 'no extremists welcome'.

Oh my God, I'm an actual extremist.

How exciting! I wonder if I'll get on a watchlist? Is there a weekly meeting or a badge or something? Do I get a participation trophy, or do I have to perform well? Do I have to spell it that way? I grew up in the nineties, so there's a strong predisposition to drop the first 'e' and add a hyphen.

 Spinner wrote:
Oh my God, I'm an actual extremist.

I don't think you're who we were talking about. You're not an extremist. I just disagree with your understanding of groups and ideas.

That person was an actual extremist and I'll gladly stand by that accusation, regardless of what anyone thinks. And yes, ALL ideas. No idea is beyond question, criticism, or even mockery. If so, it is a weak idea and deserves every shred of ridicule thrown at it.

I can attack any idea (because ideas that are weak need to be purged, grrr) but personal attacks are totally ok because... ideas.

So considering this has gotten to just repetition without any self-awareness I don't think the conversation has very far to go from here.

Well, throw in 'Alt-Right' and you've got the whole shebang.

Meh, there haven't been any of the buzzwords they typically throw around. I don't see a point in false accusation since I'm not wrapped up in some narcissistic conspiracy about people coming for "my community".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Not wanting feminism involved in your hobby =/= 'a problem'.

Just no. Feminism is about equality of sexes. Saying that you want feminism in your hobby is saying you don't want equality of sexes in your hobby. You're basically saying that you want discrimination based on gender. Not OK, just like saying that you want to discrimination based on ethnicity or sexuality would not be OK.

 Crimson wrote:

Just no. Feminism is about equality of sexes. Saying that you want feminism in your hobby is saying you don't want equality of sexes in your hobby. You're basically saying that you want discrimination based on gender. Not OK, just like saying that you want to discrimination based on ethnicity or sexuality would not be OK.

Wrong.

Feminism, my friend, is literally focused entirely on one gender. ONE gender.

I want egalitarianism in my hobby. I want all person treated with dignity and respect. I do not want anything focused entirely on ONE group of persons, I want ALL people cared for and welcomed.

Back in the old days, we called this being polite and treating people with respect. But 'equality for all' is not good enough for feminists?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Oh my God, I'm an actual extremist.

I don't think you're who we were talking about. You're not an extremist. I just disagree with your understanding of groups and ideas.

Aw, well, that's not fair. You can't get me all hyped up like that and then hit me with that letdown.

I wanted to make placards.

 ScarletRose wrote:
I can attack any idea (because ideas that are weak need to be purged, grrr) but personal attacks are totally ok because... ideas.

Who was personally attacked? Are you lying to make your point have some shred of validity?

Also, IRONY.

 ScarletRose wrote:
So considering this has gotten to just repetition without any self-awareness I don't think the conversation has very far to go from here.

IRONY.

 ScarletRose wrote:
Meh, there haven't been any of the buzzwords they typically throw around. I don't see a point in false accusation since I'm not wrapped up in some narcissistic conspiracy about people coming for "my community".

Nah, you're just attempting to discredit the argument, while actually embodying the very toxic behavior that this thread is about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:
I wanted to make placards.

Placards? Son, we get special LICENSE PLATES.

It says "extremist" in Old English letters, next to your state.

We don't see many threads titled "IG need female sculpts." It's a completely non-controversial topic in that basically everyone agrees female IG sculpts would be great.

And pretty much everyone can agree that they don't exist for a number of reasons that have nothing meaningful to do with ill-will toward women, a.k.a., sexism/misogyny.

Nobody is interested in discussing something everyone substantially agrees about.

By contrast, the femarine controversy brews up perennially precisley becuase it admits controversy.

As a matter of background, GW could change that at will so TBH the fluff objection is a non-starter. If you can concede that, the whole issue collapses into the same issue as female Stormcast or IG - basically GW isn't likely to make a female sprue even if they are willing to make female characters.

So the only thing left to argue about is this supposed feminist angle. After seeing it again and again, I must conclude this really boils down into arguing that people SHOULD want something other than what they DO want if they want to be good (non-sexist) people.

And that's silly and insulting. And someone is bound to point out that it's silly and insulting. And from there we're off to the races.

Maybe femarine threads should just be locked on sight.

 Manchu wrote:
Maybe femarine threads should just be locked on sight.

Don't do that, I need good female head sculpts for my Inquisition troops. They might find a decent one.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Well, there's a pretty common standard on what's acceptable to say in certain environments, so we'll have to decide Larry's that actual pig/perv/douchebag.

And the standards of acceptable behaviour change over time. For example in the 40's it was acceptable to treat women in a way it would not be today. It changed because of feminism.

Also, I'll concede that feminism is what you say. Maybe there are all different sorts. I would say I know feminists who are great, and they are focused on actual womens' rights and encouraging women to succeed, while bringing attention to women suffering in places with limited rights for women. Those are good feminists.

However, I think a clear view of what I want is "No identity politics in my community". A feminist like I mentioned above, and even you would be welcome. Someone whose entire purpose in the community is to rabble-rouse and invent problems like 'microaggressions' or twist peoples' words would not be. In other words, 'no extremists welcome'.

Then perhaps it would be best to not talk about feminism in general disparagingly and contest the behaviour you see problematic if such things actually happen.

Well, a thread titled "need female heads for my SM army" would certainly be fine and if someone barged in ranting about how femarines can never be a thing, that person could be warned. Again - so long as the OP was actually about modeling an army as opposed to an attempt to troll the boards (which sadly has actually happned here on this issue of femarines).

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

I want egalitarianism in my hobby.

I already said this. Feminism is a subset of egalitarianism. By definition you cannot be egalitarian without also being a feminist. Being feminist doesn't mean one couldn't care about the rights of men or various minorities too.

 Crimson wrote:
Then perhaps it would be best to not talk about feminism in general disparagingly and contest the behaviour you see problematic if such things actually happen.

That's pretty much what it boils down to- but sadly, a lot of disgusting behavior comes directly from feminism. If Feminism would like to be taken more seriously, then perhaps more people need to say, "Wait, there's a reason our ideology isn't very welcome, maybe we need to disavow and challenge the loud extremists in our ranks".

You know, kind of like how they expect us to do in our hobby.

 Crimson wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

I want egalitarianism in my hobby.

I already said this. Feminism is a subset of egalitarianism. By definition you cannot be egalitarian without also being a feminist. Being feminist doesn't mean one couldn't care about the rights of men or various minorities too.

Fair enough, I suppose most people would agree with the core idea of feminism. It's just that, in reality, it often manifests in a very different way.
If this weren't the case, people wouldn't be so defensive about their hobby.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:
So completely pretend there wasn't a quote calling a person an extremist and stick to the pseudo-intelctual "It's all ideas" argument?

That person was an actual extremist and I'll gladly stand by that accusation, regardless of what anyone thinks. And yes, ALL ideas. No idea is beyond question, criticism, or even mockery. If so, it is a weak idea and deserves every shred of ridicule thrown at it.

 ScarletRose wrote:
You first, I'm sure there's some men's rights group looking for it's wandering knight.

Well, throw in 'Alt-Right' and you've got the whole shebang.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Deciding that what Larry says is somehow a problem would be based on ideology whether you want to call it such or not. And you're seriously confused about feminism. Also, different people can actually have different opinions, even if they'd all identify as feminists. I'm sure there were some feminists who didn't like the Eschers or the Warqueen and plenty of others who did. Individual's opinion does not define the core of the ideology.

Well, there's a pretty common standard on what's acceptable to say in certain environments, so we'll have to decide Larry's that actual pig/perv/douchebag.

Also, I'll concede that feminism is what you say. Maybe there are all different sorts. I would say I know feminists who are great, and they are focused on actual womens' rights and encouraging women to succeed, while bringing attention to women suffering in places with limited rights for women. Those are good feminists.

However, I think a clear view of what I want is "No identity politics in my community". A feminist like I mentioned above, and even you would be welcome. Someone whose entire purpose in the community is to rabble-rouse and invent problems like 'microaggressions' or twist peoples' words would not be. In other words, 'no extremists welcome'.

Seems as if the debate between you two has gotten a bit off the rails of decency. Insulting someone's ideas isn't insulting them, but likewise, neither is insulting their hair, style, or religion. But it is insulting part of them and their identity, so common decency is to not to do it. At the same time, insulting someone's group is likewise insulting their identity and at least marginally attributing the negative qualities of that group to them. "Some gamers are sexist" isn't any more helpful of a statement than "Startrek is stupid". The first is a fact 2nd is opinion, but neither have a helpful intention. They're useless statements unless your intention is to insult.

Regardless of what feminism is, and please keep in mind -everyone - that this question is off topic ITT, the issue here is whether a discussion that begins with accusing other posters generally of hating women can form the basis for any discussion that won't go off the rails.

I tend to think that accusation won't support polite and useful discussion. So perhaps it is best left to some other venue.

 Manchu wrote:
the issue here is whether a discussion that begins with accusing other posters generally of hating women can form the basis for any discussion that won't go off the rails.

But that really hasn't happened.

So to be clear: talking about feminism is off limits, but talking about the actions of feminists and their perceived motivations is okay?

That’s the most backwards approach to any topic I’ve seen here in a while, and February has already been off to a strong start in the OT.

SirWeeble wrote:
Seems as if the debate between you two has gotten a bit off the rails of decency. Insulting someone's ideas isn't insulting them, but likewise, neither is insulting their hair, style, or religion. But it is insulting part of them and their identity, so common decency is to not to do it. At the same time, insulting someone's group is likewise insulting their identity and at least marginally attributing the negative qualities of that group to them. "Some gamers are sexist" isn't any more helpful of a statement than "Startrek is stupid". The first is a fact 2nd is opinion, but neither have a helpful intention. They're useless statements unless your intention is to insult.

Fair enough. But I don't see followers of an idea as 'bad people' or 'stupid' unless they, as individuals, give me a reason to think so. I honestly feel that most of them are genuinely misinformed, or haven't listened to their opposition. If your idea is so close to your identity that you can't let it be challenged, then I would say that there's a fault in your personal life and you should seek some other type of fulfillment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So to be clear: talking about feminism is off limits, but talking about the actions of feminists and their perceived motivations is okay?

I don't think any of it is off-limits yet, dude.

 Crimson wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
the issue here is whether a discussion that begins with accusing other posters generally of hating women can form the basis for any discussion that won't go off the rails.

But that really hasn't happened.

After reading dozens of these threads over the last eight years, I can confidently say yes it does happen. People argue that femarines don't exist because this hobby is anti-woman and they argue that people who don't think there should be femarines are anti-woman.

So the orange text saying “don’t talk about feminism” from a MOD is not real?

I think this topic, as evidenced in this thread, is an example of one of the shortcomings of Dakka: the lack of dedicated full time MODs who ONLY do moderation duties and nothing else. I know why we don’t have full time MODs, and I’m not really arguing against the system we have in place now. But the reality is that for the most part our moderators wear two hats, they are participants in the forum and have their own opinions and feelings on any given topic, and then they also have to moderate the discussions that they are often involved in.

I think some MODs do a good job separating the two roles and are better at switching between white text and orange/red texts. Others sometimes appear to have more difficulty with that. So I do think that as a whole, we just need to make sure that we have a moderation staff that is able to self-police and be aware enough to step away from the MOD bag if they are becoming to involved in a discussion. Even if it is just looking at the thread in progress and asking yourself “will the optics be bad if I switch colors and MOD this thread after posting, would it be better to hand if off to another MOD”.

This thread is a good example, because it feels like Manchu had already declared that feminism is off limits, while making his own views on feminism known and assigning actions and motivations to “feminists”. He is white texting about feminists trolling the site out of whatever motivation, then orange texting that feminism is not the topic to be discussed here.

 d-usa wrote:
This thread is a good example, because it feels like Manchu had already declared that feminism is off limits, while making his own views on feminism known and assigning actions and motivations to “feminists”. He is white texting about feminists trolling the site out of whatever motivation, then orange texting that feminism is not the topic to be discussed here.

That's a valid point, to be honest Manchu? Just do what you're gonna do to the thread and be done with it. Make a call and stick by your guns.

I wouldn't go with 'feminism is off-limits', but focus instead on baseless accusations. If you say 'feminism is off-limits', you're going to get some very interesting new members and some very interesting (and volatile) posts.

Edit: then there is always the fear of posting a “hey, I think this is an issue” and having it be seen as a “this is a personal attack” thread. I’m not saying Manchu is a dick for having an opinion on anything, but I’m concerned that sometimes MODs have opinions and that this creates a risk that any moderation may appear to be biased in favor of backing up their opinion.

d-usa, you don't quite have that right

Arguing back and forth on what "real" feminism is or isn't is not allowed ITT (and probably should not be allowed outside of the OT forum).

The discussion here boils down to whether a discussion that begins by accusing others of being anti-woman* can lead to polite and productive discussion.

* whether or not that accusation is authetically "feminist" is irrelevent

 d-usa wrote:
So the orange text saying “don’t talk about feminism” from a MOD is not real?

I think this topic, as evidenced in this thread, is an example of one of the shortcomings of Dakka: the lack of dedicated full time MODs who ONLY do moderation duties and nothing else. I know why we don’t have full time MODs, and I’m not really arguing against the system we have in place now. But the reality is that for the most part our moderators wear two hats, they are participants in the forum and have their own opinions and feelings on any given topic, and then they also have to moderate the discussions that they are often involved in.

I think some MODs do a good job separating the two roles and are better at switching between white text and orange/red texts. Others sometimes appear to have more difficulty with that. So I do think that as a whole, we just need to make sure that we have a moderation staff that is able to self-police and be aware enough to step away from the MOD bag if they are becoming to involved in a discussion. Even if it is just looking at the thread in progress and asking yourself “will the optics be bad if I switch colors and MOD this thread after posting, would it be better to hand if off to another MOD”.

This thread is a good example, because it feels like Manchu had already declared that feminism is off limits, while making his own views on feminism known and assigning actions and motivations to “feminists”. He is white texting about feminists trolling the site out of whatever motivation, then orange texting that feminism is not the topic to be discussed here.

Also, how it seems to work in most threads, that people are free to make all sorts of attacks and accusations about feminists or 'SJWs', and when someone tries to step in and defend feminism or explain things then the topic is deemed off topic and gets locked.

Edit 2 (rather than amending in case there are replies):

I can also see the “will moderation appear to be biased in favor of the MODs opinion” optics be a point in favor of deleting threads.

If people think “MOD X is only moderating this thread and banning people because he thinks Y about this issue” and the MODs then have to spend more time defending the actual legitimate moderation of that MOD because the rules really were broken and he didn’t delete posts and ban people because he is pro/anti-whatever, it makes it hard to moderate because people already made up their mind that the MOD is just using power to back up a point.

So in those scenarios is makes sense to just delete threads rather than dealing with biases, perceived or otherwise.

 Crimson wrote:
Also, how it seems to work in most threads, that people are free to make all sorts of attacks about feminists or 'SJWs', and when someone tries to step in and defend feminism or explain things then the topic is deemed off topic and gets locked.

That's not what I see. I see people who are sick of the accusations, asking folks to take the identity politics nonsense elsewhere.

Then someone takes umbrage, and comes in and lectures us about how we're all bad people for not wanting to hear it.

Then it just turns into a fight.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


That's not what I see. I see people who are sick of the accusations, asking folks to take the identity politics nonsense elsewhere.

Then someone takes umbrage, and comes in and lectures us about how we're all bad people for not wanting to hear it.

Then it just turns into a fight.

Let's be real, in this very thread you compared feminists to ISIS.

Ha, well it's not just one side calling others SJWs, it's also the other/another side calling others bigots. Again, here is an actual demonstration of why this kind of argument is toxic: each side can apparently only see the mote in the others' eye and unless a given poster (including us mods!) lines up perfectly with your ideological expectations we get identified as 'the enemy." This form of argument is therefore inherently divisive.

Well, I won't mind having the last word here because it's clear at least that this topic would require constant mod attention to continue despite, I think, everything relevant having now been said several times over. The OP got an explanation for why the thread in question was deleted rather than locked. Moreover, I want to extend sincere thanks to everyone who participated in good will.