https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/11/19/the-imperium-is-driven-by-hate-warhammer-is-not/

Sorry for bringing it back up, but this is new info.

This response is "on point".

Actually puts everything out there, defends the setting and lore, the context, but sets out how people are required to act in the real world and at events.

Good job from the company.

I am sure someone will still find a way to claim the symbol of the Spanish Falange (a symbol of the Catholic monarchy, of which Rivera's family had long been supporters) is actually a Norse rune.

10pts to the first person who brings up Hammers, Sickles, or Red Stars.

GW was 100% right to make a statement on this recent event. The problem is that they didn't make a statement on this recent event. They gave no context. They should have started with "At a recent tournament in Spain..." and then gone on to deliver their message.

 blood reaper wrote:
10pts to the first person who brings up Hammers, Sickles, or Red Stars.

The USSR killed just as many if not more than the Nazis ever did. Communism is just as repugnant as the Nazis. Stalin was just as evil as Hitler.

And now I have 10 points. Thanks!

I can't wait to see butthurt nazis getting offended about this.

Well played by GW.

Good - and thank you for posting it. As the original poster of the “Spanish nazi in tournament” thread - I was somewhat hurt that it was derailed and attacked, and that conversations about how to prevent this, or conversations about what you would have done in the moment were taken over by whataboutisms and clouding.

I said this before and I said this again - this is a hobby. Your hate, your malovence, has no place here. We are all trying to have fun with plastic, or resin, soldiers - take that gak you funnel and go to a basement and die like the rest of your fascist buddies did in the 1940’s.

Is that harsh - maybe - but I give no fething leeway or qualms to an entire set of people that view my family and I as subhuman and deserving of extermination.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
10pts to the first person who brings up Hammers, Sickles, or Red Stars.

The USSR killed just as many if not more than the Nazis ever did. Communism is just as repugnant as the Nazis. Stalin was just as evil as Hitler.

And now I have 10 points. Thanks!

Around 27 million people died (some figures claim as many as 30 million) in the USSR alone due to the Nazis, so the claim the USSR killed more people than the Germans is first off, incorrect, and secondly irrelevant. This is also not to mention the rest of Europe.

The point is that, in a desperate attempt to divert attention from a right-wing loon, people had to desperately bring up Communism. Could they bring up examples of people wearing Hammers, Sickles, or other such symbols? Certainly not.

This is a good stance and to be expected, but now the slippery slope of "wokism" may come into play as there is no actual definition of "symbols of real world hate groups" and I can see this becoming a tool by some nefarious types. Yes, we know the big offenders from both left and right, but I wonder where that fringeline border cases will fall. Let's be frank here (no pun intended), some will see the cross as a symbol of hate (we've seen the Crusading Knight be adopted by the far right.....well feth them, it ain't yours) so will someone bring that up to GW staff at some point. Someone wearing an Antifa shirt....same?
Like I said, shouldn't need to be said (some people are just complete tools for the most part) but I understand why they did. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

edited multiple times as it's early, the coffee has not yet hit the spot, and my dog got me up far sooner than expected (can I sometimes put her in a hate group for not liking people who want a respectable number of hours of sleep at night?)

 bullyboy wrote:
Let's be frank here

I can't believe you've done this

 bullyboy wrote:
Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

As something of an outsider to GW, somebody who doesn't play 40K but loves the lore and models I think that one of the reasons that GW has been moving away a lot from the old grim dark aesthetic to the more cartoony and clean art styles that have some out more recently. And the reason why they are "moving the story forward". Its to reground the narrative, art, armies and characters in imagery and a setting that less problematic for many people and the current culture.

Whether or not that move is a good or a bad thing is a totally separate conversation from "should we allow fascists at GW events or in the community".

 bullyboy wrote:
...my dog got me up far sooner than expected...

It's probably all the damn whistling.

This is the first I've heard about this, could someone give some proper context?

I think it's good of GW to outright state what the Imperium is meant to be though, as I've seen so many posts from people who seem to actually think the way the Imperium behaves is " necessary". That's just a complete fundamental misunderstanding of the Imperium, the whole point is meant to be that their actions are NOT in any way justified, they're meant to be the most horrific, cruel, corrupt, nightmarish, bloodiest regime there could possibly be, not this utterly absurd nonsense of " humanity wouldn't survive without them being like that, so they're good!" that some have somehow convinced themselves of.

Sunno wrote:
As something of an outsider to GW, somebody who doesn't play 40K but loves the lore and models I think that one of the reasons that GW has been moving away a lot from the old grim dark aesthetic to the more cartoony and clean art styles that have some out more recently. And the reason why they are "moving the story forward". Its to reground the narrative, art, armies and characters in imagery and a setting that less problematic for many people and the current culture.

Yes - a lot of the 'old school' British creatives were left wing, often with a fair amount of knowledge of history and they wrote a lot of stuff parodying the excesses of the right, fascism included, but also authoritarianism, communism and the like. 2000ad and GWs in house settings are probably the longest lived of them. Of course large numbers see those things as heroes (Dredd, the Imperium etc.) which is always amusing. I do feel as the setting becomes 'nicer' or at least the obvious nastiness is merely implied and not dwelt on, more people will come to the view that they are the good guys. maybe we will get a shiny new 40k like AoS where a lot of the horror is stripped out to be replaced with caricatures of good and bad.

If this pandemic has taught us anything, it's that some people are that stupid. Not only that stupid, but even dumber than that.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
This is the first I've heard about this, could someone give some proper context?

A player turned up to a Spanish tournament wearing certain symbols and using the name "Austrian Painter" (Dakka thread (locked)).

Kudos to GW. It's nice to see there are some things they value more highly than money.

It's also nice to get official confirmation that they still intend 40K as a satire.

 bullyboy wrote:
This is a good stance and to be expected, but now the slippery slope of "wokism" may come into play as there is no actual definition of "symbols of real world hate groups" and I can see this becoming a tool by some nefarious types. Yes, we know the big offenders from both left and right, but I wonder where that fringeline border cases will fall. Let's be frank here (no pun intended), some will see the cross as a symbol of hate (we've seen the Crusading Knight be adopted by the far right.....well feth them, it ain't yours) so will someone bring that up to GW staff at some point. Someone wearing an Antifa shirt....same?
Like I said, shouldn't need to be said (some people are just complete tools for the most part) but I understand why they did. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

edited multiple times as it's early, the coffee has not yet hit the spot, and my dog got me up far sooner than expected (can I sometimes put her in a hate group for not liking people who want a respectable number of hours of sleep at night?)

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Sunno wrote:
As something of an outsider to GW, somebody who doesn't play 40K but loves the lore and models I think that one of the reasons that GW has been moving away a lot from the old grim dark aesthetic to the more cartoony and clean art styles that have some out more recently. And the reason why they are "moving the story forward". Its to reground the narrative, art, armies and characters in imagery and a setting that less problematic for many people and the current culture.

Yes - a lot of the 'old school' British creatives were left wing, often with a fair amount of knowledge of history and they wrote a lot of stuff parodying the excesses of the right, fascism included, but also authoritarianism, communism and the like. 2000ad and GWs in house settings are probably the longest lived of them. Of course large numbers see those things as heroes (Dredd, the Imperium etc.) which is always amusing. I do feel as the setting becomes 'nicer' or at least the obvious nastiness is merely implied and not dwelt on, more people will come to the view that they are the good guys. maybe we will get a shiny new 40k like AoS where a lot of the horror is stripped out to be replaced with caricatures of good and bad.

I mean, Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka was literally named after Margaret Thatcher......

StraightSilver wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Sunno wrote:
As something of an outsider to GW, somebody who doesn't play 40K but loves the lore and models I think that one of the reasons that GW has been moving away a lot from the old grim dark aesthetic to the more cartoony and clean art styles that have some out more recently. And the reason why they are "moving the story forward". Its to reground the narrative, art, armies and characters in imagery and a setting that less problematic for many people and the current culture.

Yes - a lot of the 'old school' British creatives were left wing, often with a fair amount of knowledge of history and they wrote a lot of stuff parodying the excesses of the right, fascism included, but also authoritarianism, communism and the like. 2000ad and GWs in house settings are probably the longest lived of them. Of course large numbers see those things as heroes (Dredd, the Imperium etc.) which is always amusing. I do feel as the setting becomes 'nicer' or at least the obvious nastiness is merely implied and not dwelt on, more people will come to the view that they are the good guys. maybe we will get a shiny new 40k like AoS where a lot of the horror is stripped out to be replaced with caricatures of good and bad.

I mean, Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka was literally named after Margaret Thatcher......

Apparently that's not true. Can't quite remember who it was, but someone was asked if that was the case, and the answer was no.

But also a throw away at the time, being a WD sample warband, which eventually turned up in ‘Ere We Go.

Audustum wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
This is a good stance and to be expected, but now the slippery slope of "wokism" may come into play as there is no actual definition of "symbols of real world hate groups" and I can see this becoming a tool by some nefarious types. Yes, we know the big offenders from both left and right, but I wonder where that fringeline border cases will fall. Let's be frank here (no pun intended), some will see the cross as a symbol of hate (we've seen the Crusading Knight be adopted by the far right.....well feth them, it ain't yours) so will someone bring that up to GW staff at some point. Someone wearing an Antifa shirt....same?
Like I said, shouldn't need to be said (some people are just complete tools for the most part) but I understand why they did. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

edited multiple times as it's early, the coffee has not yet hit the spot, and my dog got me up far sooner than expected (can I sometimes put her in a hate group for not liking people who want a respectable number of hours of sleep at night?)

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

It's not complicated at all. As the tournament organizer it's your house and you can dis-invite someone for any reason. If you want people to continue attending your events you're going to cultivate an environment where people are comfortable and welcome, which means weeding out crypto-nazis, tankies, and other trash. Being a TO is being precisely the kind of overseer you're worried out; they need to approve army lists, paint jobs, attendee dress and behaviour anyways, so this is just more of the same.

Audustum wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
This is a good stance and to be expected, but now the slippery slope of "wokism" may come into play as there is no actual definition of "symbols of real world hate groups" and I can see this becoming a tool by some nefarious types. Yes, we know the big offenders from both left and right, but I wonder where that fringeline border cases will fall. Let's be frank here (no pun intended), some will see the cross as a symbol of hate (we've seen the Crusading Knight be adopted by the far right.....well feth them, it ain't yours) so will someone bring that up to GW staff at some point. Someone wearing an Antifa shirt....same?
Like I said, shouldn't need to be said (some people are just complete tools for the most part) but I understand why they did. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

edited multiple times as it's early, the coffee has not yet hit the spot, and my dog got me up far sooner than expected (can I sometimes put her in a hate group for not liking people who want a respectable number of hours of sleep at night?)

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

Hold on tight to those handrails before you slide down that slipper slope.

StraightSilver wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Sunno wrote:
As something of an outsider to GW, somebody who doesn't play 40K but loves the lore and models I think that one of the reasons that GW has been moving away a lot from the old grim dark aesthetic to the more cartoony and clean art styles that have some out more recently. And the reason why they are "moving the story forward". Its to reground the narrative, art, armies and characters in imagery and a setting that less problematic for many people and the current culture.

Yes - a lot of the 'old school' British creatives were left wing, often with a fair amount of knowledge of history and they wrote a lot of stuff parodying the excesses of the right, fascism included, but also authoritarianism, communism and the like. 2000ad and GWs in house settings are probably the longest lived of them. Of course large numbers see those things as heroes (Dredd, the Imperium etc.) which is always amusing. I do feel as the setting becomes 'nicer' or at least the obvious nastiness is merely implied and not dwelt on, more people will come to the view that they are the good guys. maybe we will get a shiny new 40k like AoS where a lot of the horror is stripped out to be replaced with caricatures of good and bad.

I mean, Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka was literally named after Margaret Thatcher......

Myth. Andy Chambers did an interview and more or less outright said that was a load of bs.

 Nurglitch wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
This is a good stance and to be expected, but now the slippery slope of "wokism" may come into play as there is no actual definition of "symbols of real world hate groups" and I can see this becoming a tool by some nefarious types. Yes, we know the big offenders from both left and right, but I wonder where that fringeline border cases will fall. Let's be frank here (no pun intended), some will see the cross as a symbol of hate (we've seen the Crusading Knight be adopted by the far right.....well feth them, it ain't yours) so will someone bring that up to GW staff at some point. Someone wearing an Antifa shirt....same?
Like I said, shouldn't need to be said (some people are just complete tools for the most part) but I understand why they did. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

edited multiple times as it's early, the coffee has not yet hit the spot, and my dog got me up far sooner than expected (can I sometimes put her in a hate group for not liking people who want a respectable number of hours of sleep at night?)

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

It's not complicated at all. As the tournament organizer it's your house and you can dis-invite someone for any reason. If you want people to continue attending your events you're going to cultivate an environment where people are comfortable and welcome, which means weeding out crypto-nazis, tankies, and other trash. Being a TO is being precisely the kind of overseer you're worried out; they need to approve army lists, paint jobs, attendee dress and behaviour anyways, so this is just more of the same.

Being a game overseer is a lot different than a political overseer. And wanting people to attend the events is why it's probably just easiest for them to ban everything. See below as I think my response to the next poster also contains some things relevant here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
This is a good stance and to be expected, but now the slippery slope of "wokism" may come into play as there is no actual definition of "symbols of real world hate groups" and I can see this becoming a tool by some nefarious types. Yes, we know the big offenders from both left and right, but I wonder where that fringeline border cases will fall. Let's be frank here (no pun intended), some will see the cross as a symbol of hate (we've seen the Crusading Knight be adopted by the far right.....well feth them, it ain't yours) so will someone bring that up to GW staff at some point. Someone wearing an Antifa shirt....same?
Like I said, shouldn't need to be said (some people are just complete tools for the most part) but I understand why they did. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

edited multiple times as it's early, the coffee has not yet hit the spot, and my dog got me up far sooner than expected (can I sometimes put her in a hate group for not liking people who want a respectable number of hours of sleep at night?)

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

Hold on tight to those handrails before you slide down that slipper slope.

There's no slippery slope here. Do you not think there'd be a firestorm if someone wore 'Black Lives Matter' at a top table stream? If they wore 'Let's go, Brandon'? How about a Che Gueverra shirt? Yes, you're gonna get a firestorm from these kind of things. Then you're going to get an equal firestorm from the supporters. You'll be accused of political bias for only banning the ones 'you dislike'. No, the safest path is to just ban all political attire. Nip the whole thing in the bud otherwise you have a recipe for forever controversy and stressed out TO's.

Audustum wrote:

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

Slippery slope fallacy and "wokism" in one go. Brilliant. How do you operate in the real world without being able to distinguish the shades of grey from the clear black and white? Surely we can all at least start by agreeing that neo-Nazi or actual Nazi symbols should get you kicked out of a tournament? Even if the only real change that occurs as a result of this is making that obvious point very clear it would at least be a start.

Slipspace wrote:

Audustum wrote:

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

Slippery slope fallacy and "wokism" in one go. Brilliant. How do you operate in the real world without being able to distinguish the shades of grey from the clear black and white? Surely we can all at least start by agreeing that neo-Nazi or actual Nazi symbols should get you kicked out of a tournament? Even if the only real change that occurs as a result of this is making that obvious point very clear it would at least be a start.

Does anyone actually know what slippery slope is? Or wokism?

Slippery Slope:

asserting that a proposed, relatively small, first action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in a significant and negative event and, therefore, should not be permitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

1. I'm not saying you shouldn't ban things ('not be permitted'), I'm saying you have to ban everything if you go that route.
2. I'm not saying the events are a 'chain', I am saying they are one and the same just with different window dressing (nazism as opposed to any other political topic).

Wokism:

Woke (/woʊk/ wohk) is an adjective meaning 'alert to racial prejudice and discrimination' that originated in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for left-wing ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

I'm really not talking about this at all. I'm talking about political controversies in general, nothing race or identity politics specific.

Minutiae aside, I'm of the opinion that procedure is just as important as result. The procedure here is awful. Political attire shows up on people semi-regularly, because people are political. We've developed no system for classifying what is acceptable and what is not. We just booted one and left a giant unending question mark as to the rest and expect poor, overworked TO's to step in a regulate speech like a governing body. That's not fair to them and it's a terrible system, which is why I say the rational move is to just ban it all.

The rational move is to leave it up to the tournament organizer's judgement, where the official position is that Nazis can take a hike.

Audustum wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Audustum wrote:

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

Slippery slope fallacy and "wokism" in one go. Brilliant. How do you operate in the real world without being able to distinguish the shades of grey from the clear black and white? Surely we can all at least start by agreeing that neo-Nazi or actual Nazi symbols should get you kicked out of a tournament? Even if the only real change that occurs as a result of this is making that obvious point very clear it would at least be a start.

Does anyone actually know what slippery slope is? Or wokism?

Slippery Slope:

asserting that a proposed, relatively small, first action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in a significant and negative event and, therefore, should not be permitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

1. I'm not saying you shouldn't ban things ('not be permitted'), I'm saying you have to ban everything if you go that route.
2. I'm not saying the events are a 'chain', I am saying they are one and the same just with different window dressing (nazism as opposed to any other political topic).

I'd say you're wrong about them being one and the same thing, hence the slippery slope. You're equating an actual neo-Nazi with literally any other political movement, which is insane. There are nuances here we can deal with as functioning human beings without just throwing our hands up and declaring the whole thing impossible to deal with.

For example, I live in Scotland. I've encountered more than one gamer with a "Yes" slogan on their army case/dice box etc (that's the symbol of the movement for Scottish independence, for those not following Scottish politics). I don't see how that political stance is even remotely related to someone whose ideology calls for the genocide of millions of people. Will someone possibly complain if they see that in a livestream? Maybe. Is that grounds for banning a "Yes" slogan? I don't think so, on the basis that it's not a symbol of an actual hate group and it's entirely possible for something to be political, for you to disagree with those politics, and not have to ban it.

For clarity, neo-Nazis are not one of those things. They are a bona-fide hate group whose core ideology is centred around hatred. Your inability to tell the difference is equal parts bizarre, confusing and troubling.

Slipspace wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Audustum wrote:

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

Slippery slope fallacy and "wokism" in one go. Brilliant. How do you operate in the real world without being able to distinguish the shades of grey from the clear black and white? Surely we can all at least start by agreeing that neo-Nazi or actual Nazi symbols should get you kicked out of a tournament? Even if the only real change that occurs as a result of this is making that obvious point very clear it would at least be a start.

Does anyone actually know what slippery slope is? Or wokism?

Slippery Slope:

asserting that a proposed, relatively small, first action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in a significant and negative event and, therefore, should not be permitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

1. I'm not saying you shouldn't ban things ('not be permitted'), I'm saying you have to ban everything if you go that route.
2. I'm not saying the events are a 'chain', I am saying they are one and the same just with different window dressing (nazism as opposed to any other political topic).

I'd say you're wrong about them being one and the same thing, hence the slippery slope. You're equating an actual neo-Nazi with literally any other political movement, which is insane. There are nuances here we can deal with as functioning human beings without just throwing our hands up and declaring the whole thing impossible to deal with.

For example, I live in Scotland. I've encountered more than one gamer with a "Yes" slogan on their army case/dice box etc (that's the symbol of the movement for Scottish independence, for those not following Scottish politics). I don't see how that political stance is even remotely related to someone whose ideology calls for the genocide of millions of people. Will someone possibly complain if they see that in a livestream? Maybe. Is that grounds for banning a "Yes" slogan? I don't think so, on the basis that it's not a symbol of an actual hate group and it's entirely possible for something to be political, for you to disagree with those politics, and not have to ban it.

For clarity, neo-Nazis are not one of those things. They are a bona-fide hate group whose core ideology is centred around hatred. Your inability to tell the difference is equal parts bizarre, confusing and troubling.

This, with the addition that in some cases the inability to tell the difference is also deliberate, intentional, and willful. A lot of this "debate" is the result of bad faith arguments being pumped out as noise by the dissenting side to muddy the waters and distract from the core of the discussion.

For a thread that really should be about "hurrah, GW have finally made clear that nazis are bad" there's a strange amount of controversy here...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW was 100% right to make a statement on this recent event. The problem is that they didn't make a statement on this recent event. They gave no context. They should have started with "At a recent tournament in Spain..." and then gone on to deliver their message.

Actually as a company statement its stronger for not referencing an event which GW had no influence nor control over directly. It also means that people don't get bogged down in "oh its only those ones that GW cares about" A blanket statement that names no names and points no fingers save at a generalist target means that it encompasses all hate groups. Sure this was sparked most likely by the event in Spain, but that doesn't mean its the only one.

Slipspace wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Audustum wrote:

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

Slippery slope fallacy and "wokism" in one go. Brilliant. How do you operate in the real world without being able to distinguish the shades of grey from the clear black and white? Surely we can all at least start by agreeing that neo-Nazi or actual Nazi symbols should get you kicked out of a tournament? Even if the only real change that occurs as a result of this is making that obvious point very clear it would at least be a start.

Does anyone actually know what slippery slope is? Or wokism?

Slippery Slope:

asserting that a proposed, relatively small, first action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in a significant and negative event and, therefore, should not be permitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

1. I'm not saying you shouldn't ban things ('not be permitted'), I'm saying you have to ban everything if you go that route.
2. I'm not saying the events are a 'chain', I am saying they are one and the same just with different window dressing (nazism as opposed to any other political topic).

I'd say you're wrong about them being one and the same thing, hence the slippery slope. You're equating an actual neo-Nazi with literally any other political movement, which is insane. There are nuances here we can deal with as functioning human beings without just throwing our hands up and declaring the whole thing impossible to deal with.

For example, I live in Scotland. I've encountered more than one gamer with a "Yes" slogan on their army case/dice box etc (that's the symbol of the movement for Scottish independence, for those not following Scottish politics). I don't see how that political stance is even remotely related to someone whose ideology calls for the genocide of millions of people. Will someone possibly complain if they see that in a livestream? Maybe. Is that grounds for banning a "Yes" slogan? I don't think so, on the basis that it's not a symbol of an actual hate group and it's entirely possible for something to be political, for you to disagree with those politics, and not have to ban it.

For clarity, neo-Nazis are not one of those things. They are a bona-fide hate group whose core ideology is centred around hatred. Your inability to tell the difference is equal parts bizarre, confusing and troubling.

You're actually missing the mark here I'm afraid. I think we can all agree that blatant displays of Nazi symbology has no place in a tournament, store etc. However, the term "nazi" is now being thrown about so easily by certain groups which I find abhorrent since of what true Nazism did to the world. The cries of people trying to attach white supremacy to certain conservative beliefs is alarming and ridiculous. People better be ready to stand their ground as a community vs that BS and show the same intolerance.
We'll see if common sense prevails.

There's the obvious symbols like the nazi swastika and some others.

However, had the shirt worn by the person that this Statement was directed to (spanish facist group) gone to a US tournament, who would recognize that it is a facist symbol? I certainly wouldn't, not before I had read the previous thread and educated myself on a bunch of new, foreign symbols. And I'd wager quite a few of the westerners in that thread also had no idea.

A TO either needs to know these symbols, or google search that gak when it's brought to their attention which is a whole 'nother can of worms.

"Is the yoke and arrows symbol facist?" And they can read up on that, and decide to remove that person.

Or someone comes up and complains that another attendee flashed a nazi dog whistle, because they made the OK hand-gesture. TO googles it and, surprise surprise, a bunch of articles claiming that the OK hand-gesture actually stands for White Power. It's not so clear now, because one person is claiming something and believes someone should be booted out.

I believe that's the issue Audustum is meaning.

Given someone literally "no true Nazi"ed the melon-fether at the Talavera tournament in the last thread, I don't think it's abhorrent at all.

Damn, I better hope I don't have any ulnar nerve pain at a tournament because the prescribed exercise might get me thrown out!!!
Lol

 bullyboy wrote:
Damn, I better hope I don't have any ulnar nerve pain at a tournament because the prescribed exercise might get me thrown out!!!
Lol

You're really concerned that you might be mistaken for a Nazi.

Absolute madness how the US and UK has let itself become overrun with Nazis that we are now at this point. What went wrong? Not enough nutrients in the drinking water, or just societies where hatred runs amok? I'm glad I live in a safe country where people tend to respect one another.

 Nurglitch wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Damn, I better hope I don't have any ulnar nerve pain at a tournament because the prescribed exercise might get me thrown out!!!
Lol

You're really concerned that you might be mistaken for a Nazi.

Obviously the "lol" missed your attention, but to those uncertain of the exercise in question, it is basically repeated OK signs brought towards the head and I prescribe it to patients quite frequently. Had no clue that OK sign was Nazi...hence my point.

 Nurglitch wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Damn, I better hope I don't have any ulnar nerve pain at a tournament because the prescribed exercise might get me thrown out!!!
Lol

You're really concerned that you might be mistaken for a Nazi.

Considering how something as basic as the OK sign is considered to be a Nazi symbol that does seem to be a common concern, yes.
Check out this bloody Nazi

I have never seen or eard about anyone calling someone nazi in real life that was not:
-Wearing some nazi or nazi-like symbols
-In a political rally of right or far right ideologies
-In a grammar class.

So I believe that is very easy to attend warhammer tournaments without fear of being called anything politically motivatet if you don't wear political symbols, whatever those may be.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Damn, I better hope I don't have any ulnar nerve pain at a tournament because the prescribed exercise might get me thrown out!!!
Lol

You're really concerned that you might be mistaken for a Nazi.

Obviously the "lol" missed your attention, but to those uncertain of the exercise in question, it is basically repeated OK signs brought towards the head and I prescribe it to patients quite frequently. Had no clue that OK sign was Nazi...hence my point.

Yes, it is a very real and serious problem that you might be ejected from a tournament for accidentally and unknowingly engaging in white power signals.

dream archipelago wrote:
Absolute madness how the US and UK has let itself become overrun with Nazis that we are now at this point. What went wrong? Not enough nutrients in the drinking water, or just societies where hatred runs amok? I'm glad I live in a safe country where people tend to respect one another.

what has the UK or US got to do with a Spanish Tournament i'm lost? & sweden...safe country PMSL its about as safe as a gun in the hands of Alec baldwin

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Damn, I better hope I don't have any ulnar nerve pain at a tournament because the prescribed exercise might get me thrown out!!!
Lol

You're really concerned that you might be mistaken for a Nazi.

Considering how something as basic as the OK sign is considered to be a Nazi symbol that does seem to be a common concern, yes.
Check out this bloody Nazi

Spoiler:

Since this seems to be a common concern...
No. That's not the context that's considered to be a white supremacist (not Nazi specific) symbol.

First time I've head of the ok thing. I just know that upside down it's some sort of rickroll style gotcha thing.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Damn, I better hope I don't have any ulnar nerve pain at a tournament because the prescribed exercise might get me thrown out!!!
Lol

You're really concerned that you might be mistaken for a Nazi.

Considering how something as basic as the OK sign is considered to be a Nazi symbol that does seem to be a common concern, yes.
Check out this bloody Nazi

Spoiler:

Since this seems to be a common concern...
No. That's not the context that's considered to be a white supremacist (not Nazi specific) symbol.

Well then what is the context? Because that's a really common hand sign that just means "ok".
If people lose their jobs over it, then I dare say it is a concern.
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-over-alleged-racist-gesture-says-he-was-cracking-knuckles/2347414/

You could literally read the article you posted and know the answer to your question.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, the gesture -- made by forming a circle with the thumb and index finger, and extending and separating the other three fingers -- has been used in recent years by white supremacists to form the letters W and P, but has also long been used as a sign signifying "OK" or approval.

Therefore it shouldn't be assumed to be a white supremacy symbol unless there is other evidence to support those claims, according to the ADL.

Very, very concerning.

It's very cool how the suggestion that someone openly wearing a Fascist symbol (well known in that country) shouldn't be welcome somewhere has turned into a hysteria over hand signs or something.

It's really not that hard to go to a public event without running the risk of being mistaken for a nazi.

And as a TO:
When in doubt, offer the person in question to change clothes or hide the symbol.

When not in doubt, just reference your dress code and kick the person out.

The side topic was about expecting TO's to know these things and make judgements on it, which is a difficult situation.

The ok hand-gesture was used because it's recently been accused of being a white-power symbol.

You do know it's possible to hold the position that nazis and facists and commies shouldn't wear their symbols to tournaments and public places, and that TOs may be put in to difficulty situations due to the ambiguity of some symbols and a recent trend of wildly accusing people right?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
First time I've head of the ok thing. I just know that upside down it's some sort of rickroll style gotcha thing.

Before the last couple years, it was basically like.... make the ok hand sign somewhere below the waist, like on your leg or something, trick your friend into looking at it, bam you got 'em, punch them in the shoulder.

That was before, now a bunch of right-wing people in America gave it a new purpose.

Essentially, it's a dog whistle, a way to say something racist and have plausible deniability to say ohhhh I didn't knoooow!

The idea is that the thumb and forefinger form the round part of "p", the three last fingers form a "w", and then the rest of the "p", i dunno your arm or something. Tee-hee-hee, I'm saying white power, but if you tell the teacher I'll just say I was doing an ok hand sign for no reason!

I am 100% convinced if a group of Blue Shirts turned up to the tournament singing Cara al Sol, someone on DakkaDakka would find a way to defend them or start talking about the HECKIN' ANTIFA! who are apparently running rampant in tournies around the country.

Audustum wrote:

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

In one of the late Terry Pratchett books a vampire Dad teaches his family not to fear religious symbols by constantly surprising them with flash cards and convincing them they are just squiggles. Ultimately this is undone and now everything looks like a religious symbol, with cross, ankh's, etc. everywhere.

You simply can't do what you say, not least because some countries are very keen on making things political. If I had a t-shirt saying save the whales a certain group of people would say that is a political statement. Hell I am sure if I had had one saying 'stop the genocide in Rwanda' during the actual genocide a bunch would be keenly shouting I was a woke liberal *insert party here*. We could diverge into a lack of genuine policy differences and significantly different ideologies in the political space perhaps driving the seizing of very minor issues to hang identities around (I await with amusement the day the Yanks realise much of the rest of the world thinks both their major parties are right wing capitalist movements with different trimmings), but keeping it to this...

What is considered extreme varies from place to place and time to time. Currently after a big war and a lot of genocide we all decided Nazi's were bad. We were awkward around fascism, but after the last dictators fell we feel we can stand up to it now without looking sheepish. And it is local. Saying 'Black Lives Matter' in many places is seen as a statement of fact. In some place and especially America it seems to be the name of a political party which doesn't exist anywhere else as far as I know. If your t-shirt read 'Black Live Matter because All Lives Should Matter' would it still be political? Or just a fairly obvious statement? Would some American's T-Shirts saying 'Ban Slavery, it is really bad' be considered an unacceptable political slogan because it attacks the freedoms the Confederacy held dear? Or some Brits for that matter saying its an attack on the historic work done to raise so much money for the landed gentry of the Empire and is an unacceptable piece of revisionist history.

Sadly with the amount of nutcases around, the rejection of inconvenient science and the seizing onto of crazy stuff to get a feel of agency or sense in the world means you can never have a 'zero' slogan policy. Just be aware to what is considered unacceptable and feel your way from there as the TO. Start with Nazi's bad as 99% of people agree and go from there. Remember if you ban communist symbols you won't get streamed in China

Anyone else laugh when they had to define what satire is.

I could almost feel the frustration of the author thinking "by the Emperor I have to actually define this from the Webster's dictionary for the pedants."

 bullyboy wrote:

Obviously the "lol" missed your attention, but to those uncertain of the exercise in question, it is basically repeated OK signs brought towards the head and I prescribe it to patients quite frequently. Had no clue that OK sign was Nazi...hence my point.

I think that's an American thing? And that of course makes things even worse. Because a lot of group symbology is very local.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
First time I've head of the ok thing. I just know that upside down it's some sort of rickroll style gotcha thing.

I've heard & read it was a 4chan prank named Operation O-kkk and is now on a list & can get you fired..the lunacy of it all

 blood reaper wrote:
It's very cool how the suggestion that someone openly wearing a Fascist symbol (well known in that country) shouldn't be welcome somewhere has turned into a hysteria over hand signs or something.

The real victims were the overworked tournament organisers, after all.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Obviously the "lol" missed your attention, but to those uncertain of the exercise in question, it is basically repeated OK signs brought towards the head and I prescribe it to patients quite frequently. Had no clue that OK sign was Nazi...hence my point.

I think that's an American thing? And that of course makes things even worse. Because a lot of group symbology is very local.

Must be, it's definitely used in the originally intended way across Europe. It does illustrate rather well why we need to be wary not to conflate cultural phenomena in a globalized setting, such as this forum. What one may consider a harmless everyday gesture will be considered to be a nazi dog whistle for another.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You could literally read the article you posted and know the answer to your question.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, the gesture -- made by forming a circle with the thumb and index finger, and extending and separating the other three fingers -- has been used in recent years by white supremacists to form the letters W and P, but has also long been used as a sign signifying "OK" or approval.

Therefore it shouldn't be assumed to be a white supremacy symbol unless there is other evidence to support those claims, according to the ADL.

Except that doesn't really answer anything, as it doesn't specify what that evidence is. If you need more "evidence" for your symbol to work then it isn't really a symbol now is it? I doubt that real white supremacists actually use it for that reason, due to the confusion it would cause.
Hence why that rumor about it being a /pol/ prank seems likely, because is the sort of crap they would pull to mess with the ADL.
People still lost their jobs over it, so it seems your "context" doesn't even matter to begin with.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You could literally read the article you posted and know the answer to your question.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, the gesture -- made by forming a circle with the thumb and index finger, and extending and separating the other three fingers -- has been used in recent years by white supremacists to form the letters W and P, but has also long been used as a sign signifying "OK" or approval.

Therefore it shouldn't be assumed to be a white supremacy symbol unless there is other evidence to support those claims, according to the ADL.

Except that doesn't really answer anything, as it doesn't specify what that evidence is. If you need more "evidence" for your symbol to work then it isn't really a symbol now is it? I doubt that real white supremacists actually use it for that reason, due to the confusion it would cause.
Hence why that rumor about it being a /pol/ prank seems likely, because is the sort of crap they would pull to mess with the ADL.
People still lost their jobs over it, so it seems your "context" doesn't even matter to begin with.

It's absolutely a /pol/ prank, and it's absolutely also a white power thing now, because neonazis have a distinct lack of critical thinking ability and when told something's a white power symbol they'll pick it up and use it. It's come up in the recent Charlottesville case, and the defendants happily admitted it's a white supremacist thing, just like chugging gallons of milk is now. Because nazis are dumb.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You could literally read the article you posted and know the answer to your question.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, the gesture -- made by forming a circle with the thumb and index finger, and extending and separating the other three fingers -- has been used in recent years by white supremacists to form the letters W and P, but has also long been used as a sign signifying "OK" or approval.

Therefore it shouldn't be assumed to be a white supremacy symbol unless there is other evidence to support those claims, according to the ADL.

Except that doesn't really answer anything, as it doesn't specify what that evidence is. If you need more "evidence" for your symbol to work then it isn't really a symbol now is it? I doubt that real white supremacists actually use it for that reason, due to the confusion it would cause.
Hence why that rumor about it being a /pol/ prank seems likely, because is the sort of crap they would pull to mess with the ADL.
People still lost their jobs over it, so it seems your "context" doesn't even matter to begin with.

It's absolutely a /pol/ prank, and it's absolutely also a white power thing now, because neonazis have a distinct lack of critical thinking ability and when told something's a white power symbol they'll pick it up and use it. It's come up in the recent Charlottesville case, and the defendants happily admitted it's a white supremacist thing, just like chugging gallons of milk is now. Because nazis are dumb.

That must be why so many posters are worried about being mistaken for nazis, because they don't want people to think they're dumb.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You could literally read the article you posted and know the answer to your question.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, the gesture -- made by forming a circle with the thumb and index finger, and extending and separating the other three fingers -- has been used in recent years by white supremacists to form the letters W and P, but has also long been used as a sign signifying "OK" or approval.

Therefore it shouldn't be assumed to be a white supremacy symbol unless there is other evidence to support those claims, according to the ADL.

Except that doesn't really answer anything, as it doesn't specify what that evidence is. If you need more "evidence" for your symbol to work then it isn't really a symbol now is it? I doubt that real white supremacists actually use it for that reason, due to the confusion it would cause.
Hence why that rumor about it being a /pol/ prank seems likely, because is the sort of crap they would pull to mess with the ADL.
People still lost their jobs over it, so it seems your "context" doesn't even matter to begin with.

It's absolutely a /pol/ prank, and it's absolutely also a white power thing now, because neonazis have a distinct lack of critical thinking ability and when told something's a white power symbol they'll pick it up and use it. It's come up in the recent Charlottesville case, and the defendants happily admitted it's a white supremacist thing, just like chugging gallons of milk is now. Because nazis are dumb.

If true, that is both sad and hilarious.
And yeah, Nazis are dumb.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You could literally read the article you posted and know the answer to your question.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, the gesture -- made by forming a circle with the thumb and index finger, and extending and separating the other three fingers -- has been used in recent years by white supremacists to form the letters W and P, but has also long been used as a sign signifying "OK" or approval.

Therefore it shouldn't be assumed to be a white supremacy symbol unless there is other evidence to support those claims, according to the ADL.

Except that doesn't really answer anything, as it doesn't specify what that evidence is. If you need more "evidence" for your symbol to work then it isn't really a symbol now is it? I doubt that real white supremacists actually use it for that reason, due to the confusion it would cause.
Hence why that rumor about it being a /pol/ prank seems likely, because is the sort of crap they would pull to mess with the ADL.
People still lost their jobs over it, so it seems your "context" doesn't even matter to begin with.

It's absolutely a /pol/ prank, and it's absolutely also a white power thing now, because neonazis have a distinct lack of critical thinking ability and when told something's a white power symbol they'll pick it up and use it. It's come up in the recent Charlottesville case, and the defendants happily admitted it's a white supremacist thing, just like chugging gallons of milk is now. Because nazis are dumb.

If true, that is both sad and hilarious.
And yeah, Nazis are dumb.

Its kind of a chicken and the egg thing. Someone does a prank to expose a knee jerk reaction over something benign. Knee jerk reaction labels something and the nazis shrug and adopt it. QAnon started off as a wigi board gakpost meant to expose how garbled nonsense would make sense to even the nuttiest of conspiracy theorists and then it took off on its own.

Read gw's statement and I support it absolutely. Zero issues with what they say here.

It's not just on gw though. I think we as players also have a role to play in keeping our communities safe and keeping the hate out.

You know the weirdest thing to me is that Nazis aren't just skinheads anymore, it's also a huge bunch of weird nerdy kids who live in their own internet bubble of proper mental and serious unchecked hatred.

GW did a good job of actually bringing it up and making it clear what they think. It shouldn't really need saying but hey, what a joyous world we live in.

 Olthannon wrote:
You know the weirdest thing to me is that Nazis aren't just skinheads anymore, it's also a huge bunch of weird nerdy kids who live in their own internet bubble of proper mental and serious unchecked hatred.

ITs mostly because that is who they target now. they sneak into communities and corrupt them from the inside.

It is pretty wild that something made up as a prank to 'own the libs' on 4chan could be so enthusiastically accepted by the 'anti-woke' 'anti-PC' 'anti-liberal' crowd.

These people just want to score points in their 'own the libs' tally sheet. Don't get vaccinated? Owned the libs! Make """secret""" white power symbols? Owned the libs! Vote against your best interests to keep power with the party that is crushing the (indeed, largely white) middle/lower class and funneling tax breaks to the super rich? You betcha.

Libs.

o w n e d.

Oh boy, got a real winner here.

So glad my gaming circle is a group of normal, middle of thr road people who are a joy to play against.

I wonder if this will apply to other violent hate groups like BLM or ANTIFA, I'm all for turfing out the Natsocs but doubt the staff at our local tournies and GW would be willing to upset those violent extremists.

I get this is a conversation some of the more radical members here do not want nor like having as it shines a light on elements they prefer to pretend do not exist.

I'm sure the vast crowds of Warhammer playing Nazis will be inconsolable.

 Formosa wrote:
I wonder if this will apply to other violent hate groups like BLM or ANTIFA, I'm all for turfing out the Natsocs but doubt the staff at our local tournies and GW would be willing to upset those violent extremists.

I get this is a conversation some of the more radical members here do not want nor like having as it shines a light on elements they prefer to pretend do not exist.

But BLM and antifa are not violent hate groups.

They may have some hateful people in them but they aren't movements dedicated to hating portions of society, that's the difference.

Sure they are not .. sure, BLM did not literally just threaten terrorist actions in New York if the anti crime unit was reinstated, as I said on the other page please don't use the "my violent extremists are ok but yours are evil and bad cos reasons" excuse, parity of treatment is needed for all violent extremism, not just the ones that some of your agree with.

If we want a safe, compassionate community we cannot tolerate these hate groups.

Do i really need to explain why Nazis are different from BLM and Antifa?
Do you understand the stated goals of each and why they are formed?

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I wonder if this will apply to other violent hate groups like BLM or ANTIFA, I'm all for turfing out the Natsocs but doubt the staff at our local tournies and GW would be willing to upset those violent extremists.

I get this is a conversation some of the more radical members here do not want nor like having as it shines a light on elements they prefer to pretend do not exist.

But BLM and antifa are not violent hate groups.

They may have some hateful people in them but they aren't movements dedicated to hating portions of society, that's the difference.

There are quite a few people who can and do, in public media, make the arguments that they are actually quite hateful organizations with hateful goals. Who says who gets to be the arbiter of what is hateful and what isn't? There's no objective way to do this.

I want to respond to all the times I was quoted but this thread moved fast.

Deadnight wrote:
Read gw's statement and I support it absolutely. Zero issues with what they say here.

It's not just on gw though. I think we as players also have a role to play in keeping our communities safe and keeping the hate out.

Agreed. GW's statement was good. And yes, players have a responsibility as people to be polite, respectful, and not hateful or anything.

Don't bother with Formosa, it's not worth the effort.
Anyway, good message from the Gdubs.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Do i really need to explain why Nazis are different from BLM and Antifa?
Do you understand the stated goals of each and why they are formed?

I mean this is pretty much how the previous thread got locked - endless whataboutism to distract from the very real issue posed by one side of the political spectrum.

Audustum wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I wonder if this will apply to other violent hate groups like BLM or ANTIFA, I'm all for turfing out the Natsocs but doubt the staff at our local tournies and GW would be willing to upset those violent extremists.

I get this is a conversation some of the more radical members here do not want nor like having as it shines a light on elements they prefer to pretend do not exist.

But BLM and antifa are not violent hate groups.

They may have some hateful people in them but they aren't movements dedicated to hating portions of society, that's the difference.

There are quite a few people who can and do, in public media, make the arguments that they are actually quite hateful organizations with hateful goals. Who says who gets to be the arbiter of what is hateful and what isn't? There's no objective way to do this.

I want to respond to all the times I was quoted but this thread moved fast.

Nazis want to kill entire groups of people.
BLM want people to understand that just because someone is black doesn't make them any less of a person or deserving of respect and dignity.

I won't say that every single BLM person is a saint, because that'd be bull. There are people who can take anything too far. But there's a huge difference between the foundations of the two.

 ScarletRose wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Do i really need to explain why Nazis are different from BLM and Antifa?
Do you understand the stated goals of each and why they are formed?

I mean this is pretty much how the previous thread got locked - endless whataboutism to distract from the very real issue posed by one side of the political spectrum.

Strategy, not coincidence.

 Formosa wrote:
Sure they are not .. sure, BLM did not literally just threaten terrorist actions in New York if the anti crime unit was reinstated, as I said on the other page please don't use the "my violent extremists are ok but yours are evil and bad cos reasons" excuse, parity of treatment is needed for all violent extremism, not just the ones that some of your agree with.

If we want a safe, compassionate community we cannot tolerate these hate groups.

What a silly post groups that hate racism are awesome, actually.

Good on GW, anything that keeps chuds out of the hobby is a step forward for decent people.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I wonder if this will apply to other violent hate groups like BLM or ANTIFA, I'm all for turfing out the Natsocs but doubt the staff at our local tournies and GW would be willing to upset those violent extremists.

I get this is a conversation some of the more radical members here do not want nor like having as it shines a light on elements they prefer to pretend do not exist.

But BLM and antifa are not violent hate groups.

They may have some hateful people in them but they aren't movements dedicated to hating portions of society, that's the difference.

There are quite a few people who can and do, in public media, make the arguments that they are actually quite hateful organizations with hateful goals. Who says who gets to be the arbiter of what is hateful and what isn't? There's no objective way to do this.

I want to respond to all the times I was quoted but this thread moved fast.

Nazis want to kill entire groups of people.
BLM want people to understand that just because someone is black doesn't make them any less of a person or deserving of respect and dignity.

I won't say that every single BLM person is a saint, because that'd be bull. There are people who can take anything too far. But there's a huge difference between the foundations of the two.

Case in point. That's your opinion on BLM, but BLM actually doesn't have such a thing.

The phrase "Black Lives Matter" can refer to a Twitter hashtag, a slogan, a social movement, a political action committee,[20] or a loose confederation of groups advocating for racial justice. As a movement, Black Lives Matter is grassroots and decentralized, and leaders have emphasized the importance of local organizing over national leadership.[21][22] The structure differs from previous black movements, like the Civil Rights Movement. Such differences have been the subject of scholarly literature.[23] Activist DeRay McKesson has commented that the movement "encompasses all who publicly declare that black lives matter and devote their time and energy accordingly."[24]

In 2013, Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi formed the Black Lives Matter Network. Garza described the network as an online platform that existed to provide activists with a shared set of principles and goals. Local Black Lives Matter chapters are asked to commit to the organization's list of guiding principles but operate without a central structure or hierarchy. Garza has commented that the Network was not interested in "policing who is and who is not part of the movement."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter#Loose_structure

The people advocating racial supremacy and/or violence in BLM are just as much a part of the movement and 'what it is' because the movement has no authority and no definition of 'what it is'. You see a BLM shirt it could be benign, it could be not. Is the TO supposed to interrogate the wearer? Why is everyone forced to assume it's a peaceful?

Audustum wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I wonder if this will apply to other violent hate groups like BLM or ANTIFA, I'm all for turfing out the Natsocs but doubt the staff at our local tournies and GW would be willing to upset those violent extremists.

I get this is a conversation some of the more radical members here do not want nor like having as it shines a light on elements they prefer to pretend do not exist.

But BLM and antifa are not violent hate groups.

They may have some hateful people in them but they aren't movements dedicated to hating portions of society, that's the difference.

There are quite a few people who can and do, in public media, make the arguments that they are actually quite hateful organizations with hateful goals. Who says who gets to be the arbiter of what is hateful and what isn't? There's no objective way to do this.

I want to respond to all the times I was quoted but this thread moved fast.

Nazis want to kill entire groups of people.
BLM want people to understand that just because someone is black doesn't make them any less of a person or deserving of respect and dignity.

I won't say that every single BLM person is a saint, because that'd be bull. There are people who can take anything too far. But there's a huge difference between the foundations of the two.

Case in point. That's your opinion on BLM, but BLM actually doesn't have such a thing.

The phrase "Black Lives Matter" can refer to a Twitter hashtag, a slogan, a social movement, a political action committee,[20] or a loose confederation of groups advocating for racial justice. As a movement, Black Lives Matter is grassroots and decentralized, and leaders have emphasized the importance of local organizing over national leadership.[21][22] The structure differs from previous black movements, like the Civil Rights Movement. Such differences have been the subject of scholarly literature.[23] Activist DeRay McKesson has commented that the movement "encompasses all who publicly declare that black lives matter and devote their time and energy accordingly."[24]

In 2013, Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi formed the Black Lives Matter Network. Garza described the network as an online platform that existed to provide activists with a shared set of principles and goals. Local Black Lives Matter chapters are asked to commit to the organization's list of guiding principles but operate without a central structure or hierarchy. Garza has commented that the Network was not interested in "policing who is and who is not part of the movement."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter#Loose_structure

The people advocating racial supremacy and/or violence in BLM are just as much a part of the movement and 'what it is' because the movement has no authority and no definition of 'what it is'. You see a BLM shirt it could be benign, it could be not. Is the TO supposed to interrogate the wearer? Why is everyone forced to assume it's a peaceful?

Yes. People who advocate for racial justice are the same as Nazis. That makes perfect sense, and is absolutely impenetrable in its logic. /s

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW was 100% right to make a statement on this recent event. The problem is that they didn't make a statement on this recent event. They gave no context. They should have started with "At a recent tournament in Spain..." and then gone on to deliver their message.

I agree with this. It is like when Blizzard "apologised" for their actions in banning and withholding tournament winnings from the twitch streamer and esports player who said free Hong Kong without ever actually specifying what they were "apologising" for. Which makes the apology worthless as you haven't actually owned up to what you did wrong.

With this kind of thing you should be specific.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I wonder if this will apply to other violent hate groups like BLM or ANTIFA, I'm all for turfing out the Natsocs but doubt the staff at our local tournies and GW would be willing to upset those violent extremists.

I get this is a conversation some of the more radical members here do not want nor like having as it shines a light on elements they prefer to pretend do not exist.

But BLM and antifa are not violent hate groups.

They may have some hateful people in them but they aren't movements dedicated to hating portions of society, that's the difference.

There are quite a few people who can and do, in public media, make the arguments that they are actually quite hateful organizations with hateful goals. Who says who gets to be the arbiter of what is hateful and what isn't? There's no objective way to do this.

I want to respond to all the times I was quoted but this thread moved fast.

Nazis want to kill entire groups of people.
BLM want people to understand that just because someone is black doesn't make them any less of a person or deserving of respect and dignity.

I won't say that every single BLM person is a saint, because that'd be bull. There are people who can take anything too far. But there's a huge difference between the foundations of the two.

Case in point. That's your opinion on BLM, but BLM actually doesn't have such a thing.

The phrase "Black Lives Matter" can refer to a Twitter hashtag, a slogan, a social movement, a political action committee,[20] or a loose confederation of groups advocating for racial justice. As a movement, Black Lives Matter is grassroots and decentralized, and leaders have emphasized the importance of local organizing over national leadership.[21][22] The structure differs from previous black movements, like the Civil Rights Movement. Such differences have been the subject of scholarly literature.[23] Activist DeRay McKesson has commented that the movement "encompasses all who publicly declare that black lives matter and devote their time and energy accordingly."[24]

In 2013, Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi formed the Black Lives Matter Network. Garza described the network as an online platform that existed to provide activists with a shared set of principles and goals. Local Black Lives Matter chapters are asked to commit to the organization's list of guiding principles but operate without a central structure or hierarchy. Garza has commented that the Network was not interested in "policing who is and who is not part of the movement."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter#Loose_structure

The people advocating racial supremacy and/or violence in BLM are just as much a part of the movement and 'what it is' because the movement has no authority and no definition of 'what it is'. You see a BLM shirt it could be benign, it could be not. Is the TO supposed to interrogate the wearer? Why is everyone forced to assume it's a peaceful?

Yes. People who advocate for racial justice are the same as Nazis. That makes perfect sense, and is absolutely impenetrable in its logic. /s

Except that's not what I said in the slightest. It's also not what GW said. This is a false equivalency and a straw man.

The real organization we need to be worrying about are the Girl Scouts. Not only are they centrally organized, with uniforms, and a positive LGBT+ attitude, but they deal in addictive substances and frequently become violent at the drop of a hat. Girl Scouts are very much an equivalent to Nazis and tournament organizers shouldn't have to cultivate Girl Scout-free spaces where some girl scout might sneak in by merely wearing a girl scout patch instead of the full regalia and potentially expose good, Jervis-fearing fanboys to violence and cooties.

Audustum wrote:

The people advocating racial supremacy and/or violence in BLM are just as much a part of the movement and 'what it is' because the movement has no authority and no definition of 'what it is'. You see a BLM shirt it could be benign, it could be not. Is the TO supposed to interrogate the wearer? Why is everyone forced to assume it's a peaceful?

I'm not saying you don't have a point, but in the context of the thread that still doesn't put it at the same level of Fascist and Nazi symbols, which we know are hateful. You don't need to interrogate the wearer when it comes to those.

 Thadin wrote:

However, had the shirt worn by the person that this Statement was directed to (spanish facist group) gone to a US tournament, who would recognize that it is a facist symbol?

Anyone who played Hearts of Iron IV, specifically as Spain.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Do i really need to explain why Nazis are different from BLM and Antifa?
Do you understand the stated goals of each and why they are formed?

Are they the same, no, are they all violent extremist groups, yes.

Yes I understand the stated goals of all of them and why they were created, hence why I label them extremist violent groups.

BLM isn't a violent extremist group. Antifa isn't even a group.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Thadin wrote:

However, had the shirt worn by the person that this Statement was directed to (spanish facist group) gone to a US tournament, who would recognize that it is a facist symbol?

Anyone who played Hearts of Iron IV, specifically as Spain.

Or fans of George Orwell.

Then neither is any other non centralised terrorist "organisation" or cell based extremist group such as say.... Several Nazi hate groups.

I would wonder at the lack of moral and ethical consistency but these days I'm really not surprised.

 Tyran wrote:

Audustum wrote:

The people advocating racial supremacy and/or violence in BLM are just as much a part of the movement and 'what it is' because the movement has no authority and no definition of 'what it is'. You see a BLM shirt it could be benign, it could be not. Is the TO supposed to interrogate the wearer? Why is everyone forced to assume it's a peaceful?

I'm not saying you don't have a point, but in the context of the thread that still doesn't put it at the same level of Fascist and Nazi symbols, which we know are hateful. You don't need to interrogate the wearer when it comes to those.

Correct, because real world political symbols should be banned from events full stop. Right wingers should feel welcome to play 40k in peace without someone potentially doxxing and permanently ruining their career like some of the extremist elements of BLM/Antifa etc have done. People have been gunned down in the streets by extremists on both sides so a simple "everybody leave the politics at home" that is applied equally across the board is fair. I wouldn't refuse to play with someone because they have a political shirt for a party I do not agree with, but it would definitely make the situation uneasy wondering if im tiptoeing through landmines just so I can sling dice.

If anything organizers should hand out BLM t-shirts for everyone that wants one at the door, for the exact same reasons players agree to the code of conduct detailing civilized and sportsmanlike conduct is required.

I take my dog for a walk for 30 minutes and come back to this...

Look, you see someone with a swastika and you know what they're all about. You see someone with a BLM shirt, you can be 99% sure that they just want black people to stop getting shot by the police all the time. You don't have to interrogate them, nor are you obligated to play a game against them, but the fact that they're held to any comparable measure says more about how toxic political discourse has gotten than it does the movements.

 Nurglitch wrote:
BLM isn't a violent extremist group. Antifa isn't even a group.

If you(generalized You) are afraid of a group call "ANTI-FACIST" it says ALOT

 Formosa wrote:
Then neither is any other non centralised terrorist "organisation" or cell based extremist group such as say.... Several Nazi hate groups.

I would wonder at the lack of moral and ethical consistency but these days I'm really not surprised.

Nazis have a history of trying to exterminate entire ethnic groups in record time. Last time I checked, neither Antifa nor BLM have killed dozens of millions of people.

It very quickly boils down to, but these guys are bad too so there.

In reality it’s not down to GW to define what a hate group is. And they will be different in different countries and areas with different problems. Someone defending BLM doesn’t equate to double standards. Trying to use BLM to deflect form the real issue smacks of excusing nazis in the community.

Andykp wrote:
In reality it’s not down to GW to define what a hate group is.

It absolutely is down to GW to define what a hate group is if they're advertising the fact that if you wear symbols of such a group they'll exclude you from events/stores.

All this "How am I supposed to know what group is a hate group" stuff is hilarious when we're talking about Neo-Nazis. Stellar comedy.

No one is saying the other hate groups are as bad as the Nazis, just that they are also hate groups. It makes no sense to only ban literal Nazis and let every group not as bad as them get a pass. Sure you can then start a list and slowly add more obscure hate groups and symbols over time and hope every TO is up to date with the current hate group list and can recognize them all by sight and kick them out as soon as they enter the venue. And then you will have lots of edgy people who will try to skirt the lines by having symbols not yet recognized as hateful enough symbols etc.

Just ban anything political at events and it becomes so much easier. Sure anything could be seen as political. But if you have a shirt with your country's flag on it or have painted your army in your country's military camouflage, which could be seen as political, is quite different from wearing party symbols or a shirt with text from a controversial political group. I would allow the former but not the latter and have the line drawn around there.

If you want to spread your beliefs do it at another place. Most people involved in politics think they are doing good and think they are on the right side morally and have the best solution to everything, no matter which side they are in and can't see why anyone would oppose them. Problem is both(in reality there are more than just 2 sides to this) sides feel the other side is wrong and can sometimes have very good reason for their believes in that the opponent is wrong. But that shouldn't matter at a warhammer event. I rather see my opponent and have my first impression of them being that they are also a wargamer that enjoys the same thing as I do when it comes to having fun and relaxing. Not seeing a shirt with a political slogan on it and wonder if I will hear political BS during the game or if it is even worth it trying to befriend the opponent during the game because clearly they care way more about politics than I do (don't have to be opposite from my politics but if you care so much about politics that you can't leave it at home at a game I probably won't stand being around you outside of a game). Better if everyone is a clean slate and we start each game without any political bias against each other and just have fun.

Cool, Formosa shitposting another thread to death, he did it with the female Marines threads, the other thread about the Nazi player and now again...

 Gert wrote:
All this "How am I supposed to know what group is a hate group" stuff is hilarious when we're talking about Neo-Nazis. Stellar comedy.

a) GW didn't specifiy any particular group(s) in their statement
b) Problematic groups other than (neo-)Nazis exist

 Tyran wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Then neither is any other non centralised terrorist "organisation" or cell based extremist group such as say.... Several Nazi hate groups.

I would wonder at the lack of moral and ethical consistency but these days I'm really not surprised.

Nazis have a history of trying to exterminate entire ethnic groups in record time. Last time I checked, neither Antifa nor BLM have killed dozens of millions of people.

Because they are not in a position to right now, would these radical extremists do so if able, yes, as shown by every single communist regime for the last 100 years.

So you didn't check very hard.

Personally, I would use my brain and connect the dots between recent events to determine what would be unacceptable.
That or you could show up to a store/event and then find out when you're asked to leave.
Anyway, carry on with your whataboutery and Nazi/Fascist apologism, see you in the next thread where it has to be reiterated that Nazis are bad

Hahaha classic Gert, classic.

 Gert wrote:
Anyway, carry on with your whataboutery and Nazi/Fascist apologism, see you in the next thread where it has to be reiterated that Nazis are bad

It's tragic that you're apparently so desperate to find Nazis and Nazi sympathisers everywhere.

 Gert wrote:
Personally, I would use my brain and connect the dots between recent events to determine what would be unacceptable.
That or you could show up to a store/event and then find out when you're asked to leave.
Anyway, carry on with your whataboutery and Nazi/Fascist apologism, see you in the next thread where it has to be reiterated that Nazis are bad

Its not apologism? Most of the arguments here want a total ban on politics. Nazis being banned isn't remotely a problem with the people worried about this being an uneven policy. Using real world political symbols is bad and creates conflict where it isn't needed. Things like generic "the warhammer community welcomes all!" shirts that people wearing problematic clothes can be told to change into or they will be asked to leave. Honestly a simple T shirt with GW's direct statement on it would be a hilarious punishment for wearing real world symbols. It will trigger fascists while most reasonable people have no problem with it and at worst eye-roll it off.

 Formosa wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Then neither is any other non centralised terrorist "organisation" or cell based extremist group such as say.... Several Nazi hate groups.

I would wonder at the lack of moral and ethical consistency but these days I'm really not surprised.

Nazis have a history of trying to exterminate entire ethnic groups in record time. Last time I checked, neither Antifa nor BLM have killed dozens of millions of people.

Because they are not in a position to right now, would these radical extremists do so if able, yes, as shown by every single communist regime for the last 100 years.

So you didn't check very hard.

BLM and antifa are as bad as Nazis because in my fantasies they will kill us all someday!

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Anyway, carry on with your whataboutery and Nazi/Fascist apologism, see you in the next thread where it has to be reiterated that Nazis are bad

It's tragic that you're apparently so desperate to find Nazis and Nazi sympathisers everywhere.

Do you think that there aren't a bunch kicking about?

 Formosa wrote:

Because they are not in a position to right now, would these radical extremists do so if able, yes, as shown by every single communist regime for the last 100 years.

So you didn't check very hard.

BLM is not communist and Antifa is anarchist (meaning they idea of they ever being in such position is hilarious, anarchism is inherently self-defeating. )

So try again.

 Olthannon wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Anyway, carry on with your whataboutery and Nazi/Fascist apologism, see you in the next thread where it has to be reiterated that Nazis are bad

It's tragic that you're apparently so desperate to find Nazis and Nazi sympathisers everywhere.

Do you think that there aren't a bunch kicking about?

Maybe there are. I doubt that the number is anything above statistically insignificant, given personal experience of never having knowingly encountered one.

I don't believe that anybody I've seen posting on Dakka is a Nazi or is sympathetic to Nazism though. With the number of claims which are flung around though, you'd think this was Stormfront!

Wild accusations of calling other users nazis is unfortunately looking rather common on the... tournament discussion subforum, these days. And seemingly permitted.

 Nurglitch wrote:
The real organization we need to be worrying about are the Girl Scouts. Not only are they centrally organized, with uniforms, and a positive LGBT+ attitude, but they deal in addictive substances and frequently become violent at the drop of a hat. Girl Scouts are very much an equivalent to Nazis and tournament organizers shouldn't have to cultivate Girl Scout-free spaces where some girl scout might sneak in by merely wearing a girl scout patch instead of the full regalia and potentially expose good, Jervis-fearing fanboys to violence and cooties.

I have heard tales of several Girl Scouts breaking any number of laws and committing heinous crimes. They should all be stopped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:


Yes I understand the stated goals of all of them and why they were created, hence why I label them extremist violent groups.

You keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
BLM isn't a violent extremist group. Antifa isn't even a group.

If you(generalized You) are afraid of a group call "ANTI-FACIST" it says ALOT

Not really, considering how Antifa (then Antifascist Action) was originally the paramilitary wing of the Communist party during the death throes of the Weimar republic and were opposed by both the Social Democrats and the Fascists, who weren't buddies either.
Being against Antifa just means you are against Antifa. It doesn't necessarily mean that one is for fascism, as politics is a little more complicated than a simple binary case of "If Not Antifa = Fascist, If Antifa = Not Fascist"

By your logic, if you oppose the People's Liberation Army you must be against liberation.
After all, it is called the PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY. If you are against it says a lot.

 Thadin wrote:
Wild accusations of calling other users nazis is unfortunately looking rather common on the... tournament discussion subforum, these days. And seemingly permitted.

That's because there are two camps - fascism and not-fascism. Anyone advocating against not-fascism ("anti" fascism, some might say) is, de facto, a fascist.

That's it, that's the post.

I can't wait to wear my swastika underwear to my next GW tourney and just bask in the utter rebeliousness of it all!!

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
By your logic, if you oppose the People's Liberation Army you must be against liberation.
After all, it is called the PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY. If you are against it says a lot.

Why are so many people against German workers..?

See someone wearing an apparently Nazi or fascist-themed piece of clothing, making gestures or saying something that makes you think they might be a Nazi? Point it out to them - here's a handy guide to gauge their reaction:

Reasonable Person:
"Yikes, sorry - that's not what I intended to communicate at all. Please allow me to re-think my choice of words/gestures/clothing!"

Actual Nazi scumbag:
"WhAt iF SoMeOne WaS WeArInG a ShIrT WiTh A ComMuNisM oN It BLM iS ExAcTLy tHe SaMe iT's ToTaLLy a JoKe YoU JuSt DoN't GeT iT LiBtArD"

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW was 100% right to make a statement on this recent event. The problem is that they didn't make a statement on this recent event. They gave no context. They should have started with "At a recent tournament in Spain..." and then gone on to deliver their message.

I agree with this. It is like when Blizzard "apologised" for their actions in banning and withholding tournament winnings from the twitch streamer and esports player who said free Hong Kong without ever actually specifying what they were "apologising" for. Which makes the apology worthless as you haven't actually owned up to what you did wrong.

With this kind of thing you should be specific.

I don't know, I think this kicks ass. GW finally established that you shouldn't venerate the Imperium, which will hopefully have the predictable reaction amongst all the right-wing groups and makes for an easy forum weapon against everyone who doesn't get it, and they made a definitive statement about hate speech going forward. I think getting into the nitty-gritty details sort of muddles that, and implies that this one specific instance was the issue and not the entire concept of Nazis going to 40k tournaments in the first place.

Also, one could argue that mentioning the Spanish player gives him publicity and therefore rewards his actions in a sort of way, but I'm still trying to figure out if I'm convinced by that argument.

As for all the other nonsense in this thread, I'm pretty left-wing myself, but I would definitely support a ban of all extreme political ideology memorabilia (BLM is fine) just to avoid the sorts of arguments going on in this thread. I don't give a gak if ANTIFA is or is not extremist or is or is not an organization or whatever other arguments you want to have, but if banning their symbols means I don't have to hear about it anymore I am totally down.

 Flipsiders wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW was 100% right to make a statement on this recent event. The problem is that they didn't make a statement on this recent event. They gave no context. They should have started with "At a recent tournament in Spain..." and then gone on to deliver their message.

I agree with this. It is like when Blizzard "apologised" for their actions in banning and withholding tournament winnings from the twitch streamer and esports player who said free Hong Kong without ever actually specifying what they were "apologising" for. Which makes the apology worthless as you haven't actually owned up to what you did wrong.

With this kind of thing you should be specific.

I don't know, I think this kicks ass. GW finally established that you shouldn't venerate the Imperium, which will hopefully have the predictable reaction amongst all the right-wing groups and makes for an easy forum weapon against everyone who doesn't get it, and they made a definitive statement about hate speech going forward. I think getting into the nitty-gritty details sort of muddles that, and implies that this one specific instance was the issue and not the entire concept of Nazis going to 40k tournaments in the first place.

Also, one could argue that mentioning the Spanish player gives him publicity and therefore rewards his actions in a sort of way, but I'm still trying to figure out if I'm convinced by that argument.

As for all the other nonsense in this thread, I'm pretty left-wing myself, but I would definitely support a ban of all extreme political ideology memorabilia (BLM is fine) just to avoid the sorts of arguments going on in this thread. I don't give a gak if ANTIFA is or is not extremist or is or is not an organization or whatever other arguments you want to have, but if banning their symbols means I don't have to hear about it anymore I am totally down.

The difference being, GW has nothing to apologise for.

Not HBMC. The other one I quoted. I agree with HBMC. I am not left wing really, more centre right but still dislike a Nazi as much as the next man. Shame that they had to spell out that the imperium was bad. There has been a general slide towards taking everything GW puts out as literal and without nuance.

I'm fine with BLM, antifa, etc but if banning all political symbols is what it takes to get rid of the Nazis then I'm all for it.

I find that this is a no problem. And most of the "but the other side!" is unwarranted.

The ammount of times something like this happens with "extreme left wing groups" (Those of course exists, violence and extremism isn't part of any given ideology) is nearly non existant.

Is always the neonazis making a fuss to give themselves attention.

A guy having a Che Guevera t-shirt could ask for a removal of that shirt but if I see someone wearing that in the street I won't make the association of "that guy is an extremist" like I would do if I see someone wearing neonazi symbology because the reason one person wears one of those symbols is very different from the reason most people wear a Che Guevera t-shirt.

And thats just how the world works. I know on the internet we all want to give our arguments more weight but on the street things are very much different.

Andykp wrote:

The difference being, GW has nothing to apologise for.

As I said in the other thread- I feel the do (or at the very least have some kind of duty of responsibility as it were). Think of it like this, just like all computer games are Nintendo and all pro wrestling is WWE etc. to confused people around the globe all toy soldiers is Warhammer/GW. You and I know the difference but your average mum walking into a GW doesn't. If this story eventually finds its way onto mainstream media, GW are cutting it off at the pass and washing their hands of it before they can deal with complaints from various parents of something they actually had nothing to do with. We are right in the run up to Christmas now probably with loads and loads of kids wanting things from GW and a hysterical parent boycott because the Daily Mail or someone published an article titled "Nazis at a Warhammer tournament!" is the last thing they need.

It cost nothing for them to do it and I applaud them for it (for once!).

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
I'm fine with BLM, antifa, etc but if banning all political symbols is what it takes to get rid of the Nazis then I'm all for it.

I'm sure political symbols themselves will be find (like MAGA hats/shirts) but hopefully in additional to Nazis we can get rid of other extremely dumb hate stuff like depictions of donkeys hunting/killing elephants, TERF/anti-trans slogans, etc.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Andykp wrote:

The difference being, GW has nothing to apologise for.

As I said in the other thread- I feel the do (or at the very least have some kind of duty of responsibility as it were). Think of it like this, just like all computer games are Nintendo and all pro wrestling is WWE etc. to confused people around the globe all toy soldiers is Warhammer/GW. You and I know the difference but your average mum walking into a GW doesn't. If this story eventually finds its way onto mainstream media, GW are cutting it off at the pass and washing their hands of it before they can deal with complaints from various parents of something they actually had nothing to do with. We are right in the run up to Christmas now probably with loads and loads of kids wanting things from GW and a hysterical parent boycott because the Daily Mail or someone published an article titled "Nazis at a Warhammer tournament!" is the last thing they need.

It cost nothing for them to do it and I applaud them for it (for once!).

If somebody doesn't know anything about GW, the fact that GW said 'Nazi bad' one time won't even register if there's a media hysteria over the epidemic of neo-Nazis holding rallies in GW stores or whatever.

GW, again, wants it both ways - they want to sell the apparently marketable dantasy of the edgy, genocidal Imperium being justified in its atrocities, but they don't want any of the smoke of what that actually implies.

It's not an accident that neo-nazis get the warm fuzzies from the 40k setting, at least in its modern incarnation where the Imperium is played as unironic heroes.

Hecaton wrote:
GW, again, wants it both ways - they want to sell the apparently marketable dantasy of the edgy, genocidal Imperium being justified in its atrocities, but they don't want any of the smoke of what that actually implies.

It's not an accident that neo-nazis get the warm fuzzies from the 40k setting, at least in its modern incarnation where the Imperium is played as unironic heroes.

I mean there are thousands of films, games, books and such that all depict horrible things within their settings and yet the authors/creators would never want to actually support those things in reality. Or are you about to say that we should ban every single world war film, game and book?

 Overread wrote:

I mean there are thousands of films, games, books and such that all depict horrible things within their settings and yet the authors/creators would never want to actually support those things in reality. Or are you about to say that we should ban every single world war film, game and book?

People not being able to separate reality from fiction is a huge issue that makes these discussions rather frustrating to deal with.

 BertBert wrote:

 Overread wrote:

I mean there are thousands of films, games, books and such that all depict horrible things within their settings and yet the authors/creators would never want to actually support those things in reality. Or are you about to say that we should ban every single world war film, game and book?

People not being able to separate reality from fiction is a huge issue that makes these discussions rather frustrating to deal with.

Honestly I think a majority of it is wilful on the part of prolonging the discussion/argument/to win points/troll/for fun/whatever. That or there are a LOT of people here who also have problems working out if Spider Baby's are real*







*this will only make sense to Father Ted fans ;P

 Overread wrote:


Honestly I think a majority of it is wilful on the part of prolonging the discussion/argument/to win points/troll/for fun/whatever.

Oh, absolutely. It's also used to try and leverage creators into changing their IP in a way that caters to one's own sensibilities.

This thread is done as it is not going anywhere constructive.