You know me well enough that the only miniature ban I would cheer for would be a ban on Space Marines models .
Seriously, though, you are right. I would love for the ideas and conceptions that lead to those miniatures to disappear, but them just being banned wouldn't bring anything good.
PsychoticStorm wrote: That was more or less your answer on the fully armoured Valkyr power armours at the first third of this thread IIRC.
You took it and rephrase it. Hence, by definition, it is your words.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Good question, isn't the premise that we accept easier violence that the human form a bit strange?
Nope.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Read the article was heavily disappointed, the author sees Slaanesh more or less as a dead end sex whatever, fails to grasp the whole idea about it representing the lust for everything in its most extreme from and how GW could utilize it for more than just boobs, the aspect of chaos (read human desires in their extreme form) Slaanesh represents is the one of the deepest desires seen in their perfect form, its not just about the sex, it is about having the perfect performance in any desire why should this be limited just in the bodily pleasures and not study martial prowess or other desires?
Yeah, there is drug too .
More seriously, the article's main point is that those ideas are too complex to be expressed by simple models, unlike the other three gods where this works alright.
They're really not. I've advocated this before (and I'm not the only one) that Slaanesh is the God of Excess and that an easy paradigm to follow for that would be the seven deadly sins.
Now I'll agree that some may be a little too esoteric to convey at 30mm, but there's plenty that could be represented. Even the concepts that may be considered to cross over into other gods' territory could be visually and mechanically distinct to be worthwhile.
'Course, it's a bit strange with Slaanesh because he's all about what's forbidden and taboo. Saying she's a bad influence because of all the sexy ladies and drugs (let's not forget all the blatant Satan iconography) is missing the point. I mean, you can go absolutely CRAZY using 7 Deadly Sins or Dante's Inferno's ironic punishments or whatever as a theme, and they may turn out genuinely awesome, but the very act of toning Slaanesh down destroys it. Like trying to make Nurgle "less gross."
Also... Tzeentch's aspects of knowledge and control aren't particularly easy to capture, either. The obvious approach would be brains and books, but instead we got... birds and Ancient Egypt.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Buzzsaw, as a fellow Jew, I wonder how you would feel about someone producing miniatures of Jewish concentration camp victims in the selection process. I know you don't think miniatures can be bigoted or reflect harmful ideas on the part of their creators or purchasers. However, I am curious if would you feel the need to tell them your level, composed rendition of "not cool bro"? Or would you just say nothing at all?
Personally, I've always seen the squeaky wheel get the grease, and I belong to the Mel Brooks school of thought, where if you cannot defeat a harmful idea, at least you can mock it until everyone sees it as ridiculous. So, yes, I complain a lot about miniatures I don't like. Sometimes companies even listen and make changes. More often, they do not. That's okay. People can make and buy what they want, and I can think what I want about them. And we can all have a conversation about it. That isn't censorship. That's social discourse. These days, it isn't as pleasant as it used to be.
I'm not trying to shut down GoA. I do however want them to realize that some of their decisions can drive away customers and negatively impact their brand. I doubt they care. they could probably release an entire sex- trafficking faction, and their ridiculous prices would still be the biggest threat to their business.
Apropos of this discussion, I think I would probably paraphrase my Rabbi (who in turn was, I believe, paraphrasing theRebbe) "No one can make you angry, only you can chose to be angry." Of course, this is one of those hypothetical situations where the overall event is hard to imagine.
Funny story though: some years ago I happened to be invited to the Armory show, a very avant garde art show in New York City. Among the flotsam and jetsam of modern art I happened to see the famous 'LEGO Concentration Camp'. I remember coming away thinking it had been the only thing of genuine artistic value I saw the entire day.
Lest this seem like an appeal to a standard of Vulcan-like emotional control, let me be clear that the issue is ultimately not about whether I would be insulted or not. Above and beyond anything else, this is a moral issue: Christianity formulates its 'Golden Rule' as 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' Judaism formulates its similar overarching moral principle somewhat differently, as 'What is hateful to you, do not do unto others.' I, of course, follow the latter formulation and as I have no desire to be harassed, discriminated against or boycotted for my beliefs, cannot morally do so against others. Even if I disagree with their beliefs.
It's interesting to me that 'paranoia' seems to be the word of the day (well, couple of days) for dismissing concerns about Social Justice and its potential effects. Fascinatingly, the argument seems to fall in line with my accounting of the facts on the ground: actual SJWs are relatively few in number, simply loud of voice. They are not well organized, but rather dramatically amplified by the media. Where the 'paranoia' analysis parts from mine is that even a casual awareness of the current climate will be aware of the damage being done by the "SJW". The simple fact of the matter is that the influence of Social Justice (and SJWs), the "safe space" movement, the 'no-platforming' movement, especially on university campuses, is not some artifact of the media, but a true crisis that has been widely condemned by voices across the political spectrum for some time now. Including, for example, earning condemnation from President Obama last year. Newsweek recently ran a cover article titled The Battle Against 'Hate Speech' On College Campuses Gives Rise To A Generation That Hates Speech. The notion that the outrages associated with SocJus are a figment of right wing fever dreams is simply not compatible with reality.
Secondarily, the idea that worry about SocJus is 'paranoia' lies with a distressingly narrow idea of the value of free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Or the idea that the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in miniatures is not yet so fulminant as it is on the campus, in publishing, in comic books and the media, so it's foolhardy to imagine it will every be so. There are many distressing elements of the SocJus movement, elements that I find broadly illiberal as well as morally unacceptable, but let's focus for a moment on speech. Or, more appropriately, the mental and moral gymnastics that SJWs encourage in order to justify their immoral and illiberal behavior.
Let us consider as an example the reception that SJWs on campus gave Summers, Yiannopoulo and Crowder at UMass in April (long, NSFW but worthwhile);
Spoiler:
One of the 'protesters' at this event would earn the moniker 'Triggerypuff' for her antics (short, also NSFW);
Spoiler:
While it's easy enough to mock this petulant young woman, it's worth asking the question of why any college student would leave their dorm room (or library, party, whatever), to go sit in a lecture hall, surrounded by people that she doesn't like, in order to scream invective and obscenities at speakers she doesn't want to hear? Moreover, the person in question is someone (evidently) deeply concerned with 'justice'? Stop for a moment and think about how this young woman's behavior isn't merely uncouth, but would seem to be clearly morally improper. She spent her evening not merely trying to stop a discussion and inhibit the spread of information, but she tried to ruin a lecture (that was undoubtedly very long in the planning) that hundreds of people had come to see. How could she possible justify her own actions to herself?
The answer, which should be of concern for everyone, is that the Social Justice movement has intentionally and systematically engaged in the conflation of offensive/"hate" speech with violence. As Haidt and Lukianoff put it in their indispensable piece The Coddling of the American Mind: "When speech comes to be seen as a form of violence, vindictive protectiveness can justify a hostile, and perhaps even violent, response." Even just in the video above, in the Q&A portion some of the most hostile (and nonconstructive) 'questions' flat out accuse the speakers of causing violence with their opinions.
Buzzsaw wrote: It's interesting to me that 'paranoia' seems to be the word of the day (well, couple of days) for dismissing concerns about Social Justice and its potential effects.
I suppose you can find it interesting. I prefer to call it "obvious truth", because that's what it is. There is virtually no chance that sexy miniatures will be subject to any form of censorship* in the foreseeable future. So what else do you call fear of this possibility, if not paranoia?
*No, a company deciding that sexy miniatures are not profitable enough and voluntarily dropping the product line is not censorship.
Where the 'paranoia' analysis parts from mine is that even a casual awareness of the current climate will be aware of the damage being done by the "SJW". The simple fact of the matter is that the influence of Social Justice (and SJWs), the "safe space" movement, the 'no-platforming' movement, especially on university campuses, is not some artifact of the media, but a true crisis that has been widely condemned by voices across the political spectrum for some time now. Including, for example, earning condemnation from President Obama last year. Newsweek recently ran a cover article titled The Battle Against 'Hate Speech' On College Campuses Gives Rise To A Generation That Hates Speech.
You have a rather interesting definition of "crisis". It is not a crisis just because certain anti-SJW speakers are not given a platform to speak from or because people decide they don't really want to listen. Nor is it some kind of "free speech" issue if universities (or other organizations) are criticized for their speech or for the people they give a platform to speak from. If those universities (or other organizations) are opposed to concepts like safe spaces or anti-hate-speech policies then they are free to tell the "SJWs" to STFU and ignore their demands. The fact that they pay attention to the "SJW" demands instead of your demands is not a crisis.
The notion that the outrages associated with SocJus are a figment of right wing fever dreams is simply not compatible with reality.
Oh, it definitely is compatible with reality. Over and over again we see clickbait articles posted by the right-wing outrage machine. "YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK FOR CENSORSHIP". "THIS SJW PROTESTED AGAINST FREE SPEECH AND YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED NEXT". Etc, etc, on and on forever. And then when you look at the original sources for the stories you find that virtually all of them are either reasonable requests that are maliciously misrepresented by the right-wing outrage machine, or some random blogger with single-digit readers making a post that nobody paid any attention to until it showed up in a clickbait article.
Secondarily, the idea that worry about SocJus is 'paranoia' lies with a distressingly narrow idea of the value of free speech and the free exchange of ideas.
Free speech and the free exchange of ideas are awesome and have lots of value. But that's not what is at stake. The "SJW"s are not taking away your right to speak or exchange ideas. What you actually risk losing is the "right" to say whatever you want without ever being criticized, and to have people help publish your ideas for you. And those are simply not reasonable things to expect to have.
Or the idea that the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in miniatures is not yet so fulminant as it is on the campus, in publishing, in comic books and the media, so it's foolhardy to imagine it will every be so.
I don't know why I have to keep saying this: it is legal to buy, sell, and manufacture hardcore pornography. There is no plausible legal threat to this industry. So long as this remains the case it is not even remotely plausible that sexy miniatures, which are much less sexual than hardcore pornography, will be banned.
While it's easy enough to mock this petulant young woman, it's worth asking the question of why any college student would leave their dorm room (or library, party, whatever), to go sit in a lecture hall, surrounded by people that she doesn't like, in order to scream invective and obscenities at speakers she doesn't want to hear?
Because it's fun? Seriously, you're sitting here arguing on the internet about whether your little plastic toys should be wearing chainmail bikinis or not. I don't think you have any right to judge other people for engaging in protests of things they don't like.
How could she possible justify her own actions to herself?
Because she, unlike you, understands that "freedom of speech" means "the government will not force you to stop speaking", not "individual citizens will not speak against you".
Azreal13 wrote: They're really not. I've advocated this before (and I'm not the only one) that Slaanesh is the God of Excess and that an easy paradigm to follow for that would be the seven deadly sins.
This. A thousand times this.
Thinking that Slaanesh is the Chaos God of Boobies and Nakedness reduces it down to a petulant child-like and, dare I say it, 4-chan-ish interpretation. Slaanesh is not that. Slaanesh is the Chaos God of Excess. Spent quite a while with a team of people writing a whole damned book about that, so I'd say I know a thing or two about the subject.
Azreal13 wrote: They're really not. I've advocated this before (and I'm not the only one) that Slaanesh is the God of Excess and that an easy paradigm to follow for that would be the seven deadly sins.
The 7 deadly sin is a stupid concept that we only refer to because Christian mythology. Using some inspiration from it and having some models that emphasize pride or sloth, okay, why not, but using it literally, with a daemon for each sin? Please no don't.
Buzzsaw wrote: Where the 'paranoia' analysis parts from mine is that even a casual awareness of the current climate will be aware of the damage being done by the "SJW". The simple fact of the matter is that the influence of Social Justice (and SJWs), the "safe space" movement, the 'no-platforming' movement, especially on university campuses, is not some artifact of the media, but a true crisis that has been widely condemned by voices across the political spectrum for some time now. […]
Secondarily, the idea that worry about SocJus is 'paranoia' lies with a distressingly narrow idea of the value of free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Or the idea that the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in miniatures is not yet so fulminant as it is on the campus, in publishing, in comic books and the media, so it's foolhardy to imagine it will every be so. There are many distressing elements of the SocJus movement, elements that I find broadly illiberal as well as morally unacceptable, but let's focus for a moment on speech. Or, more appropriately, the mental and moral gymnastics that SJWs encourage in order to justify their immoral and illiberal behavior.
Let us consider as an example the reception that SJWs on campus gave Summers, Yiannopoulo and Crowder at UMass in April (long, NSFW but worthwhile);
So, if I get it right, the terrible, terrible damage done by SJW which justify considering them a very, very real threat that needs to be dealt with is that… some students were protesting against three donkey-caves giving speeches at their university? Woah. Since you already did reach a Godwin, I would have expected you to liken such terrible behavior to the targeted political assassination and similar violence of the early Nazi party. Because why not?
I am pretty sure mentioning “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is exactly what you needed to do to make your concern irrelevant to people that are not into your very specific, very tiny political cult. I mean, “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is not a problem for most people. They are happy enough with comics, and enjoy some of them but not all yet are fine with the idea that not all comics have to be written for them specifically. There is plenty of violence and plenty of sex (and plenty of cheap titillation masquerading as sexy too) to be found.
Oh god, I missed that bit about "SJW problems" in comic books. Sorry, but "comic book publishers feel that 'SJW' comic books produce better profits than 'anti-SJW' comic books" is hardly a problem worth caring about. Comic books are not censored, and anyone who feels like making a comic book full of all the things that "SJWs" hate is entirely free to do so. And they are entirely free to tell the "SJWs" to STFU and continue selling their comic book if anyone complains. They may discover that there isn't nearly as much money to be made as they seem to think there is, but they're free to try.
So, what this comes down to in the end is the anti-SJW crowd saying "this company is making product decisions that I don't like" while simultaneously presenting the fact that "SJWs" are saying "this company is making product decisions that I don't like" as some kind of attack on freedom of speech. I think the double standard here is pretty obvious.
Azreal13 wrote: They're really not. I've advocated this before (and I'm not the only one) that Slaanesh is the God of Excess and that an easy paradigm to follow for that would be the seven deadly sins.
The 7 deadly sin is a stupid concept that we only refer to because Christian mythology. Using some inspiration from it and having some models that emphasize pride or sloth, okay, why not, but using it literally, with a daemon for each sin? Please no don't.
No, but you could use the 7 deadly sins to give character to models, units and background.
Why so vocal against the Judo-christian mythology? it is not a bad source of inspiration, as is any mythology really, for such things, I understand it is a bit banal for the western world, but it is still a good source.
So, if I get it right, the terrible, terrible damage done by SJW which justify considering them a very, very real threat that needs to be dealt with is that… some students were protesting against three donkey-caves giving speeches at their university?
(hilariously, quoting you allows me to see what you wrote and Dakka Dakka filtered to 'donkey caves')
Donkey caves?
Foreigners?
Gays?
Mormons?
Jews?
People with different opinions?
It doesn't matter who is giving a speech and whether you have 'opinions' about them. The point of free speech and indeed, organised events is that they are allowed to occur- but you may hold your own speeches and refute their points.
What is happening here instead is a kind of bullying people into silence. Attempting to drown out or intimidate people into submission.
Milo, quite cleverly, allows even his detractors to ask questions at these events- so he can expose their lunacy and refute their arguments.
Without fail, most of the questions will be 'don't you find it hypocritical/problematic that...' - leading questions of the 'how often do you beat your wife?' variety.
Without fail, their concerns can be addressed with facts and logic.
I am pretty sure mentioning “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is exactly what you needed to do to make your concern irrelevant to people that are not into your very specific, very tiny political cult. I mean, “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is not a problem for most people. They are happy enough with comics, and enjoy some of them but not all yet are fine with the idea that not all comics have to be written for them specifically. There is plenty of violence and plenty of sex (and plenty of cheap titillation masquerading as sexy too) to be found.
That's the thing about subjectivity. Perhaps some people have enjoyed the anvilicious, heavy handed rhetoric that slaps you inthe face when you open a Wonder Woman comic these days.
Like Wondy allowing a defenceless man who is bound and at her mercy to be assaulted. And saying 'mansplaining'
So, if I get it right, the terrible, terrible damage done by SJW which justify considering them a very, very real threat that needs to be dealt with is that… some students were protesting against three donkey-caves giving speeches at their university?
(hilariously, quoting you allows me to see what you wrote and Dakka Dakka filtered to 'donkey caves')
Donkey caves?
Foreigners?
Gays?
Mormons?
Jews?
People with different opinions?
It doesn't matter who is giving a speech and whether you have 'opinions' about them. The point of free speech and indeed, organised events is that they are allowed to occur- but you may hold your own speeches and refute their points.
What is happening here instead is a kind of bullying people into silence. Attempting to drown out or intimidate people into submission.
Milo, quite cleverly, allows even his detractors to ask questions at these events- so he can expose their lunacy and refute their arguments.
Without fail, most of the questions will be 'don't you find it hypocritical/problematic that...' - leading questions of the 'how often do you beat your wife?' variety.
Without fail, their concerns can be addressed with facts and logic.
I am pretty sure mentioning “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is exactly what you needed to do to make your concern irrelevant to people that are not into your very specific, very tiny political cult. I mean, “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is not a problem for most people. They are happy enough with comics, and enjoy some of them but not all yet are fine with the idea that not all comics have to be written for them specifically. There is plenty of violence and plenty of sex (and plenty of cheap titillation masquerading as sexy too) to be found.
That's the thing about subjectivity. Perhaps some people have enjoyed the anvilicious, heavy handed rhetoric that slaps you inthe face when you open a Wonder Woman comic these days.
Like Wondy allowing a defenceless man who is bound and at her mercy to be assaulted. And saying 'mansplaining'
It's not been well received by everyone .
Oh god, they put mansplaining in a comic book? WOW. I know Marvel has pulled some PR stunts, but jesus.
Ashiraya wrote: That is absolutely hilarious. The irony of the term triggering you so badly is not lost on me. Perhaps a trigger warning is in order?
I would actually appreciate that. Something along the lines of "Warning: Terrible writing and blatant money cash grab ahead". Guess what? I was just as "triggered" when Doom cried over 9/11 or when they made Thor a woman.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Why so vocal against the Judo-christian mythology? it is not a bad source of inspiration, as is any mythology really, for such things, I understand it is a bit banal for the western world, but it is still a good source.
It was not about Christian mythology. It was about that particular part being incredibly bad. There are great part of Christian mythology that definitely are worth using as sources of inspiration. The 7 deadly sins? Not so much.
=Angel= wrote: What is happening here instead is a kind of bullying people into silence. Attempting to drown out or intimidate people into submission.
Sure. Soon Breitbart will have to close, and Milo will be silenced.
Or, maybe not? Have I missed the big news about the attacks on Breitbart? Or is it just about students not wanting Milo not to speak at their university?
=Angel= wrote: That's the thing about subjectivity. Perhaps some people have enjoyed the anvilicious, heavy handed rhetoric that slaps you inthe face when you open a Wonder Woman comic these days.
Like Wondy allowing a defenceless man who is bound and at her mercy to be assaulted. And saying 'mansplaining'
Oh wow?!? Some comics that you don't personally enjoy, because it is meant for other people to enjoy! I would dare say that would you ever like to call yourself a defender of “artistic freedom”, you should definitely not only accept, but even fight for allowing authors to publish such stories should they want to.
I stand by my point, i.e. “I am pretty sure mentioning “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is exactly what you needed to do to make your concern irrelevant to people that are not into your very specific, very tiny political cult.” Strangely most people are not convinced that there is something extremely, horribly wrong in comics books because some issue of Wonder Woman depicts her saying “man-splaining”. Gosh, some heroes don't have the same political sensibilities as you do! That must be so hard to bear! What about, say, Rorschach flirting with extreme-right nutjob, and yet being the most heroic person in his whole setting, was that perfectly fine though?
=Angel= wrote: That's the thing about subjectivity. Perhaps some people have enjoyed the anvilicious, heavy handed rhetoric that slaps you inthe face when you open a Wonder Woman comic these days. Like Wondy allowing a defenceless man who is bound and at her mercy to be assaulted. And saying 'mansplaining'
Oh wow?!? Some comics that you don't personally enjoy, because it is meant for other people to enjoy! I would dare say that would you ever like to call yourself a defender of “artistic freedom”, you should definitely not only accept, but even fight for allowing authors to publish such stories should they want to. I stand by my point, i.e. “I am pretty sure mentioning “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is exactly what you needed to do to make your concern irrelevant to people that are not into your very specific, very tiny political cult.” Strangely most people are not convinced that there is something extremely, horribly wrong in comics books because some issue of Wonder Woman depicts her saying “man-splaining”. Gosh, some heroes don't have the same political sensibilities as you do! That must be so hard to bear! What about, say, Rorschach flirting with extreme-right nutjob, and yet being the most heroic person in his whole setting, was that perfectly fine though?
Because man-splaining is as sexist as telling a women to get back into the kitchen. But let me guess, women can't be sexist because sexism = power and women have no power because patriarchy?
Also, Rorschach isn't heroic because he's right-wing, he's heroic because he fights crime as a superhero even though it's illegal and doesn't back down from Adrian's master plan. But sure, keep pushing that agenda.
jreilly89 wrote: Because man-splaining is as sexist as telling a women to get back into the kitchen.
So, are you saying that we should ban comics that have characters that say “mansplaining” because that is sexist?
In other words, are you saying that we should ban comics that says sexist things?
Oh then, I am looking forward to see you crack down on everything the comics do that is sexist then. Like the blatant sexualization of the huge majority of female characters.
.
jreilly89 wrote: Also, Rorschach isn't heroic because he's right-wing, he's heroic because he fights crime as a superhero even though it's illegal and doesn't back down from Adrian's master plan. But sure, keep pushing that agenda.
Wonder Woman is not heroic because she says mansplaining. She is heroic because she fights crime. I am at loss at your logic. But you said agenda, so that goes in my bingo I guess. I currently have SJW, censorship, agenda, I think I need someone saying “cuck” or “ethics” to win. Can you say either? I would really like to win.
Azreal13 wrote: They're really not. I've advocated this before (and I'm not the only one) that Slaanesh is the God of Excess and that an easy paradigm to follow for that would be the seven deadly sins.
The 7 deadly sin is a stupid concept that we only refer to because Christian mythology. Using some inspiration from it and having some models that emphasize pride or sloth, okay, why not, but using it literally, with a daemon for each sin? Please no don't.
So the Warhammer universe stealing ideas from vast quantities of historical and pop culture references to the point where almost everything in universe can trace its lineage to some outside source is fine, but using a pre existing Christian shortlist of the worst elements of humanity excesses as a jumping off point to make Slaanesh not about drugs and boobies isn't?
Your views have always struck me as particularly unique Hybrid, but im going to need you expand on why a thing is stupid because it comes from another thing, because that is your argument is in essence.
jreilly89 wrote: Because man-splaining is as sexist as telling a women to get back into the kitchen.
So, are you saying that we should ban comics that have characters that say “mansplaining” because that is sexist? In other words, are you saying that we should ban comics that says sexist things? Oh then, I am looking forward to see you crack down on everything the comics do that is sexist then. Like the blatant sexualization of the huge majority of female characters. .
I'm saying that someone's shock and outrage at a comic actually using the term "mansplaining" is no worse than anything that feminists have been shocked and outrage at in comics. Should it been banned? Idk, I could care less, it's a stupid term. But don't go expecting me to praise comics for excellent writing when it's just a PR stunt.
There are ways to appeal to women readers, like strong female characters who show good traits. Having Wonder Woman accuse a guy of "mansplaining" is not one.
Second, I think it's funny how only women are sexualized in comics. Batman, Superman, and every single male superhero having nigh unattainable physique and muscles? Perfectly acceptable.
jreilly89 wrote: Also, Rorschach isn't heroic because he's right-wing, he's heroic because he fights crime as a superhero even though it's illegal and doesn't back down from Adrian's master plan. But sure, keep pushing that agenda.
Wonder Woman is not heroic because she says mansplaining. She is heroic because she fights crime. I am at loss at your logic. But you said agenda, so that goes in my bingo I guess. I currently have SJW, censorship, agenda, I think I need someone saying “cuck” or “ethics” to win. Can you say either? I would really like to win.
See my reply above. Saying mansplaining is not heroic. But you've already pegged me as something so whatever "logic" I provide won't change your mind. Ethics. Happy?
Azreal13 wrote: They're really not. I've advocated this before (and I'm not the only one) that Slaanesh is the God of Excess and that an easy paradigm to follow for that would be the seven deadly sins.
The 7 deadly sin is a stupid concept that we only refer to because Christian mythology. Using some inspiration from it and having some models that emphasize pride or sloth, okay, why not, but using it literally, with a daemon for each sin? Please no don't.
So the Warhammer universe stealing ideas from vast quantities of historical and pop culture references to the point where almost everything in universe can trace its lineage to some outside source is fine, but using a pre existing Christian shortlist of the worst elements of humanity excesses as a jumping off point to make Slaanesh not about drugs and boobies isn't?
Your views have always struck me as particularly unique Hybrid, but im going to need you expand on why a thing is stupid because it comes from another thing, because that is your argument is in essence.
Anyone who has a problem with something taking inspiration from something else is a moron. Humanity as a whole has always taken inspiration from other things since time immemorial. The Christians drew from the Pagans, and so on and so forth.
Kriegspiel wrote: Actually french game "Hell Dorado" (a kind of Mordheim settled in Hell) had as demon lord the avatars of the sins
Spoiler:
Pride
Wrath
Glutonnery
That kind of emphasize the problem. Seriously, without looking, could you tell if that was gluttony or lust on that last model? How do you make Envy into a model (without doing a Saints Row-level joke and giving it a huge phallic appendage)?
Most of the time, the people deciding to theme something on the 7 deadly sin will have some great ideas on some of them, and will add filler stuff that is quite weak to fill the other sins, which is not something I find cool.
Azreal13 wrote: Your views have always struck me as particularly unique Hybrid, but im going to need you expand on why a thing is stupid because it comes from another thing, because that is your argument is in essence.
See just above. Also please don't misrepresent my views when I made them clear. I have no problem with reusing interesting bits of Christian mythology (and 40k already has plenty of Christians influence, that I never complained about).
jreilly89 wrote: But don't go expecting me to praise comics for excellent writing when it's just a PR stunt.
I never expected you to do so. I expected Buzzsaw and =Angel= to have something more worthwhile to show when they spoke of “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement […] in comic books.”, especially when they follow with “There are many distressing elements of the SocJus movement, elements that I find broadly illiberal as well as morally unacceptable”, and literally make Nazi comparisons.
jreilly89 wrote: There are ways to appeal to women readers, like strong female characters who show good traits. Having Wonder Woman accuse a guy of "mansplaining" is not one.
Maybe the objective is to target a specific demographic that is not “all women”, just like most comics don't target “all men” either?
jreilly89 wrote: Second, I think it's funny how only women are sexualized in comics. Batman, Superman, and every single male superhero having nigh unattainable physique and muscles? Perfectly acceptable.
It is okay. I don't expect you to understand this.
jreilly89 wrote: See my reply above. Saying mansplaining is not heroic.
Neither is being an extreme-right nutjob, is it?
Is your point that Rorschach is allowed to do things that are heroics and also stuff that is unrelated to his heroism, while Wonder Woman has to be heroic all the time?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: dunno about you but the last model with the giant mouth is probably Gluttony since the mouth thing is kinda unique to that.
It kind of look like… something else than a mouth, too.
Desubot wrote: dunno about you but the last model with the giant mouth is probably Gluttony since the mouth thing is kinda unique to that.
It kind of look like… something else than a mouth, too.
That is reaching. It is a gluttony demon with a giant, over-sized mouth. That model is not a walking vagina dentata, it is a gluttony demon who consumes those around it.
The gluttony model begins the game smaller, and when it consumes another enemy model the controlling player replaces the smaller demon model with the obese one posted above.
Here are the two forms of the model for comparision:
Perhaps you are primed for outrage? You are seeing vaginas where there clearly aren't vaginas present.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
That kind of emphasize the problem. Seriously, without looking, could you tell if that was gluttony or lust on that last model? How do you make Envy into a model (without doing a Saints Row-level joke and giving it a huge phallic appendage)?
Most of the time, the people deciding to theme something on the 7 deadly sin will have some great ideas on some of them, and will add filler stuff that is quite weak to fill the other sins, which is not something I find cool.
I said "use as a paradigm" not "slavishly copy wholesale." There's no reason to force a concept if the inspiration isn't there, but my point was there is a very easy source of ideas to stop Slaanesh being the boobie god, not that every single sin needs to be duplicated exactly.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Azreal13 wrote: Your views have always struck me as particularly unique Hybrid, but im going to need you expand on why a thing is stupid because it comes from another thing, because that is your argument is in essence.
See just above. Also please don't misrepresent my views when I made them clear. I have no problem with reusing interesting bits of Christian mythology (and 40k already has plenty of Christians influence, that I never complained about).
Here's what you wrote..
The 7 deadly sin is a stupid concept that we only refer to because Christian mythology.
You were literally dismissing the deadly sins concept as stupid because it is a part of the Christian mythology. I ask you to expand, and you accuse me of misrepresentiation...
DarkTraveler777 wrote: The gluttony model begins the game smaller, and when it consumes another enemy model the controlling player replaces the smaller demon model with the obese one posted above.
Here are the two forms of the model for comparision:
Azreal13 wrote: I said "use as a paradigm" not "slavishly copy wholesale." There's no reason to force a concept if the inspiration isn't there, but my point was there is a very easy source of ideas to stop Slaanesh being the boobie god, not that every single sin needs to be duplicated exactly.
Oh. Then fine by me. We already had Sigvald in WFB that was pretty high on pride.
Azreal13 wrote: You were literally dismissing the deadly sins concept as stupid because it is a part of the Christian mythology. I ask you to expand, and you accuse me of misrepresentiation...
I was dismissing the concept, AND saying we are still using it despite it being no good because of Christianity. I was not saying that is was BECAUSE it came from Christianity that it was not good.
I normally don't watch youtube videos but I watched them because it is important to listen to all sides as usually they are both wrong and incorrect in different ways. No matter what points they are discussing there is something about the social interaction that I find strange and doesn't make sense to me.
There is an event where there are speakers. It isn't mandatory, everyone makes their own choice to go to it. Why do people go with the intent to disrupt, over-shout under the guise of Freedom of Speech and claim that the other people are violating their rights by being there. I don't understand it. I get not agreeing with someones point of view, if you want to have input wait until the questions sections. Then again I also don't understand hecklers in comedian shows either, if you don't like it, then why stay?
Isn't that a subjective view though? I mean it is clearly where the mouth position is.. eyes, nose, large gaping mouth if it looks like something else, then isn't that influenced by that persons tastes, feelings, opinions, etc?
jreilly89 wrote: There are ways to appeal to women readers, like strong female characters who show good traits. Having Wonder Woman accuse a guy of "mansplaining" is not one.
Maybe the objective is to target a specific demographic that is not “all women”, just like most comics don't target “all men” either?
Cuz that'll make comics more accessible to the general populace. RIght
jreilly89 wrote: Second, I think it's funny how only women are sexualized in comics. Batman, Superman, and every single male superhero having nigh unattainable physique and muscles? Perfectly acceptable.
It is okay. I don't expect you to understand this.
Ah, stupidity insults. Glad to see this trotted out. Thanks.
jreilly89 wrote: See my reply above. Saying mansplaining is not heroic.
Neither is being an extreme-right nutjob, is it?
Is your point that Rorschach is allowed to do things that are heroics and also stuff that is unrelated to his heroism, while Wonder Woman has to be heroic all the time?
Please quote me some of Rorschach's extreme right-wing quotes. The main ones I can think of, detesting abortion, sex, etc., are not things I would equate with heroism, because Rorschach is not heroic. He is definitely an anti-hero. Remember when he chopped up that child molester with an axe?
That's the difference. Wonder Woman is a hero, Rorschach is a vigilante with heroic moments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: dunno about you but the last model with the giant mouth is probably Gluttony since the mouth thing is kinda unique to that.
It kind of look like… something else than a mouth, too.
So do flowers. Look at Georgia O'Keeffe's paintings. Anything can be genitalia if you stare at it hard enough.
Azreal13 wrote: You were literally dismissing the deadly sins concept as stupid because it is a part of the Christian mythology. I ask you to expand, and you accuse me of misrepresentiation...
I was dismissing the concept, AND saying we are still using it despite it being no good because of Christianity. I was not saying that is was BECAUSE it came from Christianity that it was not good.
That's clearly a matter of opinion, as a reference for potential Slaanesh concepts and as a list of bad and destructive emotions it is still fairly relevant IMO. That you disagree with me isn't surprising, but perhaps, as you seem to be keen to see fewer boobs, you could outline your own ideas, because substituting the concepts for valid altenatives is far more likely to get traction than any sort of removal.
jreilly89 wrote: Cuz that'll make comics more accessible to the general populace. RIght
Having different comics catering to different tastes? Yes, I think so.
jreilly89 wrote: Ah, stupidity insults. Glad to see this trotted out. Thanks.
It's more about being tired to explain the same thing over and over and over again, for no discernible results. Let me ask you this question: do you think that after having talked with me about it, you could change your opinion on this? If not, I am sure you will agree to let this go without further debate…
jreilly89 wrote: That's the difference. Wonder Woman is a hero, Rorschach is a vigilante with heroic moments.
Maybe the author is deciding to portray Wonder Woman as a vigilante with heroic moments. Maybe the author has a different vision of what a hero is. Whatever.
jreilly89 wrote: Anything can be genitalia if you stare at it hard enough.
Especially after watching too much Giger artworks .
So, if I get it right, the terrible, terrible damage done by SJW which justify considering them a very, very real threat that needs to be dealt with is that… some students were protesting against three donkey-caves giving speeches at their university?
(hilariously, quoting you allows me to see what you wrote and Dakka Dakka filtered to 'donkey caves')
Donkey caves?
Foreigners?
Gays?
Mormons?
Jews?
People with different opinions?
It doesn't matter who is giving a speech and whether you have 'opinions' about them. The point of free speech and indeed, organised events is that they are allowed to occur- but you may hold your own speeches and refute their points.
What is happening here instead is a kind of bullying people into silence. Attempting to drown out or intimidate people into submission.
Milo, quite cleverly, allows even his detractors to ask questions at these events- so he can expose their lunacy and refute their arguments.
Without fail, most of the questions will be 'don't you find it hypocritical/problematic that...' - leading questions of the 'how often do you beat your wife?' variety.
Without fail, their concerns can be addressed with facts and logic.
I am pretty sure mentioning “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is exactly what you needed to do to make your concern irrelevant to people that are not into your very specific, very tiny political cult. I mean, “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is not a problem for most people. They are happy enough with comics, and enjoy some of them but not all yet are fine with the idea that not all comics have to be written for them specifically. There is plenty of violence and plenty of sex (and plenty of cheap titillation masquerading as sexy too) to be found.
That's the thing about subjectivity. Perhaps some people have enjoyed the anvilicious, heavy handed rhetoric that slaps you inthe face when you open a Wonder Woman comic these days.
Like Wondy allowing a defenceless man who is bound and at her mercy to be assaulted. And saying 'mansplaining'
This gets to my point about the SJWs denial of reality: so, apparently, these comics with their ever increasing exploration of the frontiers of SocJus pandering should be a big hit, right? Except... there are the articles talking about how sales data show these comics are tanking. It's so bad that the Mary Sue ran an article pointing out, among other things, that sales data doesn't capture "people [who] borrow comics from other people who bought comics, such as a friend or a library".
That's par for the course, but let's use an even bigger example: the other day I came across an opinion piece on MSNBC titled 'Conservative backlash to Mizzou protests may backfire'. That was written in November, it supports the protesters and notes (pointedly) that while the GOP candidates condemned what happened, the Dems were more sympathetic. So... what actually ended up happening?
Enrollment numbers are reflecting that trend. This year’s freshman class hovers at about 4,700 students, a 25 percent dip from last year’s freshman class of about 6,200 students. Current students are also leaving the school in significant numbers, although the university has yet to release data revealing the specifics.
The declining enrollment numbers, paired with the increasing financial demands to maintain new diversity measures that were implemented to appease the protesting students, have left Mizzou with a $32.5 million budget shortfall. In response, the school has closed four dormitory buildings, leaving more than 300 students without housing.
Let's also be honest here: my last post started with an exposition on the basic elements of the Judaeo-Christian moral framework. By the end of his reply to me, Peregrine has supplied this rationale for why a person would go to a public venue and scream obscenities at people they disagree with: "Because it's fun?" Oh, and that if you're "you're sitting here arguing on the internet" you don't have "any right to judge other people for engaging in protests of things they don't like". Wherein "protests" are screaming obscenities and trying to talk over people you don't like.
Just for funzies, let's ponder if a guy that quotes Maimonides and his Rabbi is...hmm, shall we say, likely to be persuaded by that 'logic'.
jreilly89 wrote: Ah, stupidity insults. Glad to see this trotted out. Thanks.
It's more about being tired to explain the same thing over and over and over again, for no discernible results. Let me ask you this question: do you think that after having talked with me about it, you could change your opinion on this? If not, I am sure you will agree to let this go without further debate…
No, and based on your responses, I doubt you'd change yours. Deuces.
jreilly89 wrote: Ah, stupidity insults. Glad to see this trotted out. Thanks.
It's more about being tired to explain the same thing over and over and over again, for no discernible results. Let me ask you this question: do you think that after having talked with me about it, you could change your opinion on this? If not, I am sure you will agree to let this go without further debate…
No, and based on your responses, I doubt you'd change yours. Deuces.
Indeed. Hence why I though it unnecessary to further debate it. I heard all your arguments and you heard all mines already.
And now we get to your real argument. Your supposed moral high ground and outrage over "censorship" are just an attempt to fluff up the same old "a company is making products that I don't like" complaints. It's just another round of "the new tactical squad kit has too many purity seals, and I really wish we could have some Mk III armor bits included" except with "SJWs".
Probably because the arguments would just happen elsewhere without this thread, and nobody wants that.
And how come none of us, it seems, can agree to differ?
Because this is a forum, a place for people to talk, not a place for people to say "I agree not to talk" and silently ignore each other. If you don't like the discussion you're free to stop opening the thread and read something else instead.
master of ordinance wrote: How is this thread still going? And how come none of us, it seems, can agree to differ?
I am afraid that train passed long ago.
And in an attempt to drag it back in the 40k fluff all chaos gods can manifest the seven deadly sins, its not a privilege of one or the other, remember that fundamentally in the GW fluff the warp is affected by the emotions of the living beings and likewise it affects the "real space", similar emotions attract and pool to bigger disturbances.
The 7 sins are not something that could be privilege to one god alone all chaos powers can manifest them because they are basic emotions, the key in understanding how to apply them to each power is what the power really stands for.
A basic question would be why Khorn and Tzeench are paired together while Nurgle and Slaanesh are together onfirst glance the brute and the magician the ugly and the beautiful should class, but this is not what they represent, Nurge is persistence against the odds Tzeench is the change to survive the odds both clash in their motives, Khorn is usually depicted in pride and Slaanesh on decadence, which conflict but for me Khorn and Slaanesh should conflict on restrain and been unrestrained.
The key to Slaanesh and Khorn really for me is this conflict and this is were they could go for direction and elevating both concepts from muscular brutes and sex and drugs that have tied them up for so long.
master of ordinance wrote: How is this thread still going? And how come none of us, it seems, can agree to differ?
I am afraid that train passed long ago.
And in an attempt to drag it back in the 40k fluff all chaos gods can manifest the seven deadly sins, its not a privilege of one or the other, remember that fundamentally in the GW fluff the warp is affected by the emotions of the living beings and likewise it affects the "real space", similar emotions attract and pool to bigger disturbances.
The 7 sins are not something that could be privilege to one god alone all chaos powers can manifest them because they are basic emotions, the key in understanding how to apply them to each power is what the power really stands for.
A basic question would be why Khorn and Tzeench are paired together while Nurgle and Slaanesh are together onfirst glance the brute and the magician the ugly and the beautiful should class, but this is not what they represent, Nurge is persistence against the odds Tzeench is the change to survive the odds both clash in their motives, Khorn is usually depicted in pride and Slaanesh on decadence, which conflict but for me Khorn and Slaanesh should conflict on restrain and been unrestrained.
The key to Slaanesh and Khorn really for me is this conflict and this is were they could go for direction and elevating both concepts from muscular brutes and sex and drugs that have tied them up for so long.
The fluff discussion is an on topic discussion of one or two pages ago, mainly illustrating that the depiction of Slaanesh is a bad handling of its fluff and not as the article described an artefact of the past that should be better removed for the good of the IP.
The train thing? there are many sides entrenched in this thread many not willing to do what you said and many not even debating the same things on the same grounds.
Yeah, I understand what he's driving at and it still doesn't make a lot of sense!
Nurgle = Entropy, the absence of change, hence his ultimate long game is the complete antithesis of Tzeentch's.
Honestly, I think the writers then had to fabricate a rivalry between Khorne and Slaanesh for balance, but if IRC from my Realm Of Chaos days it's because Khorne despises Slaanesh's foppish and decadent nature. I also always felt there was a subtext where Khorne embodies very "male" traits whereas Slaanesh has many "female" characteristics.
Irrespective of any of that, Slaanesh has claim over the 7DS because they all represent behaviour taken to excess, which is Slaanesh's thing. Keep yourself clean and tidy? No problem. Spend vast quantities of time and money on your appearance? You're vain. Eat when you're hungry? No problem. Eat all the time, hungry or not? You're a glutton. Try to gain enough that you can support and protect yourself and your loved ones? Fine. Try and garner more than you need, even if it hurts others? You're greedy. Etc, etc.
That's a pretty neat take on Slaaneshes lore.
It would also mean that we could see a greater variety of Slaaneshi demons; glutton demons, lust demons (demonettes), wrath deaths, envy demons, sloth demons and greed demons.
Only Slaanesh can be pride though
Honestly they could of done the marvel thing and went tzeench (infinity) to nurgle (enthropy) corn(death) and slannesh (infinity) or basically life/death
it doesnt fit well as chaos is mostly bad guys.
i dont really think 7ds really works completely with slannesh.
wrath is more a corn thing and tzneench can come as a result of trying do some of them like greed and envy sloth is a nurgle thing if anything gluttony, lust pride works super well for slannesh though.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: That's a pretty neat take on Slaaneshes lore.
It would also mean that we could see a greater variety of Slaaneshi demons; glutton demons, lust demons (demonettes), wrath deaths, envy demons, sloth demons and greed demons.
Only Slaanesh can be pride though
It doesn't even have to be all 7. Plus you then have the sensory elements sound, colours etc. Noise Marines are about the limit. There'd probably be overlap with Dark Eldar, but then it's fluffy and appropriate that it should.
I think, on the tangent of Slaanesh, the problem is that Chaos as a whole is all about excess so having Slaanesh be the god of excess is just redundant. For example, Tzeentch is not the god of mere making plans, it is the god of planning to excess such that your entire life becomes plots within plots within plots within plots and you can't really even remember what your end goal was supposed to be. The better way to frame it is that Slaanesh is the god of excess in physical sensation. And that sets up a more natural rivalry between Khorne and Slaanesh: Khorne demands dedication to the higher cause of slaughter, Slaanesh rewards living in the moment and only caring about the next bit of pleasure. Slaanesh is lazy and lacking in willpower, Khorne is a tyrant who shouldn't even call itself "Chaos" if it wants to demand so much order and discipline.
wrath is more a corn thing
and tzneench can come as a result of trying do some of them like greed and envy
sloth is a nurgle thing if anything
gluttony, lust pride works super well for slannesh though.
Sloth is laziness, there's no clear cut reason that should belong to Nurgle, his stuff might not move much, but that's not necessarily because it can't be arsed.
Tzeentch is change, his remit is the widest of all the gods, but I don't see how greed or envy fit specifically?
I'd agree Wrath is superficially a Khorne thing, but then plotting one's revenge could also be a Tzeentch thing. Some crossover is inevitable. A passing idea I had for a Slaanesh Wrath unit would be to forgo Furious Charge, that's very obviously Khorne, but give the unit Counter Attack and some sort of bonus when they do?
Peregrine wrote: I think, on the tangent of Slaanesh, the problem is that Chaos as a whole is all about excess so having Slaanesh be the god of excess is just redundant. For example, Tzeentch is not the god of mere making plans, it is the god of planning to excess such that your entire life becomes plots within plots within plots within plots and you can't really even remember what your end goal was supposed to be. The better way to frame it is that Slaanesh is the god of excess in physical sensation. And that sets up a more natural rivalry between Khorne and Slaanesh: Khorne demands dedication to the higher cause of slaughter, Slaanesh rewards living in the moment and only caring about the next bit of pleasure. Slaanesh is lazy and lacking in willpower, Khorne is a tyrant who shouldn't even call itself "Chaos" if it wants to demand so much order and discipline.
IIRC they are also gods of other aspects of humanity like tzeench was hope, khorne was honor, nurgle was acceptance, and i dont remember what slannesh was. i really liked that idea but it seems gw went all grim dark on all the things
the only thing i dont like about the whole live for the moment thing of slannesh is that the EC was really known for priding them selves in there martial skills and stuff as well there flawlessness i though. (honestly could be miss remembering this)
wrath is more a corn thing and tzneench can come as a result of trying do some of them like greed and envy sloth is a nurgle thing if anything gluttony, lust pride works super well for slannesh though.
Sloth is laziness, there's no clear cut reason that should belong to Nurgle, his stuff might not move much, but that's not necessarily because it can't be arsed.
Tzeentch is change, his remit is the widest of all the gods, but I don't see how greed or envy fit specifically?
I'd agree Wrath is superficially a Khorne thing, but then plotting one's revenge could also be a Tzeentch thing. Some crossover is inevitable. A passing idea I had for a Slaanesh Wrath unit would be to forgo Furious Charge, that's very obviously Khorne, but give the unit Counter Attack and some sort of bonus when they do?
With tzeentch im saying that schemes and plots come from greed or envy. politicians making deals behind other politicians to make big moves for power, and other politicans doing to same to get the power from another. and such.
sloth was me be slothy as i couldn't be asred to make a good connection
Automatically Appended Next Post: Regardless, this is perhaps tangenting too far, but there are far more concepts available to Slaanesh than boob daemons, and while I have a largely "to each to their own" attitude towards the broader topic, I'm not a fan of lazy design, and making Slaanesh all about sex and boobs is mostly lazy design.
Please quote me some of Rorschach's extreme right-wing quotes. The main ones I can think of, detesting abortion, sex, etc., are not things I would equate with heroism, because Rorschach is not heroic. He is definitely an anti-hero. Remember when he chopped up that child molester with an axe?
Ditko, who was inspired by the writings of Ayn Rand's personal philosophy of objectivism, created both the Question and Mr. A as followers of the ideology. Regarding Rand's philosophy, Moore said he personally found it "laughable". In spite of this, Moore had a healthy respect for Ditko despite having different views politically. Moore recalled that Ditko's very right-wing agenda was quite interesting to him at the time, and that "probably led to me portraying Rorschach as an extremely right-wing character".
So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I meant him to be a bad example, but I have people come up to me in the street saying, ‘I am Rorschach! That is my story!’ And I’ll be thinking, ‘Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me and never come anywhere near me again for as long as I live?'
I always felt Khorne - Tzeentch and Slaanesh - Nurgle made more sense.
The former two are extremes of sorcery and plotting versus martial combat and unsubtle brutality, whereas the latter two are extremes of beauty, ever seeking greater extremes and hidden corruption versus hideousness, stagnation and obvious corruption.
So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I meant him to be a bad example, but I have people come up to me in the street saying, ‘I am Rorschach! That is my story!’ And I’ll be thinking, ‘Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me and never come anywhere near me again for as long as I live?'
Please quote me some of Rorschach's extreme right-wing quotes. The main ones I can think of, detesting abortion, sex, etc., are not things I would equate with heroism, because Rorschach is not heroic. He is definitely an anti-hero. Remember when he chopped up that child molester with an axe?
Ditko, who was inspired by the writings of Ayn Rand's personal philosophy of objectivism, created both the Question and Mr. A as followers of the ideology. Regarding Rand's philosophy, Moore said he personally found it "laughable". In spite of this, Moore had a healthy respect for Ditko despite having different views politically. Moore recalled that Ditko's very right-wing agenda was quite interesting to him at the time, and that "probably led to me portraying Rorschach as an extremely right-wing character".
So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I meant him to be a bad example, but I have people come up to me in the street saying, ‘I am Rorschach! That is my story!’ And I’ll be thinking, ‘Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me and never come anywhere near me again for as long as I live?'
First, a minor point in that I'm not completely sure about the back and forth between Mario and jreilly; perhaps I am misunderstanding their respective points, but it would seem that Mario is amplifying J's points rather then refuting them.
The large point, however, is that this is a fantastic example of what I talked about in one of my first posts in this thread (way back on page 8);
Spoiler:
Buzzsaw wrote: ...Of course, we can all agree that an inanimate object cannot hold bigoted views. Your point is therefore that an object, or any other work of creativity, is intrinsically marked by the attitude of the creator, and that this mark carries with it their bigotry, yes? As an aside, I think it's clear we should be using the term bigotry, as sexism is simply a sub-type of bigotry, and it makes it a bit clearer what we are talking about.
Now, assuming I have correctly understood your point, I must state that I fundamentally disagree: I do not and cannot agree to the idea that an artistic work must be interpreted, or indeed should be interpreted or appreciated, by the characteristics of its creator. This is, of course, not to say that one cannot recognize the individual style of a given artist, given genre or artistic tradition. Rather I am saying that a work stands on its own: it is improper to either impute to a work the sexism of its creator, or conversely to impute to a creator a bigotry on the basis of objection to his work....
I argued that the intent and character of the creator does not transfer to the creation. What better example of this disconnect can there be then Alan Moore and the character of Rorschach? Here there is a wide consensus based on many interviews and his own biography that Alan Moore was not sympathetic to either the character of Rorschach or his moral code.
In the simplest statement Moore ran face first into the reality that you are not your audience, a useful maxim for any aspiring artist in any medium. The broader point is more important though: characteristics like 'Heroism', and even, yes, things like 'sexy', are not universal, but lie not just in the eye of he beholder, but even more so in their morality, world view and principles.
Alan Moore's problem was a microcosm of the problem discussed in this thread: his concept of a 'Hero' wasn't what (some of) his audience conceived of as a "Hero". Moore conveyed, with great depth and power, what he considered a repellent pastiche of the 'right-wing', Randian vigilante ideal.
In the simplest statement Moore ran face first into the reality that you are not your audience, a useful maxim for any aspiring artist in any medium. The broader point is more important though: characteristics like 'Heroism', and even, yes, things like 'sexy', are not universal, but lie not just in the eye of he beholder, but even more so in their morality, world view and principles.
Which is why, in my opinion, you should always create something first and foremost for yourself. You can try to predict how most people will probably see your work, but in the end, you can never know how your readers, listeners or watchers will experience it. Some may perceive it as flat and devoid of meaning, while others will search the secrets of the universe within it.
In the simplest statement Moore ran face first into the reality that you are not your audience, a useful maxim for any aspiring artist in any medium. The broader point is more important though: characteristics like 'Heroism', and even, yes, things like 'sexy', are not universal, but lie not just in the eye of he beholder, but even more so in their morality, world view and principles.
Which is why, in my opinion, you should always create something first and foremost for yourself. You can try to predict how most people will probably see your work, but in the end, you can never know how your readers, listeners or watchers will experience it. Some may perceive it as flat and devoid of meaning, while others will search the secrets of the universe within it.
That also feeds into these incessant cries of censorship (read this for a recent example). Companies hire people to produce work and these creators are technically censored. They create what the company pays for and not what they want. There is this pedantic definition of censorship that gets thrown around at the tiniest of changes (that might have been done to expand the customer base and include a different group of people) and some people are outraged at any criticism or change that a company makes. These companies do what they they think will sell, and are not just living their bohemian art lives free from the obligations of society (like paying for food and shelter).
Creating 100% what you want works better if you have no economic consideration to think about (or chose to ignore the economic viability of your art) but companies usually make stuff they think they can sell. Technically, in some quibbling way, all these cries of censorship are, of course, true but they just willfully ignore that this art (be it miniatures, comics, books, video games, movies, or anything pop cultural relevant) is created as a product first and its artistic value comes second (at best).
But of course the censorship crowd also manages to throw around the "target audience" argument to explain why something shouldn't change at all but throw a fit when a company actually tries to expand their customer base by changing stuff and not only targeting them (female Thor, non white Peter Parker, localize a game to fit whatever they think their target audience on a certain continent is). And it's only "a company pandering to demographic X" or "an X agenda" when it's not about them.
I still remember a discussion by concept artists working in the video game industry (visdev outsourcing) where they talked about the bland and seasonal protagonists (short hair/shaved hair but stubble/emo-ish haircut, the hoodie or the backpack year, and so on) they have to create for the game publishers (they could look at a video game cover and tell you for which year that was made from the protagonist alone). The creator that the anti-censorship crowd so vehemently wants to protect is actually the publisher with the money (and influence, who usually just ignores all the criticism the anti-censorship crowds thinks is so damaging) who just goes for whatever they think will be acceptable for the biggest possible audience and that means it's often just a variation of the doomguy: white, male, varying degrees of athletic, brownish hair (often relatively short) because that's what they think works.
Naughty Dog literary had to fight to get Ellie on the cover of The Last Of Us and BioShock Infinite literary went with the blandest cover possible (instead of using something they actually liked) to pander to the FPS crowd.
Please quote me some of Rorschach's extreme right-wing quotes. The main ones I can think of, detesting abortion, sex, etc., are not things I would equate with heroism, because Rorschach is not heroic. He is definitely an anti-hero. Remember when he chopped up that child molester with an axe?
Ditko, who was inspired by the writings of Ayn Rand's personal philosophy of objectivism, created both the Question and Mr. A as followers of the ideology. Regarding Rand's philosophy, Moore said he personally found it "laughable". In spite of this, Moore had a healthy respect for Ditko despite having different views politically. Moore recalled that Ditko's very right-wing agenda was quite interesting to him at the time, and that "probably led to me portraying Rorschach as an extremely right-wing character".
So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I meant him to be a bad example, but I have people come up to me in the street saying, ‘I am Rorschach! That is my story!’ And I’ll be thinking, ‘Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me and never come anywhere near me again for as long as I live?'
First, a minor point in that I'm not completely sure about the back and forth between Mario and jreilly; perhaps I am misunderstanding their respective points, but it would seem that Mario is amplifying J's points rather then refuting them.
The large point, however, is that this is a fantastic example of what I talked about in one of my first posts in this thread (way back on page 8);
Spoiler:
Buzzsaw wrote: ...Of course, we can all agree that an inanimate object cannot hold bigoted views. Your point is therefore that an object, or any other work of creativity, is intrinsically marked by the attitude of the creator, and that this mark carries with it their bigotry, yes? As an aside, I think it's clear we should be using the term bigotry, as sexism is simply a sub-type of bigotry, and it makes it a bit clearer what we are talking about.
Now, assuming I have correctly understood your point, I must state that I fundamentally disagree: I do not and cannot agree to the idea that an artistic work must be interpreted, or indeed should be interpreted or appreciated, by the characteristics of its creator. This is, of course, not to say that one cannot recognize the individual style of a given artist, given genre or artistic tradition. Rather I am saying that a work stands on its own: it is improper to either impute to a work the sexism of its creator, or conversely to impute to a creator a bigotry on the basis of objection to his work....
I argued that the intent and character of the creator does not transfer to the creation. What better example of this disconnect can there be then Alan Moore and the character of Rorschach? Here there is a wide consensus based on many interviews and his own biography that Alan Moore was not sympathetic to either the character of Rorschach or his moral code.
In the simplest statement Moore ran face first into the reality that you are not your audience, a useful maxim for any aspiring artist in any medium. The broader point is more important though: characteristics like 'Heroism', and even, yes, things like 'sexy', are not universal, but lie not just in the eye of he beholder, but even more so in their morality, world view and principles.
Alan Moore's problem was a microcosm of the problem discussed in this thread: his concept of a 'Hero' wasn't what (some of) his audience conceived of as a "Hero". Moore conveyed, with great depth and power, what he considered a repellent pastiche of the 'right-wing', Randian vigilante ideal.
Thank you. This is why I consider Rorschach a lot like an even darker Punisher. Does he affect some good? Sure, but he himself is not good. He's a murderer and a vigilante, possibly psychotic.
jreilly89 wrote: Thank you. This is why I consider Rorschach a lot like an even darker Punisher. Does he affect some good? Sure, but he himself is not good. He's a murderer and a vigilante, possibly psychotic.
I would say the big thing about the Punisher and Rorschach is that they never make mistakes. As in, they never kill someone who is later cleared of the crime they thought they were punishing him for. And, in more general terms, the story never makes their victims sympathetic in any way.
I guess if there were a bunch of examples of victims of Rorschach that were actually innocent and sympathetic, a lot less people would hold him as an heroic figure. And innocent victims/abuse of power are the main reason why vigilante are not a good idea.
jreilly89 wrote: Thank you. This is why I consider Rorschach a lot like an even darker Punisher. Does he affect some good? Sure, but he himself is not good. He's a murderer and a vigilante, possibly psychotic.
I would say the big thing about the Punisher and Rorschach is that they never make mistakes. As in, they never kill someone who is later cleared of the crime they thought they were punishing him for. And, in more general terms, the story never makes their victims sympathetic in any way.
I guess if there were a bunch of examples of victims of Rorschach that were actually innocent and sympathetic, a lot less people would hold him as an heroic figure. And innocent victims/abuse of power are the main reason why vigilante are not a good idea.
Well, the Punisher/Rorschasch go through a fair amount of stalking/detective work before blowing a guy away, or they catch him in the act and do it.
It does reduce the chance of them making a mistake though. The same could be said of more legitimate methods of law enforcement.
As if they would be written as such, anyway.
We seem to agree on the Hillel, although you left out the most important part of the quote according to my ex rabbi. Anyway, perhaps it was my upbringing, but I have always seen the value in criticism, even blunt criticism. If I alienate someone, I much prefer to know why instead of losing them silently. Perhaps I should coddle Warlord's mind more?
We also seem to have a different view of what comprises the SJW movement. Politically, I feel I am very far to the left of you, and from my position I see lots of genuinely valuable criticism dismissed with the SJW label. It seems like a facile way to avoid actually questioning your own stance on an issue.
Azreal13 wrote: They're really not. I've advocated this before (and I'm not the only one) that Slaanesh is the God of Excess and that an easy paradigm to follow for that would be the seven deadly sins.
This. A thousand times this.
Thinking that Slaanesh is the Chaos God of Boobies and Nakedness reduces it down to a petulant child-like and, dare I say it, 4-chan-ish interpretation. Slaanesh is not that. Slaanesh is the Chaos God of Excess. Spent quite a while with a team of people writing a whole damned book about that, so I'd say I know a thing or two about the subject.
So thank you for bringing it up Az.
Can you please point me out to anyone complaining about Slaaneshi miniatures? I am not being snarky; I can't remember ever seeing it.
The closest I remember is when the less/un-sexy plastic daemonettes came out and for months the board was full of people complaining about GW caving in to...some sort of phantom movement against boobies? Even at the time, it was notable that there were complaints about the complaints, but no original, anti-booby complaints in the first place. The impression I got is that GW chose to redesign the daemonettes to be closer to the older, uglier daemonettes, and perhaps toned down the sensuality based on the company's own internal impression that it made products for children. That one's not on the SJWs.
Ashiraya wrote: That is absolutely hilarious. The irony of the term triggering you so badly is not lost on me. Perhaps a trigger warning is in order?
I would actually appreciate that. Something along the lines of "Warning: Terrible writing and blatant money cash grab ahead". Guess what? I was just as "triggered" when Doom cried over 9/11 or when they made Thor a woman.
Pretty sure that warning would apply to every comic book ever written.
I wonder if this is how old-school nerds felt about the Claremont-era X-Men with their dated 70's civil rights lingo.
We seem to agree on the Hillel, although you left out the most important part of the quote according to my ex rabbi. Anyway, perhaps it was my upbringing, but I have always seen the value in criticism, even blunt criticism. If I alienate someone, I much prefer to know why instead of losing them silently. Perhaps I should coddle Warlord's mind more?
We also seem to have a different view of what comprises the SJW movement. Politically, I feel I am very far to the left of you, and from my position I see lots of genuinely valuable criticism dismissed with the SJW label. It seems like a facile way to avoid actually questioning your own stance on an issue.
Perhaps it's simply been too long since my reply which you are now addressing, but I don't understand the nature of your response. Well, except for the 'all the rest is commentary, now go and learn it' allusion (Hillel's full quote is generally given as "What is hateful to you, do not do unto others. That is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary. Now go and learn it."). While is certainly the case that the 'commentary' part is profoundly important, I felt it a bit far afield for this particular discussion.
I'm genuinely at a loss as to where I have indicated I don't support either criticism or the free exchange of ideas. On the contrary, I think I've rather aggressively supported the idea of open forums for discussion. What I don't support is the tendentious moralizing wherein the SJW will claim that their position on a given issue cannot be challenged, and if challenged said challenge is prima facia evidence of bigotry. Q.V. SJWs accusing Christina Hoff Summers of 'supporting rape culture'. Certainly no one has previously accused me of lacking in criticism before!
Not to be rude, but if you're going to accuse me of a 'facile avoidance of examining my own stance', it would seem incumbent on you to provide an example of an issue where I have done so. After all, it is always possible that I and the other critics of the Social Justice movement are correct and it is the deeply illiberal movement responsible for, as Prof Dershowitz described it, "the fog of fascism... descending quickly over many American universities."
Kojiro wrote: You're making it sound like fictional characters can do anything other than what the writer decides for them.
That is not what I intend to do. What I did intend to do was point out that it would have been possible to depict Rorschach, or the Punisher, as “punishing” the wrong victim, without too much credibility issues. If I wanted to write them as a cautionary tale about vigilantism, that is definitely something I would have done.
Buzzsaw wrote: I'm genuinely at a loss as to where I have indicated I don't support either criticism or the free exchange of ideas.
I don't know, perhaps people get that idea when you posts links like this, which can be accurately summed up as "SJWS SAID THINGS I DON'T LIKE THIS IS NOT RIGHT!!!!!!".
What I don't support is the tendentious moralizing wherein the SJW will claim that their position on a given issue cannot be challenged, and if challenged said challenge is prima facia evidence of bigotry.
And calling someone a bigot is part of the "free exchange of ideas" you claim to support. Why are you trying to silence the "SJWs" who make accusations of bigotry in the same way that you claim that the anti-SJW side is being "silenced"?
But the truth is that you don't care about the free exchange of ideas, you care about the free exchange of your ideas. You want other people to give you a platform to speak from, you want other people to listen to you, and you don't want to face any criticism that would make you too uncomfortable. And if anyone doesn't want to give you these things you cry "silencing" and "fascism", as if you're suddenly the victim of horrible oppression.
Kojiro wrote: You're making it sound like fictional characters can do anything other than what the writer decides for them.
That is not what I intend to do. What I did intend to do was point out that it would have been possible to depict Rorschach, or the Punisher, as “punishing” the wrong victim, without too much credibility issues. If I wanted to write them as a cautionary tale about vigilantism, that is definitely something I would have done.
Yes, you could and it would break character, the most important part of a fictional character is establishing its character its background what they do and they do not, given the quite recent Overwatch Tracer victory pose "controversy" her pose was indeed breaking character and this comes from a character that is hardly fleshed out in comparison with the two mentioned.
Breaking character to "experiment" ectr is one of the biggest reasons I stopped reading or caring for superhero comics.
What does issues about Palestino-Israeli conflict have to do with “SJW”? Because he is 100% talking about that, there really is nothing about, say, representation issues in geek culture.
You can challenge all you want. If your challenge shows bigotry, it is highly likely it is going to be called for. Even if you are not, some people may call you a bigot anyway, but hey, that's life. Answer them by showing by your words and deeds that you are not a bigot, and ignore them.
So, when Alan Moore wrote Watchmen, if he had decided to make Rorschach make an error, it would have been “breaking character” ?
Also, making a mistake is “out of character”, so part of their character is “never make mistakes” ?
But yeah, if you are reading comics, most of them don't have characters. They have franchise. I find that annoying too. That's not (yet) the case for Watchmen, thankfully. And that is a direct result of the US way of doing things, with the company rather than the author owning the IP of the character/franchise.
No because nothing was published, but after publication and after the character mythos has been established making a character that is known for been methodical making a sloppy error would break character.
Yes in real life everybody does mistakes some quite big, but, the fictional characters are not real and their persona is established by their character, breaking it is more serious.
Then in the context, my quote made perfect sense. If I had been Moore I would have made Rorschach made mistakes (and/or abuse of power), and then way less people would have mistaken him for a hero.
Also, even after the character has been established, stuff happens. If he begin to systematically make mistake it is breaking character. If he makes one mistake, and that is a big deal, and there are good reasons that explain why he made it, it is not breaking character. It's just, you know, stuff happening. Just like when Castle get into a trap, which happens a lot…
Things would be boring if characters never made mistakes.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Then in the context, my quote made perfect sense. If I had been Moore I would have made Rorschach made mistakes (and/or abuse of power), and then way less people would have mistaken him for a hero.
Also, even after the character has been established, stuff happens. If he begin to systematically make mistake it is breaking character. If he makes one mistake, and that is a big deal, and there are good reasons that explain why he made it, it is not breaking character. It's just, you know, stuff happening. Just like when Castle get into a trap, which happens a lot…
Things would be boring if characters never made mistakes.
While I agree it's boring if there's no risk involved, I think it would make more sense for them to cause collateral damage than to make mistakes. I think it'd be more interesting if Punisher got in a gunfight and some stray bullets blew away some innocent civilians. That makes for interesting righting, because it's not "Oh crap, I plugged the wrong guy", it's "Oh crap, my actions have large consequences and ripple effects."
33 pages in, we appear to have wandered far afield here, and perhaps now this thread is being used discuss other topics,m and maybe also to insult one another?
Is there a reason for this thread to stay open at this point?
First of all: What does Watchmen even have to do with TTWargames anymore?
Second: Are we actually arguing here that Rorschach, the most broken and clearly in need of help character in a book about crazy people that dress up and play super heroes, never makes mistakes? EVERYONE involved in that story very clearly and obviously makes mistakes. Heavy Spoiler Ahead!
Spoiler:
The entire STORY is about Rorschach being on the wrong track, for Christ's sake!
Watchmen is a Oneshot story and during the entire storyline, he's preoccupied with investigating the Comedian Case. We only ever get glimpses of the past and only really see the one case that completely broke his mind. It's nowhere ever stated that he's flawless and I think it's pretty darn obvious from his ramblings that he's completely insane. And that can lead him either way, as we see in the story. In the end, his entire point is taking the psychopathic, obsessive side of Batman and demonstrating that such a person would be deemed instable, dangerous and crazy in the real world.
So, once again, what exactly are we talking about anymore and how does it pertain to the General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures?
Edit: Ninja'd by Alpharius. Because of course, by whom else?
First, let me disagree completely with Korraz, but that brings up...
Alpharius wrote: 33 pages in, we appear to have wandered far afield here, and perhaps now this thread is being used discuss other topics,m and maybe also to insult one another?
Is there a reason for this thread to stay open at this point?
Probably not. The one thing the thread has demonstrated definitively is that the issues surrounding this are almost entirely non-amenable to discussion.
.
.
I know Marvel has pulled some PR stunts, but jesus.
.
.
.
