Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Blndmage wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Catulle wrote:
At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.

I suppose that's possible. I've only ever heard "little" used in two situations: adults with a parent/child fetish pretending to be small children for sexual reasons (which I desperately hope Blndmage is not referring to), and very rarely an actual small child, a 5 year old or younger. I don't think I've ever heard it used to describe a teenager, and certainly not an adult.

Folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder also use the term "Littles" for younger headmates.

Probably many other uses. Don't assume you know everything.

DID is so absurdly rare compared to what TikTokkers actually believe that it's not something people should really think about for the term Littles

1.5-3% of the population, but that's assumed to be a low estimate.

If you respect transfolk's existence, respect folks suffering from DID, it's literally the result of intense, repeated trauma as a child.

That's entirely debated. Many sources site it to be much less than 1%.
Source: I literally work with a psychiatrist office

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Pride, as an event, is political - but that isn't what I was referring to.

But the context here is capital-P Pride, not merely LGBT existence. And pride flags, including the color combinations in non-flag form, are an overtly political thing.

Necrons aren't human, sure, but why wouldn't they have LGBT+ members and relationships and identities? We already know that queer behaviours exist outside of humanity (in many animal cases), so why *wouldn't* Necrons have those members.

Because we don't even know if Necrons have sexual dimorphism! The entire concept of "queer" doesn't exist if your species has only one sex and reproduces by indiscriminately spreading pollen clouds with no romantic or sexual relationships. Can real-world mushrooms be queer? Can a virus be queer? LGBT Necrons can only be assumed if you also assume the trope that aliens are humans with pointy ears, not alien beings where none of the assumptions about real-world biology and culture apply.

And, again, even if there are LGBT Necrons that doesn't mean there is capital-P Pride. That's a distinctly human product of a very specific cultural and historical context. Outside of that context of oppression and reaction against it there is no reason for Pride to be a thing. If nobody is trying to take your identity away why do you need to fight back to defend it? Defending Pride Necrons as fluffy requires making the assumption that not only do Necrons have the biology and culture for LGBT identities to exist at all, their culture is in the very specific period between fully effective oppression and successful dismantling of the oppressive system, where you can wave pride flags without immediately being arrested but there is still a need to do so. IOW, not only are the aliens merely humans with pointy ears they're stuck in a specific ~50-100 year period of US/UK-centric human culture.

Plus, Necrons being IN queer-coded colours, as I said above, doesn't mean that they *are* queer. It is an input of the painter, not necessarily a reflection of the models.

Which is exactly the problem I have with it: it's using the army as a real-world political statement by the owner, not a representation of something that actually exists in the 40k setting.

That's simply not true. As education, visibility, and awareness of queer identities becomes more acceptable (not to mention within communities where queer individuals are more prominent, like in BIndmage's case), this statement becomes outdated. Kids are aware of it, in the same way they're aware of racial identity, or national identity.

Sorry, but no. A 3 year old doesn't understand national identity just because you can give them a flag and have them wave it around at your national holiday celebration. A 3 year old doesn't understand LGBT identity on any meaningful level, and they certainly don't understand the history of oppression that pride is a backlash against.

Expressing it, likewise, is not a political act, any more so than expressing any part of oneself, from favourite colour to favourite period in history, is a political act.

Those things are only non-political because there is no ongoing political debate involving them. That is clearly not the case with pride and LGBT rights.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Catulle wrote:
At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.

I suppose that's possible. I've only ever heard "little" used in two situations: adults with a parent/child fetish pretending to be small children for sexual reasons (which I desperately hope Blndmage is not referring to), and very rarely an actual small child, a 5 year old or younger. I don't think I've ever heard it used to describe a teenager, and certainly not an adult.

Folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder also use the term "Littles" for younger headmates.

Probably many other uses. Don't assume you know everything.

DID is so absurdly rare compared to what TikTokkers actually believe that it's not something people should really think about for the term Littles

1.5-3% of the population, but that's assumed to be a low estimate.

If you respect transfolk's existence, respect folks suffering from DID, it's literally the result of intense, repeated trauma as a child.

That's entirely debated. Many sources site it to be much less than 1%.
Source: I literally work with a psychiatrist office

*Has DID*
Trust me, I'm keeping up with the research. Also, google says 1.5%

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Catulle wrote:
At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.

I suppose that's possible. I've only ever heard "little" used in two situations: adults with a parent/child fetish pretending to be small children for sexual reasons (which I desperately hope Blndmage is not referring to), and very rarely an actual small child, a 5 year old or younger. I don't think I've ever heard it used to describe a teenager, and certainly not an adult.

It's just dropping the noun and I believe is on a par with such affectation as "yoof" or "olds". It perplexed me why you're making such a big deal of it, especially as a self-identified non-native speaker, and it makes me doubt your good faith.

 Blndmage wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Catulle wrote:
At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.

I suppose that's possible. I've only ever heard "little" used in two situations: adults with a parent/child fetish pretending to be small children for sexual reasons (which I desperately hope Blndmage is not referring to), and very rarely an actual small child, a 5 year old or younger. I don't think I've ever heard it used to describe a teenager, and certainly not an adult.

Folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder also use the term "Littles" for younger headmates.

Probably many other uses. Don't assume you know everything.

DID is so absurdly rare compared to what TikTokkers actually believe that it's not something people should really think about for the term Littles

1.5-3% of the population, but that's assumed to be a low estimate.

If you respect transfolk's existence, respect folks suffering from DID, it's literally the result of intense, repeated trauma as a child.

That's entirely debated. Many sources site it to be much less than 1%.
Source: I literally work with a psychiatrist office

*Has DID*
Trust me, I'm keeping up with the research. Also, google says 1.5%

That's a misrepresention as that statistic was collected:
1. In a specific area of the US (AKA they didn't look very far)
2. Also referring to 1.5% of the psychiatric patient population itself

You're keeping up with research doesn't matter to me to be honest when I work in the office with several licensed professionals. What's your occupation in relation?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Pride, as an event, is political - but that isn't what I was referring to.

But the context here is capital-P Pride, not merely LGBT existence.

That's not what I was talking about in the slightest. A person choosing to express their identity is not Pride. It is self-expression, and that is no more political than expressing your favourite colour.

And pride flags, including the color combinations in non-flag form, are an overtly political thing.

They are also an expression of personal identity, which is not political.

As I mentioned, flags are signifiers in semiotic theory - in that they can signify both beliefs and organisations, but also personal identities. Personal identities are not political.

Necrons aren't human, sure, but why wouldn't they have LGBT+ members and relationships and identities? We already know that queer behaviours exist outside of humanity (in many animal cases), so why *wouldn't* Necrons have those members.

Because we don't even know if Necrons have sexual dimorphism! The entire concept of "queer" doesn't exist if your species has only one sex and reproduces by indiscriminately spreading pollen clouds with no romantic or sexual relationships. Can real-world mushrooms be queer? Can a virus be queer? LGBT Necrons can only be assumed if you also assume the trope that aliens are humans with pointy ears, not alien beings where none of the assumptions about real-world biology and culture apply.

We don't know about Necron dimorphism, but we *do* know that they have enough to distinction to have distinct *genders*. They might be one sex, or multiple sexes, but they can still be *queer*, because they have personalities, identities, and distinction within that culture.

And again, for every time you say "BUT WHAT IF THEY DON'T HAVE THOSE THINGS", there's the counterpoint of "but what if they do"?

You literally don't know. I think it should be down to the player to choose.

And, again, even if there are LGBT Necrons that doesn't mean there is capital-P Pride.

For that last time, that's not what I'm talking about. Please, pick up some reading comprehension.

IOW, not only are the aliens merely humans with pointy ears they're stuck in a specific ~50-100 year period of US/UK-centric human culture.

OR, they're fictional plastic minis that can be painted and repainted at the whim of real world humans who might choose certain colour schemes, and who can literally handwave any reason why their plastic war dollies can be painted in certain ways.

Plus, Necrons being IN queer-coded colours, as I said above, doesn't mean that they *are* queer. It is an input of the painter, not necessarily a reflection of the models.

Which is exactly the problem I have with it: it's using the army as a real-world political statement by the owner, not a representation of something that actually exists in the 40k setting.

Except that self-expression *isn't political*, and EVERY paint choice is a real world decision on behalf of the owner, because they're just plastic models. If you want to talk about "representation of something that actually exists", then how do you justify bases being incongruous with the battlefield, or 'badly' painted/assembled minis, or the BOUNDLESS opportunity of things that *could* exist in 40k?

I can make up whatever colour scheme I like as a homebrew. The setting's large enough to do so. My Necrons just happen to use a blue and gold scheme with pink accents that reflect the pan flag? Nope, that's because *insert fluff reason here*.

They're plastic models. Everything to do with them is a choice from the owner - but choosing to reflect something about one's identity is no more political than choosing a faction because it has your favourite colour.

That's simply not true. As education, visibility, and awareness of queer identities becomes more acceptable (not to mention within communities where queer individuals are more prominent, like in BIndmage's case), this statement becomes outdated. Kids are aware of it, in the same way they're aware of racial identity, or national identity.

Sorry, but no.

Sorry, but yes.

A 3 year old doesn't understand national identity just because you can give them a flag and have them wave it around at your national holiday celebration. A 3 year old doesn't understand LGBT identity on any meaningful level, and they certainly don't understand the history of oppression that pride is a backlash against.

Are we talking about 3 year olds? We can specifically put an age on them? What happens when they're 5? 7? 9?
You're the only one who's actually specified an age here - no-one else. And I'm pretty sure that anyone with a logical brain can understand that we're referring to kids a tad older than toddlers.

Expressing it, likewise, is not a political act, any more so than expressing any part of oneself, from favourite colour to favourite period in history, is a political act.

Those things are only non-political because there is no ongoing political debate involving them. That is clearly not the case with pride and LGBT rights.

I don't care what some idiot says about *who I am and who I love* - my existence is not political, and I oppose anyone who suggests that. If you disagree with that, you can sincerely get in the bin.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't care what some idiot says about *who I am and who I love* - my existence is not political, and I oppose anyone who suggests that. If you disagree with that, you can sincerely get in the bin.

Your existence is not political.

Your (possibly hypothetical) use of a political symbol that was created for the purpose of being a rallying point in political action is political. Maybe you should do some reading on the history of pride and pride flags and their origins as political symbols, not the current sanitized and corporate-friendly use?

And again, for every time you say "BUT WHAT IF THEY DON'T HAVE THOSE THINGS", there's the counterpoint of "but what if they do"?

Ok, let's use some common sense here. Which is more likely: that pride flag Necrons are a good-faith attempt at extrapolating from canon sources to decide the most likely interpretation of Necron culture, and that this effort concludes that their culture is a close mirror of an extremely specific era of real-world US/UK-centric culture (one which does not align with even other real-world cultures and how they viewed LGBT identities/issues), or that the person with the army decided to make a political statement and any fluff justifications are nothing more than after the fact rationalizations of something they were going to do anyway.

So, just to be clear, you should only paint models that explicitly align with the fluff?
I'm not allowed to paint something because it rings true to me, or I think it looks cool, or anything like that?

Necrons aren't real. They're a fictional race of alien robot space mummies. Long time ago, when I was first getting into the hobby, I was gonna buy Necrons, paint them gold, give them sunglasses and other silly things, and even have a Tesserect Vault with a disco ball. Is that wrong?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, just to be clear, you should only paint models that explicitly align with the fluff?
I'm not allowed to paint something because it rings true to me, or I think it looks cool, or anything like that?

Necrons aren't real. They're a fictional race of alien robot space mummies. Long time ago, when I was first getting into the hobby, I was gonna buy Necrons, paint them gold, give them sunglasses and other silly things, and even have a Tesserect Vault with a disco ball. Is that wrong?

That sounds like a great themed force!

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't care what some idiot says about *who I am and who I love* - my existence is not political, and I oppose anyone who suggests that. If you disagree with that, you can sincerely get in the bin.

Your existence is not political.

Really? Because you earlier claimed that expressing it was.

Your (possibly hypothetical) use of a political symbol that was created for the purpose of being a rallying point in political action is political. Maybe you should do some reading on the history of pride and pride flags and their origins as political symbols, not the current sanitized and corporate-friendly use?

My person, I've done plenty of reading about *my own culture and history* thank you very much, and I know what the difference is. No matter the *origin* of said symbols, they are *currently* also in use as identifiers and as icons of personal identity.

Maybe you should check who you're talking to before attempting to lecture me on this.

And again, for every time you say "BUT WHAT IF THEY DON'T HAVE THOSE THINGS", there's the counterpoint of "but what if they do"?

Ok, let's use some common sense here.

Sure. They look humanoid, are created by humans, and otherwise show a human-like style of culture, or at the very least, one easily understood by us humans in the 21st century. They use language and pronouns and societal constructs which mirror those seen on our own cultures and histories. Our own cultures and histories feature queer individuals from across all times and places throughout said cultures and histories. I think it's quite likely that there are queer Necrons, and because we are a 21st century audience with our own specific cultural recognitions and icons, any designs and artistic choices are done with consideration to that.

Why are Black Templars adorned with images that evoke Crusader Knights? Because that is visual shorthand for a 21st century audience.
Why is Ferrus Manus called Ferrus Manus? Because it is a name with specific connotations and themes for a 21st century audience.
Why do Necrons have a lot of Egyptian styling in their designs? Because it has specific aesthetic connotations for a 21st century audience.

You go on to talk about "most likely interpretation of Necron culture" - why does their culture have them coloured in the way they currently are? Why do they have Egyptian styled names and designs? Why do they have scarabs and not some other weird alien bug? Why do they use scythes and not something entirely different? Because they do, because someone decided to, because they're plastic minis, and they ain't real.

Which is more likely: that pride flag Necrons are a good-faith attempt at extrapolating from canon sources to decide the most likely interpretation of Necron culture, and that this effort concludes that their culture is a close mirror of an extremely specific era of real-world US/UK-centric culture (one which does not align with even other real-world cultures and how they viewed LGBT identities/issues), or that the person with the army decided to make a political statement and any fluff justifications are nothing more than after the fact rationalizations of something they were going to do anyway.

Don't care - they're plastic minis, and the owner of said minis can do whatever the hell they like, so long as it doesn't hurt or threaten someone else. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest what they do.

And, at the risk of getting tired of repeating this to you, expressing yourself is not a political statement. Right now, my signature on this site is self-expression. Is me saying how I wish to be recognised a political statement to you?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, just to be clear, you should only paint models that explicitly align with the fluff?
I'm not allowed to paint something because it rings true to me, or I think it looks cool, or anything like that?

Absolutely, this too! Should models NEED to be painted to reflect the fluff? Can models not be painted for artistic choice of the painter? Why do they need to be done to create a sense of verisimilitude?

Hell, just look at the link to the warcom article with the amazing Ork paint jobs in it - I don't think you'd call that "fluff accurate", and yet, there's GW promoting it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm not allowed to paint something because it rings true to me, or I think it looks cool, or anything like that?

You're allowed to do whatever you want. Whether or not I'll have any interest in playing against your army or think it looks good is an entirely different question.

Necrons aren't real. They're a fictional race of alien robot space mummies. Long time ago, when I was first getting into the hobby, I was gonna buy Necrons, paint them gold, give them sunglasses and other silly things, and even have a Tesserect Vault with a disco ball. Is that wrong?

It's wrong in that I think it would look terrible and I'd have very little interest in playing a game with you if that's the army you want to use. Whether or not you care about my opinion is up to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Maybe you should check who you're talking to before attempting to lecture me on this.

Are you a historian with professional expertise in this field? If so I apologize for not recognizing your credentials.

Sure. They look humanoid, are created by humans, and otherwise show a human-like style of culture, or at the very least, one easily understood by us humans in the 21st century. They use language and pronouns and societal constructs which mirror those seen on our own cultures and histories. Our own cultures and histories feature queer individuals from across all times and places throughout said cultures and histories. I think it's quite likely that there are queer Necrons, and because we are a 21st century audience with our own specific cultural recognitions and icons, any designs and artistic choices are done with consideration to that.

Those aren't canon explanations, they're out of universe recognition of the "aliens are humans with pointy ears" trope and GW's limited writing talent.

Why are Black Templars adorned with images that evoke Crusader Knights? Because that is visual shorthand for a 21st century audience.
Why is Ferrus Manus called Ferrus Manus? Because it is a name with specific connotations and themes for a 21st century audience.

One huge difference here: those characters are part of a culture that is a direct descendant from real-world human culture. Black Templars use crusader iconography because they're human crusaders in service to a theocracy that takes a lot of its aesthetic cues from historical Christian churches. You might as well ask why real-world churches still use the cross iconography instead of inventing something new.

Right now, my signature on this site is self-expression. Is me saying how I wish to be recognised a political statement to you?

No, because your signature has a practical function: stating the pronouns required to have a conversation involving you. That is not at all equivalent to using a political symbol in a context where expressing that identity is not in any way relevant to the activity.

I guess painting will join the list of forbidden subjects?

In the meantime, it might seem unfair but I can be happy playing against a fellow with an army (Marines or otherwise) painted in generic colours but claiming a subfaction. What I find jarring is an army clearly modelled and painted as a specific sub-faction but played as another.

Unfair, but there it is. I find, though, that most who have invested into modelling and painting a sub-faction will only play it as that one. Having said that, this only seems to apply to the 40K Marine sub-factions. I would never play my Dark Angels as something else, but my Stormcast Eternals can be any sub-faction even though they are painted as Hammers of Sigmar. Inconsistent, but there it is.

Anything that attempts to tie paint schemes to rules is a bad thing for the hobby. GW changes their rules way too much and with very little consistency so having to run a certain rule set because you wanted to paint an army as a certain sub faction is idiotic. For example, Deathskullz didn't have a rule set in 7th edition but they went through two different versions of klan rules which way or may not align with how I want to run my Orks. Am I suppose to repaint my entire Ork army if maybe I like to play my Deathskull themed army more like how the rules for Bad Moons fit or maybe GW should go kick rocks with their idiotic rules. Same goes for the fully painted BS, you don't have to play against an unpainted army but core game rules that penalize you for not having a painted army (same goes for giving a benefit for a painted army) are garbage.

Also who cares if people want to be who they are and want to express their little plastic miniatures in such a way. As long as its not promoting hate speech then its not an issue.

5 pages already? Guess there must be a lively discussion going on about rules vs aesthetics, and the need to stick to the...

"Headmates!"

"Pride Necrons!"

What the gak???

Never before has this been more appropriate.

By the way, flamboyant Necrons were already done and they're glorious.

We'd remembered the pink flower crons, they're super cute.

I love the riders. They're awesome.

 Blndmage wrote:
We'd remembered the pink flower crons, they're super cute.

Bingo. Who's to say Pride colors wouldn't work?

Remember when painting a maybe-totenkopf on a Knight marked you as a fascist?

But they're just toy soldiers! They're not real! It's not political! People can paint their models however they like!

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Remember when painting a maybe-totenkopf on a Knight marked you as a fascist?

But they're just toy soldiers! They're not real! It's not political! People can paint their models however they like!

Did you just compare Pride to Nazis?

 Blndmage wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Remember when painting a maybe-totenkopf on a Knight marked you as a fascist?

But they're just toy soldiers! They're not real! It's not political! People can paint their models however they like!

Did you just compare Pride to Nazis?

No. I compared a 'They're not real. It's not political. It doesn't matter how you paint your toys' to 'It doesn't matter that they're not real. It's political. It matters greatly how you paint your toys'.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm not allowed to paint something because it rings true to me, or I think it looks cool, or anything like that?

You're allowed to do whatever you want. Whether or not I'll have any interest in playing against your army or think it looks good is an entirely different question.

Amazing - so, like I said, sounds like a you problem.

Necrons aren't real. They're a fictional race of alien robot space mummies. Long time ago, when I was first getting into the hobby, I was gonna buy Necrons, paint them gold, give them sunglasses and other silly things, and even have a Tesserect Vault with a disco ball. Is that wrong?

It's wrong in that I think it would look terrible and I'd have very little interest in playing a game with you if that's the army you want to use. Whether or not you care about my opinion is up to you.

Thankfully, in this circumstance, I really don't, especially if you're going to be saying that people "shouldn't" do what they want because it'll annoy you.

You are capable of refusing a game and disagreeing with someone's paint scheme without looking down on them for it or implying that they're doing it "wrong" like you have been.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Maybe you should check who you're talking to before attempting to lecture me on this.

Are you a historian with professional expertise in this field? If so I apologize for not recognizing your credentials.

Even better - I'm a queer person with lived first hand experience of my own culture, as well as plenty of knowledge of my own history.

Academia can get stuffed here, but thankfully, I've got that too.

Sure. They look humanoid, are created by humans, and otherwise show a human-like style of culture, or at the very least, one easily understood by us humans in the 21st century. They use language and pronouns and societal constructs which mirror those seen on our own cultures and histories. Our own cultures and histories feature queer individuals from across all times and places throughout said cultures and histories. I think it's quite likely that there are queer Necrons, and because we are a 21st century audience with our own specific cultural recognitions and icons, any designs and artistic choices are done with consideration to that.

Those aren't canon explanations, they're out of universe recognition of the "aliens are humans with pointy ears" trope and GW's limited writing talent.

So, you're telling me that GW wrote them that way - and therefore, are canon?
Sounds like you're the one here who isn't "aligning with the background fiction", and seems more bothered about what *you* want it to be.

Until GW come forward and categorically say "NO YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THIS NO WAY AT ALL", I'm gonna keep doing it. You can do what you want with your plastic war dolls, but don't tell me I'm wrong for playing my plastic toys in a different way to yours.

Why are Black Templars adorned with images that evoke Crusader Knights? Because that is visual shorthand for a 21st century audience.
Why is Ferrus Manus called Ferrus Manus? Because it is a name with specific connotations and themes for a 21st century audience.

One huge difference here: those characters are part of a culture that is a direct descendant from real-world human culture. Black Templars use crusader iconography because they're human crusaders in service to a theocracy that takes a lot of its aesthetic cues from historical Christian churches. You might as well ask why real-world churches still use the cross iconography instead of inventing something new.

My person, the Imperium is several MILLENIA distant from modern day Earth, spread out across countless planets and cultures, and has undergone *several* near complete fracturings on a civilizational scale. Why on earth (pun intended) would aesthetic cues from one particular point in time in one particular culture from one particular planet still endure and their meaning be so iconic and fundamental to the Black Templars that they are even recognisable to us in the 21st century?

You're talking about "GW's limited writing talent", but then also claiming that a specific icon would still hold the same meaning, significance, and dominance over several dozen millenia and countless star systems - suspension of disbelief much. (Also, "direct descendant"? I don't think so - humanity was fractured and riven in civil wars and secession crises that many times, I think the only thing you can claim is the same is that they're human. In nearly every other way, humanity shouldn't even be close to be considered a "direct descendant")

Alternatively, we can accept the more logical solution - that GW designed the Templars to look that way to appeal to the aesthetic familiarity and symbols that we, a 21st century audience, are familiar with, as with everything in 40k. 40k is a product of modern humans, for modern humans, and therefore uses design language and icons that mean things to modern humans.
They're not *real*.

Right now, my signature on this site is self-expression. Is me saying how I wish to be recognised a political statement to you?

No, because your signature has a practical function: stating the pronouns required to have a conversation involving you. That is not at all equivalent to using a political symbol in a context where expressing that identity is not in any way relevant to the activity.

But in order to have a conversation with me, I am engaging in self-expression. Self-expression isn't political, and the activity of painting models is art, the ultimate canvas of self-expression.

I think it's *very* relevant to the activity at hand. Only if you believe that models aren't a canvas for artistic expression, and *shouldn't* be used for that would it not be relevant.
Do you think that our little plastic models shouldn't exist for artistic expression?

Vankraken wrote:Also who cares if people want to be who they are and want to express their little plastic miniatures in such a way. As long as its not promoting hate speech then its not an issue.

Literally the only correct answer on this matter - they're plastic toys. Who cares what you do, as long as you're not being hateful.

Lord Damocles wrote:Remember when painting a maybe-totenkopf on a Knight marked you as a fascist?

But they're just toy soldiers! They're not real! It's not political! People can paint their models however they like!

Oh, so you're being intentionally obtuse then!
Here's a quick explanation, in case you need a refresher:

You can choose to paint your models how you like - they are plastic toys. Painting what you like on your models is not, by default, political, and is not a problem.
If you choose to paint fascist hate symbols on your plastic toys, you're likely fascist-leaning, and definitely an utter tool, and that's definitely going to be a problem.
My god, it's like saying "wow, I'm not allowed to feed guests any more these days" when all you're offering is rotten meat.

If you paint a political symbol on your models, then *yeah*, you're being political. However, a self-expressing motif which isn't a hate symbol is not political. It's why someone could put a wing motif on their models if they had a particular fascination or interest in birds, or how someone who really likes the colour blue could use it as an accent colour, because it is significant to them, and a wing motif and the colour blue aren't hate symbols.

Are we done with this false equivalence? Or are you going to compare hate symbols and queer flags? Because I can assure you, that won't go down very well.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

I don't really care if someone paints what they want. When I was talking about participation, it was about playing. You kept questioning my want to refuse games because of paint schemes I'd dislike. I figure it's just a miscommunication issue, though.

If I might ask - the aesthetics of the scheme used by your opponent to paint their models seems an odd reason to avoid playing against them - I know some people are very regimented on the whole "I won't play against unpainted armies" thing, but assuming the person's models are actually painted wouldn't how personable the individual is be more important?