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.

Haha John, the funny part about the symbol page you linked to was when someone in the other thread talked about a "not-as-nazi" symbol that had a big Z in the middle instead of a swastika.

HBMC's avatar is so clearly a Nazi.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

KiMonarrez wrote:More to the point, it's a recruitment poster. ALL recruitment posters throughout the ages are nothing but boilerplate imagery.

If that is so, then why *that* specific poster? If the point would be just as good using a US / UK / French / Canadian recruitment poster as the basis, why not use an Allied poster?

The fact of the matter is that he *specifically* selected a Waffen SS Nazi poster to paint.

And it's not an isolated element, which might be forgivable. It's part of an army in which all of the men are blond-haired, in which the army flag is based very strongly on the Nazi flag, etc.

For grins, one might count how many ADL-recognized hate symbols are present in his army. To me, the entire thing just screams hate.

The ADL also listed neopagan religious imagery as hate symbols, and only changed that when threatened with litigation and bad publicity.

I'm glad the ADL is watching out for us, and making sure we can identify hate symbols, ooooo better watch out, its scary. They should throw in satanic symbols so we'll be sure we can see the sites of secret satanic rituals.

Yes, the ADL is not necessarily my first choice if I want information that isn't, how do I say it....colored to pick the worst interpretation to support an opinion.

Jazz is for Losers wrote:HBMC's avatar is so clearly a Nazi.

Yep but the rule was it had to be 3 icons to count. It's like a fun puzzle you put together and it reveals a picture.

I frankly don't understand how it is that people are this upset about this veiled reference to the Nazis but I have never once heard someone complain about the Black Templars, especially since their background fulfills the same complaints that people are making regarding these two armies. Their iconography is directly taken from a group whose actions are still a source of deep offense to one or more groups (try bringing up the crusades to Muslims). The same can be said for the Praetorians.

If you don’t want to play someone that’s fine but why does it have to turn personal. This is not the first or the last German WWII army we’ll see and that’s largely because they fit so well into the theme of 40K. When you’re reading 40K novels where genetically engineered superhumans set out to conquer the galaxy in the name of the God-emperor (whose symbol happens to be a double headed eagle), cleansing the universe of all aliens and those who don’t fall in line your mind doesn’t make any connection to Nazis? I’ve seen banners similar to the ones on this guy’s tanks where instead of a cross it was the imperial eagle and no one had a problem. One guy at a GT a couple of years ago had a soviet style army with banners portraying himself as their dictator and again I never heard a peep. In fact I believe that army was features in a White Dwarf, but don't quote me on that. Personally for me the most offensive army I’ve ever seen was a Praetorian army on Warseer with Caucasian Praetorians as officers and African Catachans as rank and file soldiers, but as an American I’m particularly sensitive to things that portray Caucasians as possessing an inherent dominance over Africans. However that doesn’t mean I jump to the conclusion that the guy is some racist who believes in white supremacy.

I’m not saying that this guy’s army is in good taste, or even that I would play him especially if he was a racist but I’m sick of the hypocrisy. It’s the same reason why people who fancy themselves as revolutionaries run around with Che or Mao shirts but would decry someone wearing a Himmler shirt despite the fact that all of them have a lot of blood on their hands. It’s only offensive if the group you’re offending garners enough public recognition to make it offensive in the public conscience. I'm just saying if you want to get him kicked out of a store because you're offended by his army I hope you don't play Black Templars otherwise I might have to complain about how you're offensive army is affecting me sense of propriety.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

KiMonarrez wrote:More to the point, it's a recruitment poster. ALL recruitment posters throughout the ages are nothing but boilerplate imagery.

If that is so, then why *that* specific poster? If the point would be just as good using a US / UK / French / Canadian recruitment poster as the basis, why not use an Allied poster?

The fact of the matter is that he *specifically* selected a Waffen SS Nazi poster to paint.

And it's not an isolated element, which might be forgivable. It's part of an army in which all of the men are blond-haired, in which the army flag is based very strongly on the Nazi flag, etc.

For grins, one might count how many ADL-recognized hate symbols are present in his army. To me, the entire thing just screams hate.

I will only speak on GMM's army. The other one isn't.... Well, I just don't feel like wasting my taime on it, regardless.

I'd like to make a note here...

I recognized that poster (mostly). I knew it was a WWII German recruitment poster. I remembered the basic image... The profile of the soldier with the planes overhead and the tanks below... I didn't remember the Netherlands or SS imagery specifically... but I knew it was WWII German.
I didn't care.
I happen to LOVE that poster. Not for what it stands for, but for the artistic merits of it. The way the images fit together is incredible (for what I'm referring to, I'm removing ALL letters or letter-like images from the overall picture).
The soldiers shadowed face, with the cannons below and a horde of planes flying overhead... I just find THOSE visuals appealing (I can remove the image from the message to do this).
I have always loved that picture.
When I saw it on the tank, I thought how smart he was to use such a compelling image. I thought how well it was painted. I thought how neat it was that he happened to use an image that I happened to like so much.
I did not assume that, because he happened to use an image that had been used by Nazis, it was concrete proof that he is a neo-nazi.
Red is a beautiful color to use on your models. Had he chosen BLUE instead of red, for example, the army just wouldn't look that good. Red white & black look GREAT together. If you are going with a limited number of colors, those 3 are a great choce for the basics.
So, they're all blonde & trace back to Thor.
Fine.
I didn't know that neo-nazis used Thorian imagery, etc, as White Poser (no typo)/Aryan propaganda, etc.
It still doesn't matter to me. You don't KNOW that GMM did, wither. You assume it, based on your personal prejudices.

If we assumed that everyone who used imagery that had been associated with some horrible crime/event was horrible and sympathized with the relevant group, then all Christians would be part of the Inquisition. Christians awould be cannibal wanna-be's (eating & drinking the symbolic body & blood of Christ). All Jews would be Christ killers. All Native Americans would be scalp-taking heathen devil-men. All Muslims would be terrorists. All Chinese would be power-mongering communist killers. The Japanese would be Kamikaze pilots waiting to attack anbother Naval base. All black people ("Afro/African Americans") who wear red or blue would be gang-bangers. Any large group of people who drink Kool Aid would be trying to commit mass suicide.

I can go on...

You can use an image... you can use two images... you can use TEN images that can all be traced to hatred. It doesn't make them images of hatred.
You will always find the Devil where you look for him, if you look hard enough.

Maybe we should boycot Chaos armies.
Why?
Well, first, you have the BLACK legion. They say they're a Legion (like a group... or a gang...) and they're BLACK. Their "armor" (or clothes) have gold and silver trim (bling). Sometimes, they have other COLORS on them. Clearly, BLACK LEGION is just a hidden army that is meant to represent inner city gangs. We all know how bad those are. Especially the crips & bloods.

Hmm... Crips & Bloods.
Crips wear blue and love their bling.
Thousand Sons' main color is blue... with gold trim...
Hmm.

Wait... World Eaters use RED armor, like the Bloods... and they have "bronze" trim... which we all know is just a way of trying to make GOLD bling look like it isn't gold, so that they can wear it but try plausible deniability.

While we're at it, we should avoid Nurgle, as well.
See, Nurgle's main color is green. What's typically thought of as green? Martians... "Little Green men."
Martians are ALIENS.
Aliens?
We have a problem with ILLEGAL ALIENS in America, now.

Clearly, anyone who chooses to play Nurgle (especially if he models BARBED WIRE on his bases... or FENCING...) is clearly trying to play an army of Illegal Aliens, thereby stating that it is okay to come into our country illegally and FIGHT (since that's what the 40K game is all about) for supremacy.

Just about everything I said from, "If we assumed that everyone...," until this sentence was absurd. I agree.
I believe most of you will agree.
Many of you, and hopefully all, will get my point.

Just because I said it is... just because I could show the "proof" that it is... doesn't mean that it is.

The devil will be anywhere you look for him, if you just look hard enough.


Eric

For grins, one might count how many ADL-recognized hate symbols are present in his army. To me, the entire thing just screams hate.

That's something else... I checked out that site...
With 2 or 3 exceptions, EVERY hate symbol there was pointing at white groups.
Threre wasn't one SINGLE Islamic symbol there... and Farrakhan's Muslims are some of the most racist, prejudiced people out there.

I saw a whole lot of "Here is how bad white people are" with a couple of "Here's a token black link" (NO pun or offensive jokes meant... it happened to be the best terminology for what I was thinking) thrown in as an afterthought, so that they can argue that they're not unfairly pointing out whites.

There's a song from the Broadway show "Avenue Q" called "Everyone's a little bit racist."
I urge everyone to (legally, of course) download that song or buy the CD. It's full of truths that nobody likes to hear.
As an aside, if you buy the CD, you'll also get the song, "The Internet is for porn," and many other great tunes.


Eric

Great post MM! Great post

Everything is offensive if you look it from a I-WANT-TO-BE-OFFENDED point of view. In some cases it´s ridiculous as you just wrote.

M.

Jay of Moore wrote:I frankly don't understand how it is that people are this upset about this veiled reference to the Nazis but I have never once heard someone complain about the Black Templars, especially since their background fulfills the same complaints that people are making regarding these two armies.

I suppose it is because we still have people who lived through that time period and not great great great great great grandparents we don't know the name of or know much about. Its close to the bone and not an intellectual excersise in trying to imagine what it was like to be living in that time.

MagickalMemories wrote:

There's a song from the Broadway show "Avenue Q" called "Everyone's a little bit racist."
I urge everyone to (legally, of course) download that song or buy the CD. It's full of truths that nobody likes to hear.
As an aside, if you buy the CD, you'll also get the song, "The Internet is for porn," and many other great tunes.

Eric

I think that is a common myth that has come to prominence, but that is just me.

Jazz is for Losers wrote:HBMC's avatar is so clearly a Nazi.

It's a Commissar... a weirdly androgenous Commissar.

BYE

Ahtman wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:
There's a song from the Broadway show "Avenue Q" called "Everyone's a little bit racist."
I urge everyone to (legally, of course) download that song or buy the CD. It's full of truths that nobody likes to hear.
As an aside, if you buy the CD, you'll also get the song, "The Internet is for porn," and many other great tunes.

Eric

I think that is a common myth that has come to prominence, but that is just me.

I disagree entirely. I don't believe it is or ever WAS a myth.
The internet really IS for porn.



Eric

Stupid double post.

If it replicates nazi recruiting posters then clearly it is a nazi themed army. Argh. Such a shame, a waste of painting talent.

MagickalMemories wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The fact of the matter is that he *specifically* selected a Waffen SS Nazi poster to paint.

And it's not an isolated element, which might be forgivable. It's part of an army in which all of the men are blond-haired, in which the army flag is based very strongly on the Nazi flag, etc.

For grins, one might count how many ADL-recognized hate symbols are present in his army. To me, the entire thing just screams hate.

I recognized that poster (mostly). I knew it was a WWII German recruitment poster. I remembered the basic image... The profile of the soldier with the planes overhead and the tanks below... I didn't remember the Netherlands or SS imagery specifically... but I knew it was WWII German.
I didn't care.
I happen to LOVE that poster. Not for what it stands for, but for the artistic merits of it. The way the images fit together is incredible (for what I'm referring to, I'm removing ALL letters or letter-like images from the overall picture).

I did not assume that, because he happened to use an image that had been used by Nazis, it was concrete proof that he is a neo-nazi.

You don't KNOW that GMM did, wither. You assume it, based on your personal prejudices.

The devil will be anywhere you look for him, if you just look hard enough.

Eric

Eric:

Let me see if I can make it simple for you: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. People's armies are an extension of themselves. They choose the army, and how they're going to model it, how they're going to paint it.

So yes, it's great art. Great art is supposed to challenge. Like "Piss Christ" or Lego Concentration Camps .

But does it belong in Warhammer?

If if one makes such a thing, what should people conclude about the maker?

Yes, individually, out of context, the elements might be OK. But when every single element is hateful neo-Nazi hate, and selected for the maximum effect, singly and together, with each element done in tremendous detail, the what the heck is someone supposed to conclude?

At best, he's the sort of jerk who simply enjoys offending people "for fun". He selected his army, and if he did half the research that one would have expected, he *knew* that incorporating exclusively white power / neo-Nazi / Nazi imagery would be bound to offend people. But he made the conscious decision to do so. It was deliberate and premediated. The effort in duplicating that Waffen SS poster alone shows the deliberateness of the work.

So, while I don't know specifically what he was thinking, it seems most likely to me that he's a closet Nazi sympathizer. Nothing in his army is left to chance. It is all hateful, and done so very carefully, quite frankly, it's kind of silly for you (or anyone) to suggest otherwise.


With respect to your devil comment, in this particular case, one needn't look very far.

And as has been said, all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

Thanks for starting this thread. Too bad I didn't notice it sooner.

When I read the original thread that prompted this one, and saw it was locked, I was disappointed, because quite a few people need a serious reality check. And a punch in the throat.

Let me say at this point that I am Jewish. I can vividly remember seeing the serial number tattoo on a great aunt's wrist that she was given in a concentration camp. My family came to America to escape Tsarist purges. While I actually don't actually thinks this makes me special, or a victim, or "more deeply harmed" by Nazi iconagraphy, I mention it only because I know the credentialist mentality that tends to go along with the offense-finding mentality.

So, that said, all you "outraged" people are serious clowns. Serious. SERIOUS.

I'm Jewish. I don't need you getting outraged on my behalf, like you're doing me some service or favor. No. I really don't.

Being outraged by Nazis doesn't demonstrate how moral you are, or what a paragon of virtue you are. And, in case it's not clear (and clearly it's not), being VERY outraged doesn't make you VERY moral.

You know that mass genocide is wrong? Wow, good for you. You're a real saint.

Ask yourself, have you suffered AT ALL for what the Nazis did? Were you even ALIVE in 1943? I'm gonna guess you were not.

So, I'm Jewish. And while I also have not suffered at all from the Nazis, I at least have some tenuous link to suffering they inflicted. And the tenuousness of that link, which is infinitely more solid than probably 90% of the people posting in this thread, gives me enough perspective to know what a bunch of fakes you guys are being.

You have NO post traumatic stress inflicted by SS murderers. None. When you see a swastika, you don't feel chills run down your spine, and flash back to the day you were torn from your mother, never to see her again.

On the contrary, you have absolutely no real trauma to associate with the Nazis. What you do have, though, is a conditioned desire to be seen as moral, politically correct, and socially upstanding. It's called "external validation" and it's sad.

What's even more sad, is that your false protestations actually expose your lack of real morality. Morality isn't about knowing that genocide is wrong. Anybody can be told that, and then parrot it back when they see a swastika. Real morality is born out of tough decisions. Real morality is born out of showing compassion to those who showed you none.

If you want to impress me, show me the concentration camp victim who forgives his tormentors, and pities them for the degradation they brought upon themselves with their actions. THAT is morality. THAT I can admire.

What you guys are doing is suprassingly unimpressive. You just CAN'T forgive people who did evil things to nobody you know. Your trauma at hearing about WWII in your high school history class... OH it haunts you! You poor, long suffering souls! Every wound that swastika adorned Leman Russ rolls... It opens your own wounds afresh!

Clowns...

CLOWNS.

The fact is, white, black and red are colors that really look sharp, intimidating and martial together. The Nazis had a real talent for imagery, iconagraphy and heraldry. This, combined with their legacy, means that they will factor into future imagery for centuries to come. Get over it.

And by "it" I mean, "nothing, because you have nothing to get over."

Miguelsan wrote:That´s the "moral relativism" problem we have in today´s world as everything boils down to "I have been moraly offended by your ideas remove them or else" better be PC all day long or you´ll risk the WRATH of the PC crowd.

Er, I'm pretty sure that's not what "moral relativism" is. How about we substitute the words "political correctness."

I have been "tongue lashed" in a class about teaching spanish to foreign students because I use the phrase "Girls, don´t you think he is cute" after showing a Brad Pit photo to a mixed classroom for an exercice "What if you have a gay in class? he´ll be left out" the teacher told me.

Heh. Sounds like college all right!

Nobody is saying that this guy has to "be PC," or whatever. However, some of us don't feel like sitting down at the table and gaming with The Enemy.

Phryxis wrote:Thanks for starting this thread.

You're welcome.

Newsflash for you: Jews aren't the only ones to have suffered at the barbarism of others - they're just "lucky" enough to have their suffering immortalized as "The Holocaust" due to the euro-centric view of the modern era.

I happen to be Chinese, and I still remember the stories from my grandparents about what the IJA did in China during WW2.

I'm not as forgiving as you are. So you'll just have to humor me when I get a little upset when I see someone glorifying such things.
____

cleaned up language

@Phryxis - Eloquently put.

So, while I don't know specifically what he was thinking, it seems most likely to me that he's a closet Nazi sympathizer. Nothing in his army is left to chance. It is all hateful, and done so very carefully, quite frankly, it's kind of silly for you (or anyone) to suggest otherwise.

Good LORD what is wrong with you?

Why don't you ASK the guy if he supports neo-Nazis? He posted here, you can easily just ask him.

All I know is the guy said he didn't intend for it to be Nazi themed. And here you are, pompously concluding that he's "most likely" thinking this, or that, or this, or that. And he's evil, and you see it, gold star on your karmic report card, what what?

Bravo, constable Angelbritches! Bravo!

It's all hateful? A PLASTIC MODEL ARMY IS HATEFUL. Please take your goddamn pills.

No, no, I'm offbase. You're right. You're SO incredibly moral and upstanding, people's hate just JUMPS out at you. It's almost a curse, really, being so accutely aware of what's right and wrong. The rest of us dolts trudge through our sad, immoral grind, telling ourselves that the army is about 75% devoid of Nazi themes, but you don't have the luxury of our ignorance. Silly, silly people.

Thank you for bringing your superior morality to our aid. Thank you for being so incredibly moral that you can see what's in a man's heart MORE ACCURATELY THAN THAT MAN SEES HIMSELF, and simply through the themes he used to paint a number of PLASTIC TOYS.

Seriously, what the hell goes on in your head?

Has it ever occurred to you that the guy who painted this army is SO confident that he doesn't sympathize with Nazis that he didn't find it problematic at all to paint an army using some of their themes?

Aren't you politcally correct folk the ones who say that the dudes who are most offended by gays are probably gays themselves? OH! Wait! Does that mean that YOU'RE a Nazi?

GET HIM!

It's ridiculous. Looking at that Kriegmarine army... The painting style reminds me of what I was doing when I was 12 or so. And back then I happened to be fascinated by WWII. I thought the German planes looked incredibly sharp with the crosses on the wings, the swastikas on the tail, etc. etc. I also really liked their camo patterns, and the sense of style of a Fw190 or an Me109. I didn't know what any of it meant, I just thought it looked pretty damn cool.

And here you are, getting ALL offended about what is probably just some kid. Or trying to ascribe subtle motivations of mind control and hate propagation to a PAINTED MODEL ARMY.

It's not about them. It's about you, needing to be externally validated, and show the rest of the herd just how much you're the VANGUARD of hating things which are immoral.

It's sad that the way you do it demonstrates a total unpreparedness to deal with REAL issues of morality.

I happen to be Chinese, and I still remember the stories from my grandparents about what the Japs did in China during WW2.

YET MORE proof of your lack of morality: a need to categorize and demonize.

The fact is, millions upon milions Chinese have died at the hands of other Chinese, not at the hands of any external force. Mao's "great leap forward" is one of the most massive losses of human life in world history. All Chinese on Chinese. And just one of MANY occasions in which Chinese people killed each other.

I don't know the exact figures, but I'd guess that more Chinese people have been killed by other Chinese people than by any other nationality or category.

But you focus on what the "Japs" did.

Here's a newsflash back to you: Genocide isn't a moralistic gambling token, to be used to up the ante in your personal hatred of some other race or nationality. It's wrong to exterminate people. It's not just wrong when "Japs" do it, it's wrong when ANYBODY does it.

Genocide isn't for proving to everyone why they shouldn't like this group, or that group.

Genocide is for not doing.

I don't know, I think people have the right to be angry by things that anger them. Anything can be equivocated. Maybe you also "need a punch in the throat" for trying to deny other people their own feelings.

It's possible to not like the Nazi's or Japanese actions for reasons other then trying to feel morally superior. It is amusing to see someone trying to make them self feel morally superior by arguing that others shouldn't feel morally superior though.

@Everyone who doesn't see why this army can be considered offensive.

The guy made an army he himself said is based on WW2 German Army, Thor and Awesomeness.

The WW2 German Army was a Nazi army. The soldiers swore an oath to Hitler, not the constitution or the Chancellor. They carried Nazi party symbols not German national symbols. This is not to say that the members of the army were Nazis, however the overall organisation was co-opted by Nazism as were all important state functions in the Nazi era.

He covered the tanks with versions of Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols and slogans, but the swastikas have been replaced with traditional German crosses.

People get offended by stuff. The question is whether the stuff is a serious cause of offence. For example, I am offended by people who type reams of text with no capital letters because "it's faster". Yes, faster to type but slower for the rest of us to read. That is not a topic that should inspire an 8 page thread. This Nazi topic is.

The fact that so many people are expressing their degree of offense and giving objective reasons for it, should convince you that this army is genuinely offensive regardless of whether you personally find it offensive. It should be possible for you to understand intellectually why the army can be found offensive, acknowledge that, and move on.

Pariah Press wrote:

Miguelsan wrote:That´s the "moral relativism" problem we have in today´s world as everything boils down to "I have been moraly offended by your ideas remove them or else" better be PC all day long or you´ll risk the WRATH of the PC crowd.

Er, I'm pretty sure that's not what "moral relativism" is. How about we substitute the words "political correctness."

From the Wiki so you can follow my line of thought.

In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to access an ethical proposition's truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (moral subjectivism).

So if there are no objective or universal moral truths everybody can feel offended when you try to impose your moral truths on them. Amazing enough for some people this works on one direction only "You US people/french/christians/budist/white (put your favorite group/country here) have to respect my "moral (and usually very exclusive) thruths" as I piss on yours"

PC comes later when a majority of people gets scared/lobbied to death by stupid politicians and pressure groups to avoid using common language or acts that could be offensive (usually only in the minds of said politicians/pressure groups) in exchange of new words and expresions that some other PC nazi will find offensive a few years down the road (e.g. see the color-black-afroamerican trend or the mentally handicaped instead of dumb).

M.

But isn´t it fun or at least interesting that we have been disscusing about this for 9 pages in a more or less civilized way an issue that usually gets locked at the second post in most places.
I think that there is hope no matter what than some people can talk about thorny issues without resorting to blows.

M.

Miguelsan wrote:

In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to access an ethical proposition's truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (moral subjectivism).

So if there are no objective or universal moral truths everybody can feel offended when you try to impose your moral truths on them. Amazing enough for some people this works on one direction only "You US people/french/christians/budist/white (put your favorite group/country here) have to respect my "moral (and usually very exclusive) thruths" as I piss on yours"

Ah, I think I get it now. Sort of "moral relativism," only combined with hypocrisy. Quite annoying, I agree.

As for you, Phryxis. Your status as the true and absolute arbiter of what is or isn't moral is so firmly cemented in my mind, I don't really think that I need to hear any further from you. You've said all that needs to be said. Welcome to the world of my "ignore" list. You're the first. That makes you extra-special!

Phryxis:

Everyone is entitled to express their opinion, just as you are.

However, if you can't figure out how to do it in a civil tone without hurling insults, then your posts will be deleted.

Pariah Press wrote:

Well, it's pretty obvious from reading nearly all of the posts here, that it would not be "foam at the mouth time." WWII reenactors don't bother hardly anybody. Neo-nazis bother a lot of people.

If you can't tell that this guy's a neo-Nazi from looking at his army, you just don't know enough about neo-Nazis, I guess. I have to admit that the Kriegmarine one went right over my head; my knowledge of neo-Nazis must be middlin'.

Sorry mate, you have 0% room to make those assumptions.

If someone is an ork player are they wildly agressive, if they collect Dark Eldar, are they perverted? You cannot tell anything about anyone from looking at their army, except their painting skills.

No I will step a little back from that, the painter is aware about the Third Riech iconography and likely knows a thing or two about history, he may be a fanatic, or he may be mature enough not to be bothered by it. It does not make the person a Nazi, unless you have a third party evidence from something else he does. Its not the sort of accusation where you should just casually point the finger in ignorance and hope you are right in your assumptions.

Grignard wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

KiMonarrez wrote:More to the point, it's a recruitment poster. ALL recruitment posters throughout the ages are nothing but boilerplate imagery.

If that is so, then why *that* specific poster? If the point would be just as good using a US / UK / French / Canadian recruitment poster as the basis, why not use an Allied poster?

The fact of the matter is that he *specifically* selected a Waffen SS Nazi poster to paint.

And it's not an isolated element, which might be forgivable. It's part of an army in which all of the men are blond-haired, in which the army flag is based very strongly on the Nazi flag, etc.

For grins, one might count how many ADL-recognized hate symbols are present in his army. To me, the entire thing just screams hate.

The ADL also listed neopagan religious imagery as hate symbols, and only changed that when threatened with litigation and bad publicity.

I'm glad the ADL is watching out for us, and making sure we can identify hate symbols, ooooo better watch out, its scary. They should throw in satanic symbols so we'll be sure we can see the sites of secret satanic rituals.

Yes, the ADL is not necessarily my first choice if I want information that isn't, how do I say it....colored to pick the worst interpretation to support an opinion.

The ADL is a very poor source of anti-defamation information. It might be very thorough at uncovering alleged anti-semitism, its less concerned about other minority groups and does little to criticise anti-Moslem bias to say the least.

I don't know, I think people have the right to be angry by things that anger them. Anything can be equivocated. Maybe you also "need a punch in the throat" for trying to deny other people their own feelings.

I didn't say they don't have a right to their opinion. I gave an argument as to why their opinion is not one I share.

They don't have to change their mind. But if I make a good argument, and they read it with an open mind, then maybe they will.

All up to them.

It is amusing to see someone trying to make them self feel morally superior by arguing that others shouldn't feel morally superior though.

Please stop cobbling together this moralistic hall of mirrors. "How moral are you if you try to be moral by questioning somebody else's morality for questioning somebody's morality, for questioning somebody's..." Ugh. We can do this forever, it's not going to lead anywhere.

I made an argument. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. Let's not pretend that other people's opinions are so precious I shouldn't even challenge them.

Twenty people have given their opinions, and many have disagreed. Why do you act like my disagreement, 9 pages into this, is an attempt at censorship or something?

The fact that so many people are expressing their degree of offense and giving objective reasons for it, should convince you that this army is genuinely offensive regardless of whether you personally find it offensive.

Again, it's a matter of internal or external validation.

What makes something right or wrong? My perspective is that things are right or wrong no matter what popular opinion is. I don't care how many people say the army is offensive, I don't think that's a legitimate opinion.

If somebody says "you don't have enough green in your army, I don't think you care about the environment, it offends me..." I don't care. They're stupid, it's not offensive. They can bring in ten friends that agree. Still stupid, still not offensive, still don't care.

Obviously this Nazi case is less cut and dry, but I still don't base my opinions on what everyone else says.

I don't think it's legitimately offensive. That's MY opinion. Feel free to disagree.

As for you, Phryxis. Your status as the true and absolute arbiter of what is or isn't moral is so firmly cemented in my mind, I don't really think that I need to hear any further from you.

So, people accuse a guy of being immoral for how he paints his plastic models, and you're good with that...

But when I have an opinion, and don't make sure to say it in a totally passive, non-assertive way, you're so pissed off you don't ever want to hear what I say, ever again.

I'd love to hear how that works for you, but I guess I'm on ignore, now.

At least you got the last word. Nothing quite as mature and admirable as the internet ignore announcement. "You're a poopiehead, and now I'm not listening!"

Everyone is entitled to express their opinion, just as you are.

I hope I've been clear that I agree, but I don't really see why this is being pointed out. How would I prevent them from having opinions, even if I wanted to?

However, if you can't figure out how to do it in a civil tone without hurling insults, then your posts will be deleted.

I don't intend for my posts to be read in as serious a tone as everyone seems to be. I thought "Constable Angelbritches" would be a hint in that direction, but it doesn't seem to have been taken that way.

I'd also like to point out that various people are accusing somebody (who isn't even here to defend himself) of being a Nazi sympathizer. People and referring to the "Japs," which is generally understood as a racial slur. In that setting, I don't see why I'm being singled out for warnings.

Would you rather be called a "clown" or be accused of being a Nazi? One is a silly insult. The other is a fundamental reproach of character. One is making fun. The other is about as thorough a demonization as we have in our society.

Hilariously there has been a few cases of neo nazi self hating jews in Israel recently, I wonder if Phy is one of the afore mentioned.

We history majors sure are silly for getting offended with anti semetic pro genocidal imagery that is less than a century old. But hey, your Jewish on the internet and the jews were the only ones to suffer at the hands of the third reich so all our opinions are invalid