ph34r wrote: Sgt_Smudge wrote: ph34r wrote: Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Demanding reality to change/be representative is very different to wanting some different options for your fictional made up toy soldiers. Nice false equivalence though.
Nuns are a real thing right? Monks are a real thing right? Are sisters of battle basically warrior nuns? Yes. Are space marines basically warrior monks? Yes. Seems like a pretty fair and not false equivalent to me.
Tell me when the nuns at your local convent go around wearing power armour, fighting aliens, and carry bolters
No, this is completely ridiculous. There is a whole *universe* of difference between "I want to change the demographics of an actual real world historical/cultural organisation" and "I want to change the fictional depiction of a fictional organisation inspired by stereotypical and oftentimes inaccurate facsimiles of real cultures", namely in that one of those *does not exist and exists only as a shared figment of our imagination*.
I'm sure you know that, and I needn't dismantle this ridiculous line of logic any further.
He's not asking Reality to change Zulu warriors to being women, he's asking GW
to produce girl Zulu warriors.
Begging your pardon, but that's not what they said at all. They asked that models representing Zulu warriors (a real, tangible thing) be changed to be something other than the real tangible thing they represent.
This is not the same as changing the depictions of a fictional toy soldier brand, because, well, they're *fictional*. They do not exist.
Their argument was a poor attempt to compare changing X as changing Y, but the fundamental issue with their logic was that one thing they suggested (changing the depiction of Zulus) was a real thing, and the other (changing Sororitas or Astartes) was made up. You can see this in their follow-up post.
That's exactly what I want - me having women Astartes, or more customisable Sisters doesn't affect your narrative at all, so why would adding that option be a problem for you?
That would be awesome if Sisters of Battle got more variety, I'm all for it. They have one of the best model lines there is, and it had been a long time coming too.
Can't you just have "Daughters of Erda" if sisters of battle aren't space marine-y enough?
But why invent something wholly new? What prevents us using existing assets that already fit the bill?
Why change something old when you can just add something new with no conflict?
Why create something new when something old already exists fit for purpose?
Why *not* invent something wholly new? Why change preexisting assets? This argument works both ways, why change something established when you can just make something new to add what you want?
As you say, it goes both ways - so I'm asking why, as GW
seems to be just fine with retconning and re-purposing existing assets.
Why weren't half the Primarchs women?
Why not indeed.
Why don't titans have more than 2 legs when it's so impractical?
is not a practical setting, and because Titans look cool on two legs.
Why does humanity treat its members like dirt instead of fixing society and being like the Federation from Star Trek?
Because if the Imperium treated their members well, they wouldn't be the objectively awful regime that the setting was predicated on them being, and they would cease to be the "bloodiest regime imaginable" outlined in the setting's tagline.
Everyone wins right?
Everyone wins anyway - unless people choose to get offended by something that has no need to affect them, that is.
How about, everyone wins right now anyway, because why not? Why be offended by space marines being boys, as it doesn't effect you either?
Except not everyone wins right now, hence why people are asking for a change in options. There's no "offence" in Space Marines being boys, but there *is* offence in "Space Marines can ONLY be boys", as that affects my choice of creativity, in the same way that "no, Sisters can ONLY look like this" is "offensive" - it's a pointless restriction that exists for... what?
But as you said - they're Space Marines with the bare heads being women. Why can't they just be... yanno, Space Marines, like you just described them as?
Because the fluff says so, like every other arbitrary decision that makes a background setting a background setting.
Cool cool, so... arbirtrary. And why does this arbitrary restriction mean so much, but the other arbitrary decisions that GW
overturns every time they release a new book don't?
Why aren't there eldar space marines?
There *were*. You should be asking "why aren't there any more", because that was another one of those arbitrary decisions overturned by GW
Why isn't there a 5th 6th and 7th chaos god?
Again, there *was* - Malal.
You should be asking "why was this arbitrary decision also retconned".
Let's put the same example to these aesthetically different Sisters you said you wanted and were all for - what if we could have these aesthetically diverse Sisters, but they had to be called the "Daughters of Erda". They use all the same resources, units, rules, and suchlike as the Sisters of Battle, but you absolutely definitively cannot call them Sisters of Battle, despite their only difference being an aesthetic one, and they *must* go by a different name, like the "Daughters of Erda". Is it not simpler to call them Sisters of Battle, and those who don't like these aesthetically different Sisters of Battle can just not use them?
You've got me wrong here, If it's aesthetically diverse sisters, I would say 1. awesome, and 2. ok they are sisters of battle, but aesthetically diverse.
Great - so why do you delineate between "aesthetically diverse Sisters can be called Sisters, but aesthetically diverse Astartes can't be called Astartes"? Why the double standard?
Why is there a difference?
If you made boy sisters of battle, you would put a different name to them. If for some reason power armor and bolters isn't good enough, and you want chunky MkI-MkX power armor women with grav guns and Land Raiders and Leviathan Dreadnoughts and everything else where what Sisters have right now isn't good enough.... well that's not sisters of battle any more, you just made a new thing, and new things get new names.
But I haven't made "something else", I've made Space Marines, who happen to be women. And, as we both seem to recognise, those are just called "Space Marines". That's what you called them, at least.
But why retcon when you could just..... not retcon?
that - I'm still waiting for my half-Eldar Ultramarines Librarians, and my Obi-Wan Sherlock Closseaus.
steelhead177th wrote:there are Zulu warrior minis. they are modeled male, and black. the fact that they are modeled after a real culture isn't relevant.
And that's where you're wrong, because that very much *is* relevant.
Models of *actual Zulu warriors* should be representative of *actual Zulu warriors*, because *actual Zulu warriors* existed.
Models of fictional toy soliders from the 41st millennium simply do not have these same standards and demands, because none of them do, have, or ever will exist in the real world.
We have tangible proof on what a Zulu is. Space Marines, Orks, and Sisters of Battle do not.
if i really needed to have white, green or chinese Zulus I could paint them, or kitbash them to have bookplate. that is a project I could take on.
But then they're not Zulus. They're models that you've kitbashed or painted who were once representative of the real world culture of Zulus, but are no longer that - *because Zulus exist, and we can tangibly point to what a Zulu is*.
You cannot do that with a fictional toy soldier.
your position forces me to alter the world and universe that was created that I enjoy.
No more so than GW
forces you to collect Primaris, or have a Primarch in your army, or collect all the factions out there.
Get over yourself. As much as you seem to ridicule the idea that 'there's sexism and racism everywhere, hahaha look at those SJWs jumping at nothing!', you're the one taking this as a personal attack on you. Maybe calm it with the self-importance.
i do believe that is the point of these pleas. to disrupt and destroy what others love just to see if you can.
Would you like fries with that tinfoil?
don't force that on others no matter how "harmless" you say it is. that is for the others to decide, not you.
Why is that for others to decide? Does that imply aesthetically diverse Sisters would be harmful?
If others are allowed to decide what is and isn't harmless, why can't I decide that too? Or is this another case of "you're not actually part of this community if you believe in this"?
it does destroy the universe already written and twists it beyond the frame in which other's like it.
And? Someone better tell GW
that they're not welcome any more, as they're the only ones who've been "destroying" their own written universe.
Maybe it's almost like written universes don't exist, and are entirely fictional!
Telling people that lemon flavoured candy is good but now should have aniseed added to it because you like the taste and think it goes well together- yet the combo destroys the taste of lemon that others like-and when some say they like just lemon and you can add aniseed to your own candy you say it's better that way and it doesn't hurt you to mix them.
But you can still buy lemon candy without aniseed? Why are you crying over more options for people?
There's no quota for you to uphold - you don't need women in *your* Astartes, you don't need aesthetically diverse Sisters in *your* Sororitas, you don't need Primarchs in *your* army, and you don't need aniseed in *your* lemon flavoured sweets.
in doing this you have just walked all over their preferences in favour of your own.
And that's not what you're doing?
you don't get to make that choice for others. just yourself.
Great - that's exactly what I'm advocating for - having the CHOICE to have all the variety I want in my Astartes and Sisters, a choice which you want to delegitimise from me. I don't care what the hell you do with your models, but don't seek to stigmatise against mine.
ph34r wrote:I guess I'm making a distinction between:
1. "retcon": these units which could plausibly have existed now do exist. we didn't talk about them before, but we didn't really explicitly say that we couldn't possibly have them.
2. "retcon": this specific thing we said in the past, is in fact a different specific thing
But... why? Why make the distinction?
Secondly, I'd also like to very briefly highlight how the whole "Space Marines can only be boys" is not very frequently mentioned - not in any Codexes, to my recollection. It's hardly an oft-enforced and repeated statement in the same way that there's 4(but is it actually 5?) Chaos Gods, or how Ultramarines are blue.
Arcanis161 wrote:So now we've moved back to the "changing the lore to include what I want is a moral issue" part of the argument. Good grief.
As opposed to the "if you want to change the lore, that's a personal attack on me"? If you're going to clutch at pearls over one "side", I have to ask why you're letting that corker of a comment go unchallenged too.
Looks like we'll be reaching the "and anyone who disagrees is secretly a <something>ist and a terrible human being" part fairly soon.
I think we've already hit the "anyone who disagrees with me is an Ess-Jay-Double U who wants to profit off my misery" part, not that you called it out.
I'd say to just stop while you're ahead, as no one here is going to change anyone else's mind, but having seen this crop up time and time again, I think the people on this forum just like this visceral and vicious cycle of anger, implicating, and name calling.
Can't say I'm surprised. Just disappointed. Bye.
I don't want to say I knew this would happen from the thread's inception... but I knew this would happen from the thread's inception, and made that clear to the mods. They chose not to act on it proactively. If I'm disappointed in anyone, it's on their end.
And yes, this probably *is* off topic.