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.

In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only intolerance. Let's face it, intolerance is a really good excuse to have the thousands of 40k battles that happen a week. Orks are sociopaths, Eldar look down on everyone, and the Necrons hate everyone that lives. In the midst of this, we have a government with genetically modified shock troopers organized and indoctrinated into cult like independent armies.
The church has once more begun mass burnings, and is well equipped to purge the ignorant masses of their beliefs that possibly not every machine is run by a ghost. Our very emotions will take shape and kill us until we die of it if not held in check by a several thousand year old coma patient on a Golden Throne. I've missed many facets of our chosen intellectual arena, but I think that's enough to get my point across.

The issue here isn't that someone made an army based on intolerance and probable genocide. Almost every army of the Imperium is based on those two pillars. This artist decided to use a recent, and still sensitive real world occurence as their source. The art itself is striking. The fluff, which dovetails with the neo-Nazi sentiment of the symbols, shows the artist was aware of this connection. That being said, we missed discussing one image in particular.

If you take a look at his sentinel, one side is covered with red balloons. I was already in a pretty German mindset by the time I saw that, so I thought of "99 Red Balloons". It was incredibly ironic that the last piece he posted was painted up like a song about a false alarm that led to an apocalyptic war. With that in mind, I'm inclined to believe that this particular painter is too aware of what they are doing to 'accidentally' spill their innermost beliefs by investing hundreds, if not thousands of hours in painting up an army like that. I don't know what they intended, but such an image ending their display of symbols puts a different spin on things for me.

So, while I do not believe that the artist intended to endorse neo-Nazism, I think his choice of subject matter for this army was unfortunate. He'll have to spend as much time fighting his opponents as he will fighting the armis that will play against it.

On a lighter tone to rise the mood.

Gitzbitah, I must protest! Orks are not sociopaths, that´s an ugly word, Orks are socially challenged

M.

HF wrote: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.

Please understand the difference between humour and insults. This sort of comment firmly crosses the line

HF wrote: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

I would expect a history major to be learned enough to grow some tact. Anyway you do have a point, though you could phrase it better. Phyrxis shouldnt have a greater say for being Jewish regarding to nazism, though I would sit quietly and shut up if his great aunt spoke. Or for that matter any veteran or witness of the war. It is easier to point out that you are not offended for being Jewish, it makes it harder for most to accuse you of Nazism for it, which irks me somewhat, as this leads some to the conclusion that only Jews have any weight to their comments, and that can be expoited.

I'm not understanding how people can be offended by something that happened, almost certainly, before they and most likely their parents were born, AND YET, would not be offended by a Golden Horde army ( I heard this earlier in the thread). I really don't see the difference there.

Grignard wrote:I'm not understanding how people can be offended by something that happened, almost certainly, before they and most likely their parents were born, AND YET, would not be offended by a Golden Horde army ( I heard this earlier in the thread). I really don't see the difference there.

Industrialised extermination camps. Campaigns waged against populaces not to terrorise into submission but to simply exterminate them etc etc

You do realise the first actual occurence of genocide as defined historically only occured in the first world war? Its a 20th century concept.

I would expect a history major to be learned enough to grow some tact.

then you've never been to a military university, I call em as I see em

For what its worth HF, I agree with the sentiment ( I presume the artist's) you have sigged.

Grignard wrote:For what its worth HF, I agree with the sentiment ( I presume the artist's) you have sigged.

For what its worth Grignard I think you're somone who has no idea about the concepts your trying to have an opinion on.

HF wrote:

For what its worth Grignard I think you're somone who has no idea about the concepts your trying to have an opinion on.

Alright. Well, I happen to think I've put some thought into this one, being that it is something involving a hobby that I spend a significant amount of time on, but you're welcome to you're opinion.

Grignard wrote:

Alright. Well, I happen to think I've put some thought into this one, being that it is something involving a hobby that I spend a significant amount of time on, but you're welcome to you're opinion.

You compared the golden horde to the holocaust

seriously

Well, since you're the history major, am I incorrect that the Mongols raped and pillaged their way across Europe. Would it be a stretch to say they were exterminating who they were fighting in order to make way for their people?

Yes you would. because the mongols wanted to cow the populous they were conquering into submission. Submissive populations were extremely lucrative in terms of wealth, man power and logistics.

The mongols had no intention of completely erasing the ethnic groups living in europe. They had brutal methods in which to gain control, yes, but brutal methods are not genocidal ones.

Genocide requires the perpetrated to actively seek to destroy, disperse or prevent a particular ethnic/religious group from breeding.

Alright, I don't see any moral difference there. Some people would rather die than be subservient to a foreign people. I understand the difference in definition you're making, but I personally don't see the moral difference.

seriously I am at a loss for words here

Gitzbitah wrote:

If you take a look at his sentinel, one side is covered with red balloons. I was already in a pretty German mindset by the time I saw that, so I thought of "99 Red Balloons". It was incredibly ironic that the last piece he posted was painted up like a song about a false alarm that led to an apocalyptic war. With that in mind, I'm inclined to believe that this particular painter is too aware of what they are doing to 'accidentally' spill their innermost beliefs by investing hundreds, if not thousands of hours in painting up an army like that. I don't know what they intended, but such an image ending their display of symbols puts a different spin on things for me.

So, while I do not believe that the artist intended to endorse neo-Nazism, I think his choice of subject matter for this army was unfortunate. He'll have to spend as much time fighting his opponents as he will fighting the armis that will play against it.

Wow, I'm not the only one who noticed the balloon thing? Now that has to be intentional, but I doubt it has any meaning other than he likes the song and it is german.

Grignard wrote:I'm not understanding how people can be offended by something that happened, almost certainly, before they and most likely their parents were born, AND YET, would not be offended by a Golden Horde army ( I heard this earlier in the thread). I really don't see the difference there.

That's because records of those times are not very accurate. Numbers are usually inflated to exaggerate. In an Western Euro-centric setting the Golden Horde's actions were mainly rumors. Over time, in a matter of decades, the core of the Golden Horde was no longer Mongols. I really doubt the Golden Horde really did more than other historical invading armies. The Persians invaded Greece, Vandals invaded and sacked Rome, and many others. We don't really think the French or the Germans are responsible for killing a bunch of Romans/Italians?

History in itself is murky due to the lack of good records but the Holocaust is not only recent but we have first hand record from the German side of what they did.

Grignard wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:

If you take a look at his sentinel, one side is covered with red balloons. I was already in a pretty German mindset by the time I saw that, so I thought of "99 Red Balloons". It was incredibly ironic that the last piece he posted was painted up like a song about a false alarm that led to an apocalyptic war. With that in mind, I'm inclined to believe that this particular painter is too aware of what they are doing to 'accidentally' spill their innermost beliefs by investing hundreds, if not thousands of hours in painting up an army like that. I don't know what they intended, but such an image ending their display of symbols puts a different spin on things for me.

So, while I do not believe that the artist intended to endorse neo-Nazism, I think his choice of subject matter for this army was unfortunate. He'll have to spend as much time fighting his opponents as he will fighting the armis that will play against it.

Wow, I'm not the only one who noticed the balloon thing? Now that has to be intentional, but I doubt it has any meaning other than he likes the song and it is german.

the problem, as I see it, is that this particular artist used a variety of explicitly anti-Semitic and pro-Aryan iconography to trumpet a singular, hateful viewpoint. it's spelled out very clearly. interpreting it as something other than hateful outright requires either ignorance or spinning.

if he had the letters W-H-I-T-E P-O-W-E-R written, in order, on the side of his Baneblade, how would you interpret them?

A) RIP thee, WoW
B) we writhe, OP
C) white power
D) I pewter! how?

it is neither a tricky nor an absurd leap to call this dude what he is. and for those of you that are defending him because he was trolled (or attacking HF because he doesn't capitalize) then you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. hell, I went through this post and de-capped everything that wasn't a proper noun just because it seems like a good time to make absurd statements.

hang on i thought of another one -- peer who wit

I think its quite sad how many people are willing to waste so much of their time arguing over this issue.

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

I don't agree. I can look at a piece of artwork and make an educated guess about what it's about, based on my background knowledge and exposure to other artwork. It's called interpretation.

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.

Yes I can. I can tell a lot about them, especially if the army has a lot of conversions and idiosyncratic symbols on it, as the arm in question does.

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.

You're right. Defaming (no pun intended) others is a bad thing. I wouldn't make such an accusation lightly. There is no doubt in my mind that the artist in question is familiar with the neo-Nazi subculture. That leaves three possibilities that come immediately to my mind:
1. He's a neo-Nazi.
2. He's in extremely poor taste.
3. He made the army with ironic intent.

Look, I'm a Jewish/Chinese/Native American/Aztec/Somalian/Rwandan/Tibetin/Indian/Iranian/French-Canadian with a PhD. in History/Psychology/Sociology/Gynecology and I'm about to weigh in on this issue. So make room because I have the credits required to speak my mind and have it headed above all others. My point of view is the truth and if you do not agree you are dumb. Just dumb. Here it is.

The holocaust never happened. Honestly. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said it didn't happen. His words were then published in newspapers around the world. I then read these newspapers and as everyone knows there is like a law or something that it has to be the truth in order to be printed in the newspapers. The Nazis might have done some bad things, but 6 million Jews? I think that's a bit much.

There should be a clear distinction between historical/military representations and current/philosophical representations. There are Nazis, a historical regime bent on military domination which was defeated and is long gone, and neo-Nazis who focus on the anti-Semitic/anti-homosexual/anti-foreigner philosophy espoused by the Nazis and expanded on by a currently active community. With this in mind, I come to the following conclusions from reading this thread.

1.Almost no one will be upset about a Nazi themed army in an historical context. Any game, movie, artwork, etc. depicting WW2 Europe will of course depict Nazis. Not an issue.
2.Bringing Nazi themes and images out of a WW2 context and into another context/era begins to move from historical representation to a questionable use of imagery that has current values associated with it.
3.Adding imagery that was not used widely by the Nazis, but is widely used by neo-Nazis seems to reinforce a representation not of historical Nazism, but of philosophical neo-Nazism.

Let’s take the Mongol vs. Nazi reference above. Firstly, for good reason society does distinguish between someone who robs people by gunpoint and someone who shoots everyone of a certain race. Secondly, if there was a neo-Mongol movement which advocated rape and theft by force, I would be more bothered by an army painted as Mongols with a mix of historical and current symbols.

As for GMM Studios, I do not know him so my impression (not my frothing angry judgment), is based upon this army and his PM to Stonefox (in his sig). The army takes Nazi imagery into a non WW2 context and mixes in Neo-Nazi symbols. When Stonefox asks him about it, GMM accuses him of being an Israeli SA(?) member and seems to imply he’s had these run ins on multiple occasions. Not a promising combination.

@Phryxis: This isn’t about condemning past atrocities or forgiving people from the 1940’s. This is about confronting the philosophy and ideas that allowed those past atrocities to occur. Allowing representations of reprehensible ideas to be presented without challenge, is to make them seem more acceptable. Complacency is what allows public discourse to swing to dangerous ideals.

Pariah Press wrote:

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

I don't agree. I can look at a piece of artwork and make an educated guess about what it's about, based on my background knowledge and exposure to other artwork. It's called interpretation.

By observation of a piece you interpret art, but misinterpret artists.

Note to interpret an artist properly you have to study their life. Why do you think so many people study the lives of artists and composers? So they can interpret the art alongside the artist.
To claim to reliably interpret an artist through an isolated piece of art alone with any degree of accuracy is folly.

Pariah Press wrote:
You're right. Defaming (no pun intended) others is a bad thing. I wouldn't make such an accusation lightly. There is no doubt in my mind that the artist in question is familiar with the neo-Nazi subculture. That leaves three possibilities that come immediately to my mind:
1. He's a neo-Nazi.
2. He's in extremely poor taste.
3. He made the army with ironic intent.

1. If we take your accsations at face value, you have a 1/3 change of being 'right'. still poor odds to make such an accusation.

2. Taste is a matter of opinion, others like it.

3. And so could be considered good humoured. Lets face it, this army took talent to build and paint, it would need to be painted calmly and patiently and likely not while seething with repressed racial tension; it doesnt look of feel like a work of intentional hatred. - That by the way is artistic interpretation.

To echo:

There is no doubt in my mind

You say that and glibbly gave three options. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, and that just goes by your definitions.
May I suggest you withdraw your allegations.

Phryxis wrote:

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?

...

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

My problem is with people like YOU pretending that you have the moral authority to forgive for others, when things that were done are unforgivable. You don't speak for your parents, your great aunt, American Jewry, much less all Jewry. You certainly don't speak for someone like Simon Wiesenthal, and you certainly don't speak for me.

My problem is with people like YOU deciding I can't form my own opinion and state it as such.

My problem is with people like YOU deciding that unacceptable ad hominem attacks are the way to make your point in what is an otherwise reasonable discussion.


So what's wrong with me is YOU.

Quite frankly, your behavior in this thread means that I'm ignoring you after this. I find your responses to be totally unacceptable and personally offensive. I appreciate Yakface's word of warning, and hope that you take such caution to heart.


As for "real" morality, gaming isn't a place where it should ever come up. But commonsense courtesy for one's fellow gamer *IS* something that should be considered. And as I see it, neither you, nor GMM demonstrate this in word nor deed, respectively.

Phryxis wrote:

I happen to be Chinese, and I still remember the stories from my grandparents about what the IJA 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,

But you focus on what the "Japs" did.

Let's be *very* clear: the Imperial Japanese Army, by its widely documented atrocities (rape, torture, murder, slavery, sex-slavery, theft, starvation, etc.) throughout the world, against civilians and POWs, *deserves* demonization. And they killed a lot more than 6 million people. So if I want to label the IJA soldiers who committed those atrocities at that time with a pejorative label, I think that it is not inappropriate.

The fact is, more Americans have died at the hands of other Americans. Should I be a self-hating American, too?


And now I'm an immoral racist?

Yeah, we're done here. I don't think I've ever been so personally *angry* at someone on Dakka in all the time I've been on this board. Good bye.
____

fixed language

Gitzbitah wrote:If you take a look at his sentinel,

When I saw the Sentinel description, all I could think was [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitlerjugend]"HitlerJugend" [URL] (Hitler Youth).


In the same vein, when he was showing "the hangman", all I could think was "Einsatzgruppe", especially with the noose as a clear symbol for nonjudicial murder (i.e. "lynching").

JohnHwangDD - May I suggest you tone down what you wrote before you get a warning.

For the record: "if your problem is YOU" indicate your problem its still essentially your problem, not his.

I see some errors in your recent posts too, but now is not the time to highlight them, because you are clearly angry.

Orlanth wrote:By observation of a piece you interpret art, but misinterpret artists.

To claim to reliably interpret an artist through an isolated piece of art alone with any degree of accuracy is folly.

You are correct that no individual piece is enough to create a valid impression.

Except we're not looking at an isolated piece of art alone, out of context. We have several pieces in concert, the creator's comments, and follow-up comments. With this wealth of information, it is abundantly clear that the artist is a Neo-Nazi.

Orlanth wrote:

Pariah Press wrote:
You're right. Defaming (no pun intended) others is a bad thing. I wouldn't make such an accusation lightly. There is no doubt in my mind that the artist in question is familiar with the neo-Nazi subculture. That leaves three possibilities that come immediately to my mind:
1. He's a neo-Nazi.
2. He's in extremely poor taste.
3. He made the army with ironic intent.

1. If we take your accsations at face value, you have a 1/3 change of being 'right'. still poor odds to make such an accusation.

2. Taste is a matter of opinion, others like it.

3. And so could be considered good humoured. Lets face it, this army took talent to build and paint, it would need to be painted calmly and patiently and likely not while seething with repressed racial tension; it doesnt look of feel like a work of intentional hatred. - That by the way is artistic interpretation.

1. That presumes that all choices have equal validity. One could come up with a million choices, but that wouldn't make this choice less than the most likely.

2. There are other Neo-Nazis in the world. I'm sure they would like it.

3. That is false, and presumes a total lack of self-control by the artist. The fact that he's coding his messages demonstrates a very high degree of control.

So if I want to label the people who committed those atrocities at that time with the pejorative label "Japs", I think that it is not inappropriate.

Race-based insults are never justified, because however many atrocities the Japanese committed, individuals and organisations bear the blame, not the race those individuals belonged to.

FYI, my grandparents lived through the Japanese occupation of Singapore, and I have yet to hear a racist slur out of them, and even if I had, it would not give me the right to repeat them.

Orlanth wrote:JohnHwangDD - May I suggest you tone down what you wrote before you get a warning.

For the record: "if your problem is YOU" indicate your problem its still essentially your problem, not his.

I see some errors in your recent posts too, but now is not the time to highlight them, because you are clearly angry.

Yeah, he touched a bit of a nerve, but I don't think that I've attacked anybody.

As for "my problem", when I'm replying to someone, I think "YOU" would refer to that person, and I was stating, for the record, that I had a real problem with that person.

If you have found errors, please go ahead and raise them, and I (or others) will do my level best to address them appropriately. If you're questioning my comment about the American-on-American casualties, my (unstated) reference is for the highest number of American casualties (war dead) being the American Civil War.

Good post, Grotblaster.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Except we're not looking at an isolated piece of art alone, out of context. We have several pieces in concert, the creator's comments, and follow-up comments. With this wealth of information, it is abundantly clear that the artist is a Neo-Nazi.

Those several tanks are all one 'piece' of art: the army. If a piano is a work of art it is a single piece, not one piece per component.

If each tank was a seperate entity, such as for a seperate army, each with the same theme you would have a point.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
1. That presumes that all choices have equal validity. One could come up with a million choices, but that wouldn't make this choice less than the most likely.

2. There are other Neo-Nazis in the world. I'm sure they would like it.

3. That is false, and presumes a total lack of self-control by the artist. The fact that he's coding his messages demonstrates a very high degree of control.