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.

ERJAK wrote:

So 1. Goonhammer isn't WAAC. Goonhammer is to competitive play what Linus Tech Tips is to processor die manufacturing.

2. Referring to the other comment about 'private websites' why would you keep hate speech around? Why would you bother? Statement like Steelhead's 'I think trans people have a dangerous mental disorder' SHOULDN'T be engaged with. All that does is give free advertising for vile ideas. If you get someone who spews hate speech on your platform, the CORRECT response is to just ban them off and be done with it.

Banning people who say nonsense like '50/13' or other racist/bigoted crap doesn't create an echo chamber. Letting them stick around does. If you allow people to present ideas like 'I think all trans people are mentally ill freaks' and give that inane, bigoted nonsense the same position as other, less stupid opinions like 'people being treated poorly for ephemeral reasons like arbitrary gender rules is bad' then you end up in a situation where the entire platform is just those arguments over and over and over again, or the GOOD people leave and all you're left with is a Nazi-esque echochamber. It's the paradox of tolerance.

If you're really worried about people not being able to express different viewpoints, but those viewpoints are 'I think X minority group should be rounded up and killed' you're focusing on the wrong thing.

For point 1, we can agree to disagree I suppose. The most insufferable WAAC people in my local area all treat Goonhammer like it is God's own word and use it routinely to troll and put down anyone who doesn't play WAAC games in the area.

For point 2, I never brought any of that stuff up...was this reply meant for another poster?

Asmodios wrote:
What you just posted is the definition of mentally fragile. In order for there to be a distinction in anything, the scope of those things needs to be limited. Take your ariel example. I would be unhinged if I was mad that ariel is not a 6'3 Italian male because I'm not "seeing myself represented" in ariel. Nothing can be all-inclusive, ariel cannot be white/African/Hispanic/brunette/blonde/redhead/male/female all at once. I could see a group being upset if they were removed from an entire fiction universe but it is completely unhinged to think you need representation in every group in any fiction. I would be mentally fragile if I was writing articles titled "Female only Sisters of Battle promotes bigotry and violence against Cis Males". In no way does having a female faction somehow constitute an attack on me, actually, it's quite the opposite. Having a defined role for any group/ character allows you to build spaces where you can highlight what makes a group special and different.

I'm unsure that you can define mentally fragile as you choose to see fit, but whatever makes you comfortable, I guess.

I said nothing about needing representation of every group in all media.

What I did say was that white people ( I'm white ) complain about whites getting removed from media. That's mentally fragile when a ridiculous amount of media is about cis white people.

So I'll reiterate my point:

The issue for me has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there are male-only marines. It's reinforcing the reason for male only marines in a fictional universe, which gives purchase to the ne'er do wells to proclaim their cultural victory.

We can all see marines are male. We don't need to justify it.

 Togusa wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

So 1. Goonhammer isn't WAAC. Goonhammer is to competitive play what Linus Tech Tips is to processor die manufacturing.

2. Referring to the other comment about 'private websites' why would you keep hate speech around? Why would you bother? Statement like Steelhead's 'I think trans people have a dangerous mental disorder' SHOULDN'T be engaged with. All that does is give free advertising for vile ideas. If you get someone who spews hate speech on your platform, the CORRECT response is to just ban them off and be done with it.

Banning people who say nonsense like '50/13' or other racist/bigoted crap doesn't create an echo chamber. Letting them stick around does. If you allow people to present ideas like 'I think all trans people are mentally ill freaks' and give that inane, bigoted nonsense the same position as other, less stupid opinions like 'people being treated poorly for ephemeral reasons like arbitrary gender rules is bad' then you end up in a situation where the entire platform is just those arguments over and over and over again, or the GOOD people leave and all you're left with is a Nazi-esque echochamber. It's the paradox of tolerance.

If you're really worried about people not being able to express different viewpoints, but those viewpoints are 'I think X minority group should be rounded up and killed' you're focusing on the wrong thing.

For point 1, we can agree to disagree I suppose. The most insufferable WAAC people in my local area all treat Goonhammer like it is God's own word and use it routinely to troll and put down anyone who doesn't play WAAC games in the area.

For point 2, I never brought any of that stuff up...was this reply meant for another poster?

But there is a difference in a WAAC player looking at Goons analytics and Goon being WAAC themselves. While I don't agree with Goons takes a lot of the times they at least are not WAAC players in general (EDIT: Maybe 1 is, I have not followed all of their 40k careers, from what they write, how they talk and the few games I have seen they are not WAAC but just hyper numbers player)

Psychocouac wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

again, or the GOOD people leave and all you're left with is a Nazi-esque echochamber. It's the paradox of tolerance

Godwin point spotted.

Not only that, ERJAK needs to read the whole paradox of tolerance in context (basically the part were Popper says that intolerance should be repressed only when rational discourse has failed, and it's breaking the laws of civilized society)

M.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
What you just posted is the definition of mentally fragile. In order for there to be a distinction in anything, the scope of those things needs to be limited. Take your ariel example. I would be unhinged if I was mad that ariel is not a 6'3 Italian male because I'm not "seeing myself represented" in ariel. Nothing can be all-inclusive, ariel cannot be white/African/Hispanic/brunette/blonde/redhead/male/female all at once. I could see a group being upset if they were removed from an entire fiction universe but it is completely unhinged to think you need representation in every group in any fiction. I would be mentally fragile if I was writing articles titled "Female only Sisters of Battle promotes bigotry and violence against Cis Males". In no way does having a female faction somehow constitute an attack on me, actually, it's quite the opposite. Having a defined role for any group/ character allows you to build spaces where you can highlight what makes a group special and different.

I'm unsure that you can define mentally fragile as you choose to see fit, but whatever makes you comfortable, I guess.

I said nothing about needing representation of every group in all media.

What I did say was that white people ( I'm white ) complain about whites getting removed from media. That's mentally fragile when a ridiculous amount of media is about cis white people.

So I'll reiterate my point:

The issue for me has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there are male-only marines. It's reinforcing the reason for male only marines in a fictional universe, which gives purchase to the ne'er do wells to proclaim their cultural victory.

We can all see marines are male. We don't need to justify it.

That's a pretty bad faith argument right there. The thing of the matter about the removal is that they are changing often within the confines of the canon a character to something else. There's not as many complaints about characters that are created new.

ERJAK 805786 11391592 wrote:Referring to the other comment about 'private websites' why would you keep hate speech around? Why would you bother? Statement like Steelhead's 'I think trans people have a dangerous mental disorder' SHOULDN'T be engaged with. All that does is give free advertising for vile ideas. If you get someone who spews hate speech on your platform, the CORRECT response is to just ban them off and be done with it.

How isn't it dangerous if they have so much higher rates to suffer from addiction, sucide, be draged in to sex work etc. It is not vile it is just stating the horrible truth. If someone say that people with mucoviscitosis don't live past 30, and we don't know how the cure them and the only way to lenghten their life span is a full lungs transplant, then it is hate speach against people affected.

 GrosseSax wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

steelhead177th wrote:
this topic is ludicrous and meant to stir up trouble so a few can feel moral superior to those that don't follow their non-standard views, while exploting a tiny percentage of the human population with an extreme and harmful mental disorder.

as for female SM do whatever you like. if you want to slap makeup on male minis do it. Just don't pretend it should be execpted by everyone else.

You're scum. And also the EXACT type of person that the 40k community needs to usher out.

But...but I thought Warhammer was for everybody?

it seems anyone who thinks differently from "progressives" should be shunned and removed ...as if there is a bias against them that isn't based on logic or reason, but hate and fear.

You don't have to embrace my way of thinking, but I don't have to embrace yours either.

for such inclusive people, you want to exclude a large percentage of the popluation.

 Miguelsan wrote:

Psychocouac wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

again, or the GOOD people leave and all you're left with is a Nazi-esque echochamber. It's the paradox of tolerance

Godwin point spotted.

Not only that, ERJAK needs to read the whole paradox of tolerance in context (basically the part were Popper says that intolerance should be repressed only when rational discourse has failed, and it's breaking the laws of civilized society)

M.

The concept of Godwin as a failure of discourse is a bit dead and tired considering where the world is at right now.

Godwin's law itself can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, when fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate. Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of the law, claiming that it does not articulate a fallacy, but rather is intended to reduce the frequency of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons.

But I guess it depends on your interpretation of "Nazi-esque".

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

So 1. Goonhammer isn't WAAC. Goonhammer is to competitive play what Linus Tech Tips is to processor die manufacturing.

2. Referring to the other comment about 'private websites' why would you keep hate speech around? Why would you bother? Statement like Steelhead's 'I think trans people have a dangerous mental disorder' SHOULDN'T be engaged with. All that does is give free advertising for vile ideas. If you get someone who spews hate speech on your platform, the CORRECT response is to just ban them off and be done with it.

Banning people who say nonsense like '50/13' or other racist/bigoted crap doesn't create an echo chamber. Letting them stick around does. If you allow people to present ideas like 'I think all trans people are mentally ill freaks' and give that inane, bigoted nonsense the same position as other, less stupid opinions like 'people being treated poorly for ephemeral reasons like arbitrary gender rules is bad' then you end up in a situation where the entire platform is just those arguments over and over and over again, or the GOOD people leave and all you're left with is a Nazi-esque echochamber. It's the paradox of tolerance.

If you're really worried about people not being able to express different viewpoints, but those viewpoints are 'I think X minority group should be rounded up and killed' you're focusing on the wrong thing.

For point 1, we can agree to disagree I suppose. The most insufferable WAAC people in my local area all treat Goonhammer like it is God's own word and use it routinely to troll and put down anyone who doesn't play WAAC games in the area.

For point 2, I never brought any of that stuff up...was this reply meant for another poster?

But there is a difference in a WAAC player looking at Goons analytics and Goon being WAAC themselves. While I don't agree with Goons takes a lot of the times they at least are not WAAC players in general (EDIT: Maybe 1 is, I have not followed all of their 40k careers, from what they write, how they talk and the few games I have seen they are not WAAC but just hyper numbers player)

See this right here is something I do not understand about gaming folks.

I've stated a reason why I am not a fan of a specific website. My reason is pretty reasonable because it directly affects me, based on how my local group uses (keyword) said website as a stick to tell players to take their sub-optimal lists and feth off. And then the gamer defense is to be perturbed that someone, somewhere on the net doesn't like a website that they obviously do, and then they feel that they need to defend it.

Whether or not they (all of them or most of them) at the site are, or are not WAAC players isn't the point. The point is my local competitive group has ruined this site for me and made it a place I do not wish to visit by using it constantly to back up their dislike of narrative gaming. My intention isn't to put down the people who work at Goonhammer, or to drag them through the mud. I also do not mean to single you out for this, it's just that your post is the most convenient for me to address this issue. It is both okay to like, and not like things that others might like. Like I'm not one of the ones who wants women space marines. But if they add them next year, I'm not going to get upset about it. I'm not going to stop playing the game or take to the net to write a ten page diatribe about them. I'm just going to keep on playing with my models the way I always have.

and ERJAK, i said harmful not dangerous. try reading the comment correctly and stop putting words in my mouth.

In fact you twisted my words in to a statement nothing like the one I made to paint an image I wasn't making.

Very disappointing and bad form.

 Togusa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

So 1. Goonhammer isn't WAAC. Goonhammer is to competitive play what Linus Tech Tips is to processor die manufacturing.

2. Referring to the other comment about 'private websites' why would you keep hate speech around? Why would you bother? Statement like Steelhead's 'I think trans people have a dangerous mental disorder' SHOULDN'T be engaged with. All that does is give free advertising for vile ideas. If you get someone who spews hate speech on your platform, the CORRECT response is to just ban them off and be done with it.

Banning people who say nonsense like '50/13' or other racist/bigoted crap doesn't create an echo chamber. Letting them stick around does. If you allow people to present ideas like 'I think all trans people are mentally ill freaks' and give that inane, bigoted nonsense the same position as other, less stupid opinions like 'people being treated poorly for ephemeral reasons like arbitrary gender rules is bad' then you end up in a situation where the entire platform is just those arguments over and over and over again, or the GOOD people leave and all you're left with is a Nazi-esque echochamber. It's the paradox of tolerance.

If you're really worried about people not being able to express different viewpoints, but those viewpoints are 'I think X minority group should be rounded up and killed' you're focusing on the wrong thing.

For point 1, we can agree to disagree I suppose. The most insufferable WAAC people in my local area all treat Goonhammer like it is God's own word and use it routinely to troll and put down anyone who doesn't play WAAC games in the area.

For point 2, I never brought any of that stuff up...was this reply meant for another poster?

But there is a difference in a WAAC player looking at Goons analytics and Goon being WAAC themselves. While I don't agree with Goons takes a lot of the times they at least are not WAAC players in general (EDIT: Maybe 1 is, I have not followed all of their 40k careers, from what they write, how they talk and the few games I have seen they are not WAAC but just hyper numbers player)

See this right here is something I do not understand about gaming folks.

I've stated a reason why I am not a fan of a specific website. My reason is pretty reasonable because it directly affects me, based on how my local group uses (keyword) said website as a stick to tell players to take their sub-optimal lists and feth off. And then the gamer defense is to be perturbed that someone, somewhere on the net doesn't like a website that they obviously do, and then they feel that they need to defend it.

Whether or not they (all of them or most of them) at the site are, or are not WAAC players isn't the point. The point is my local competitive group has ruined this site for me and made it a place I do not wish to visit by using it constantly to back up their dislike of narrative gaming. My intention isn't to put down the people who work at Goonhammer, or to drag them through the mud. I also do not mean to single you out for this, it's just that your post is the most convenient for me to address this issue. It is both okay to like, and not like things that others might like. Like I'm not one of the ones who wants women space marines. But if they add them next year, I'm not going to get upset about it. I'm not going to stop playing the game or take to the net to write a ten page diatribe about them. I'm just going to keep on playing with my models the way I always have.

I think you dont understand me, its a site about math to help balance the game, that is not encouraging WAAC at all, Goon doesn't have WAAC articles or even ones that pushes for it at all. So how can you say its Goons fault your local has WAAC players? Even without Goon those same players will act the same way, they just would use something else to say their reasonings.

My issues with them are their opinion pieces are just bad most the time, and they think they have some authority when they do not.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
That's a pretty bad faith argument right there. The thing of the matter about the removal is that they are changing often within the confines of the canon a character to something else. There's not as many complaints about characters that are created new.

Is it now? Requiring only new characters be different from the norm is frankly obtuse.

I take it that you didn't like Samuel Jackson in the MCU? Surely he should have been white as that is canon.

Even Jesus was made white for feths sake.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

But I guess it depends on your interpretation of "Nazi-esque".

That seems to have gotten very broad, at times.

Tiberias wrote:
But the example used was "physically strongest aspirants". How can it be sexist to say that a male human on average is going to be physically stronger than a human female (considering that they recieved the same training conditioning, because a trained female athlete is going to outperform an untrained male any day of the week).

Because it's nonsense based on outdated cherry picked samples with a side of sexist BS that keeps getting parroted by people with an agenda?

When you encourage half of your population to do exercise while telling the other half that moving is 'improper' and 'unladylike' and telling them to stay in kitchen (see - tomboy, a word that used to be a pretty heavy slur in the past for showing such 'deviant' interests), gee, I wonder why the far bigger pool that did regular exercise produces far more stronger athletes than the group that was actively discouraged and the ones that did exercises were much smaller pool allowing for less talent from far end of bell curve to shine through. It's a mystery, eh?

Funnily enough, past cultures that did encourage all the members of tribe/city/state to exercise and hunt/fight/compete from childhood note that the difference between sexes is much smaller (that's where the myth of Amazons comes from - tribes that allowed women to prosper instead of confining them to kitchen roles like Greeks produced 'inhumanly' strong women from Greek perspective, go figure). Even in recent times, when Soviet army drafted hundreds of thousands of women to fill roles of tankers, pilots, snipers, machine gunners, and other soldiers in numbers big enough to catch that far end of bell curve, they found, surprise, surprise, that women do perform just as well as men and a lot of Soviet women easily bested best males from SS and Heer units. Gee, maybe Soviets just didn't hear of that sCieNcE?

This whole discussion stinks of rabid racist supremacist view from 19th century claiming the superiority of WHITE MALE based on sCieNcE - because funnily enough, when you compare conquered native populations the oppressors denied proper nutrition, medicine, education, stress free environment, etc, etc, then yes, you can make argument that white males are stronger, smarter, superior, etc, etc. It will be incredibly stupid (and racist) argument ignoring why this is the case, but it doesn't stop people using it, even to this day, hiding behind sCieNcE in smug dishonesty. Sexist sCieNce works the exact same way, just tries to be more insidious and polite. Doesn't stop it from being equally wrong almost every single time someone tries to properly look.

Then there is the final argument making all the sexist gak spewed by poor, insecure incels moot anyway. 40K is not taking place in the present day. It's 40.000 years from now. Along the way, there was golden summit of godlike technology that removed all diseases and deficiencies from the human genome - which obviously included equalizing body strength of every single human to the same potential, really high level. Even if we assume there are minor differences now, there should be absolutely zero differences in potential given the same level of nutrition and care in every single 40K homo sapiens. Trying to introduce them when they make no sense just because someone feels insecure is sexist, sorry.

And finally, the whole 'WIMMINZ WEAKZ' argument is idiotic from another angle, too. Most of space marine chapters recruits from literal hellholes where the 'strongest' aspirants are uneducated, stunted, scarred kids missing a fair bit of body parts - making them inferior recruiting material to just about every girl from civilized world that received proper levels of care. And why should body even matter when SM are limited by strength of their power armour? Numerous studies found women make better soldiers because they are far less likely to do stupid things, better at obeying orders and cooperation, more tolerant to pain, more patient, accurate, and less likely to show off - throwing all of this away and claiming males are better thanks to a single trait based on outdated, biased data, a trait that thanks to tin can SM wears doesn't even matter - guessing one word that sums this "argument" is so easy people should hit it in one try.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
What you just posted is the definition of mentally fragile. In order for there to be a distinction in anything, the scope of those things needs to be limited. Take your ariel example. I would be unhinged if I was mad that ariel is not a 6'3 Italian male because I'm not "seeing myself represented" in ariel. Nothing can be all-inclusive, ariel cannot be white/African/Hispanic/brunette/blonde/redhead/male/female all at once. I could see a group being upset if they were removed from an entire fiction universe but it is completely unhinged to think you need representation in every group in any fiction. I would be mentally fragile if I was writing articles titled "Female only Sisters of Battle promotes bigotry and violence against Cis Males". In no way does having a female faction somehow constitute an attack on me, actually, it's quite the opposite. Having a defined role for any group/ character allows you to build spaces where you can highlight what makes a group special and different.

I'm unsure that you can define mentally fragile as you choose to see fit, but whatever makes you comfortable, I guess.

I said nothing about needing representation of every group in all media.

What I did say was that white people ( I'm white ) complain about whites getting removed from media. That's mentally fragile when a ridiculous amount of media is about cis white people.

So I'll reiterate my point:

The issue for me has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there are male-only marines. It's reinforcing the reason for male only marines in a fictional universe, which gives purchase to the ne'er do wells to proclaim their cultural victory.

We can all see marines are male. We don't need to justify it.

Id consider it mental fragility when you think the HH saying "space marines are males" is a transphobic attack. If I thought "ariel is a white redhead" or "blade is a black vampire hunter" as a personal attack I would consider myself mentally unstable.
the article states
"Using the words printed in the Horus Heresy rulebook, even if the underlying meaning made sense (it doesn’t) wouldn’t be appropriate because it mimics the language used by bigots to foster hate and division." and what is this insane bigoted language? "The process by which Space Marines are created relies inherently on the hormonal and biological make-up of the human male, meaning that only males can be subjected to the transformation.”

Sorry, but if you find that sentence as an attack on trans people you are unhinged and the last thing you should be worried about is board games. Meanwhile, the same article calls to"punch" fascists in the face but by reading the article as written the article is essentially stating that any disagreement on this topic is fascism.
So now we get this hilarious article that finds an imaginary call to violence against trans while actively calling for violence against anyone who disagrees.

Luckily i hardly ever watched any of their WAAC trash but ill make especially sure to stay clear from their name and brand now.

This is complicated topic but Rule One still applies. Good pointer: Deal with the points people make without ad hominem. Thank you!

 Daedalus81 wrote:


But I guess it depends on your interpretation of "Nazi-esque".

If one would go by the social media metric and then everyone and everything can by naziesque. I have a family member who lives with his family in Norway. His son got banned from twitter for posting a picture of our common grandfather in his uniform from 1941 in africa. You no longer are a nazi, because you want to be one, but because other call you one. Same with WAAC here or every other ism in the world.

 blood reaper wrote:

40k is the ultimate roider vs natty setting.

Because I play Harlequins have I chosen side natty? And are my orks like those people who are obsessed with fermented foods and probiotics?

14 Pages in 1 day

It's all cherry picked samples. It's a dystopian horrifying fantasy world. Why wouldn't it be horrible?

At the end of the day GW doesnt think they'll make enough $$$ for female injection plastic kits. They could and should release finecast any-sex heads and female torsos. If you're not familiar Victoria's Minis handles this fantastically with their resin cast bits.

 GrosseSax wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

steelhead177th wrote:
this topic is ludicrous and meant to stir up trouble so a few can feel moral superior to those that don't follow their non-standard views, while exploting a tiny percentage of the human population with an extreme and harmful mental disorder.

as for female SM do whatever you like. if you want to slap makeup on male minis do it. Just don't pretend it should be execpted by everyone else.

You're scum. And also the EXACT type of person that the 40k community needs to usher out.

But...but I thought Warhammer was for everybody?

It's for everyone except the people that disagree with me politically

Out of mild curiosity, would it be preferable if the passage in question was changed to something along the lines of:

"Due to the genetic and hormonal conditioning, Space Marines always emerge from the process as, to all intents and purposes, biologically male."


I ask because, while all-male super-soldiers makes sense (due to biological differences in muscle density and the like between sexes), it seems a little strange that the Imperium can genetically modify men to spit acid but can't genetically engineer women to become male (or to have enough male physiology that there ceases to be any meaningful distinction).


To be clear, I have absolutely no horse in this race. I don't find the current text offensive in any way and have no objections to it remaining unchanged. Mainly just curious whether a tweak along these lines would satisfy the trans-activists whilst still maintaining the spirit of the lore.

 Irbis wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
But the example used was "physically strongest aspirants". How can it be sexist to say that a male human on average is going to be physically stronger than a human female (considering that they recieved the same training conditioning, because a trained female athlete is going to outperform an untrained male any day of the week).

Because it's nonsense based on outdated cherry picked samples with a side of sexist BS that keeps getting parroted by people with an agenda?

When you encourage half of your population to do exercise while telling the other half that moving is 'improper' and 'unladylike' and telling them to stay in kitchen (see - tomboy, a word that used to be a pretty heavy slur in the past for showing such 'deviant' interests), gee, I wonder why the far bigger pool that did regular exercise produces far more stronger athletes than the group that was actively discouraged and the ones that did exercises were much smaller pool allowing for less talent from far end of bell curve to shine through. It's a mystery, eh?

Funnily enough, past cultures that did encourage all the members of tribe/city/state to exercise and hunt/fight/compete from childhood note that the difference between sexes is much smaller (that's where the myth of Amazons comes from - tribes that allowed women to prosper instead of confining them to kitchen roles like Greeks produced 'inhumanly' strong women from Greek perspective, go figure). Even in recent times, when Soviet army drafted hundreds of thousands of women to fill roles of tankers, pilots, snipers, machine gunners, and other soldiers in numbers big enough to catch that far end of bell curve, they found, surprise, surprise, that women do perform just as well as men and a lot of Soviet women easily bested best males from SS and Heer units. Gee, maybe Soviets just didn't hear of that sCieNcE?

This whole discussion stinks of rabid racist supremacist view from 19th century claiming the superiority of WHITE MALE based on sCieNcE - because funnily enough, when you compare conquered native populations the oppressors denied proper nutrition, medicine, education, stress free environment, etc, etc, then yes, you can make argument that white males are stronger, smarter, superior, etc, etc. It will be incredibly stupid (and racist) argument ignoring why this is the case, but it doesn't stop people using it, even to this day, hiding behind sCieNcE in smug dishonesty. Sexist sCieNce works the exact same way, just tries to be more insidious and polite. Doesn't stop it from being equally wrong almost every single time someone tries to properly look.

Then there is the final argument making all the sexist gak spewed by poor, insecure incels moot anyway. 40K is not taking place in the present day. It's 40.000 years from now. Along the way, there was golden summit of godlike technology that removed all diseases and deficiencies from the human genome - which obviously included equalizing body strength of every single human to the same potential, really high level. Even if we assume there are minor differences now, there should be absolutely zero differences in potential given the same level of nutrition and care in every single 40K homo sapiens. Trying to introduce them when they make no sense just because someone feels insecure is sexist, sorry.

And finally, the whole 'WIMMINZ WEAKZ' argument is idiotic from another angle, too. Most of space marine chapters recruits from literal hellholes where the 'strongest' aspirants are uneducated, stunted, scarred kids missing a fair bit of body parts - making them inferior recruiting material to just about every girl from civilized world that received proper levels of care. And why should body even matter when SM are limited by strength of their power armour? Numerous studies found women make better soldiers because they are far less likely to do stupid things, better at obeying orders and cooperation, more tolerant to pain, more patient, accurate, and less likely to show off - throwing all of this away and claiming males are better thanks to a single trait based on outdated, biased data, a trait that thanks to tin can SM wears doesn't even matter - guessing one word that sums this "argument" is so easy people should hit it in one try.

I am a profession personal trainer, I am a experience combat fighter. I have trained thousands of people in martial arts including; men, women, children, and adults. Not just in karate, but also MMA, BJJ, and TDK.

You are wrong, there is 100% a difference in men and women when it comes to strength.

You can look at any fighting sport, or sport that involves strength and men will win. Lets look at strength differences; deadlifting for an example, Women's record is 636lbs, men's is 1,404lbs. Ok what about something women might be better at? Squats, Women's record 570lbs, men's 1080lbs.
These are not just a large difference but near double the difference. Lucia Rjiker one of the best female fighters ever known, nickname the "Lady Tyson" and she still lost to armature male kickboxer.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
That's a pretty bad faith argument right there. The thing of the matter about the removal is that they are changing often within the confines of the canon a character to something else. There's not as many complaints about characters that are created new.

Is it now? Requiring only new characters be different from the norm is frankly obtuse.

I take it that you didn't like Samuel Jackson in the MCU? Surely he should have been white as that is canon.

Even Jesus was made white for feths sake.

Samuel Jackson was playing Nick Fury Jr.. Nick Fury (Sr) is the white one. So he shouldn't have been.

Jesus was made in every groups image. There's also Asian Jesus and the like as well as several natives and otherwise. Because Jesus and God are representatives of everyone. They made man in their image.

 Manchu wrote:
This is complicated topic but Rule One still applies. Good pointer: Deal with the points people make without ad hominem. Thank you!

Dealing with your point, that's stupid. We literally just had someone say 'all trans people are dangerously mentally ill' on the previous page, how do you deal with that point? Politely disagree? Treat it like it's just another asinine wargaming screed and not something that gets people literally killed all over the world?

Rule #1 cannot deal with topics like this because it ends up treating actual, dangerous hate speech as being significantly worse than calling someone a poo-poo head.

You're more or less siding with bigotry on this one.

 Irbis wrote:

Because it's nonsense based on outdated cherry picked samples with a side of sexist BS that keeps getting parroted by people with an agenda?

When you encourage half of your population to do exercise while telling the other half that moving is 'improper' and 'unladylike' and telling them to stay in kitchen (see - tomboy, a word that used to be a pretty heavy slur in the past for showing such 'deviant' interests), gee, I wonder why the far bigger pool that did regular exercise produces far more stronger athletes than the group that was actively discouraged and the ones that did exercises were much smaller pool allowing for less talent from far end of bell curve to shine through. It's a mystery, eh?

Funnily enough, past cultures that did encourage all the members of tribe/city/state to exercise and hunt/fight/compete from childhood note that the difference between sexes is much smaller (that's where the myth of Amazons comes from - tribes that allowed women to prosper instead of confining them to kitchen roles like Greeks produced 'inhumanly' strong women from Greek perspective, go figure). Even in recent times, when Soviet army drafted hundreds of thousands of women to fill roles of tankers, pilots, snipers, machine gunners, and other soldiers in numbers big enough to catch that far end of bell curve, they found, surprise, surprise, that women do perform just as well as men and a lot of Soviet women easily bested best males from SS and Heer units. Gee, maybe Soviets just didn't hear of that sCieNcE?

You don't know what you are talking about. And at my age (17) guys in my weight range are going to be stronger, then the female division members. Maybe you can find some american girls that are comperable, but they are going to be weaker then the american wreslers from the same age and weight group. Ancient civilisation maybe had more fit people, as long as they weren't malnurished, but there is a reason why you needed a men/husband to plow earth, because a woman no matter how fit would not be able to pull out the socha from the ground on her own.

Being a tanker, pilot, sniper, machine gunner doesn't require physical strenght. The gun is somewhat of an equalizer. And if you want to read real studies about how women perform in the military then you have a gigantic stock of material from Israel starting from the early 60s and ending now. And they show that female soldiers in infantry units, suffer more injuries, that units with females in them are slower and take higher loses, both durning training and in live combat. They were also unable to cross obsticles , in full combat gear, that male soldiers would cross. And Israel wants everyone in the army, there is no culture of "driving off" females from military service, in fact one could say there is the reverse happening.
You don't know what you are talking about if you think a two heads taller trained male soldier would get beaten, on a regular basis, by a smaller and weaker woman. That is fantasy land.

ERJAK wrote:


2. Referring to the other comment about 'private websites' why would you keep hate speech around?

That depends on what you define as "hate speech". Most people calling for the removal of "hate speech" have the same definition as Michael Scott, except unironically. Saying that humans are either XX or XY is not hate speech, it is just a fact. I have no idea how that became equated with "trans people shouldn't have rights" other than a bunch of people online looking to be victims of something and seizing the tiniest possible opportunity to do so.

Did he say that they're dangerously mental ill or did he say that it is a harmful mental disorder, considering their extremely high suicide rates, and the fact that they consider top surgery a life saving surgery due to this? I feel there's an important distinction.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
As a trans person, I also find the aforementioned "biological male" mention grim, and I'm one of the signatures on the letter highlighting it's issues. Do I think GW is transphobic? No. I think they used a term which has negative connotations due to it's use as a transphobic dogwhistle.

GW didn't use the term 'biological male' though...

 Stevefamine wrote:
14 Pages in 1 day

Like Irbis said it's all cherry picked samples.

At the end of the day GW doesnt think they'll make enough $$$ for female injection plastic kits. They could and should release finecast any-sex heads and female torsos. If you're not familiar Victoria's Minis handles this fantastically with their resin cast bits.

Take the 10 best female MMA fighter, and let them fight Brock Lesner. Even on the same day one after one. Men are stronger, there is a reason why you have a separate weight lifting, combat sports etc divisions. If we were to compete in wrestling vs same age group, same weight group females, there would be no women qualifing for above country events, and it would be very rare to see one qualify for regionals.

ERJAK wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
This is complicated topic but Rule One still applies. Good pointer: Deal with the points people make without ad hominem. Thank you!

Dealing with your point, that's stupid. We literally just had someone say 'all trans people are dangerously mentally ill' on the previous page, how do you deal with that point? Politely disagree? Treat it like it's just another asinine wargaming screed and not something that gets people literally killed all over the world?

Rule #1 cannot deal with topics like this because it ends up treating actual, dangerous hate speech as being significantly worse than calling someone a poo-poo head.

You're more or less siding with bigotry on this one.

Unfortunately the mods are notoriously milquetoast about doing anything, as if Dakka is still a struggling website with single digit membership so they couldn't possibly dare ban someone.