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.

Me no understand how orks would have the word panzies in their barbaric vocabulary

They would have to have some sense of sexual orientation and/or concept of what effeminate means.
Brute ork strength they comprehend, but how do they have any concept of femininity, and reproducing asexually the former means diddly suit to them

Given how the meaning of words change, thus the reason for my previous post, I think it's asinine to get offended by the use of any word. Admittedly, there are some exceptions but I still call to question the need to get offended by them. Move on...and stop causing stupid drama when there are much more severe issues that need to be addressed in this world.

Kilkrazy wrote:Nice of GW to promote homophobic insults on their official website.

You're kidding, right?

"Pansies" (or, to be more accurate, 'Panzee') is what Orks call Eldar. It's been part of 40K lore for 20+ years.

Take your PC nonsense outta here!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klawz wrote:Soo...does that mean JJ is LGBT?

Unlikely. I don't even think he's human.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Nice of GW to promote homophobic insults on their official website.

You're kidding, right?

"Pansies" (or, to be more accurate, 'Panzee') is what Orks call Eldar. It's been part of 40K lore for 20+ years.

Take your PC nonsense outta here!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klawz wrote:Soo...does that mean JJ is LGBT?

Unlikely. I don't even think he's human.

Well said. I have that... PETA, ACLU, Al Sharpton taste in my mouth.
At this rate, no one will ever be able to tell a joke again.

I know a lot of you people on Dakka like to complain about everything that is GW but ripping them for saying Pansies?

Seriously?

Why not . we hate them for everything else they do. might as well. Still everytime i hear the word Homophobic i think Lactose intolerance. but then again thats a canadian thing.

Hawkins wrote:Why not . we hate them for everything else they do. might as well. Still everytime i hear the word Homophobic i think Lactose intolerance. but then again thats a canadian thing.

Well then on that note why not just sell all your GW stuff and get into a new hobby. I heard the Canadians are good at hockey?

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I've sent them a complaint.

I will report their response if any.

I can guess they will claim they own the IP to "Pansies" and will send you a Cease and Desist.

QFT

I think the homophobic comment was Lashwhip Princes and Biker Nobs. Faries wear hobnail boots, I guess.

Please run on along with your PC tap dancing. The deal is about "ard boyz", you want to make it about something else thats entirely on you.

Honestly, theres enough to slight them over aside from some sort of flower power comments to go PAge 5 over thier "Ard Boyz" tournies, want to look back over that COMP conversation?

I think Daedalus has it right,

In the UK I think it is a derogatory term for homosexual.

In the US it just means a wimp.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Me no understand how orks would have the word panzies in their barbaric vocabulary

They would have to have some sense of sexual orientation and/or concept of what effeminate means.
Brute ork strength they comprehend, but how do they have any concept of femininity, and reproducing asexually the former means diddly suit to them

From what I've pieced together: orks speak Ork. Whatever's written in English is either a translation of Ork or a translation of what Imperial Gothic they've cobbled together from humans (or a mix of the two; Orks tend to adopt Gothic words into their language when it's convenient).

As orkish culture approximates an extreme version of what in human culture is considered masculine, this is likely the reason for the words' translation into "boys" and "panzees" to those more familiar with human cultural concepts than orkish. (Alternatively, they've picked these words from Gothic to describe themselves when communicating with humans, and what we read is then a translation of those.)

Even in the UK, "pansy" is far from being purely a homophobic insult. "Poof" is certainly referring specifically to effeminate gay men, and not in a nice way, but pansy refers only to the wimpiness of people. Now, "pansy" may often be directed at a certain type of gay man, but it is far from being so associated that it cannot be used in any other context.

I hope that GW reply to you, and that they do so in a polite way, but I also hope they stand up for themselves and say something along the lines of "whilst we regret that we may have caused offense, we feel that the context in which we have used this term in this message and in previous "fluff"-writing is acceptable, and that it is very clear there is no homophobic message being intended. We shall not be changing the statement we have written."

There is honest objection to homophobia, something I feel very strongly about, and then there is unnecessary PC-ery.

May I ask, are you gay, and feel offended, or are you straight and feeling offended on behalf of the gay community?

I was born in NYC and lived there for 23 years, then moved to Iowa and lived here for 10. In neither place is "Pansy" considered to be a slur directed at homosexuals specifically, but rather a generic insult.

Of course, who knows in the UK? I once got into a discussion of tensions between India and Pakistan on a message board, and started shortening Pakistanis to "pakis" - not knowing that is apparently a generic insult in the UK (?). So, maybe it's a translation issue.

I have never thought of the word "pansy" or "pansies" to be homophobic, specifically but I am just a hayseed from ol' small towne Alberta.

I have personally been using the OTHER, much more effective homophobic word to describe people you might describe as being pansies. The irony. No disrespect to the actual uh, homosexuals.

Good grief. I can't believe I've read through this whole thread. GW's used the term since 1st edition and this is the first time I've ever seen anyone be offended. I must be getting too old as I'm still not sure why it was offensive in the first place.

Hmm, they have to update those rules or the BA Codex ain't permitted...

Alternatively, they've picked these words from Gothic to describe themselves when communicating with humans, and what we read is then a translation of those.)

Wasn't being entirely serious
more a tongue in cheek comment about a possinbe glitch inthe internal logic. The above quote takes care of that!

Oh For goodness sake it's political correctness gone mad

The meaning of words in this instance have changed because the they have been adopted to mock others for their difference to the mainstream. Why is it still felt necessary to be disparaging towards another section of the community just because of their sexual orientation?

It is so tedious to keep hearing, "people shouldn't take offence" , when the point is why is there a need to offend someone in the first place?
There are enough words in English to choose from that won't, and even more if you add in Orkish.

In any case, better gay and/or effeminate than brain dead and lacking respect for others.

The word needs to be taken in the context it was intended, in this instance it was clearly used to infer a weak and cowardly person. Not someone who is gay.

There seem to be a lot of people out there who like to be offended and outraged by things which have no direct bearing upon themselves. They are just happy to jump on whatever PC bandwagon rolls along.

The problem with this sort of behaviour is that is causes more problems than it solves as It often draws negative attention in the form of resentment at not being allowed to use certain terms for fear of them being used out of context.

A prime example is the word black. Black is a colour, it used to be used to describe all sorts of items such as Refuse sacks (Black bags) and chalk boards (Black boards). Until someone came along and for some stupid reason decided this may offend those of dark skinned African heritage. Uterly ridiculous.

Should we stop describing the retailing of goods at a reduced price for a limited period a sale for fear that sailing enthusiasts may become disapointed and upset that said retailer has nothing of the nautical persuasion on offer? I appreciate there is a difference in the spelling of the two words but you get the gist!

When PC idiots are allowed to go too far!

I think it should be "spokesperson" and "chairperson", but should the round metal thing in the street be called a "personholecover"?
Should we sing; "For his a jolly good person"?
Will children be told stories about "the person in the moon"?
And be afraid of the "Boogieperson"?
What would you call a "ladies-man"? An "It-person"?

Its the kind of madness you hear about late at night in shows with David Letterperson!

(Nod and sincere respect to the late George Carlin)

I remember a few years back, a senator used the word "niggardly" in a speach in which he was talking about there not being enough money about something or the other.
He was immediatly jumped on for being racist because he used such words in his speech.

That was a really long time ago.

I love it when other people scream "Racism!". Racism requires intent... people seem to forget that.

I got a reply from UK Customer Service:

Thanks very much for your email. I am sorry that the language used to promote the tournament has offended you; I can assure you that was not our intent. The advertisement was written by our American business and I will forward your email onto them for them to deal with.

Steelmage99 wrote:When PC idiots are allowed to go too far!

I think it should be "spokesperson" and "chairperson", but should the round metal thing in the street be called a "personholecover"?
Should we sing; "For his a jolly good person"?
Will children be told stories about "the person in the moon"?
And be afraid of the "Boogieperson"?
What would you call a "ladies-man"? An "It-person"?

Its the kind of madness you hear about late at night in shows with David Letterperson!

(Nod and sincere respect to the late George Carlin)

I am very offended by your suggestion that "for his a jolly good person". You sir, imply that women cannot be jolly people! I demand you Cease and Desist this Sexist language and replace all mention of that despicable phrase with the gender neutral and non offensive "For They're a Jolly good Person"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I got a reply from UK Customer Service:

Thanks very much for your email. I am sorry that the language used to promote the tournament has offended you; I can assure you that was not our intent. The advertisement was written by our American business and I will forward your email onto them for them to deal with.

I call Bullgak. There is no mention of a Cease and Desist. This is clearly a forgery, and a poor one at that.

Oh yeah...it should have been; "For ITS a jolly good person".
Shame on my for misremembering my George Carlin.

squilverine wrote:The word needs to be taken in the context it was intended, in this instance it was clearly used to infer a weak and cowardly person. Not someone who is gay.

There seem to be a lot of people out there who like to be offended and outraged by things which have no direct bearing upon themselves. They are just happy to jump on whatever PC bandwagon rolls along.

The problem with this sort of behaviour is that is causes more problems than it solves as It often draws negative attention in the form of resentment at not being allowed to use certain terms for fear of them being used out of context.

A prime example is the word black. Black is a colour, it used to be used to describe all sorts of items such as Refuse sacks (Black bags) and chalk boards (Black boards). Until someone came along and for some stupid reason decided this may offend those of dark skinned African heritage. Uterly ridiculous.

Should we stop describing the retailing of goods at a reduced price for a limited period a sale for fear that sailing enthusiasts may become disapointed and upset that said retailer has nothing of the nautical persuasion on offer? I appreciate there is a difference in the spelling of the two words but you get the gist!

I am not a person who is easily offended or who takes offence 'professionally' yet this advert did genuinely offend me.

@ KK

Lucky for the Un-PC GW doesnt care what customers think.

Gwar! wrote:
I am very offended by your suggestion that "for his a jolly good person". You sir, imply that women cannot be jolly people! I demand you Cease and Desist this Sexist language and replace all mention of that despicable phrase with the gender neutral and non offensive "For They're a Jolly good Person"

In English....uh... English, are you allowed to use a plural pronoun to denote a singular person of either male or female nature? With our crazy colonial English, it would have to be "For he or she is a Jolly good Person".

Otherwise I'm offended that you're implying that multiple people are in fact one person!

daedalus wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
(Nod and sincere respect to the late George Carlin) I am very offended by your suggestion that "for his a jolly good person". You sir, imply that women cannot be jolly people! I demand you Cease and Desist this Sexist language and replace all mention of that despicable phrase with the gender neutral and non offensive "For They're a Jolly good Person"

In English....uh... English, are you allowed to use a plural pronoun to denote a singular person of either male or female nature? With our crazy colonial English, it would have to be "For he or she is a Jolly good Person".

Otherwise I'm offended that you're implying that multiple people are in fact one person!

The clear English society or something similar sparked off a massive row about this. Apparently, the proliferation of PC speech and people not wishing to offend, is causing people to use the plural 'they' when it should be he/she. You are entirely correct in your summation, Sir.

Kilkrazy wrote:

I am not a person who is easily offended or who takes offence 'professionally' yet this advert did genuinely offend me.

If you're offended by this...then you are easily offended. I personally don't give a rat's ass about what may be your personal preferences but you intentionally de-railed the topic of this thread with your soapbox of being offended. This is truly a useless issue.

Rymafyr wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

I am not a person who is easily offended or who takes offence 'professionally' yet this advert did genuinely offend me.

If you're offended by this...then you are easily offended. I personally don't give a rat's ass about what may be your personal preferences but you intentionally de-railed the topic of this thread with your soapbox of being offended. This is truly a useless issue.

^this

Oooooh!

Why are you adding fuel to the fire?

You could just stick an alert on my post and get on with the topic.