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.

Redbeard wrote:

Do you really mean that simple headswaps, anthro-style, is more "in your face" than that?

Yes, because it doesn't belong here. It isn't part of our game universe.

Damn. I guess this means I'll have to abandon my Thousand Sons conversion modeling the miniatures after various Egyptian Gods and Goddesses.

Phototoxin wrote:Furries have existed in 40k & warhammer for ages now. I don't see the problem.

Space Wolves are the problem.

Also: I don't really care about furries. I usually find them amusing, often a little bit creepy. Ditto for bronies.

Redbeard wrote:Yes, because it doesn't belong here. It isn't part of our game universe.

What? That would mean that anything not covered by published background wouldn't belong here. That would mean any conversion done for fun with a sense of humour wouldn't belong here. This is a forum about miniatures and the wargames we play with them, yes, but some people come here just because they like to build and paint miniatures. If they make a miniature that is counter to the fluff in a game they do not play, should they be forbidden from posting it? Or attacked for wanting to share their work with like-minded people? Forgive me for saying, but that seems to be what is coming across here.

KingCracker wrote: Sure Ill poke fun at the bronies and furries, but when it comes down to it, it doesnt affect me in the least, and I really dont care how someone gets their jollies off.

Exactly this. No one in my gaming group is a bronie marine player. I'll never play in a tournament, so I won't bump into one that way. It doesn't affect me AT ALL, nor would it affect 99% of the people out there.

Why on earth would you let yourself get worked up over it?

Redbeard wrote:My issue with furries and bronies and the like is that I don't think this is the place for it.

Male, female, gay, straight, transsexual, etc: I could care less. But whatever it is, don't throw it in my face all the time. I don't post here about what I did with my wife last night. It would be nice to be afforded the same respect.

This is a wargaming forum primarily, and a gaming forum secondarily. It's not sex chat, it's not fetishland, it's not BME. There are other forums for that stuff. I'm sure there are bronie fan sites that would be more than happy to see an influx of members.

This, a thousand times, this. Some people think their proclivities make them special so they feel the need to throw it out there as often as possible. Especially when it's something edgy and new. They let it define them as a person, which is sad.

I just hate it when bronies and furries try to change something from Warhammer 40k to fit their build, Bronies should play Bretonnian armies in fantasy and Furries should play either Skaven or Beastmen.

Why should any of it translate into you gaming at ALL?

I like girls, but I don't play SoB.

Tiina yes indeed everything we do in a public forum or setting is meant to attract attention or a reaction.

And context and norms/ expectations of any given community/group/audience will shape that reaction and/or the nature of that attention.

When I was school age I ran with the nerd/goth/skater subgroups in my school. I wore things and did things to my hair and listened to music that attracted attention (usually negative) from those outside our subgroup. But then we knew and expected that and in fact enjoyed that reaction on some level. It would be pretty silly to think we wouldn't get attention and reaction from those we were trying to set ourselves apart from.

My argument here isn't a justification for what others might do or say to a bronie, simply pointing out that the bronies are choosing to come into a setting/community with established norms and expectations in regards to gaming, modeling, etc.

To then act shocked, surprised that you received a reaction from others is disingenuous.

The appropriateness of other people's reactions and the presence of a strong reaction of one kind or another are separate things.

When you knowingly do things that buck the status quo of a given community/setting you can't act surprised when you get a reaction just because it isn't the one you wanted...

Someone said it already, but apparently not everyone got it - just talking about MLP, making references to it in an army or modeling miniatures as anthropomorphic animals does NOT equate to blatantly propagating kinky sex.

And, by the way, the argument about "it doesn't fit the setting" would also apply to a lot of awesome conversions, such as Star Wars themed 40k armies - you don't see flamewars of this magnitude over THAT.

Witzkatz wrote:Someone said it already, but apparently not everyone got it - just talking about MLP, making references to it in an army or modeling miniatures as anthropomorphic animals does NOT equate to blatantly propagating kinky sex.

And, by the way, the argument about "it doesn't fit the setting" would also apply to a lot of awesome conversions, such as Star Wars themed 40k armies - you don't see flamewars of this magnitude over THAT.

Our shields can't repel flamewars of this magnitude...

Chowderhead wrote:I'm fine with furries. I have no issues with them.

It's the furries I have trouble with. You know the type, wearing ears/tail all the time, always talking about furry things, constantly nagging you to check out furry stuff, and tell you about all his creepy-ass furry porn.

This is also my stance on Bronies. Everything in moderation, children.

I would have to agree with this. people who push stuff into your face all the time get really annoying. I mean I do publically talk about MLP but only with other bronies as if i know that people have no interest in a topic then I wont bother talking about it. like you said, everything in moderation

As I already stated the further you move from what is the expected/accepted norm of a given community the greater the potential for an increasingly stronger reaction positive or negative.

Star wars is a sci-fi setting with aliens and robots in space. It is also revered in general by those that might war-game, etc.
A reference to it here is not much of a move away from the normal focus or likes of the community, thus you wouldn't expect as strong of a reaction as you might get when someone turns marines into " cute" ponies which are much further removed from the core focus and group expectation then star wars.

Thus a star wars conversion is typically seen as a form of reverence and mixing of two beloved things while a mlp conversion has far more potential to be construed as satire/mockery of what the community holds dear, especially when you are doing it I their house.

I would assume there are bronie/mlp message boards and forums out there? I imagine that you would get a far larger ratio of positive reaction to mlp-40k mixing in those communities than here. Context, setting and norms once again...

Is that logic that surprising or hard to follow?

Mixing genres get people all kinds of pissed off. Case in point:

kronk wrote:Mixing genres get people all kinds of pissed off. Case in point:

Havent had a lol like that in a while, cheers.

What i find a bit strange is that the thread that started it was merely about putting Animal heads on marines, according to H.A.T it wasnt even specifically about 'Furry Marines'. So i can see why he was shocked, the modeller wasnt thrusting their sexual Proclivities in our faces. It's odd as we've all seen the epicness that is the Emperor's Lizards, there was no furry hate on that thread.

Sort of echoing CTGamer's point from earlier but if it's just a matter of liking a show do you really need to change your avatar, repost memes, identify as a "bronie" and as part of the group of "bronies", spread "friendship" around (i.e., feud with people who don't like the show), and start threads about how all of this shouldn't annoy other people?

skepitcalcat.jpg

Thus a star wars conversion is typically seen as a form of reverence and mixing of two beloved things while a mlp conversion has far more potential to be construed as satire/mockery of what the community holds dear, especially when you are doing it I their house.

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

CT GAMER wrote:Thus a star wars conversion is typically seen as a form of reverence and mixing of two beloved things while a mlp conversion has far more potential to be construed as satire/mockery of what the community holds dear, especially when you are doing it I their house.

I would assume there are bronie/mlp message boards and forums out there? I imagine that you would get a far larger ratio of positive reaction to mlp-40k mixing in those communities than here. Context, setting and norms once again...

Is that logic that surprising or hard to follow?

Yeah ... so one thing is concidered reverence and the other one ridicule?
That is plain prejudice.
It's common though, so you are probably in very good company there.
But.
You should consider why they the are here, in this house.
Do you think they are here just to mess things up?
No, they are of course here because they enjoy Wargaming and/or miniature modelling as well.
Would you then say that this house is not for them?

Ah, i know, that "does it fit the rules?"
Do a Terminator with Cyclone missile launcher and Assault cannon fit the rules?
Do a Space Marine with Hand Flamer fit the rules?
Do a Space marine with Shuriken Catapult fit the rules?
No.
However, anyone with those would at worst get a reminder "you know you can't use those in officcial games, right?"
Also, from what i have read on other replies here, those who came with the negative posts went far further and even claimed that furries and bronies are pedophiles ...
Would even you say that that is proper course of conduct?
I don't think you would.

Manchu wrote:Sort of echoing CTGamer's point from earlier but if it's just a matter of liking a show do you really need to change your avatar, repost memes, identify as a "bronie" and as part of the group of "bronies", spread "friendship" around (i.e., feud with people who don't like the show), and start threads about how all of this shouldn't annoy other people?

Except the haters turned out when none of those things happened, no avatars, no memes, no sexual talk, no mention of dressing up. As I said, it's not clear that there were any self-identified furries on the thread that I noticed, yet people came onto the thread to put the boot in and make association between a furry space marine and furry-fetish, and how creepy it all was.

There was no 'in your face' that people keep trying to describe as a justification for them taking such great issue with furries. So where did the hate come from?

CT GAMER wrote:
When you knowingly do things that buck the status quo of a given community/setting you can't act surprised when you get a reaction just because it isn't the one you wanted...

Yet compared to other SF and fantasy communities, there seems to be less tolerance here than I'm used to regarding people who are a bit different or even weird. I wonder why that is.

But apparently being 'in your face' can be something as simple as a head swap, which makes me think a lot of the objections based on the inappropriate sexual content are a bit disingenuous because the mere suggestion of furry gives people 'issues' over which they become quite aggressive and nasty. I think some people have a very distorted idea of what 'being in your face' about something actually is. Basically, anything that could be construed as being furry in nature is 'in your face', which simply isn't fair even if there was some underlying issue with furries that make them a menace.

Redbeard wrote:

Do you really mean that simple headswaps, anthro-style, is more "in your face" than that?

Yes, because it doesn't belong here. It isn't part of our game universe.

So basically, things that don't fit the GW approved universe 'don't belong here'. When the hell did this hobby become so restrictive that we have to follow the GW fluff at all times? Ugh, GW corporate must love you. It's just models FFS, doesn't the 'rule or cool' count for anything any more? Can't we do what we like with our own models? No one is forcing you to play these people or their armies, and if the person puts their work online, as anyone is allowed to do on Dakka, you're still not being compelled to look at their non-GW-canonical army. Oh the horror, what of the time I played Battlefleet Gothic with a Borg Cube?

Dude this sia site which has a major portion of it related to 40K which is like a cross between the Space Inquisition and the Soviet army and you wonder that there's less tolerance here?


"Tolerance is for girls."
-Tamerlame.

Redbeard wrote:

And when someone does a head-swap on a marine to make him a pony, it's not wrong because the person is a furry, it's wrong because it no longer fits in the established universe for the game.

Yes, because it doesn't belong here. It isn't part of our game universe.

What that is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. What about all the conversions that people have made using storm trooper heads on marines, etc.? Are those wrong? What If I wanted to make a rubiks' cube themed space marine army? Would that be wrong?

Howard A Treesong wrote:There was no 'in your face' that people keep trying to describe as a justification for them taking such great issue with furries. So where did the hate come from?

Not from nowhere. You can't take that thread out of the context of the rest of the internet, where this is a widespread phenomenon as I described it. And, looking at it that way, the thread in question is actually yet another aspect of that phenomenon.

Manchu wrote:Sort of echoing CTGamer's point from earlier but if it's just a matter of liking a show do you really need to change your avatar, repost memes, identify as a "bronie" and as part of the group of "bronies", spread "friendship" around (i.e., feud with people who don't like the show), and start threads about how all of this shouldn't annoy other people?

skepitcalcat.jpg

You mean you shouldn't be claiming you enjoy and otherwise endorse whatever strangeness people invent for themselves and constantly bombard you with in a public setting?

In the end, Why cant we all get along? We arent hurting anyone or showing nasty pictures, Why cant we all get along?

hotsauceman1 wrote:In the end, Why cant we all get along? We arent hurting anyone or showing nasty pictures, Why cant we all get along?

Why start here? I see, we respect time honored tradition. Yea Intolerance!*


*Truthfully, I couldn't care one way or the other how people get their jollies. Just don't bug me and we're good.

I'm not a brony, but I also don't feel the need to get angry over what other people convert their models into. As established on another thread:

Kovnik Obama wrote:I swear to God there is nothing more tasty then Neckbeard's rage over a toy soldier's game canonicity.

Is this actually a matter of real rage or slight annoyance that gets conveyed over the interwbs megaphone as FUUUUU-? The whole thing seems like a bit of a game to me, with each side fully appraised of the part they're playing.

Manchu wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:There was no 'in your face' that people keep trying to describe as a justification for them taking such great issue with furries. So where did the hate come from?

Not from nowhere. You can't take that thread out of the context of the rest of the internet, where this is a widespread phenomenon as I described it. And, looking at it that way, the thread in question is actually yet another aspect of that phenomenon.

Dakka believes in original sin?

Shouldn't there be some sort of baptism option?

biccat wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:There was no 'in your face' that people keep trying to describe as a justification for them taking such great issue with furries. So where did the hate come from?

Not from nowhere. You can't take that thread out of the context of the rest of the internet, where this is a widespread phenomenon as I described it. And, looking at it that way, the thread in question is actually yet another aspect of that phenomenon.

Dakka believes in original sin?

Yes, but that original sin is Horus betraying the Emperor.

@biccat: I have no idea what you are talking about.

Manchu wrote:@biccat: I have no idea what you are talking about.

Original sin is a concept in Christian theology. Basically, men are inherently sinful. Baptism is necessary to absolve humans of their original sin. This is, apparently, why many Christian groups baptize their children at birth, rather than later in life (and really, if you only get one chance to wash away all of your sins, it seems like the priest reading your last rites should be the guy baptising you).

Howard's comment was asking where the hate (in that thread) came from, given that the justification used was not supported by the facts. Your post suggested that the hate didn't come from the thread, but came from "the rest of the internet." That is, furries are born hated/sinful.

Therefore, the "original sin" that the furry thread was guilty of was born on "the rest of the internet," not on Dakka. Furries on Dakka (or in that thread) are not responsible for the sin of their own doing, but rather the sin is borne of their existence as furries. Hence: original sin.

Ahtman wrote:Yes, but that original sin is Horus betraying the Emperor.

Betrayal of the False Emperor is no sin at all.

biccat wrote:Your post suggested that the hate didn't come from the thread, but came from "the rest of the internet." That is, furries are born hated/sinful.

What a bizarre reading of my post. Howard said that the bronies/furries were not "in your face" about their proclivities in the thread in question. (And, further, a bizarre equivocation: a larger pattern of behavior some how equates to being "born hated/sinful"?) My response was that the the thread itself was an example of being "in-your-face" because it is part of the larger phenomenon that I had already described. It is not at all the mere existence of the bronies on Dakka, or anywhere else, that constitutes the problem (and hence your strange comparison to original sin) but rather the mode of existence: a no less willful for being gleeful sort of colonization.