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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:It's actually pretty easy to find an explanation for most color schemes in 40K since the galaxy is just that big. Rainbow colored Necrons are no problem (metals on their tomb world; Lord gone mad and painted everything crazy; it's just an interesting reflection of the atmosphere of the planet, whatever).
It's a tougher sell if all the Necrons are actually meant to be queer of some kind, because why would 60 Mio. years old feudal murder robots from outer space share any connection to/ heraldry of the 21st century LGBT movement? (On the other hand, rule of cool explains Viking Space Marines, Vampire Space marines, Mongol Space Marines, Samurai Space Elves, Zombie Space Marines, so even that wouldn't be unfitting for 40K)

I think it's potentially better to look at it as "why wouldn't they be"? We already know that the Necrontyr had plenty of (perhaps not the right word) humanity and spanned all across various gender and sexuality lines - and we also know that a not-insignificant amount of Necron nobility still maintain a good deal of their personality. Sure, they might still be robots and not, you know, ever act on their sexualities or genders, but they would still *be* that way.

Plus, I think it's important to also emphasise that being queer or LGBT isn't a "modern" phenomenon. People have been queer for as long as people have existed. I'd be more surprised if only humanity were, and the Necrontyr simply weren't. As for heraldry, I suppose it's in much a similar way that any heraldry in 40k exists - it looks cool to *us*, a player base. With how far humanity has developed in 40k, certain elements of iconography probably shouldn't exist as they have, but for us, as a modern audience, the contextual cues that said icons bring work for us specifically. Things like the Space Wolves having Viking symbology, or the Black Templars having Crusader sigils, are more for *us* than they are for any in-universe reason.

Overall I agree. But I'm hesitant by some underlying implications. So these guys are evil robots that enslaved their peasantry even when they were alive and not robots. Most of them are crazy and their kind of government is absolutism. Some of them also want to erase all live in the galaxy. Oh, and in case of my tomb world they're also all queer (as you can see).

I lack the language skills to go deeper into it and we're heading full on politics but it's similar to how I dislike a diverse cast in movies that want to be otherwize historically accurate. If you do a movie about european christian monarchies, don't pretend they got along fine with blacks and allowed homosexuality because they simply didn't and you're not doing any good by showing revisionist history.

What I'm saying is: Paint your Necrons in pride colors. Even do it because you want to express yourself. But I don't find it fitting to shoehorn a good cause on an evil fantasy faction, because it might make your good cause appear questionable. I'm guilty of writing too positive fan stories about my DG probably as well. There's simply little room in 40K for good causes.

I think you're confusing my lack of want to fight an army painted in some of the ugliest color schemes imaginable as a belief that people shouldn't paint their armies the way they want. I paint a lot of my models black and red, and I know a lot of people think the color scheme is edgy, so they wouldn't like it. I don't care what they think, and they could refuse to play against my army if they thought it ugly.

People can do whatever they want. Just because I don't want to participate, suddenly I'm against them doing it at all? I don't care if football fans show pride in their team. I'm not fans with football fans, generally, and don't participate.

I'm also not saying that political things shouldn't be done. I'm not saying that you can't paint your minis or wave your flags in whatever political manner you want. I don't care. Just don't expect me to join.

And if you do it in public, guess what? I don't care. If I see minis with a trans color scheme, I might think "neat" and move on, because that's got to be hard to paint well. Why do I have to play against them, or suddenly I'm saying that you should paint your minis how I want, why would it mean that I'm saying that you can't be political, why would it mean I'm saying that "You can paint it, just don't show me"?

I am a person who believes that people can do whatever they want. I do not give a gak if your necrons are painted in the ugliest colors ever, or are painted as a rainbow. I probably wouldn't play against someone who used a paint scheme from my Highschool. Black and Teal just looks ugly. Remember, people can paint whatever they want. People can do whatever they want. I can refuse playing if I find it ugly.

Also, the reason I'm against pride is because being gay/trans/lgbt in general is not a culture or common collective thing to band together about. Me being gay shouldn't matter for anything besides who I want to date. Normal doesn't mean straight. It means that it's not special. I'm not special for being gay. If someone invited me to a gay pride event, or requested that I give advice for a "gay lifestyle", I would refuse the first, and be confused by the second.

And I'm not sure if I'd refuse playing against you for how your orks are painted. It depends on how good it looks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

TheBestBucketHead wrote:Thinking about it, I feel trans flag paint schemes probably would look better on Infinity models than 40k models. Knights Hospitaller could look pretty good.

Harlequins too! Honestly, I'd love to see what could be done with queer-coded colour schemes within a Harlequin troupe.

I could imagine Harlequins looking good with a variety of pride colors. I just think the pride colors try to stand out so much that they pick ugly colors a lot of the time. The only exceptions for me are the pride flag, before they started adding colors to the rainbow, and the trans flag. I just don\'t think the trans flag makes for a very good color scheme on its own on most minis.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I've got a kid that wants pride coloured Necrons, warriors are trans, Scarabs are rainbow, the warden is non binary. Should I tell them they can't do it because the lore says so, or should I let them paint the army they want?

You're the parent, do what you want with your kid. But a lot of people are going to eyeroll at it and may or may not want to play with them, especially since it's a political statement.

Necrons would look stupid in those colors as would Marines, but I'm just gonna point out two things:
1. Anyone that denies a game with someone because of their paint scheme or lack thereof that's inoffensive is someone that shouldn't be in the hobby to begin with. If I saw someone paint their Necrons like that and they wanted a game, why should I care?
2. Basic human rights aren't a political statement. Arch telling you different is moronic.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:Overall I agree. But I'm hesitant by some underlying implications. So these guys are evil robots that enslaved their peasantry even when they were alive and not robots. Most of them are crazy and their kind of government is absolutism. Some of them also want to erase all live in the galaxy. Oh, and in case of my tomb world they're also all queer (as you can see).

I don't follow. The Necrontyr were evil, but still had relationships. They still had identities. They lived, laughed, and loved. They weren't devoid of personality. They had partners, genders, and preferences. They weren't *good*, and most of their lords were probably despotic maniacs, but that doesn't preclude them from being queer.

It's not even a case of "in my tomb world, they're queer", there's almost certainly queer Necrons in the same way there's queer Guardsmen, queer Eldar, queer Sororitas, etc - in that it's *normal*. Sautehk dynasty, Novohk, etc etc - definitely have nobility in their number who are.

Someone painting their Necrons in a specific way isn't necessarily saying "HEY ALL MY NECRONS ARE QUEER", that is a personal choice of the painter to reflect whatever they want to reflect.

I lack the language skills to go deeper into it and we're heading full on politics but it's similar to how I dislike a diverse cast in movies that want to be otherwize historically accurate. If you do a movie about european christian monarchies, don't pretend they got along fine with blacks and allowed homosexuality because they simply didn't and you're not doing any good by showing revisionist history.

But this doesn't make sense - the Necrons aren't real, and there's no indication that they *wouldn't* have queer members.

As for historical revisionism, we can absolutely suggest that European Christian monarchies frowned on homosexuality (a subject I ought to educate myself on further, in case the reality is more nuanced than that), but that's not to say that people who we would now identify as LGBT+ did not exist.

What I'm saying is: Paint your Necrons in pride colors. Even do it because you want to express yourself. But I don't find it fitting to shoehorn a good cause on an evil fantasy faction, because it might make your good cause appear questionable. I'm guilty of writing too positive fan stories about my DG probably as well. There's simply little room in 40K for good causes.

It's not a "good cause" though, it's existence. Simply being LGBT+ doesn't make you "good" or "bad" or "untouchable", it's just who someone is. Painting your Necrons in queer colours isn't saying "HEY MY NECRONS ARE GOOD BECAUSE THEY'RE INCLUSIVE, THEY'RE NOT THE BAD GUYS". It's not a "good cause", it's just artistic expression and player choice.

Ultimately, we need to remember that these are plastic (or resin or metal) toy soldiers, and people might want to paint them in a certain way.

TheBestBucketHead wrote:I think you're confusing my lack of want to fight an army painted in some of the ugliest color schemes imaginable as a belief that people shouldn't paint their armies the way they want. I paint a lot of my models black and red, and I know a lot of people think the color scheme is edgy, so they wouldn't like it. I don't care what they think, and they could refuse to play against my army if they thought it ugly.

Right, but what's that specifically got to do with Pride schemes? Are Pride schemes inherently ugly? There's no way that Pride colours could be arranged in an aesthetically pleasing way to you?

Again, if you just wanted to say "if it's an ugly colour scheme, I won't play it", then that's fair, but you especially mentioned it in regards to this.

This sounds like it's a case of mistaken intent, and if I have, I apologise, but it's just worth clarifying the point.

People can do whatever they want. Just because I don't want to participate, suddenly I'm against them doing it at all? I don't care if football fans show pride in their team. I'm not fans with football fans, generally, and don't participate.

Cool, but someone else painting their models in a certain way doesn't force you into participating in that as well, any more so than someone playing Ultramarines forces you into being an Ultramarines player.

I'm also not saying that political things shouldn't be done. I'm not saying that you can't paint your minis or wave your flags in whatever political manner you want. I don't care. Just don't expect me to join.

Yeah, no-one *expects* you to join in. Me painting my models in a certain way isn't expecting you to paint you models a different way. I don't really understand the objection you initially displayed.

And if you do it in public, guess what? I don't care. If I see minis with a trans color scheme, I might think "neat" and move on, because that's got to be hard to paint well. Why do I have to play against them, or suddenly I'm saying that you should paint your minis how I want, why would it mean that I'm saying that you can't be political, why would it mean I'm saying that "You can paint it, just don't show me"?

You don't have to play them. No-one says you need to.
The point I made about it being political is in reference to Aecus Decimus' comment that painting your models with LGBT+ colour schemes is "political" - showing LGBT+ visibility being "political".

Aecus Decimus' comment implies that LGBT+ visibility should not be permitted on grounds that it is "political", not that they specifically just don't like seeing it.

Remember, people can paint whatever they want. People can do whatever they want. I can refuse playing if I find it ugly.

Amazing - that's all totally fine and within your prerogative. However, the AFOREMENTIONED comment by Aecus Decimus did not imply that same belief.

Also, the reason I'm against pride is because being gay/trans/lgbt in general is not a culture or common collective thing to band together about.

At the risk of being off topic, why not? And I'm sorry, but LGBT+ culture is very much a Thing, even if you specifically don't want to be a part of that culture, in much the same way I don't want to be considered part of the "culture" of the 40k hobby.

Normal doesn't mean straight.

Unfortunately, there are many straight folks who would disagree with that, and the same applies for cisgender.

If someone invited me to a gay pride event, or requested that I give advice for a "gay lifestyle", I would refuse the first, and be confused by the second.

And you are entirely justified to do so! But that doesn't mean that those things can't, shouldn't, or don't exist, and when we have people saying that simply having Pride is "political", that's an attack on the visibility of those aspects.

And I'm not sure if I'd refuse playing against you for how your orks are painted. It depends on how good it looks.

There's literally a link in this thread to the orks I'm talking about. You can judge that for yourself - that's what I'm asking.

I wrote a lot as a response, but I deleted it, and will give some quick responses.

Gay culture is something I'd rather define as pride culture. If you're like me, and don't fit into what is commonly defined as gay, it can lead to identity problems. I remember thinking that, maybe, I wasn't gay, just because I didn't act like how the 'culture' had defined.

I don't really care if someone paints what they want. When I was talking about participation, it was about playing. You kept questioning my want to refuse games because of paint schemes I'd dislike. I figure it's just a miscommunication issue, though.

I tried looking for your mini in question, and didn't see it, so I'm sorry. If you could post it again, I'll tell you what I think.

I won't respond anymore to anything in regards to the lgbt aspects of this discussion, as it is getting too personal, and I don't want to get too off topic.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I paint a lot of my models black and red, and I know a lot of people think the color scheme is edgy,

Literally nobody thinks this unless they're a suburban mom

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:Overall I agree. But I'm hesitant by some underlying implications. So these guys are evil robots that enslaved their peasantry even when they were alive and not robots. Most of them are crazy and their kind of government is absolutism. Some of them also want to erase all live in the galaxy. Oh, and in case of my tomb world they're also all queer (as you can see).

I don't follow. The Necrontyr were evil, but still had relationships. They still had identities. They lived, laughed, and loved. They weren't devoid of personality. They had partners, genders, and preferences. They weren't *good*, and most of their lords were probably despotic maniacs, but that doesn't preclude them from being queer.

It's not even a case of "in my tomb world, they're queer", there's almost certainly queer Necrons in the same way there's queer Guardsmen, queer Eldar, queer Sororitas, etc - in that it's *normal*. Sautehk dynasty, Novohk, etc etc - definitely have nobility in their number who are.

Someone painting their Necrons in a specific way isn't necessarily saying "HEY ALL MY NECRONS ARE QUEER", that is a personal choice of the painter to reflect whatever they want to reflect.

I lack the language skills to go deeper into it and we're heading full on politics but it's similar to how I dislike a diverse cast in movies that want to be otherwize historically accurate. If you do a movie about european christian monarchies, don't pretend they got along fine with blacks and allowed homosexuality because they simply didn't and you're not doing any good by showing revisionist history.

But this doesn't make sense - the Necrons aren't real, and there's no indication that they *wouldn't* have queer members.

As for historical revisionism, we can absolutely suggest that European Christian monarchies frowned on homosexuality (a subject I ought to educate myself on further, in case the reality is more nuanced than that), but that's not to say that people who we would now identify as LGBT+ did not exist.

What I'm saying is: Paint your Necrons in pride colors. Even do it because you want to express yourself. But I don't find it fitting to shoehorn a good cause on an evil fantasy faction, because it might make your good cause appear questionable. I'm guilty of writing too positive fan stories about my DG probably as well. There's simply little room in 40K for good causes.

It's not a "good cause" though, it's existence. Simply being LGBT+ doesn't make you "good" or "bad" or "untouchable", it's just who someone is. Painting your Necrons in queer colours isn't saying "HEY MY NECRONS ARE GOOD BECAUSE THEY'RE INCLUSIVE, THEY'RE NOT THE BAD GUYS". It's not a "good cause", it's just artistic expression and player choice.

Ultimately, we need to remember that these are plastic (or resin or metal) toy soldiers, and people might want to paint them in a certain way.

Well, in fact I like your way of thinking and there's a clear logic behind it. I'm just not convinced that it always works as we are still in times were sexuality is considered political - as we can see in this thread.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:


I tried looking for your mini in question, and didn't see it, so I'm sorry. If you could post it again, I'll tell you what I think.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/04/23/feast-your-eyes-on-an-ork-army-unlike-anything-youve-seen-before/

I've seen her work before.its...exquisite.

As is Louise's sphinx.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/02/18/peer-into-the-mindstealer-of-the-expertsgw-homepage-post-4/

If a rainbow paint scheme looked anything like these, I'd happily play it once I'd ungooped myself from being a puddle on the floor.

Truthfully I'd be half tempted to forfeit on principle- no way I can roll against those exquisite models and take them off the board- and simply spend the game time gawking.

Deadnight wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:


I tried looking for your mini in question, and didn't see it, so I'm sorry. If you could post it again, I'll tell you what I think.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/04/23/feast-your-eyes-on-an-ork-army-unlike-anything-youve-seen-before/

I've seen her work before.its...exquisite.

As is Louise's sphinx.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/02/18/peer-into-the-mindstealer-of-the-expertsgw-homepage-post-4/

If a rainbow paint scheme looked anything like these, I'd happily play it once I'd ungooped myself from being a puddle on the floor.

Truthfully I'd be half tempted to forfeit on principle- no way I can roll against those exquisite models and take them off the board- and simply spend the game time gawking.

If those Orks are your definition of Rainbow, your definition is very skewed as that just means "anything with more than the three minimum colors". They're GOOD but they're not Rainbow.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The difference between LBGT+ and "super straight" is that one is a reactionary effort to invalidate the other. The two are not the same.

And pride is a reactionary effort against bigotry and hate. Pride comes out of a literal riot against anti-gay laws and has, from day one, been about the political message that it's time for change, we're not tolerating any more oppression. It's a political message I happen to agree with but to pretend that pride is not political, that it's just Amazon and Walmart putting up rainbow flags on social media once a year, is simply not dealing with reality.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I think it's potentially better to look at it as "why wouldn't they be"? We already know that the Necrontyr had plenty of (perhaps not the right word) humanity and spanned all across various gender and sexuality lines - and we also know that a not-insignificant amount of Necron nobility still maintain a good deal of their personality. Sure, they might still be robots and not, you know, ever act on their sexualities or genders, but they would still *be* that way.

Why wouldn't they? Because Necrons aren't human. Pride and LGBT identity exist in the very specific context of human culture, specifically a culture where LGBT people exist but are constrained by an oppressive system and adopt certain symbols as a refusal to be crushed by it. There might be Necrons that are attracted to the same gender (if Necrons even have gender in the way that humans do) but why would that be expressed in the same way that it is in humans? Is there any canon evidence that Necron culture is full of anti-gay bigotry and that a hypothetical gay Necron wouldn't be allowed to live their life as they please?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
It's not even a case of "in my tomb world, they're queer", there's almost certainly queer Necrons in the same way there's queer Guardsmen, queer Eldar, queer Sororitas, etc - in that it's *normal*. Sautehk dynasty, Novohk, etc etc - definitely have nobility in their number who are.

Why? You're falling into the common trope of assuming that aliens are just humans with pointy ears. Why would you assume that an alien species would have the same genetic or developmental glitch that causes homosexuality in humans? Hell, why are you assuming they even have the concept of attraction and relationships? Do they even have sexual reproduction? Maybe the old pre-robot Necrons reproduced by spreading pollen in the air and have no concept of selecting a mate. Maybe they reproduced by combining genetic material from groups of 10, with two representatives of each sex included in the group, and the concept of only being attracted to one of two genders (only two? WTF that's weird) would be as alien to them as the pollen-Necrons would be to us. Maybe they didn't have different sexes/genders at all!

 Blndmage wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If it's not on my models, how will I signal my virtues to you though?

You you say that to the child who's excitedly showing off their Necrons?

I was amazed (and happy) when I asked them if they'd thought about what colors they want to use, and, since they still adorably struggle with Rs, they confidently said "P ide Nec ons!".

No, because a child that young isn't going to understand virtue signaling. And they don't understand LGBT identities, the meaning of pride flags, etc either. I'd save any comments for the parents that are using their kids as a prop in their political statement.

(And oh god why would you introduce a child that young to 40k. This is not a kid-friendly setting!)

EviscerationPlague wrote:

If those Orks are your definition of Rainbow, your definition is very skewed as that just means "anything with more than the three minimum colors". They're GOOD but they're not Rainbow.

Not skewed at all. Your usual snark aside, and while we are being pernickety, it would be what? Six, seven? But I'll settle for less too - pretty easy going guy here after all. 'If a pride scheme looked anything like these' - you know, Bright, vibrant, colourful palette? I guess you might need exhausting excruciating specificity on your statements but as a ballpark, it works well enough for me, so yeah I'll go with that.

But hey, you keep snarking. All the thumbs up.

And now back to stardew valley.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The difference between LBGT+ and "super straight" is that one is a reactionary effort to invalidate the other. The two are not the same.

And pride is a reactionary effort against bigotry and hate.

That isn't what reactionary means within the context you've applied it, though (that of the two orientations, straight and "political"). You're coming off as operating more than a little in bad faith, so maybe you want to address that or rethink. Maybe not.

Catulle wrote:
That isn't what reactionary means within the context you've applied it, though (that of the two orientations, straight and "political"). You're coming off as operating more than a little in bad faith, so maybe you want to address that or rethink. Maybe not.

Maybe this is a translation error then? Doesn't "reactionary" mean "in reaction to" in a general sense, not just a specific far-right political movement?

Regardless of the specific word the two concepts are very much equivalent:

"Super straight" exists purely as a political statement against LGBT rights. Certain political groups saw increasing expansion of LGBT rights, especially trans rights, and made up a new "identity" (which nobody actually has) to act as a rallying point for their political campaign. Take away that political context and you'd never hear about it.

LGBT pride exists purely as a political statement against anti-LGBT laws and culture. LGBT people got tired of being oppressed (remember, this is back when it was literally illegal to be gay in most countries), said "this is enough", and adopted pride flags as symbols of that defiance and their efforts to change the world. Take away the political context and you wouldn't have pride flags, there would be no more point to them than making up a pride flag for the fact that you mow your lawn once a week instead of once every two weeks.

The fact that I agree with one of those political statements and vehemently disagree with the other doesn't make them any less political.

Deadnight wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

If those Orks are your definition of Rainbow, your definition is very skewed as that just means "anything with more than the three minimum colors". They're GOOD but they're not Rainbow.

Not skewed at all. Your usual snark aside, and while we are being pernickety, it would be what? Six, seven? But I'll settle for less too - pretty easy going guy here after all. 'If a pride scheme looked anything like these' - you know, Bright, vibrant, colourful palette? I guess you might need exhausting excruciating specificity on your statements but as a ballpark, it works well enough for me, so yeah I'll go with that.

But hey, you keep snarking. All the thumbs up.

And now back to stardew valley.

How is that snarky? I'm just saying it's not very rainbow-y compared to the Sphinx you linked.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If it's not on my models, how will I signal my virtues to you though?

You you say that to the child who's excitedly showing off their Necrons?

I was amazed (and happy) when I asked them if they'd thought about what colors they want to use, and, since they still adorably struggle with Rs, they confidently said "P ide Nec ons!".

No, because a child that young isn't going to understand virtue signaling. And they don't understand LGBT identities, the meaning of pride flags, etc either. I'd save any comments for the parents that are using their kids as a prop in their political statement.

(And oh god why would you introduce a child that young to 40k. This is not a kid-friendly setting!)

1. I didn't say how old they are. They've been struggling with their R's for a very long time.

2. I'm trans, my spouse is non binary, and ace, our closest family is all over the place, we all rep as queer. My kids understand what that means.

3. As I've said before, I'm dying of blood cancer and am mostly stuck in bed. I play 40k with my family.

4. My Littles aren't props. Feth you.

Edit: you do know that there's a whole 40k for kids push right? Books, animated stuff, etc.

 Blndmage wrote:
4. My Littles aren't props. Feth you.

If a kid is young enough to referred to as a "little" then yeah, that's exactly what you're using them as, just like the people who show up with their small children at a protest and have the kids waving signs about tax policy or police reform or whatever. A small child does not have anywhere near enough of an understanding of LGBT identities and the social issues pride is a response to for a pride army to have any meaning beyond "my parents gave me this neat flag".

(And, again, a child that young should not be playing 40k at all, because JFC this is not a setting that is appropriate for young kids.)

Deadnight wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:


I tried looking for your mini in question, and didn't see it, so I'm sorry. If you could post it again, I'll tell you what I think.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/04/23/feast-your-eyes-on-an-ork-army-unlike-anything-youve-seen-before/

I've seen her work before.its...exquisite.

As is Louise's sphinx.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/02/18/peer-into-the-mindstealer-of-the-expertsgw-homepage-post-4/

If a rainbow paint scheme looked anything like these, I'd happily play it once I'd ungooped myself from being a puddle on the floor.

Truthfully I'd be half tempted to forfeit on principle- no way I can roll against those exquisite models and take them off the board- and simply spend the game time gawking.

Thank you. They're definitely impressive, but I don't like them very much color wise. I hope not to come off as mean with this. It really does look good.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

(And, again, a child that young should not be playing 40k at all, because JFC this is not a setting that is appropriate for young kids.)

to be fair, you can play 40k with zero knowledge of the setting and still enjoy it

its glorified army men

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
4. My Littles aren't props. Feth you.

If a kid is young enough to referred to as a "little" then yeah, that's exactly what you're using them as, just like the people who show up with their small children at a protest and have the kids waving signs about tax policy or police reform or whatever. A small child does not have anywhere near enough of an understanding of LGBT identities and the social issues pride is a response to for a pride army to have any meaning beyond "my parents gave me this neat flag".

(And, again, a child that young should not be playing 40k at all, because JFC this is not a setting that is appropriate for young kids.)

At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.

Definitely a translation thing. I would understand "littles" as someone way under 13. I'd imagine young enough to not be left alone at home.

Anyways, there is a school program from GW:
https://warhammer-alliance.com/uk/schools-programme/

It doesn't outright state what would be the target audience here, but it specifically mentions a program for 14+ year olds that sounds like the "advanced stuff".

I think you can teach a kid how to play 40k without mentioning the grimmer parts of the narrative.

I mean, we started with rogue trader on release at junior school.

Warhammer Adventures

Catulle wrote:
At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.

I suppose that's possible. I've only ever heard "little" used in two situations: adults with a parent/child fetish pretending to be small children for sexual reasons (which I desperately hope Blndmage is not referring to), and very rarely an actual small child, a 5 year old or younger. I don't think I've ever heard it used to describe a teenager, and certainly not an adult.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Catulle wrote:
At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.

I suppose that's possible. I've only ever heard "little" used in two situations: adults with a parent/child fetish pretending to be small children for sexual reasons (which I desperately hope Blndmage is not referring to), and very rarely an actual small child, a 5 year old or younger. I don't think I've ever heard it used to describe a teenager, and certainly not an adult.

Folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder also use the term "Littles" for younger headmates.

Probably many other uses. Don't assume you know everything.

 Blndmage wrote:
Folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder also use the term "Littles" for younger headmates.

Probably many other uses. Don't assume you know everything.

So to clarify then, the "littles" in question are not actual children?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder also use the term "Littles" for younger headmates.

Probably many other uses. Don't assume you know everything.

So to clarify then, the "littles" in question are not actual children?

I'm not sure I understand, can you explain what you mean by "actual children"?

 Blndmage wrote:
I'm not sure I understand, can you explain what you mean by "actual children"?

A physical human less than 18 years old (and, in this context, less than 5-10 years old), not an alternate personality of an adult with a mental disorder.

 Blndmage wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Catulle wrote:
At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.

I suppose that's possible. I've only ever heard "little" used in two situations: adults with a parent/child fetish pretending to be small children for sexual reasons (which I desperately hope Blndmage is not referring to), and very rarely an actual small child, a 5 year old or younger. I don't think I've ever heard it used to describe a teenager, and certainly not an adult.

Folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder also use the term "Littles" for younger headmates.

Probably many other uses. Don't assume you know everything.

DID is so absurdly rare compared to what TikTokkers actually believe that it's not something people should really think about for the term Littles

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Catulle wrote:
At the risk of "translation issue, again" I have referred to my younger sister as my "little." She is forty.

I suppose that's possible. I've only ever heard "little" used in two situations: adults with a parent/child fetish pretending to be small children for sexual reasons (which I desperately hope Blndmage is not referring to), and very rarely an actual small child, a 5 year old or younger. I don't think I've ever heard it used to describe a teenager, and certainly not an adult.

Folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder also use the term "Littles" for younger headmates.

Probably many other uses. Don't assume you know everything.

DID is so absurdly rare compared to what TikTokkers actually believe that it's not something people should really think about for the term Littles

1.5-3% of the population, but that's assumed to be a low estimate.

If you respect transfolk's existence, respect folks suffering from DID, it's literally the result of intense, repeated trauma as a child.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The difference between LBGT+ and "super straight" is that one is a reactionary effort to invalidate the other. The two are not the same.

And pride is a reactionary effort against bigotry and hate. Pride comes out of a literal riot against anti-gay laws and has, from day one, been about the political message that it's time for change, we're not tolerating any more oppression. It's a political message I happen to agree with but to pretend that pride is not political, that it's just Amazon and Walmart putting up rainbow flags on social media once a year, is simply not dealing with reality.

I didn't refer to Pride. I referred to LGBT+ existence. As a user above mentioned, you can be LGBT+ without participating in Pride events, and that is a valid part of being LGBT+.

Simply being LGBT+ isn't political. Being explicitly "super straight" is.

Pride, as an event, is political - but that isn't what I was referring to.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I think it's potentially better to look at it as "why wouldn't they be"? We already know that the Necrontyr had plenty of (perhaps not the right word) humanity and spanned all across various gender and sexuality lines - and we also know that a not-insignificant amount of Necron nobility still maintain a good deal of their personality. Sure, they might still be robots and not, you know, ever act on their sexualities or genders, but they would still *be* that way.

Why wouldn't they? Because Necrons aren't human. Pride and LGBT identity exist in the very specific context of human culture, specifically a culture where LGBT people exist but are constrained by an oppressive system and adopt certain symbols as a refusal to be crushed by it. There might be Necrons that are attracted to the same gender (if Necrons even have gender in the way that humans do) but why would that be expressed in the same way that it is in humans? Is there any canon evidence that Necron culture is full of anti-gay bigotry and that a hypothetical gay Necron wouldn't be allowed to live their life as they please?

Necrons aren't human, sure, but why wouldn't they have LGBT+ members and relationships and identities? We already know that queer behaviours exist outside of humanity (in many animal cases), so why *wouldn't* Necrons have those members.

If your grievance is "why would they use these specific colours!!", then I would also ask why does the Imperium use the same alphabet we do? Why do they have the same and similar cultural icons and motifs as we do? Why do they do half the stuff they do - because ultimately, they are a fictional product which we observe as 21st century viewers, and must make sense to *us*.

Plus, Necrons being IN queer-coded colours, as I said above, doesn't mean that they *are* queer. It is an input of the painter, not necessarily a reflection of the models.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
It's not even a case of "in my tomb world, they're queer", there's almost certainly queer Necrons in the same way there's queer Guardsmen, queer Eldar, queer Sororitas, etc - in that it's *normal*. Sautehk dynasty, Novohk, etc etc - definitely have nobility in their number who are.

Why? You're falling into the common trope of assuming that aliens are just humans with pointy ears. Why would you assume that an alien species would have the same genetic or developmental glitch that causes homosexuality in humans? Hell, why are you assuming they even have the concept of attraction and relationships? Do they even have sexual reproduction? Maybe the old pre-robot Necrons reproduced by spreading pollen in the air and have no concept of selecting a mate. Maybe they reproduced by combining genetic material from groups of 10, with two representatives of each sex included in the group, and the concept of only being attracted to one of two genders (only two? WTF that's weird) would be as alien to them as the pollen-Necrons would be to us. Maybe they didn't have different sexes/genders at all!

We know that the last section is demonstrably untrue, as we have evidence of Necrons using at least two (technically three) sets of pronouns (he, she, and they), and we have no evidence to believe that they *don't* feel that way. You say "genetic or developmental glitch" - who says it's a glitch? What if, in Necrontyr society, it's MORE widespread?

Fundamentally, we *don't* know, but at present, we can work with what we have, and that freedom to assume lets players do what they like. And, like you say, as we don't know, you can't say they're wrong to do so either.

[Kids] don't understand LGBT identities, the meaning of pride flags, etc either.

That's simply not true. As education, visibility, and awareness of queer identities becomes more acceptable (not to mention within communities where queer individuals are more prominent, like in BIndmage's case), this statement becomes outdated. Kids are aware of it, in the same way they're aware of racial identity, or national identity.

Aecus Decimus wrote:"Super straight" exists purely as a political statement against LGBT rights. Certain political groups saw increasing expansion of LGBT rights, especially trans rights, and made up a new "identity" (which nobody actually has) to act as a rallying point for their political campaign. Take away that political context and you'd never hear about it.

LGBT pride exists purely as a political statement against anti-LGBT laws and culture. LGBT people got tired of being oppressed (remember, this is back when it was literally illegal to be gay in most countries), said "this is enough", and adopted pride flags as symbols of that defiance and their efforts to change the world. Take away the political context and you wouldn't have pride flags, there would be no more point to them than making up a pride flag for the fact that you mow your lawn once a week instead of once every two weeks.

The fact that I agree with one of those political statements and vehemently disagree with the other doesn't make them any less political.

Again, I want to clarify that I didn't refer to Pride (the event) in my comment. I referred to LGBT+ existence. Pride, as an event, is political. Being LGBT+ is not. I compared being LGBT+ (an identity) with "super straight" (an identity). One identity is based on reactionary opposition to an idea or identity. The other is not.

Being LGBT+ is not political. Expressing it, likewise, is not a political act, any more so than expressing any part of oneself, from favourite colour to favourite period in history, is a political act.