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.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Hybrid Son? I doubt he would either.

You know me well enough that the only miniature ban I would cheer for would be a ban on Space Marines models .
Seriously, though, you are right. I would love for the ideas and conceptions that lead to those miniatures to disappear, but them just being banned wouldn't bring anything good.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
That was more or less your answer on the fully armoured Valkyr power armours at the first third of this thread IIRC.

You took it and rephrase it. Hence, by definition, it is your words.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Good question, isn't the premise that we accept easier violence that the human form a bit strange?

Nope.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Read the article was heavily disappointed, the author sees Slaanesh more or less as a dead end sex whatever, fails to grasp the whole idea about it representing the lust for everything in its most extreme from and how GW could utilize it for more than just boobs, the aspect of chaos (read human desires in their extreme form) Slaanesh represents is the one of the deepest desires seen in their perfect form, its not just about the sex, it is about having the perfect performance in any desire why should this be limited just in the bodily pleasures and not study martial prowess or other desires?

Yeah, there is drug too .
More seriously, the article's main point is that those ideas are too complex to be expressed by simple models, unlike the other three gods where this works alright.

They're really not. I've advocated this before (and I'm not the only one) that Slaanesh is the God of Excess and that an easy paradigm to follow for that would be the seven deadly sins.

Now I'll agree that some may be a little too esoteric to convey at 30mm, but there's plenty that could be represented. Even the concepts that may be considered to cross over into other gods' territory could be visually and mechanically distinct to be worthwhile.

Paint everything gold. BAM, excess!

'Course, it's a bit strange with Slaanesh because he's all about what's forbidden and taboo. Saying she's a bad influence because of all the sexy ladies and drugs (let's not forget all the blatant Satan iconography) is missing the point. I mean, you can go absolutely CRAZY using 7 Deadly Sins or Dante's Inferno's ironic punishments or whatever as a theme, and they may turn out genuinely awesome, but the very act of toning Slaanesh down destroys it. Like trying to make Nurgle "less gross."


Also... Tzeentch's aspects of knowledge and control aren't particularly easy to capture, either. The obvious approach would be brains and books, but instead we got... birds and Ancient Egypt.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Buzzsaw, as a fellow Jew, I wonder how you would feel about someone producing miniatures of Jewish concentration camp victims in the selection process. I know you don't think miniatures can be bigoted or reflect harmful ideas on the part of their creators or purchasers. However, I am curious if would you feel the need to tell them your level, composed rendition of "not cool bro"? Or would you just say nothing at all?

Personally, I've always seen the squeaky wheel get the grease, and I belong to the Mel Brooks school of thought, where if you cannot defeat a harmful idea, at least you can mock it until everyone sees it as ridiculous. So, yes, I complain a lot about miniatures I don't like. Sometimes companies even listen and make changes. More often, they do not. That's okay. People can make and buy what they want, and I can think what I want about them. And we can all have a conversation about it. That isn't censorship. That's social discourse. These days, it isn't as pleasant as it used to be.

I'm not trying to shut down GoA. I do however want them to realize that some of their decisions can drive away customers and negatively impact their brand. I doubt they care. they could probably release an entire sex- trafficking faction, and their ridiculous prices would still be the biggest threat to their business.

Apropos of this discussion, I think I would probably paraphrase my Rabbi (who in turn was, I believe, paraphrasing the Rebbe) "No one can make you angry, only you can chose to be angry." Of course, this is one of those hypothetical situations where the overall event is hard to imagine.

Funny story though: some years ago I happened to be invited to the Armory show, a very avant garde art show in New York City. Among the flotsam and jetsam of modern art I happened to see the famous 'LEGO Concentration Camp'. I remember coming away thinking it had been the only thing of genuine artistic value I saw the entire day.

Lest this seem like an appeal to a standard of Vulcan-like emotional control, let me be clear that the issue is ultimately not about whether I would be insulted or not. Above and beyond anything else, this is a moral issue: Christianity formulates its 'Golden Rule' as 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' Judaism formulates its similar overarching moral principle somewhat differently, as 'What is hateful to you, do not do unto others.' I, of course, follow the latter formulation and as I have no desire to be harassed, discriminated against or boycotted for my beliefs, cannot morally do so against others. Even if I disagree with their beliefs.

It's interesting to me that 'paranoia' seems to be the word of the day (well, couple of days) for dismissing concerns about Social Justice and its potential effects. Fascinatingly, the argument seems to fall in line with my accounting of the facts on the ground: actual SJWs are relatively few in number, simply loud of voice. They are not well organized, but rather dramatically amplified by the media. Where the 'paranoia' analysis parts from mine is that even a casual awareness of the current climate will be aware of the damage being done by the "SJW". The simple fact of the matter is that the influence of Social Justice (and SJWs), the "safe space" movement, the 'no-platforming' movement, especially on university campuses, is not some artifact of the media, but a true crisis that has been widely condemned by voices across the political spectrum for some time now. Including, for example, earning condemnation from President Obama last year. Newsweek recently ran a cover article titled The Battle Against 'Hate Speech' On College Campuses Gives Rise To A Generation That Hates Speech. The notion that the outrages associated with SocJus are a figment of right wing fever dreams is simply not compatible with reality.

Secondarily, the idea that worry about SocJus is 'paranoia' lies with a distressingly narrow idea of the value of free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Or the idea that the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in miniatures is not yet so fulminant as it is on the campus, in publishing, in comic books and the media, so it's foolhardy to imagine it will every be so. There are many distressing elements of the SocJus movement, elements that I find broadly illiberal as well as morally unacceptable, but let's focus for a moment on speech. Or, more appropriately, the mental and moral gymnastics that SJWs encourage in order to justify their immoral and illiberal behavior.

Let us consider as an example the reception that SJWs on campus gave Summers, Yiannopoulo and Crowder at UMass in April (long, NSFW but worthwhile);

One of the 'protesters' at this event would earn the moniker 'Triggerypuff' for her antics (short, also NSFW);


While it's easy enough to mock this petulant young woman, it's worth asking the question of why any college student would leave their dorm room (or library, party, whatever), to go sit in a lecture hall, surrounded by people that she doesn't like, in order to scream invective and obscenities at speakers she doesn't want to hear? Moreover, the person in question is someone (evidently) deeply concerned with 'justice'? Stop for a moment and think about how this young woman's behavior isn't merely uncouth, but would seem to be clearly morally improper. She spent her evening not merely trying to stop a discussion and inhibit the spread of information, but she tried to ruin a lecture (that was undoubtedly very long in the planning) that hundreds of people had come to see. How could she possible justify her own actions to herself?

The answer, which should be of concern for everyone, is that the Social Justice movement has intentionally and systematically engaged in the conflation of offensive/"hate" speech with violence. As Haidt and Lukianoff put it in their indispensable piece The Coddling of the American Mind: "When speech comes to be seen as a form of violence, vindictive protectiveness can justify a hostile, and perhaps even violent, response." Even just in the video above, in the Q&A portion some of the most hostile (and nonconstructive) 'questions' flat out accuse the speakers of causing violence with their opinions.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
It's interesting to me that 'paranoia' seems to be the word of the day (well, couple of days) for dismissing concerns about Social Justice and its potential effects.

I suppose you can find it interesting. I prefer to call it "obvious truth", because that's what it is. There is virtually no chance that sexy miniatures will be subject to any form of censorship* in the foreseeable future. So what else do you call fear of this possibility, if not paranoia?

*No, a company deciding that sexy miniatures are not profitable enough and voluntarily dropping the product line is not censorship.

Where the 'paranoia' analysis parts from mine is that even a casual awareness of the current climate will be aware of the damage being done by the "SJW". The simple fact of the matter is that the influence of Social Justice (and SJWs), the "safe space" movement, the 'no-platforming' movement, especially on university campuses, is not some artifact of the media, but a true crisis that has been widely condemned by voices across the political spectrum for some time now. Including, for example, earning condemnation from President Obama last year. Newsweek recently ran a cover article titled The Battle Against 'Hate Speech' On College Campuses Gives Rise To A Generation That Hates Speech.

You have a rather interesting definition of "crisis". It is not a crisis just because certain anti-SJW speakers are not given a platform to speak from or because people decide they don't really want to listen. Nor is it some kind of "free speech" issue if universities (or other organizations) are criticized for their speech or for the people they give a platform to speak from. If those universities (or other organizations) are opposed to concepts like safe spaces or anti-hate-speech policies then they are free to tell the "SJWs" to STFU and ignore their demands. The fact that they pay attention to the "SJW" demands instead of your demands is not a crisis.

The notion that the outrages associated with SocJus are a figment of right wing fever dreams is simply not compatible with reality.

Oh, it definitely is compatible with reality. Over and over again we see clickbait articles posted by the right-wing outrage machine. "YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK FOR CENSORSHIP". "THIS SJW PROTESTED AGAINST FREE SPEECH AND YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED NEXT". Etc, etc, on and on forever. And then when you look at the original sources for the stories you find that virtually all of them are either reasonable requests that are maliciously misrepresented by the right-wing outrage machine, or some random blogger with single-digit readers making a post that nobody paid any attention to until it showed up in a clickbait article.

Secondarily, the idea that worry about SocJus is 'paranoia' lies with a distressingly narrow idea of the value of free speech and the free exchange of ideas.

Free speech and the free exchange of ideas are awesome and have lots of value. But that's not what is at stake. The "SJW"s are not taking away your right to speak or exchange ideas. What you actually risk losing is the "right" to say whatever you want without ever being criticized, and to have people help publish your ideas for you. And those are simply not reasonable things to expect to have.

Or the idea that the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in miniatures is not yet so fulminant as it is on the campus, in publishing, in comic books and the media, so it's foolhardy to imagine it will every be so.

I don't know why I have to keep saying this: it is legal to buy, sell, and manufacture hardcore pornography. There is no plausible legal threat to this industry. So long as this remains the case it is not even remotely plausible that sexy miniatures, which are much less sexual than hardcore pornography, will be banned.

While it's easy enough to mock this petulant young woman, it's worth asking the question of why any college student would leave their dorm room (or library, party, whatever), to go sit in a lecture hall, surrounded by people that she doesn't like, in order to scream invective and obscenities at speakers she doesn't want to hear?

Because it's fun? Seriously, you're sitting here arguing on the internet about whether your little plastic toys should be wearing chainmail bikinis or not. I don't think you have any right to judge other people for engaging in protests of things they don't like.

How could she possible justify her own actions to herself?

Because she, unlike you, understands that "freedom of speech" means "the government will not force you to stop speaking", not "individual citizens will not speak against you".

 Azreal13 wrote:
They're really not. I've advocated this before (and I'm not the only one) that Slaanesh is the God of Excess and that an easy paradigm to follow for that would be the seven deadly sins.

This. A thousand times this.

Thinking that Slaanesh is the Chaos God of Boobies and Nakedness reduces it down to a petulant child-like and, dare I say it, 4-chan-ish interpretation. Slaanesh is not that. Slaanesh is the Chaos God of Excess. Spent quite a while with a team of people writing a whole damned book about that, so I'd say I know a thing or two about the subject.

So thank you for bringing it up Az.

It is really sad how they fail to grasp hoe deep one can be with Slaanesh and just skim the surface of the sex.

 Azreal13 wrote:
They're really not. I've advocated this before (and I'm not the only one) that Slaanesh is the God of Excess and that an easy paradigm to follow for that would be the seven deadly sins.

The 7 deadly sin is a stupid concept that we only refer to because Christian mythology. Using some inspiration from it and having some models that emphasize pride or sloth, okay, why not, but using it literally, with a daemon for each sin? Please no don't.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Where the 'paranoia' analysis parts from mine is that even a casual awareness of the current climate will be aware of the damage being done by the "SJW". The simple fact of the matter is that the influence of Social Justice (and SJWs), the "safe space" movement, the 'no-platforming' movement, especially on university campuses, is not some artifact of the media, but a true crisis that has been widely condemned by voices across the political spectrum for some time now. […]

Secondarily, the idea that worry about SocJus is 'paranoia' lies with a distressingly narrow idea of the value of free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Or the idea that the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in miniatures is not yet so fulminant as it is on the campus, in publishing, in comic books and the media, so it's foolhardy to imagine it will every be so. There are many distressing elements of the SocJus movement, elements that I find broadly illiberal as well as morally unacceptable, but let's focus for a moment on speech. Or, more appropriately, the mental and moral gymnastics that SJWs encourage in order to justify their immoral and illiberal behavior.

Let us consider as an example the reception that SJWs on campus gave Summers, Yiannopoulo and Crowder at UMass in April (long, NSFW but worthwhile);

So, if I get it right, the terrible, terrible damage done by SJW which justify considering them a very, very real threat that needs to be dealt with is that… some students were protesting against three donkey-caves giving speeches at their university? Woah. Since you already did reach a Godwin, I would have expected you to liken such terrible behavior to the targeted political assassination and similar violence of the early Nazi party. Because why not?

I am pretty sure mentioning “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is exactly what you needed to do to make your concern irrelevant to people that are not into your very specific, very tiny political cult. I mean, “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is not a problem for most people. They are happy enough with comics, and enjoy some of them but not all yet are fine with the idea that not all comics have to be written for them specifically. There is plenty of violence and plenty of sex (and plenty of cheap titillation masquerading as sexy too) to be found.

Oh god, I missed that bit about "SJW problems" in comic books. Sorry, but "comic book publishers feel that 'SJW' comic books produce better profits than 'anti-SJW' comic books" is hardly a problem worth caring about. Comic books are not censored, and anyone who feels like making a comic book full of all the things that "SJWs" hate is entirely free to do so. And they are entirely free to tell the "SJWs" to STFU and continue selling their comic book if anyone complains. They may discover that there isn't nearly as much money to be made as they seem to think there is, but they're free to try.

So, what this comes down to in the end is the anti-SJW crowd saying "this company is making product decisions that I don't like" while simultaneously presenting the fact that "SJWs" are saying "this company is making product decisions that I don't like" as some kind of attack on freedom of speech. I think the double standard here is pretty obvious.

This video does an excellent job of explaining things.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
They're really not. I've advocated this before (and I'm not the only one) that Slaanesh is the God of Excess and that an easy paradigm to follow for that would be the seven deadly sins.

The 7 deadly sin is a stupid concept that we only refer to because Christian mythology. Using some inspiration from it and having some models that emphasize pride or sloth, okay, why not, but using it literally, with a daemon for each sin? Please no don't.

No, but you could use the 7 deadly sins to give character to models, units and background.

Why so vocal against the Judo-christian mythology? it is not a bad source of inspiration, as is any mythology really, for such things, I understand it is a bit banal for the western world, but it is still a good source.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

So, if I get it right, the terrible, terrible damage done by SJW which justify considering them a very, very real threat that needs to be dealt with is that… some students were protesting against three donkey-caves giving speeches at their university?

(hilariously, quoting you allows me to see what you wrote and Dakka Dakka filtered to 'donkey caves')

Donkey caves?
Foreigners?
Gays?
Mormons?
Jews?
People with different opinions?

It doesn't matter who is giving a speech and whether you have 'opinions' about them. The point of free speech and indeed, organised events is that they are allowed to occur- but you may hold your own speeches and refute their points.
What is happening here instead is a kind of bullying people into silence. Attempting to drown out or intimidate people into submission.
Milo, quite cleverly, allows even his detractors to ask questions at these events- so he can expose their lunacy and refute their arguments.
Without fail, most of the questions will be 'don't you find it hypocritical/problematic that...' - leading questions of the 'how often do you beat your wife?' variety.
Without fail, their concerns can be addressed with facts and logic.

I am pretty sure mentioning “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is exactly what you needed to do to make your concern irrelevant to people that are not into your very specific, very tiny political cult. I mean, “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is not a problem for most people. They are happy enough with comics, and enjoy some of them but not all yet are fine with the idea that not all comics have to be written for them specifically. There is plenty of violence and plenty of sex (and plenty of cheap titillation masquerading as sexy too) to be found.

That's the thing about subjectivity. Perhaps some people have enjoyed the anvilicious, heavy handed rhetoric that slaps you inthe face when you open a Wonder Woman comic these days.

Like Wondy allowing a defenceless man who is bound and at her mercy to be assaulted. And saying 'mansplaining'



It's not been well received by everyone .

 =Angel= wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

So, if I get it right, the terrible, terrible damage done by SJW which justify considering them a very, very real threat that needs to be dealt with is that… some students were protesting against three donkey-caves giving speeches at their university?

(hilariously, quoting you allows me to see what you wrote and Dakka Dakka filtered to 'donkey caves')

Donkey caves?
Foreigners?
Gays?
Mormons?
Jews?
People with different opinions?

It doesn't matter who is giving a speech and whether you have 'opinions' about them. The point of free speech and indeed, organised events is that they are allowed to occur- but you may hold your own speeches and refute their points.
What is happening here instead is a kind of bullying people into silence. Attempting to drown out or intimidate people into submission.
Milo, quite cleverly, allows even his detractors to ask questions at these events- so he can expose their lunacy and refute their arguments.
Without fail, most of the questions will be 'don't you find it hypocritical/problematic that...' - leading questions of the 'how often do you beat your wife?' variety.
Without fail, their concerns can be addressed with facts and logic.

I am pretty sure mentioning “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is exactly what you needed to do to make your concern irrelevant to people that are not into your very specific, very tiny political cult. I mean, “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is not a problem for most people. They are happy enough with comics, and enjoy some of them but not all yet are fine with the idea that not all comics have to be written for them specifically. There is plenty of violence and plenty of sex (and plenty of cheap titillation masquerading as sexy too) to be found.

That's the thing about subjectivity. Perhaps some people have enjoyed the anvilicious, heavy handed rhetoric that slaps you inthe face when you open a Wonder Woman comic these days.

Like Wondy allowing a defenceless man who is bound and at her mercy to be assaulted. And saying 'mansplaining'



It's not been well received by everyone .

Oh god, they put mansplaining in a comic book? WOW. I know Marvel has pulled some PR stunts, but jesus.

That is absolutely hilarious. The irony of the term triggering you so badly is not lost on me. Perhaps a trigger warning is in order?

Terrible writing needs trigger warning now?
Mind you, that might not necessarily be a bad thing.

 Ashiraya wrote:
That is absolutely hilarious. The irony of the term triggering you so badly is not lost on me. Perhaps a trigger warning is in order?

I would actually appreciate that. Something along the lines of "Warning: Terrible writing and blatant money cash grab ahead". Guess what? I was just as "triggered" when Doom cried over 9/11 or when they made Thor a woman.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Why so vocal against the Judo-christian mythology? it is not a bad source of inspiration, as is any mythology really, for such things, I understand it is a bit banal for the western world, but it is still a good source.

It was not about Christian mythology. It was about that particular part being incredibly bad. There are great part of Christian mythology that definitely are worth using as sources of inspiration. The 7 deadly sins? Not so much.

 =Angel= wrote:
What is happening here instead is a kind of bullying people into silence. Attempting to drown out or intimidate people into submission.

Sure. Soon Breitbart will have to close, and Milo will be silenced.
Or, maybe not? Have I missed the big news about the attacks on Breitbart? Or is it just about students not wanting Milo not to speak at their university?

 =Angel= wrote:
That's the thing about subjectivity. Perhaps some people have enjoyed the anvilicious, heavy handed rhetoric that slaps you inthe face when you open a Wonder Woman comic these days.

Like Wondy allowing a defenceless man who is bound and at her mercy to be assaulted. And saying 'mansplaining'

Oh wow?!? Some comics that you don't personally enjoy, because it is meant for other people to enjoy! I would dare say that would you ever like to call yourself a defender of “artistic freedom”, you should definitely not only accept, but even fight for allowing authors to publish such stories should they want to.
I stand by my point, i.e. “I am pretty sure mentioning “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is exactly what you needed to do to make your concern irrelevant to people that are not into your very specific, very tiny political cult.” Strangely most people are not convinced that there is something extremely, horribly wrong in comics books because some issue of Wonder Woman depicts her saying “man-splaining”. Gosh, some heroes don't have the same political sensibilities as you do! That must be so hard to bear! What about, say, Rorschach flirting with extreme-right nutjob, and yet being the most heroic person in his whole setting, was that perfectly fine though?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
That's the thing about subjectivity. Perhaps some people have enjoyed the anvilicious, heavy handed rhetoric that slaps you inthe face when you open a Wonder Woman comic these days.

Like Wondy allowing a defenceless man who is bound and at her mercy to be assaulted. And saying 'mansplaining'

Oh wow?!? Some comics that you don't personally enjoy, because it is meant for other people to enjoy! I would dare say that would you ever like to call yourself a defender of “artistic freedom”, you should definitely not only accept, but even fight for allowing authors to publish such stories should they want to.
I stand by my point, i.e. “I am pretty sure mentioning “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is exactly what you needed to do to make your concern irrelevant to people that are not into your very specific, very tiny political cult.” Strangely most people are not convinced that there is something extremely, horribly wrong in comics books because some issue of Wonder Woman depicts her saying “man-splaining”. Gosh, some heroes don't have the same political sensibilities as you do! That must be so hard to bear! What about, say, Rorschach flirting with extreme-right nutjob, and yet being the most heroic person in his whole setting, was that perfectly fine though?

Because man-splaining is as sexist as telling a women to get back into the kitchen. But let me guess, women can't be sexist because sexism = power and women have no power because patriarchy?

Also, Rorschach isn't heroic because he's right-wing, he's heroic because he fights crime as a superhero even though it's illegal and doesn't back down from Adrian's master plan. But sure, keep pushing that agenda.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

No, but you could use the 7 deadly sins to give character to models, units and background.

Actually french game "Hell Dorado" (a kind of Mordheim settled in Hell) had as demon lord the avatars of the sins
Pride

Wrath


Glutonnery


Card driven game "7" used also the concept
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/53376/7
with more realistic (but female only!) avatars

looking like Dahlig artwork

 Kriegspiel wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

No, but you could use the 7 deadly sins to give character to models, units and background.

Actually french game "Hell Dorado" (a kind of Mordheim settled in Hell) had as demon lord the avatars of the sins
Pride

Wrath


Glutonnery


Card driven game "7" used also the concept
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/53376/7
with more realistic (but female only!) avatars

looking like Dahlig artwork

Those look really nice.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Because man-splaining is as sexist as telling a women to get back into the kitchen.

So, are you saying that we should ban comics that have characters that say “mansplaining” because that is sexist?
In other words, are you saying that we should ban comics that says sexist things?
Oh then, I am looking forward to see you crack down on everything the comics do that is sexist then. Like the blatant sexualization of the huge majority of female characters.
.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Also, Rorschach isn't heroic because he's right-wing, he's heroic because he fights crime as a superhero even though it's illegal and doesn't back down from Adrian's master plan. But sure, keep pushing that agenda.

Wonder Woman is not heroic because she says mansplaining. She is heroic because she fights crime. I am at loss at your logic. But you said agenda, so that goes in my bingo I guess. I currently have SJW, censorship, agenda, I think I need someone saying “cuck” or “ethics” to win. Can you say either? I would really like to win.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
They're really not. I've advocated this before (and I'm not the only one) that Slaanesh is the God of Excess and that an easy paradigm to follow for that would be the seven deadly sins.

The 7 deadly sin is a stupid concept that we only refer to because Christian mythology. Using some inspiration from it and having some models that emphasize pride or sloth, okay, why not, but using it literally, with a daemon for each sin? Please no don't.

So the Warhammer universe stealing ideas from vast quantities of historical and pop culture references to the point where almost everything in universe can trace its lineage to some outside source is fine, but using a pre existing Christian shortlist of the worst elements of humanity excesses as a jumping off point to make Slaanesh not about drugs and boobies isn't?

Your views have always struck me as particularly unique Hybrid, but im going to need you expand on why a thing is stupid because it comes from another thing, because that is your argument is in essence.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Because man-splaining is as sexist as telling a women to get back into the kitchen.

So, are you saying that we should ban comics that have characters that say “mansplaining” because that is sexist?
In other words, are you saying that we should ban comics that says sexist things?
Oh then, I am looking forward to see you crack down on everything the comics do that is sexist then. Like the blatant sexualization of the huge majority of female characters.
.

I'm saying that someone's shock and outrage at a comic actually using the term "mansplaining" is no worse than anything that feminists have been shocked and outrage at in comics. Should it been banned? Idk, I could care less, it's a stupid term. But don't go expecting me to praise comics for excellent writing when it's just a PR stunt.

There are ways to appeal to women readers, like strong female characters who show good traits. Having Wonder Woman accuse a guy of "mansplaining" is not one.

Second, I think it's funny how only women are sexualized in comics. Batman, Superman, and every single male superhero having nigh unattainable physique and muscles? Perfectly acceptable.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Also, Rorschach isn't heroic because he's right-wing, he's heroic because he fights crime as a superhero even though it's illegal and doesn't back down from Adrian's master plan. But sure, keep pushing that agenda.

Wonder Woman is not heroic because she says mansplaining. She is heroic because she fights crime. I am at loss at your logic. But you said agenda, so that goes in my bingo I guess. I currently have SJW, censorship, agenda, I think I need someone saying “cuck” or “ethics” to win. Can you say either? I would really like to win.

See my reply above. Saying mansplaining is not heroic. But you've already pegged me as something so whatever "logic" I provide won't change your mind. Ethics. Happy?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriegspiel wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

No, but you could use the 7 deadly sins to give character to models, units and background.

Actually french game "Hell Dorado" (a kind of Mordheim settled in Hell) had as demon lord the avatars of the sins
Pride

Wrath


Glutonnery


Card driven game "7" used also the concept
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/53376/7
with more realistic (but female only!) avatars

looking like Dahlig artwork

Holy gak, those are absolutely awesome. Pride is probably my favorite


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
They're really not. I've advocated this before (and I'm not the only one) that Slaanesh is the God of Excess and that an easy paradigm to follow for that would be the seven deadly sins.

The 7 deadly sin is a stupid concept that we only refer to because Christian mythology. Using some inspiration from it and having some models that emphasize pride or sloth, okay, why not, but using it literally, with a daemon for each sin? Please no don't.

So the Warhammer universe stealing ideas from vast quantities of historical and pop culture references to the point where almost everything in universe can trace its lineage to some outside source is fine, but using a pre existing Christian shortlist of the worst elements of humanity excesses as a jumping off point to make Slaanesh not about drugs and boobies isn't?

Your views have always struck me as particularly unique Hybrid, but im going to need you expand on why a thing is stupid because it comes from another thing, because that is your argument is in essence.

Anyone who has a problem with something taking inspiration from something else is a moron. Humanity as a whole has always taken inspiration from other things since time immemorial. The Christians drew from the Pagans, and so on and so forth.

 Kriegspiel wrote:
Actually french game "Hell Dorado" (a kind of Mordheim settled in Hell) had as demon lord the avatars of the sins

Spoiler:

Pride

Wrath


Glutonnery

That kind of emphasize the problem. Seriously, without looking, could you tell if that was gluttony or lust on that last model? How do you make Envy into a model (without doing a Saints Row-level joke and giving it a huge phallic appendage)?
Most of the time, the people deciding to theme something on the 7 deadly sin will have some great ideas on some of them, and will add filler stuff that is quite weak to fill the other sins, which is not something I find cool.

dunno about you but the last model with the giant mouth is probably Gluttony since the mouth thing is kinda unique to that.

as for envy, face stealers and masks. is a pretty standard way IIRC.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Your views have always struck me as particularly unique Hybrid, but im going to need you expand on why a thing is stupid because it comes from another thing, because that is your argument is in essence.

See just above. Also please don't misrepresent my views when I made them clear. I have no problem with reusing interesting bits of Christian mythology (and 40k already has plenty of Christians influence, that I never complained about).

 jreilly89 wrote:
But don't go expecting me to praise comics for excellent writing when it's just a PR stunt.

I never expected you to do so. I expected Buzzsaw and =Angel= to have something more worthwhile to show when they spoke of “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement […] in comic books.”, especially when they follow with “There are many distressing elements of the SocJus movement, elements that I find broadly illiberal as well as morally unacceptable”, and literally make Nazi comparisons.

 jreilly89 wrote:
There are ways to appeal to women readers, like strong female characters who show good traits. Having Wonder Woman accuse a guy of "mansplaining" is not one.

Maybe the objective is to target a specific demographic that is not “all women”, just like most comics don't target “all men” either?

 jreilly89 wrote:
Second, I think it's funny how only women are sexualized in comics. Batman, Superman, and every single male superhero having nigh unattainable physique and muscles? Perfectly acceptable.

It is okay. I don't expect you to understand this.

 jreilly89 wrote:
See my reply above. Saying mansplaining is not heroic.

Neither is being an extreme-right nutjob, is it?
Is your point that Rorschach is allowed to do things that are heroics and also stuff that is unrelated to his heroism, while Wonder Woman has to be heroic all the time?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
dunno about you but the last model with the giant mouth is probably Gluttony since the mouth thing is kinda unique to that.

It kind of look like… something else than a mouth, too.

Im not seeing it, though i suppose its because people find mouths attractive since they look like a sideways female parts.

i mean if you are into that sort of thing.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
dunno about you but the last model with the giant mouth is probably Gluttony since the mouth thing is kinda unique to that.

It kind of look like… something else than a mouth, too.

That is reaching. It is a gluttony demon with a giant, over-sized mouth. That model is not a walking vagina dentata, it is a gluttony demon who consumes those around it.

The gluttony model begins the game smaller, and when it consumes another enemy model the controlling player replaces the smaller demon model with the obese one posted above.

Here are the two forms of the model for comparision:



Perhaps you are primed for outrage? You are seeing vaginas where there clearly aren't vaginas present.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
That kind of emphasize the problem. Seriously, without looking, could you tell if that was gluttony or lust on that last model? How do you make Envy into a model (without doing a Saints Row-level joke and giving it a huge phallic appendage)?
Most of the time, the people deciding to theme something on the 7 deadly sin will have some great ideas on some of them, and will add filler stuff that is quite weak to fill the other sins, which is not something I find cool.

I said "use as a paradigm" not "slavishly copy wholesale." There's no reason to force a concept if the inspiration isn't there, but my point was there is a very easy source of ideas to stop Slaanesh being the boobie god, not that every single sin needs to be duplicated exactly.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Your views have always struck me as particularly unique Hybrid, but im going to need you expand on why a thing is stupid because it comes from another thing, because that is your argument is in essence.

See just above. Also please don't misrepresent my views when I made them clear. I have no problem with reusing interesting bits of Christian mythology (and 40k already has plenty of Christians influence, that I never complained about).

Here's what you wrote..

The 7 deadly sin is a stupid concept that we only refer to because Christian mythology.

You were literally dismissing the deadly sins concept as stupid because it is a part of the Christian mythology. I ask you to expand, and you accuse me of misrepresentiation...

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
The gluttony model begins the game smaller, and when it consumes another enemy model the controlling player replaces the smaller demon model with the obese one posted above.

Here are the two forms of the model for comparision:

It's a very nice model.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Perhaps you are primed for outrage?

.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I said "use as a paradigm" not "slavishly copy wholesale." There's no reason to force a concept if the inspiration isn't there, but my point was there is a very easy source of ideas to stop Slaanesh being the boobie god, not that every single sin needs to be duplicated exactly.

Oh. Then fine by me. We already had Sigvald in WFB that was pretty high on pride.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You were literally dismissing the deadly sins concept as stupid because it is a part of the Christian mythology. I ask you to expand, and you accuse me of misrepresentiation...

I was dismissing the concept, AND saying we are still using it despite it being no good because of Christianity. I was not saying that is was BECAUSE it came from Christianity that it was not good.