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.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
What in the name of christ happened to this thread?

It was bound to that very direction almost from the start. The depiction of models, or any similar medium, is subject to the artist and either him alone or, if he is working on commission, his contractor. Criticism as in "I don't like your / his style because..." is valid and often offers very good and necessary secondary perspectives on your work.

What, sadly, very soon happened in this thread is the usual bunch showing up trying to patronize others opinions / ideas, by not saying "I don't like it...", but rather starting to patronize others by coming from "It's not okay to portray this in that way". From then, the usual chain started and that pretty much was it. Trying to sell your personal opinion as a global moral standard is not just disrespectful, but tells a lot about your actual interest in a discussion. The bottom was reached when we had the usual "This negative portrayal influences how people think in real life" bullfeces thrown into the thread, stuff that has been debunked aeons ago but is still told like a fairytale you'd tell to your kids.

In the end, when it comes down to the topic, the cold, hard truth is: vote with your wallet. There seemingly is a market for models portrayed in certain was and / or said market likes said form of portrayal - else they wouldn't invest large sums of money into further producing those. The personal opinion of a very vocal, very minority is worth nothing, zero, nada. Useless. It's a market and the market dictates whether something is desired / accepted or not. Numbers speak for themselves.

People, fortunately, will keep producing what they like - which is good, very good actually. Free market n' stuff. If you don't like it, then please, voice your opinion, but be aware that it's your opinion. Taking it to a "It's not okay" level is just ridiculous and serves nothing and noone but yourself.

 Vertrucio wrote:

Do not, ever, presume to use violence against women elsewhere as an excuse to ignore misrepresentation and marginalizing of women closer to you.

 Vertrucio wrote:

Your cries of censorship are nothing when you don't even realize the horrific censorship that goes on in so many countries across the globe, where people are jailed or killed for uttering ideas that we take for granted today?

I agree with you that people take relatively minor incidents of self-censorship way too seriously, but I find it ironic that you're arguing against it by saying "but it's worse elsewhere" when you were railing against the relative privation fallacy three paragraphs earlier.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
What in the name of christ happened to this thread?

We delved too deep.

There's a reason why this kind of discussion is taboo in a lot of places. As the discussion grows, eventually people with very strong opinions will show up and everything gets more and more polarized. Eventually there's no middle ground and things start to get extreme.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I liked this wargaming forum more before it told me that my activism efforts for equality - that I have spent countless hours on - is 'cancer'.

I searched through this thread but I can't find reference to "cancer". I am unfortunately not sure or have reference to what this statement refers too.

I will say that actual activism which involves actual picketing, talking to people face to face, rallies and other things that involve actual are never wasted. However if we're talking about blogging and discussions on forums, that isn't actual activism because there is no connection with a person behind a screen. There is a difference between the two. You can never truly reach an accord with a faceless mass behind a screen.

I think that Ash is referring to the YouTube title of the last item I posted, the opening statement of a debate between Milo Yiannopoulos and Julie Bindel at the University of Michigan.

To Ash, let me say, that whole debate is well worth watching, if for no other reason then it is a follow up after a debate titled "From liberation to censorship: Does modern feminism have a problem with free speech?" Why does it matter that it is a follow up to another debate? Because that debate was canceled: the Student Union that was to host the Free Speech debate banned both sides of the debate.

Seriously, this actually happened. It's also worth pointing out, as Milo does in the clip I posted, there is a difference between Modern Feminism (which I call Social Justice/Intersectional Feminism) and Feminism.

This modern feminism (that Milo labels 'cancer') is in the process of not just purging debate from schools, but purging the feminist movement of older feminists. Julie Bindel has been a feminist since I was born. Same for Christina Hoff Summers. Neither of them is welcome in this 'new' feminism.

Why should I? I have no idea of what is going on in the US. I have never even been in the US. But it seems Americans have an awfully weird definition of feminism because all of the feminism I have actually encountered in the real world is focused on equality and really nothing else.

This feels completely absurd, like a member of a football team fanclub asked to defend a terror organisation on the other side of the planet because it has assumed the same name. I mean, WTF? If they truly are such horrid people, don't call them feminism to begin with. Most times I see this wheel get spun it just seems like a cover to hamper the progress of those who actually want equality.

But then, it's the US, the country of school shootings and Donald Trump. Should I be surprised?

 Ashiraya wrote:
Why should I? I have no idea of what is going on in the US. I have never even been in the US. But it seems Americans have an awfully weird definition of feminism because all of the feminism I have actually encountered in the real world is focused on equality and really nothing else.

This feels completely absurd, like a member of a football team fanclub asked to defend a terror organisation on the other side of the planet because it has assumed the same name. I mean, WTF? If they truly are such horrid people, don't call them feminism to begin with. Most times I see this wheel get spun it just seems like a cover to hamper the progress of those who actually want equality.

But then, it's the US, the country of school shootings and Donald Trump. Should I be surprised?

Not to be condescending, but perhaps looking at the information I provided would have, for example, informed you that the school that banned both sides of the debate was the "Britain's University of Manchester". Contrary to common belief, Britain is not the 51st state (that's Bananastan).

As for the 'no true Feminist' point... it is a bittersweet irony, but you need to realize that you're asking people to ignore, well, the leadership of your own group. Again, another reason you ought to watch that debate is because... it's a debate: the radical feminist (Julie Bindel) gets to speak, and she talks at length about how modern feminism is purging its matriarchs. It's not MRAs or 'menenists' that are getting in her face screaming at her, it's modern feminists.

Again, Bindel is British (as Milo), and describing conditions in Europe. They may be common to America, but they are by no means confined to the New World

I thought about responding to the jab about the US with some less then flattering points about Sweden, but perhaps we can agree that a long, drawn-out examination of our respective nation's failings is not the most conclusive to discussion, yes?

 Ashiraya wrote:
Why should I? I have no idea of what is going on in the US. I have never even been in the US. But it seems Americans have an awfully weird definition of feminism because all of the feminism I have actually encountered in the real world is focused on equality and really nothing else.

This feels completely absurd, like a member of a football team fanclub asked to defend a terror organisation on the other side of the planet because it has assumed the same name. I mean, WTF? If they truly are such horrid people, don't call them feminism to begin with. Most times I see this wheel get spun it just seems like a cover to hamper the progress of those who actually want equality.

But then, it's the US, the country of school shootings and Donald Trump. Should I be surprised?

Feminism in the US doesn't always mean equality. Those feminists who for equality are called equity feminists. They generally aren't the norm any more.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Not to be condescending, but perhaps looking at the information I provided would have, for example, informed you that the school that banned both sides of the debate was the "Britain's University of Manchester". Contrary to common belief, Britain is not the 51st state (that's Bananastan).

It happens in Britain too, I am sure. I still do not see the point. Britain is not Sweden.

You must understand my point of view; when I have spent years doing activism, waving banners and shouting at politicians, getting good changes done in our society with like-minded people and never once met any kind of 'feminazi', being told that my efforts are cancer by some guys on a wargaming forum is absurd to the point of comedy.

As for the 'no true Feminist' point... it is a bittersweet irony, but you need to realize that you're asking people to ignore, well, the leadership of your own group. Again, another reason you ought to watch that debate is because... it's a debate: the radical feminist (Julie Bindel) gets to speak, and she talks at length about how modern feminism is purging its matriarchs. It's not MRAs or 'menenists' that are getting in her face screaming at her, it's modern feminists.

Who made her leader? I didn't vote for her. Nobody here voted for her. What makes her a leader, exactly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Feminism in the US doesn't always mean equality. Those feminists who for equality are called equity feminists. They generally aren't the norm any more.

You sure do it weird over there.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Markets and companies owe their existence to society.

No they owe their existence to people who create them and work for them.

Companies and markets owe their existence to the laws that sustain and govern them, such as limited liability and contract. These are created and upheld by society.

Incorrect. Companies owe their existence to people not society. Did America society create microsoft or did Bill Gates and Paul Allen? Markets on the other hand are loose concept used to describe a gathering of people to sell/trade. They are just a gathering of people nothing else.

Try some insider trading on the stock market and see how long it is before a loose association of people called the securities exchange commission is knocking on your door.

When you get out of prison, move to Germany and trade on their stock market, which is automated and run by computers.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Not to be condescending, but perhaps looking at the information I provided would have, for example, informed you that the school that banned both sides of the debate was the "Britain's University of Manchester". Contrary to common belief, Britain is not the 51st state (that's Bananastan).

It happens in Britain too, I am sure. I still do not see the point. Britain is not Sweden.

You must understand my point of view; when I have spent years doing activism, waving banners and shouting at politicians, getting good changes done in our society with like-minded people and never once met any kind of 'feminazi', being told that my efforts are cancer by some guys on a wargaming forum is absurd to the point of comedy.

As for the 'no true Feminist' point... it is a bittersweet irony, but you need to realize that you're asking people to ignore, well, the leadership of your own group. Again, another reason you ought to watch that debate is because... it's a debate: the radical feminist (Julie Bindel) gets to speak, and she talks at length about how modern feminism is purging its matriarchs. It's not MRAs or 'menenists' that are getting in her face screaming at her, it's modern feminists.

Who made her leader? I didn't vote for her. Nobody here voted for her. What makes her a leader, exactly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Feminism in the US doesn't always mean equality. Those feminists who for equality are called equity feminists. They generally aren't the norm any more.

You sure do it weird over there.

Not to belabor the point, but... if your argument is 'the Anglosphere is not Sweden' and you only care about the behavior of feminists in Sweden, I'm a little mystified by the origin of your offense. If a British anti-Feminist and a British Radical Feminist speaking at an American university are as remote to Swedish feminism as the moon is from the Earth... well, why be offended? If Angloshpere feminism is as divergent from Swedish feminism (a point I am unprepared to dispute) as you contend, then accept that Angloshpere feminism is in desperate need of reform while Swedish feminism is fine and move on.

To use your own analogy: if Swedish Feminism is to Anglosphere Feminism as "a football team fanclub" with the same name as "a terror organisation on the other side of the planet", then it makes as much sense to be angry as it is for Isis Monroe to object to criticism of ISIS. Your anger would, it seems, be more appropriately directed not at the critics, but the Anglosphere feminists that are blackening the name of your noble movement.

As a rather pedantic point, it's also worth pointing out that describing quotes from a British journalist at an American university debate about British Feminism as "some guys on a wargaming forum" is a bit like describing knowledge of world affairs as 'stuff I thought of on the toilet' because you read the newspaper in the bathroom.

I wrote a lengthy response but instead of going on in the paragraphs about this, I will just tell you that I do not feel very eager to agree that something is cancer when i have never seen it do anything else than good. It's true that Swedish feminism is not the world's feminism, but neither is that of the US. I will not let those who abuse the term define it, not as far as I am concerned. I think it's awfully regrettable that people say that it is cancer since it will inevitably be extrapolated to mean that what I do is cancer as well, but it's not like I can stop you, and I do not feel very tempted to change the name of what I am doing because of what is happening somewhere else.

I completely agree with you. USA and UK feminism is not the Swedish model. I love the system you guys have. Though I will say Sweden does have large problems. More than other European Countries in some respects. Sometimes I hope that what you guys have will spread to other countries. Though I hope we can do without the increased crime. Though I'm not sure the two are related.

Increased crime? If you're comparing crime rates between two countries you need to be absolutely sure that the two numbers you're comparing show the same thing, for example what constitutes a specific crime in both countries, how crime reports are handled, etc... Or the numbers will be meaningless. As for the problems we have in Sweden compared to the rest of Europe, I would love for you to elaborate on that.

I don't think we need to get involved in a lengthy discussion about one country vs another.

The "Is modern femininism cancer" thing should be obvious from watching the video and reading Buzzsaw's post that it's not talking about the brand of feminism that seeks equality but that which seeks censorship, that assigns blame based on gender, that seeks favouritism instead of equality and that seeks to quash discussion to the point where it bans a debate. Even the side of the debate which is a true feminist who has spent her life seeking equality for women and standing up against violence against women, against human trafficking, against religious fundamentalism which suppresses women and so forth.

 Mymearan wrote:
Increased crime? If you're comparing crime rates between two countries you need to be absolutely sure that the two numbers you're comparing show the same thing, for example what constitutes a specific crime in both countries, how crime reports are handled, etc... Or the numbers will be meaningless. As for the problems we have in Sweden compared to the rest of Europe, I would love for you to elaborate on that.

According to the Gatestone institute who compare crime statistics on lots of things but im going to focus on violent crimes and crimes against women .. because those are what i was referring to. Sweden took in lots of refugees . but im not going to debate if im pro or against this. in the last 40 years violent crime has increased by 300% and crime against women by 1,472%. your just behind South Africa in second.


In 1975, 421 attacks on women were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620. That is an increase of 1,472%. which is astonishing.

According to figures published by The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet; known as Brå) -- an agency under the Ministry of Justice -- 29,000 Swedish women, during 2011, reported that they had been attacked (which seems to indicate that less than 25% of the attacks are reported to the police).


A chart compiled by Statista says :-

The results are based on data from 2012, published by the European Agency for Fundamental Rights, in its 2014 report, Violence against women: an EU-wide survey.

The data shows that in Sweden and Denmark, 80 to 100 per cent of people said they were sexually assaulted as adults – the highest anywhere in the continent.

The UK was about 60%

Even the BBC notes about the high percentage :- The Swedish police recorded the highest number of offences - about 63 per 100,000 inhabitants - of any force in Europe, in 2010. The second-highest in the world

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


The "Is modern femininism cancer" thing should be obvious from watching the video and reading Buzzsaw's post that it's not talking about the brand of feminism that seeks equality but that which seeks censorship, that assigns blame based on gender, that seeks favouritism instead of equality and that seeks to quash discussion to the point where it bans a debate. Even the side of the debate which is a true feminist who has spent her life seeking equality for women and standing up against violence against women, against human trafficking, against religious fundamentalism which suppresses women and so forth.

I can agree that the ones Buzzsaw are referring to are bad. In fact, I probably dislike them more than most others, due to how they hamper my efforts.

I wish those who do not strive for equality would find a better tag to apply to themselves instead of trying to drag feminism with them into the mud.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I don't think we need to get involved in a lengthy discussion about one country vs another.

The "Is modern femininism cancer" thing should be obvious from watching the video and reading Buzzsaw's post that it's not talking about the brand of feminism that seeks equality but that which seeks censorship, that assigns blame based on gender, that seeks favouritism instead of equality and that seeks to quash discussion to the point where it bans a debate. Even the side of the debate which is a true feminist who has spent her life seeking equality for women and standing up against violence against women, against human trafficking, against religious fundamentalism which suppresses women and so forth.

We do seem to be getting rather far afield here, so let me propose what I think is the real issue with the various forms of "feminism";

Feminists have the problem Abolitionists had: Victory.

Today no one would describe them-self as an Abolitionist precisely because everyone is an abolitionist. If one wished to define a movement as 'fringe' it would be the movement to repeal the 13th amendment. It's a movement that could have it's meeting in a garage and still park the car. So it is today that... well, overwhelmingly people are feminists in the classical sense, because classical feminism is Equity Feminism.

If Equity Feminism is included, them I'm a Feminist. I would venture to guess that almost everyone in this thread on any side, once you include classic/equity feminism, fits the definition of a Feminist. Which is, unfortunately, precisely why it's a label that now only applies to the most strident voices.

As Syndrome points out, when everyone is super, then no one is.

Everyone isn't a feminist, though, and equality (or equity) feminism clearly has not triumphed.

There are strident voices on both sides.

However, the greater number of users on DakkaDakka decrying Gamergate and the UN Women's Committee for their sins, compared to radical feminists decrying wargames and female figures, suggests perhaps that there are a lot of somewhat biased wargamers.

I am not sure what that means.

Clearly, everyone are not feminists, otherwise r/redpill would not be around, among many other little things... And that is just in the western world!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone isn't a feminist, though, and equality (or equity) feminism clearly has not triumphed.

There are strident voices on both sides.

I can only disagree with you, though I also recognize I have a near zero chance of changing your mind. You believe that equity feminism has not triumphed? That there are strident voices... arguing that women ought not to have, for example, First amendment rights? To speak or choose their own faith? Second amendment rights? That women ought not to be able to own or bear firearms? Exercise their protections under the Fourth amendment? Under the Fifth? Denied opportunity in education, in employment?

Again, if I am an equity feminist, then who in this thread is not? Could you indicate what makes you think they are secret advocates for striping women of their rights?

Or is it the case that, as I indicated earlier, that much of modern feminist claims are more akin to faith claims and not subject to falsification.

This is all, of course, rather off topic though, don't you think?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
However, the greater number of users on DakkaDakka decrying Gamergate and the UN Women's Committee for their sins, compared to radical feminists decrying wargames and female figures, suggests perhaps that there are a lot of somewhat biased wargamers.

I am not sure what that means.

Perhaps it means that you suffer from a misapprehension of reality, and so you are incorrectly evaluating the character of your peers.

But again, the content of your world view would seem the very definition of wildly off topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Clearly, everyone are not feminists, otherwise r/redpill would not be around, among many other little things... And that is just in the western world!

Forgive me, I'm unaware of what that is. I take it from the context that they advocate a constitutional amendment that strips women of their aforementioned rights?

So, has this thread run its course?

I think the conversation has left common grounds and each one tries to define what the others try to say according to their personal opinions.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Forgive me, I'm unaware of what that is. I take it from the context that they advocate a constitutional amendment that strips women of their aforementioned rights?

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-red-pill-reddit-2013-8?IR=T

It's a question of definition. You can either use a common range definition and look at a greater scale to realize that in modern countries, feminism just lost most of its necessity. Gender Pay Gap is almost zero, rights are equal, even better for women in some cases etc. Everything that "traditional" feminism fought for has been achieved. That is the reason for why "modern" feminism (and I don't like the term as it implies that this refers to any feminism nowadays instead of attention seeking individuals or tumblerism) is often seen so negatively - it realized that there aren't any major goals to achieve and thus started picking on minor non-issues, trying to be relevant again.

Where feminism is actually highly necessary are non-modern countries such as The Middle East, Turkey, North and Middle Africa, Russia etc. Those are countries where people are still heavily oppressed for their gender alone and thus need others to stand up for them so they can get back up on their feet and stand on their own. This feminism, however, requires actual work and dedication that goes beyond keyboard warrior "skills".

KIllkrazy seems to use a very narrow definition, however, meaning that there being some exceptions / vocal minorities mean that the overall movement has changed. This is his opinion, but personally, I don't think it makes a lot of sense given that you cannot influence people themselves, you can just set the rules they are to follow - and this has been, fortunately, established in modern states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Forgive me, I'm unaware of what that is. I take it from the context that they advocate a constitutional amendment that strips women of their aforementioned rights?

It basically is a pick-up subreddit where people share pick-up techniques / their success stories. Their general attitude is that men are disadvantaged in society and feminism continues to drag them down. It's mostly hated by women beause of the pick-up tehniques as they feel that it's not okay to exploit psychological weaknesses in order to seduce them.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Forgive me, I'm unaware of what that is. I take it from the context that they advocate a constitutional amendment that strips women of their aforementioned rights?

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-red-pill-reddit-2013-8?IR=T

I'm sorry, perhaps I am misunderstanding: that article seems to paint the movement as (perhaps a bit rude and declase) but... more pitiable then harmful, yes?

That said, I'll echo Psy: we're really moving far afield here from the thread topic.

My final word on the overall topic of feminism will be to link again this talk by Professor Christina Summers. It's a long talk, but even more important then it's length is the realization that it was given when she published her book Who Stole Feminism?. That's important, because that was twenty-two years ago;

So... about those miniatures...

 Sigvatr wrote:
Everything that "traditional" feminism fought for has been achieved.

I will close my partaking in this tangent by pointing out that, to a white male businessman, I am sure it might look that way... Or at least, that is what you want it to look like.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Then allow me to close with saying that it also looks like this for a woman having dedicated almost 15 years of her life fighting for feminism / feminist issues that we, in modern countries, fortunately got rid of a long time ago

'I am not racist, I have black friends!'

Then allow me to close with saying that it also looks like this for a woman having dedicated almost 15 years of her life fighting for feminism / feminist issues that we, in modern countries, fortunately got rid of a long time ago

I see a lot of pointing fingers at how some weird feminists have polluted everything and that it's a broken movement.

I'd have to point out that there are a lot of very, very disturbing individuals in our little hobby here. Do we, as a whole, consider those people to really represent the whole in its entirety? If we were to hold our hobby to a fraction of the same scrutiny that people are giving the very idea of feminism in this forum, we would all disband due to the obvious deluge of cheaters, anti-social maniacs. I mean, within a single link from my closest gaming group, there's been a murderer, many cheaters, real womanizers, corrupt officials, several unabashed cheaters to an extreme degree, and more. Am I to say that the entire hobby should be condemned for those people?

And accomplishing a few goals doesn't mean something is over. It's like hanging the Mission Accomplished on an aircraft carrier while everything is still going to gak in Iraq. Or in this case, just because say, the Women's Suffrage movement got the vote for women somehow meant that the job was done.

Also, Buzzsaw might have some points, but i was too busy ignoring a post too full of youtube videos from decades old personalities, whereas I could have been reading the thoughts of the actual person taking the time to write out his own opinion instead of using youtube to parrot stuff. That's like going into a high school debate and summoning a master Supreme Court lawyer to make their case for them, except they then fail to post the counter argument in the same case.

Likewise, I still think it all has connections to the current miniature game landscape, you may not want to admit it, but the issue is there. And, here's the most important thing that most forget, just because it's an issue doesn't mean it's a huge problem. But it is worth addressing. I'm super busy most of the week so I need to go back and address. This is a thread literally created to talk about it, and if it does dip into feminism it has a bit of a point.

Eventually I need to go back and review all the topics since I last posted, but I'm busy most of the week. But a lot of this thread just looked like bash fest.

migooo wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
Increased crime? If you're comparing crime rates between two countries you need to be absolutely sure that the two numbers you're comparing show the same thing, for example what constitutes a specific crime in both countries, how crime reports are handled, etc... Or the numbers will be meaningless. As for the problems we have in Sweden compared to the rest of Europe, I would love for you to elaborate on that.

According to the Gatestone institute who compare crime statistics on lots of things but im going to focus on violent crimes and crimes against women .. because those are what i was referring to. Sweden took in lots of refugees . but im not going to debate if im pro or against this. in the last 40 years violent crime has increased by 300% and crime against women by 1,472%. your just behind South Africa in second.


In 1975, 421 attacks on women were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620. That is an increase of 1,472%. which is astonishing.

According to figures published by The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet; known as Brå) -- an agency under the Ministry of Justice -- 29,000 Swedish women, during 2011, reported that they had been attacked (which seems to indicate that less than 25% of the attacks are reported to the police).


A chart compiled by Statista says :-

The results are based on data from 2012, published by the European Agency for Fundamental Rights, in its 2014 report, Violence against women: an EU-wide survey.

The data shows that in Sweden and Denmark, 80 to 100 per cent of people said they were sexually assaulted as adults – the highest anywhere in the continent.

The UK was about 60%

Even the BBC notes about the high percentage :- The Swedish police recorded the highest number of offences - about 63 per 100,000 inhabitants - of any force in Europe, in 2010. The second-highest in the world

I had a very long reply written, took me over an hour and a half to write, compile links etc. I deleted it all when I realized you're basically quoting verbatim from an article from known islamophobes Gatestone (the folks who gave you Fjordman, famously the inspiration for the anti-muslim world view of mass-murderer Breivik) called "Sweden: Rape Capital of the West", an article so hilariously biased in the lengths it goes to to prove that Swedish media and indeed, the entire political apparatus, including the agencies that publish crime statistics, are part of some giant anti-Swedish conspiracy, that it defies belief. as a Swede, I can tell you that over here, articles like this are seen as the fear-mongering they are, similarly to Fox News in the US. As a professional statistician, I can tell you that they are twisting facts to suit their own agenda, interpreting every graph and number in a way that suits them. There is no objectivity here, no attempt to show the truth.

I would say it is called citing ones sources, want to counter argument them? find your own and post them.

I really do not know in what game-group you play in, but sounds tough.

Seriously though are you saying you don't have time to review the thread, but have enouph time to come and bash the user that has the most contrary opinion to yours?

Buzzsaw wrote:

These points are not based in empiric fact, but rather in dogma.

I don't mean this as an attack on you personally, I merely wish to point out that each of the points you make above (that comprise a factual claim) are either of dubious truth or, in many cases, flatly contradicted by available social science. That is not to say there is no evidence whatsoever, merely that such evidence tends to being equivocal and contradictory.

Rather, it's important to point out that these claims, which again form much of the basis of the social justice critique, are rather more like Religious Doctrine then anything else: they are philosophical assertions, and as such are entitled to the same courtesy as any other idiosyncratic belief. Which is considerable, but not ultimately a matter of moral imperative: that is, just as a Christian Scientist may believe that blood transfusions go against the will of God and endanger the body, or that the Dalai Lama contains the reincarnated soul of his predecessors, so too the above claims.

It is entirely principled to respect that some people receive moral satisfaction from owning or creating some particular miniatures. It is not, however, incumbent on those that do not share your faith to accept your moral assertions based on that faith.

The same goes for your assertions. Something isn't the truth just because you post a video of Milo or think it's true, as if you couldn't be biased. His arguments are laced with libertarian talking points and often rather shallow and shortsighted and he will abandon his principles quickly for self-serving reasons. I don't agree with his arguments (and his behaviour has shown him to be untrustworthy) so you posting them is not empirical evidence or convincing but just another biased source. Posting studies that would support the points you just dismissed with one sentence would be seen by you as wrong or somehow biased (or somehow else nitpicked until you feel like you won) and lead to endless and useless back and forth posts (been there and done that, don't really want to repeat that).

Buzzsaw wrote: This is a good question, and I'm happy to expand on my point. Of course, we can all agree that an inanimate object cannot hold bigoted views. Your point is therefore that an object, or any other work of creativity, is intrinsically marked by the attitude of the creator, and that this mark carries with it their bigotry, yes?

No, I think that's a wrong interpretation on your side. A creation might be or appear bigoted even if the creator doesn't feel or think that way. I think the post you quoted even mentions unintentional sexism that can happen when someone releases something that they don't see in that way but others do (due to different culture/upbringing or by just being ignorant about a topic). When someone makes something the audience reaction is not based on their own emotional or cognitive state but on the state of the audience. The creation is informed and made by the creator (intentional or unintentional) but the audience reception does not have access to the creator's inner life and can only work from what they know.

Now, assuming I have correctly understood your point, I must state that I fundamentally disagree: I do not and cannot agree to the idea that an artistic work must be interpreted, or indeed should be interpreted or appreciated, by the characteristics of its creator. This is, of course, not to say that one cannot recognize the individual style of a given artist, given genre or artistic tradition. Rather I am saying that a work stands on its own: it is improper to either impute to a work the sexism of its creator, or conversely to impute to a creator a bigotry on the basis of objection to his work.

That's correct (and that didn't happen in the link you posted about the Kingdom Death criticism): The interpretation or reception of the work is not dependent of the creator in that people can't know if they did something intentionally or not. Somebody may create a sculpture depicting some not up-to-date scientific discovery (like wrong interpretations of the structure of DNA) but the audience doesn't know if that was intentional or not. From the creator's view this sculpture might be what they thought is correct (and it actually wrong) but that doesn't mean the audience is wrong in saying that the work doesn't depict modern reality of the situation.

I also wouldn't put sexism as a subcategory of bigotry. These terms might be related but one isn't simply a subcategory of the other. You put sexism there so you can use the definition of bigot (for a person) instead of sexist (for a thing/project like mentioned in the article you posted) to make a simplistic point. And overall you conflate creator/creation or make arguable transitive assumptions to find a logical conclusion that fit your narrative while decrying SJW.