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.
2016/03/07 01:44:40
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
PsychoticStorm wrote: 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?
The problem wasn't citing source, the problem was using the sources direct without have a thought of your own. That's key, having an argument of your own, writing it yourself, instead of posting a link to random articles and youtube videos from decades ago. Doesn't matter if you base opinions on those same sources, but there's reason why essays and thesis in schools involve actually making your own point and using those sources as just that, sources, not the actual opinion. Otherwise, people could just submit papers with nothing but link. And sure, this is an internet forum but we are kind talking about something a little serious. Regurgitating decades old opinions when the landscape for these arguments are constantly changing is silly.
On the second point: Oh please, I'm willing to bet money that you can name at least one, or multiple people within one connection of you that you would rather not have anyone know about, or that you mock somehow for some kind of weird behavior beyond the baseline level of weirdness. No one in existence has a perfect group, and if you did, it's likely because you have ejected that person from your group and stopped playing with them. Well, guess what, those are the same people you mock other groups for having, but they are just as much an outlier.
I have to make extra time to get on pointless internet arguments like this, and often times I don't want to bother. It's difficult because the arguments from the norm that are the problem are often seductively easy such as crying about censorship, saying how it's always been this way, or jumping on some internet bandwagon and pointing to extreme personalities from past and present like their some kind of indicative of the whole.
And unlike so many, I am actually putting real time, money, and effort into making some kind of change. Or rather, that's never been the primary goal with my miniature game, but I've recognized it's not an aspect I want to continue the way it has been going. I'd rather spend time making things than posting, and if that means I can't respond to everything that's put up, so be it, I'll show it with action when I can. But when I do, I certainly won't rely on youtube links.
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.
You make a number of point, but this the only one that is really important, because it is the one that completely undoes the importance of your other ones: If sexism is not a sub-category of bigotry, then it isn't isn't morally objectionable.
That is, if we do not define sexism in terms of bigotry, in terms of unjust, unfair and irrational disparate treatment of women, but rather as simply treating women differently from men, potentially for rational reasons... this is not morally objectionable and therefore irrelevant. I'm not being flip: if you define sexism into an amoral (as opposed to immoral) phenomenon, then... so what.
Now, of course, I object to the rest of your contrary points, but having pronounced the tree poisonous I don't think we need to overly concern ourselves with the fruits of said tree. However, your post reminded me of something I had seen earlier and glossed over, your reply to one of my earlier posts in the thread.
Mario wrote: ...
Saying "Choose to be happy, not sad." is easy if you are not confronted with that stuff. Why not choose to not be offended by criticism and accusations of sexism of one's hobby and be rational and proactive about it instead of deflecting and ignoring it, if that's so easy? Why put the burden on making things better on one side only. "The referee is not going to make that mistake again" but that mistake wouldn't even have happened if they had just treated the other person like everybody else (and the assumption being that the referee even remembers next time this happens).
What is so fascinating about this is, and it may entirely not be your fault for not knowing what the word Hasidic means, is what makes this so very characteristic of the Social Justice critique. That is, the Hasidic movement is an orthodox Jewish movement that has it's origins in late 18th entury eastern Europe (Poland, Ukraine, Russia) and as such... well, let's just say that it is no stranger to suffering.
Jews, especially Hasidic Jews, in those places and that time suffered from oppression that can at best be compared to the worst excesses of the Jim Crow south: a near complete lack of legal rights and standing, systematic discrimination at every level of the government, pogroms, theft, rape, murder, so on and so forth.
Now I'm not going to say that this philosophy is perfect or even perfect for the person I suggested it to. What amazes me, and why I bring it up now, is the stunning parochialism of the Social Justice feminist complaint. Hasidic philosophy, like virtually all philosophical traditions, springs not from this time of ease and plenty, but a time of genuine and pervasive suffering.
It's amazing to me how easily all of this is cast aside by the Social Justice critique, as if they can glean nothing from those that have endured before, and as if no one has suffered as they suffer now. When one looks at the behavior I have highlighted in earlier posts (and I have only just touched on a mountain of misbehavior), one cannot help but notice that the SJW finds themselves in a kind of injustice envy. The SJW becomes the author of their own story of oppression, as Height and Lukiannoff observed in their great article The Coddling of the American Mind, the Social Justice movement on campuses is not merely demanding anti-liberal policies, but policies that are actually psychologically damaging to their own members.
PsychoticStorm wrote: 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?
The problem wasn't citing source, the problem was using the sources direct without have a thought of your own. That's key, having an argument of your own, writing it yourself, instead of posting a link to random articles and youtube videos from decades ago. Doesn't matter if you base opinions on those same sources, but there's reason why essays and thesis in schools involve actually making your own point and using those sources as just that, sources, not the actual opinion. Otherwise, people could just submit papers with nothing but link. And sure, this is an internet forum but we are kind talking about something a little serious. Regurgitating decades old opinions when the landscape for these arguments are constantly changing is silly.
On the second point: Oh please, I'm willing to bet money that you can name at least one, or multiple people within one connection of you that you would rather not have anyone know about, or that you mock somehow for some kind of weird behavior beyond the baseline level of weirdness. No one in existence has a perfect group, and if you did, it's likely because you have ejected that person from your group and stopped playing with them. Well, guess what, those are the same people you mock other groups for having, but they are just as much an outlier.
I have to make extra time to get on pointless internet arguments like this, and often times I don't want to bother. It's difficult because the arguments from the norm that are the problem are often seductively easy such as crying about censorship, saying how it's always been this way, or jumping on some internet bandwagon and pointing to extreme personalities from past and present like their some kind of indicative of the whole.
And unlike so many, I am actually putting real time, money, and effort into making some kind of change. Or rather, that's never been the primary goal with my miniature game, but I've recognized it's not an aspect I want to continue the way it has been going. I'd rather spend time making things than posting, and if that means I can't respond to everything that's put up, so be it, I'll show it with action when I can. But when I do, I certainly won't rely on youtube links.
Not to say that you're being intellectually dishonest, assuming your talking about my first, long post, buuuut... I just did a quick and dirty word count: there are about 1400 wordsbefore my first YouTube link that isn't a musical.
Seriously, I'm on board with the idea that feminists are dogmatic and not open to evidence, you don't need to continue proving my point. But if you're going to claim that I'm "using the sources direct without have a thought of your own", don't do that when it is so easy for people even partially paying attention to notice that I've posted the equivalent of several typewritten pages of my own points.
EDIT: I should point out, while I find his arguments poor, I must congratulate V on putting his money where his mouth is. I have long maintained that those that claim there is an untapped market out there should simply go forward with their own visions, and V deserves all plaudits for doing this.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/03/07 02:15:51
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.
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.
I wanted to check out that discussion, but it seems that someone not agreeing with what was said made a music claim and now the sound is muted.
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
So you are not trying to make a point about refugees? Why are you then posting these bs statistics from a racist source that basically claims that immigrants are behind an 1472% increase in violence against women?
geekandgarden.wordpress.com
2016/03/07 09:29:28
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Vertrucio wrote:
On the second point: Oh please, I'm willing to bet money that you can name at least one, or multiple people within one connection of you that you would rather not have anyone know about, or that you mock somehow for some kind of weird behavior beyond the baseline level of weirdness. No one in existence has a perfect group, and if you did, it's likely because you have ejected that person from your group and stopped playing with them. Well, guess what, those are the same people you mock other groups for having, but they are just as much an outlier.
While I agree that my game group is not perfect and many people believe I am more easygoing and tolerant than most.
Vertrucio wrote: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?
I will admit that we have the occasional rules abuser/ rules lawyer, somebody that can complain a lot when loosing but actual criminals, no, not really.
Not sure what unabashed cheaters means with cheaters already been mentioned.
In any case I respect you intent to invest in what you think is better for the hobby and make your stand.
In my opinion of course I have to say that everything discussed up to this point is subjective, from the initial scope of the thread, almost abandoned, to the recent evolution of a wider scope and ideology, even the terminology used is subjective, biased on personal opinions and country of origin.
If you want to debate about all these subjects, again in my opinion, there must be defined common grounds at least about terminology before you go into more elegant discussion, I have to remind everybody we are not a mind networked species and people are not in other peoples minds so "obvious" things are not obvious, feminism in this thread and what it has and hasn't achieved is defined as many ways as there are posters, I am sorry you cannot have a discussion before you set common grounds in what is what.
Now on countries shaming, I am sorry this is childish, you can have a generic opinion for a country, but until you live in a country you cannot have a detailed opinion about a country and going into country shaming, really? we will devolve the thread in a "my dad is better than your dad" argument?
I ordered a female tech priest model, the showy one you can see on Wargameexclusive (I believe is where I got it). Just because I wanted something that was different, stood out, it looks like in genuine challenge to paint. And would give me something to try some new techniques for, such as well I planed to do with the skin to make it a bit more techy.
However after reading a lot of this thread, the mere fact that I bought that model with no other intentions in to see how I could paint it and I look different (and because I wanted a female hq). I am apparently a terrible sexiest human being who buys terrible sexist miniatures from terrible sexist people.
But in the end, ignoring whatever reasons I chose to do what I did even if they are something that could be considered positive, and certainly not harmful to anyone with sense, and judging me based solely on what you see(ie the resulting model in my collection). Doesn't that put you in the wrong for thinking less of me based holy on a perceived notion, that you have no justification for outside of your own desire to be offended?
PPl who optimise their list as if they're heading to a tournament when in reality you're just gonna play a game for fun at your FLGS are bascially the Kanye West equivalent or 40K.
2016/03/07 15:16:56
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
......the greater number of users on DakkaDakka decrying Gamergate
Gamers gate is a perfect example of internet stupidity completely overshadowing and distorting a real problem. The original incident that sparked it all of (an Indie developer and her affair with a games journalist) raised some interesting questions about journalistic ethics and the immediate fallout, which saw the gaming establishment essentially close ranks, was not reassuring. Of course when the various shades of man/girl children began their gak flinging any chance of a meaningful discussion on the issues raised was irrevocably lost and it has now become a byword for internet misogyny, rather unfairly in my opinion as both sides of the 'debate' hardly covered themselves in glory.
Why has this thread morphed into posts about neo feminism? What exactly has that got to do with toy soldiers?
......the greater number of users on DakkaDakka decrying Gamergate
Gamers gate is a perfect example of internet stupidity completely overshadowing and distorting a real problem. The original incident that sparked it all of (an Indie developer and her affair with a games journalist) raised some interesting questions about journalistic ethics and the immediate fallout, which saw the gaming establishment essentially close ranks, was not reassuring. Of course when the various shades of man/girl children began their gak flinging any chance of a meaningful discussion on the issues raised was irrevocably lost and it has now become a byword for internet misogyny, rather unfairly in my opinion as both sides of the 'debate' hardly covered themselves in glory.
Why has this thread morphed into posts about neo feminism? What exactly has that got to do with toy soldiers?
Not a damn thing, but that rarely stops those who are on mission.
There have been miniatures that I feel are over the top and a tad too silly for my tastes, so I don't buy them. That doesn't mean no one else is allowed to buy them or enjoy them because I don't. I also don't confuse the gamer with the figures he or she chooses to field, because that's not necessarily an excellent judge of the character of that person.
It's my opinion that if you don't like the minis a company is making, don't buy them. Buy minis from the companies that are making or are willing to make the figures you're looking for so they have the financial incentive to keep producing them. Or cut out the middle-management and make them yourself. That's what crowdfunding is for, after all. Stomping your feet and demanding that someone make a product because that's what you want is the province of spoiled children. And if stating that makes me s sexist pig (or more accurately an anti-misandryist in my case), so be it.
2016/03/07 21:27:20
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
I ordered a female tech priest model, the showy one you can see on Wargameexclusive (I believe is where I got it). Just because I wanted something that was different, stood out, it looks like in genuine challenge to paint. And would give me something to try some new techniques for, such as well I planed to do with the skin to make it a bit more techy.
I'm not sure if you're in the market for a second techpriest(ess), but Raging Heroes does make a very impressive centerpiece model along those lines.
Chapter Master Angelos wrote:However after reading a lot of this thread, the mere fact that I bought that model with no other intentions in to see how I could paint it and I look different (and because I wanted a female hq). I am apparently a terrible sexiest human being who buys terrible sexist miniatures from terrible sexist people.
But in the end, ignoring whatever reasons I chose to do what I did even if they are something that could be considered positive, and certainly not harmful to anyone with sense, and judging me based solely on what you see(ie the resulting model in my collection). Doesn't that put you in the wrong for thinking less of me based holy on a perceived notion, that you have no justification for outside of your own desire to be offended?
One of the (many) repellent habits of the SJW movement is their tendancy to casually throw around what should be very serious and meaningful labels. Personally, I have always considered sexism, along with Jew Hatred and Race Supremacy, to be a serious and weighty matter, not something to be casually infered or easily thrown around. Of course I suppose it's better that SJWs throw insults... as opposed to urine (sadly, not a joke).
I follow the general guideline to only buy what I find appealing. Recent Kickstarters and model ranges explicitly embrace more inclusive concepts, that represent women in sensible combat outfits and poses. To make a change I thus recommend to support these producers (the two that come to mind are Oathssworn Miniatures and Bad Squiddo Games) and affect change this way.
I am also getting more and more into converting miniatures. For instance some of the Bones miniatures I got through the Kickstarter have boob plate and boob windows. The ones I could not salvage/were not to my taste I sold. The workable ones I converted with greenstuff to fit my preferences. This also includes headswaps to depict other ethnicties and changes in equipment and stance to give miniatures more agency.
This Reaper Miniature may serve as an example:
The exposed bossom made not much sense to me, especially given her otherwise armoured body and obvious combat role.
I am also using some Victrix Roman legionaries to make female warriors for Frostgrave. Statuesque heads work fine with the Victrix bodies, which need no alteration to depict a battle hardened fighter of either gender. If I thus play in public or in my local gaming group I can show off these conversions and promote a more inclusive hobby. I am also writing tutorials on my blog to show how to go about conversions.
Bottom line is: Two proactive ways to affect change is to either support emerging ranges or convert your models to promote a more inclusive hobby. Share your efforts on the internet and it might inspire people to follow suit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/07 23:11:23
2016/03/07 23:13:20
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Buzzsaw wrote: 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.
Good for them.
I'm assuming that Manchester's SU, like most British SUs, have a no-platform policy for racism and other forms of bigotry, too. As such, the banning of a pair of known transphobes seems perfectly in line with established policy, and the shock it seems to have elicited from some corners seems to be, to borrow a phrase from the opposition, "manufactured outrage". ...I suppose some people just like being offended?
The question is, are these people saying that there should be no filtering of speakers or that "unpopular" marginalised groups should just deal with it (i.e. ban racists, welcome transphobes)?
If the former; oh, what enlightening debates we could be having about whether slavery is ever justifiable, what fascinating things Flat Earth theorists could be telling us about the world. Debate for its own sake is pointless. We've got to have some sort of quality control in there. And, if further alienating marginalised students is the price to pay for a bunch of tiresome windbags to get their smarm on, then I'd rather not pay that price.
If the latter; yeah, that's not happening. Sorry to anyone who feels the world's leaving them behind.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/08 00:34:47
2016/03/08 01:00:38
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
I ordered a female tech priest model, the showy one you can see on Wargameexclusive (I believe is where I got it). Just because I wanted something that was different, stood out, it looks like in genuine challenge to paint. And would give me something to try some new techniques for, such as well I planed to do with the skin to make it a bit more techy.
I'm not sure if you're in the market for a second techpriest(ess), but Raging Heroes does make a very impressive centerpiece model along those lines.
I actually looked at the Raging Heroes model. and while definately an impressive model, it gave off more of an alien feel than i was looking for with the "Tyranid-esqe" scythe claw bits. But, it might actually make a decent stand in or counts as Model for an HQ of a Genestealer cult on/from a Forge World somewhere.
PPl who optimise their list as if they're heading to a tournament when in reality you're just gonna play a game for fun at your FLGS are bascially the Kanye West equivalent or 40K.
2016/03/08 01:28:59
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Buzzsaw wrote: 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.
Good for them.
I'm assuming that Manchester's SU, like most British SUs, have a no-platform policy for racism and other forms of bigotry, too. As such, the banning of a pair of known transphobes seems perfectly in line with established policy, and the shock it seems to have elicited from some corners seems to be, to borrow a phrase from the opposition, "manufactured outrage". ...I suppose some people just like being offended?
The question is, are these people saying that there should be no filtering of speakers or that "unpopular" marginalised groups should just deal with it (i.e. ban racists, welcome transphobes)?
If the former; oh, what enlightening debates we could be having about whether slavery is ever justifiable, what fascinating things Flat Earth theorists could be telling us about the world. Debate for its own sake is pointless. We've got to have some sort of quality control in there. And, if further alienating marginalised students is the price to pay for a bunch of tiresome windbags to get their smarm on, then I'd rather not pay that price.
If the latter; yeah, that's not happening. Sorry to anyone who feels the world's leaving them behind.
Ok I'll bite. What exactly did these two individuals do to make you label them transphobes?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/03/08 01:33:02
2016/03/08 02:03:10
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Which sucks, because I want more women in the hobby. I want my daughter to be interested in the hobby when she's older. But the elephant in the room (creepy fellows) and tournaments with 50 guys/0 girls does more to keep women from the hobby than T&A ever will.
2016/03/08 03:58:31
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
And this, right here, is where you lost the last of my respect.
No, I do not make this post to prove any kind of point. I am just saddened.
Hmm, let us, for a moment, consider this: my first interaction with you in this thread was when you reacted to my ~1500 word post, not to quarrel with a point but because you objected, not to something I had written, but to a single word, from the title of an 8 minute video.
When it was pointed out that the feminists in question were, in fact, engaged in rather egregious breaches of liberal convention, incidents that perhaps you might want to look into so that you might better be informed (by means of the conveniently presented debate which included your 'side'), your response was... "Why should I?"and a No True Feminist defense. At first this defense was claiming that this phenomenon must be limited to the USA (with a nice bit of nation shaming thrown in, natch). It escalated from there until you had disavowed the feminism of the entire English speaking world.
After that you basically conceded all my points, while at the same time refusing to admit any problems with feminism, because... "i have never seen it do anything else than good" (a churlish person might point out your unwillingness to look at criticism makes this a rather low bar to vault). Finally you asserted the eternal need for feminism, for while earlier generations of feminists might have fought against legal barriers involving voting, housing, ownership of property and the exercise of their natural rights, you... have to put up with uncouth people on reddit.
While I say this more in resignation then anger, I still must ask: looking at the above... have I lost anything of value?
Oh, and just for the record, Social Justice is an illiberal, racialist movement that embodies almost all of the worst qualities of the 20th century's most damagiing ideologies. I shall, instead, take Actual Justice, being that it stands as the antithesis of social justice.
Pumpkin wrote:
Buzzsaw wrote: 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.
Good for them.
I'm assuming that Manchester's SU, like most British SUs, have a no-platform policy for racism and other forms of bigotry, too. As such, the banning of a pair of known transphobes seems perfectly in line with established policy, and the shock it seems to have elicited from some corners seems to be, to borrow a phrase from the opposition, "manufactured outrage". ...I suppose some people just like being offended?
The question is, are these people saying that there should be no filtering of speakers or that "unpopular" marginalised groups should just deal with it (i.e. ban racists, welcome transphobes)?
If the former; oh, what enlightening debates we could be having about whether slavery is ever justifiable, what fascinating things Flat Earth theorists could be telling us about the world. Debate for its own sake is pointless. We've got to have some sort of quality control in there. And, if further alienating marginalised students is the price to pay for a bunch of tiresome windbags to get their smarm on, then I'd rather not pay that price.
If the latter; yeah, that's not happening. Sorry to anyone who feels the world's leaving them behind.
Hehe. I think I shall let Sir Thomas Moore answer you best;
DaggerAndBrush wrote: I follow the general guideline to only buy what I find appealing. Recent Kickstarters and model ranges explicitly embrace more inclusive concepts, that represent women in sensible combat outfits and poses. To make a change I thus recommend to support these producers (the two that come to mind are Oathssworn Miniatures and Bad Squiddo Games) and affect change this way.
I am also getting more and more into converting miniatures. For instance some of the Bones miniatures I got through the Kickstarter have boob plate and boob windows. The ones I could not salvage/were not to my taste I sold. The workable ones I converted with greenstuff to fit my preferences. This also includes headswaps to depict other ethnicties and changes in equipment and stance to give miniatures more agency.
This Reaper Miniature may serve as an example:
The exposed bossom made not much sense to me, especially given her otherwise armoured body and obvious combat role.
I am also using some Victrix Roman legionaries to make female warriors for Frostgrave. Statuesque heads work fine with the Victrix bodies, which need no alteration to depict a battle hardened fighter of either gender. If I thus play in public or in my local gaming group I can show off these conversions and promote a more inclusive hobby. I am also writing tutorials on my blog to show how to go about conversions.
Bottom line is: Two proactive ways to affect change is to either support emerging ranges or convert your models to promote a more inclusive hobby. Share your efforts on the internet and it might inspire people to follow suit.
Many keks were provided that you went to such lengths. Good on you i guess?
2016/03/08 04:29:46
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
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
So you are not trying to make a point about refugees? Why are you then posting these bs statistics from a racist source that basically claims that immigrants are behind an 1472% increase in violence against women?
Hey all, OT and Dakka discussions can get pretty rough so I'm not going to have much to add, but I figured I'd comment on the Sweden discussion and other parts, I'll try to be on topic but, I'll probably end up slightly OT.
To be perfectly honest, I've been to Sweden several times there and lived for periods from a month all the way to half a year, several times. Working on my citizenship with Migration as we speak.
These types of articles are like the one above are BS, fear mongering ones, much like the ones Fox News runs about minorities, in America.
Articles like those are the same as when people I know stateside tell me to be safe when I go to Sweden or the EU because, god forbid "a Muslim person in a neighborhood with Sharia law is gonna get me." This is the same style of thinking that got the Swedish Democratic party voted in and also is partially responsible for the ongoing tensions in the U.S.
Also while the point has been made by Ash, it is true. Swedish feminism is a whole different beast from that of the Feminist movement in the states, one I'm having to learn with my visits to the country. I damn near lost my Sambo from arguing about how awful feminism is in America, and she has no clue to this day because it simply isn't the same.
Anyways, I am on the fence with the miniature issue. Some tasteful nude miniatures are okay, and while I personally won't buy them because of the costs, they are nice quality wise and I would own them. (Not the prodos ones, they just sorta suck.) I have some fully clothed Hasslefree for instance, the fireteam lt/trooper model female. (So as far as female miniatures go from my medieval ones in full gear, I'd maybe get a tasteful plate armored knight that shows the curves in the older miniature art styles but, show no skin. Much like the SOB that we have now.)
However, other miniatures that aren't like that, (especially brother vinni,) make me cringe because that is a niche in our niche hobby and that is what we will slightly be judged for. I also think a lot of the companies that make nude miniatures do it for a quick cash grab but, I am probably biased from reading the failed kickstarters and store start ups that litter the News and Rumor section.
And yeah I know I got in this late but, I saw the replies in my inbox in my email and having actually been to the country, I figure I could interject. Not that, that will change any minds on Dakka mind you but, I had to say what little piece I had.
I'm surprised this thread stayed civil for so long.somewhat civil compared to most OT.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/08 04:33:09
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
So you are not trying to make a point about refugees? Why are you then posting these bs statistics from a racist source that basically claims that immigrants are behind an 1472% increase in violence against women?
Hey all, OT and Dakka discussions can get pretty rough so I'm not going to have much to add, but I figured I'd comment on the Sweden discussion and other parts, I'll try to be on topic but, I'll probably end up slightly OT.
To be perfectly honest, I've been to Sweden several times there and lived for periods from a month all the way to half a year, several times. Working on my citizenship with Migration as we speak.
These types of articles are like the one above are BS, fear mongering ones, much like the ones Fox News runs about minorities, in America.
Articles like those are the same as when people I know stateside tell me to be safe when I go to Sweden or the EU because, god forbid "a Muslim person in a neighborhood with Sharia law is gonna get me." This is the same style of thinking that got the Swedish Democratic party voted in and also is partially responsible for the ongoing tensions in the U.S.
Also while the point has been made by Ash, it is true. Swedish feminism is a whole different beast from that of the Feminist movement in the states, one I'm having to learn with my visits to the country. I damn near lost my Sambo from arguing about how awful feminism is in America, and she has no clue to this day because it simply isn't the same.
Anyways, I am on the fence with the miniature issue. Some tasteful nude miniatures are okay, and while I personally won't buy them because of the costs, they are nice quality wise and I would own them. (Not the prodos ones, they just sorta suck.) I have some fully clothed Hasslefree for instance, the fireteam lt/trooper model female. (So as far as female miniatures go from my medieval ones in full gear, I'd maybe get a tasteful plate armored knight that shows the curves in the older miniature art styles but, show no skin. Much like the SOB that we have now.)
However, other miniatures that aren't like that, (especially brother vinni,) make me cringe because that is a niche in our niche hobby and that is what we will slightly be judged for. I also think a lot of the companies that make nude miniatures do it for a quick cash grab but, I am probably biased from reading the failed kickstarters and store start ups that litter the News and Rumor section.
And yeah I know I got in this late but, I saw the replies in my inbox in my email and having actually been to the country, I figure I could interject. Not that, that will change any minds on Dakka mind you but, I had to say what little piece I had.
I'm surprised this thread stayed civil for so long.somewhat civil compared to most OT.
The Swedish government seized the moral high-ground in Europe by offering shelter to almost anyone who knocked. Those who criticised the radical plan were condemned as racist in what has become the EU’s citadel of political correctness. By last year, 16 per cent of Sweden’s population was foreign-born – many of them from Muslim countries. As the migration crisis has escalated, any citizen who questioned whether the country could afford such largesse and expressed concerns about its changing culture has been accused of bigotry.
As Ivar Arpi, a respected Swedish columnist, said in the pages of the Spectator magazine recently: ‘Immigration cannot be discussed frankly in Sweden. If you mention anything negative about refugees … you’re accused of playing into the hands of the reviled far-Right. As a result even those with legitimate concerns are silenced or labelled xenophobic.’
Again, not saying I necessarily trust newspapers over 'I've been there loads of times,' but... well, I do find it rather odd when people argue against taking the Gatestone Institute serious because "racist". Owing, in no small part, to the fact that their contributor page reads like a list of luminaries of both the political Left and Right.
“Today we can talk about an Arab invasion,” the Roman Catholic leader said in the comments dated Thursday. “It is a social fact.”
L’Osservatore Romano reported the pope hastened to add Europe has always been able to “go forward and find itself enhanced by the exchange among cultures,” after saying that Europe is the “only continent that can bring about a certain unity to the world.”
Hmm. I don't often get to quote the Pope...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/08 06:24:29
edit: Nope. Suffice to say that people who don't live in Sweden or don't know anything about Sweden should probably stop talking about what life is like in Sweden. Especially after several people who actually live here, and have access to sources in Swedish, have chimed in. Oh, and quoting Daily Mail and trying to legitimize the "rape capital" article by quoting a list of unrelated authors
edit2: Jesus Christ, just read the Daily Mail article... there aren't enough facepalms in the world. The only reason they get away with blatantly making stuff up (for example, Kalmar, which has 2 "migration hostels", suddenly has 34 in this article, one of the least egregious lies btw) is because the people who read the Daily Mail are idiots. As I'm sure our UK dakkaites can confirm.
This message was edited 14 times. Last update was at 2016/03/08 08:01:03
2016/03/08 08:09:19
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
That you quote the infamous 'newspaper' Daily Mail does not really support you. In fact, that Daily Mail agrees with you only weakens your argument, because that alone means it is more likely than not false (and yes, all of those are real). It also shows that you do not check if your sources are actually trustworthy before you post, or that you know they aren't but you choose to use them anyway because who needs truth when there are SJWs to bash right? No matter which, you do not come across as credible, which is not helping when you are already an American telling three Swedes that we live in SJW hell and oh no why are you so happy stop living normal lives your country is being destroyed can't you see ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Oh, and I did not 'concede' anything to you. You post about American 'feminists' (which I cannot argue about since I am not there) but you worded your posts as if referring to the movement globally. Which is also why I ignore 99% of the content in your posts, because it is just filler others are already pointing out the absurdity of, while demonising feminism is something that affects me personally.
So, yeah. This is like the Gamergate thread. You'd think we would have seen the last of 'misogyny xd patriarchy xdddddddd' gakposting.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/03/08 08:56:57
Silent Puffin? wrote: Why has this thread morphed into posts about neo feminism? What exactly has that got to do with toy soldiers?
Well it's a thread about the depiction of women in toy soldiers, so naturally discussions of feminism/modern feminism are relevant as is sexism and bigotry as those are the windows through which we view the depictions of women in toy soldiers.
Whether a sexist fantasy world and/or scantily clad female models translates to a real world problem is kind of largely what this thread is about and that stuff is relevant.
What I think is less relevant is the tangent talking about crime statistics, sexism and racism in Sweden specifically, I will admit I have no idea how you can loop that back around to toy soldiers, it seems entirely a tangent to me and I'd be more than happy to see the last few posts of this thread discussing it expunged entirely.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/08 08:54:50
2016/03/08 09:53:26
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Back in the 1980's, I used to tell Moral Majority types this regarding porn: "If you don't like it, don't watch it."
Now, in 2016, with the shoe being on the other foot, I'll say this:"If you don't like the mini, don't buy it".
It operates under the same basic principle. But people want to bicker about something. So, said principle gets ignored.
No, it doesn't.
Porn is a massive, diverse, but largely private industry.
Gaming is an industry where people bring it into their homes openly, wear it on their sleeve (sometimes literally) and there are huge events where people take their families. Gaming is a social event, and in theory all inclusive.
Having girls and women feeling unwelcome in a hobby due to a surfit of tits, "this has always happened" and a market that is uncertain how to deal with them is not the same as what people do in the privacy of their homes.
It doesn't affect me if I go down to the bar for the night, and at the end of the conversation, two of my friends go home and watch BDSM porn, and one goes home to watch Paddington Bear.
It does affect me and the people I care about if I turn up to a Wargaming event or convention and there's thinly veiled smut being sold, alongside any earnest efforts to represent the female audience.
A more appropriate expression is, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
For every genuine offense (and no, simply putting nudity on something isn't evil), the people going "Well what do you expect?" mentally or verbally, or simply walking away to avoid being considered "fussy" or "SJW"... Nobody learns from that situation.
The makers and distributors do not learn that you are unsatisfied, nor what would be preferable. It takes events like the free for all backlash at Prodos for the waters to ripple. And I don't think that's a good thing.
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
So you are not trying to make a point about refugees? Why are you then posting these bs statistics from a racist source that basically claims that immigrants are behind an 1472% increase in violence against women?
your own crime agency is racist? okay sure, is the BBC? its fairly left leaning here. No im making a point in a country which most consider to be run by social justice the crime is astronomical. Which is more important than boobs on plastic figures. that is the point im making.
But now people are so scared to say no and when geek culture is labeled sexist because we want Power girl to stay Kara Zor'el it is bad, Or god forbid we actually want Doaxbv. Im not evil because im a man and like hetronormative Cis (urgh those words) things. Maybe if you hate our things so much Make your own do not ruin ours!
Back in the 1980's, I used to tell Moral Majority types this regarding porn: "If you don't like it, don't watch it."
Now, in 2016, with the shoe being on the other foot, I'll say this:"If you don't like the mini, don't buy it".
It operates under the same basic principle. But people want to bicker about something. So, said principle gets ignored.
No, it doesn't.
Porn is a massive, diverse, but largely private industry.
Gaming is an industry where people bring it into their homes openly, wear it on their sleeve (sometimes literally) and there are huge events where people take their families. Gaming is a social event, and in theory all inclusive.
Having girls and women feeling unwelcome in a hobby due to a surfit of tits, "this has always happened" and a market that is uncertain how to deal with them is not the same as what people do in the privacy of their homes.
It doesn't affect me if I go down to the bar for the night, and at the end of the conversation, two of my friends go home and watch BDSM porn, and one goes home to watch Paddington Bear.
It does affect me and the people I care about if I turn up to a Wargaming event or convention and there's thinly veiled smut being sold, alongside any earnest efforts to represent the female audience.
A more appropriate expression is, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
For every genuine offense (and no, simply putting nudity on something isn't evil), the people going "Well what do you expect?" mentally or verbally, or simply walking away to avoid being considered "fussy" or "SJW"... Nobody learns from that situation.
The makers and distributors do not learn that you are unsatisfied, nor what would be preferable. It takes events like the free for all backlash at Prodos for the waters to ripple. And I don't think that's a good thing.
then do not join that hobby. you know the whole problem is you expect us to accommodate. when we were always outcast for liking such things. I was called a devil worshiper, a freak, and at one point one guy came up to me and said he couldn't be my friend despite previously being my friend for years because he found out i played D&D
really honestly NO dude, dont like it dont buy it,
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/08 10:04:47
2016/03/08 10:08:33
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Buttery Commissar wrote: The makers and distributors do not learn that you are unsatisfied, nor what would be preferable. It takes events like the free for all backlash at Prodos for the waters to ripple. And I don't think that's a good thing.
The main thing the Prodos backlash has taught me is that cheesecake is fine until it doesn't meet a certain quality expectation then it cops a whole lot of flak Above that quality level the praise will drown out the occasional complaints.
2016/03/08 10:09:43
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Buttery Commissar wrote: The makers and distributors do not learn that you are unsatisfied, nor what would be preferable. It takes events like the free for all backlash at Prodos for the waters to ripple. And I don't think that's a good thing.
The main thing the Prodos backlash has taught me is that cheesecake is fine until it doesn't meet a certain quality expectation then it cops a whole lot of flak Above that quality level the praise will drown out the occasional complaints.
They are poorly sculpted.
2016/03/08 10:15:46
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
migooo wrote: your own crime agency is racist? okay sure, is the BBC? its fairly left leaning here. No im making a point in a country which most consider to be run by social justice the crime is astronomical. Which is more important than boobs on plastic figures. that is the point im making
I've really tried to avoid commenting on this because I do tend to think it's rather off topic, but when it comes to crime statistics you always have to take them with a grain of salt. For one thing, different countries report them differently (such as domestic abuse cases, multiple incidences against a person being counted as a single report vs multiple reports and so on). Secondly, the rate of reported sex crimes doesn't always correlate to actual number of sex crimes because of unreported cases. If a country fosters the attitude of standing up and reporting sex crimes, it may very well see higher rates of reported crimes than a country which is actually worse off. Even things like "assault rates" have to be taken with a grain of salt because some countries have a high rate of drunken brawls which get put down as assaults but to the person walking down the street they might be just as safe as any other city.
Overall I think it's a pointless tangent to the thread. Maybe it's more important than boobs on plastic figures, but this is a thread about boobs on plastic figures and not crime rates in different countries, maybe we can start a thread in the off-topic forum about that instead.
Buttery Commissar wrote: The makers and distributors do not learn that you are unsatisfied, nor what would be preferable. It takes events like the free for all backlash at Prodos for the waters to ripple. And I don't think that's a good thing.
The main thing the Prodos backlash has taught me is that cheesecake is fine until it doesn't meet a certain quality expectation then it cops a whole lot of flak Above that quality level the praise will drown out the occasional complaints.
They are poorly sculpted.
That's what I mean. If they are perceived as poorly sculpted half naked ladies apparently it creates a gakstorm of backlash. If they are perceived as well sculpted half naked ladies, the backlash will be drowned out be the praise.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/08 10:19:25
32,000 points (Blood Ravens) 
2500 (and growing) 
1850
This is the same style of thinking that got the Swedish Democratic party voted in and also is partially responsible for the ongoing tensions in the U.S.
