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.

kb_lock wrote:
So Kingdom Death stuff, I honestly don't get.

These pinup models are highly sexualised and borderline porn, but people seem to go mad for them. Why? Is this some anime fan thing that I just don't get? Am I getting too old? I mean, I can understand bronies and even anime as interests, but this is just too far.

Am I alone in this? Every time I've brought it up it's been met with derision.

I personally think their popularity is due to the skill of the sculptors, the brand name, and the fuller figure that is so rare among miniatures, even sexy miniatures. My wife is more of a fan of cheesecake minis than I am, and she likes the KDM pin ups and the WoK demonettes for their proportions, which more closely resemble hers than any mini put out by CB or even Reaper does. For myself, I don't understand the desire for sexuality in miniatures the same way I don't get Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues or the anime fans who get off on anime sexuality; in a world full of real nudity (or even just porn), why would I want the watered down, weird stuff two steps removed?

That lack of understanding and some unfortunate experiences with gamers and the Anime Club in college have shaped my opinion of more demeaning media representations, those with strong stereotypical markers or forced servility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the record, I also wonder about the people who really get into Chaos or Dark Eldar fluff. I don't relate. The only time I entertain torture fantasies is when I'm stuck on the freeway at rush hour, and 405 N Bob is not a nice Bob.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

kb_lock wrote:
So Kingdom Death stuff, I honestly don't get.

These pinup models are highly sexualised and borderline porn, but people seem to go mad for them. Why? Is this some anime fan thing that I just don't get? Am I getting too old? I mean, I can understand bronies and even anime as interests, but this is just too far.

Am I alone in this? Every time I've brought it up it's been met with derision.

I personally think their popularity is due to the skill of the sculptors, the brand name, and the fuller figure that is so rare among miniatures, even sexy miniatures. My wife is more of a fan of cheesecake minis than I am, and she likes the KDM pin ups and the WoK demonettes for their proportions, which more closely resemble hers than any mini put out by CB or even Reaper does. For myself, I don't understand the desire for sexuality in miniatures the same way I don't get Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues or the anime fans who get off on anime sexuality; in a world full of real nudity (or even just porn), why would I want the watered down, weird stuff two steps removed?

That lack of understanding and some unfortunate experiences with gamers and the Anime Club in college have shaped my opinion of more demeaning media representations, those with strong stereotypical markers or forced servility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the record, I also wonder about the people who really get into Chaos or Dark Eldar fluff. I don't relate. The only time I entertain torture fantasies is when I'm stuck on the freeway at rush hour, and 405 N Bob is not a nice Bob.

Torture porn is pretty mainstream these days - all those slasher flics from Scream to Hostel - lots of knives plunging into nubile flesh in lieu of something else....to be honest a few sexy minis is quite tame by comparison. I don't personally enjoy slasher flicks but lots and lots of people do.

Then there is GTA - some people have expresed concerns about violence in vid games - not convinced myself but its a debate. I love GTA

forced servility.

Sex and submission often goes together for both sexes, some like it - some don't - one womans fantasy can be "sick" to a given guy - and vice versa - humans are pretty wierd animals

Yeah, Slasher flicks and torture porn horror are a thing. I'm a not a fan; I find it to be a low form of horror, crass, if you will that replaces atmosphere and dread with copious amounts of bloodshed.

I do acknowledge that people enjoy them, and I don't judge them for it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

forced servility.

Sex and submission often goes together for both sexes, some like it - some don't - one womans fantasy can be "sick" to a given guy - and vice versa - humans are pretty wierd animals

Hence the BDSM market
And that's the more well known one.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, Slasher flicks and torture porn horror are a thing. I'm a not a fan; I find it to be a low form of horror, crass, if you will that replaces atmosphere and dread with copious amounts of bloodshed.

I do acknowledge that people enjoy them, and I don't judge them for it.

Hey, slasher flicks are quite different from torture porn. sure, nowadays slasher flicks are all bloodshed and gore, but the original classics like Friday the 13th and Halloween were utterly terrifying due to the dread imposed by the "monster".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splatter_film
According to wikipedia, and that makes sense to me, the modern “torture porn” is a mix of slasher movies and splatter/gore movies.
While I do love “splatstick” (i.e. movies that are very gore, but in a completely over-the-top and unrealistic fashion that makes them impossible to take seriously, like Vampire Girl versus Frankenstein Girl), I am not really interested in actual gore movies like, say, the Guinea Pig series, or torture porn for that matter. I might watch some one day with a friend as a challenge (“Will I be able to stomach such an horrible movie”) like I did with Martyr (which wasn't that bad, really) but that's not my favorite stuff, by far.


And no, I will NOT watch A Serbian Film .

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Well Reaper famously quoted many times in this thread, did the test made the same models fully clothed sot so fully clothed and nude game then different names and didn't have them together and according to them the nudes sold always and consistently better than the not so clothed who sold better than the fully clothed version of the same model essentially.So I guess they did put the ramp, but did not see any significant reward for doing so.

I don't know their full line on miniatures but from what I remember they have more than the usual number or sensibly armoured/clothed female miniatures. And they seem to sell, just not as much as the other miniatures. And they are still targeting the same market or group of people. The industry is relatively small and getting new customers is not as easy as just releasing a widely viewed advertisement. Nintendo managed to expand their user-base with the original DS and and the Wii (and then squandered that the following hardware generation but that's another issue). They also had much more marketing power to push the new thing in front of people who otherwise wouldn't have seen or considered it (they literary gave preview consoles to suburban soccer moms and old retirement homes and the thing was sold out for the first 18 months if I remember correctly). Even GW managed to get people beyond their existing audience with the LOTR game (and the magazine that was sold everywhere and had TV ads, in contrast that didn't work with The Hobbit which they didn't promote outside of their existing user-base that much, also high prices), and thus the LOTR bubble was born. Reaper (and other companies in this industry) probably can't diversify their advertisement to such a degree but if they can find a way to attract non-traditional customers it seems to work out much better.

Personally as I have said in this thread if somebody wants realistic female models he or she can be my guest put their money were their mouth is and create them and if they have a commercial success good for them it may also make others think about it, but demanding from established companies to change course because of their wants is not acceptable,

I have to disagree here. People are free to demand whatever they want. Should they restrict their own free speech just so you are more comfortable? People do it all the time. How the company reacts it their own business. People demand free DLC, cheaper prices, more stuff in the box, or a variations of this, a change of that, or a different ending, gameplay changes, a different colour scheme, anything really. I have never head anybody say they should not be allowed to voice their opinion or that it's not acceptable. Their demands might be called silly, delusional, or unrealistic but that argument (demanding from companies is unacceptable) only gets trotted out when somebody mentions they want more sensible outfits/interesting characters for female characters. Somehow now it's a censorship/free speech issue, as if wanting other changes would not interfere with the creator's free speech or vision for the product.

But yes I would love to have enough money to start a miniature like or game but that's not an option at the moment.

if we go further and this thread has gone further, a small minority at the present society can indeed get a massive force multiplier and try to enforce their opinion on a much larger but less active majority.

How? Companies know that what they hear online is a loud minority. That goes for all sides and all topics (for example: game balance in any online PVP multiplayer game). If companies were really to react to any little outcry like you imagine they do, all of them would be in ruins by now (just from all the contradicting demands). SJW have been complaining about video games for a long time and not much has changed because the people who actually have the money and power don't care about these topics that much (if they have heard these complaints then they have ignored most of them). It's perplexing how some people think game developers/artist/writer/creators don't have their own opinions and just blindly follow the loudest internet comments. How feeble minded are they supposed to be?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

kb_lock wrote:
So Kingdom Death stuff, I honestly don't get.

These pinup models are highly sexualised and borderline porn, but people seem to go mad for them. Why? Is this some anime fan thing that I just don't get? Am I getting too old? I mean, I can understand bronies and even anime as interests, but this is just too far.

Am I alone in this? Every time I've brought it up it's been met with derision.

I personally think their popularity is due to the skill of the sculptors, the brand name, and the fuller figure that is so rare among miniatures, even sexy miniatures. My wife is more of a fan of cheesecake minis than I am, and she likes the KDM pin ups and the WoK demonettes for their proportions, which more closely resemble hers than any mini put out by CB or even Reaper does. For myself, I don't understand the desire for sexuality in miniatures the same way I don't get Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues or the anime fans who get off on anime sexuality; in a world full of real nudity (or even just porn), why would I want the watered down, weird stuff two steps removed?

That lack of understanding and some unfortunate experiences with gamers and the Anime Club in college have shaped my opinion of more demeaning media representations, those with strong stereotypical markers or forced servility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the record, I also wonder about the people who really get into Chaos or Dark Eldar fluff. I don't relate. The only time I entertain torture fantasies is when I'm stuck on the freeway at rush hour, and 405 N Bob is not a nice Bob.

Great perspective (bolded), but does also highlight a hilarious hypocrisy of my own as I like the SI Swimsuit magazines, and you're dead right as it is just as irrelevant to what the magazine is about.

Its all escapism. For the 20 or so minutes your reading the SI swimsuit issue your putting yourself behind the lens and seeing these lovely ladies for yourself in a situation where none of us really have a chance of being. The same thing goes for watching movies. People watch scary movies to get their adrenaline pumping because that also releases endorphins which gives us a sense of feeling good. People respond differently to different stimulus, and most people continue to use that which works for them. Its why porn. Horror, dreamy romance, explosions, etc. Exist in film in the first place.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
For myself, I don't understand the desire for sexuality in miniatures the same way I don't get Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues or the anime fans who get off on anime sexuality; in a world full of real nudity (or even just porn), why would I want the watered down, weird stuff two steps removed?

Although nudity, porn, anime and miniatures/pinups can be viewed in a sexual nature and even be considered sexy, pretty or cute they aren't necessarily viewed in that nature and serve different purposes.

For example I would watch porn or look at nudity (although not nude is sexier than nude) for the purpose of well getting aroused. That is the purpose that those tend to exist. I don't like pinups or pinups miniatures for the same reason that I would look at porn. I didn't watch Avengers and see Natasha, although a sexy character as a sexual object for personal gratification. Just like I don't watch or enjoy anime for the same reasons. I don't mind fan service, but I do think some anime go way over the top for no explicit reason which detracts from the anime itself but obviously people like it. I enjoyed the story behind the anime Freezing, it could have been dark and good without the clothes being ripped off every fight. The characters were sexy, I liked watching the fights but it wasn't because I was looking for gratification.

That doesn't mean everyone looks at it the same way as you or I. There are probably some people that do enjoy pinups and garage kits for other reasons. That is fine if they want that and that is their thing.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
This was mentioned a bit ago and I think it merits an answer, as Peregrine's hypothesis is very nearly the exact opposite of what my research into the market of miniatures reveals.

Put simply, the facts I have available to me indicate that the market for 'sexy' miniatures is vastly larger than the market for 'sensible' miniatures (vastly as in perhaps an order-of-magnitude larger). This is my evaluation based on Kickstarter performances and the oft quoted point by Bryan from Reaper about the relative sales of clothed versus unclothed versions of the same miniature.

Then what exactly are you so afraid of? If sexy miniatures are an order of magnitude more profitable than other miniatures then no sane miniatures company is going to stop making them, no matter how many complaints they get. Because, in the end, the goal of a successful company is to make money.

Of course, what I suspect is really the case, is that you aren't all that confident in your "market research". No matter how confidently you state that sexy miniatures sell an order of magnitude better you're afraid that it isn't true, that sexy miniatures are a marginal product line and if the manufacturers get too many complaints they'll dump those product lines in favor of something less controversial. And that, because sexy miniatures don't make much money, no new company is going to replace them. So we get lots of outrage over "SJW censorship", because you're afraid that the "SJWs" have more influence than you.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
This was mentioned a bit ago and I think it merits an answer, as Peregrine's hypothesis is very nearly the exact opposite of what my research into the market of miniatures reveals.

Put simply, the facts I have available to me indicate that the market for 'sexy' miniatures is vastly larger than the market for 'sensible' miniatures (vastly as in perhaps an order-of-magnitude larger). This is my evaluation based on Kickstarter performances and the oft quoted point by Bryan from Reaper about the relative sales of clothed versus unclothed versions of the same miniature.

Then what exactly are you so afraid of? If sexy miniatures are an order of magnitude more profitable than other miniatures then no sane miniatures company is going to stop making them, no matter how many complaints they get. Because, in the end, the goal of a successful company is to make money.

Of course, what I suspect is really the case, is that you aren't all that confident in your "market research". No matter how confidently you state that sexy miniatures sell an order of magnitude better you're afraid that it isn't true, that sexy miniatures are a marginal product line and if the manufacturers get too many complaints they'll dump those product lines in favor of something less controversial. And that, because sexy miniatures don't make much money, no new company is going to replace them. So we get lots of outrage over "SJW censorship", because you're afraid that the "SJWs" have more influence than you.

At the risk of point out the obvious, I said exactly what "I am afraid of" in the paragraphs immediately following what you quoted. No, I'm afraid that your point lacks an empiric backing; especially in the ever diversifying model market, there is no realistic fear that 'sexy' miniatures will be put to pasture. Rather I must wonder, why do you think it exculpatory that the "SJWs" have more influence? As Maimonides said, "the truth is the truth, no matter how many believe it". But let me put it a different way;

I am Jew, one of a paltry few million in the world. Now, no one is exactly sure how many of us there are, but most agree something less then 15 million, or put another way, less then 0.25% of the total world population. Reliable sources indicate that something like 25% of the world's population harbors antisemitic views. In other words, for every Jew, man, woman or child, there are 100 people that hate and dislike them in the world. Let's be optimistic and presume only 10% of the people that hold the view that Jews ought to be stamped out, or perhaps a mere 5% would look favorably on another Holocaust. Even at that lowest figure, that is still a number in the tens of millions, vastly greater then all the Jews now alive.

So you see, I fail to understand why the ubiquity of a terrible idea should somehow make that idea immune to criticism. In that sense, at least, you are correct: I am afraid that SJWs have more influence then they ought, just as book burners and others have ever risen to hold power.

To segue back to slightly more frivolous concerns, since being introduced to the precepts of Social Justice perhaps two years ago now, I have studied it and concluded that Social Justice is the very opposite of Actual Justice. At the core of Social Justice are principles of racial grievance, collective guilt and crude essentiallism that are not merely antithetical to my moral sense, but to the very foundations of the post enlightenment West.

That said, we must accept that there are now many people that hold these terrible views and that many others are adherents to related strange faiths. We can't change that. All we can do is speak; speak up against a movement based on terrible principles and illiberal ideas. A movement that justifies bigotry and validates lawlessness. A movement that grows not by winning arguments, but by silencing them.

Now, if all that sounds a bit overwrought, I invite you to consider the equivalent spectacle of inveighing that "Sexy miniatures are part of some rather harmful attitudes towards women", as you have done.

See the thing is that if we're going to consider this a moral argument, then the answer to one side's counterfactual assertion that playing with little figures with even smaller boobies makes you a bigot and a promulgator of bigotry is that the other side is then entirely justified in pointing out that a) the claims of the first side are empirically dubious and b) that the attitudes on display are morally equivalent to those of book burners and scolds. Because, and this is a key thing, it's a terrible thing to accuse someone of being a bigot or spreading bigotry without strong evidence.

If the argument is aesthetic, then we can talk aesthetics and markets and so on. But once the argument becomes 'this is bad, and you're a bad person for liking such and such a thing', then, well, as we've noticed, the conversation becomes... heated.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
At the risk of point out the obvious, I said exactly what "I am afraid of" in the paragraphs immediately following what you quoted.

And, immediately following the paragraph I quoted, you approvingly quoted the following:

there is a possibility a product be successful but be canceled because of a minority of extremely loudmouthed minority abusing the normal democratic means to enforce their opinion on others.

This is paranoia, not a rational fear. If a product line is canceled because of complaints then it wasn't successful. No company is saying "well, we're making record profits from this, but someone isn't happy so we'll have to shut the whole thing down". If they're making lots of money they make generic "we're sorry that you were offended by the thing we're going to keep doing" statements, throw the complaint letters in the garbage, and continue to make lots of money. Products are only canceled because of complaints if those products are only marginally profitable, or even dead weight that the company is happy to have an excuse to get rid of.

So, the moment you talk about "SJW censorship" being a problem in the miniatures hobby you are conceding that people who like sexy miniatures are a tiny and irrelevant minority that most manufacturers would be glad to be rid of.

So you see, I fail to understand why the ubiquity of a terrible idea should somehow make that idea immune to criticism.

I said no such thing. I merely pointed out the absurdity of claims of "SJW censorship", I never said that "SJW" ideas can not be criticized.

At the core of Social Justice are principles of racial grievance, collective guilt and crude essentiallism that are not merely antithetical to my moral sense, but to the very foundations of the post enlightenment West.

IOW: "it makes me uncomfortable to think that large social structures are responsible for problems rather than individual Bad People that can take all of the blame".

A movement that grows not by winning arguments, but by silencing them.

You seem to be confusing "silencing" and "nobody wants to listen to you". Government censorship is not an issue here, all of the "silencing" in question takes the form of individuals saying "you shouldn't say that" and other individuals saying "you're right, we won't". The "victims" of this so-called "silencing" are entirely free to continue speaking if they believe that they are right. It just often turns out that nobody wants to listen to the anti-SJW crowd when they continue speaking, and they end up ranting to their echo chambers while the rest of us ignore them.

Now, if all that sounds a bit overwrought, I invite you to consider the equivalent spectacle of inveighing that "Sexy miniatures are part of some rather harmful attitudes towards women", as you have done.

I fail to see what is "overwrought" about what I said there. In fact that's the rather modest form of the argument, merely pointing out that sexy miniatures are part of certain attitudes, not going all the way to "SEXY MINIATURES ARE THE EVILEST THING EVER". Please try to remember that "overwrought" has a meaning, and it is not "saying something I disagree with".

one side's counterfactual assertion that playing with little figures with even smaller boobies makes you a bigot and a promulgator of bigotry

That's an awfully nice straw man you've built there. Perhaps you could, instead, understand that there is a middle ground between "nothing to criticize" and "bigot"?

 Buzzsaw wrote:
To segue back to slightly more frivolous concerns, since being introduced to the precepts of Social Justice perhaps two years ago now, I have studied it and concluded that Social Justice is the very opposite of Actual Justice. At the core of Social Justice are principles of racial grievance, collective guilt and crude essentiallism that are not merely antithetical to my moral sense, but to the very foundations of the post enlightenment West.

A social justice activist is someone who campaigns to have a wheelchair ramp installed on a building to increase access. A social justice warrior is someone who demands the stairs be removed in case someone who cannot use them gets offended.

To apply that same comparison to this debate, a social justice activist (such as there can be one in a discussion about miniatures, but whatever, stick with me) would be someone who campaigns for more miniatures that aren't of cheese-cake/obvious sexualisation variety whereas the social justice warrior calls for the removal of those miniatures.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A social justice warrior is someone who demands the stairs be removed in case someone who cannot use them gets offended.

Fortunately this "social justice warrior" does not exist outside of the right-wing outrage machine's straw men.

To apply that same comparison to this debate, a social justice activist (such as there can be one in a discussion about miniatures, but whatever, stick with me) would be someone who campaigns for more miniatures that aren't of cheese-cake/obvious sexualisation variety whereas the social justice warrior calls for the removal of those miniatures.

Too bad that analogy has nothing to do with the stairs/ramp example.

Those people definitely do exist. Not as frequently as people think but they're definitely out there. And I don't see why the analogy doesn't relate to the stair/ramp example?

 ImAGeek wrote:
And I don't see why the analogy doesn't relate to the stair/ramp example?

Because the conservative outrage machine's straw man in the stair/ramp example wants to tear down the stairs out of spite. There's no reason given why anyone should be "offended" by the stairs or how that would justify their removal, likely because whoever came up with the straw man knows that any attempt at such an explanation would be obviously absurd and not representative of actual "SJW" arguments. But in the case of the miniatures people have given reasons for opposing them, whether you agree with them or not. And those reasons are more than just "someone could be offended".

 Peregrine wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
And I don't see why the analogy doesn't relate to the stair/ramp example?

Because the conservative outrage machine's straw man in the stair/ramp example wants to tear down the stairs out of spite. There's no reason given why anyone should be "offended" by the stairs or how that would justify their removal, likely because whoever came up with the straw man knows that any attempt at such an explanation would be obviously absurd and not representative of actual "SJW" arguments. But in the case of the miniatures people have given reasons for opposing them, whether you agree with them or not. And those reasons are more than just "someone could be offended".

Ah okay, I see.

It's weird how the extreme right gets pilloried endlessly and those who of the right but not of the extreme right just kind have to take it, because their nuts are so nutty that you can't help but make fun of them, where as the left swears blind their their own extremists simply don't exist.

Amazing blindness.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

A social justice activist is someone who campaigns to have a wheelchair ramp installed on a building to increase access. A social justice warrior is someone who demands the stairs be removed in case someone who cannot use them gets offended.

To apply that same comparison to this debate, a social justice activist (such as there can be one in a discussion about miniatures, but whatever, stick with me) would be someone who campaigns for more miniatures that aren't of cheese-cake/obvious sexualisation variety whereas the social justice warrior calls for the removal of those miniatures.

That seems a sensible distinction to me.

If someone notices that something they would like to buy is not being produced/sold then they are more than welcome to point that out, loudly if possible. In this instance, there are many sensibly clothed women miniatures available from Victoria Miniatures and other manufacturers- that doesn't mean that all of them tickle everyone's fancy or that every taste is being catered to.
There is a dearth of women in power armour, as any sisters player will tell you, and those that exist generally have exaggerated feminine features (otherwise you'd just buy male power armour)

The difference between a wargame and a movie/videogame is that the visual elements are tactile artifacts- a selling point all its own.
It's understandable that to increase the draw, the models should be as appealing as possible. Beauty is subjective though, and people have different opinions on whats good and what is acceptable.


For me, Catachan Girl is a good example of a realistic female soldier. She's from an elgalitarian Deathworld meritocracy where everyone who is still alive is a warrior and she's treated just like everyone else.
She wears the same stretch shirt that the guys do, they've issued her a grenade launcher. She has bulging muscles (she'd win an arm wrestle with the average cadian man) but she's visibly less Stallone-y than the guys and has pronounced boobs because it's 28mm and she might just look like a skinny guy without them (the male figs have giant pecs)
I find her a capable guards-woman in the Ellen Ripley tradition, she's not asking for special treatment and she's not getting any.

For someone else, the concessions made so that she still appears female at arms length might seem exploitative. The breasts, the fatigues that are noticeably less baggy than the guys, the fact that she's less muscled than the dudes.



I find Commissar Titianna Juggsoff here a less convincing combatant, but she works as the kind of nonsensical aristocracy that the Imperium might employ as officers.
She doesn't really gel as a Schola Progenium graduate who fought as a Stormtrooper before selection as a ruthless executioner.
If the corset and thigh high boots under a split skirt are an affectation to make her appear more noble so be it- commissars aren't known for the practicality of their uniforms.
This is a bit to cheese cakey for my tastes but its still a nice miniature. The pose is wooden and weapons haven't aged well but the sculpt is nice enough. I'd appreciate if the breasts weren't so bolted on but a corset will do that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's weird how the extreme right gets pilloried endlessly and those who of the right but not of the extreme right just kind have to take it, because their nuts are so nutty that you can't help but make fun of them, where as the left swears blind their their own extremists simply don't exist.

Amazing blindness.

The difference is the right wing embraces its nuts (see Trump) and gives them a platform, while the left-wing nuts like the supposed person who wants the stairs demolished turn out to be random bloggers with single-digit readers.

Wasn't Tipper Gore left wing?
The Parental Advisory had the repercussion of stores refusing to sell albums branded by it, all because the albums had questionable material, as determined by the PMRC. Is that not like demolishing stairs?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The Parental Advisory had the repercussion of stores refusing to sell albums branded by it, all because the albums had questionable material, as determined by the PMRC. Is that not like demolishing stairs?

No, for two reasons:

1) Even if you disagree with the reason for labeling the material "questionable" there were still reasons that were within the mainstream discussion. In the stair example the reasons for demolishing the stairs are held by the kind of fringe minority that makes the "BLACK HELICOPTERS MIND CONTROL IN THE CHEMTRAILS" crowd look sensible.

2) Refusing to sell an album still leaves it available to buy elsewhere (unless it's so unprofitable that nobody bothers selling it). Demolishing stairs prevents anyone from using them.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
I am Jew, one of a paltry few million in the world. Now, no one is exactly sure how many of us there are, but most agree something less then 15 million, or put another way, less then 0.25% of the total world population. Reliable sources indicate that something like 25% of the world's population harbors antisemitic views. In other words, for every Jew, man, woman or child, there are 100 people that hate and dislike them in the world. Let's be optimistic and presume only 10% of the people that hold the view that Jews ought to be stamped out, or perhaps a mere 5% would look favorably on another Holocaust. Even at that lowest figure, that is still a number in the tens of millions, vastly greater then all the Jews now alive.

So you see, I fail to understand why the ubiquity of a terrible idea should somehow make that idea immune to criticism. In that sense, at least, you are correct: I am afraid that SJWs have more influence then they ought, just as book burners and others have ever risen to hold power.

That's one of the weirdest, most convoluted Godwin point I have ever seen.

 =Angel= wrote:
I find Commissar Titianna Juggsoff here a less convincing combatant, but she works as the kind of nonsensical aristocracy that the Imperium might employ as officers.

She doesn't really gel as a Schola Progenium graduate who fought as a Stormtrooper before selection as a ruthless executioner. If the corset and thigh high boots under a split skirt are an affectation to make her appear more noble so be it- commissars aren't known for the practicality of their uniforms.

This is a bit to cheese cakey for my tastes but its still a nice miniature. The pose is wooden and weapons haven't aged well but the sculpt is nice enough. I'd appreciate if the breasts weren't so bolted on but a corset will do that.

It's weird. I've owned that model for years and I never noticed the split skirt. Ha!

As it happens, I used that mini as an Inquisitor in a Guard army, specifically an Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor by the name of Keira Jade whose only purpose was to make the life of the commanding officer difficult. The miniature's style does not fit a combatant, as you correctly pointed out, but as a haughty Inquisitor who sees heresy everywhere (as opposed to sexism everywhere, like some people in this thread), she worked quite well.

 Peregrine wrote:


there is a possibility a product be successful but be canceled because of a minority of extremely loudmouthed minority abusing the normal democratic means to enforce their opinion on others.

This is paranoia, not a rational fear. If a product line is canceled because of complaints then it wasn't successful. No company is saying "well, we're making record profits from this, but someone isn't happy so we'll have to shut the whole thing down". If they're making lots of money they make generic "we're sorry that you were offended by the thing we're going to keep doing" statements, throw the complaint letters in the garbage, and continue to make lots of money. Products are only canceled because of complaints if those products are only marginally profitable, or even dead weight that the company is happy to have an excuse to get rid of.

Hi that would be from me, so lets take a look at this paranoia then, in the Australia from what I gather the government given pressure from local internal and external groups has made a committee that bans games (computer games) for whatever reasons, games that are acceptable pretty much everywhere else are banned there, can't argue the games are profitable for example fallout 3 or smash bros brawl (??!), but it is banned there, of course it is available elsewhere, but if Australia ever becomes a major market many games will not be attempted simply because missing a major market can be an economic suicide.

This is how any successful product can be cancelled by an extremely vocal minority, of course you can argue, as the committee argues that they are not censorship anybody, that would be bad for a free speech world wouldn't it? they just refuse to give classification (and thus make the product legal in the country) if X.Y,Z things don't get edited or removed, so no censorship because the company does it not them.

Personally, I do not think it is paranoia and I do think there are plenty of real life examples of this happening in various fields through the history of mankind, but your opinion differs.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Hi that would be from me, so lets take a look at this paranoia then, in the Australia from what I gather the government given pressure from local internal and external groups has made a committee that bans games (computer games) for whatever reasons, games that are acceptable pretty much everywhere else are banned there, can't argue the games are profitable for example fallout 3 or smash bros brawl (??!), but it is banned there

What the hell are you even talking about? Neither Fallout 3 nor Super Smash Bros Brawl have been banned in Australia…
Beside, Australia and Germany are known for having extra hard rules against video games, they had those rules from quite the beginning. Those are completely unrelated, and were definitely not pushed for, by the people that argue against too much sexualization in geek cultures…

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
What the hell are you even talking about? Neither Fallout 3 nor Super Smash Bros Brawl have been banned in Australia…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games_in_Australia

Fallout 3 was originally banned due to drug use related to incentives and rewards. When the worldwide edition was released it received an edit changing the name of morphine to Med-X which made it become unbanned.

I have no idea about Super Smash Bros Brawl.

Witcher 2 was banned because of sex related to incentive and rewards. Later a side quest was given a minor edit (changing the context of sex being used as an incentive) and the game was subsequently re-rated MA15+.

A related question

is sexualisation in Geek cultures worse than the enjoyment / promotion of extreme or even just "average" violence in Geek cultures.

The last GOT episode even seemed to suggest that only violence solves violent problems

 Mr Morden wrote:
A related question

is sexualisation in Geek cultures worse than the enjoyment / promotion of extreme or even just "average" violence in Geek cultures.

The last GOT episode even seemed to suggest that only violence solves violent problems

Depends. Here in America, you can shoot and murder everyone, but some softcore porn is not okay for TV. Although it seems like GOT is trying to change that

 Mr Morden wrote:
A related question

is sexualisation in Geek cultures worse than the enjoyment / promotion of extreme or even just "average" violence in Geek cultures.

Well, it is two completely unrelated issues. If you want to talk about violence in game culture, maybe open a new thread?