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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Lol. I'd love to see you expand your point on Jewish descendants of concentrations camps prisoners, I guess they can't be ever offended because it's not them. Ridiculous, by that logic a cool portrayal concentration camp guard who loves shooting Jews is ok, why don't you go to Israel and ask them if they are afraid that Adolf will get them or what.

It's funny that you would take that route, because it just so happen that my own grand-mother was German and Jewish and had to flee all over Europe, and had family members that died during the holocaust.
Great job buddy, trying to shame the descendant of a Jewish victim of the Nazis using the descendants of other victims of the Nazi parti .
And yet you don't see me cry offensive anytime Nazi or Nazi-like figures are portrayed in the media, do you?
(And actually, you would get surprised at the kind of stuff that was made and sold in Israel just after WW2.)

It's even weirder then tbh that you so easily dismiss it yet care so much for sexism that's not even there, and don't understand how positive portrayal of totalitarian regime is worse than females being under represented.

I care for neither btw, just don't get that selective overreaction.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Thank you man, I always claimed that all those leftist sensibilities are super selective and they are just as bigoted and hateful as all those facists, racists etc just against different groups, and now you're so beautifuly shameless about it. You just made my day.

So, why is it okay now for 40k to be offensive to religious bigots, but not okay to be offensive to leftist fanatic? Because you say so? You just confirmed that your case is worthless as long as it's about discrimination etc.

That's quite a long way to write “If anti-sexism is okay, then sexism must be okay” lol. I believe it's okay to be offensive to religious bigots but not to “leftist fanatics” because I believe the reasons the “leftist fanatics” have to be offended are valid and relevant, while those of the religious bigots are not, and are often used to enforced unjust and harmful stuff.

Yeah that's called bias and it runs strong with you.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
It's not super coherent but it will only get worse with female SM, further diluting any identity there.

That seems like a super-important problem . It's nice to see that even you would agree that “It's not coherent” (which is putting it lightly to the least, but at least it's an acknowledgment).

That's exactly the problem, diluting and ruining the main themes of 40k with made up bs.

That something is not super coherent doesn't mean you have to go make it ridiculous and run it to the ground.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
It can offend religion (bigots! by default apparently), descendants of genocide victims (not them) but women are no go, hurts too much.

Ah it's funny how you are trying to distort words! I said it can offend “religious bigots”, you suddenly decided I said “religious people, that are by definition bigot”. And then you'll tell me how I distort your words. Also, care to show me all the descendant of genocide victim that are offended by GW's commissar? I mean, really offended, not just using this as a rhetorical device to score points in debates on internet forums? Because, yeah, it's harder to get compassion for people pretending to be hurt by something, but only, literally only when it serves their rhetorical needs.

I said that 40k is offensive to religion, you answered that it's not a problem for you that it's offensive to religious bigots. Not that much of a leap then when religious people I know take offence just hearing about worshipping a rotten corpse.

Plenty of people around here hate any positive portrayal of soviets with a passion, the trend might have passed your intricate empathy though because it's quite limited to countries actualy enslaved by them.

Plenty of people around here hate any positive portrayal of soviets with a passion, the trend might have passed your intricate empathy though because it's quite limited to countries actualy enslaved by them.

My dad's military buddies in the late 70s to early 80s had a saying, "Better dead than Red, and better dead than Red, White and Blue."

The general impression I got was that the Canadian military was not, in fact, delighted at the idea of America and the Soviet Union trading volleys of city-ending nuclear weapons with each other over Canadian territory.

More to the point though... Can we start talking about 40k lore again? Or should I just check out of this this thread if everyone agrees that the official minis need to start matching the official canon in terms of the factions that should have women, and we're just gonna argue about irrelevant real life stuff until the thread gets locked?

 Pouncey wrote:

Plenty of people around here hate any positive portrayal of soviets with a passion, the trend might have passed your intricate empathy though because it's quite limited to countries actualy enslaved by them.

My dad's military buddies in the late 70s to early 80s had a saying, "Better dead than Red, and better dead than Red, White and Blue."

The general impression I got was that the Canadian military was not, in fact, delighted at the idea of America and the Soviet Union trading volleys of city-ending nuclear weapons with each other over Canadian territory.

More to the point though... Can we start talking about 40k lore again? Or should I just check out of this this thread if everyone agrees that the official minis need to start matching the official canon in terms of the factions that should have women, and we're just gonna argue about irrelevant real life stuff until the thread gets locked?

No one ever debated that, the only reason it got this far was because people started pulling politics in why the GW company is misogynistic. There is no lore left to talk about.

Selym wrote:tl;dr We could do with upgrade sprues at least for more female IG and Eldar, but we do not want fluff conflicts.

Which is pretty much what everyone who isn't fostering a militant political agenda is saying in this thread.

Melissia wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Egalitarians are anti-sexist people

If you aren't a feminist, you cannot be an egalitarian. Posts like this are utter garbage.

Ashiraya wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Egalitarians are anti-sexist people

If you aren't a feminist, you cannot be an egalitarian. Posts like this are utter garbage.

Well, yeah. Posts like them are what I swapped out my sig for. >.>

So basically you can't believe or endorse equal rights unless you support and further the feminist movement? Cool story, so does that mean we get to turn golf clubs like Formby, Lundin, and others co-ed? Because standards should be even across the board. I just bet that would be the case right?

 Quickjager wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Plenty of people around here hate any positive portrayal of soviets with a passion, the trend might have passed your intricate empathy though because it's quite limited to countries actualy enslaved by them.

My dad's military buddies in the late 70s to early 80s had a saying, "Better dead than Red, and better dead than Red, White and Blue."

The general impression I got was that the Canadian military was not, in fact, delighted at the idea of America and the Soviet Union trading volleys of city-ending nuclear weapons with each other over Canadian territory.

More to the point though... Can we start talking about 40k lore again? Or should I just check out of this this thread if everyone agrees that the official minis need to start matching the official canon in terms of the factions that should have women, and we're just gonna argue about irrelevant real life stuff until the thread gets locked?

No one ever debated that, the only reason it got this far was because people started pulling politics in why the GW company is misogynistic. There is no lore left to talk about.

So the thread is done then. There's nothing left to discuss anymore.

Good. See you guys in other threads when you're done in here.

 Just Tony wrote:

So basically you can't believe or endorse equal rights unless you support and further the feminist movement?

Correct, as long as you understand what the feminist movement is actually about.

 Pouncey wrote:

More to the point though... Can we start talking about 40k lore again? Or should I just check out of this this thread if everyone agrees that the official minis need to start matching the official canon in terms of the factions that should have women, and we're just gonna argue about irrelevant real life stuff until the thread gets locked?

I would love to get back to the lore.

 Just Tony wrote:
[snipped overly long quote pyramid]

I quote:

e·gal·i·tar·i·an
iˌɡaləˈterēən/
adjective
1. of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
"a fairer, more egalitarian society"

fem·i·nism
ˈfeməˌnizəm/
noun
1. the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

If you do not believe that women deserve equality in the political, social, and economic fields, then by definition you are not an egalitarian because you do not believe that all people deserve to be equal.

By saying "I'm an egalitarian not a feminist", all you're really saying is "I'm neither of these things, I'm just too ashamed to admit it publicly." And conversations like this is why I said "I'm done" earlier, but the asinine, ignorant quote I responded to earlier couldn't be allowed to slide by unnoticed.

 Melissia wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
[snipped overly long quote pyramid]

I quote:

e·gal·i·tar·i·an
iˌɡaləˈterēən/
adjective
1. of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
"a fairer, more egalitarian society"

fem·i·nism
ˈfeməˌnizəm/
noun
1. the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

If you do not believe that women deserve equality in the political, social, and economic fields, then by definition you are not an egalitarian because you do not believe that all people deserve to be equal.

By saying "I'm an egalitarian not a feminist", all you're really saying is "I'm neither of these things, I'm just too ashamed to admit it publicly." And conversations like this is why I said "I'm done" earlier, but the asinine, ignorant quote I responded to earlier couldn't be allowed to slide by unnoticed.

I have yet to run across a Feminist who doesn't take the opportunity to mention the Definition of Feminism. It is a great definition. The problem with it though is that it described the feminist movement back in the 50s-90s ish. After that though Feminism quickly turned away from equal rights to become "Woman need more rights then men". Case and point would be Harvard's new policy that forces all mens clubs to become open to women while at the same time telling women's clubs its ok to not have men so long as you change your description/charter to say something else. http://louderwithcrowder.com/harvard-all-male-club-members-to-be-banned-from-student-leadership-roles-and-receiving-scholarship-endorsements/#.V75H4zUu9RA

the gender wage gap is a myth as has been proven by numerous ACTUAL economists. Rape Culture is also a Myth, the 1 in 5 or 1 in 4 as reported by multiple feminist websites is actually a complete fabrication and the real number is closer to 1 in 50-100 which is still WAY to high!. But realistically 1-2% is very different from 20-25%.

I could keep going on but there is very little point. As far as this effects GW and specifically SMs and other factions including more female characters and armies? I don't give a feth so long as they are productive for GW and the game in general. I could understand Eldar/DE and IG taking a look at new female models. Add in an extra sprue that has female heads and torso's and call it a day, nobody would really care. However the idea that we have to completely change the fluff surrounding Space Marines to fit into your idea of Feminism is ridiculous. After 30-40 years of Fluff stating that SMs are all men you want to change that because it will make you feel more included, forgetting the fact that GW has a 99% female faction already, something most Strategy games DONT have.

SemperMortis wrote:
The problem with it though is that it described the feminist movement back in the 50s-90s ish.

It also describes the feminist movement today, in spite of your asinine and failed attempt to argue otherwise.

Feminism is a massive, global movement, with a large amount of internal debate on the best methods to obtain the goal of equality. Pretending like an ignoramus that all feminism must be the same even after you, yourself, argued that it's not is shameful and stupid. And that's the problem with arguments like yours. You're so quick to say "feminists are all the same" when it suits your hypocritical, inherently contradictory arguments.

decided not to go there, On the subject of actual models and shenanigans, How about Orks, how about you get some female orks would that assuage your anger?

And in that post, a spammy, trollish post consisting of literally only a hashtag, you sum up the inanity of your objections to feminism.

Congratulations. You fail.

SemperMortis wrote:
decided not to go there, On the subject of actual models and shenanigans, How about Orks, how about you get some female orks would that assuage your anger?

Orks are actually genderless in terms of their physical bodies. Technically they're not even male, they just use masculine gendered language and terms for themselves. They reproduce through spores.

It makes the adult fan artwork of them weird when you know that in the lore, they probably don't even have the organs they're depicted making use of.

Well this thread seems to have hit rock bottom. I'm going to close it up, and several people are on real thin ice for politeness.