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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
This is what fuels anger in the community because the portion of the community that LIKES booby sliders and swimsuits feels like they're being attacked and they aren't given a voice to defend themselves with and when they DO try to make themselves heard they get attacked with further accusations of being sexist and misogynist.

I'm not really seeing the problem here. It's sexist garbage, and the people who like it should feel bad about it. If they don't want to be accused of sexism then perhaps they shouldn't be guilty of it?

When you close a bunch of nazis in a box with each other and put a blanket over it when you lift the cover they're not going to have suddenly changed their minds.

This is why you never open the box of Nazis. Lock the box, throw away the key, throw the box to the bottom of the ocean.

What about the ones who are not guilty of it and still accused of it, and no matter how they try to deny it they are ignored because they are obviously lying sexists.

We can sit and argue the merits and flaws of Anita's arguments and do the same for the people who criticize her on the internet until we're blue in the face. I think instead we should focus on the relevant:

She's held ONE seat at a panel similar to this, and her behavior was unprofessional, predatory, and outright toxic. I don't care if an audience member that made 100 videos debunking her own videos is sitting right there, he was saying nothing and she attacked him. Additionally, she verbally attacked another member of the panel.

In addition, of the many women in the tabletop industry that have both contributed to gaming and worked to make a tolerant sub-culture- she is probably the least qualified. If nothing else, it goes without saying that there are plenty of better options.

Based on these factors alone, she shouldn't be there. But then again, she's faded so fast from relevance, she's probably desperate for a buck so she could be very well doing this for a sandwich and a Sprite.

Giving some thought to Manchu's statement about per-emptively loading her onto the panel to defend against the raging mob accusing them of being sexist has some merit. After all, that seems to be the reaction to anything on the internet- if you're hosting an event or selling a product, rest assured some pearl-clutching gooniebeard or neon-haired white girl is looking for it to be bigoted and raise hell and make a stink about it (whether or not they are actually interested in the event, service, or product). I have no idea why, I guess everyone has their hobbies and I think some folks are sexually aroused by faux outrages and nothingburger nontroversies. That, and I'm also pretty convinced that less credible media sources have these little agents and sock accounts trawling the web looking for their next moral panic, just to create some Twitter drama for some clickbait site.

Based on what I read of the Origins incident regarding Larry Correia, I'm utterly convinced these sorts of conventions are cesspits that should be just ignored by the majority of sane adults. The sorts of people who gravitate toward this kind of virtue-posturing madness eventually break down and create their little hierarchies and then proceed to eat one another alive in the Oppression Olympics, while the rest of civilization looks on with a chuckle and continues to have fun and enjoy their lives.

I am reminded of a little cluster of hipsters that once haunted one of the larger FLGS stores. They were, quite honestly, the closest thing to "Social Justice Warriors" I've ever seen, and this was before the little surge of them online. They were always looking for something to be offended by and upset by, but they were just profitable enough that the owner didn't want to hurl them into the streets- or perhaps more accurately, he was terrified of the online reviews they'd leave on Social Media (because they were known to stink the Facebook page up). Eventually, the policy was 'ignore them'. If they spoke to you, about you, or anything- you just pretended they were background noise. Turn your back on them. Eventually, they isolated themselves in a corner of the FLGS (literally, the corner) and because they had no one else to bully, they turned on one another like hungry jackals.

That's how I genuinely hope these crazy little cons turn out.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
What about the ones who are not guilty of it and still accused of it, and no matter how they try to deny it they are ignored because they are obviously lying sexists.

Brother, I smashed the 'ignore' button on the Salty One last night and I have no regrets. He's certainly not worth speaking to, because all he wants to do is get riled up and virtue signal. Leave him be, he'll tucker out and find something else to do.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
She's held ONE seat at a panel similar to this, and her behavior was unprofessional, predatory, and outright toxic. I don't care if an audience member that made 100 videos debunking her own videos is sitting right there, he was saying nothing and she attacked him. Additionally, she verbally attacked another member of the panel.

A man who is actually a very vulnerable person who has struggled with severe physical and mental health problems, I might add.

 Formosa wrote:
What about the ones who are not guilty of it and still accused of it, and no matter how they try to deny it they are ignored because they are obviously lying sexists.

"WTF? I don't want bikini outfits, what are you talking about?"

If someone denies the sexist behavior and is accused of lying about it with no evidence behind the accusation, well, it should be obvious how to treat the people making the accusation. Note, however, that this is not the same thing as denying being a sexist while engaging in sexist behavior. That isn't a lack of guilt, it's a lack of willingness to acknowledge guilt.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
A man who is actually a very vulnerable person who has struggled with severe physical and mental health problems, I might add.

Yeah, Boogie's story is pretty sad. But his individual situation only makes it that much worse.

I can tell you, I've been to speaking events for officials and industry persons. If there was that kind of conflict and behavior from any panel members- they'd be disinvited from all future speaking panels at that event, future events, and the host of the event would issue a public statement regarding their toxic behavior and make it clear that it wasn't tolerated.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I don't care if an audience member that made 100 videos debunking her own videos is sitting right there, he was saying nothing and she attacked him.

Again, this is the equivalent of punching someone in the face and demanding that they not respond because at that moment you are no longer punching them in the face. Sargon of Akkad is a , even if he wasn't actively causing trouble at that exact moment, and he doesn't get a cease fire for it. And let's be honest here, he wasn't being quiet in the audience because of a genuine desire to rebuild his relationship with the speaker or out of respect for her, he was doing it so he could play the martyr and claim "I WASN'T DOING ANYTHING" if she said anything in reaction to his trolling attempt.

Peregrine wrote:
Only because we define "rape" as "a stranger jumps out of the bushes and drags a victim (preferably young, white, attractive, and a pious virgin) off by force and rapes them as they scream NO as loudly as possible" and insist that things like getting someone drunk and having sex with them while they are unable to consent are just "regretting it the morning after" and not really rape.

In general and in particular laws and not opinions shape the legality of things, one can ascribe things to the laws that the laws do not have, or twist the language to have another meaning from what the mainstream understand, but it is dishonest, misleading the majority of people who have an understanding what a word mean to believe what you mean, when you mean something entirely different.

Peregrine wrote:
The actual statistics on this disagree with you. False accusations exist, but they are rare.

Are they? I saw statistics supporting both narratives, but the recent stories like the infamous "mattress saga" show that false accusations are not only an issue, but they get showcased a lot.

Peregrine wrote:
Because it's almost inevitably a concept that doesn't exist in the real world. Yes, in some hypothetical porn game where everyone, male or female or not human at all or whatever, is sexy and the game is all about sex having sexy miniatures wouldn't be sexist. But in the real world we're inevitably talking about bikini outfits in a game where the men are wearing practical clothes, and the obvious intent is to make sexy women for the enjoyment of male customers. It presents the sexist message that men are the relevant characters, and women are there as decorative objects.

It does not represent that message, or at least not to somebody that does not want to see this message, what somebody gets from something says more about them and their understanding of the world than to the subject they observe, for the record what is sexy and what is sexist varies to each person and more importantly what is sexy varies, there are several good and honest explanation from industry insiders in each thread about female models in each iteration of it on why female models are designed the way they are, beyond this sells (which is a good reason by itself) illustrating visual limitations of scale, medium and other factors, but they are been ignored for the narrative

Sexy and not sexist is not a concept that does not exist in the real world it exists, but more so the same model can be any combination of not sexy/ sexy, not sexist/ sexist regardless of its outfit from complete naked to fully clothed depending on the observer, there is no universal consensus and it will never be because humans are individuals and not a hive group thinking entity.

Manchu wrote:I can agree that GW is unlikely to budge on all-male SMs. The company is not vulnerable on that front. Extortionists have to pick their targets for weakness.

And yet people try, who knows maybe someday they will succeed like they did with Marvel comics, it will probably take the same rout of failure, then they will accuse the paying customers of been bigots instead of accepting it was not a good idea.

kestral wrote:I'm not really feeling Tentacle Benito's pain.

You make a game that deliberately references tentacle Hentai and you're going to have problems, even if your game doesn't include nudity or anything in and of itself nasty.

You push the edge, it gets you free publicity and that usually works out to your benefit. But sometimes whatever private company you're working with decides they're not cool with it (possibly helped along by irate advocates), and that is their call. Find another venue.

Sorry. If you make a game that is called "march to the ovens" with an iron cross on it, you deserve every bit of hate you get, even if it is about a struggling early morning muffin baker.

The pain is that a minority of people bullied their way to make kickstarter censor the creator instead of using the advice they give usually to people "don't like it don't buy it" it is a double standard seen quite often lately, tentacle bento did not push any edge and was quite mild, but some individuals needed to be morally outraged of what they thought it is, not what it is, honestly let the market decide not push a then growing and vulnerable kickstarter to censor creators, if people did not like it they would not back it, I would say it falls under disruptive interference, but who would push for that really?

Stuebi wrote:Part of me can't help but respect Anita for keeping this going. I remember back when "those" videos came out. It just looked like badly made content, with cherry-picked studies and examples and would thus quickly head into obscurity again. The fact that she's still a thing so much time later is frankly baffling.

It is a shame that she's invading Tabletop now tough. She inevitably turns any sort of environment into one where there are only two sides, and everybody is left dumber for it.

On the other hand, it probably shouldnt be too surprising. It was only a matter of time before this whole stupidity dipped over from video games into practically everything else you can imagine.

Well it is her job, if she stopped doing it or trying to be relevant she would need to find some other job.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
A man who is actually a very vulnerable person who has struggled with severe physical and mental health problems, I might add.

Yeah, Boogie's story is pretty sad. But his individual situation only makes it that much worse.

I can tell you, I've been to speaking events for officials and industry persons. If there was that kind of conflict and behavior from any panel members- they'd be disinvited from all future speaking panels at that event, future events, and the host of the event would issue a public statement regarding their toxic behavior and make it clear that it wasn't tolerated.

Yeah but you see, Anita Sarkeesian is a member of an oppressed minority, whereas Boogie is a PrivilegedTM straight while male.

So Anita is clearly the victim here.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
She's held ONE seat at a panel similar to this, and her behavior was unprofessional, predatory, and outright toxic. I don't care if an audience member that made 100 videos debunking her own videos is sitting right there, he was saying nothing and she attacked him. Additionally, she verbally attacked another member of the panel.

A man who is actually a very vulnerable person who has struggled with severe physical and mental health problems, I might add.

And if that is the case, she is only discrediting herself, but part of the community is throwing so much shade that this no longer speaks for itself. Self inflicted injury.

I'm in a strange position because I like bikini suits but I don't like them in my serious videogames/comics/movies, because when I try to take a strong female character serious its hard to do it when she wears plate bikini. It breaks my inmersion. (Sisters of Battle, for example. I have no problem with boob-plate, I think as long as isn't too exagerated is a middle ground to make the feminine form more clear. Plus, tradition on how is the design of the faction. But I don't have a problem with normal plate armour for females.)

In the other hand, if the product is comical/the costume fits the character/ its an erotic/porn product I have no problems with it.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
In general and in particular laws and not opinions shape the legality of things, one can ascribe things to the laws that the laws do not have, or twist the language to have another meaning from what the mainstream understand, but it is dishonest, misleading the majority of people who have an understanding what a word mean to believe what you mean, when you mean something entirely different.

I honestly do not understand what you are talking about here, and the tangent was declared off-topic by a moderator. Feel free to take this to an OT thread.

It does not represent that message, or at least not to somebody that does not want to see this message, what somebody gets from something says more about them and their understanding of the world than to the subject they observe, for the record what is sexy and what is sexist varies to each person and more importantly what is sexy varies, there are several good and honest explanation from industry insiders in each thread about female models in each iteration of it on why female models are designed the way they are, beyond this sells (which is a good reason by itself) illustrating visual limitations of scale, medium and other factors, but they are been ignored for the narrative.

Yeah, sure, https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/758234.page is totally not about sex. I'm sure there's some entirely plausible non-sex reason why the creator modified her costume to have a skin-tight corset complete with easy-access boob holes, and seems to exclusively post models of mostly-naked women that require censoring to be allowed on dakka. Tell me about how it's "limitations of scale" driving it, especially when these are much larger than typical 28mm miniatures.

The simple fact is that if you aren't completely oblivious (whether out of ignorance or sheer stubborn desire to refuse to see the hints) to social conventions and messages a sexy miniature is very easy to identify. I understand that many gamers have trouble with social cues like this, but trust me, it's not nearly as ambiguous as you're pretending it is. The average sexy miniature is well outside any gray area between sexuality and non-sexual nudity. And appealing to some abstract philosophical argument about universal beliefs does not change the fact that if you show the average sexy miniature to a typical person in the US in 2018 (the largest market for miniatures games) they will say "yep, that's supposed to be sexy" because they recognize all of the cues.

honestly let the market decide

The market did decide. The fact that you don't like the market's decision does not mean that it didn't decide. Kickstarter weighed the relative financial merits of continuing a business partnership with the creators vs. cutting it off, concluded that the profits to be gained from continuing were not sufficient, and ended it. The creators then took their business elsewhere and sold the game. Had the market taken a more favorable view of the situation Kickstarter would never have dropped it, and would have simply told the critics to STFU while placing an order for the swimming pool to hold all of the money they were about to make.

What you are arguing for here is not "let the market decide", it's "first, remove all market forces that could produce an outcome I don't like, and then let the market reach the conclusion that I have picked for it" and insisting that people refrain from commenting on a product because any negativity might cause a tiny niche-market game to fail.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Manchu wrote:I can agree that GW is unlikely to budge on all-male SMs. The company is not vulnerable on that front. Extortionists have to pick their targets for weakness.

And yet people try, who knows maybe someday they will succeed like they did with Marvel comics, it will probably take the same rout of failure, then they will accuse the paying customers of been bigots instead of accepting it was not a good idea.

They will budge the moment there is money in it. For all of the community pretending fluff/lore is sacred, GW unceremoniously dumped WH fantasy as a decade spanning community staple because of their bottom line. The second GW sniffs money in female SM without pissing off too many people its going to happen.

 Galas wrote:
I'm in a strange position because I like bikini suits but I don't like them in my serious videogames/comics/movies, because when I try to take a strong female character serious its hard to do it when she wears plate bikini. It breaks my inmersion. (Sisters of Battle, for example. I have no problem with boob-plate, I think as long as isn't too exagerated is a middle ground to make the feminine form more clear. Plus, tradition on how is the design of the faction. But I don't have a problem with normal plate armour for females.)

In the other hand, if the product is comical/the costume fits the character/ its an erotic/porn product I have no problems with it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying the aesthetics of the female body at all, even a fictionalized and romanticized or outright unrealistic version. Life is a work of art in its own, and you're welcome to enjoy all the works within it. Of course I don't mean starting at women or behaving inappropriately in public or being rude with your admiration. But even if you are sexually aroused by breasts, that doesn't make you wrong- that makes you a normal heterosexual male.

Don't get me wrong, I have the same thing. I can appreciate the novelty of a scantily clad woman in artwork, but if I'm making a character in a video game I kind of want a nice balance between feminine and practical.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Manchu wrote:I can agree that GW is unlikely to budge on all-male SMs. The company is not vulnerable on that front. Extortionists have to pick their targets for weakness.

And yet people try, who knows maybe someday they will succeed like they did with Marvel comics, it will probably take the same rout of failure, then they will accuse the paying customers of been bigots instead of accepting it was not a good idea.

They will budge the moment there is money in it. For all of the community pretending fluff/lore is sacred, GW unceremoniously dumped WH fantasy as a decade spanning community staple because of their bottom line. The second GW sniffs money in female SM without pissing off too many people its going to happen.

Primaris Battle Sisters?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
They will budge the moment there is money in it. For all of the community pretending fluff/lore is sacred, GW unceremoniously dumped WH fantasy as a decade spanning community staple because of their bottom line. The second GW sniffs money in female SM without pissing off too many people its going to happen.

Eh, dude, I wouldn't say that WFB was a big money-maker. I played it quite a bit in the 90's, but after a few years it was rare to see a game. That's a whole new can of worms, but basically it was actually more expensive than 40k and it wasn't as good at bringing in new players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Primaris Battle Sisters?

TBH, I do hope they come out with heavy infantry SOB. That might be scary.

Maybe with big pauldrons with candles on them. Go nuts.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I don't care if an audience member that made 100 videos debunking her own videos is sitting right there, he was saying nothing and she attacked him.

Again, this is the equivalent of punching someone in the face and demanding that they not respond because at that moment you are no longer punching them in the face. Sargon of Akkad is a , even if he wasn't actively causing trouble at that exact moment, and he doesn't get a cease fire for it. And let's be honest here, he wasn't being quiet in the audience because of a genuine desire to rebuild his relationship with the speaker or out of respect for her, he was doing it so he could play the martyr and claim "I WASN'T DOING ANYTHING" if she said anything in reaction to his trolling attempt.

Like him or not, her outburst was vile toxic and against the code of conduct of the convention, the fact she was allowed to continue tells a lot about the convention organisers and their biases, there are several ways she could handled it including offering a dialogue, that would automatically elevate her regardless of the dialogue outcome, she decided to attack him and deny him any form of defending himself.

Now we can go a long way discussing if he was provocative just by been there, well as I said many pages ago, public persons have no right to complain about people critiquing them in any way shape or form, especially when they choose to be public in the political spectrum, it is a conscious choice they made and this comes with the baggage, it was a public panel and he and all the others payed to be there, she signed a contract to be there in no part of the contract, I know of, there was a clause she got to choose who would be there, she did sign to abide tot he code of contact of the convention though that she clearly violated.

Like it or not her performance was abysmal there and shows a fear of been challenged for her ideology, the easiest thing one can do is to ignore the persons they do not like, I could justify and outburst if she was challenged inappropriately, but they were just sitting there.

This IS how politics go you say something the opposition deconstructs it, tearing it apart, you then must do the same to your opposition deconstruction and then they do the same and whoever managed to persuade the majority of the audience wins for their political side and agenda, there is no ideological superiority that allows somebody to remain unchallenged.

In your example both were engaged in several boxing matches in the past and then she punched out of the boxing ring to an opponent that was sitting with the audience.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
They will budge the moment there is money in it. For all of the community pretending fluff/lore is sacred, GW unceremoniously dumped WH fantasy as a decade spanning community staple because of their bottom line. The second GW sniffs money in female SM without pissing off too many people its going to happen.

Eh, dude, I wouldn't say that WFB was a big money-maker. I played it quite a bit in the 90's, but after a few years it was rare to see a game. That's a whole new can of worms, but basically it was actually more expensive than 40k and it wasn't as good at bringing in new players.

I never said it was a big money maker. I said fantasy as fluff/lore was a decade spanning institution in the hobby dumped overboard because of money. The community holds thing sacred, but the business is business. Female space marines might seem like heresy to the community, but in 10 years if there is money to be made guess what faction will show up.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I don't care if an audience member that made 100 videos debunking her own videos is sitting right there, he was saying nothing and she attacked him.

Again, this is the equivalent of punching someone in the face and demanding that they not respond because at that moment you are no longer punching them in the face. Sargon of Akkad is a , even if he wasn't actively causing trouble at that exact moment, and he doesn't get a cease fire for it. And let's be honest here, he wasn't being quiet in the audience because of a genuine desire to rebuild his relationship with the speaker or out of respect for her, he was doing it so he could play the martyr and claim "I WASN'T DOING ANYTHING" if she said anything in reaction to his trolling attempt.

Like him or not, her outburst was vile toxic and against the code of conduct of the convention, the fact she was allowed to continue tells a lot about the convention organisers and their biases, there are several ways she could handled it including offering a dialogue, that would automatically elevate her regardless of the dialogue outcome, she decided to attack him and deny him any form of defending himself.

Now we can go a long way discussing if he was provocative just by been there, well as I said many pages ago, public persons have no right to complain about people critiquing them in any way shape or form, especially when they choose to be public in the political spectrum, it is a conscious choice they made and this comes with the baggage, it was a public panel and he and all the others payed to be there, she signed a contract to be there in no part of the contract, I know of, there was a clause she got to choose who would be there, she did sign to abide tot he code of contact of the convention though that she clearly violated.

Like it or not her performance was abysmal there and shows a fear of been challenged for her ideology, the easiest thing one can do is to ignore the persons they do not like, I could justify and outburst if she was challenged inappropriately, but they were just sitting there.

This IS how politics go you say something the opposition deconstructs it, tearing it apart, you then must do the same to your opposition deconstruction and then they do the same and whoever managed to persuade the majority of the audience wins for their political side and agenda, there is no ideological superiority that allows somebody to remain unchallenged.

In your example both were engaged in several boxing matches in the past and then she punched out of the boxing ring to an opponent that was sitting with the audience.

People have the right to complain when people misrepresent their views. Which is what Sargon does.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
They will budge the moment there is money in it. For all of the community pretending fluff/lore is sacred, GW unceremoniously dumped WH fantasy as a decade spanning community staple because of their bottom line. The second GW sniffs money in female SM without pissing off too many people its going to happen.

Eh, dude, I wouldn't say that WFB was a big money-maker. I played it quite a bit in the 90's, but after a few years it was rare to see a game. That's a whole new can of worms, but basically it was actually more expensive than 40k and it wasn't as good at bringing in new players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Primaris Battle Sisters?

TBH, I do hope they come out with heavy infantry SOB. That might be scary.

Maybe with big pauldrons with candles on them. Go nuts.

They need to give Celestians big spikey power weapons (power morning stars?), storm shields and massive armor.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
What about the ones who are not guilty of it and still accused of it, and no matter how they try to deny it they are ignored because they are obviously lying sexists.

"WTF? I don't want bikini outfits, what are you talking about?"

If someone denies the sexist behavior and is accused of lying about it with no evidence behind the accusation, well, it should be obvious how to treat the people making the accusation. Note, however, that this is not the same thing as denying being a sexist while engaging in sexist behavior. That isn't a lack of guilt, it's a lack of willingness to acknowledge guilt.

So you agree that wrongly accusing someone of sexism is very bad, and ignoring their pleas and evidence that they are not sexist is also bad, and the pleas are ignored based on the original accusation of sexism even though it’s been proven to be false, do you agree that also bad?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I never said it was a big money maker. I said fantasy as fluff/lore was a decade spanning institution in the hobby dumped overboard because of money. The community holds thing sacred, but the business is business. Female space marines might seem like heresy to the community, but in 10 years if there is money to be made guess what faction will show up.

Fair enough. And if the free market demands it, then it'll happen. I've also yet to find someone who says the AoS lore is 'better' than the Old World lore. Still not sure why they didn't just go with "Chaos kicked everyone's ass, very few large armies remain, so Sigmar made the Stormcast dudes to save the world". It could have been just a new chapter in the classic setting, but I digress. I'm the weirdo who thinks Stormcast are actually cool, but I hate the AoS lore.

TBH people who don't want female Space Marines in their army can just sell them to people who obsess over them. And people who want female Marines now can do whatever they want with their property and contribute to some of the outstanding third-party bit sellers.

Peregrine wrote:
I honestly do not understand what you are talking about here, and the tangent was declared off-topic by a moderator. Feel free to take this to an OT thread.

Sorry must have missed it, PM me if you want further details, but what I said is out there.

Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, sure, https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/758234.page is totally not about sex. I'm sure there's some entirely plausible non-sex reason why the creator modified her costume to have a skin-tight corset complete with easy-access boob holes, and seems to exclusively post models of mostly-naked women that require censoring to be allowed on dakka. Tell me about how it's "limitations of scale" driving it, especially when these are much larger than typical 28mm miniatures.

The simple fact is that if you aren't completely oblivious (whether out of ignorance or sheer stubborn desire to refuse to see the hints) to social conventions and messages a sexy miniature is very easy to identify. I understand that many gamers have trouble with social cues like this, but trust me, it's not nearly as ambiguous as you're pretending it is. The average sexy miniature is well outside any gray area between sexuality and non-sexual nudity. And appealing to some abstract philosophical argument about universal beliefs does not change the fact that if you show the average sexy miniature to a typical person in the US in 2018 (the largest market for miniatures games) they will say "yep, that's supposed to be sexy" because they recognize all of the cues.

Congratulations! you found an example of an out of context model, created for an out of context market, that out of context supports your view, I am sorry I am not going to fall that low for an out of context rebuttal, its a nice model and well made, nice for the company that makes it to acknowledge and serve a market segment that values this product and their continued existence means they are successful with a healthy market segment, not a model I care for, but I can appreciate the craft put into it.

Good for them, more choice is always good.

Now on the second part, the average sexy miniature is unknown, what is and is not sexy is to the observer and not the miniature, or even the artist, some people think SoB are sexy I find them not sexy at all, even the repentia Jess did a rally good job in creating a stylised creation that manages to not be sexy while including a powered armour breast-less corset, others believe it is sexy and sexist because it has elements that should make it sexy and sexist in their list, people need not be oblivious, ignorant or seer stubborn to see the truth, they simply do not share your worldview and after a few conversations still do not share your world view, there is no reason why your worldview is more correct than theirs.

I would argue that the "typical person" in the US would not care for you to show them a miniature, but I would also argue there is not "typical person" on the planet.

Peregrine wrote:
The market did decide. The fact that you don't like the market's decision does not mean that it didn't decide. Kickstarter weighed the relative financial merits of continuing a business partnership with the creators vs. cutting it off, concluded that the profits to be gained from continuing were not sufficient, and ended it. The creators then took their business elsewhere and sold the game. Had the market taken a more favorable view of the situation Kickstarter would never have dropped it, and would have simply told the critics to STFU while placing an order for the swimming pool to hold all of the money they were about to make.

What you are arguing for here is not "let the market decide", it's "first, remove all market forces that could produce an outcome I don't like, and then let the market reach the conclusion that I have picked for it" and insisting that people refrain from commenting on a product because any negativity might cause a tiny niche-market game to fail.

I do not think the market decided, Kickstarter decided indeed that it was a risk for their then new platform and hence it was a bullying of the platform, muck like how now patreon is pushed to a certain politically correctness by outside forces, but the game sold, kickstarter was robbed from the funds it would make from the project and whoever creators back then wanted to make similar products, now that kickstarter is established and can ignore social critics they do allow similar and indeed edgier projects and market indeed decides there are money to be made from these, but there is no calculation on how damaging for kickstarter was this initial decision and how many competitors spawned up because there was that pressure.

Free market is relatively "simple" in this regard, if there is a demand they will supply it until the demand ceases to exist, if they try to supply something there is no demand they will fail, for example the recent grand failure of marvel comics, even if the ridiculous accusations of the customer base been bigots for not buying the products is real, the fact is the market decided the products they offer are not in demand.

If tentacle bento was allowed to go on and flopped then the market would indeed decide there is no place for this product, but it was not allowed to because of outside forces interfering with kickstarter and creator.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Manchu wrote:I can agree that GW is unlikely to budge on all-male SMs. The company is not vulnerable on that front. Extortionists have to pick their targets for weakness.

And yet people try, who knows maybe someday they will succeed like they did with Marvel comics, it will probably take the same rout of failure, then they will accuse the paying customers of been bigots instead of accepting it was not a good idea.

They will budge the moment there is money in it. For all of the community pretending fluff/lore is sacred, GW unceremoniously dumped WH fantasy as a decade spanning community staple because of their bottom line. The second GW sniffs money in female SM without pissing off too many people its going to happen.

Most probably and then we will see the real test of how "sacred" the lore is, depending on the buyers reactions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Spoiler:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I don't care if an audience member that made 100 videos debunking her own videos is sitting right there, he was saying nothing and she attacked him.

Again, this is the equivalent of punching someone in the face and demanding that they not respond because at that moment you are no longer punching them in the face. Sargon of Akkad is a , even if he wasn't actively causing trouble at that exact moment, and he doesn't get a cease fire for it. And let's be honest here, he wasn't being quiet in the audience because of a genuine desire to rebuild his relationship with the speaker or out of respect for her, he was doing it so he could play the martyr and claim "I WASN'T DOING ANYTHING" if she said anything in reaction to his trolling attempt.

Like him or not, her outburst was vile toxic and against the code of conduct of the convention, the fact she was allowed to continue tells a lot about the convention organisers and their biases, there are several ways she could handled it including offering a dialogue, that would automatically elevate her regardless of the dialogue outcome, she decided to attack him and deny him any form of defending himself.

Now we can go a long way discussing if he was provocative just by been there, well as I said many pages ago, public persons have no right to complain about people critiquing them in any way shape or form, especially when they choose to be public in the political spectrum, it is a conscious choice they made and this comes with the baggage, it was a public panel and he and all the others payed to be there, she signed a contract to be there in no part of the contract, I know of, there was a clause she got to choose who would be there, she did sign to abide tot he code of contact of the convention though that she clearly violated.

Like it or not her performance was abysmal there and shows a fear of been challenged for her ideology, the easiest thing one can do is to ignore the persons they do not like, I could justify and outburst if she was challenged inappropriately, but they were just sitting there.

This IS how politics go you say something the opposition deconstructs it, tearing it apart, you then must do the same to your opposition deconstruction and then they do the same and whoever managed to persuade the majority of the audience wins for their political side and agenda, there is no ideological superiority that allows somebody to remain unchallenged.

In your example both were engaged in several boxing matches in the past and then she punched out of the boxing ring to an opponent that was sitting with the audience.

People have the right to complain when people misrepresent their views. Which is what Sargon does.

Yes, she can
A Make counter argument videos about him misrepresenting her
B Make videos explaining better her case
C Make videos to debunk his debunking of her
D In a public forum challenge him in a debate to intellectually spar their world view ideology
E At the very least complain in a polite manner that follows the terms of service to the public forum you are part of.

She
insulted him in violation of the code of conduct of the convention and denied him the microphone to defend himself, that is disingenuous and shows weakness.

Remember when somebody misrepresents you it is your obligation to prove them wrong.

Damn right psychotic storm, it’s called moral courage and integrity

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Everything you've posted is suddenly in very sharp focus.

I'm a very moderate libertarian and a hunter. If this troubles you, then that's a personal issue for you. Identity politics on all sides are stupid to me. People looking to be part of a special group because of their skin, genitals, etc.- not because of their character, their actions, or their achievements.

I feel like someone's character, actions, and especially their achievements depend on context. When I was 12, for example, I swam the fastest 100m butterfly in Canada for my age-group. However... It was a slow year, I had had my growth spurt that year, and I was a mediocre athlete competing in a field of mediocre athletes because swimming is a very expensive, and very 'white' sport. My achievement was that thousands of better athletes were off playing other sports.

Likewise my character, and hence my actions, have been shaped by how I was raised, the advantages I had given to me, the battles that were fought on my behalf, and so on.

I feel like context matters. When you say you're a libertarian and a hunter that gives context to why you hold your opinions. If you're a libertarian, for example, then you're going to believe what someone does with what they were given is more important than what they were given. Is that fair? As a 'moderate' you're unlikely to believe that the market will correct for bad actors, like the snake-oil salesmen of the 19th centuries selling quack cures because they could get away with it. You see a place for things like taxes for roads and defense, but not for healthcare or a basic minimum income. Likewise as a hunter you're probably pretty invested in the notion of self-reliance and independence. Is that reasonable to assume?

These things also suggest things about your socio-economic status. You can afford to hunt, for example, and haven't been bankrupted yet. Possibly you can afford to run your own business rather than seeking employment. Maybe you can afford to pick up and move to more prosperous areas, or you can afford to remain in an area where you can hunt rather than seeking work in a city.

What I'm getting at, is that you have a position in life. You have a certain amount of economic power. You have certain physical advantages like not menstruating (I'm assuming you're a man), and people with your colour of skin are associated with a particular take on history as well as that history (I'm English by descent, for example. We're not simply 'white,' but we're 'White.'). You've had advantages, and you've had disadvantages. It's about imagining yourself in another's shoes, which is tricky to do when you haven't shared a personal experience by dint of your position in life. It's not impossible, but it requires a considerable amount of sympathy for people who are unlike you.

Which is, I think, how the Left (to over-generalize) came to what's called "Identity Politics" because the presumption of equality has some pretty nasty results when people aren't actually equal. And its amazing how many ways people can be advantaged or disadvantage. Some differences are so powerful, like requiring the use of a wheel-chair that you can't help but acknowledge them. And once you've noticed something, you tend to notice it more often. So you need to acknowledge that people not only have different abilities, but different cultures and experiences in life, and that people sharing a broad-enough set of these things have an identity.

Which is where intersectionality comes in. My favourite example being some women in a factory being told they couldn't represent black workers because they were women, and they couldn't represent women because they were black. The intersection of being black women marginalized them, it prevented them from being representatives and having a seat at the table where their concerns could be raised and perhaps addressed.

Like the whole "healthy heterosexual men like bikini-girls" thing. Okay, so do some healthy heterosexual women for some reason. Others are annoyed by being constantly represented as sexual objects, and don't see a compromise between sexy and practical representations because their position in life is such that 'sexy' representations of women are a constant pervasive annoyance. Maybe they are a minority, and the best way to maximize the profit of such products is to ignore their comfort and cash in favour of a larger demographic that doesn't consider their comfort. Politically speaking I think we found early on that minorities occasionally needed protections from the majority like constitutional guarantees of rights.

I don't think it's about censoring your enjoyment of sexualized depictions of women, so much as trying to be considerate of the annoyance it causes to women trying to enjoy the same product those depictions have been shoe-horned into.

It is about censoring, removing options is censoring, if you believe that this is the problem why not advocate for a new creation to accommodate what you believe instead of demanding the established that people enjoy to change to your world view.

Change is positive, not negative, demanding less is negative creating more is positive.

Change is neutral, not positive or negative...pet peeve of mine

That's the weird thing about rights, in that they constrained one person's actions to enable another. Giving me the right to vote, for example, devalues your vote. Being prevented from defaming you censors me, but even if all of me and mine really enjoy defaming you it's worth constraining us to protect you.

In this particular instance it's about requesting consideration on the part of private producers rather than bringing the power of gov't to bear. Which is, I think, what censorship is; the power of the gov't to control and redact content (the ancient office of the Roman Republic's Censor, for example, maintained the lists of social class and hence eligibility for office and so on). Asking private entities if they would tone it down isn't censorship. I could, for example, be banned from Dakka and have all of my posts removed but that wouldn't be censorship because Dakka is not a gov't entity and would simply be showing me the door.

Although, now that you mention it, I am personally creating something new to accommodate women who don't want sexualized depictions of women in their gaming. I was very pleased with the number of women at a recent Game Designer Meet-up that thanked me for not making the Titan models with boob-plate, for example. I'm likewise pleased that Anita Sarkeesian is being given a soapbox by GenCon. In fact, the only thing I'm irked about is that I didn't have my eggs in a row to exhibit at GenCon 2018 because that would have been great.

JmOz01 wrote:Change is neutral, not positive or negative...pet peeve of mine

You are correct, I should have given context.

Nurglitch wrote:That's the weird thing about rights, in that they constrained one person's actions to enable another. Giving me the right to vote, for example, devalues your vote. Being prevented from defaming you censors me, but even if all of me and mine really enjoy defaming you it's worth constraining us to protect you.

In this particular instance it's about requesting consideration on the part of private producers rather than bringing the power of gov't to bear. Which is, I think, what censorship is; the power of the gov't to control and redact content (the ancient office of the Roman Republic's Censor, for example, maintained the lists of social class and hence eligibility for office and so on). Asking private entities if they would tone it down isn't censorship. I could, for example, be banned from Dakka and have all of my posts removed but that wouldn't be censorship because Dakka is not a gov't entity and would simply be showing me the door.

Although, now that you mention it, I am personally creating something new to accommodate women who don't want sexualized depictions of women in their gaming. I was very pleased with the number of women at a recent Game Designer Meet-up that thanked me for not making the Titan models with boob-plate, for example. I'm likewise pleased that Anita Sarkeesian is being given a soapbox by GenCon. In fact, the only thing I'm irked about is that I didn't have my eggs in a row to exhibit at GenCon 2018 because that would have been great.

Why on earth should rights been exclusionary? who in his right mind advocates for that especially under the banner of "been inclusive", laws can be constraining, but laws are not rights, they are the contracts we have to make sure our society works, they are not perfect, but they work, if you are for example defaming me, I can use the law to stop you assuming the law agrees that you are defaming me and it is not my perception that you do.

You touch a really tough subject on the "free speech" unfortunately we are not from the same countries and not on the same laws and philosophy about it, I feel personally that the "free speech" US citizens evangelise is an outdated and out of touch law that creates more problems than it solves now, technology and society has evolved and now the main censorship happens between individuals and corporations, not the government and their citizens, what constitutes free speech and what constitutes a public platform needs to be redefined, I am not sure I would like to be the one that this will fall in their shoulders.

I know what you do and I applaud it, you do what I advocate, want something to conform your world view and ideas, make your own, don't change the things that already exist to match your worldview.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
What about the ones who are not guilty of it and still accused of it, and no matter how they try to deny it they are ignored because they are obviously lying sexists.

"WTF? I don't want bikini outfits, what are you talking about?"

If someone denies the sexist behavior and is accused of lying about it with no evidence behind the accusation, well, it should be obvious how to treat the people making the accusation. Note, however, that this is not the same thing as denying being a sexist while engaging in sexist behavior. That isn't a lack of guilt, it's a lack of willingness to acknowledge guilt.

In what twisted and evil universe of yours does liking bikini outfits equate sexism?

Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.