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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
It is though? You had Jack Chick talking about how DnD is secretly making kids worship the devil, just as you have gits claiming that the IoM is great because its fascist or the setting is evil because its fascist and it somehow makes people nazis or some nonsense.
If you encountered such people in person you must have terrible luck, because in all of my years I haven't encountered such folks.

The issue here, and why it's unlike somebody like Chick, Gore, or Thompson, is that these people don't hate the game. They love what they perceive its message to be and wish to co-opt it to promote their own hideous world views. GW can't have that because there is no fast way for a product to become publicly untouchable than to have the skinheads and KKK approving of it without making a formal rebuke and addressing the reasons they've come to your product.

Can't quite see the KKK or neo-Nazis in particular endorsing a game that has ALL of humanity fighting on the same side, brutal totalitarian state or not. The art is brutal and dark (especially in the past) but it doesn't quite fit their ideology.

the_scotsman wrote:
I honestly don't get at all what 'artistic freedom' and 'free speech' have to do with any of this.

This thread is a bunch of individuals voicing opinions on an image being present.

And you seem to be arguing against the people who are in favor of the image being present...by saying that they want to limit free speech?

Wait what? Either I am really terrible getting my point across or you really missed my point, maybe a bit of both.

I am arguing against censoring such images and putting warning labels on 40k lore. Doing these things goes against my understanding of free speech and artistic freedom. This was also the point in contention.

Freedom of speech and artistic freedom has everything to do with it. Warning labels or censoring won't stop people from drawing false conclusions or lessons from 40k lore if they are hellbent on doing so, they will just migrate to another fictional universe or religious text and do the same thing there.
You can only try to talk to and educate such people, but that is not the responsibility of GW and authors writing for black library, since again, this is a fictional universe.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
It is though? You had Jack Chick talking about how DnD is secretly making kids worship the devil, just as you have gits claiming that the IoM is great because its fascist or the setting is evil because its fascist and it somehow makes people nazis or some nonsense.
If you encountered such people in person you must have terrible luck, because in all of my years I haven't encountered such folks.

The issue here, and why it's unlike somebody like Chick, Gore, or Thompson, is that these people don't hate the game. They love what they perceive its message to be and wish to co-opt it to promote their own hideous world views. GW can't have that because there is no fast way for a product to become publicly untouchable than to have the skinheads and KKK approving of it without making a formal rebuke and addressing the reasons they've come to your product.

So? Charles Manson thought Helter Skelter was great, and Chapman thought Catcher in the Rye was a great book and murdering John Lennon was his way of showing tribute.
There will always be crazy arseholes who like a work of fiction and try to use it for their own ends. Changing the work to fight them is pointless, as then there'd be no works left, just the same bland timid mess devoid of anything that could possibly be used by extremists.
Especially when there's nothing wrong with the work to begin with.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So? Charles Manson thought Helter Skelter was great, and Chapman thought Catcher in the Rye was a great book and murdering John Lennon was his way of showing tribute.
There will always be crazy arseholes who like a work of fiction and try to use it for their own ends.

Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence.
Thrice is enemy action.
If we get dozens of Manson wannabe all going off Helter Skelter, rational people are going to at least start asking questions and investigating about why.

 WhiteHaven wrote:
Can't quite see the KKK or neo-Nazis in particular endorsing a game that has ALL of humanity fighting on the same side, brutal totalitarian state or not. The art is brutal and dark (especially in the past) but it doesn't quite fit their ideology.

That's allegedly what's going on here. If I was GW and I caught even the barest whiff of that going around I'd act quickly to prevent it from taking root.

Tiberias wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I honestly don't get at all what 'artistic freedom' and 'free speech' have to do with any of this.

This thread is a bunch of individuals voicing opinions on an image being present.

And you seem to be arguing against the people who are in favor of the image being present...by saying that they want to limit free speech?

Wait what? Either I am really terrible getting my point across or you really missed my point, maybe a bit of both.

I am arguing against censoring such images and putting warning labels on 40k lore. Doing these things goes against my understanding of free speech and artistic freedom. This was also the point in contention.

Freedom of speech and artistic freedom has everything to do with it. Warning labels or censoring won't stop people from drawing false conclusions or lessons from 40k lore if they are hellbent on doing so, they will just migrate to another fictional universe or religious text and do the same thing there.
You can only try to talk to and educate such people, but that is not the responsibility of GW and authors writing for black library, since again, this is a fictional universe.

Sure.

...But that's not what people you appear to be arguing against are actually arguing for.

Art, particularly images, portraying the worst parts of the imperium is exactly what the game needs more of. For example, I hope that the "Servo-piloted" turret primaris are going to be getting actually does feature a Servitor primaris marine strapped into it and lobotomized to basically just act as a targeting computer.

Make it clear that primaris are just tools, no more important to the imperium as a whole as the guns that they're holding. If all the imperium needs from their brain is the capability to aim and fire a stationary turret, then sure, just strap him in and remove all those pesky motor functions and conscious decision making.

 catbarf wrote:
The idea that the Imperium is 'necessary' is not something I remember seeing much ten or twenty years ago. IMO it rather misses the point of the setting; it turns it from a satire of authoritarianism into outright totalitarian/fascist fantasy.

It is kind of necessary, but only because several matters have been handled so poorly or the deck has been so heavily stacked against them that the IoM really does have to do what it can to survive. And that's tragic. Much like the film Brazil, its a satire but its also tragic with what society had turned into.
Frostpunk has a similar premise. In that game you can do all sorts of horrible stuff, even establish a dictatorship, and the message at the end is basically "ok, so you lived, but at what cost? Your soul? All the progress and sacrifices that your ancestors have made to give you the liberties that you had? Wouldn't it have been better to just die?"

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So? Charles Manson thought Helter Skelter was great, and Chapman thought Catcher in the Rye was a great book and murdering John Lennon was his way of showing tribute.

Individuals versus groups. One person, with a handful of devotees, isn't a huge issue next to a group with roots in multiple regions. It's like comparing a lone wolf style mass shooting versus a sustained military action or well funded terrorist group. One is bad, the other is an international issue.

There will always be crazy arseholes who like a work of fiction and try to use it for their own ends. Changing the work to fight them is pointless, as then there'd be no works left, just the same bland timid mess devoid of anything that could possibly be used by extremists.
Especially when there's nothing wrong with the work to begin with.

That claim makes no sense given that GW did the opposite of making 40k blander by doubling down on just how grim and dark the IoM is supposed to be.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So? Charles Manson thought Helter Skelter was great, and Chapman thought Catcher in the Rye was a great book and murdering John Lennon was his way of showing tribute.
There will always be crazy arseholes who like a work of fiction and try to use it for their own ends.

Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence.
Thrice is enemy action.
If we get dozens of Manson wannabe all going off Helter Skelter, rational people are going to at least start asking questions and investigating about why.

Those are called copy cats. Which have everything to do with the individuals and not with the work.
See: The Catcher in the Rye shootings.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
It is though? You had Jack Chick talking about how DnD is secretly making kids worship the devil, just as you have gits claiming that the IoM is great because its fascist or the setting is evil because its fascist and it somehow makes people nazis or some nonsense.
If you encountered such people in person you must have terrible luck, because in all of my years I haven't encountered such folks.

The issue here, and why it's unlike somebody like Chick, Gore, or Thompson, is that these people don't hate the game. They love what they perceive its message to be and wish to co-opt it to promote their own hideous world views. GW can't have that because there is no fast way for a product to become publicly untouchable than to have the skinheads and KKK approving of it without making a formal rebuke and addressing the reasons they've come to your product.

So? Charles Manson thought Helter Skelter was great, and Chapman thought Catcher in the Rye was a great book and murdering John Lennon was his way of showing tribute.
There will always be crazy arseholes who like a work of fiction and try to use it for their own ends. Changing the work to fight them is pointless, as then there'd be no works left, just the same bland timid mess devoid of anything that could possibly be used by extremists.
Especially when there's nothing wrong with the work to begin with.

Worth noting that in this instance, however, the people doing the changing here are the ones making it less satirical.

The farther back in the lore you read, the more and more you'll see the imperium depicted as brutal, and the more and more you'll see the imperium being portrayed as causing their own problems through their brutality.

Space Marines and imperium higher-ups as heroic omniscient cartoon heroes that fully understand the technology they use, fully grasp all aspects of all situations, remember with perfect clarity the distant past and only ever display the brutality of the imperium when they are proven eventually to be correct is a new development. It's not where the lore of the game started from.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So? Charles Manson thought Helter Skelter was great, and Chapman thought Catcher in the Rye was a great book and murdering John Lennon was his way of showing tribute.

Individuals versus groups. One person, with a handful of devotees, isn't a huge issue next to a group with roots in multiple regions. It's like comparing a lone wolf style mass shooting versus a sustained military action or well funded terrorist group. One is bad, the other is an international issue.

There will always be crazy arseholes who like a work of fiction and try to use it for their own ends. Changing the work to fight them is pointless, as then there'd be no works left, just the same bland timid mess devoid of anything that could possibly be used by extremists.
Especially when there's nothing wrong with the work to begin with.

That claim makes no sense given that GW did the opposite of making 40k blander by doubling down on just how grim and dark the IoM is supposed to be.

I really doubt that a niche hobby is going to start the Fourth Reich.

GW's approach is the correct one though. I just don't think it has that much to do with this perceived rise of warhammer nazis, and more to do with the perception that 40k was getting soft.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I really doubt that a niche hobby is going to start the Fourth Reich.

I never said it would. I pointed out that allowing such a group to put down roots in your game's community is a bad thing and one which a company would be smart to worry about.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So? Charles Manson thought Helter Skelter was great, and Chapman thought Catcher in the Rye was a great book and murdering John Lennon was his way of showing tribute.

Individuals versus groups. One person, with a handful of devotees, isn't a huge issue next to a group with roots in multiple regions. It's like comparing a lone wolf style mass shooting versus a sustained military action or well funded terrorist group. One is bad, the other is an international issue.

There will always be crazy arseholes who like a work of fiction and try to use it for their own ends. Changing the work to fight them is pointless, as then there'd be no works left, just the same bland timid mess devoid of anything that could possibly be used by extremists.
Especially when there's nothing wrong with the work to begin with.

That claim makes no sense given that GW did the opposite of making 40k blander by doubling down on just how grim and dark the IoM is supposed to be.

I really doubt that a niche hobby is going to start the Fourth Reich.

GW's approach is the correct one though. I just don't think it has that much to do with this perceived rise of warhammer nazis, and more to do with the perception that 40k was getting soft.

Yeah I honestly don't think the first factors into it at all. they wanted to "de-kiddify" the art a little bit so there's some more spooky geiger grooble in the new rulebook.

GW's prices have long since gotten past the point where they are even slightly targeting kids with their actual miniature game products. Little timmy ain't affording a 250$ starter box no way no how.

Alright, this is straying into just politics now. I'm outta this one folks.

the_scotsman wrote:
Alright, this is straying into just politics now. I'm outta this one folks.

Yeah, I've backed out already, because I don't see this going well on it's current tangent (which I fully admit to having steered this way).

From a quick google search regarding fascism and 40k:

Fun fact, you can find the same kind of links if you search for fascism and My Little Pony. Or fascism and Steven Universe. Shows that are explicitly primarily about caring about other people
Or even, and I typed this in as a joke, fascism and Teletubbies.

Whatever hay you're trying to make out of derailing onto this subject, you're coming off as the butt of a joke.

There are always people that are going to try to use <thing> as a platform for <ideology>. It doesn't matter which thing or which ideology. Usually multiple people will claim the same thing supports multiple <ideologies>. Caring about what idiots think only gives them legitimacy.

Voss wrote:

From a quick google search regarding fascism and 40k:

Fun fact, you can find the same kind of links if you search for fascism and My Little Pony. Or fascism and Steven Universe. Shows that are explicitly primarily about caring about other people
Or even, and I typed this in as a joke, fascism and Teletubbies.

There are always people that are going to try to use <thing> as a platform for <ideology>. It doesn't matter which thing or which ideology. Usually multiple people will claim the same thing supports multiple <ideologies>. Caring about what idiots think only gives them legitimacy.

The issue is that a normie can look at those silly examples and easily see them for silly. When they look at 40k and see the 'good guys' being hard men who do hard things while hard the line can look far more blurred. This isn't to say that it's any less silly overall, just that public perception is a fickle thing and one that GW may want to address in fluff and with a PR statement or two.

Also, I'm not even the one who started it. I'm just pointing out that if GW did add a little more grim dark and disturbing to 40k to curb this nonsense than that is a good thing. If they did it for another reason and this tangent ends up being about nothing that's good too.

Yeah, I think the image GW is trying to avoid is:

The "Good Guy" humans are united against a hateful OTHER (whether that be scheming and conniving 'friends' like the Eldar, outright genocidal murderers, literal hordes of Orcs, or whatever) and in order to survive, these Good Guys must be Hard Men making Hard Decisions and doing Hard Things in a Hard World while Hard.

GW needs to dial back the "good guy humans" bit and play up the "good guy OTHER" bit, I think. So you get the Aeldari and Necrons actually achieving goals and cooperating on friendly terms with humans against a common enemy (Ynnari stuff with Guilliman, necrons with Cawl over Cadia, the same theme with Eldar, Orks, and Humans in Dawn of War III...)

I think the rulebook is doing the opposite - while those stories played up the OTHER as being actual creatures and not just boltgun fodder, the rulebook art and whatnot plays down the "imperium is a good place full of good people doing What They Have To as Hard Men in a Hard World" in favor of "no, actually, the imperium has copious amounts of unnecessary suffering and bizarre fetishization of different imagery, including fetusguns"

the_scotsman wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I honestly don't get at all what 'artistic freedom' and 'free speech' have to do with any of this.

This thread is a bunch of individuals voicing opinions on an image being present.

And you seem to be arguing against the people who are in favor of the image being present...by saying that they want to limit free speech?

Wait what? Either I am really terrible getting my point across or you really missed my point, maybe a bit of both.

I am arguing against censoring such images and putting warning labels on 40k lore. Doing these things goes against my understanding of free speech and artistic freedom. This was also the point in contention.

Freedom of speech and artistic freedom has everything to do with it. Warning labels or censoring won't stop people from drawing false conclusions or lessons from 40k lore if they are hellbent on doing so, they will just migrate to another fictional universe or religious text and do the same thing there.
You can only try to talk to and educate such people, but that is not the responsibility of GW and authors writing for black library, since again, this is a fictional universe.

Sure.

...But that's not what people you appear to be arguing against are actually arguing for.

Art, particularly images, portraying the worst parts of the imperium is exactly what the game needs more of. For example, I hope that the "Servo-piloted" turret primaris are going to be getting actually does feature a Servitor primaris marine strapped into it and lobotomized to basically just act as a targeting computer.

Make it clear that primaris are just tools, no more important to the imperium as a whole as the guns that they're holding. If all the imperium needs from their brain is the capability to aim and fire a stationary turret, then sure, just strap him in and remove all those pesky motor functions and conscious decision making.

Yes sure, but one point in contention was that 40k could need some sort of warning label or placative statement that the imperium are in fact the bad guys, which is what I am against, but whatever this thread has outlived itself. However I really honestly want to thank the people I have conversed with here, for having a civil discussion. On dakka, I am shocked and happy at the same time

 Grimtuff wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
The idea that the Imperium is 'necessary' is not something I remember seeing much ten or twenty years ago. IMO it rather misses the point of the setting; it turns it from a satire of authoritarianism into outright totalitarian/fascist fantasy.

I mean, we have a universe in which a galaxy-spanning totalitarian ethnostate perseveres under the guidance of a Great Leader, needing extreme measures of authority to defend against universally hostile aliens (with whom no negotiation or peace is possible) and subterfuge from within by (((heretics))), with policies of extermination carried out by a caste of ubermensch as routine, and with the entire civilization given over to a war footing. If that's not satirical, it's just The Iron Dream played straight.

I have to wonder how much of that perception has to do with the straight-faced presentation of Imperials, particularly Space Marines, as good guys. When they're both the heroic protagonists and the face of the setting, it's hard to read it as critical of them, their actions, or the society they defend. I think GW's put themselves in a rather difficult position with wanting to sanitize their protagonists for mass-market appeal, but in the process downplaying the negative characteristics that are necessary to avoid it reading like apologism for the Imperium. Gradually, it reads less like things are awful because the Imperium made it awful and continues to make it worse, and more like things are awful despite the best efforts of our noble heroes who rage against the dying of the light.

If there are people with a more surface-level understanding of the setting who are looking at the overtly grim, horrific imagery in the rulebook and asking 'are we the baddies?', then I think it's performing a necessary function.

Bruh, don't use the triple parenthesis, especially when discussing this topic... Might give the wrong impression.

Respectfully, that was my point- taken at face value, the setting reads like a thinly-veiled pro-fascist allegory. As the Imperials present it, all outsiders are monsters seeking the destruction of the human master race, and are fit only for extermination. Seemingly peaceful immigrants are secretly working to subvert populations to foreign powers. Traitors are among the populace, and must be rooted out and purged. The Imperium is so mighty that it spans the entire galaxy, but is constantly under such threat that constant war footing and total subservience to the state are required. Questioning the great leader is not only disallowed, it warrants summary execution. The angels of this empire are a race of supermen who enact its will through raw violence. It's really not hard to draw unsavory parallels.

Which, obviously, was originally all intentional, because it was built as a satire overtly criticizing those beliefs. The Imperials with these views were blinkered extremists, and made stupid decisions that worked out worse for them in the long run. Some of the aliens weren't actually secretly harboring an agenda of total extermination, and cooperation would be mutually beneficial- but oops, the Imperium's rabid xenophobia ruined that. Others were only aggressive because humanity provoked them, in a self-fulfilling prophecy. The authoritarian elements claimed that technology must be zealously guarded, while other upstart civilizations developed rapidly without the constraints of religious dogma on technological innovation. The Imperium was slowly coming to rest in a grave it dug for itself, even while the people in it saw themselves as heroes.

But the more the writers actually validate the Imperium's views, the less satirical it becomes. Oh, I guess the Tau really are closet authoritarians using mind-control on their subservient populations. Oh, I guess everything technological does have an AI 'soul' and the AdMech approach to technology is really pure scientific rationalism rather than religious zealotry. Oh, I guess Chaos really can take root from one person thinking a bad thought, and murdering thousands of innocents to stop it is perfectly justified. Huh, so maybe the Imperium actually is a rational, logical, necessary state, and perpetuating this hideously oppressive authoritarianism and all the evil it entails is a good thing. Hey, and these Space Marines carrying out the purges are actually noble, brotherly heroes after all!

And then it's like, yeah, no gak actual fascists flock to it. Without that element of satire, it's not making fun of them; instead it gives them a power fantasy where they can indulge their worldview and while being considered the good guys and with plausible deniability.

This is a bad look for a public corporation, and GW is clearly already aware of it. I don't think the game needs a warning label, it just needs to return to being up-front about 'there are no good guys here' rather than 'here's three hundred pages of glorious Space Marines upholding their brotherhood of honor and courage as the Defenders of Humanity'. Less bending over backwards to rationally justify everything the Imperium does, more acknowledgment that they're bad people who do bad things for bad reasons. Less told exclusively from the Imperial perspective, more from the perspective of the people they're trying to exterminate. Then the Imperials can consider their system 'necessary', while a more objective reader recognizes the lie.

 catbarf wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
The idea that the Imperium is 'necessary' is not something I remember seeing much ten or twenty years ago. IMO it rather misses the point of the setting; it turns it from a satire of authoritarianism into outright totalitarian/fascist fantasy.

I mean, we have a universe in which a galaxy-spanning totalitarian ethnostate perseveres under the guidance of a Great Leader, needing extreme measures of authority to defend against universally hostile aliens (with whom no negotiation or peace is possible) and subterfuge from within by (((heretics))), with policies of extermination carried out by a caste of ubermensch as routine, and with the entire civilization given over to a war footing. If that's not satirical, it's just The Iron Dream played straight.

I have to wonder how much of that perception has to do with the straight-faced presentation of Imperials, particularly Space Marines, as good guys. When they're both the heroic protagonists and the face of the setting, it's hard to read it as critical of them, their actions, or the society they defend. I think GW's put themselves in a rather difficult position with wanting to sanitize their protagonists for mass-market appeal, but in the process downplaying the negative characteristics that are necessary to avoid it reading like apologism for the Imperium. Gradually, it reads less like things are awful because the Imperium made it awful and continues to make it worse, and more like things are awful despite the best efforts of our noble heroes who rage against the dying of the light.

If there are people with a more surface-level understanding of the setting who are looking at the overtly grim, horrific imagery in the rulebook and asking 'are we the baddies?', then I think it's performing a necessary function.

Bruh, don't use the triple parenthesis, especially when discussing this topic... Might give the wrong impression.

Respectfully, that was my point- taken at face value, the setting reads like a thinly-veiled pro-fascist allegory. As the Imperials present it, all outsiders are monsters seeking the destruction of the human master race, and are fit only for extermination. Seemingly peaceful immigrants are secretly working to subvert populations to foreign powers. Traitors are among the populace, and must be rooted out and purged. The Imperium is so mighty that it spans the entire galaxy, but is constantly under such threat that constant war footing and total subservience to the state are required. Questioning the great leader is not only disallowed, it warrants summary execution. The angels of this empire are a race of supermen who enact its will through raw violence. It's really not hard to draw unsavory parallels.

Which, obviously, was originally all intentional, because it was built as a satire overtly criticizing those beliefs. The Imperials with these views were blinkered extremists, and made stupid decisions that worked out worse for them in the long run. Some of the aliens weren't actually secretly harboring an agenda of total extermination, and cooperation would be mutually beneficial- but oops, the Imperium's rabid xenophobia ruined that. Others were only aggressive because humanity provoked them, in a self-fulfilling prophecy. The authoritarian elements claimed that technology must be zealously guarded, while other upstart civilizations developed rapidly without the constraints of religious dogma on technological innovation. The Imperium was slowly coming to rest in a grave it dug for itself, even while the people in it saw themselves as heroes.

But the more the writers actually validate the Imperium's views, the less satirical it becomes. Oh, I guess the Tau really are closet authoritarians using mind-control on their subservient populations. Oh, I guess everything technological does have an AI 'soul' and the AdMech approach to technology is really pure scientific rationalism rather than religious zealotry. Oh, I guess Chaos really can take root from one person thinking a bad thought, and murdering thousands of innocents to stop it is perfectly justified. Huh, so maybe the Imperium actually is a rational, logical, necessary state, and perpetuating this hideously oppressive authoritarianism and all the evil it entails is a good thing. Hey, and these Space Marines carrying out the purges are actually noble, brotherly heroes after all!

And then it's like, yeah, no gak actual fascists flock to it. Without that element of satire, it's not making fun of them; instead it gives them a power fantasy where they can indulge their worldview and while being considered the good guys and with plausible deniability.

This is a bad look for a public corporation, and GW is clearly already aware of it. I don't think the game needs a warning label, it just needs to return to being up-front about 'there are no good guys here' rather than 'here's three hundred pages of glorious Space Marines upholding their brotherhood of honor and courage as the Defenders of Humanity'. Less bending over backwards to rationally justify everything the Imperium does, more acknowledgment that they're bad people who do bad things for bad reasons. Less told exclusively from the Imperial perspective, more from the perspective of the people they're trying to exterminate. Then the Imperials can consider their system 'necessary', while a more objective reader recognizes the lie.

I honestly don't think that your points are invalid, though I might disagree in some crucial parts as already discussed, but I have to ask honestly. Where do you see those actual fascists flocking to 40k? I am not saying they don't exist, I'm genuinely asking.

The guy with a totenkopf Knight and SS men in tow springs to mind.

Tiberias wrote:
I honestly don't think that your points are invalid, though I might disagree in some crucial parts as already discussed, but I have to ask honestly. Where do you see those actual fascists flocking to 40k? I am not saying they don't exist, I'm genuinely asking.

I posted links to a dozen or so articles about it but the mods removed my post. I don't know how many people think this versus how many people are pretending to be fascists for 't3h lulz', but it was enough to do the rounds back in 2016 and pop up again from time to time after that. This proves that some people as well as normie media types can see how 40k, and the IoM, can read as unironically fascist.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
I honestly don't think that your points are invalid, though I might disagree in some crucial parts as already discussed, but I have to ask honestly. Where do you see those actual fascists flocking to 40k? I am not saying they don't exist, I'm genuinely asking.

I posted links to a dozen or so articles about it but the mods removed my post. I don't know how many people think this versus how many people are pretending to be fascists for 't3h lulz', but it was enough to do the rounds back in 2016 and pop up again from time to time after that. This proves that some people as well as normie media types can see how 40k, and the IoM, can read as unironically fascist.

A heavily decentral , at best reliant upon a multitude of inter structural, loosely tied together factions running Billions of Planets with their controll basically limited to get tithe don't rebell is fascisct?
An ideology which demands total controll over all factions within the System to even the most basic civilian life and organisations .

Honestly that is more an issue with how often the Word get's thrown arround as a label rather then people actually having that ideology.


Granted gw did itself no favour by lowering the grimdark to appeal to mass Market Leading to the possibility of an Interpretation that at first glance it is just fascisct propganda rather then the worst of all human societies satirically cranked up to 11 but that IS gw's fault.

 Sherrypie wrote:
The guy with a totenkopf Knight and SS men in tow springs to mind.

There's also a genestealer cultist who has soviet inspired banner, so what?
Painters and modelers going to paint and model. One or two players with bad taste doesn't mean there's a fascism problem with the fan base, it just means there are fascists who like the hobby, just as there are communists.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
The guy with a totenkopf Knight and SS men in tow springs to mind.

There's also a genestealer cultist who has soviet inspired banner, so what?
Painters and modelers going to paint and model. One or two players with bad taste doesn't mean there's a fascism problem with the fan base, it just means there are fascists who like the hobby, just as there are communists.

Yeah. And fascists who like the hobby aren't welcome, because they're fascists. Simple as that. Is that a controversial point? Not as far as I'm concerned.

(Also, it's very clearly not "one or two" players. There's more than a few out there, several who are/were regarded as "go-to"s for the 40k youtube community. I don't get what anyone get from downplaying that.)

 WhiteHaven wrote:

Can't quite see the KKK or neo-Nazis in particular endorsing a game that has ALL of humanity fighting on the same side, brutal totalitarian state or not. The art is brutal and dark (especially in the past) but it doesn't quite fit their ideology.

You might have a point if the vast majority of artwork that GW puts out for the Imperium wasn't composed entirely of white people.

Imperial Guard regiments are made up of soldiers from entire worlds, yet are often depicted in artwork as 100% white. Same issue with Space Marines, Sisters etc.

From a fascist point of view, going off the official artwork, you could quite easily assume that all of humanity is working together because all of the people who aren't white appear to have been exterminated already. Or they are neatly segregated away into their own forces, safe from the risk of mixing with the pure white people (looking at you Salamanders and White Scars).

Seriously, google Astra Militarum artwork or Imperial Guard artwork and tell me how far you have to scroll down until you find official GW artwork depicting a non-white Guardsman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
The guy with a totenkopf Knight and SS men in tow springs to mind.

There's also a genestealer cultist who has soviet inspired banner, so what?
Painters and modelers going to paint and model. One or two players with bad taste doesn't mean there's a fascism problem with the fan base, it just means there are fascists who like the hobby, just as there are communists.

Yeah. And fascists who like the hobby aren't welcome, because they're fascists. Simple as that. Is that a controversial point? Not as far as I'm concerned.

(Also, it's very clearly not "one or two" players. There's more than a few out there, several who are/were regarded as "go-to"s for the 40k youtube community. I don't get what anyone get from downplaying that.)

But Communists are?

Communism doesn't require the extermination of people based on the colour of their skin, their mental capacity, the shape of their skull etc. as a core tenet of the ideology. Communism calls for the abolition of the class system. Fascism calls for the abolition of people.

Jumping straight to page 6 of this topic makes me wonder how it went from grimdark artwork to where it is now.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Jumping straight to page 6 of this topic makes me wonder how it went from grimdark artwork to where it is now.

Art leads to censorship leads to politics leads to the Dark Side. Just as Master Yoda warned us.
Or was that fear, anger and toast?

Voss wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Jumping straight to page 6 of this topic makes me wonder how it went from grimdark artwork to where it is now.

Art leads to censorship leads to politics leads to the Dark Side. Just as Master Yoda warned us.
Or was that fear, anger and toast?

Sounds like art should be banned.