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.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm for fascists getting lost from my community. I'm for an inclusive community where not one member holds racist, sexist, bigoted views.
Is that a problem?
You're still telling me what you're against rather than what you're for.
No, I'm pretty sure I made my "what I'm for" very clear - an inclusive community. Fascists violate that principle.
Here's an example: I'm for a Liberal Democracy (Liberal as in Liberty). I'm for freedom of speech, equal treatment under the law for all, personal ownership of property, capitalism with regulations, the right to defend yourself and your property, social assistance to those in need, and a financially responsible government. Currently there is no government on Earth that offers all these things.
Being for Democracy basically puts me in opposition to fascism and communism by default, as well as a bunch of other things.
Being for equal treatment under law for all puts me in opposition to sexism and bigotry (I equate bigotry and racism as the same thing, I know some people thing racism requires power)
Right. So why, when fascists oppose free speech and liberty (you know, the freedom and liberty of people they deem "lesser" than them) do you let them? It's not a violation of free speech to silence someone who threatens the freedoms of others, because they've already demonstrated their lack of respect for free speech and liberty.
If you defend my right to defend myself, then why do you oppose my wish to stand against fascism?
You're acting like the racists and fascists haven't broken the social contract you describe. They have. So what do you do about people who *do* break that social contract?
But saying you're against facism isn't useful information. Lots of terrible people, like Stalin, were against fascism.
Just because someone else is opposed to fascism doesn't mean they're like them though - which I what I've been saying this whole time against things like "Hitler was a vegetarian! All vegetarians are Hitler". What *was* said was "examine if there's a correlation between the two" - so, you know, unless you're implying that if you're opposed to fascism, you support Stalin, I'd suggest dropping that.
Saying and acting up being opposed to fascism I'd say ARE useful information. Or, more importantly, when people jump through hoops to say they're not opposed to it, that's even better information about them.
But all the different shapes are used by both the Kingdom of Prussia and successor states like the 3rd Reich as well as all the knights of Malta and related templars like the Teutonics who took part in the Northern Crusade that everyone forgets about because it was against pagans instead of Islams. All the shapes are an equilateral cross with arms with wider at the end than at the hub where they join. If you are interested in symbology the most ancient version of the cross is Solar Cross which dates back to the Neolithic period, way before Christianity was even invented. Clearly the Black TEMPLARS are reference to the TEMPLARS though. The clue is in the name.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/28 16:01:24
No they aren't. I am autistic, I was born like that. There is no way in the world for me to be equal to someone who was born without autism. At the same someone who was born a genius, like lets say the guy who made the polio vaccine is worth incomperably more to the world, then some dude that spends his life at the 24 alcohol store. People aren't and never will be equal, they are too different for it to ever be true.
You are right, people are not equal. But the whole point of Human Rights is that all humans are worth the same regardless of that inequality.
There are people that provide more to the world, there are people that provide less, but regardless of that fact they are worth the same, they have the same rights even if they don't have the same capabilities.
In fact, having less capabilities tends to afford even more rights to try to account for the inequality.
The point of human rights is that we all receive equal treatment under the law, nobody gets more rights for any reason at least on paper. People are are inherently different, we are only equal in kind.
Tiberias wrote:I am not sure to be honest about the speech is an action thing, but the one thing that is very important to me to point out is that in basically every country on earth, there are limits to free speech, even in the US (as far as I'm aware). You can not incite violence against another person and commiting perjury is also prohibited, they are considered crimes in fact.
This might seem obvious, but my point is that it seems to me that your conversation about this topic with other uses boils down to where to draw the line of free speech. I do not have an answer to that question, I only know that a society has to think carefully about where to draw the line.
If I misread the conversation, or misrepresented a point then I apologize and feel free to correct me.
No, you're absolutely right, that's what I'm talking about.
Some people here seem to believe that all speech, including hatespeech, is justified under "free speech". I think that's utter horsegak.
If someone's speech (which is an action) expresses that someone's life is less valuable because of causes out of their control, they themselves are violating the social contract that all people are to be treated equally and with dignity. If they can't speak without violating that contract, then why does the freedom of speech contract apply to them?
As far as I'm concerned, the line is drawn the moment you start implying people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control. And, because fascism is rooted in the very concept of some people being "lesser", fascism is incompatible with free speech.
I've only read up to page 8, and this has been an insightful and reflection conversation, no matter what one's views might be. I'm glad this discussion is allowed to continue, as I feel introspection is an important facet of being a mature human being. And that extends to communities of all walks of life being allowed to hold up a mirror and ask themselves tough questions like the one the OP posses.
My thoughts are informed, in part, by reading The Authoritarians, which if the research is correct, suggests that people with strong authoritarian follower tendencies tend to form these tendencies as a consequence of their upbringing (which isn't of course at all surprising).
As such, 40K alone is not going to create an authoritarian individual. A great many other factors have to come together for that to happen. Perhaps the easiest thing to deduce from this is that such individuals might consume 40K stuff as comfort food of sorts, or identify with it as a re-affirmation of their beliefs (even though they are clearly missing the dystopian warning that 40K is). But 40K is not alone in this regard, as one can consume all manner of books, films, comic, artwork, music or indeed any other cultural artifacts and be influenced the same way.
That all said - I do think recent changes in the lore and presentation of 40K (starting maybe late 7th edition?) is starting to sanitize the "horror" and grimdarkness of the whole IP. Just looking at artwork across rulebooks it went from obviously satirical / outright comedic to clearly grimdark (where no image of the IoM was anywhere a sane person would want to be) and finally to a much cleaner and "heroic" look, especially with respect to space marines. I think this was done as a effort to make the game world more visually palatable to a brooder audience. How many parent's would be turned off by seeing a half-dead zombie man sitting on throne atop a pile of skulls with all sorts of "drugs" and such being pumped into him. It's not a happy time look, and might convince some parents that this is for "mature audiences" only.
But this mixing of imagery does nevertheless send mixed-messages. If you only understand the game, and the IoM specifically, based on the imagery and game rules, and don't actually read the lore, I could see people coming away with the wrong impression about the Imperium (i.e. thinking it is somehow better, when it is in fact pretty awful across the board). I don't think GW is trying to whitewash the brand at its core or pull the wool over their customers' eyes, as much as just trying to push more sales by making it visually more accessible.
Where, perhaps, GW and the broader 40K community can run into bigger problems is when imagery and symbols from the 40K universe are re-appropriated for uses that conflict with the values of the company and the community at large. That CAN cast the community in a bad light. If the general public knows nothing about GW or 40K or the lore but sees 40K content and IP taken out of context and used publicly to push a certain political agenda, they might easily make the conclusion that GW/40K is all some fascist/communist/totalitarian/authoritarian/feudal/monarchy power fantasy - when in fact the lore is warning us against those exact things.
At the end of the day, it is up to us as individual players, game groups, store managers/owners, and GW to provide the proper context, messaging and/or to push back against having the game's lore and symbols misappropriated and used in ways that might damage the community. I'm not sure what these actions would look like - but I think it's worth discussing the possibilities.
I don't really see the point on dwelling on such things. Seems to be a waste of energy.
You say Fiery Crash! I say Dynamic Entry!
*Increases Game Point Limit by 100*: Tau get two Crisis Suits and a Firewarrior. Imperial Guard get two infantry companies, artillery support, and APCs.
The point of human rights is that we all receive equal treatment under the law, nobody gets more rights for any reason at least on paper. People are are inherently different, we are only equal in kind.
but that ain't true either, not even in western countries. You guys have racial quotas, people from my country can't just waltz in to US just because they want a better paid job, but someone comming from Somalia or Mexico can. You have different rates for same crimes for men and women, different rates of incarcaration for different races. Some of your schools discriminate against asian folks, because if everything was equal, they would be dominating the whole school systems. there are no 5 foot 4 asian dudes playing basketball or football. Heck healthcare is a human right, well at least here, and in the US it comes with the suffix of it is a human right, if you pay for it. etc
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Tiberias wrote:I am not sure to be honest about the speech is an action thing, but the one thing that is very important to me to point out is that in basically every country on earth, there are limits to free speech, even in the US (as far as I'm aware). You can not incite violence against another person and commiting perjury is also prohibited, they are considered crimes in fact.
This might seem obvious, but my point is that it seems to me that your conversation about this topic with other uses boils down to where to draw the line of free speech. I do not have an answer to that question, I only know that a society has to think carefully about where to draw the line.
If I misread the conversation, or misrepresented a point then I apologize and feel free to correct me.
No, you're absolutely right, that's what I'm talking about.
Some people here seem to believe that all speech, including hatespeech, is justified under "free speech". I think that's utter horsegak.
If someone's speech (which is an action) expresses that someone's life is less valuable because of causes out of their control, they themselves are violating the social contract that all people are to be treated equally and with dignity. If they can't speak without violating that contract, then why does the freedom of speech contract apply to them?
As far as I'm concerned, the line is drawn the moment you start implying people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control. And, because fascism is rooted in the very concept of some people being "lesser", fascism is incompatible with free speech.
again you assume that everyone has the same social contract. Considering how many philosophical schools there are alone in regards to the social contracts and how many differingly aged democratic countries it's fair to assume that is not correct.
That said a good meassure indeed is the point were some people start espousing views detrimental to the status of other citizens.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/28 16:11:53
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Tiberias wrote:I am not sure to be honest about the speech is an action thing, but the one thing that is very important to me to point out is that in basically every country on earth, there are limits to free speech, even in the US (as far as I'm aware). You can not incite violence against another person and commiting perjury is also prohibited, they are considered crimes in fact.
This might seem obvious, but my point is that it seems to me that your conversation about this topic with other uses boils down to where to draw the line of free speech. I do not have an answer to that question, I only know that a society has to think carefully about where to draw the line.
If I misread the conversation, or misrepresented a point then I apologize and feel free to correct me.
No, you're absolutely right, that's what I'm talking about.
Some people here seem to believe that all speech, including hatespeech, is justified under "free speech". I think that's utter horsegak.
If someone's speech (which is an action) expresses that someone's life is less valuable because of causes out of their control, they themselves are violating the social contract that all people are to be treated equally and with dignity. If they can't speak without violating that contract, then why does the freedom of speech contract apply to them?
As far as I'm concerned, the line is drawn the moment you start implying people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control. And, because fascism is rooted in the very concept of some people being "lesser", fascism is incompatible with free speech.
See I generally totally agree with you, but free speech really is a difficult topic. You say the line is drawn the moment someone implies that people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control. Ok, on the surface I absolutely agree with that, but what falls under "implying"? In my opinion the devil really lies within the details here and that is I think (correct me if I'm wrong!) is what some people were objecting to your point. Is painting a skull that resembles a totenkopf used by the nazis enough that someone crosses that line and automatically implies that this person thinks some people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control? Maybe, and if they do they should be called out for it, but you need to first engage them and consider the context.
Edit: so in this example I think it would be unwise to enact a policy to automatically remove such a person from a game store for example before first engaging them and considering context.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/28 16:11:10
SolarCross wrote: The worst thing about the Nazis is that they carried out a genocide against jews, slavs and gypsies who are all white people.
The worst thing about the Commies is that they carried genocides against a much bigger bag of ethnics but by numbers most of the victims were asian.
If you think the nazis are bad for killing white people but the commies are okay for killing asian people then you just might be a racist because clearly you only care about white people and not asians.
Thanks for that contribution, but I've got no idea what that has to do with this.
Are we not all agreed that genocide is bad? Or, perchance, are you implying that people opposed to fascism are pro-Soviet communist regime?
The point of human rights is that we all receive equal treatment under the law, nobody gets more rights for any reason at least on paper. People are are inherently different, we are only equal in kind.
but that ain't true either, not even in western countries. You guys have racial quotas, people from my country can't just waltz in to US just because they want a better paid job, but someone comming from Somalia or Mexico can. You have different rates for same crimes for men and women, different rates of incarcaration for different races. Some of your schools discriminate against asian folks, because if everything was equal, they would be dominating the whole school systems. there are no 5 foot 4 asian dudes playing basketball or football. Heck healthcare is a human right, well at least here, and in the US it comes with the suffix of it is a human right, if you pay for it. etc
Between believing something is a human right and achieving it for a general population are miles in governance.
reality is at most shaped by the sphere of ideas. and morals / ethics are primarily in the ideal sphere.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Tiberias wrote:I am not sure to be honest about the speech is an action thing, but the one thing that is very important to me to point out is that in basically every country on earth, there are limits to free speech, even in the US (as far as I'm aware). You can not incite violence against another person and commiting perjury is also prohibited, they are considered crimes in fact.
This might seem obvious, but my point is that it seems to me that your conversation about this topic with other uses boils down to where to draw the line of free speech. I do not have an answer to that question, I only know that a society has to think carefully about where to draw the line.
If I misread the conversation, or misrepresented a point then I apologize and feel free to correct me.
No, you're absolutely right, that's what I'm talking about.
Some people here seem to believe that all speech, including hatespeech, is justified under "free speech". I think that's utter horsegak.
If someone's speech (which is an action) expresses that someone's life is less valuable because of causes out of their control, they themselves are violating the social contract that all people are to be treated equally and with dignity. If they can't speak without violating that contract, then why does the freedom of speech contract apply to them?
As far as I'm concerned, the line is drawn the moment you start implying people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control. And, because fascism is rooted in the very concept of some people being "lesser", fascism is incompatible with free speech.
The problem is that you are expecting all people to act equally with decency.
These days, it does not exist.
The common defence for people with no argument is to shout insults with no basis (as this thread shows) with the expectation that shock value alone will end the argument in their favour.
Sadly, ignoring it will make them assume you are in the wrong and fighting back against it will have you labelled as being “defensive”
It’s literally the most cowardly retort possible.
SolarCross wrote: The worst thing about the Nazis is that they carried out a genocide against jews, slavs and gypsies who are all white people.
The worst thing about the Commies is that they carried genocides against a much bigger bag of ethnics but by numbers most of the victims were asian.
If you think the nazis are bad for killing white people but the commies are okay for killing asian people then you just might be a racist because clearly you only care about white people and not asians.
While a bit of an over-simplification, there is truth in what you are saying. In the West, no one talks about the Japanese slaughter/rape of Nan-king, or the entire kamerh Rouge attrocities, because they didn't involve white people. We are even trying to white wash our own history to say the Native American's benefitted from our culture's clashing. Our society/ethnicity has a terrible past that we eagerly run away from.
You can not incite violence against another person and commiting perjury is also prohibited, they are considered crimes in fact.
But that is just words. Yes the ruling party or the ones that control the courts can do it, but if the oppossition gets targeted in the same way, it just gets ignored. And that is true for every country from China and Russia to US or UK.
You're wrong, at least about the UK (from personal experience) and the US (from indirect experience). The concept of freedom of speech is not perfectly applied even in countries that have in enshrined in their laws/constitution but in the vast majority of western democracies the basic principle is equally applied regardless of which side of the political spectrum the attack is targeted at.
Like I said earlier, I sincerely hope at some point in the near future you are able to explore some of these concepts in a more in-depth way and perhaps come to an appreciation of some different worldviews than the ones you've been exposed to.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think we can reference the Reece from FLG debacle here now. when he put forward a Knight he painted with a "Death's head" symbol. A rather strong resemblence to the Death's Head symbol used by the Nazis. He immediately engaged in exactly the same defense that so many here are making today.
1. Calling all accusers soft, whiney, alt-left babies.
2. Calling the whole thing a made up conspiracy
3. Asking where is the problem? It's just a skull.
4. Again attacking his accusers.
5. Deleting all records of his knight and saying he never painted it and refusing to talk about it again.
One of the leaders of the biggest Wargamming conventions in the US was called out as supporting the alt-right fascist movement, and he instantly attacks everyone, refuses to admit there is a problem, and then deletes all records of the event in the first place. But yeah, 40k doesn't have a problem. Nothing to see here.
I have no idea who Reece is, and know nothing about this event; but how did we (you) jump from painting a skull and crossbones (a relatively common symbol historically) on a model to supporting fascists?
Well thanks for providing some evidence for your claim, I guess.
But less thanks for accusing me of justifying support for fascism by simply asking a question.
I agree that it does look a lot like a totenkopf, and I probably wouldn't have painted that on a model. However, it does also looks like examples of non-totenkopf skull and crossbones seen elsewhere than on the SS.
As far as I can tell from googling it, Reece claimed that the resemblance to the totenkopf was unintentional, and unless you've got some other evidence that he's actually a secret fascist, I still don't see how you've come to the conclusion that he's supporting fascists? (and therefore presumably should have some action taken against him?)
Even if it was literally a totenkopf, and Reece selected that symbol very deliberately, I still don't see how you can claim to know that he supports fascism/fascists based solely on that single piece of evidence?
FWIW, Popper's own resolution to his 'paradox of tolerance' is that a tolerant society should tolerate intolerance until there is literally no other choice but violence to resist a takeover. He argues that for a society to be tolerant, it is necessary for them to engage intolerance solely through argument and public opinion for as long as possible.
Having read The Open Society And Its Enemies, I find it very odd how often Popper's critique of Plato's benevolent despotism (that unlimited tolerance leads to intolerance winning) is cited, but his actual in-text resolution (tolerate intolerance as long as possible) is left out, to imply that his conclusion is that intolerance should not be tolerated at all.
So... I don't know if you really want to be bringing up the paradox of tolerance here, because referencing Popper to argue that hateful speech should be met with action is like citing Marx to argue that the free market should be deregulated. He was pretty firmly on the 'just debate them in the Marketplace Of Ideas' side of this issue.
In any case, saying that speech is tantamount to action is pretty far out there; I don't see how that can be reconciled with the idea of free speech at all, so from the outset that's a pretty authoritarian way of looking at things. Maybe we're just getting too in-the-weeds about ideals- I don't think open racists, fascists, or other forms of bigots should be tolerated in gaming groups, and I don't think maintaining standards for acceptable conduct constitutes a slippery slope.
Lord Damocles wrote: I have no idea who Reece is, and know nothing about this event; but how did we (you) jump from painting a skull and crossbones (a relatively common symbol historically) on a model to supporting fascists?
I haven't seen the model in question, but the totenkopf is a specific type of skull-and-crossbones that one really can not replicate unknowingly. If someone has an actual death's-head on their model, it's almost guaranteed that they know exactly what they were doing. Same way if someone draws a straight-armed right-facing swastika canted 45 degrees, you know for a fact that they aren't innocently replicating a Buddhist symbol of luck; they've chosen the specific variant that represents hate.
Edit: Oh yeah, that's a totenkopf for sure. The appearance of the skull angled to the side is an atypical presentation and a dead giveaway. In situations like this I'm inclined to give benefit of the doubt if the person seems to recognize what they've done- if they're cagey about it or fall back on 'it's just a skull', that's suspicious.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/28 16:14:45
That is because in the west, that didn't get to expiriance the goodness of living in a soviet state, for some ununderstandable reasons soviets are not considers to be worse then nazis. Even with a higher head count, and bigger economic and social impact.
It is pretty obvious, the West allied with Stalin of all people against the Nazis, that is how bad the Nazis were. Churchill literally said “If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons”. Churchill, being the British Imperialist he was, hated the Soviets more than any other British, but he hated the Nazis even more. You don't get to be more evil, more hated, than the Nazis as far as the Western worldview is concerned.
Also, while many people got to experience the goodness of living in the Nazi state, not many of said people survived it. The Nazis put Industrialized in Genocide after all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/28 16:16:45
I don't think you have the right to demand a company ideologically cleanses itself to suit your beliefs.
So you're a free speech purist that doesn't draw the line at people saying that they're for genocide or murder or whatever, but you draw it at people telling companies to ideologically cleanse themselves to suit their beliefs?
Do you not see that as a fairly outwardly silly position to hold? Surely I can use my free speech to tell a company to do whatever it wants, and they have the freedom to do whatever they want to their property. After all, people have the freedom to tell companies to do a lot of much sillier things, or else I would have gotten a lot of people sent to jail for telling the companies I've worked for to give away their property to them for free or else they'll give us bad reviews on social media. That's like...speech robbery. Do you believe in removing that right as well, You Authoritarian You?
I don't really know how you've come to that conclusion regarding my opinion... You can hold the opinion that companies should cleanse themselves and their customers, but it's a silly one. Maybe you're confused, my response was personal rather than to do with rights in law
Probably because this was a discussion about rights in law, and you said that people "don't have a right to demand something".
People have a right to demand whatever they choose to demand. Companies have a right to do whatever they want with what is their property. James Q Workshop, the one man responsible for all of warhammer who lives in my closet and dislikes me personally, could tomorrow decide that the extreme radial liberals have held him hostage for long enough, and from this point forward all space marine players must submit their miniatures to mandatory transgender catgirlification before they will be admitted to play at any warhammer 40,000 tournament, in an instant destroying the final free society in the world and fulfilling the ultimate goal of the antifa thoughtcrime police.
Because all warhammer is his property. Your warhammer, my warhammer, everyone's hammers even remotely related to or used for war is the property of Mr. James Workshop, inventor of hammers AND war, because we live in a glorious perfect capitalist society and that's how intellectual property freedom liberty works.
Checkmate, atheist.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Not Online!!! wrote:again you assume that everyone has the same social contract. Considering how many philosophical schools there are alone in regards to the social contracts.
That said a good meassure indeed is the point were some people start espousing views detrimental to the status of other citizens.
Sorry, just so we're clear - the social contract is Article 1 of the UDHR: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
That is the simple core concept. Are you saying that it is acceptable that it is okay to not follow this contract?
Tiberias wrote:See I generally totally agree with you, but free speech really is a difficult topic. You say the line is drawn the moment someone implies that people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control. Ok, on the surface I absolutely agree with that, but what falls under "implying"? In my opinion the devil really lies within the details here and that is I think (correct me if I'm wrong!) is what some people were objecting to your point. Is painting a skull that resembles a totenkopf used by the nazis enough that someone crosses that line and automatically implies that this person thinks some people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control? Maybe, and if they do they should be called out for it, but you need to first engage them and consider the context.
Absolutely on board with context - and that context can also come from the response to being called out.
So, for example, someone accused of doing something racist can respond in several ways - one of those being to apologise, reflect on their miscommunication, elaborate their intent, and take on board the context that they should have been aware of. Another response could be to double down and blame "the loony left" for their own actions.
As I'm sure you can see, one of these is not like the other.
I'm not suggesting immediate "cancelling", is what I'm saying. But if someone's response to being called out for questionable actions is to suddenly go on the aggressive and not even consider their own errors, you can be damn sure my opinion of them will plummet.
Player wearing star of Rhodesia badge on jacket
Players using racist language in GW store, but playing it off as jokes
Same but homophobic or transphobic language
Models and units painted with clear Nazi or 3rd Reich iconography
Models and units painted/modelled to look like KKK members
Players getting upset/bothered because my guard/custodians had black and brown skin
Players actively making attacks against my female characters because they said "women don't belong on the battlefield"
Players that called my Tallarn Guard, Sand N-words.
40k is full of fascists and idiot children. But no, I do not think the hobby is racist or fascist. I do think it's got a rallying cry/dog whistle towards those people though.
I also think GW has done a LOT this year to stop that sort of stuff. This really helped me see it in a better light though:
Warhammer is for everyone, except people we don't like.
Not all genocides get equal air time though. Rwanda? Armenia? Cambodia? Korea? Even the ongoing genocides in Communist China against the Falun Gong and Uighars are memory holed... If they were white that would be a different story perhaps.
Tiberias wrote:I am not sure to be honest about the speech is an action thing, but the one thing that is very important to me to point out is that in basically every country on earth, there are limits to free speech, even in the US (as far as I'm aware). You can not incite violence against another person and commiting perjury is also prohibited, they are considered crimes in fact.
This might seem obvious, but my point is that it seems to me that your conversation about this topic with other uses boils down to where to draw the line of free speech. I do not have an answer to that question, I only know that a society has to think carefully about where to draw the line.
If I misread the conversation, or misrepresented a point then I apologize and feel free to correct me.
No, you're absolutely right, that's what I'm talking about.
Some people here seem to believe that all speech, including hatespeech, is justified under "free speech". I think that's utter horsegak.
If someone's speech (which is an action) expresses that someone's life is less valuable because of causes out of their control, they themselves are violating the social contract that all people are to be treated equally and with dignity. If they can't speak without violating that contract, then why does the freedom of speech contract apply to them?
As far as I'm concerned, the line is drawn the moment you start implying people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control. And, because fascism is rooted in the very concept of some people being "lesser", fascism is incompatible with free speech.
In the US hate speech doesn't exist, the logical conclusion is to keep expanding it from things that are obviously hateful to everything that people like you decide has to be destroyed. It is a nebulous and subjective thing used as a political weapon.
There is just speech and non speech, that's the line. What you are saying is that you want to use the force of government read threat of death, to suppress the rights it only exists to protect, all in order to push your own politics.
Player wearing star of Rhodesia badge on jacket
Players using racist language in GW store, but playing it off as jokes
Same but homophobic or transphobic language
Models and units painted with clear Nazi or 3rd Reich iconography
Models and units painted/modelled to look like KKK members
Players getting upset/bothered because my guard/custodians had black and brown skin
Players actively making attacks against my female characters because they said "women don't belong on the battlefield"
Players that called my Tallarn Guard, Sand N-words.
40k is full of fascists and idiot children. But no, I do not think the hobby is racist or fascist. I do think it's got a rallying cry/dog whistle towards those people though.
I also think GW has done a LOT this year to stop that sort of stuff. This really helped me see it in a better light though:
Warhammer is for everyone, except people we don't like.
No. The statement literally calls out people who are prejudiced, hateful or abusive. A more correct summary of the statement is Warhammer is for everyone, except the prejudiced, the hateful or the abusive. Seems fine to me.
Between believing something is a human right and achieving it for a general population are miles in governance.
reality is at most shaped by the sphere of ideas. and morals / ethics are primarily in the ideal sphere.
So let me get this straight for simple people like me. You think that people should think and act, as if equality was a thing, and not just a thing, but a good thing, when we have no example of a place where it works on any level of sociaty starting with the family and ending with the international community? that is reglious type of belief, worse we can't really check if any of the existing religions is right, but very much can check if inequality works in favour of certain people, groups or whole countries or civilisations. Russia and China were and will never be known for their equality, yet they are powerful countries a lot more powerful then most countries that claim to want equality.
It is pretty obvious, the West allied with Stalin of all people against the Nazis, that is how bad the Nazis were. Churchill linearly said “If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons”. You don't get to be more evil, more hated, than the Nazis as far as the Western worldview is concerned.
That is intersting because my people remember Stalin attacking us alongside the nazis,mass murdering polish citizents and sending poles to siberian death camps as early as winter 1939. And we kind of a had a military pakt with the british and the french to help us in case of an attack from the west or the east. And Stalin didn't become an ally of the west way until 1941.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Not Online!!! wrote:again you assume that everyone has the same social contract. Considering how many philosophical schools there are alone in regards to the social contracts.
That said a good meassure indeed is the point were some people start espousing views detrimental to the status of other citizens.
Sorry, just so we're clear - the social contract is Article 1 of the UDHR: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
That is the simple core concept. Are you saying that it is acceptable that it is okay to not follow this contract?
Considering that the UDHR is / was created by an institution that also can be considered to have been dominated with a massive eurocentrism/ western powergroup with a questionable trackrecord itself, yes, i indeed could criticise it for the inherent bias found within it.
Point in case to the "could" .
Like i said you can dislike it all you want but the universalism is not really applicable and there are valid reasons to question it.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
catbarf wrote:FWIW, Popper's own resolution to his 'paradox of tolerance' is that a tolerant society should tolerate intolerance until there is literally no other choice but violence to resist a takeover. He argues that for a society to be tolerant, it is necessary for them to engage intolerance solely through argument and public opinion for as long as possible.
Having read The Open Society And Its Enemies, I find it very odd how often Popper's critique of Plato's benevolent despotism (that unlimited tolerance leads to intolerance winning) is cited, but his actual in-text resolution (tolerate intolerance as long as possible) is left out, to imply that his conclusion is that intolerance should not be tolerated at all.
So... I don't know if you really want to be bringing up the paradox of tolerance here, because referencing Popper to argue that hateful speech should be met with action is like citing Marx to argue that the free market should be deregulated. He was pretty firmly on the 'just debate them in the Marketplace Of Ideas' side of this issue.
In any case, saying that speech is tantamount to action is pretty far out there; I don't see how that can be reconciled with the idea of free speech at all, so from the outset that's a pretty authoritarian way of looking at things. Maybe we're just getting too in-the-weeds about ideals- I don't think open racists, fascists, or other forms of bigots should be tolerated in gaming groups, and I don't think maintaining standards for acceptable conduct constitutes a slippery slope.
I feel like I've mentioned it enough, but I have been very clear on "engage in discussion first". That doesn't mean I support the right to hatespeech, however.
The totenkopf is a specific type of skull-and-crossbones that one really can not replicate unknowingly. If someone has an actual death's-head on their model, it's almost guaranteed that they know exactly what they were doing. Same way if someone draws a straight-armed right-facing swastika canted 45 degrees, you know for a fact that they aren't innocently replicating a Buddhist symbol of luck; they've chosen the specific variant that represents hate.
Edit: Oh yeah, that's a totenkopf for sure. The appearance of the skull angled to the side is an atypical presentation and a dead giveaway. In situations like this I'm inclined to give benefit of the doubt if the person seems to recognize what they've done- if they're cagey about it or fall back on 'it's just a skull', that's suspicious.
Yup, agreed. There are definitely cues on if that's really as innocent as someone claims, and it's usually their reaction to it that prompts be biggest understanding about that person's intentions.
Is Reece a fascist? Doubtful. Were they acting under entirely benevolent intentions and had no idea what they were doing? Also very doubtful.
