Does 40k Effectively Encourage Hatred?

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.

**the_scotsman**

Tyran wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Don't even get me started on the dumb asses that believe QAnon STILL, even though our dear leader could save the election for himself if he used the Trump card (heh) of the wealth of info he would supposedly have.

He still must fight Hillary Clinton in personal combat for the info that was stolen in that raid in Germany. And also a Chinese invasion was involved somehow? I admit I kinda lost the thread of the QAnon cult when the Far-Right forum I lurked banned politics because way too many calls for civil war.

Ugh, just another example of that radical liberal communist censorship. What has the world come to where I can't even go into a privately owned forum and call for civil war in full view of god and their advertisers?

**Caradman Sturnn**

Alright, this has gone completely off rails, far too many posts that have no remote connection to Warhammer 40k or the Imperium.

Mods, either clean up the thread or just lock it already.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Irkjoe wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Irkjoe wrote:@Sgt_Smudge
Threats and calling for violence are not speech.
But why not? I'm just speaking them.

Or have you figured out what I'm saying?

Are you conflating the concept of speech with the act of actually speaking? Threatening someone is not free expression just because you are physically speaking, it's an advocacy for violence. You are playing a weasely semantic game.

But when someone is being racist, and advocating for racial hatred, or sexual violence, or ethnic violence, or homophobic violence, or transphobic violence - you know, hatespeech - that's free expression?

Which one is it? Is hatespeech allowed or not? Because you've been claiming that hatespeech is "just speech", so it's fine.

**the_scotsman**

Irkjoe wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Irkjoe wrote:@Sgt_Smudge
Threats and calling for violence are not speech.
But why not? I'm just speaking them.

Or have you figured out what I'm saying?

Are you conflating the concept of speech with the act of actually speaking? Threatening someone is not free expression just because you are physically speaking, it's an advocacy for violence. You are playing a weasely semantic game.

OK, so threatening someone is not free expression, it's an advocacy for violence. 100% on board.

So here's a question: How euphemistic can I get before it's no longer an advocacy for violence?

What if, instead of saying "I'm going to get some of my buddies together, come over to your place, and kill your family" I just said that I was a kilfamilist. And then in a separate place, I wrote up The Constitution of Kilfamilism, where I state that kilfamilism is a doctrine advocating for getting some of my buddies together, coming over to your place, and killing your family?

A is a threat of violence, not free expression, and I define A = B, then declare myself an adherent of B, is there any difference between that and me declaring A?

Maybe, I could conceivably create a fantasy universe where bad things similar to A occur, and just start wearing all the iconography and admiring all the characters present in that fantasy universe.

**Mr. Burning**

Caradman Sturnn wrote:
Alright, this has gone completely off rails, far too many posts that have no remote connection to Warhammer 40k or the Imperium.

Mods, either clean up the thread or just lock it already.

Just use the yellow triangle of friendship.

But yeah, This has gone from OP having an issue with douches and the way the 40k universe is portrayed to a political thread by proxy.

**queen_annes_revenge**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:Liberals would oppose this fundamentally. Everyone thinks their ideas are the ideas everyone else should hold, the difference is whether one believes they should be forced on others or not.
Exactly - and that leads to acceptance of things like racism and sexism, which themselves are illiberal.

I wouldn't have a problem with the concept of extreme liberalism, except that it would rely on those same liberals to call out those bigots who infringe on the liberties of others.
Fun fact! Those same liberals often turn around and say "well, that's their freedom of ~~hate~~speech."

So, I'm sure you can see why I roll my eyes when someone calls themselves a liberal without calling out fascists and racists.

No it doesn't. That's just a straw man used to attack liberalism. Liberals are only concerned with the sanctity and violation of natural rights. People can have whatever views they wish, so long as any actions they take don't violate the rights of others. Liberals would oppose those viewpoints, but it doesn't mean people who hold them need to be punished, as you seem to think.

Also, you assert 'hate speech' as if it has some objectively true definition, which it doesn't, which is the main reason people who oppose hate speech laws have the problem with them. It all comes down to who's defining it.

**Insectum7**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
People can have whatever views they wish, so long as any actions they take don't violate the rights of others. Liberals would oppose those viewpoints, but it doesn't mean people who hold them need to be punished, as you seem to think.

This.

**Sgt_Smudge**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Liberals are only concerned with the sanctity and violation of natural rights.

Cool - like a racist's violation of someone's right to equality, freedom, and dignity?

People can have whatever views they wish, so long as any actions they take don't violate the rights of others.

Speech is an action though - or do you agree, as a liberal, that I could threaten to shoot a President, and not be charged until I actually fire the gun?

Liberals would oppose those viewpoints, but it doesn't mean people who hold them need to be punished, as you seem to think.

So, you oppose it, but won't do anything about it until it's too late, and ignoring the harmful effect of inciteful rhetoric?

So helpful. Gold star. A+ for effort.

**Rihgu**

yukishiro1 wrote:
Bosskelot wrote:
Hoping that people will "get the joke" is not a guaranteed thing, as I said in my post back on page 5-6 using 4chan and incels as an example. This doesn't mean 40k will turn people into fascists*, but it will certainly appeal to them unless GW and the Community makes it clearer that the IoM is not a thing to emulate or admire. And the issue there is that GW themselves are basically doing nothing to address that whatsoever.

People earlier in this thread talk about how "obvious" it is that the Imperium is terrible and the bad guy, but I will bet good money you're all making these assumptions based on lore and background you read 20+ years ago. Try opening up and reading the 9th Edition Rulebook sometime and having a read of the lore. Sure, you can say it's written from an Imperial perspective, but there is no hint of irony or critique in it what presents, there are no smoking guns of "everything you just read is a load of bs". It is all presented as immutable and objective fact. The Imperium is justified in everything it does because of Apocalyptic Race War, Xenos are all to be exterminated and never to be trusted because of ancestral misdeeds and their inferiority to the superior Human form, the only way to avoid eternal damnation is to submit to worship of the Emperor completely and utterly and ask no questions. Nowhere is this more apparent in the lore for Marines, in both rulebook and Codex, where the negative aspects of them are completely downplayed and the usages of words like "Hero" and "Heroics" and "Defenders of Humanity" have increased tenfold. And this isn't even getting into the meta discussion surrounding Marines, where marketing on streams and Warcom will absolutely not address their problematic elements whatsoever. And of course it won't, because it's marketing, but it's basically the first thing people see and what they remember most. Hell, just look at how they market anything else; they're not afraid to address the scary or evil aspects of those things. Necrons are rightly treated as being evil and scary and that's a big selling point!

This thread is actually a perfect example of some not getting the joke or irony and the bringing up of Guilliman earlier encapsulates it perfectly. I won't repeat what others said about Guilliman's return and his portrayal being the most obvious example of turning the IoM into the good guys and how problematic that is, but in this very thread we've had people claiming that the tragedy of 40k IoM is how it fell from the lofty idealistic heights of the 30k Imperium. If you honestly believe that then congratulations you didn't "get the joke" and you didn't pick up on the "obvious" message. The Imperium of 10,000 years ago is just as vile and monstrous with the only differences being a slightly more efficient bureaucracy for 30k and the religious ideals of 40k being worn openly, rather than hidden behind some flimsy bs about the Imperial Truth (which in its entire structure is intensely religious and apes religious iconography and methods constantly anyway). If your skin didn't fething crawl in Horus Rising when Sindermann is giving a religious sermon that basically consists of saying "we're right because we're right and that means we are justified in anything we do" then yeah, I dunno. Or how about later in those early books with the Interex and how they live peacefully and in harmony with Aliens and how all of our PoV characters are disgusted and repulsed by it.

*Although in recent years I've seen an uptick of younger kids playing games in GW stores loudly and gleefully exclaiming how they're going to "purge the filthy xenos!" Which does make me a little uncomfortable I'm not gonna lie.

The thread has really taken a turn away from 40k in the last couple pages, so in an effort to bring it back:

This is exactly what I was saying, and IMO is the valid complaint about the way the IP is being treated recently. People saying "of course the Imperium is evil!" are people who have been around long enough that the IoM was terrible in their formative 40k years, or people who read every single 40k novel published. But that's not representative of how the IP is portrayed now, in the main IP materials. If you think otherwise, do what Boss suggests, and read through the 9th edition rulebook, and then the 9th edition SM codex. You may be surprised at how much the bad bits of the IoM and particularly Space Marines have been watered down or cut out completely from the main material someone coming into the game is going to see.

Again, ironically, this seems to be from an attempt to market the IP to a wider audience. But the result is that it is not nearly as obvious as it used to be that IoM is not who you should be cheering for, and in particular, Space Marines absolutely *are* being presented as the heroes in the setting in a way they didn't used to be. That doesn't make GW fascists, but it is not a coincidence that 40k attracted an alt-right following when it did, and not back in the 90s, when the IP was so clearly anti-fascist in orientation.

To put this another way: is anyone here actually OPPOSED to GW going back to its roots on this and making it more clear that the IoM really is a terrible organization and that Space Marines are not the heroes of the setting?

So, none in this thread exactly but I have seen opposition to that sort of thing in facebook groups. I can't say whether these people are fascists or not, because it could be a group of people who just really want some "heroic" aspect to the setting they can cling to because they like feeling heroic/supporting heroes and going back to a more obvious "these people are BAD" setting would take that away from them.

I will note that this is, I believe, technically a strawman by me because I haven't actually seen anybody say the above or anything like it (I think like 6 years ago on /tg/ there may have been some discourse like this, but I cannot confirm this with links).

**Sgt_Smudge**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Also, you assert 'hate speech' as if it has some objectively true definition, which it doesn't, which is the main reason people who oppose hate speech laws have the problem with them. It all comes down to who's defining it.

How is this definition?
"any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor, and the use of hate speech in incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence".

**Tycho**

pretty sure they meant that outside the US its a human right but that in the US its only a human right if you can afford it.

That's literally what they were saying yes. And my point is that this is patently false and spread by the media. I grew up poor as dirt (in the U.S.) and couldn't afford squat but somehow still had good healthcare. Please explain to me how this equals "it's only a right if you can afford it". It's one of the biggest myths there is about this country.

**Bosskelot**

If someone cannot identify the difference between telling someone with abhorrent views that they're not welcome in a hobby space vs. persons said abhorrent views including the violence and murder of individuals because of genetics that are out of their control, then you can just ignore that person. They're either an ultra hand-wringing liberal so obsessed with the marketplace of ideas and who, back in the 60's, would have said MLK was too radical or they're actual fascists. Or at the very least fash-adjacent. Just block and move on. There is no equivalence between the two positions whatsoever. Especially as the person with horrible views can change them and improve and then be welcomed back in.

What Yukishiro said above about the recent changes being attempts to widen the appeal of 40k are interesting though because in my experience it's had the opposite effect.

Oh of course, 40k is more popular than ever, but its broader reach has also brought with a bigger negative reaction primarily because those negative viewpoints of the IoM have basically been removed. My partner is very supportive of my toy soldier hobby and is someone who likes a lot of sci-fi and fantasy, much of it of a darker nature. But she was pretty horrified reading a lot of the 8th and 9th ed stuff; not because the subject material was too grim (she's fine with that) but because the context of that material treated it as being a positive thing. Like I said; the rulebook and Codexes portray a lot of the information we're familiar with from 20+ years ago, but the negative aspects of those things are downplayed or outright removed. I keep saying it, but the Imperium is portrayed as being completely morally right and justified in its actions, the horror of what Space Marines are and represent has been replaced by them becoming Space Captain America's fighting for Humanity's FREEDOM and of course any flaws in the Imperium are solely because of a large byzantine bureaucracy, that needs a blonde-haired blue-eyed Strongman outsider to come in and drain the swamp and Make the Imperium Great Again.

I said earlier but the tabletop scene in my local and wider area is surprisingly diverse despite being historically a straight white man's hobby. But all of those different people are pointedly not playing 40k right now. We all know Marines sell well, but I'm curious how many people they actively drive away at the same time.

**Spoletta**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Also, you assert 'hate speech' as if it has some objectively true definition, which it doesn't, which is the main reason people who oppose hate speech laws have the problem with them. It all comes down to who's defining it.
How is this definition?
"any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor, and the use of hate speech in incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence".

By this definition all your posts in this thread are hate speech.

You are using speech to incite hostility toward fascists and racists (identity factors).

**Tyran**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:

No it doesn't. That's just a straw man used to attack liberalism. Liberals are only concerned with the sanctity and violation of natural rights. People can have whatever views they wish, so long as any actions they take don't violate the rights of others. Liberals would oppose those viewpoints, but it doesn't mean people who hold them need to be punished, as you seem to think.

The main problem with this is that natural rights are obsolete as a concept. They are justified as "God-given" which is incompatible with the secular nature of Western governments. Also are to prone for interpretation.
I mean, would you say the right to healthcare, to homosexual marriage, to hormone treatment in the case of trans people, etc. is considered an extension of such natural rights? Even their application to women can be debated, as historically natural rights were afforded to men.

**queen_annes_revenge**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Liberals are only concerned with the sanctity and violation of natural rights.
Cool - like a racist's violation of someone's right to equality, freedom, and dignity?
People can have whatever views they wish, so long as any actions they take don't violate the rights of others.
Speech is an action though - or do you agree, as a liberal, that I could threaten to shoot a President, and not be charged until I actually fire the gun?
Liberals would oppose those viewpoints, but it doesn't mean people who hold them need to be punished, as you seem to think.
So, you oppose it, but won't do anything about it until it's too late, and ignoring the harmful effect of inciteful rhetoric?

So helpful. Gold star. A+ for effort.

No. Speech is not an action, unless specifically stated in the case of calls to action, fighting words, libel etc.

Your argument essentially boils down to the useful idiot argument which, although potentially having some stock in it, really doesn't bear out. And your alternative authoritarian, 'enlightened despotism' would likely just lead to the exact thing you want to avoid.