Games Workshop Statement Against Hate

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.

**BlackoCatto**

GW never lets me down in finding something new to make fun of them.

**Dudeface**

Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Imagine a world with no unironic Marine fanboys.

The beauty of it.

Imagine a world where GW can issue a statement explaining their stance on their setting, whilst telling people that any socially unacceptable behaviour or imagery isn't welcome, but we don't have to have a multi page unironic thread about how they're an evil corporate entity catering to the masses who would happily mug your nan.

Sometimes they're allowed to say the right thing. Sometimes they're allowed to have their fans backs and sometimes they don't need a sideswipe at their good intent.

By God man, they're a multi-billion dollar corporation.
The average fan matters less to them as an individual than a speck of dust.

It doesn't stop them doing the right thing as they have here. This is a statement with 0 corporate smarm and is aimed purely as a social acceptance note.

This "fanbase" is magical in the sense that I can't think of any others who would want to throw shade on a corporation calling out bad behaviour and preaching acceptance.

**Grimtuff**

BlackoCatto wrote:
GW never lets me down in finding something new to make fun of them.

Sorry, what?

**Inquisitor Gideon**

BlackoCatto wrote:
GW never lets me down in finding something new to make fun of them.

You make fun of them for calling out the scum of society?

**GaroRobe**

Read their signature line and realize that it's better to just click ignore.

Edit: Yeah, go through their comments and some of the first things they posted on this forum was back during the "Black Lives Matter" movement and how bad it was GW said they don't support hate crimes.

Wonder how long till this thread is locked?

**Laughing Man**

Grimtuff wrote:
BlackoCatto wrote:
GW never lets me down in finding something new to make fun of them.

Sorry, what?

He's feeling called out and is upset about that.

**hotsauceman1**

The biggest irony is the forum avatar.
A character from a race of people oppressed in their world

**Sarouan**

Very good statement at a time it is needed.

More and more far right wing groups are trying to demolish everything democracy has done in EU right now and those with hateful ideologies feel empowered to show themselves without any fear.

It's damn time to say their ideas are nauseating and their company isn't wanted in society. It's not free speech, it's spreading hate to crush anyone thinking otherwise.

Since they always play the victims no matter how they're really treated, better to kick them out of our hobby without any shame nor remorse. No one should want to spoil fun of others to make a point with their not-so-subtle "symbols", even when we're at a damn event for pushing painted plastic soldiers on the board.

**yukishiro1**

GW definitely had a long period where they eased up on the satire and the "Imperium are the bad guys" stuff that used to be a foundational part of the setting. Bringing back Guilliman was clearly an attempt to super-hero the setting - complete with a super-hero style story about getting back to Terra, utilizing a multi-faction cast of wacky characters all working together to help G-man save the galaxy, fighting against comic-book style supervillains in the daemon primarchs. During this period Space Marines were clearly being positioned to be something closer to conventional heroes.

The new BT book seems to be something of a rejection of this narrative and a return to more classic 40k ideas, which is welcome given recent world events that have made the Guilliman "drain the swamp" story look horribly misjudged. I don't think it's any surprise or coincidence that fascists have embraced 40k in the last decade or two in a way they didn't in the past when it was much clearer that the Imperium was not something to be emulated or to be "made great again."

**Not Online!!!**

Sarouan wrote:
Very good statement at a time it is needed.

More and more far right wing groups are trying to demolish everything democracy has done in EU right now and those with hateful ideologies feel empowered to show themselves without any fear.

It's damn time to say their ideas are nauseating and their company isn't wanted in society. It's not free speech, it's spreading hate to crush anyone thinking otherwise.

Since they always play the victims no matter how they're really treated, better to kick them out of our hobby without any shame nor remorse. No one should want to spoil fun of others to make a point with their not-so-subtle "symbols", even when we're at a damn event for pushing painted plastic soldiers on the board.

Democracy? Eu?

One of the leading countries of the EU hasn't even a ratified constitution, you know the baseline most important bit of a functional democratic rule of law tree?

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

**tauist**

**Laughing Man**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
Very good statement at a time it is needed.

More and more far right wing groups are trying to demolish everything democracy has done in EU right now and those with hateful ideologies feel empowered to show themselves without any fear.

It's damn time to say their ideas are nauseating and their company isn't wanted in society. It's not free speech, it's spreading hate to crush anyone thinking otherwise.

Since they always play the victims no matter how they're really treated, better to kick them out of our hobby without any shame nor remorse. No one should want to spoil fun of others to make a point with their not-so-subtle "symbols", even when we're at a damn event for pushing painted plastic soldiers on the board.

Democracy? Eu?

One of the leading countries of the EU hasn't even a ratified constitution, you know the baseline most important bit of a functional democratic rule of law tree?

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

I'm pretty sure companies saying "Nazis are bad" is not a slippery slope.

**Sarouan**

Not Online!!! wrote:

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

No, but we're at this point where having a company saying that is already a great thing. Since our right-wing leaders would rather do the opposite, strangely.

Or what, do you think having neo-nazis around with neo-nazi symbols and saying LGBT guys are trash and should be killed on sight with muslims and leftists is socially acceptable ? If your answer is "yes", well, that's all I need to know to do what is really "socially acceptable" here.

**Wha-Mu-077**

Sarouan wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

No, but we're at this point where having a company saying that is already a great thing. Since our right-wing leaders would rather do the opposite, strangely.

Or what, do you think having neo-nazis with neo-nazi symbols and saying LGBT guys are trash and should be killed on sight with muslims and leftists are socially acceptable ? If your answer is "yes", well, that's all I need to know to do what is really "socially acceptable" here.

-but muslims are also saying LGBT guys and leftists should be killed on sight?

**hotsauceman1**

Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

No, but we're at this point where having a company saying that is already a great thing. Since our right-wing leaders would rather do the opposite, strangely.

Or what, do you think having neo-nazis with neo-nazi symbols and saying LGBT guys are trash and should be killed on sight with muslims and leftists are socially acceptable ? If your answer is "yes", well, that's all I need to know to do what is really "socially acceptable" here.

-but muslims are also saying LGBT guys and leftists should be killed on sight?

No. You are smarter than this I know it.
There is no good Nazi that advocates for LGBT rights or Racial justice.
There are good Muslims though, infact a good majority.

**yukishiro1**

changemod wrote:

Frankly, I think 40k should have good guys, because you need someone for the grimdark to happen in. You need characters who illustrate just how bad the backdrop they're set against are... And they should be in multiple factions, and the best existing example I can think of is Ciaphas Cain.

Cain can't change anything. He has flaws and he'd be the first to tell you about them at length. But he's a sane man in an insane galaxy. A morale officer who actually focuses on his troops morale instead of shooting them in the face until they arrange an "accident" for him. He seeks personal safety, but that's hardly irrational when a Carnifex is bearing down on you and he's consistently managed to do good when backed into a corner. A Cain book, whilst the series as a whole is kinda repetitive, shows you very clearly how awful the galaxy is from the perspective of a semi-decent guy. And there's no reason there couldn't be a similar sane Tau, or Eldar, or even Necron.

And indeed, is the average agri-world worker evil? Of course not, they're farmers. They might have a few indoctrinated bigotries from the Imperial church, but they'll ultimately just be an average joe trynna live their life.

There's no good factions in 40k, or at least written competently, their shouldn't be. Plenty of good individuals for the horrible crushing grimdarkness to happen to though.

This is absolutely true, but it also only works because the character is fundamentally powerless in the ways that matter.

The big misstep with Guilliman was giving him so much power. In a grimdark setting, you have to have heroism and you have to have heroes, but they also have to be little pockets of hope in the sea of despair. You can't make one the de facto ruler of the Imperium.

GW used to understand this. The closest to a "good" faction in the old GW 40k universe was the Craftworld Eldar (who were not so much actually good as just not affirmatively evil), but they were always balanced by being a race in terminal, inevitable decline. Even the way they lived, in isolated craftworlds floating in a massive void of hostile space, was a metaphor for hope in a sea of darkness.

**Sarouan**

Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

-but muslims are also saying LGBT guys and leftists should be killed on sight?

Thank you for remembering me why I put you on ignore. Finally, this topic is great to really show where people actually stand.

And to answe you (even if you don't care because facts never matter for you - just feelings) ; no, that's not the muslims who say that. Because all muslims aren't extremists who want to do the djihad.

On the other hand, all neo-nazis say that kind of nauseating ideology. So it's pretty fine to generalize here. Because that's how bad they really are.

**Lord Kragan**

Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Hm, i'm half tempted to say someone saw that Spanish tournament thread on here. Or heard about it some other way. Either way it's a good statement.

It is indeed.

**yukishiro1**

To be fair to GW, their statement wasn't directed only at Nazis, even though we know that's what prompted it. Presumably they'd be just as happy to kick someone out of a GW event for wearing an ISIS flag as a swastika.

**Wha-Mu-077**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

No, but we're at this point where having a company saying that is already a great thing. Since our right-wing leaders would rather do the opposite, strangely.

Or what, do you think having neo-nazis with neo-nazi symbols and saying LGBT guys are trash and should be killed on sight with muslims and leftists are socially acceptable ? If your answer is "yes", well, that's all I need to know to do what is really "socially acceptable" here.

-but muslims are also saying LGBT guys and leftists should be killed on sight?

No. You are smarter than this I know it.
There is no good Nazi that advocates for LGBT rights or Racial justice.
There are good Muslims though, infact a good majority.

Got any stats on that? Most Muslims in Middle East are very fascist-adjacent.

Or quite literally just fascist, the first president of Palestine was an ex-Nazi.

**Albertorius**

Londinium wrote:
Oh I agree. It was done to get Primaris into the setting (amongst other stuff) and I think all the Primaris lore is nonsense but once they decided to persue the Fall of Cadia storyline, Guilliman was the obvious saviour unless GW wanted to go down a really dark route of having the Imperium openly shatter into hundreds of pieces. In which case the setting would have been nothing other than post-apocalyptic survival and the slow but inevitable death of humanity. Hell in that scenario you'd barely be able to sustain the logistical ability to deploy Space Marines, which would remove the posterboys of the setting. Regardless of what some 40k neckbeards on the internet insist upon, there has always been a glimmer of hope in the Imperium and the 40k setting, it needs to have that hope or else it'd be relentlessly grindingly dull.

Dunno. The Fall of the Roman Empire (and every other before and after) didn't exactly cause "post-apocalyptic survival and the slow but inevitable death of humanity" (or romanity, in that case, you know ^^). Nations fall, nations rise, some heirs to the old ones, some new ones.

**Sarouan**

yukishiro1 wrote:
To be fair to GW, their statement wasn't directed only at Nazis, even though we know that's what prompted it. Presumably they'd be just as happy to kick someone out of a GW event for wearing an ISIS flag as a swastika.

And thank the Emperor for that too.

**spiralingcadaver**

TheGoodGerman wrote:
Also on the "in a time" reference: today might be bad, but when has it been better?

For whom? Because I sure feel like I'm making dirt wages as companies concentrate wealth, constantly passively surveilled, living through a pandemic that could have been lessened if not for... people I have nothing good to say about, living through a period in which people are more and more comfortable calling for the deaths of myself and people I care about (or, you know, actually killing people with automatic weapons), witnessing massive environmental degradation that could be prevented, experiencing (with occasional exception) political parties intent on undermining social infrastructure because it's unprofitable... etc etc etc

But, y'know, it's cool that we get to choose our own adventure when shopping online or whatever, get to have pocket-sized computers that we're also now required to have, and get to communicate on platforms that monetize basic social interaction. Never better.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Not Online!!! wrote:
And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?

I would be curious if they're even allowed to refuse service to people wearing Nazi symbols in the USA, legally speaking.

Kicking people out for bad behaviour isn't even an issue IMO and hardly even needs a statement, but for "wearing hate symbols" is a bit of a loose statement to me. Are we only talking about Nazi symbols here? Outside of that, there's symbols that people might find offensive and hateful that others might simply find political or a representation of a group of which they are a member.

**JWBS**

deleted, political.

**Laughing Man**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?

I would be curious if they're even allowed to refuse service to people wearing Nazi symbols in the USA, legally speaking.

Kicking people out for bad behaviour isn't even an issue IMO and hardly even needs a statement, but for "wearing hate symbols" is a bit of a loose statement to me. Are we only talking about Nazi symbols here? Outside of that, there's symbols that people might find offensive and hateful that others might simply find political or a representation of a group of which they are a member.

They are. Political affiliation is not a protected status in the United States.

**Sarouan**

Basically it says : "if you come in our events or shops to spread your hateful ideology, get the feth out of here".

In America, I thought it was actually where that kind of things is easy to put in practice, with their focus on private ground being important and stuff - and GW events and shops aren't exactly public ground, to me.

If the owner says "get out", don't care about your free speech or such : you just get out. Especially in a land where people can own and use guns much more freely.

**Nurglitch**

JWBS wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:

And do you really want a company to be able to define what is socially acceptable?
Afterall the only thing companies are after is money and their blatant double standards are well observed, take f.e. hollywood and how they censor stuff for the chinese market.

No, but we're at this point where having a company saying that is already a great thing. Since our right-wing leaders would rather do the opposite, strangely.

Or what, do you think having neo-nazis with neo-nazi symbols and saying LGBT guys are trash and should be killed on sight with muslims and leftists are socially acceptable ? If your answer is "yes", well, that's all I need to know to do what is really "socially acceptable" here.

-but muslims are also saying LGBT guys and leftists should be killed on sight?

No. You are smarter than this I know it.
There is no good Nazi that advocates for LGBT rights or Racial justice.
There are good Muslims though, infact a good majority.

Vast majority of Muslims believe homosexuality to be a sin and would prefer it be illegal. This isn't disputed, it's a fact borne out repeatedly, look at literally any poll, including Western nations.

The vast majority of Christians would agree. Doesn't mean it's actually part of their creed or that they can't be taught otherwise. There's solid minorities of both who are good people.

**Mentlegen324**

I see the usual "GW can do no right!" group are still desperately looking for something to complain about even in this case.

**Albertorius**

Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
-but muslims are also saying LGBT guys and leftists should be killed on sight?

Change that religion for any other one and see how it looks.