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.

Cyel wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:


True, but... well, if I don't ask, how would I know? It's not like LGBTQ people look different than straight people.

And isn't asking a little inappropriate in a gaming venue?

I was also thinking that. For all I know most of my regular opponents from the club or tournaments could be gay. When we meet we ask questions about threat ranges or armour saves not who we have been sleeping with recently.

I'm asexual, from my observation, both gay and straight people don't realize how much they mention their relationships basically constantly, with the exception that non-hetero people only do it when they feel comfortable. It's like background radiation. Unless you really only meet random people and don't small-talk with them at all at random venues only, which is the opposite of what gaming clubs/communities are, you can't really avoid learning that your opponent is going on a trip with his girlfriend next week.

Cyel wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:


True, but... well, if I don't ask, how would I know? It's not like LGBTQ people look different than straight people.

And isn't asking a little inappropriate in a gaming venue?

I was also thinking that. For all I know most of my regular opponents from the club or tournaments could be gay. When we meet we ask questions about threat ranges or armour saves not who we have been sleeping with recently.

They don’t have to “out” themselves. But think of words and phrases which may be upsetting or offensive to them, let alone conversations they might overhear.

Cutting that language out at a shop or club harms no-one.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I did not read the thread, as I knew it would make my blood boil.....

You should ask yourself why. Moral and social dilemmas require debate.

^This

Im really happy we are able to have this conversation on this site. It is an extremely important topic which should be discussed in a respectful manner.

I’m not sure “should we be welcoming to all” is exactly a social or moral dilemma.

That doesn’t take a lot for GW to arrange. Have different skin tones on ‘Eavy Metal Models. Have different ethnicities shown on book covers, without them being stereotypes. That’s…that’s about it. Those are statements. Those are simple windows of representation.

You don’t even need to provide sculpts of specific and obvious ethnicity. Indeed that can be shooting your self in the foot, as you risk causing offence if it’s seen as a stereotype or caricature. I’d refer folks to the new Cadian kit. On the box, a variety of skin tones on show. But the faces are…pretty generic. If you paint them all in a certain skin tone, they’re not going to look out of place or odd.

Simple barriers removed to widen your appeal as much as possible. It’s all stuff you were going to do anyway, so it’s not costing you anything. And if an existing customer starts to feel alienated because it’s not a white man sosigfest anymore? Sorry to say, but that sort of person is hardly a great loss.

I think the book covers would be a massive thing. Having a Commander or such be a main character and be a minority would be massive. Make it subtle and do not make a big deal about it but instead just introduce it as normal. Have a Eavy' Metal painting tutorial where the AM character they paint is black and dont make it a big deal the character is black, just have it as a tutorial for painting a cadian soilder.

Normalizing minorities is the first step

 ForgedSteel wrote:

That doesn’t take a lot for GW to arrange. Have different skin tones on ‘Eavy Metal Models. Have different ethnicities shown on book covers, without them being stereotypes. That’s…that’s about it. Those are statements. Those are simple windows of representation.

You don’t even need to provide sculpts of specific and obvious ethnicity. Indeed that can be shooting your self in the foot, as you risk causing offence if it’s seen as a stereotype or caricature. I’d refer folks to the new Cadian kit. On the box, a variety of skin tones on show. But the faces are…pretty generic. If you paint them all in a certain skin tone, they’re not going to look out of place or odd.

Simple barriers removed to widen your appeal as much as possible. It’s all stuff you were going to do anyway, so it’s not costing you anything. And if an existing customer starts to feel alienated because it’s not a white man sosigfest anymore? Sorry to say, but that sort of person is hardly a great loss.

I think the book covers would be a massive thing. Having a Commander or such be a main character and be a minority would be massive. Make it subtle and do not make a big deal about it but instead just introduce it as normal. Have a Eavy' Metal painting tutorial where the AM character they paint is black and dont make it a big deal the character is black, just have it as a tutorial for painting a cadian soilder.

Normalizing minorities is the first step

They're actually not that bad about this, Vulkan is a black man after all, and represented as such consistently over all sorts of artwork. All human factions in both 40k and AoS have different skin tones present for a couple of years now, again without making much of a deal of it. I think one of the Stormcast heroes in AoS that's represented on covers etc. is also canonically black, but i don't know his name.

Bastian Carthalos is the Stormcast.

 ForgedSteel wrote:
^This

Im really happy we are able to have this conversation on this site. It is an extremely important topic which should be discussed in a respectful manner.

I agree that it is an important topic but I disagree that it has been conducted respectfully by all parties.
Those who oppose the notion of diversity in TTWG space always bring up the same points about forced inclusion and diversity while bringing up the worst parts of the pro-diversity side of the debate but never take responsibility for those who seek to exclude people based on ethnicity/sex/gender/sexual orientation. They get to preach about the diversity-crazies who accuse people of racism/sexism/homphobia+ for doing things like converting the above-mentioned Stormcast into a different race (one based on a Mongol warrior aesthetic using White Scars parts btw) but when the pro-diversity side brings up the many incidents of actual racism/sexism/homphobia+, it gets hushed away as not real or not a legitimate problem.
The anti-diversity side also baits with loaded questions or absurd examples.
How is that engaging in a respectful manner?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Adeptekon wrote:
I'm just wondering how the dynamics of the former ages of 40K history ended up with Anglo demographics in the far future with our world setting up for a shift of powers already.

Maybe in the far future the Primarchs should be African or Asian?

*psst, I know why, and it's merely that GW is located where it is, but probably never expected to reach the global audience it has now.

The Emperor is said to have been born in Ancient Turkey (Anatolia, if memory serves?)

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Adeptekon wrote:
I'm just wondering how the dynamics of the former ages of 40K history ended up with Anglo demographics in the far future with our world setting up for a shift of powers already.

Maybe in the far future the Primarchs should be African or Asian?

*psst, I know why, and it's merely that GW is located where it is, but probably never expected to reach the global audience it has now.

The Emperor is said to have been born in Ancient Turkey (Anatolia, if memory serves?)

Anatolia indeed. I always imagined that that's a nice little easter-egg for the fans of OG 'Ancient Aliens' dude Erich von Däniken (who was a big star in the late 60s to the mid-80s) and his weird theories about ancient spacefarers influencing humanity, because Anatolia is where Göbelki Tepe is situated, which held the record for things like the oldest known megaliths, oldest known human settlement, and oldest known place of worship until very recently and features in von Dänikens writing prominently

Yes, perhaps Big E is an AA, but as to whether he looks Turkish, Greek, Persian, Armenian, Caucasian, Romantically Romano-British, or whatever else is anyone's interpretation.

Gert wrote:

 Adeptekon wrote:
I'm just wondering how the dynamics of the former ages of 40K history ended up with Anglo demographics in the far future with our world setting up for a shift of powers already.

Maybe in the far future the Primarchs should be African or Asian?

*psst, I know why, and it's merely that GW is located where it is, but probably never expected to reach the global audience it has now.

You're using the term "Anglo" in the American sense to refer to non-Hispanic white people, which covers about half of Europe. On this side of the pond, Anglo-Saxons were a very specific cultural group that settled in the Southeast of England before the Norman invasions and were largely made up of Germanic migrants. Calling someone from Scotland or Ireland an Anglo would be a good way of getting stabbed as well.

Sad isn't it? and yes havin' some Irish relations I'm fully aware of that noise. In fact it was quite clear to me growing up where I did in the states that I was a Catholic myself. I knew someone was going to say something as soon as I hit "send"

Gert wrote:From a cultural perspective, we have multiple Nordic tribal cultures, ancient Roman/Greek-inspired cultures, post-apocalyptic gang cultures, Eastern Steppe cultures, and medieval European cultures, the list is long. The only ones we could really view as "Anglo" would be the Victorian Britain "Workshop of the World" idea on worlds that are heavily industrialised.
If you a referring to GW painting a lot of their miniatures as white, yes that is an issue of representation. However, the company has been a lot better at not having full white armies anymore.

It's kind of a moot point, since as you've helped me learn here before, it's not really the British empire, but broadly speaking European representation is clear.

Vulcan wrote:

 Adeptekon wrote:
And I'm sure wherever one lives someone's heard the line that goes something like this: "instead of blowing your money on toys you could be helping feed the poor"

Or "Why are you wasting your time on those toys when you should be studying!"

Yes I could have left the part after --when you could be-- and let everyone fill in their own blanks.

Now I'm not Black myself, but I would like to see an African Primarch, there's already Jagatai so maybe the two lost place holders could support that and Big E's lost daughter.

As for "What Is A Woman?" as mentioned earlier, I just don't have the energy to touch that right now. I'm still highly disappointed in the sad exchange on the documentary of the same name between Matt Walsh and Professor Dave who decidedly prefer to talk past each other.

Credit to everyone here, pat yourselves on the back.

 Grimskul wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Well, we've progressed from 'hire the best person for the job' to 'hire based on race', so that's... progress..?

Well not really.
We identified that one method to improve diversity is to have presenters/community engagers who come from the same background as identified different diverse groups.
Therefore to improve diversity of a target group the "best person for the job" IS a person from that background.


As an example. If you identify that you want more women to join the hobby; then having at least one or more women in your video displays (tutorials, battle reports, painting etc...) is one means to help encourage others to join up. Thus a woman is 100% the best person for that role.

Not going into this too much, but given the current online climate, even defining what a woman nowadays is somehow contentious, so good luck with that.

A women is someone who identifies as a women. Sex is different then gender, but alas this is not the place to have this discussion.

If you are curious on this topic, this article highlights it pretty well https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html#:~:text=Sex%20is%20usually%20categorized%20as,men%2C%20and%20gender%20diverse%20people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mods, thank you for allowing this important -and frankly crucial- discussion to take place. It is our job as some of the most involved members of the community to have this conversation and improve the hobby for the next generation.

If anyone has access to a GW rep this forum topic should be sent to them. It addresses many important issues which is plaguing the hobby.

 ForgedSteel wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Well, we've progressed from 'hire the best person for the job' to 'hire based on race', so that's... progress..?

Well not really.
We identified that one method to improve diversity is to have presenters/community engagers who come from the same background as identified different diverse groups.
Therefore to improve diversity of a target group the "best person for the job" IS a person from that background.


As an example. If you identify that you want more women to join the hobby; then having at least one or more women in your video displays (tutorials, battle reports, painting etc...) is one means to help encourage others to join up. Thus a woman is 100% the best person for that role.

Not going into this too much, but given the current online climate, even defining what a woman nowadays is somehow contentious, so good luck with that.

A women is someone who identifies as a women. Sex is different then gender, but alas this is not the place to have this discussion.

If you are curious on this topic, this article highlights it pretty well https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html#:~:text=Sex%20is%20usually%20categorized%20as,men%2C%20and%20gender%20diverse%20people.

I'm quite informed, and I'll be happy to leave that where it lay, sex is most certainly different than gender. I'm of the third school of thought that rarely gets a sound byte, that is gender is non-existent and irrelevant from a idealistic view point, but alas humans are categorical creatures, and that's where I'll digress or this will likely get shutdown consider the heat that topic brings.

 Vulcan wrote:


True, but... well, if I don't ask, how would I know? It's not like LGBTQ people look different than straight people.

And isn't asking a little inappropriate in a gaming venue?

I know we want to be PC here, but I have literally never met a transwoman or transman in person that I didn't clock immediately.
There are also specific styles of haircuts, clothing, mannerisms, etc that are fairly distinct to both lesbians and gays. Granted, I've known gay men and women weren't remotely stereotypical, but the general idea that you would never be able to tell if someone is LGBTQ+ is frankly wrong.

 Adeptekon wrote:

 ForgedSteel wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Well, we've progressed from 'hire the best person for the job' to 'hire based on race', so that's... progress..?

Well not really.
We identified that one method to improve diversity is to have presenters/community engagers who come from the same background as identified different diverse groups.
Therefore to improve diversity of a target group the "best person for the job" IS a person from that background.


As an example. If you identify that you want more women to join the hobby; then having at least one or more women in your video displays (tutorials, battle reports, painting etc...) is one means to help encourage others to join up. Thus a woman is 100% the best person for that role.

Not going into this too much, but given the current online climate, even defining what a woman nowadays is somehow contentious, so good luck with that.

A women is someone who identifies as a women. Sex is different then gender, but alas this is not the place to have this discussion.

If you are curious on this topic, this article highlights it pretty well https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html#:~:text=Sex%20is%20usually%20categorized%20as,men%2C%20and%20gender%20diverse%20people.

I'm quite informed, and I'll be happy to leave that where it lay, sex is most certainly different than gender. I'm of the third school of thought that rarely gets a sound byte, that is gender is non-existent and irrelevant from a idealistic view point, but alas humans are categorical creatures, and that's where I'll digress or this will likely get shutdown consider the heat that topic brings.

I totally agree with this. Gender is a social construct and is not real, we humans just wanted to place people in boxes because it is easier for us

 Adeptekon wrote:
Sad isn't it? and yes havin' some Irish relations I'm fully aware of that noise. In fact it was quite clear to me growing up where I did in the states that I was a Catholic myself. I knew someone was going to say something as soon as I hit "send"

Not sure why it's sad, it's a term that some Americans use to differentiate between Whites and Latinos. It's incorrect sure but that's a lack of education, not racism or anything.

It's kind of a moot point, since as you've helped me learn here before, it's not really the British empire, but broadly speaking European representation is clear.

The thing is, HH isn't really the place where that sort of thing shines. The Legions all have their own cultures and they are varied but there are only 18 of them.
When you hit 40k and start getting to Marine Chapters and Guard Regiments there are far more cultural and historical influences that reach beyond Europe. For example, for Space Marines the Carcharadons and Obsidian Jaguars are inspired by the Polynesians and Aztects respectively, while the Imperial Guard Tallarn Desert Raiders are inspired by the Arab forces in the desert campaigns of WW1.
This brilliant image from one of the old Guard books that shows pretty well the range of inspirations 40k armies can go for.

trexmeyer wrote:
I know we want to be PC here, but I have literally never met a transwoman or transman in person that I didn't clock immediately.

That you know of.

As I noted before, if the intention is to increase the diversity of a group by attracting a population segment that is under-represented then the "BEST PERSON" for a media role to help introduce and draw those people in IS a person of that particular group.


This isn't diversity hiring, this is hiring a person of a specific group for a specific role and part of that role (not all) is to attract those of a similar background to themselves into your hobby/company.

Why is automatically assumed that the best candidate is a cishet white male, and not a minority?

White athletes are a minority in the NBA and certain positions in the NFL. I don't see how you could say they were anything other than a minority despite being the majority of the population in the US.

 Gert wrote:

 Adeptekon wrote:
Sad isn't it? and yes havin' some Irish relations I'm fully aware of that noise. In fact it was quite clear to me growing up where I did in the states that I was a Catholic myself. I knew someone was going to say something as soon as I hit "send"

Not sure why it's sad, it's a term that some Americans use to differentiate between Whites and Latinos. It's incorrect sure but that's a lack of education, not racism or anything.

I meant it's sad that people are still getting stabbed about it. The current generation doesn't use it, currently the US government just has White and White Non-Hispanic (real scientific there) I still use it because I'm old school. That said we're all engaging each other within the Anglo-world cultural paradigm. We might be from different places, but we share English, history, some foods, values, ideals, religion, tradition, social expectations etc, on a much broader level. On the micro-level I still rep my block.

 Gert wrote:

The thing is, HH isn't really the place where that sort of thing shines. The Legions all have their own cultures and they are varied but there are only 18 of them.
When you hit 40k and start getting to Marine Chapters and Guard Regiments there are far more cultural and historical influences that reach beyond Europe. For example, for Space Marines the Carcharadons and Obsidian Jaguars are inspired by the Polynesians and Aztects respectively, while the Imperial Guard Tallarn Desert Raiders are inspired by the Arab forces in the desert campaigns of WW1.
This brilliant image from one of the old Guard books that shows pretty well the range of inspirations 40k armies can go for.

Spoiler:

Thanks for that graphic, I don't really know much about the 40k cultures, I really need to learn more about Old Night and the whatever bits of lore that existed prior.

Okay, a hammer has been swung, the offending posts have been removed, posts quoting said offending posts have also been removed, apologies if there was anything else in there that was not dealing with.. that person.

In any case, we're going to give this topic another try. To the folks who kept things civil and on topic, many thanks, love you lots!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Cyel wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:


True, but... well, if I don't ask, how would I know? It's not like LGBTQ people look different than straight people.

And isn't asking a little inappropriate in a gaming venue?

I was also thinking that. For all I know most of my regular opponents from the club or tournaments could be gay. When we meet we ask questions about threat ranges or armour saves not who we have been sleeping with recently.

They don’t have to “out” themselves. But think of words and phrases which may be upsetting or offensive to them, let alone conversations they might overhear.

Cutting that language out at a shop or club harms no-one.

I think perhaps you shouldn't insinuate I regularly make such offensive statements, or that I tolerate them in my presence. One less even-tempered than I might take it as an insult.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

trexmeyer wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:


True, but... well, if I don't ask, how would I know? It's not like LGBTQ people look different than straight people.

And isn't asking a little inappropriate in a gaming venue?

I know we want to be PC here, but I have literally never met a transwoman or transman in person that I didn't clock immediately.
There are also specific styles of haircuts, clothing, mannerisms, etc that are fairly distinct to both lesbians and gays. Granted, I've known gay men and women weren't remotely stereotypical, but the general idea that you would never be able to tell if someone is LGBTQ+ is frankly wrong.

Fair point, I suppose. I can be pretty oblivious, to the point where I've not noticed a woman I was talking to was flirting with me.

Yeah, SOMETIMES I can tell someone is LGBT. Generally when they're being very flamboyant about it. Like, acting so stereotypical that less flamboyant LGBT people get offended by it. Subtle generally flies right by me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why is automatically assumed that the best candidate is a cishet white male, and not a minority?

Well, if everyone who applied was cishet white male, there's not a lot of choice in the matter.

Now I suppose this indicates a problem with how the business in question is PERCIEVED by minorities that needs addressing... but let's face it. We all know how things are perceived does not always reflect the situation that actually exists. If the business has gone out of their way to remove discrimination in hiring, but minorities remember a time where that wasn't true and no longer apply, how does one address that? If the minorities come in to apply but see there's only cishet white males and don't bother to apply no matter how friendly one is, how does one address that?

Those are not rhetorical questions. A lot of HR people would really like to know the answer to those questions so they can stop resorting to quota hiring and get enough diverse applicants that they can hire the best person, period.

I'm not seeing any insinuation there, I'm pretty sure Doc is just talking generally about behaviour in a shop or club - not seeing any suggestion that you personally might do anything like that.

You guys all know that there is plenty of stuff written about the talent pipeline, and how a lot of homogenous work forces are shaped less by biased hiring practices than by larger scale institutional biases that form the candidate pool?

Are nurses mostly women because men are baised against by hiring managers? No, most people know that an overwhelming majority of nursing students are women. For software engineers is reversed. (For doctors its ickier, because many of the more lucrative specialties have training programs that eat up a lot of women's prime child bearing years, so many female doctors choose career paths that better suit being a working mother).

Organizations act like they are powerless to expand their applicant pool. There are some clever ways to do that. You can offer internships, you can partner with schools, you can have a competitive scholarship, whatever. Hell, just post your job in publications or sites that cater to different markets. you'll get different applicants!

This conversations seem to always boil down to "diversity hiring is racist" which is just a thought terminating cliche. It assumes that there are literally two options: the status quo (which we know for a fact is biased) or quotas/affirmative action/reverse racism. It would make a casual observer wonder if maybe, just maybe, some people really prefer the current scheme.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Cyel wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:


True, but... well, if I don't ask, how would I know? It's not like LGBTQ people look different than straight people.

And isn't asking a little inappropriate in a gaming venue?

I was also thinking that. For all I know most of my regular opponents from the club or tournaments could be gay. When we meet we ask questions about threat ranges or armour saves not who we have been sleeping with recently.

They don’t have to “out” themselves. But think of words and phrases which may be upsetting or offensive to them, let alone conversations they might overhear.

Cutting that language out at a shop or club harms no-one.

I think perhaps you shouldn't insinuate I regularly make such offensive statements, or that I tolerate them in my presence. One less even-tempered than I might take it as an insult.

No such insinuation was intended. I was simply illustrating that if a venue allows racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic “banter”, it’s not exactly going to be a surprise those affected - or offended - by such language will at best give their patronage elsewhere, at worst decide that venue is representative of the whole, and want nothing to do with that whole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why is automatically assumed that the best candidate is a cishet white male, and not a minority?

That’s a really significant sociopolitical question.

Super short version? People are daft. Or at least, don’t necessarily think about things too hard. If you see Career Paths A, B, and C are dominated by cishet white male, the societal impression is “therefore cishet white males are best suited to that role”.

That’s the tricky part about expanding understanding. Initially, you are kind of saying to the person labouring under that impression “you are wrong”. And they kind of are. But through ignorance, rather than malice. Ignorance is of course a strong word, but isn’t necessarily a condemning observation. And it needs a careful non-accusatory explanation - and for the person to be willing to learn.

Rather than mostly rehashing of the "why" (not that there's anything wrong with that), I would be interested to hear the "how" from anyone who has been successful in deliberately cultivating a diverse wargaming group.

My loosely affiliated group includes all minorities:

Atheist (2)
Agnostic Catholic (2)

A society isn't past its diversity issues until it normalizes seeking diversity not because it is good but because it is better. Which is to say, rather than seeking diversity because it is the 'right thing to do' society would be seeking diversity because diverse groups are more effective.

Put differently, people need to transition from seeing their differences as flaws to seeing their differences as assets.

Rep your culture.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
A society isn't past its diversity issues until it normalizes seeking diversity not because it is good but because it is better. Which is to say, rather than seeking diversity because it is the 'right thing to do' society would be seeking diversity because diverse groups are more effective.

Put differently, people need to transition from seeing their differences as flaws to seeing their differences as assets.

I'd argue that thinking of 'differences as assets' is part of the problem, that the differences are a commodity that lead to an advantage or disadvantage. I'd rather than people think of differences as unimportant, at the same level as wearing a grey shirt or having a buffalo wings rather than honey glazed. Unremarkable and unimportant, and so not something kick people down for.

Yeah, differences are not inherently good. They're just differences. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Blindly asserting that diversity is always good is an immediate turnoff and usually shows that the person is not going to argue in good faith.

Voss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
A society isn't past its diversity issues until it normalizes seeking diversity not because it is good but because it is better. Which is to say, rather than seeking diversity because it is the 'right thing to do' society would be seeking diversity because diverse groups are more effective.

Put differently, people need to transition from seeing their differences as flaws to seeing their differences as assets.

I'd argue that thinking of 'differences as assets' is part of the problem, that the differences are a commodity that lead to an advantage or disadvantage. I'd rather than people think of differences as unimportant, at the same level as wearing a grey shirt or having a buffalo wings rather than honey glazed. Unremarkable and unimportant, and so not something kick people down for.

Which would be good, except there's a very large portion of society that DOES see differences as a thing to kick people for. Recognizing differences not only helps in that diverse perspectives provide new and creative ways to approach problems that you might otherwise not know are there, but lets society better serve groups that are disadvantaged by structural (and plain ol') racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.. "Race blindness" does nothing but advantage racists.