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.

 Tyran wrote:
There is no modern pushback against adapting existing stories, see all the money Marvel has made. There are people screaming about it in Twitter, but that isn't particularly important.

Tyran wins the internets for todays, not helped by Lazy Lying Journalist Scum skimming Twatter and Reddit for the most un-medicated rants and reporting it as "news" despite it may represents single digit, maybe less, percent of the world

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

If you want to have more actors of color, then write original stories where you can do whatever you want OR use stories that originally have people of color in them. Adapt the wealth of African folk tales into movies. I really like a lot of African folk tales, they're really good. Stop forcing black people into shows and movies set in places and times where it either doesn't make sense or is outright incorrect. Use actual African stories and legends instead of black-washing western and European stories.

I mean, I'm all for adapting more stories from non-European backgrounds... but the modern pushback against adapting existing stories is just weird. For as long as people have been writing stories, other people have been adapting them - taking the basic premise and switching it into a different setting, gender-swapping characters, altering key details to see how that changes the overall story. When I was growing up, that was considered creative. In recent years, we're suddenly being told it's 'forced diversity'...

Intent matters. The vast majority of recent swaps are agenda driven, not out of genuine creativity resulting in something interesting. If you make something interesting you can be forgiven. But most recent stuff sucks, largely because it exists because of an agenda not creative talent.

I also consider swapping the race/gender of historical/historical adjacent(folk tales, legends, or religion) people to be wrong. You wouldn't make a movie about Rosa Parks and cast a white actress to play her, don't do the opposite either. If its wrong to cast white actors to play ancient Egyptian gods then its also wrong to cast a black women to play a Norse Jarl.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Intent matters. The vast majority of recent swaps are agenda driven, not out of genuine creativity resulting in something interesting. If you make something interesting you can be forgiven. But most recent stuff sucks, largely because it exists because of an agenda not creative talent.

The vast majority of fiction output is sub-par in any time period you care to examine. Blaming that on casting someone with the 'wrong' skin colour seems more than a little short sighted, frankly.

To return to a previous example - the reason Rings of Power didn't set the world on fire wasn't that it had black people in it, but that it was boring.

If its wrong to cast white actors to play ancient Egyptian gods then its also wrong to cast a black women to play a Norse Jarl.

Poor example... there were dark skinned Vikings, and there is growing evidence that there were female chieftains.

Although that probably actually makes it also a really good example of how a lot of the complaints about 'forced diversity' come from a poor understanding of the source material.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Intent matters. The vast majority of recent swaps are agenda driven, not out of genuine creativity resulting in something interesting. If you make something interesting you can be forgiven. But most recent stuff sucks, largely because it exists because of an agenda not creative talent.

The vast majority of fiction output is sub-par in any time period you care to examine. Blaming that on casting someone with the 'wrong' skin colour seems more than a little short sighted, frankly.

To return to a previous example - the reason Rings of Power didn't set the world on fire wasn't that it had black people in it, but that it was boring.

Its not that casting the wrong skin color is the problem. Its that if the producers of a show are making it a focus of their show to cast based on skin color it inevitably follows that the show will be crap, it is correlation not causation. IE: People that focus on the superficiality of "diversity" are terrible writers. So anytime I see a show where the producers or promoters are blabbing about their cast's diversity it is an immediate redflag.

If its wrong to cast white actors to play ancient Egyptian gods then its also wrong to cast a black women to play a Norse Jarl.

Poor example... there were dark skinned Vikings, and there is growing evidence that there were female chieftains.

Although that probably actually makes it also a really good example of how a lot of the complaints about 'forced diversity' come from a poor understanding of the source material.

There were Norse who had darkish skin, for Norse. They were not of African ancestry, nor was their darkish skin anywhere near the color of people of African descent. We would call them very tan, but still white. Its still a crap casting.

I think he was referring to the agenda driven diversification. All this talk about black and white is really missing the point, that's being made on both sides. It's really about the solution to a problem that exists outside the media.

Will media right wrongs? Will it give some hope? Maybe, but it sure won't be the solution to anyone's white guilt, which they'd prefer to pass onto people they disagree (or so it seems).

It won't solve issues with the underserved and disenfranchised communities who aren't even taking in the media because they can't afford, or don't have the time for highbrow entertainment.

I’d argue it relates to the historical status quo.

A Euro centric status quo, from the perspective of Euro centric people.

Traditionally, white men have run the western world, with others actively kept out.

No, English men have run England, French men have run France, lets not use the low resolution "white men" because each nations majority ethnic group can be expected to run their own nation with the exception to conquest from a foreign ethnic group, the Turks in Anatolia for example, the Macedonians in Egypt, the Mors in north Africa all the way to Spain. Each ethnic group has an in group bias with exception to culturally Americanised "liberals" which have an out group bias, a good example of this is the recent election in Chicago, the European Americans voted for the European American, the African Americans voted for the African American but the areas self identified as Americanised "liberals" voted for the African American, these were usually middle class and college campus areas, this also is shown by the hidden tribes report around 2018 iirc.

Whilst that is now changing, it’s still predominantly white men running the show and calling the shots. Not just in government, but in industry.

Nigeria's entire government is Nigerian, would you be ok if say, 200,000 English people moved their and voted as a single block to put an English Leader in charge then started to change things to match English culture?

An all white female writing room is still noteworthy, because it remains rare/unusual.

Anglo American "liberal" female writing room, how is this diverse, they all look the same, think the same act the same, where exactly is the diversity in this?

Black Panther having a predominantly black cast and crew is still noteworthy, because it remains rare/unusual.

No, no its not, its actually one of the most common ways to make movies, Nollywood produces more movies than Hollywood, Bollywood also does, you mean it is rare in the US, this is a American centric view and ignores the rest of the world existing.

Where does it end? Well, I’d argue when nobody bats an eyelid at a woman or minority in any given role, anymore than they bat an eyelid at a white man in said role.

There is no end, there is no limit, as shown at the recent Oxford debate on "has wokism gone too far" the advocate for progressivism outright stated there are no limits, there are no barriers, there is only the constant push, this is the out group bias at play, no consideration is made to what is lost, any damage that is done, so called progress is the goal and is pursuit is the only thing that matters, even if said progress is in fact regressive in its results.

Given how long the current status quo has stood, the change has been deceptively rapid. To use an extreme example without intending to be provocative, America went from segregation to a black President in just 55 years.

Again with the American centric world view, why does this only matter in western nations, where is the push for more diversity in China for example, lets have an Anglo Chinese leader there, lets have large migrations of Europeans to Turkey and diversify that nation, oh, no that would be colonialism would it not?

I do agree that giving minorities a voice is good though.

Homosexuality was illegal in the U.K. until 1967, a fleeting 13 years before I was born. Same Sex marriage was legalised fully on 13 March 2014, a piffling 9 and a bit years ago.

Just being gay, being a lesbian was not for some strange reason, glad it was legalised but it never should have had to be, the state should mind its own damn business when it comes to adults doing adult things with adults in private.

More and more senseless taboos are being left by the wayside.

and more and more sensible ones are being eroded too, the push for progress recognises no barriers... none.

Again relying on my own life experience, I live in a still predominantly white town. Whilst seeing someone not white isn’t exactly remarkable here, it is more noticeable than London. In my place of work, I have gay, lesbian, trans, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Buddhist etc colleagues, and nobody seems to care, provided, y’know, nobody is bad at their job, or making my day to day gubbins any harder than they have to be. Like setting things up wrong, shooting me in the foot on progression by allowing X to refuse to send stuff then giving them 5 week response time etc.

Because you live in a European nation, move to Uganda and you will be the minority, london is a totally different story with the recent census showing the 49% of the children in schools are foreign born, 49%, that is not Anglo African, Anglo saxon etc. foreign born, cockneys no longer exist as a people due to being pushed out from immigration, social and economic factors and of the areas of london native peoples are a minority in near all but 2, all due to a radical change in the last 3 decades, so if diversity and equality is the requirement that has been achieved and in fact needs to be reversed until 50% of London is native English, but we both know that is not what will happen.

Yet in the 21st Century, we still experience racist/sexist/homophobic/generally unpleasant customers. For me being a white bloke, it is of course super rare. But it still happens.

You will never achieve absolute zero and it would be a terrible thing to try, the amount of oppression required to get to absolute zero across all disparate peoples and groups would be astounding, are you going to force the Chinese to stop being racist towards Africans? are you going to force the Pakastanis to stop hating the Indians? the progressives to stop hating their own ethnic groups? Scots to stop being racist towards the English as shown in recent reports for anti discrimination laws in Scotland which were designed to prevent racism towards Islamic Scots, then will you expand this to the rest of the world, imposing your views on other nations and their peoples?

So clearly, societal work remains to be done. Despite rising far right sentiment in the West, I think we’re on an inexorable path to being closer to egalitarian ideals.

Yes there is a rise in the far right but this is also a vague term that is ill defined, far right includes Islamists, fundemental christians, orthadox jews, libertarians, liberals, free speech advocates, anti abortionists etc. etc. its such a broad swath of people labelled far right its totally lost its original meaning. Also it is very clear that the modern right is simply a mirror to the modern left, a near completely reactionary force at this point and not the Communist meaning of the word reactionary, it is a reaction to the actions of the modern intersectional left and its no holds barred drive for removing all societal barriers without thought of consequence.

I am not interested nor want eqalitarianism, I think it is a destructive path that has proven time and again to be a detriment to individuals lives, I am not a social constructionist nor a statist, I believe the individual is the smallest minority and individual rights are inherent and intrinsic, not given by the state, they can only be recognised or suppressed, not given, though I am self aware enough to understand compromise is needed, a middle ground.

And after all that is said... you still did not define what Diversity is but it was a nice talk anyway Grotsnik, even though we disagree in some key areas due to our particular personal world views, to the Admins[u] if this crosses the line of the no politics rule please delete as appropriate as I am unsure due to the thread and its context if this is just being allowed for the time being so long as we all remain civil.

Quick polling here:

What is "adequate" when it comes to diversity in casting? Many have openly stated the goal of "as few White men as possible", and no I'm not kidding. While I loved the Quantum Leap reboot, it did make me do a doubletake when I learned that the producers openly admitted they had a "no cis White man" policy when it came to casting for the sake of diversity. That seems really odd to me in this series.

I understand that people like seeing characters they can relate to on the screen and think the evolution of old tropes is a good thing. I do think that sometimes they not only risk disillusioning some people they revel in it, sometimes at the expense of a better quality product.

Well, again for me it’s about challenging the status quo.

All I ask is that people don’t confuse any particular casting process as “therefore show will be great or crap”.

As discussed with Rings of Power? The problems with that show aren’t in the casting. Everyone on screen was perfectly competent. Indeed, the “Sauron” I saw a couple of friends get their knickers in a twist over wasn’t in fact, Sauron. At all.

If a character’s ethnicity isn’t part of their overall personality, should it matter in casting?

If a casting call is open? Let it be truly open. And yes, announce that, because you never know who might audition.

The only stuff I’d say has a valid argument to keep a `true’ casting would be the lead in a biopic/docu-drama type thing, where perhaps someone’s ethnicity is indivisible from their life and experiences. Example? Martin Luther King, Queen Elizabeth.

People also need to give collective heads a wobble and toot the wrong horn. Gods of Egypt for example. Sure, it had a predominantly white cast portraying Egyptian Gods - but that’s not why the film sucked. The film sucked because it’s bloody awful. Crap SFX, crap dialogue, bobbins plot and so on and so forth.

Princess Disa? Her skin colour has eff all to do with her character. Like…at all. It’s not even referenced in the show. And as another poster noted above? The actress was a genuine highlight of that first season. So the agenda peddlers will just have to accept that the best actress got the role, in the absence of any and all evidence to the contrary.

@Formosa. I have read your reply, but given your counter points are all to do with my wording not being as tight as it could’ve been, I see no particular reason to return the compliment. It’s clear my post is referring to western stuff. Indeed, having lived my entire life in the U.K., I’d be a liar and worse, possibly a hypocrite, if I claimed knowledge of other areas of the world where I simply don’t.

You’ve also mentioned counter points, but not provided examples. For instance, I mentioned senseless taboos being left by the wayside. You said “sensible ones are being eroded too”.

Well. What are those sensible ones you’re referring to? I can neither agree nor disagree when I don’t know what your claim relates to.

That one doesn't accept antisemitism f.e. regardless if the people shouting it are muslims.

Edit, wrong comment


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wonder, what people's opinions would be were a media adaptation to be made of some stories of African folklore, and white characters were just placed into it, seemingly at random.

I also wonder if people complained about the lack of Norwegian, Arab or African tribesman on the Polynesian islands in the fantastic Disney film; Moana.

So is ethnicity/cultural homogeneity important in some stories? It would appear so, barring when it comes to works created by northern Europeans it seems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
[quote=Grey Templar 809670 11523082

If its wrong to cast white actors to play ancient Egyptian gods then its also wrong to cast a black women to play a Norse Jarl.

Poor example... there were dark skinned Vikings, and there is growing evidence that there were female chieftains.

Although that probably actually makes it also a really good example of how a lot of the complaints about 'forced diversity' come from a poor understanding of the source material.

Funny that, disney makes a live -action lilo and stitch Adaption, the usual people complain that the person is too white.

Main actress is actually from Hawaii, has mixed ancestry.

Meanwhile, the Moana Adaption featured also a lighter skinned actress compared to the animation, nobody complained because she isn't
off mixed parentage recently. Also from Hawaii.

Both actresses share their skintone.

Like wtf, at that point you reached basically wotc logic.

Please do not spam the thread.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Funny that, disney makes a live -action lilo and stitch Adaption, the usual people complain that the person is too white.

Main actress is actually from Hawaii, has mixed ancestry.

Meanwhile, the Moana Adaption featured also a lighter skinned actress compared to the animation, nobody complained because she isn't
off mixed parentage recently. Also from Hawaii.

Both actresses share their skintone.

Like wtf, at that point you reached basically wotc logic.

It’s almost as if there are idiots on both sides! Crazy, I know.

And that is ultimately the root cause of “culture wars”. Bad faith actors making bad faith arguments.

The U.K. gutter press seem to have folk trawling the like of Twitter for the silliest, most demented take on a given subject from the opposite side they can. Which they’ll then publish, claiming it’s a widespread talking point. When it’s not. It’s just some loony with a poor grip on..well…anything. Doesn’t matter that it’s not a majority view. Once published and the readership’s blood pressure is once again spiking through a combination of outright lies and fear mongering, that’s all that matters.

See also the constant confusion between freedom of speech (good thing) and freedom from consequence (bad thing).

If you’re Jeremy Clarkson, and you, I dunno, punch a member of production staff, or say something awful in your newspaper column, being called out and/or sacked for that is not your freedom of speech being impinged or eroded. Indeed, you’ve said your piece. That’s why you’re in trouble. Again.

The same Pearl clutching when universities deny a platform to some motormouth or other. That’s…that’s not eroding their freedom of speech. They’ve not been imprisoned over it. They’ve just been denied a platform - a platform nobody has an inalienable right to in the first place.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


It’s almost as if there are idiots on both sides! Crazy, I know.

And that is ultimately the root cause of “culture wars”. Bad faith actors making bad faith arguments.

The U.K. gutter press seem to have folk trawling the like of Twitter for the silliest, most demented take on a given subject from the opposite side they can. Which they’ll then publish, claiming it’s a widespread talking point. When it’s not. It’s just some loony with a poor grip on..well…anything. Doesn’t matter that it’s not a majority view. Once published and the readership’s blood pressure is once again spiking through a combination of outright lies and fear mongering, that’s all that matters.

Opinion presented as fact, is now the unfortunate rage in the Press. Producing media with the intent of generating an emotional response is not straight reporting, fair or balanced. When a news outlet is able to make up your mind before you have, you are controlled.

In the states, I miss the former media that wasn't so terribly polarized where, WFB Senior could sit down with a "Liberal" guest and have a civilized discussion on public TV. Those days are gone, now our media is under direct influence of the majority political parties. Which cry anything contrary to the opinion pieces they portray as "reporting", are a "threat to democracy"

The press is no longer free. It demands controversy where there would otherwise be compromise. Should they lose an enemy, their respective parties fears erosion of the base by defection or simply freedom of thought.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
There is no modern pushback against adapting existing stories, see all the money Marvel has made. There are people screaming about it in Twitter, but that isn't particularly important.

Tyran wins the internets for todays, not helped by Lazy Lying Journalist Scum skimming Twatter and Reddit for the most un-medicated rants and reporting it as "news" despite it may represents single digit, maybe less, percent of the world

You know I sang the jingle to that, yes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptekon wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


It’s almost as if there are idiots on both sides! Crazy, I know.

And that is ultimately the root cause of “culture wars”. Bad faith actors making bad faith arguments.

The U.K. gutter press seem to have folk trawling the like of Twitter for the silliest, most demented take on a given subject from the opposite side they can. Which they’ll then publish, claiming it’s a widespread talking point. When it’s not. It’s just some loony with a poor grip on..well…anything. Doesn’t matter that it’s not a majority view. Once published and the readership’s blood pressure is once again spiking through a combination of outright lies and fear mongering, that’s all that matters.

Opinion presented as fact, is now the unfortunate rage in the Press. Producing media with the intent of generating an emotional response is not straight reporting, fair or balanced. When a news outlet is able to make up your mind before you have, you are controlled.

In the states, I miss the former media that wasn't so terribly polarized where, WFB Senior could sit down with a "Liberal" guest and have a civilized discussion on public TV. Those days are gone, now our media is under direct influence of the majority political parties. Which cry anything contrary to the opinion pieces they portray as "reporting", are a "threat to democracy"

The press is no longer free. It demands controversy where there would otherwise be compromise. Should they lose an enemy, their respective parties fears erosion of the base by defection or simply freedom of thought.

A claim I’ve seen is the trigger was the advent of 24 hour news. Rather than scheduled bulletins across the day (in the U.K. it was Breakfast, 1 o’clock, 6 ‘clock and 9 o’clock for the BBC) you now had to fill the entire schedule.

Not only did this lead to mindless drivel like “celebrity culture”, but hosted shows and ever more pointless guff being broadcast. In time people tuned in for the personality rather than the topic and down and down and down went the quality.

The recent settlement between Fox News and Dominion following the promotion of Trump’s Lies may, perhaps, be the beginning of the end of the spiral of journalistic lack of integrity. But somehow, I doubt it.

Of course there’s a near identical case yet to come, so who knows.

But some kind of journalistic integrity across the board would be delightful.

@ Doc, of course, I still think watching Telly with a Sunday hangover somehow burns in into the grey matter very effectively, and whilst I know Rich and Stew aren't everyones cuppa I'm still baffled how much they got away with for the timeslot, although I think both of them have said it was cos nobody higher up even noticed and they would get witch-hunted this days (this weeks hobbys is burning old ladies...)

 Formosa wrote:
my locals are very diverse, we have socialists, libertarians, conservatives, trans, gay, Nigerians, Ugandans, English, Welsh, Scots, Japanese, Malaysians, though English people are the majority of course as one would expect being in England, black English, white English, mixed English.

one could just say they are "white" "black" "asian" or whatever but that is very reductive and anti inclusive.

Very diverse, of course I mean the real meaning of word Diverse and not the "we all think and look the same and anyone that does not look and think the same as me is not diverse"

I mean diversity of character and thought, the thing that actually matters.

Man you are lucky, I would love to have a group with that diverse of ideas, mindsets, characters, cultures and races.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
But if there are active forces pushing against diversity as a natural evolution, then why shouldn't those who are pro-diversity push back? Should we just let those who want to exclude nonstraight whites do what they want because fighting them would be "forcing" diversity?
The concept of "forced diversity" is always just a dog whistle for people not wanting to have minorities represented in media. It never comes up unless a black Space Marine is on a book cover or a female character gets a novel series.

This. Forcing diversity would be removing characters who are already pre existing or replacing characters. Adding new diverse characters is not forcing diversity, it is adding a new character. People wouldn't get their panties in a bunch if it was a new white character.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Intent matters. The vast majority of recent swaps are agenda driven, not out of genuine creativity resulting in something interesting. If you make something interesting you can be forgiven. But most recent stuff sucks, largely because it exists because of an agenda not creative talent.

The vast majority of fiction output is sub-par in any time period you care to examine. Blaming that on casting someone with the 'wrong' skin colour seems more than a little short sighted, frankly.

You are mistaking the complaint. Yes, a lot of garbage media has been produced over the decades. Some of that has featured minorities prominently.

What has been different the past decade is that the producers of the garbage media has brandished the casting of minorities as somehow changing garbage media into good media, and attacking those who criticize the bad writing and production by turning it into an attack on the minority actors. Which it generally is not.

Let's consider Kelly Marie Tran. I think we can all agree her role in TLJ was pretty atrociously written, yes?

I think we can also all agree she did the best job ACTING that atrocious writing that she could have done, yes?

So the blame does not apply to Kelly Marie Tran (despite a highly vocal minority doing just that). It applies to the people who did the atrociously bad writing.

AND YET, whenever someone criticized how badly her role was written, the reaction from the writers was to divert the criticism of the WRITING into calling it criticism of the ACTRESS, which it mostly was NOT.

Easy now.

Look at the piss, vinegar and vitriol she received online from Weird Internet Man Babies. Because without that, you’re not seeing the full picture.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Easy now.

Look at the piss, vinegar and vitriol she received online from Weird Internet Man Babies. Because without that, you’re not seeing the full picture.

Yep. And it just happened again with the Resident Evil remake. Mobbed the actress on twitter to the point that she left. The studio's statement about harassment was met with screeds about why they should and why they were justified in harassing the actress.

I recall when Last of Us 2 came out, the actress playing the antagonist received death threats revolving around her newborn. Because the harassment mob didn't like the plot, the actress was somehow to blame.

Blade and Ep 1 both predate modern internet. Yes it was around (my dial up took 4 or 5 hours to download the Ep 1 trailer. Talk about a waste of time) but social media wasn’t. And it simply wasn’t as part of every day life as it is now.

How about Idris Elba as Heimdall? Boy did that greatly upset Weird Internet Man Babies.

Now, as I said? Bad Faith Actors on both sides. Yes it can be easy to simply deflect criticism with “well you’re just being racist”. But look at which came first. And realise the same bad faith actors will portray any counter criticism as “they’re just calling any criticism racist”.

People were claiming white genocide because John Boyega was a Stormtrooper. And it got worse when the hero turned out to be a woman.

Probably some of the best examples for this discussion are when Black actors break into Shakespearean roles.

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.

Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

Vaclav Havel - Power of the Powerless

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Edit, wrong comment


I also wonder if people complained about the lack of Norwegian, Arab or African tribesman on the Polynesian islands in the fantastic Disney film; Moana.

So is ethnicity/cultural homogeneity important in some stories? It would appear so, barring when it comes to works created by northern Europeans it seems.

Man you are really beating the stuffing out of this strawman.

One is based off of a real culture where race and culture are incredibly important to the plot. Where a story like 40k - which is supposed to be all of humanity- has predominantly white characters is an issue. 40k should be a blend of many different cultures and races, not just a cis white man posterboy.

What are all the closest relatable ethnicities and racial categories of the primarchs now?

European (16)?
Asian (1)?
Extraterrestrial (1)
Unknown (2)


*They're all Asian technically.

In terms of Space Marines, it’s worth noting that outside of the Ravenguard and Salamanders? Their skin is able to rapidly produce melanin. Like Reactolite sunglasses.

So strictly speaking, a given Marine might have different skin tones from battlefield to battlefield, if fighting without a helmet on, depending on ambient UV.

Good characters should be written as good characters first, then cast them as such. Sometimes it's a bit suspicious that they wanted a (insert person of this variety), now make it work no matter how convoluted.

I will readily admit that there are many characters out there where race is a non issue. Want to recast Jesus as Black, no problems from me. Now if you recast Storm from the X-Men as japanese, that wouldn't work. There are some strong character archs where being African is paramount.

Someone like Blade however? There is nothing in his background that would necessitate him being Black. Recast him with Jet Li and theoretically it works, but it would still piss a few people off.

A few thoughts, based on what I've experienced, or witnessed.

Firstly, and I know its been discussed, but disposable income is something that is lacking, statistically speaking, in some groups more than others. And GW is an expensive hobby. Perhaps more expensive than most gaming hobbies out there.

I'd also bring up a few other elements (I read the first 3 pages, then jumped to the end so, apologies if its been beaten to death).

One issue, I can't seem to put words on, so I'll give an example: My friend was one of the few female managers of a game shop in my current area of living. We were discussing starting up a DnD group and, wanting a proper mini for her bard, I knew which game shop to bring her to. Only thing was, I knew before even entering, she'd be pestered the whole time by the dude working there. Like, creepy stalker vibes bad. Mind you, she's "used" to that sort of thing, running a shop herself, but seriously. . . being creepy with customers, or potential customers is a really fething good way to get people OUT of the hobby.

Another issue is weirdness. . . Now, again, to illustrate what I mean, I need to dig up an example from my time gaming. Look at my past posting history, and you'll see that I used to be in the military. At one point I was living in not-the-US. I, along with a friend, would frequent the local GW. The weirdness I'm referring to in this case is this: on two separate occasions, the store manager was forced to ask gamers to finish their game, and never bring that army back into the shop. Ever. One army that I personally witnessed, was an IG army all painted khaki, with "nice" little red arm bands and funny square-like icons on them (They were painted as fething Nazis. . . in Germany). The other army was a pure Slaaneshi Daemon army, very artfully, and graphically detailed, like X rated stuff. Now, sure you can find that sort of inappropriate loving weirdness in most any setting somewhere, but there does seem to be a larger number within the gaming community.

Another issue is stereotypes. Specifically, those nerds out there who don't seem to know what bathing, or deodorant is. I shouldn't really need to expound on that idea.

Finally, the last thing I can think to bring up, is an element that resides in game theory and game design. I've read a few articles fairly recently about various studies and trends around the board game business. What board game makers are finding is that, in a statistically significant way, women tend to gravitate toward far different games than men do. Basically, what the research shows is that while men do like games where you can crush your opponent mercilessly in a turn or two, women prefer games that are described as more cooperative. Basically, games like Settlers of Catan where, even if its competitive, the rules and game design is such that a poor early turn does not ruin a game for an individual and put them out early. Women statistically prefer games where a "winner" can be determined as late as the final round, or the game is cooperative (ie, a group of players beating "the house" or a game with subterfuge where one player is the "it" but has to pretend they arent)

Presumably the 1930s-German-Enthusiasts themed army was the first time visiting the particular GW in question - otherwise the player would have been asked to not bring it previously.

So if the GW store asked someone to not bring their [potentially] problematic army at the earliest opportunity. I don't see what more GW could have done there.
Also, isn't the depiction of backwards swastikas illegal in Germany?

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Presumably the 1930s-German-Enthusiasts themed army was the first time visiting the particular GW in question - otherwise the player would have been asked to not bring it previously.

So if the GW store asked someone to not bring their [potentially] problematic army at the earliest opportunity. I don't see what more GW could have done there.
Also, isn't the depiction of backwards swastikas illegal in Germany?

There's a huge list of symbols, paroles, codes etc. related to Nazism, Neo-Nazism, nazi-adjacent groups and so on that are forbidden in Germany, but there are exemptions for a few things, and historical representation is among them - obviously, it is not forbidden to display swastikas on e.g. period costumes, including replicas, or other representations like a model army. Still, most people opt for removing or covering them because it's a rather thin line to thread and it's not worth the bother, and it's of course also socially frowned upon to insist on 'accuracy' outside of scientific/educational settings, movie productions etc. There are also, in theory, exemption for things like clearly devotional/religious displays of swastikas, i.e. in the context of Asian religions mostly, but that is also a very muddled affair and carries a very real risk of coming into confrotation with the law if you're not of asian descent yourself, especially if it involves any kind of commercial activity, like e.g. selling bracelets and such with swastikas on them.