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.

Oh excellent. We’re off to the races with “argument from absurdity”.

But if we let women in, we’ll have to let the Newts in. And if let the Newts in, it’ll be the Kestrels next! Is that what you want, cos that’s what’ll ‘appen.

And after the Kestrels, we’ll all be forced to clone Velociraptors we’d be legally obliged to keep stuffed down our trousers.

Is that what you want? Cos that’s what’ll ’Appen.

You. Couldn’t. Make. It. Up.

Not really much on point here, but I do wish people would stop beating on the "Flanderization" drum. They use that word like a gunslinger, and it's lost what little meaning it had in it's inception. Just stop. Call it what it is. Say the factions are being made into memes, or reduced to badly written character tropes. But I really hate this new word that means 50 things and nothing, simultaneously.

How do you have the mental willpower to write a 2-3 paragraph argument showing how upset you are with a situation based in your perception, and then not have the will power to write 3 or more words to accurately describe your feelings?

Also Female Custodes are great. I want the next book to be about a love triangle between Valarian, Aleya, and a new Custodian Blade Champion named Alexa, who's really good at answering questions, but holds a dark secret.....

I see we've re-entered the "railing about the Frankfurt school" stage of reactionary engagement.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh excellent. We’re off to the races with “argument from absurdity”.

But if we let women in, we’ll have to let the Newts in. And if let the Newts in, it’ll be the Kestrels next! Is that what you want, cos that’s what’ll ‘appen.

And after the Kestrels, we’ll all be forced to clone Velociraptors we’d be legally obliged to keep stuffed down our trousers.

Is that what you want? Cos that’s what’ll ’Appen.

You. Couldn’t. Make. It. Up.

goes to show there isn't really a good argument against "being represented in fiction makes people happy, so representation is a good thing"

Catulle wrote:
I see we've re-entered the "railing about the Frankfurt school" stage of reactionary engagement.

Lol, pointing out a pattern of behaviour and bad faith arguments fitting the bill doesn't make me either a fan of the reactionaries criticising that school of thought nor does it make me a reactionary. The fact that you instantly went with that label does however highlight preciscly the issue at hand i pointed out. I reccomend you to not literally pull a marcuse next time if you don't want it pointed in your face


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh excellent. We’re off to the races with “argument from absurdity”.

But if we let women in, we’ll have to let the Newts in. And if let the Newts in, it’ll be the Kestrels next! Is that what you want, cos that’s what’ll ‘appen.

And after the Kestrels, we’ll all be forced to clone Velociraptors we’d be legally obliged to keep stuffed down our trousers.

Is that what you want? Cos that’s what’ll ’Appen.

You. Couldn’t. Make. It. Up.

goes to show there isn't really a good argument against "being represented in fiction makes people happy, so representation is a good thing"

Actually there is, i pointed that out some time ago in another thread in regards to "girlboss" charachters which are seemingly universally disliked hence the fact that SW to this day hasn't made an inch of profit for Disney overall but please go on.

Not Online!!! wrote:


Actually there is, i pointed that out some time ago in another thread in regards to "girlboss" charachters which are seemingly universally disliked hence the fact that SW to this day hasn't made an inch of profit for Disney overall but please go on.

Wasn't that also countered by posts that followed basically noting that a lot of the issues were not the characters or genders of characters but the actual writing itself. Something which even when they've had a male lead has also been a huge issue since Disney took things over.


Also this is the first I've heard of "universal dislike". Last I checked Ripley in Alien is almost universally liked.


*It also annoys the heck out of me that Ripley is still one the best icons when you consider how old the Alien films are!
I know there's a few in the Marvel/DC line of films but those series of films have their own issues at times and I've mostly fallen of the rails keeping up with them all and all their various interconnected rewrittenparts

Riply is not a "girlboss" charachter. Riply is a solidly written and perfomed charachter, Big fething difference. Don't sully one charachter like her with the likes of Rey, or Ziegler snowwhite.

Also, stuff Star Wars. Since GW started diversifying their characters, they’ve tripled their income.

Is that what you want, because, erm….thats what actually happened.

What’s that? I’ve already explained why things are never that straight forward because the world is full of interacting moving parts? Why yes I have. Hence your claims about Star Wars are….irrelevant, ill informed and likely a conclusion formed you then went looking for evidence to support.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Women. In lead roles.

It’ll be Newts next! Then Kestrels! Then forced to clone our own velociraptors which we’ll be legally obliged to keep stuffed down our trousers. Then it’ll be chicken hats!

Is that what you want? Cos that’s what’ll ’Appen.

Now you are just projecting your own issues Mad doc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, stuff Star Wars. Since GW started diversifying their characters, they’ve tripled their income.

Is that what you want, because, erm….thats what actually happened.

What’s that? I’ve already explained why things are never that straight forward because the world is full of interacting moving parts? Why yes I have. Hence your claims about Star Wars are….irrelevant, ill informed and likely a conclusion formed you then went looking for evidence to support.

No they didn't. They didn't Make at all any profit Off of it, Stop spouting nonsense.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/04/14/disneys-star-wars-box-office-profits-fail-to-cover-cost-of-lucasfilm/?sh=6f46ec186bb7

I guess I missunderstand "girlboss" or its got one of those variance meanings that means a quick googling gives it a bunch of different interpretations as to what people mean.

Suffice to say I don't care the lead characters gender in a role*. I care if they are good in their role and if the story is good and all.


Unless the film is aiming to be a faithful adaptation of an existing story, then I do care. Same as I care about the ages, ethnicity, background, story, pacing, plotting and all.

why does this conversation keep circling back to star wars? don't you guys have any other talking points?

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
why does this conversation keep circling back to star wars? don't you guys have any other talking points?

People are very, very, very mad about Rey for some reason.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Riply is not a "girlboss" charachter. Riply is a solidly written and perfomed charachter, Big fething difference. Don't sully one charachter like her with the likes of Rey, or Ziegler snowwhite.

Settle down, Lancelot. Ripley isn't a real person, she has no honor to besmirch and as such, doesn't need a white knight getting upset on her behalf.

Not Online!!! wrote:


No they didn't. They didn't Make at all any profit Off of it, Stop spouting nonsense.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/04/14/disneys-star-wars-box-office-profits-fail-to-cover-cost-of-lucasfilm/?sh=6f46ec186bb7

The money in star wars has never been the movies. It is in the merchandising.

That's why Pokemon is the most financially successful IP in history.

So, the only person spouting nonsense here is you, by demonstrating a misunderstanding of where the actual return of the lucasfilm purchase was going to come from.

Not Online wrote:No they didn't. They didn't Make at all any profit Off of it, Stop spouting nonsense.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/04/14/disneys-star-wars-box-office-profits-fail-to-cover-cost-of-lucasfilm/?sh=6f46ec186bb7

Goodness! Not…the box office. Traditionally the sole source of all Star Wars related income.

They really should do like, tie-ins, toys. Maybe license it out of house. It’s got to be worth a try.

Also, GW go diverse. Triple takings. In 8 years. With no sign of slowing. Hence, what did or didn’t happen with Star Wars is….entirely moot.

You might as well claim I can’t make a decent cup of tea, because you once had a manky coffee in Starbucks.

And then came the Newts, followed by the Kestrels.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh excellent. We’re off to the races with “argument from absurdity”.

But if we let women in, we’ll have to let the Newts in. And if let the Newts in, it’ll be the Kestrels next! Is that what you want, cos that’s what’ll ‘appen.

And after the Kestrels, we’ll all be forced to clone Velociraptors we’d be legally obliged to keep stuffed down our trousers.

Is that what you want? Cos that’s what’ll ’Appen.

You. Couldn’t. Make. It. Up.

Where do you draw the line though? If representation is good all the time, every time, and exclusion is the enemy, the things I suggested shouldn't be scoffed at but looked at seriously since compared to women they basically have little to no representation at all and dog owners are a huge demographic for both-sexes on the planet, so why aren't you guys fighting for dogs to be a part of a mainstream faction in the game? It's even in line with the lore that the Imperium would use all resources at their disposal so why isn't there a dedicated Adeptus K-9 unit, lore doesn't matter so let's goooo.

 Overread wrote:
Last I checked Ripley in Alien is almost universally liked.

Because she's a great character. Like Leeloo in the Fifth Element, Furiosa in Mad Max, Mathilda in Leon, Dana Scully from the X Files.... etc etc

If she had been bulldozed into the role by a focus group of millennials who recently put "screenwriter" on their vision board and insisted on a mary sue self-insert fantasy so they could feel personally seen... she wouldn't have been a great character. (if you want that, there's always Captain Marvel, Rings of Power... or the Ultramarines I guess).

And isn't it funny that so many men regard those films and shows as among their favourites. It's almost as if... hear me out... they don't "hate women".

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


No they didn't. They didn't Make at all any profit Off of it, Stop spouting nonsense.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/04/14/disneys-star-wars-box-office-profits-fail-to-cover-cost-of-lucasfilm/?sh=6f46ec186bb7

The money in star wars has never been the movies. It is in the merchandising.

Which hasbro f.e. Cut the deal? That merch? That company that just some months ago fired 20% of employees before christmas?!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Not Online wrote:No they didn't. They didn't Make at all any profit Off of it, Stop spouting nonsense.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/04/14/disneys-star-wars-box-office-profits-fail-to-cover-cost-of-lucasfilm/?sh=6f46ec186bb7

Goodness! Not…the box office. Traditionally the sole source of all Star Wars related income.

They really should do like, tie-ins, toys. Maybe license it out of house. It’s got to be worth a try.

Also, GW go diverse. Triple takings. In 8 years. With no sign of slowing. Hence, what did or didn’t happen with Star Wars is….entirely moot.

You might as well claim I can’t make a decent cup of tea, because you once had a manky coffee in Starbucks.

And then came the Newts, followed by the Kestrels.

Oh no, do you know what also happened and increased sales massively, a pandemic and beforehand a decent boom. That is about as indicative as claiming the sky is allways grey because it's foggy outside.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Since GW started diversifying their characters, they’ve tripled their income.

Can you quantify what you mean by that? As in diversifying their characters in what way, and when was this diversification starting point that you are (presumably) suggesting kicked off profits tripling.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


No they didn't. They didn't Make at all any profit Off of it, Stop spouting nonsense.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/04/14/disneys-star-wars-box-office-profits-fail-to-cover-cost-of-lucasfilm/?sh=6f46ec186bb7

The money in star wars has never been the movies. It is in the merchandising.

Which hasbro f.e. Cut the deal? That merch? That company that just some months ago fired 20% of employees before christmas?!

You do realise it is possible for Disney to still make a nice profit off the toys while the company making them doesn't due to the profit split because Disney doesn't have any costs to producing the toys?

Also, a company doing layoffs is not actually any evidence of poor performance in all circumstances. Video games are making more money than ever and game companies still regularly lay off their staff because corporations always want more money regardless of how much they are already making.

robbienw wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Since GW started diversifying their characters, they’ve tripled their income.

Can you quantify what you mean by that? As in diversifying their characters in what way, and when was this diversification starting point that you are (presumably) suggesting kicked off profits tripling.

Me wrote: What’s that? I’ve already explained why things are never that straight forward because the world is full of interacting moving parts? Why yes I have. Hence your claims about Star Wars are….irrelevant, ill informed and likely a conclusion formed you then went looking for evidence to support.

Do keep up.

Rest assured, answering your query is being treated by me with just as much seriousness as your posing it in the first place.

 Grimskul wrote:
Hell, I'll throw Mad Doc a bone and say why not Adeptus Newtonicus either, I think newts are pretty rad, why not them as well.

Slann are already a thing... unless they've been cancelled for some reason. It's so hard to know if they're problematic since I quit Twittx.

 ruprecht wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Last I checked Ripley in Alien is almost universally liked.

Because she's a great character.

If she had been bulldozed into the role by a focus group of millennials who recently put "screenwriter" on their vision board and insisted on a mary sue self-insert fantasy so they could feel personally seen... she wouldn't have been a great character. (if you want that, there's always Captain Marvel... or the Ultramarines I guess).

And isn't it funny that so many men regard those films as among their favourites. It's almost as if... hear me out... they don't "hate women".

IIRC the script of Alien was originally written for a male protagonist and it got flipped at some point. And if that movie was released today people absolutely would whine about woke as they do so every time a genre movie with female lead is announced, before even seeing the movie.

 Crimson wrote:

 ruprecht wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Last I checked Ripley in Alien is almost universally liked.

Because she's a great character.

If she had been bulldozed into the role by a focus group of millennials who recently put "screenwriter" on their vision board and insisted on a mary sue self-insert fantasy so they could feel personally seen... she wouldn't have been a great character. (if you want that, there's always Captain Marvel... or the Ultramarines I guess).

And isn't it funny that so many men regard those films as among their favourites. It's almost as if... hear me out... they don't "hate women".

IIRC the script of Alien was originally written for a male protagonist and it got flipped at some point. And if that movie was released today people absolutely would whine about woke as they do so every time a genre movie with female lead is announced, before even seeing the movie.

Wasn't Alita Battle Angel pretty well received? I don't remember any outcry about her.
What was the reaction to Kill Bill back then? Was there a great gnashing of teeth over a leading lady? It's been a while, but I certain do not recall that reaction.

Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I don't believe any of us has a gnat's chance in Hell of convincing anyone else in this thread, so we're all just spinning our wheels in the mud and the dirt and the blood, waiting to die.

And isn't it funny that so many men regard those films and shows as among their favourites. It's almost as if... hear me out... they don't "hate women".

I agree with you. On the main forum of the hobby in my country, some people expressed the fear of female Custodes being Mary Sue when they learned about it. But once they read the text from the new Codex, they just said "Oh, it's just a Blood Game, moving on". Most of the critics I red were about how GW poorly managed this evolution of the Custodes ("Why no book ? Why no minis ?" etc). Other critics said they disliked it because they felt it was a corporate move to make more money rather than artistic choice which is also, in my opnion, a fair critic.

However, I can assure you that there was also some very irrational hatred towards this change which was tied to politics. Several people went so far that they threw at me links to subreddits obsessed with Gamergate, spout bizarre things about Blackrock and ESG, etc. And those guys were completely unhinged.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


You do realise it is possible for Disney to still make a nice profit off the toys while the company making them doesn't due to the profit split because Disney doesn't have any costs to producing the toys?

Also, a company doing layoffs is not actually any evidence of poor performance in all circumstances. Video games are making more money than ever and game companies still regularly lay off their staff because corporations always want more money regardless of how much they are already making.

I'd agree normally, but A, we are talking before christmas, which for a toy company is basically a huge red flag. And B in the case of SW Disney doesn't release merch numbers and rather ties them in with their Parks, which were down with increased prices hence the higher reported income..

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I don't believe any of us has a gnat's chance in Hell of convincing anyone else in this thread, so we're all just spinning our wheels in the mud and the dirt and the blood, waiting to die.

especially when it's all just repeating the same talking points over and over again. complaints about woke, concerning trolling over SoS, and the same star wars argument over and over again