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.

Kanluwen wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Those Vikings you want? Knights? "Vampires"? Practical minded soldiery? All of those things can be found in the ranks of the Sororitas as well.

Where? Please, I'd love to see these examples, and the same degree of aesthetic range that has been afforded to the Astartes on this.
Oh, hang on...

 Kanluwen wrote:
I don't read Sisters fiction enough to say, but the core bit about them is simply that they're devotees of the Imperial Cult.

So, you made your statement up. Nice.

Yeah, no. The aesthetics of the Sororitas can be as varied as the Astartes and the Guard.

So show me!

You can say all you like how "technically" they can look just as varied, but they are not given the design space to do so. On a *design level*, both aesthetically and mechanically, they do not have the same variety. Never have.

And, you know, perhaps that's intentional - because GW might WANT them to have a certain aesthetic trapping, as part of their "faction identity", as some other users have stated. However, whichever way you slice it, Astartes have ALWAYS had a bigger design space than the Sororitas. They've always had a much broader range of what their "faction identity" is, their aesthetic and mechanical design has always been very open ended. And perhaps that's by design too. Perhaps GW WANT Astartes to be their customisable, free range, "anything goes" faction.

In which case, is it not better for "faction identity" that Sisters keep their iconic aesthetic? After all - you've stated that their aesthetics "can be as varied as Astartes", but without any proof to say so.

Da Boss wrote:Sgt Smudge: So your approach would be to make changes and statements that neo-nazis would disapprove of, so that they are no longer interested in 40K? Seems like you could just retcon the Imperium as a whole if you wanted that, just get rid of it and make it a more palatable far future civilisation. It's not that important that the Imperium exists, as it is fictional after all.

That's not what I said at all.

*The Imperium* is fine as what it is. Its depictions are the problem. The question becomes how do we prevent the Imperium from being depicted as "good", "admirable", or in any way that can be co-opted by Those Folks.

If I may, let's talk about another setting, which very resoundedly said "this is an awful setting, and no, don't even try to defend it" - Trench Crusade. It's a WW1-esque game with demons and hell. Imagine the Crusades lasting for a thousand years, and demons and hellspawn being real. Obviously, with all the Christian imagery and 40k-isms, it was quite popular with Those Sorts of People, until the developers of that game vocally and loudly kicked out anyone who behaved like a bigot.
They *ensured*, as best they could, that the behaviour of Those Folks would not be tolerated, and removed any sort of endorsement of their beliefs.

Obviously, 40k is too big now to do the same thing. GW can't just block people on their discord. But they can do the same essence of behaviour - to vocally and actively oppose and deny their aesthetics and IP being used by Those Sorta Folk.

Adding FSM is *but one* of many things they could do to disempower those groups.

As to giving people the benefit of the doubt, I disagree there. I think it's good to give people the benefit of the doubt and not assume ill intent where you don't have to. But of course, everyone can draw their own line there, that's very much a personal thing.

The first time, yes, absolutely. But the same behaviour again, and again, and again, and again, and again? Sorry, but if you're purely waiting for someone to finally say "I unequivocally think *insert awful opinion here*", instead of couching it behind the third "joke" which hapens to feature some pretty loud dogwhistles, I think you're making a mistake. (Obviously, I'm not advocating for "you made a slightly sus comment, you get exterminatus'd" here.)

Grimskul wrote:Frankly, all this talk devolving back to previous locked threads on the FSM topic shows me that it's less about being interested about the current actual lore and factions of the setting and the fact that it should be actively shaped around what you demand as acceptable in terms of today's "modern" sensibilities.

Take it up with Leopold. They're the one who mentioned it, and I don't see you condemning their mention of it.

In which case, why even bother engaging with this hobby and its lore at all?

Because I was here before Those Folks made it into a hot button culture war topic.

If they want to make 40k "their" space, they can pry it from my glue-covered hands.

Insectum7 wrote:Can we get back to the "Imperium enables closet authoritarians through misunderstood satire" thing, please? That hasn't been fully explored yet, imo. It'd be a shame to lose the thread to the FSM topic.

You'll notice that quite a lot of users, myself included, already called for this.

Unfortunately, as mentioned, Leopold decided to bring it up.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It wouldn't make them the same.

Sisters have a distinct identity-they're the ultra religious battle nuns of the Imperium.
Marines are much more malleable in their identity-you have the religious zealots (Black Templars), you have the Vikings (Space Wolves), you have the Knights (Dark Angels), you have the vampires/angels (Blood Angels), you have the practical minded soldiers (Ultramarines)... Basically anything you can imagine, in terms of armies, can be found among the ranks of Marines.

Except women, because they apparently have cooties.

This is, fundamentally, where the failure to understand things exists.

Sisters aren't "ultra-religious battle nuns of the Imperium".
Sisters are the ultra-militant arm of the Ecclesiarchy, acting as the standing army of the predominant religion of the Imperium. The entire organization exists as a loophole preventing men at arms.

Those Vikings you want? Knights? "Vampires"? Practical minded soldiery? All of those things can be found in the ranks of the Sororitas as well.

where are the AdSor vampires??? if 40k had blood-drinking nuns, i have a feeling i would have seen that on tumblr already. where are the AdSor vikings or mongolian hordes? all the art i've ever seen of the faction is more or less the same aesthetic, sometimes in different colors


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Sure, but I'd still argue that the best course of action is for GW to explore that variety, rather than continue pounding more styles/identities/expression into Marines.

Why not both?

Make Marines be able to be any gender as a good first step, and work towards raising the prominence of other factions.

Agreed. And, let's be completely honest, it will be MUCH quicker/faster for GW to include women Astartes than redesigning/meaningfully including variety into other factions - after all, it took barely any effort with Custodes.

the biggest barrier is The Lore, but all that would need is a campaign book or new edition launch trailer to establish that GW is doing something new now

 Grimskul wrote:
they're basically using the same fallacious arguments of "videogames=kids becoming more violent" and the moral panic of the 80s' for DnD

For the last time, *no-one's saying the Imperium is turning people into racists*.

What we are saying, if you cared to actually listen, is that it provides plausible deniability to the people who *already are*, who then use their perceived authority within their communities to influence more people to sharing their own ideology.

The fictional Imperium isn't "converting" anyone. Real people are - but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that.

it's pretty ridiculous to assume that 40k is a direct gateway to become a far-right extremist

You're right. That *is* ridiculous - because no-one's said that's what happening.

Please, do try to keep up.

and it must be purged by rainbows and diversity quotas to save the hapless fools that buy those damn cissy space marines

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, like Da Boss said earlier, and assume that you didn't mean to make a transphobic slur when you said that.

I'm going to chalk that up to a miscommunication or a bad choice of words, without intending to cause offence - but an apology would be accepted.

Like I said - giving the benefit of the doubt here.

OK, I’ll bite.

First, the Satanic Panic and Vidya Games And Movies And *insert convenient music star here* Not Crap Parents am why kid bad.

Those….didn’t come from the same political wing as “trying to purge with rainbows diversity quotas”. Literally Quite The Opposite.

Now, for the next portion? Go read my immediately prior post on how GW Games can be the first time a nerdy kid first finds their ‘tribe’, and can be themself for possibly the first time without judgement.

Mostly that’s absolutely a positive thing, but can be, entirely apolitically, a dangerous thing.

See. When a kid has been shunned and rejected, and finally finds their ‘tribe’ comes that wholesome sense of belonging I genuinely hope everyone finds in life.

But, again apolitically, the threat, which is mostly only ever dimly perceived of that sense of belonging being taken away because They are now expressing an interest?

That is sadly fertile ground for bad faith actors to start manipulating, and magnifying, and frankly lying. Foisting their own worries, fears, paranoia and yes, bigotry, onto another.

Remaining entirely apolitical? That’s not behaviour exclusively owned by one or other political wing.

That is where the issues start to occur.

Talk of ‘gatekeeping’ and ‘forcing the normies out’. It can churn a person’s brain right up until it’s mulch. As with all elements of the carefully created and orchestrated culture war? It all rests upon presenting an extreme of opinion as “therefore all”, or worse “somehow against all available evidence, is actually moderate”.

That is what we as a community need to be aware of and switched on to help prevent. Radicalisation of any impressionable young mind is awful.

Well this is a ruined thread, why always the devolution to tedious culture war crap. The whole rest of the internet has that. This is supposed to be discussing the satire in 40k.

Grimskul wrote:Frankly, all this talk devolving back to previous locked threads on the FSM topic shows me that it's less about being interested about the current actual lore and factions of the setting and the fact that it should be actively shaped around what you demand as acceptable in terms of today's "modern" sensibilities.

Did you skip the majority of the thread where most folk were saying they preferred the old lore from the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's? The "40k is no longer satire" group mostly want the lore to stop changing.

Grimskul wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Can we get back to the "Imperium enables closet authoritarians through misunderstood satire" thing, please? That hasn't been fully explored yet, imo. It'd be a shame to lose the thread to the FSM topic.

I mean they still really haven't addressed the points made by Da Boss and myself regarding how they're basically using the same fallacious arguments of "videogames=kids becoming more violent" and the moral panic of the 80s' for DnD, so I think this is basically them shifting goalposts to try and avoid addressing that it's pretty ridiculous to assume that 40k is a direct gateway to become a far-right extremist and it must be purged by rainbows and diversity quotas to save the hapless fools that buy those damn cissy space marines. That or maybe they'll try and say Putin's invasion of Ukraine was inspired by a 40k match he had with Xi Jinping lol.

It's a bit funny considering that these people are the ones who would likely make fun of conspiracy theorists but end up looking just as crazy with their own take on this.

Wow, what a strawman you realise there are more than 2 opinions in this thread right? Or maybe you don't, I'm not convinced you've read it.

Insectum7 wrote:Can we get back to the "Imperium enables closet authoritarians through misunderstood satire" thing, please? That hasn't been fully explored yet, imo. It'd be a shame to lose the thread to the FSM topic.

My perspective is that 40k by itself isn't radicalising anyone. But GW has slowly turned it from fascist satire to fascist apologia, and therefore handed actual fascists something they can easily adapt into propaganda to radicalise some vulnerable youths more easily than they might otherwise. I don't think it is a lot of people, and some of those would have been radicalised via other channels anyway, but it used to be a smaller issue in older GW lore.

In my mind, this is distinct from stuff like the videogame violence morale panic because there wasn't a group in position to capitalise on a source of free propaganda. This works on the converse for factions like the Drukhari- these are not apologia because there isn't a significant movement of hedonistic sadists actively trying to recruit members.

Dai wrote:
Well this is a ruined thread, why always the devolution to tedious culture war crap. The whole rest of the internet has that. This is supposed to be discussing the satire in 40k.

how can we talk about 40k as political satire without talking about the politics it is or isn't satirizing?

I broadly agree, Haighus, that GW has strayed into fascism apologia, probably starting sometime in 5e. I think it's by accident, as I've said before, and I think strands of "these fascist bad guys are pretty cool though" have always been there.

Where I suppose I disagree or am unconvinced is that this is a big deal, or that there's widespread infiltration and people using it to radicalise "the yoof". The predominant POV I see on Warhammer reddit and gaming twitter I would characterise as socially liberal progressive. Anything other than that tends to get downvoted pretty hard, if not deleted. I'm sure there are places and so on where far right people meme about warhammer or talk about how awesome the Black Templars are, but I don't think that's a big deal or something that particularly needs addressing. People miss the point of this kind of fiction all the time, nobody can do much about it. GW have made statements about it.

I mean, if making female space marines will get rid of the infiltrating neo-nazis, have at it. I expect it probably would cause a few people to lose interest in the setting, but more likely they'd just carry it as a grievance and fuel for their pre-existing disdain for progressive causes.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Those Vikings you want? Knights? "Vampires"? Practical minded soldiery? All of those things can be found in the ranks of the Sororitas as well.

Where? Please, I'd love to see these examples, and the same degree of aesthetic range that has been afforded to the Astartes on this.
Oh, hang on...

 Kanluwen wrote:
I don't read Sisters fiction enough to say, but the core bit about them is simply that they're devotees of the Imperial Cult.

So, you made your statement up. Nice.

Yeah, no. The aesthetics of the Sororitas can be as varied as the Astartes and the Guard.

That they have not been is a problem in and of itself.

This is a huge problem that I think is important, a lot of factions have lots of themes to explore, but just don’t get it.
The sisters of battle and sisters of silence are to me a problem of this, why they are different they have through a bit of neglect end up similar as well. A discussion for other places.

But this also I think leads onto another issue that happens with a loss of satire, and that’s a Sanitised Politics. This is a huge issue within all nerd media honestly, a lot of writers don’t know enough about these subjects to really write them well within 40K.
They can’t depict the struggles women have in the setting, or Why space marines being just men is Horrifying since often they understand 40K, but not these issues.
So it’s glossed over, Sanitised with a imperium is bad to everyone brush.
It’s hard to discuss Satire without at least dipping into these discussions as well.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
OK, I’ll bite.

First, the Satanic Panic and Vidya Games And Movies And *insert convenient music star here* Not Crap Parents am why kid bad.

Those….didn’t come from the same political wing as “trying to purge with rainbows diversity quotas”. Literally Quite The Opposite.

Now, for the next portion? Go read my immediately prior post on how GW Games can be the first time a nerdy kid first finds their ‘tribe’, and can be themself for possibly the first time without judgement.

Mostly that’s absolutely a positive thing, but can be, entirely apolitically, a dangerous thing.

See. When a kid has been shunned and rejected, and finally finds their ‘tribe’ comes that wholesome sense of belonging I genuinely hope everyone finds in life.

But, again apolitically, the threat, which is mostly only ever dimly perceived of that sense of belonging being taken away because They are now expressing an interest?

That is sadly fertile ground for bad faith actors to start manipulating, and magnifying, and frankly lying. Foisting their own worries, fears, paranoia and yes, bigotry, onto another.

Remaining entirely apolitical? That’s not behaviour exclusively owned by one or other political wing.

That is where the issues start to occur.

Talk of ‘gatekeeping’ and ‘forcing the normies out’. It can churn a person’s brain right up until it’s mulch. As with all elements of the carefully created and orchestrated culture war? It all rests upon presenting an extreme of opinion as “therefore all”, or worse “somehow against all available evidence, is actually moderate”.

That is what we as a community need to be aware of and switched on to help prevent. Radicalisation of any impressionable young mind is awful.

The phrase "This is why we can't have nice things." comes to mind though.

It still seems like the argument is that the content of the product will somehow be taken beyond entertainment, internalized, and rearrange the worldviews of impressionable youth, which tbf, smacks a lot of the "videogames cause violence" argument.

Gotta sanitize the content because "Think of the children!".

Btw I don't see how the political wing from which the call to action comes from should have any bearing on it. The thought process appears to be the similarly faulty, regardless.

Apple fox wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Those Vikings you want? Knights? "Vampires"? Practical minded soldiery? All of those things can be found in the ranks of the Sororitas as well.

Where? Please, I'd love to see these examples, and the same degree of aesthetic range that has been afforded to the Astartes on this.
Oh, hang on...

 Kanluwen wrote:
I don't read Sisters fiction enough to say, but the core bit about them is simply that they're devotees of the Imperial Cult.

So, you made your statement up. Nice.

Yeah, no. The aesthetics of the Sororitas can be as varied as the Astartes and the Guard.

That they have not been is a problem in and of itself.

This is a huge problem that I think is important, a lot of factions have lots of themes to explore, but just don’t get it.
The sisters of battle and sisters of silence are to me a problem of this, why they are different they have through a bit of neglect end up similar as well. A discussion for other places.

But this also I think leads onto another issue that happens with a loss of satire, and that’s a Sanitised Politics. This is a huge issue within all nerd media honestly, a lot of writers don’t know enough about these subjects to really write them well within 40K.
They can’t depict the struggles women have in the setting, or Why space marines being just men is Horrifying since often they understand 40K, but not these issues.
So it’s glossed over, Sanitised with a imperium is bad to everyone brush.
It’s hard to discuss Satire without at least dipping into these discussions as well.

violence against women hasn't been an aspect of the setting since the early 90s. the imperium is an egalitarian state where women hold power just as often as much as men, and this has been true longer than i've been alive. there's certainly a lot of odd sexist artifacts here and there, but those are attributable as much to out-of-universe factors as in-universe

i'm curious, why is it horrifying that only men can be space marines? i've never seen "horrifying" used to describe that plot point before

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That is what we as a community need to be aware of and switched on to help prevent. Radicalisation of any impressionable young mind is awful.

The phrase "This is why we can't have nice things." comes to mind though.

Unfortunately - yes. But you know who's to blame for that? The people trying to turn 40k into fash apologia.

When people can play responsibly with their toys, they can be trusted to not being weird about it. Until then, I don't know why more of y'all aren't being clearer in saying "yeah, screw those fash folks, they don't belong here".

It still seems like the argument is that the content of the product will somehow be taken beyond entertainment, internalized, and rearrange the worldviews of impressionable youth, which tbf, smacks a lot of the "videogames cause violence" argument.

Gotta sanitize the content because "Think of the children!".

Again, that's not what's going on, and they're not the same argument at all.

Look, all I suppose I'm asking is "do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs"?

 Da Boss wrote:
I broadly agree, Haighus, that GW has strayed into fascism apologia, probably starting sometime in 5e. I think it's by accident, as I've said before, and I think strands of "these fascist bad guys are pretty cool though" have always been there.

I find the biggest shift to be from the 3rd ed Marine codex to the 4th ed one. The 3rd ed book had a number of tidbits in it about how ruthless the Space Marines were against human forces, specifically. It helped to frame Marines not merely as weapons of power attacking exterior threats, but as a horrific policing force of internal Imperial matters. I think most/all of that is absent from the 4th ed book.

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
violence against women hasn't been an aspect of the setting since the early 90s. the imperium is an egalitarian state where women hold power just as often as much as men, and this has been true longer than i've been alive. there's certainly a lot of odd sexist artifacts here and there, but those are attributable as much to out-of-universe factors as in-universe

Very much true. Institutionally, the Imperium isn't sexist.

i'm curious, why is it horrifying that only men can be space marines? i've never seen "horrifying" used to describe that plot point before

Well, it *is* horrifying that children are turned into soldiers via awful genetherapies and so on.

What's less horrifying is that apparently the Imperium doesn't do it to women, or wouldn't try to. Is being turned into a biological weapon more horrifying if it only happens to men? Would it be less horrifying if that happened to women? Are women also barred from being servitors, because it's too horrifying, or not horrifying enough?

 Da Boss wrote:
So, from your POV, what should be done? Do you agree that the Imperium is creating real world extremists due to how it's being written, and not just accidentally appealing to extremists that already exist?

By appealing to those sorts of people it creates the environment for them to feel safe which in turn allows them to spew hatred and manipulate others into accepting their worldview. By unironically and overwhelmingly portraying the Imperium as the good guys it provides an "out" for people who support these views.
So all GW needs to do is stop making the Imperium look so good. It's not the Federation or the Rebellion where some bits aren't as nice as the rest, the whole thing is bad but GW isn't good at showing it.
Make the Imperium look bad, make it very clear, people look at the people who say the Imperium is good in the same way as people who think the Empire is the good guys.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That is what we as a community need to be aware of and switched on to help prevent. Radicalisation of any impressionable young mind is awful.

The phrase "This is why we can't have nice things." comes to mind though.

Unfortunately - yes. But you know who's to blame for that? The people trying to turn 40k into fash apologia.

When people can play responsibly with their toys, they can be trusted to not being weird about it. Until then, I don't know why more of y'all aren't being clearer in saying "yeah, screw those fash folks, they don't belong here".

It still seems like the argument is that the content of the product will somehow be taken beyond entertainment, internalized, and rearrange the worldviews of impressionable youth, which tbf, smacks a lot of the "videogames cause violence" argument.

Gotta sanitize the content because "Think of the children!".

Again, that's not what's going on, and they're not the same argument at all.

Look, all I suppose I'm asking is "do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs"?

Ultimately I would rather have 40k as a setting that's morally complicated, even if some a**holes find excuses for their beliefs in it, than a more sanitized setting. I believe one of 40ks main selling points, essentially, is the sheer amount of edgelord in it. I think that's a strength. I much prefer challenging art/fiction over the alternative.

 Grimskul wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Can we get back to the "Imperium enables closet authoritarians through misunderstood satire" thing, please? That hasn't been fully explored yet, imo. It'd be a shame to lose the thread to the FSM topic.

I mean they still really haven't addressed the points made by Da Boss and myself regarding how they're basically using the same fallacious arguments of "videogames=kids becoming more violent"

Where has anyone said or even implied that GW writing 40K as apologetic to fascism is turning people authoritarian?

That is completely different from media that portrays authoritarianism in a positive light providing cover for people who hold those views IRL.

Like, so unrelated I don't see how a reasonable person could conflate the two, bordering on deliberate straw man.

 Gert wrote:

By unironically and overwhelmingly portraying the Imperium as the good guys it provides an "out" for people who support these views.
So all GW needs to do is stop making the Imperium look so good.

I agree with Gert! Strange times indeed.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Look, all I suppose I'm asking is "do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs"?

Ultimately I would rather have 40k as a setting that's morally complicated, even if some a**holes find excuses for their beliefs in it, than a more sanitized setting. I believe one of 40ks main selling points, essentially, is the sheer amount of edgelord in it. I think that's a strength. I much prefer challenging art/fiction over the alternative.

I struggle to see how having the supersoldier faction which is on the front of all the art have women in their ranks suddenly sanitises the fact that servitors, the Golden Throne, and the Black Ships exist, amongst everything else in the Imperium.

Having women doesn't make them suddenly "good" or "sanitised". And I don't believe that Space Marines being all-male is designed to be some kind of "challenging" thinkpiece or commentary - I think it's far more likely that it's a product of passive sexism, much like how Custodes used to be all-male, or how we only have male Tempestus Scion minis. But, that's a different matter.

Also, not to belabour the point, but you, uh, didn't answer the question I asked. Do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs?

So kill off the Primarchs that have come back and stop writing space marines as heroes in the novels and their codex fluff? Go back to art portraying them as sinister murdermachines rather than stoic and fierce angelic saviours?

That's what I'd do if I wanted to make it clear that the Imperium are bad. But GW want to have their cake and eat it.

They wouldn't need to kill off the Primarchs, the Lion was not a good person so that just needs to be continued and Guilliman just needed to not have that stupid giant halo. Guilliman's story is fine because his constant failure to "fix" the Imperium actually works to show how bad it is, it has a chance to be better but chooses not to because change loses people their political power.
And yeah stop having Space Marines be such heroes.

Spotting fascist 40Kers is a bit like hunting Bigfoot. There was that one cringy edgelord once that everybody (including GW) dunked on, and then a bunch of 'they surrounded our cabin in the woods and have ripe musk!' sightings...

Da Boss wrote:I broadly agree, Haighus, that GW has strayed into fascism apologia, probably starting sometime in 5e. I think it's by accident, as I've said before, and I think strands of "these fascist bad guys are pretty cool though" have always been there.

Where I suppose I disagree or am unconvinced is that this is a big deal, or that there's widespread infiltration and people using it to radicalise "the yoof". The predominant POV I see on Warhammer reddit and gaming twitter I would characterise as socially liberal progressive. Anything other than that tends to get downvoted pretty hard, if not deleted. I'm sure there are places and so on where far right people meme about warhammer or talk about how awesome the Black Templars are, but I don't think that's a big deal or something that particularly needs addressing. People miss the point of this kind of fiction all the time, nobody can do much about it. GW have made statements about it.

I mean, if making female space marines will get rid of the infiltrating neo-nazis, have at it. I expect it probably would cause a few people to lose interest in the setting, but more likely they'd just carry it as a grievance and fuel for their pre-existing disdain for progressive causes.

Eh, the female SM is a somewhat related tangent, I'm trying to avoid engaging in that before it locks the thread.

I agree that I don't think it is a huge issue, insofar as anyone being radicalised into fascism is a problem, but it is an issue that GW themaelves has exacerbated. I agree that was probably accidental, very much a death by a thousand cuts situation. I like the interpretation upthread that modern 40k is more or less an enthusiastic fanfic tacked on to the older lore.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That is what we as a community need to be aware of and switched on to help prevent. Radicalisation of any impressionable young mind is awful.

The phrase "This is why we can't have nice things." comes to mind though.

Unfortunately - yes. But you know who's to blame for that? The people trying to turn 40k into fash apologia.

When people can play responsibly with their toys, they can be trusted to not being weird about it. Until then, I don't know why more of y'all aren't being clearer in saying "yeah, screw those fash folks, they don't belong here".

It still seems like the argument is that the content of the product will somehow be taken beyond entertainment, internalized, and rearrange the worldviews of impressionable youth, which tbf, smacks a lot of the "videogames cause violence" argument.

Gotta sanitize the content because "Think of the children!".

Again, that's not what's going on, and they're not the same argument at all.

Look, all I suppose I'm asking is "do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs"?

Ultimately I would rather have 40k as a setting that's morally complicated, even if some a**holes find excuses for their beliefs in it, than a more sanitized setting. I believe one of 40ks main selling points, essentially, is the sheer amount of edgelord in it. I think that's a strength. I much prefer challenging art/fiction over the alternative.

So this is the funny thing about this thread. I think that 40k has slipped into fascist apologia. The solution to that, in my mind, is not to "sanitise" it, as some folk seem to misconstruing, but the reverse. I think 40k should being out the nastiness and cruelty of the Imperium again, and backpedal on their justifications for why the Imperium is a hideous monstrosity. I.e reverse the sanitisation GW has already being doing in the aims of selling more plastic toys of indoctrinated child soldiers to little Timmy's mum.

Da Boss wrote:So kill off the Primarchs that have come back and stop writing space marines as heroes in the novels and their codex fluff? Go back to art portraying them as sinister murdermachines rather than stoic and fierce angelic saviours?

That's what I'd do if I wanted to make it clear that the Imperium are bad. But GW want to have their cake and eat it.

Yeah, pretty much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Spotting fascist 40Kers is a bit like hunting Bigfoot. There was that one cringy edgelord once that everybody (including GW) dunked on, and then a bunch of 'they surrounded our cabin in the woods and have ripe musk!' sightings...

I think they've just gone to ground over the last half-decade. 40k lore Youtube was pretty gnarly, like Arch, but seems to have moved onto alt-tech platforms.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Look, all I suppose I'm asking is "do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs"?

Ultimately I would rather have 40k as a setting that's morally complicated, even if some a**holes find excuses for their beliefs in it, than a more sanitized setting. I believe one of 40ks main selling points, essentially, is the sheer amount of edgelord in it. I think that's a strength. I much prefer challenging art/fiction over the alternative.

I struggle to see how having the supersoldier faction which is on the front of all the art have women in their ranks suddenly sanitises the fact that servitors, the Golden Throne, and the Black Ships exist, amongst everything else in the Imperium.

Having women doesn't make them suddenly "good" or "sanitised". And I don't believe that Space Marines being all-male is designed to be some kind of "challenging" thinkpiece or commentary - I think it's far more likely that it's a product of passive sexism, much like how Custodes used to be all-male, or how we only have male Tempestus Scion minis. But, that's a different matter.

I wasn't adressing anything specific regarding all-male SMs. Like you say, it's a different matter. Related, but different.

Also, not to belabour the point, but you, uh, didn't answer the question I asked. Do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs?

I answered it, just long form. The short form for your soundbyte is "I don't care. In fact, arguably, I prefer it."

I like the book Starhip Troopers too, though some people label it facist. I like reading authors that I can argue with, or propose off-putting questions or scenarios. Same sort of thing.

Oh, I think it is worth pointing out that any satire, including early 40k, can fall afoul of Poe's law, but the numbers who miss the satire are obviously going to be higher as the satire gets more subtle.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Also, not to belabour the point, but you, uh, didn't answer the question I asked. Do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs?

I answered it, just long form. The short form for your soundbyte is "I don't care. In fact, arguably, I prefer it."

It's a yes or no question though. You can say "I don't care" if people use 40k to support bigotry (why the hell you'd PREFER that is beyond me), but all I'm checking in on is that you're conscious and aware that people can/do do that.

Apparently, if I'm not mistaken (which is possible, because you didn't answer plainly), the answer is yes, and that you don't care. Which baffles me.

I like the book Starhip Troopers too, though some people label it facist.

I prefer the film.

I like reading authors that I can argue with, or propose off-putting questions or scenarios. Same sort of thing.

And where's the argument in 40k? What's the "debate" to be had here? /gen.

What's the point in *having* that kind of message when a sizeable amount of people say "hey, fascism is good!!" and you then self admittedly saying "you don't care"?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:
Oh, I think it is worth pointing out that any satire, including early 40k, can fall afoul of Poe's law, but the numbers who miss the satire are obviously going to be higher as the satire gets more subtle.

Absolutely. I'm very fond of the falsely attributed Verhoeven quote regarding Starship Troopers, now that Insectum brought it up.

"I want to make a movie so painfully obvious in its satire that everyone who understands it lives in perpetual psychological torment inflicted on them by all the people who don’t."

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Those Vikings you want? Knights? "Vampires"? Practical minded soldiery? All of those things can be found in the ranks of the Sororitas as well.

Where? Please, I'd love to see these examples, and the same degree of aesthetic range that has been afforded to the Astartes on this.
Oh, hang on...

 Kanluwen wrote:
I don't read Sisters fiction enough to say, but the core bit about them is simply that they're devotees of the Imperial Cult.

So, you made your statement up. Nice.

Yeah, no. The aesthetics of the Sororitas can be as varied as the Astartes and the Guard.

That they have not been is a problem in and of itself.

This is a huge problem that I think is important, a lot of factions have lots of themes to explore, but just don’t get it.
The sisters of battle and sisters of silence are to me a problem of this, why they are different they have through a bit of neglect end up similar as well. A discussion for other places.

But this also I think leads onto another issue that happens with a loss of satire, and that’s a Sanitised Politics. This is a huge issue within all nerd media honestly, a lot of writers don’t know enough about these subjects to really write them well within 40K.
They can’t depict the struggles women have in the setting, or Why space marines being just men is Horrifying since often they understand 40K, but not these issues.
So it’s glossed over, Sanitised with a imperium is bad to everyone brush.
It’s hard to discuss Satire without at least dipping into these discussions as well.

violence against women hasn't been an aspect of the setting since the early 90s. the imperium is an egalitarian state where women hold power just as often as much as men, and this has been true longer than i've been alive. there's certainly a lot of odd sexist artifacts here and there, but those are attributable as much to out-of-universe factors as in-universe

i'm curious, why is it horrifying that only men can be space marines? i've never seen "horrifying" used to describe that plot point before

Why it isn’t really part of the setting now so much, it’s also entirely on setting for it to be part of it and saterised as a horrible thing.
There is message and meaning to it when done right. The big issue is that 40K honestly sucked at it.

Men in Regimes like the imperium are often used as both enforcers of the cultural rule, above it and victim to it all the same. A important aspect of the Satire in 40K I think.
It’s why I consider marine themes important to keep, I just don’t think 40K does it well. Maybe it never did.
Honestly it’s just huge discussion all around.

I do hope everyone is having a good day.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Also, not to belabour the point, but you, uh, didn't answer the question I asked. Do you deny that 40k is/can be used as a smokescreen for bigoted beliefs?

I answered it, just long form. The short form for your soundbyte is "I don't care. In fact, arguably, I prefer it."

It's a yes or no question though. You can say "I don't care" if people use 40k to support bigotry (why the hell you'd PREFER that is beyond me), but all I'm checking in on is that you're conscious and aware that people can/do do that.

Apparently, if I'm not mistaken (which is possible, because you didn't answer plainly), the answer is yes, and that you don't care. Which baffles me.

I like the book Starhip Troopers too, though some people label it facist.

I prefer the film.

I like reading authors that I can argue with, or propose off-putting questions or scenarios. Same sort of thing.

And where's the argument in 40k? What's the "debate" to be had here? /gen.

What's the point in *having* that kind of message when a sizeable amount of people say "hey, fascism is good!!" and you then self admittedly saying "you don't care"?

This response is a great example of why you are the only person on my ignore list. I just explained it, yet it's still "beyond" you.

The debates in regards to 40k Imperial policy is very clear to me. The questions (just several of many) include "Is there a point where extreme authoritarianism makes sense/become understandable?", "What decisions might be made in the name of species survival?" and "What are the potential knock-on effects of those decisions?" Not to mention "How does the seemingly natural human disposition for dogmatism and religious fervor play out across those contexts?". That's good ***t! Very engageable!

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
What's the point in *having* that kind of message when a sizeable amount of people say "hey, fascism is good!!" and you then self admittedly saying "you don't care"?

This response is a great example of why you are the only person on my ignore list. I just explained it, yet it's still "beyond" you.

You really didn't explain it. Again, I don't understand why it was hard to give a "yes" or "no", and THEN elaborate if you so wanted to. And *still* haven't even confirmed if the assumption I made (which I really don't want to make, but you gave no concrete answer)!

I frankly don't care if you have me on an ignore list (strange if you're still responding to me though, not that it bothers me, I'm glad for dialogue), but if you won't *answer the questions I ask in good faith*, then I struggle to see how this is on me.

It was a yes or no question, and your paragraph didn't answer it. I appreciate the response, but it didn't answer the question I asked, which didn't need a whole paragraph which ultimately didn't answer it.

The debates in regards to 40k Imperial policy is very clear to me. The questions (just several of many) include "Is there a point where extreme authoritarianism makes sense/become understandable?", "What decisions might be made in the name of species survival?" and "What are the potential knock-on effects of those decisions?" Not to mention "How does the seemingly natural human disposition for dogmatism and religious fervor play out across those contexts?". That's good ***t! Very engageable!

But these are questions (at least some of them) with very simple answers at the end, and to answer otherwise are pretty bigoted perspectives.

40k isn't *that* deep. I don't see it as a big intellectual discussion or thesis on the nature of human morality and ethics. These questions aren't particularly complex, at least to me - or rather, perhaps I'd be more interested in talking about these matters if I didn't have to factor in that there's people who *DO* think the Imperium are the good guys, and that, apparently, folks like you *don't care*.

Until I can trust that people can actually discuss and engage with the "debates" presented in 40k, I don't think that it's a good environment for that sort of discussion.

(And trust me, I can yap on about plenty of my interests and apply literary discussion about them - but 40k isn't one of them, because its ethics and depth for discussion are frankly paper thin most of the time. Characters are more engaging for this sort of discussion rather than the power structures around them).

 Insectum7 wrote:
The debates in regards to 40k Imperial policy is very clear to me. The questions (just several of many) include "Is there a point where extreme authoritarianism makes sense/become understandable?", "What decisions might be made in the name of species survival?" and "What are the potential knock-on effects of those decisions?" Not to mention "How does the seemingly natural human disposition for dogmatism and religious fervor play out across those contexts?". That's good ***t! Very engageable!

"Is there a point where extreme authoritarianism makes sense/become understandable?"
Possibly. 40k doesn't have that, though-the Interex proves that the Imperium is its own worst enemy and certainly NOT the only way.

"What decisions might be made in the name of species survival?" and "What are the potential knock-on effects of those decisions?"
Plenty of decisions NOT made by humans in 40k. For instance-using diplomacy, understanding, and reason.

"How does the seemingly natural human disposition for dogmatism and religious fervor play out across those contexts?"
I suppose this is an interesting question one could ask about 40k, but it's still kinda undercut by how garbage the Imperium is when it didn't have to be that way to let humanity survive.