Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums - Reply to Topic
Off Topic Totally off-topic chat in here.

Thread: [NSFW] Thoughts on this highly controversial Warhammer 40,000 diorama. Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
02-11-14 06:52 PM
Sethis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaz View Post
Want a way of life to live; if you have to question whether something is right or wrong, it's definitely wrong, and shouldn't be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaz View Post
"Nothing worth doing is worth doing less than 100%"
The two sentences above are not interchangeable with each other, so instead of insulting me, how about you just clarify your position with words that actually mean what you think? I don't know you, and am not telepathic, so the best way to put across your position is to actually explain your point of view clearly.

"If you have to question the morality of an action, it's wrong" and "You should always try your hardest and believe in what you do" do not mean the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaz View Post
Stuff like this shouldn't be made, it's not art for the sake of art, or political, it's overt sexualisation and desensitising, hopping on the bandwagon of liberals who are literally too fucking stupid to realise the difference to support and promote; and on sideliners who create discussion over whether it's right/wrong.
So how does this gel with your belief that people are free to responsibly do what they want provided they are fully behind their own actions? Is the harm that this diorama is causing to society enough to overwrite the freedom of expression of the creator? Given the obvious time and effort that has been spent on this piece, then I can only assume the creator 100% thought he was doing something right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaz View Post
Of course what some people believe is "right" is different for others; because societies fucked and people don't do their jobs, either teachers, parents or social peers.
So... again, not sure if this is exactly what you mean, but this sentence implies that if a person has a different opinion to someone else about what is "right" then that means there's a problem with one or the other's point of view? As opposed to simply being the default condition of the human race, and both opinions being equally useful? I mean, to use your Snowden example, you say you disagree with his decision, but it was his decision to make. Are either of you wrong, or do you just have two different opinions which are both equally valid? If Snowden is wrong, then why?
02-11-14 01:09 PM
Blackwire
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaz View Post
I've deliberately stayed out of this; but this thread is exactly what the guy was wanting.

Exposure.

"No such thing as bad publicity". It's getting him noticed. How many people visited his site to see it? Look at Damien Hurst, Tracy Emin, they produce absolute shite, but because it's recognised, its supported and made popular.

Conversely, look at the violin player who plays at the Carnegie who posed as a homeless person. He had no publicity for that, but made nothing, while the one which was publicised got him thousands of dollars.

Stuff like this shouldn't be made, it's not art for the sake of art, or political, it's overt sexualisation and desensitising, hopping on the bandwagon of liberals who are literally too fucking stupid to realise the difference to support and promote; and on sideliners who create discussion over whether it's right/wrong.

Want a way of life to live; if you have to question whether something is right or wrong, it's definitely wrong, and shouldn't be done. And that ranges from the government, to painting scenes of rape, let alone filming it; Caligula.

Having seen that film as well; I can say as well that they were right not to show it. It's not actually added to in any way by showing the rape scenes, they were pure smut and titillation to sell and desensitize; it would be like showing Sauron in Lord of the Rings torturing little kittens to show how evil he is. Going by the films, it doesn't actually say "why" he's so bad, after all, just that he is. But you don't always need that to enjoy a film; in the end that's what it's there for.
I remember being shown The Kite Runner by my sister's boyfriend who - this is about to sound like utter bull - works for channel 4 as a cameraman. The film insinuates one older boy raping a younger one in one particular scene, and because he's of, in the rapist's eyes, inferior race. The film is set in Afghanistan. It really legitimately shows the xenophobia endemic in the country.

I'm still rather undecided on this piece. You don't need to go far on the internet to stumble across pornographic portrayals of fantasy settings. Calling the piece desensitisation and titillation is not something I relate to. Why? It stirs real disgust in me, and it really doesn't turn me on.

Further than that, I honestly believe some small percentage of humans don't possess the understanding of right or wrong to be able to question if something is or isn't. Should we not at least have means to try and educate them with?

The main difference between seeing something like this in Warhammer 40,000 and in Lord of the Rings is that they both represent themselves differently. Like it or not, Lord of the Rings was written by a Christian whose views on the way the world should be seeped into his storytelling. Lord of the Rings holds many allegories for taking a spiritual path. Sauron is a force of evil in that background. Some would consider that bad story telling. He has Smeagol/Gollum tortured just because he wants his possession back. Ultimately though, it's an allegory for World War II and the Bible when you look really deep into it. Here's the big difference, though: it never clearly labels itself as background where immensely grim, dark things happen. It took it's chance to say that it could pass by any subject matter it chose to and remain okay for children to read. It essentially let itself be certified.

Warhammer 40,000, on the other hand, has given itself this certificate. It even goes as far as to show it - take for example the mass genocide of loyalists on Isstvan III through virus bombing and bloody scouring. Night Lords flay and crucify their opponents and subject their opponents to terror attacks, that as they read in books, would cause immense trauma to see in reality, if in reality such imaginations could exist. And because it has said and portrayed itself in such an adult fashion at times, we are at liberty to choose whether or not to view it this way.

This is all stuff a child could pick up to read. And along those lines that's why rape is shied away from in the background, and only made the loosest of connections to: because the hobby is 12 and up. It's immensely hypocritical, but at least its a system.

This isn't to say, however, that I don't understand where you're coming from - and maybe you could be so good as to be clearer for those who don't. There is 'no such thing as bad publicity'. Jez, I believe even goes so far to show he's exemplified this. Have I as a liberal realised the difference in supporting this work and promoting it? I'm not really sure any of us knows for sure why the artist created this diorama? I've tried to reason why. I only recently realised that the posting person of the image has the words 'Awesome Stuff' to describe what's on his page. A glance over his content doesn't seem to bring up anything similar to this at all. As a matter of fact his hobby section is pretty regular of what one would expect of the hobby, outside the aforementioned diorama. So whether that banner is quite poorly thought out, an insight to a man out to make money through shock value, or an insight to a perverse mind is debatable.

That being said, I'm not sure if I've just given publicity to a person who doesn't deserve it. I do believe I've at least caused some very healthy conversation through this piece, though. Or I hope so.
02-11-14 12:05 PM
Vaz Yes. If you're not wholeheartedly behind something, then you shouldn't do it.

"Nothing worth doing is worth doing less than 100%"

If you can't muster enough support behind your own idea/action, then why should you do it? I'm not saying it's what society believes is right, but what YOU feel is right.

For example, I don't agree with the datadump by Snowden, but what he felt was right. This is not a carte blanche "I believe it's right so it is right"; a certain amount of public decency and respect is required to help a society get on.

Of course what some people believe is "right" is different for others; because societies fucked and people don't do their jobs, either teachers, parents or social peers.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
02-11-14 10:38 AM
Serpion5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaz View Post
Sethis; you deserve a couple of awards. The first for completely ignoring the point I made, and the second for strawmanning.

I can't be arsed explaining if you're that ignorant to miss my point.
Your point seems to be that if something has an air of uncertainty, that it causes doubt, it should just be avoided?
02-11-14 09:39 AM
Vaz Sethis; you deserve a couple of awards. The first for completely ignoring the point I made, and the second for strawmanning.

I can't be arsed explaining if you're that ignorant to miss my point.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
02-11-14 09:02 AM
Sethis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaz View Post
Want a way of life to live; if you have to question whether something is right or wrong, it's definitely wrong, and shouldn't be done...
Really? So unless you prioritise someone's OPINION over another persons, then any time someone protests your actions or tells you that you're wrong... you should stop doing what you're doing?

By this logic we shouldn't have become involved in any conflict, ever.

We shouldn't have made multiple scientific and medical breakthroughs, from positing that the Earth rotates around the sun to the Human Genome Project.

We shouldn't put any diplomatic or economic pressure on countries who brutally suppress and massacre their own populations.

Questioning whether something is right or wrong is a very fundamental part of being a fully functioning human being. Whether you're a "stupid liberal", "sideliner" or whatever you identify yourself as. Always question everything that you are told about who is right, who is wrong, and why. Make a decision for yourself.
02-11-14 08:09 AM
Vaz I've deliberately stayed out of this; but this thread is exactly what the guy was wanting.

Exposure.

"No such thing as bad publicity". It's getting him noticed. How many people visited his site to see it? Look at Damien Hurst, Tracy Emin, they produce absolute shite, but because it's recognised, its supported and made popular.

Conversely, look at the violin player who plays at the Carnegie who posed as a homeless person. He had no publicity for that, but made nothing, while the one which was publicised got him thousands of dollars.

Stuff like this shouldn't be made, it's not art for the sake of art, or political, it's overt sexualisation and desensitising, hopping on the bandwagon of liberals who are literally too fucking stupid to realise the difference to support and promote; and on sideliners who create discussion over whether it's right/wrong.

Want a way of life to live; if you have to question whether something is right or wrong, it's definitely wrong, and shouldn't be done. And that ranges from the government, to painting scenes of rape, let alone filming it; Caligula.

Having seen that film as well; I can say as well that they were right not to show it. It's not actually added to in any way by showing the rape scenes, they were pure smut and titillation to sell and desensitize; it would be like showing Sauron in Lord of the Rings torturing little kittens to show how evil he is. Going by the films, it doesn't actually say "why" he's so bad, after all, just that he is. But you don't always need that to enjoy a film; in the end that's what it's there for.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
02-11-14 05:09 AM
Kreuger A few tangentially related responses to a slew of previous posts.

I would also posit that some of the strongly averse reactions to the diorama come from the tools playing aspect of warhammer 40k. Essentially, that add the army commander we take the 'role' of one side or the other, or one general or the other. This encourages viewers of the diorama to feel either voyeuristic or tacitly identified with the guardsmen. Being placed without permission, in the role of voyeur to a violent sex act in an unexpected context is enough to make almost any viewer uncomfortable.

For much the same reason, fans of shooter video games wouldn't want a rape attack to be added - because the players actions happen in game as the protagonist, then the audience is not just complicit but responsible. I know I would find that horrifying and would never want to play such a game. If such a simulation could even be called a game.

On the topic of film violence, ratings systems are never complete nor are they ever perfectly executed. And even then, they often only serve as a guide line. I quite vividly remember seeing "Saving Private Ryan" in the theater. When the lights came up at the end I could tell that the woman in the row in front of mine had brought a 6 or 7 year old boy. "Saving Private Ryan" is still among the most graphically violent movies I've ever seen. And I find that woman's poor judgement disturbing.

All of that is to say, I think western society hides healthy displays if sexual affection far more than we should. And simultaneously makes violence far too common.

And while I think the diorama might make a salient point about warhammer 40k I can understand how some viewers world be more put off than encouraged to reevaluate their hobby.
02-11-14 04:33 AM
venomlust Here's something interesting. From GW's Legal Page:

Quote:
WHAT YOU CANNOT DO WITH GAMES WORKSHOP'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Please read the following in conjunction with the What you can do section above and the Specific Examples section below. Other than a few exemptions, Games Workshop is not obliged to let anyone use its IP at all (for example, it's a widely held misconception that you can freely make use of someone else's copyrights, without their permission, as long as it's for your own private use - this is currently not an automatic exemption to copyright), and accordingly we always insist that our IP is treated with the respect that we feel that it deserves.

So, If you are using or want to use our intellectual property and you do not have a written license with us, you must not:

- Use Games Workshop's intellectual property in relation to any commercial activity this includes, for example, paying a printer to print some flyers for you, obtaining sponsorship, or selling non-Games Workshop materials using our trademarks.

- Make any direct copies and/or scans of Games Workshop publications, images, or other materials. This includes any Out-o- Production materials, web site materials, and White Dwarf articles. We would however suggest that you produce your own materials (as long as you follow the other requirements of this policy).

- Use our trademarks in respect of your domain name.

- Use our intellectual property in relation to any third party products or third party intellectual property.

- Alter our trademarks in any way.

- Use any of our IP without appropriately crediting the IP and using the appropriate disclaimers in accordance with this policy (see below).

- Create, distribute, or use any material that is not consistent with the functionality, atmosphere, and parameters of the Warhammer universe as created and owned by Games Workshop

- State that anything that you create using Games Workshop's intellectual property is "official."

- Create, distribute, or use any material that is derogatory, obscene, or offensive.

- Create, distribute, or use any material that devalues any Games Workshop product in any way.
I wonder how they try to enforce that, or if they ever have.
02-09-14 03:02 AM
Varakir
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethis View Post
How do you define "sexual references" and can you give examples? I generally detest romcoms so don't have much experience of them. Would you say that such references are equally threatening to the mental health of a child as the violence presented in films such as you've named below?
I'll use About Time, which isn't too bad - but it's probably the most recent i've seen. It references Oral sex, several sex acts and a striptease, which i would class as threatening and confusing to younger children in the same way that the violence in the films i mentioned earlier would be. For a 12 year old i'd class both instances as acceptable, but younger children can and do watch these films.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethis View Post
And also bear in mind that the topic of "sexualisation of children", and the "damaging effects of exposing young children to sex scenes" are two seperate topics and debates - and I think we're straying around the periphery of on-topicness as it is.
Agreed.it's verging off topic and doesn't really need to be discussed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethis View Post
I would argue that I understood the concept of sex before I was 11, and was old enough to want to make out with a girl by the time I was 12. Since I think we can agree that PG and U films generally have negligible amounts of sex and graphic violence then we can focus on the pre-adult, post-child age bands of 12A and 15. I'm fairly certain by that point most children understand and potentially seek out intimate contact with other children of the same age, thus making the portrayal of physical affection more acceptable (to me) in a film than the portrayal of murder, torture et al.
This is really an inherent issue with the 12A rating, it encompasses too broad a spectrum of ages. For a 12/13 year old i would say the depictions of both violence and sex are mostly acceptable, but for the younger children who do watch these films, there are many instances of both which are unacceptable.

People can, and will take their 6 year old to watch a 12A film. The responsibility here is really with the parent to view the content first and know their child well enough to make an informed decision of what they feel is acceptable. it's difficult to answer your questions with a blanket answer, as all films are different and all children are different. I'd agree that there is more violence prevalent in film than sex, but this is more to do with genre than an imbalanced view of the 2 subjects.

There are certainly films out there that overstep their rating due to sexual content rather than violence - Lars and the Real Girl for example. It's a great film, but it has some very deep & complicated identity and relationship issues for anyone to deal with, especially anyone under the age of 15.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethis View Post
Do I think that this is morally acceptable in the theoretical sense? No, not at all. I believe that societies' reluctance to examine and "deal with" rape is harmful to rape victims, allows perpetrators to go unpunished, and contributes to the inequality of women (an example being the latest sexual misconduct charges being levelled at a Lib Dem MP who is refusing to apologise... with a significant proportion of the party backing him up). In my theoretical perfect world, then sex, violence, and sexual violence are all equally acceptable/unacceptable depending on what your audience is. Instead we have this predisposition to assume that violence is fine, sex is less fine, and sexual violance so far from fine that we avoid it like the plague.
I think i agree with you, and our disagreement is arising from our views on 40k. I don't find the diorama shocking,and i'm not trying to say we shouldn't talk about or acknowledge sexual violence. I'm not even saying the guy shouldn't be allowed to make the diorama - I just don't think it's appropriate in my view of 40k.

Like the 12A rating i think 40k encompasses such a wide audience that rape is not an acceptable subject matter, but you are probably correct in saying that the violent images in some books goes too far as well, and i appreciate why you're saying 'we accept this, why don't we accept that?'.

I'll certainly have to have a good look through the codexs in future before letting my kids use them (if they do actually want to play in the first place!)
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome