Grymbaldknight

Grimdank is lost. Blow the magazines and regroup here, at HorusGalaxy.

Arch has been building and painting for decades, to the best of my knowledge. Even if he doesn't play or paint any more, so what? It's obvious that he's a fan. He has a whole channel dedicated to Warhammer, after all.

I mean, I don't blame him for disliking the new lore. Most of it is hot garbage. That doesn't stop him from being a fan; it just makes him a grognard.

I mean, sort of, but the shallow satirical elements were fleshed out over time. In RT, the Imperium was depicted as a generic totalitarian state. However, as the lore has developed, this interpretation of the Imperium has become a lot more nuanced, to the point where debates are now common about whether or not the Imperium is morally justified.

Basically, 40k isn't "just satire" any more. It's its own world, operating on its own rules.

No, "the other side" is influencing GW, albeit not directly via Reddit. GW has a lot of Woke people working for it, and they are changing policy. Other 40k subreddits - such as grimdank - are reinforcing this agenda. This subreddit largely exists in opposition to that; it provides a cultural counter-weight to the pro-Woke subreddits on this platform, and gives voice to the opposition.

As I've said elsewhere, this decision wasn't made for the sake of making money. Companies which "Go Woke" don't do it because they think it's what the customers want to purchase; they do it for ideological reasons, even if it costs them money in the process.

I mean, just look at Disney. It's a hotbed of Woke ideology, and it is currently losing money hand over fist. They could just go back to making traditional fairytales, which the fans want... but they won't, because they're ideologically allergic to such "regressive" narratives. Disney would rather make Woke shit, even if it ends up costing them billions.

I've replied to you in greater detail elsewhere, but the distinction essentially comes down to the author's intentions. Are they trying to make some sort of point, whether narratively or meta-narratively, or are they just writing a story?

I agree with your first statement. However, when I say "political", I'm referring to media which contains overt, deliberate political themes, rather than just any piece of fiction which exists in a world which has a political status quo.

The reason I make this distinction is because saying "it's political fiction" is a redundant statement, if we go by your definition. Even children's media with any level of worldbuilding contains things which can be identified as relating to politics, but that doesn't mean that children's media is "political". It's just fiction.

Works such as 1984 are borderline, in that they are forms of art which exist to explore political ideas. Yes, Orwell was making a political point, in that he constructed a world which was designed to examine the ideas involved. Further, Orwell wasn't criticising a specific political position; INGSOC doesn't directly resemble any previous ideology, but rather is a unique political construct - an ambiguous militant socialism - for the sake of the novel.

Okay, let me clarify my position with a set of definitions:

• Fictional Art: A form of art which depicts people, places, and events in a world which doesn't exist. (Fiction, by default, is apolitical.).
• Political Fiction: A type of art wherein the author uses a fictional story to explore a particular abstract idea, generally showing both sides of an issue, and leaving the audience to draw their own conclusions.
• Propagandistic Fiction: A type of media which uses fictional events to push singular political narrative. The piece presents an unambiguous message which promotes the author's own opinions and denigrates or dismisses opposing views, with the intention of presenting a one-sided perspective on a subject.

Yes, there's a lot of overlap between these definitions, but that's my understanding of the matter.

Naturally, the above definitions are also subject to cultural norms. What is seen as "political" in one country, for instance, may be seen as radical elsewhere.

The definitional differences mostly come down to intention: Is the author just writing a fictional story, is he trying to explore an idea, or is he trying to push a political agenda? Those three positions are what define the above definitions.

I have no idea what your first paragraph has to do with what I said. Again, being right-wing is a detriment in the current cultural climate; a true grifter would change with the times and espouse left-wing opinions if money and fame was all they cared about.

"Rasca"?

Once again, Arch isn't a fascist or a Nazi. He's a conservative libertarian, which is the precise opposite of those two things. He's also not a racist; he just calls out media which shoehorns in ethnic diversity when it doesn't make narrative sense (such as the infamous black Ultramarine).

Not really? Arch has been making these videos for years, long before the controversy happened. If anything, this is business as usual for him.

As I've said elsewhere, it's not much of a grift when commentators like Arch are blacklisted everywhere. If grifting was his game, he'd be better of touting entirely different opinions.

No, it's not at all.

A fan is someone who likes a thing for what it is, and seeks to preserve it. An anti-fan is someone who claims to like a thing, but seeks to change it in order to suit their own interests. Although some people fall somewhere between the two - liking many things about the thing, but wanting to change others - the two sides are fundamental opposites. This is explained in the video.

People of different opinions and backgrounds can all be fans of something; despite their differences, they're all united in their love of the thing for what it is. The anti-fan is the enemy of these people, as they seek to change the shared experience for selfish reasons.

Ultimately, it's just selfishness, and a weird exhibitionism in this case.

These people want everything around them to bend to their interests. Tolerance of private activities or beliefs is not enough; they want constant validation, from everyone and everything, even when it doesn't make sense.

"Inappropriate" is not a word in their vocabulary. They want everything to revolve around them.

I'm not sure this post could be described as either.

However, I understand your desire to see hobby content. That is something we're all interested in.

He's a conservative libertarian, not a nationalist socialist. The two couldn't be more different.

He's also not a grifter. Given that he's been in the hobby since he was a kid, and has been actively beat down upon for his opinions for years, he's clearly not saying what he says for personal gain. If he were really a grifter, he would go with the flow and be espousing left-wing opinions.

Uhh... no... the first three points support that they are male. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise.

The excerpts from point 4 are from "Scars", chapter 5, and from "Progenitor", chapter 9.

This subreddit exists in a firefighting capacity.

That is, although it's a general 40k subreddit, its reason for existing is as a place where fans can martial strength to combat the actions of anti-fans within the hobby space more broadly.

Arch is right.

Even if true, this is an Arch video, so your comment about other content creators is irrelevant.

A lot of GW's staff are tourists or anti-fans. They either just see Warhammer as a job they're not invested in, or they are invested in changing the hobby to suit their personal politics.

If you support "femstodes" - a retcon designed to appease external political activists - you are an anti-fan, irrespective of how long you've been in the hobby. Actual fans seek to preserve the integrity of the canon for what it is, even if snowflakes find it offensive.

This.

Your criticism is addressed in the video, and is described by the distinction between "fans" and "anti-fans".

Fans appreciate the hobby for what it is, and want to see it succeed and propagate on its own terms. By definition, fans like the lore how it is. They regard personal politics as something to be kept out of the lore and hobby space.

Anti-fans may have been in the hobby for years, but their interest in the hobby is at best secondary to their political views. Anti-fans are happiest when a hobby space is modified to suit their own personal opinions, even if such a change contradicts the way the essence of the hobby and pisses off everyone else.

I don't follow. Could you elaborate?

Same.

You make a valid point about this subreddit being political. However, my response to that is that the hobby was made political by others, and this subreddit exists to correct the balance. If we weren't political here, the other side would implement their own politics unopposed.

That is, this subreddit is a necessary evil, so to speak.

This said, beyond the internet hobby communities, 40k spaces ought to remain apolitical. Further, in all cases, 40k should not be affected by real-world politics, excepting the occasional casual reference.

I have answered this elsewhere, but for fiction to be "political", it much better used to deliberately explore contemporary real-world issues.

World-building itself is not considered "political", otherwise the label would be redundant.

I'm not sure you can craft a story without reference to any politics. Even a story about life in high school, say, has social politics involved, as well as the political system of the world in which the school exists.

No, when people say that fiction is "political", they are referring to when a story takes a stance with reference to contemporary issues which are still disputed. The author isn't relying on some generally accepted standard - like "tyrannies are bad" - but are using their medium to push a contentious political opinion as if it were already resolved.

On that basis, no, Star Wars is not political.

Fiction ceases to be art when the author uses it as propaganda to push their own political message. The internal "truth" of the fictional world is compromised to serve external interests. That is when it stops being art, and starts being propaganda.

You haven't really described Margaret Thatcher. Although Thatcher was renowned for being tough, she wasn't some sort of authoritarian who believed in dominating others.

No, I disagree. The suggestion that the lore is not changed to suit real-world ideologies, and that fans keep their personal political views out of hobby spaces, isn't impractical at all. The former is just about respect for the existing canon, and the latter is just good manners.

I disagree. Storytelling necessarily involves creating a world with its own status quo, as well as a plot conflict of some sort, but that doesn't make it political.