Talk:The Imperium of Man

From 1d4chan

This page is more insecure about the Imperium's obvious fascism than a closeted gay is about their sexuality

If you'd like to fix the page, go right ahead, just make sure not.to paint the entirety of it with the same brush because the Imperium isn't run the same across every world. I suspect this warning is what you're referring to though. -- Triacom (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The Imperium is feudal, not fascist. Autocracy isn't the sole defining characteristic of fascism, and Imperial authority doesn't demand a single form of government from its holdings anyway. --85.203.44.98 00:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, autocracy is not the defining characteristic of fascism (though it is a defining characteristic), but nor is feudalism mutually exclusive to fascism.--Panadoltdv (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
And Feudalism doesn't describe the Imperium anyway because its missing the key part of fealty to a lord as a vassal. You may take your orders from a planetary governor segmentum commander or whatever, but you owe your loyalty and fealty to the State. The Governor is a representative of the Imperium, not the person you give your oath to, which instead is the state itself. That describes fascism. --Panadoltdv (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
"And Feudalism doesn't describe the Imperium anyway because its missing the key part of fealty to a lord as a vassal." Very important question, but do you know who the Emperor is? -- Triacom (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
But the Imperium is no longer governed by the will of the Emperor, in fact the Horus Heresy books goes out of its way to point out that the Emperor is ideologically different from the Imperium. The Emperor has become just another figurative representation of the state. Besides, that's not what I was referring to anyway. A single Monarch that everybody swears fealty isn't really feudalism either, look at Napoleons Empire, the Roman Empire or North Korea.--49.179.18.252 02:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC) ----
The "top of the heirarchy" doesn't always maintain the most power or authority though. You can see this from British history, and how the Magna Carta came about (barons, lots and lots of barons), or the various issues the French kings had with their dukes (which, given the overlap with Britain, Britain had too) often having more temporal power than l'Empereur did. Alternatively, look at Heian-Era Japan, and through to the Meiji Period, where the Major Chamberlains (and later the Shogunate) had FAR more power than the Emperor, who remained a "spiritual leader" (and there's indications that some emperors may have suffered sudden terminal illnesses when they stepped out of line into temporal power decrees). -174.4.19.188 23:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
As far as anyone in the setting is concerned (with the exception of Guilliman) it is. The Emperor and his loyal sons are the only ones who are at the top of the ladder, while everyone is some rungs down from them, as well as one another. To spell it out, the Emperor and his sons are the nobility, planetary governors are the vassals, and the citizens of the planets are their peasants who provide a tithe of food, goods or labour (most notably in the form of military service) in exchange for military protection. It quite literally is feudalism, and after the Emperor became unable to leave the Throne it was ruled over by lesser nobles (the High Lords). Since you're trying to point out how it's fascism instead and likely would try bringing up the time when there were no Primarchs around, then I'll point out it wasn't fascism then either. Everyone in power is held accountable by somebody else in power and every time somebody has abused their power or tried to institute a truly fascist system they've been executed or assassinated. In addition, aspects of their government have limits on your term (the Inquisitorial Representative comes to mind) and even the High Lords need to put matters to a vote before moving forward with their actions. If you want to look at individual planets and how they can be fascistic, then that's fine, however that only works until you remember that an Inquisitor can show up whenever they want to and immediately kill the dictator for whatever reason they want, and in turn can be held accountable for their actions by other Inquisitors. -- Triacom (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Just because there is a hierarchy does not mean it is a Feudalistic society. Your hierarchy of planetary governors pretty much resembles the Roman Empire or the Roman Republic are either of those a feudal society? It is the concept of the state, either the Roman Republic or the Empire that makes them differ. A feudal society is one where the "realm" or "kingdom" is defined by the relationships between the rulers and its vassals. The realm is the network of people intertwined through marriage and oaths. The territory of the imperium is "owned" by the abstract concept of the nation state, the planetary governors are the state. Vassals of a Lord are not the Lord.
"Just because there is a hierarchy does not mean it is a Feudalistic society." Quite right, what makes it a feudal society is that specific hierarchy, unless you mean to prove that feudal societies did not use that form of hierarchy. Let's take this for a walk though: "A feudal society is one where the "realm" or "kingdom" is defined by the relationships between the rulers and its vassals." That is exactly how the Imperium is defined, if you're going to try and argue further that the Emperor isn't considered the most important presence within it and that every citizen regardless of status is not supposed to view themselves in relation to how they serve him, then I'm going to call you ignorant of the setting. "The realm is the network of people intertwined through marriage and oaths.*" *Citation needed, last I checked a realm was nothing without territory. "Vassals of a Lord are not the Lord." Not even sure why you're bringing this up, nobody was saying that. -- Triacom (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
But I just pointed out an example of a state that uses this specific hierarchy but isn't a Feudal society, the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, pretty much every colonial empire also had this as well, the Nazis did and America immediately after WW2 did as well. Like you haven't specified a type of hierarchy either, you just said there is a hierarchy, which is why I can point out so many diverse and broad societies that also fit it. You do not understand my point about territories, they're still there but the "boundaries" of a nation are the relationships and ties between the ruler and lords. Like this is the specific hierarchy i'm referring to, its not a hirarchy of political offices like in the Imperium or a modern nation, its a hierarchy of Great Houses and Families.--49.180.11.137 07:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
No, you didn't. Last I checked the Roman Republic and Roman Empire did not worship their leader and view them as above all others, to the point where their lives were defined based on how they were in relation to him. Now to address this bit: "Like you haven't specified a type of hierarchy either, you just said there is a hierarchy-" You fucking liar. Here's what I told you: The Emperor and his loyal sons are the only ones who are at the top of the ladder, while everyone is some rungs down from them, as well as one another. To spell it out, the Emperor and his sons are the nobility, planetary governors are the vassals, and the citizens of the planets are their peasants who provide a tithe of food, goods or labour (most notably in the form of military service) in exchange for military protection. It quite literally is feudalism. That's the hierarchy I described, I literally spelled it out for you, and if you don't know what that sort of hierarchy is (despite me spelling it out for you twice now), then you know nothing about feudalism. -- Triacom (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
It ain't hard to reveal the fascism of the empire. Its a state based of the Roman Empire that demands ideological purity. bing bong bongo boom...... fascism. --Panadoltdv (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
We're both alive and would like to remain that way. bing bong bongo boom...... we are literally the same person. Seriously though that is such a terrible and ignorant examination of the setting that ignores 90% of what's in it, all it does is make you come off as a dumbass trying to sound smart. -- Triacom (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
That's not a good analogy because ideology and consciousness are two different things. In a very simple model the fact were both alive and would like to remain that way means we have very similar ideologies, so yeah if you believed that and I believed that you can say we have similar outlooks/ideologies/worldviews. The analogy your making is that you think im saying the Imperium of man IS the Nazi Party or the Italian National Fascist Party which i'm not.--49.180.11.137 07:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
It's meant to be a terrible analogy because the original analogy was a terrible analogy. I've already covered how there's oversight in nearly every branch of the Imperium except for the Emperor, which the original analogy conveniently ignores and which would also prevent it from being a fascist government as a whole. -- Triacom (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No More Fan Theories[edit]

Deleted a whole bunch of useless crap with no lore support. Someone wrote a lot of what is essentially fan theory concerning the Imperium's governance, and it has no place here. Do not put it back.

Please tell me what's wrong with the The Reality of the Imperium. Everything you're removing is correctly put on the main page and none of it is a fan theory, so I figure we can start with the first section. What do you think is made up by the fans? -- Triacom (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

>Please tell me what's wrong I just did. >Everything you're removing is correctly put on the main page How do you mean, "correctly?" Just because it's there, doesn't mean it's correct or that it belongs. >none of it is a fan theory Yes it is, because none of it is directly supported by the lore. It's all wild inferences, baseless assumptions, and massive jumping to conclusions.

Which part do you think isn't supported by the lore? If you seriously think the answer is all of it, then I'm afraid to tell you but you don't know a thing about the lore. -- Triacom (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have specific quotes or passages in books to support the wild inferences, baseless assumptions, and massive jumping to conclusions contained in that rambling assortment of nonsense, then by all means provide them. Otherwise, it is all fan theory, and you're projecting a very personal, individual view of the lore onto a page that should be as objective as possible. Headcanon, so to speak. A sociopolitical screed that boils down to "no actually, the Imperium is good" is not only directly counter to the lore, it is demonstrative of an outside agenda and a vested interest in pushing a certain point of view. Best to simply let the lore speak for itself.

99% of it comes from the core rulebooks, if you'd just read the lore sections. The other 1% comes from the RPG manuals where it describes the world's you can go to and the backstories of your characters. Those are good places to start if you want to read what's established in this universe, then after that you'll want to read the black library novels, the army books, or even just look up a list of stuff like sanctioned xenos species. For example, according to you, Grox would not be a thing even though it's one of the most common livestock in the Imperium. Once you've done that get back to me and we can start going over how stuff like agri-worlds, feudal worlds, savage worlds and developing world's. I'll even point out the page numbers in the books if you can't find anything about these somehow. Normally I'd start with a more precise quote or page number, but in your case you need to read the second half of every core rulebook ever made. -- Triacom (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The rulebooks and lore never mention real-world analogues or makes comparisons, so that's half the material gone already. Everything else is a judgment call that the lore itself never makes, and so should not be given space on this page. "For example, according to you, Grox would not be a thing" What the heck do you mean by this? Sounds like you're grasping at straws. But to continue your example, everyone knows that grox *are* a thing...but if you claimed that grox had a certain physiology or were a certain size, weight, or coloring, you'd be making things up, because that information is never given in the lore. It would be a wild inference, a baseless assumption, a massive leap to conclusions. That is the general pattern for the rest of the section I removed. Again, keep personal canon out of the page.

Do you think you cannot use a real world comparison unless the book does it? Why is that disqualifying in your opinion? Everything else isn't a judgement call, it's taken from what descriptions of life on those worlds are like. For example, can you tell me what life on an agri-world is like? As for the Grox, you deleted the part that said the Imperium allows certain xenos species to live and called it a fan theory, so you are claiming Grox aren't a thing because they are xenos species. Same goes with other species like Jokearo, who even Inquisitors will keep around because they're useful. Nobody has added any personal canon to the page, they've only gone by what the army books, core books, and RPG books have said. -- Triacom (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If there isn't a direct quote in support, it is not "taken from what descriptions of life on those worlds are like." If it's not the literal words of the lore, it is an assumption, a fan theory...a meme. There was not a single direct quote in the entirety of the section I removed. Also, the Imperium doesn't allow *sapient* xenos species to live. Grox are a species of livestock animals. In addition, the personal decisions of individual Inquisitors is not by any means representative of the Imperium's laws or policies, especially considering the Inquisitors themselves can and do act above and contrary to said laws or policies, and may be punished by other Inquisitors for doing so. They are the exception that proves the rule. You are simply further demonstrating the unsuitably wide tolerance you have for non-canon interpretations of the lore, most likely in support of an outside agenda. Such things have no place here.

Everything in those sections is directly taken from the lore, literally everything. "Also, the Imperium doesn't allow *sapient* xenos species to live." First of all, that wasn't what you removed. Secondly you're wrong, the Black Templars are on record as letting an alien species live who were worshiping "the voice of the emperor" and Jokearo are left alive both in and out of Inquisitorial custody. The Tau were also left alive even though the Imperium could just declare Exterminatus on their worlds. "You are simply further demonstrating the unsuitably wide tolerance you have for non-canon interpretations of the lore." Then tell me, what is life like for an average citizen of a feudal world? Somehow I doubt you know, otherwise you wouldn't have deleted it. Also what agenda do you think I have in trying to get you to read about the setting you're ignorant on? -- Triacom (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"The Black Templars are on record as letting an alien species live" I am familiar with the passage in question from the Deathwatch RPG. It was related as a story that voidmen tell each other, without verification. Yet more evidence of your stretching existing lore to fit your personal headcanon. "The Tau were also left alive even though the Imperium could just declare Exterminatus on their worlds." Further demonstration of your unfamiliarity with the lore. A refusal to commit Exterminatus on habitable planets is not by any means evidence of the Imperium's tolerance of xenos, simply a strategic decision cognizant of material resource scarcity. This is a prime example of what I mean through all of this. You are trying desperately to justify a highly personal view of the lore that is simply not borne out with any real support. "What is life like on a feudal world?" Sepheris Secundus is a great example. It seems that your accusations of lore ignorance are a projection of your own unfamiliarity with the established setting and a petulant unwillingness to educate yourself. Your motivations and agenda continue to be highly suspect.

"I am familiar with the passage in question from the Deathwatch RPG." No you are not, because that comes from the 4th edition Black Templars Codex, not the Deathwatch RPG. Their choice to let the Tau live is also not an example of scarcity, because the Tau's planets are not even a drop in the pond to the amount of territory the Imperium holds, and allowing them to remain is an example of tolerating them because they can reseed planets after Exterminatus and make them habitable again, sans the original inhabitants. If you want to find an example of this look up Slasher Beasts, which were introduced to a planet after Exterminatus to help create a new ecosystem for it (only for them to accidentally turn it into a death world). That you seem unaware of all of this is why I'm calling you ignorant. I also like how you had to cherry pick to find possibly the worst feudal world (everything else is a step up, so it is not a good example), and if you knew the lore you'd know that Sepheris Secundus is a mining world first and a feudal world second. -- Triacom (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"Mining world first, feudal world second" That is more fan theory nonsense. It's not anything first or second, it is both simultaneously. Also, this is further proof that your accusations of cherrypicking are hypocritical in the extreme; that's what you've been doing the whole time, taking isolated snippets of fluff and extrapolating your headcanon and fan theories about the wider Imperium from them, when they are simply exceptions that prove the rule. "Slasher beasts" are evidence against your argument, not in favor. The fact that they turned it into a death world post-Exterminatus is proof that they cannot reliably re-terraform such planets, and that using Exterminatus in any situation except as a last-ditch solution is headcanon influenced by memes rather than solid lore support.

It's not fan theory, it's a difference between form and function, not to mention it is still a terrible example because I asked you to describe the average citizen's life on a feudal world and you went out of your way to find the worst possible one. In no way is Sepheris Secundus a good example of all feudal worlds, unless you want to put your money where your mouth is and prove why it's the average. that's what you've been doing the whole time, taking isolated snippets of fluff and extrapolating your headcanon and fan theories about the wider Imperium from them, when they are simply exceptions that prove the rule. Then what is the rule, where are you getting it from, and can you prove to me that these are only minor examples? If so, start with why the Craftworld Eldar are still around, and then tell me about the Tau. "Slasher beasts" are evidence against your argument, not in favor. The fact that they turned it into a death world post-Exterminatus is proof that they cannot reliably re-terraform such planets- Holy shit, you're so far off the mark. They fully terraformed the planet and reseeded the world, they only screwed up with the Slasher Beasts because they were so well-suited to the world that they killed and ate the vast majority of life on it and so they repurposed the planet as a hunting/training range instead of killing all of the Slasher Beasts, which would've solved the problem. If they didn't try to introduce Slasher Beasts then there would've been no issues at all. using Exterminatus in any situation except as a last-ditch solution is headcanon influenced by memes rather than solid lore support. Except in many instances it's not used as a last resort, but as a practical or a more expedient measure. The Imperium could've declared Exterminatus the first time they fought the Tau, and I remember there was one Inquisitor in particular who really wanted to, but the people with him didn't want to do that because they wanted to wipe out the Tau in a way they saw as more honourable rather than expedient. Even in more recent lore, when the Imperium attacked Agrellan the book outright tells you the purpose wasn't to liberate the planet, but to punish the Tau. They could've done their firewall stunt right off the gate but they didn't because they'd rather fight them in person, and in both cases, only when their resources were needed elsewhere did they pull back (and in the second case, set up the fire wall even though they didn't really need to do it). -- Triacom (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"In no way is Sepheris Secundus a good example of all feudal worlds" Except that you cannot prove that it is an exception. "Then what is the rule, where are you getting it from, and can you prove to me that these are only minor examples? If so, start with why the Craftworld Eldar are still around, and then tell me about the Tau." Gibberish. What are you even talking about? And whatever your point is, you must demonstrate that it applies to your own work as well...and you cannot. "Except in many instances it's not used as a last resort, but as a practical or a more expedient measure." Except every rulebook has said otherwise. You have no canon support for this statement, only baseless inferences. You really need to read more basic lore. "Some gibberish about tactics against the Tau" None of which are relevant to the discussion about Exterminatus, given that Exterminatus is a last-ditch solution. You're really not good at this. Your headcanon is not official lore, and your continued obstinacy betrays your ideological motivations and outside agenda. This fanwank of yours does not belong here.

Except that you cannot prove that it is an exception. Sure I can, the Guide to the Calixis Sector highlights how it is one of the most brutal worlds with one of the greatest class divides in the entire sector, and Dark Heresy describes how the reign of its monarchs is especially brutal. If you'd like to say it is the average, I'd love to see you try to prove that. Gibberish. What are you even talking about? You keep saying that every alien species the Imperium is aware of and doesn't wipe out is an exception to the rule, so I'd like to see your source for this "rule". Except every rulebook has said otherwise. Except for the rulebooks I mentioned, specifically the Tau book and Mont'ka, so no, not every book has said that. You have no canon support for this statement, only baseless inferences. Except for the part where it's outright stated that they didn't use Exterminatus on the Tau because they found it distasteful, but I see you're content to ignore that. Nothing I'm writing is headcanon or inferred, however I think you should look in the mirror because several times now you've proven you're ignorant on the subject, especially when you did something as stupid as hearing that the AdMech terraformed a world post-Exterminatus and assumed this meant they could not do what they just did. -- Triacom (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The Guide to the Calixis Sector refers to the extremity of feudalism in the context of its low technological level and sociological organization, not simply to its politics. In this sense it is purposefully evocative of the Feudal Era of Europe, rather than a descriptor of its extremity in relation to other examples of political feudalism. In order to argue otherwise in good-faith, you would need to provide a counter-example of what you believe is actually the average. There is no reason to consider Sepheris Secundus atypical of the norm, but then again, you are not arguing in good faith...only in pursuit of your outside agenda. "You keep saying that every alien species the Imperium is aware of and doesn't wipe out is an exception to the rule, so I'd like to see your source for this rule." Sapient alien species exist despite the Imperium's explicitly stated pan-xenocidal dogma for the same reason Exterminatus is not the go-to solution: scarcity of resources mandates different tactics, but to the same end of xenocide. It is a disingenuous inference, a work of pure headcanon, to say that because the Imperium does not outright Exterminatus every alien homeworld or expend precious resources in an all-out assault where such a thing would not be fruitful, means that Imperial dogma is not explicitly xenocidal. But as I said, you are not arguing in good faith. Disingenuity, hypocrisy, and poor argumentation without support are the hallmarks of your rants.

In this sense it is purposefully evocative of the Feudal Era of Europe- Well look at you, you little hypocrite, just earlier you were saying you can't use any real-world comparisons unless it's done first in the setting, and now here you are with your "fan theories", as you'd called this kind of comparison in the past. In order to argue otherwise in good-faith, you would need to provide a counter-example of what you believe is actually the average. Very well, to show you I'm not going to cherry-pick, I'll allow you to pick literally any other known Feudal World in the setting and we'll go over them. Find me a single Feudal World that's as bad as Sepheris Secundus. Sapient alien species exist despite the Imperium's explicitly stated pan-xenocidal dogma for the same reason Exterminatus is not the go-to solution: scarcity of resources mandates different tactics- Wait a minute, but if this is the case, why are you claiming what you just said is a fan-theory? This is literally what was on the main page and you keep erasing it because you claim it isn't true and isn't backed up by any lore in-universe. Tell me, are you lying here or are you lying there? Because you can't claim something is true when you're also claiming on the main page that it is false. It is a disingenuous inference, a work of pure headcanon, to say that because the Imperium does not outright Exterminatus every alien homeworld or expend precious resources in an all-out assault where such a thing would not be fruitful, means that Imperial dogma is not explicitly xenocidal. Then it's a good thing I never said that, I said what I said to lead you to bring up how the Imperium spares certain species for a later date, because that's what you're removing from the main page and claiming isn't true. Finally, what do you think my "outside agenda" is, aside from trying to educate you on the setting and correcting you whenever you get things wrong? -- Triacom (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Considering how the only thing you have in rebuttal is what boils down to "no u," I think my point is made. Keep your fanwank off 1d4chan.

Dude, you're claiming your own argument is fanfiction. You're claiming the Imperium doesn't wipe out every xenos species because they lack the resources to do so, and then claim that it's fanfiction to write that on the main page, so which is it? -- Triacom (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep your fanwank off 1d4chan.

Does the Imperium choose to leave certain xenos species alone out of scarcity or not? Because you claim they do, but then delete that from the main page and claim they don't. -- Triacom (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear[edit]

I'm seeing a lot of edits to the main page, and not much editing of this page, and what there is above being summed up by the final message being "Keep your fanwank off 1d4chan." which is why I'm starting to think "asshole vandal". Saarlacfunkel (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

One wonders why other individuals stood by and let this fanwanker Triacom try to pass off his personal headcanon as fact without copious quotes from the lore.

Because your "objections" above amount only to "no u", from what I can tell. What, specifically, is wrong with the section? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who wrote those sections anon, it's not headcanon to take facts from the lore and put them on the main page. As I pointed out in the above section, you're deleting stuff you say is correct and calling it fanfiction. -- Triacom (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the person deleting that section, but I see no reason why the entire section should stay on the page. It's an interpretation, a non-objective viewpoint that ignores the origins as part of a Parody rather and tries to find "the good" in the horror. the whole point of the setting is be seen as horrific, not to try to rationalize or normalize it. the whole point is that its a mirror of society. that's why the characters in the setting react the way they do- they HAVE normalized it, and we're to see how the society that made them and reflect on how shitty it really is. --RdV, 17:22, 13 June 2020 (PST)

I see one good reason: It's the pragmatic reason things are the way they are. 40k is stupid, but the way the Imperium is the way it is is not really part of that stupidity, and showing the underlying logic allows one to better appreciate the results. As to "40k is parody", it started out that way, and many of its pecularities can be traced to that origin, but given that GW takes it seriously much of the time, we might as well do so as well. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The only reason to take it seriously is to make sure it never happens in reality. --RdV, 17:57, 13 June 2020 (PST)
Saarlacfunkel is dead right about how we should address the setting, GW loves to tell us how horrible everything in the setting is, but there's plenty of examples where that isn't the case. It's not interpretation to point out that planets like Armageddon or Cadia or Sepheris Secundus are in the minority, that can easily be done by reading the lore and seeing that the majority of planets aren't war-torn, factory driven mining hellholes. If you want to see a good example of this, just look up the realm of Ultramar. -- Triacom (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Ultramar, where a Junta formed by an uncompromising warlord, created a systemic society geared towards one goal- war. Where the nominal leading planet trades military security in exchange for vital goods and personnel the world is incapable or unwilling to invest in due to its obsessive glorification of the "locally made" post-humans. Recruits who don't make the grade can become honored servants and administrators, while those who are simply too old for the process can instead be "decently trained" in their redshirt "locally raised" armies sent to intercept threats their overlords are simply too busy to give a damn about, and civilians literally worship the military around them thanks to generations of a lack of free thinking and blind adherence to tradition. Instead of actually trying to equalize these planets by investing in infrastructure to make them each independent and fully capable of self rule, they are locked in a semi-autonomous kingdom in servitude for the duration. And that is nominally the BEST subsector the overruling government has. So you tell me that the most well-to-do world a setting has to offer involves burying your head in the sand, giving your children to the state in order to make living weapons and an inability to better the situation out of fear and ignorance, and you're damn right I'm calling it a parody. --RdV, 22:32 13 June 2020 (PST)
You're almost there, you're just missing a few things. While it's a parody, civilian life in Ultramar doesn't suck like GW keeps hyping up. You're born, you work, you get a family, there might be a war but probably not in your lifetime (or even your grandkids lifetime), and if there isn't you'll probably die of natural causes. Doesn't sound very grimdark does it? It's not hard to give other planets like agri-worlds and developing world's the same analysis and come to the same conclusion. I also fail to see why doing that is a bad thing just because anyone can argue the setting is a parody. -- Triacom (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ultramar is Ultramar and not representative of the wider Imperium.

Oh so it's fine to use Sepheris Secundus as a representative of the wider Imperium, but not 500 other worlds? I actually do agree that it isn't representative of the wider Imperium, however this does highlight how you're cherry-picking to a ridiculous degree. -- Triacom (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm with RdV for all the reasons he gave, none of which have been adequately refuted. Triacom's morass of headcanon is his own interpretation, not official GW stance on the Imperium or even a reasonable conclusion to draw.

You refuted them yourself, you claimed info on the main page is true, but you're still removing it anyway. -- Triacom (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I should also point out again I didn't write any of the sections that you're deleting. Claiming it's my "morass of headcanon" and my "own interpretation, not official GW stance" is wrong on multiple levels. -- Triacom (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi all I just wondered if there was anyway that this edit war could be ended. The mass deletion thing is getting old.

Personally I feel the text itself is a little long and that it wouldn't hurt to condense the general "Imperial not all bad" point, which I believe is worth making, down a little and then everyone maybe leave it alone for a bit. Otherwise if not can someone just lock the whole lot of it complete with the wall of text so that the guys hellbent on deleting it and not really engaging in any reasoning as to why will not be able to mess with the bloody thing. After all I thought that we had Pol & SJW pages for people that wanted edit wars ; ) Cheers --Because (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You can ask Root and AssistantWikifag to lock it and/or ban the guy doing mass deletions, and besides that there's nothing you can do other than undoing them. -- Triacom (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
We have been asking for the mods to lock the page but they still haven't done anything about it. I also agree that we should have a discussion about shortening the page.--2601:203:480:4C60:2190:A86E:19E1:EC73 00:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok having a go at trimming the Imperium isn't evil section a bit. Just my take so feel free to revert changes if you wish, but interested in your reasoning. If you try and blanket delete at least explain why!--Because (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasted over from User_talk:Root[edit]

Well we've now reached it, the Imperium of Man page's last 500 versions are all one editwar because of this one troll who keeps trying to delete half the page, and sometimes the entire page. Can we get the page protected so that this stops? -- Triacom (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Hurf durf muh vandalism" Dude, if I was in this for shits'n'giggles, do you really think I'd have spent that long doing what you negligent cretins should have done? The only vandalism is whoever took the time to write all that CLEARLY ideologically-motivated, /pol/tarded, purely-fankwank attempt at justifying the Imperium's objectively terrible system of government and post it, and by extension you for trying to defend it (I still think it was you who posted it, and I have no reason to think otherwise). It should never have been allowed up on the page, and the fact that you let someone post it at all, let alone how you've kept defending it so strenuously and unreasonably with terrible arguments, is a mark against *YOU*, not me. I'm just cleaning up your mess. And I didn't blank the page, that must have been you in your frantic attempts to defend your fanwank.

Someone's mad that he can't blank the page anymore. Just look at that "you negligent cretins" spiel, great way to begin your argument. "I didn't blank the page" then why does the history page have YOUR IP address pattern (22601:197:b7f:e0c0:etc.) smeared across it along with the corresponding (-34,639‎) and (-36,509‎)s? "CLEARLY ideologically-motivated, /pol/tarded, purely-fankwank" Great, anything you don't like to read or challenges your personal political compass automatically must come from /pol/. The insightful and politically neutral content attempting to deconstruct and analyze exagerrated grimdark of WH40k (which you've been blanking until now) is now somehow /pol/. I wasn't a fan of Triacom when he was defending HussarZwei's SJW-tastic revisionism, but seeing you constantly insinuating his otherwise professional ass to be pro-right-wing among all other 1d4chan regulars speaks volumes of your own IQ capacity. The sooner your own ass gets banned, the better. --77.111.247.30 16:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"Insightful and politically neutral content" "pro-right-wing" "SJW" Except I never mentioned anything right-wing or SJW. Now you're just projecting, betraying your own bias, and "no u"-ing me. The section I was deleting is *predicated* on a subjective, contrarian, biased judgement call---the title is literally "Is the Imperium really that bad?" Yes, it is, and the lore continually states as much. Any statement to the contrary is an individual inference, a fanwanky opinion piece, and therefore not canon. Yet again, you demonstrate why I was completely in the right to delete something that had no right to be there in the first place. Plus, deletion of a section =/= blanking the page. I never blanked the page and was unaware that occurred, so it was probably you.

You did in fact blank the page. It is right here in the edit history. --2601:203:480:4C60:D46B:66A8:93AD:C381 18:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the issue is that there is a merit to some of the points raised in there. There's definite scope to trim it back as it does go on too much and over-labour some of it's points and analogies, but it's worth stating that as a setting it's not as grim dark as GW tend to portray it and some of the reasons why. You might not agree with this, but enough people do that you can't just delete the section and not have it pop back up. Rather than just saying it's all fan-wank say why you think all Imperial planets have to be hell holes. Persuade people you are right rather than insulting people and deleting sections you disagree with. I think a lot of the site would disappear if everyone just deleted stuff they disagreed with.--Because (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"as a setting it's not as grim dark as GW tend to portray it" Once again, that's an outside inference running counter to the standard GW depiction, as you yourself just stated...ergo, fanwank. Why should it have a place? It is one thing to say that the Imperium is a "protagonist" faction because they are human, relatable, or whatever else. It is quite another thing to say that they are a "good guy" faction or to attempt to justify them, especially when doing so runs explicitly counter to GW's official portrayal. Protagonist =/= good and/or justified.

Because A: It's TEND to portray. As mentioned in the article look at books like Ciaphas Cain and you can see it's not all grimdark. and B: GW make a Wargame and focus on the most violent bits, they don't make a game about life on a agri-world as it's dull (but not necessarily hell). If you want to get an idea of life in the Imperium it's worth pointing out that while as an entity there is only war it doesn't mean to say that there aren't places that can go hundreds of years without war (so better than most states on Earth). TBH I'm not to taken with chunks of it either, but I think that it makes enough of a point that it needs an edit not a blind delete. Personally I think the Imperium needs to have places that are normal for A: the setting to make sense and not just be an edgelords fantasy and B: there to be something to contrast the bad stuff against. One of the reasons that the Gaunts Ghosts books work is because the Ghosts loved their homeworld which didn't seem to be a complete hell hole, it's loss and them wanting to hold on to their fond memories and traditions of the place are what help give them their character.--Because (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Because, Please don't edit other peoples writing on talk pages.--2601:203:480:4C60:D46B:66A8:93AD:C381 18:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly not aware that I had, sorry for any offence caused.--Because (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Anon, as you can see in the link posted you did blank the page. You can also see I was not the one who added the sections by checking the edit history. That being said, even ignoring everything else, you're deleting parts of the page that you were saying were correct, and that's just plain vandalism. -- Triacom (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Any meaningful contrast with/alternative to the Imperium's blanket status quo should come from outside it yet still within the setting, i.e. the height of human ascendency during the "Dark Age" of Technology, the Interex, peaceful xenos civilizations, isolated human civilizations brought by force back under the Imperium's aegis, the counter-Imperial-yet-pro-human views of the Soul Drinkers and other Renegade factions, etc. I fully agree that better alternatives to the Imperium need to canonically exist in order to highlight just how bad it really is, but so-called "exceptions" within the Imperium only prove the rule rather than offering sufficiently convincing reasons why the Imperium "isn't really that bad" in its entirety. But even if you want to use internal examples like Gaunt's Ghosts, it still doesn't work. Gaunt's Ghosts are frequently cast in opposition to the wider Imperium's restrictive overarching systems, highlighting how terrible they are as a rule. Dravere, Sturm, Welt, etc. are not merely antagonists as individuals, they are representatives of the Imperium as a system and uphold the letter of the Imperium's systems through their actions. Gaunt is the one who tends to bend, flout, or otherwise work outside of the systems in order to do *true good* and do it with *true efficiency*, not merely to uphold law, and is frequently punished for doing so. Gaunt's Ghosts as a "reasonable" faction exist *despite* the Imperium, not *because* of it. They are exemplars of the human spirit (which is the real heroic "good guy"), not the Imperium itself.

Enough pedantry, Triacom. I do not acknowledge that I agreed with anything presented in that long, disingenuous piece of fanwank as it was used. That was your assertion, not mine, and I reject it. The only vandal was the author of that section, which I remain unconvinced wasn't you all along.

Except you did, you stated the Imperium's police on xenos species was the same as what you were removing from the main page. Furthermore, you're using the most horrible worlds in the Imperium as the baseline rather than exceptions, as we can see on the talk page. Pointing out that most Imperial planets will not work you to death in a smog covered hellhole isn't fan-theory, and it was partially because you refused to back up your arguments with any facts that you abandoned the talk page. The other reason why is because I pointed out that you said the page is right. -- Triacom (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Because those horrible worlds are the primary examples used as descriptions of the Imperial standard. You could not provide an example of any other world for a rebuttal; you could only infer their existence based on your personal interpretation of fluff, which by definition is the creation of fanwank and headcanon. Besides, even if you *could* prove they exist, they are not indicative of the Imperial norm, or they would receive equal or greater attention in the fluff---they would be exceptions that prove the rule. In any case, I still do not acknowledge your pedantic, bad-faith nonsense.

Look, I'm not a WH40k-head, and I only care because you were repeatedly removing content that had actual value, so I'll give you a little advice: If you're going to edit war, and you're the only one going for your version against more than 3 people, you're not going to win by sheer persistence, especially on a wiki as... detail-oriented as this one. The only way you win in that situation is convincing at least one of the opponents to switch to your side by persuasion, which you suck at. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Because those horrible worlds are the primary examples used as descriptions of the Imperial standard.* *Citation needed. I pointed out on the talk page that no other world of their type was remotely close to the one you used as an example, and you say that they're the norm without anything backing it up. Furthermore I did use an example, you pointed at a fuedal world, so I pointed at every other fuedal world in the setting to show none are as bad as the one you claim is the norm. It is your personal opinion that the worst possible worlds are the standard, and nothing in the setting backs it up. -- Triacom (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"repeatedly removing content that had actual value" "on a wiki as...detail-oriented as this one" Speaks volumes for your low/biased standards of valuable content, then. "I'm not a 40Khead" Ah, that would explain it. And I know for a fact that I am not the only one who thinks the parts I focused on shouldn't be there, the other entries on the talk page show that clearly enough. Yet more proof of outside bias and ideological motivation.

Or other people aren't as ignorant of the setting as you are. You have no source stating that the Imperial standard is the worst world's in the setting. -- Triacom (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
What can I say? I'm a sucker for a reasonable and reasonably written counterpoint. That being said, I would be willing to see a "counterpoint to the counterpoint" section above the TLDR section; maybe call it "That being said"? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

And you have no source stating definitively otherwise. You only have speculative inference, which must by definition take second place to concrete fluff examples.

I have every other fuedal world ever written, not to mention you're the one making the claim. You need to prove what you say is true, and you not only haven't done that, but we can look at literally any other fuedal world to prove your assertion false. -- Triacom (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Triacom also has the Commissar Cain novels, which you apparently haven't read. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I've read all the Commissar Cain novels, and I dismiss them for the reasons you keep ignoring in my previous posts to the extent that it reinforces my sense that none of you are acting in good faith. First and foremost, however, the novels are narrated by Cain in first-person and annotated in first-person by Inquisitor Vail, and neither Vail nor Cain as characters see anything wrong with business as usual in the Imperium---she is an Amalathian Inquisitor and therefore devoted to upholding the status quo, and he is a career commissar and beyond his instinct for self-preservation is fully indoctrinated by his Schola Progenium upbringing. By no means are either of them objective or impartial observers, and as such their opinions and insights cannot be taken without critical analysis. What's more, you *still* cannot provide a solid example of what you claim to be the Imperial norm I am ignoring. None of the planets mentioned in the Commissar Cain novels are *good* places to live or *normal* places for the Imperium by any objective, non-biased standard, and anyone claiming otherwise is pushing an agenda.

All we have to do is prove you wrong and we can look at how every other fuedal world is better than your "standard" to see it isn't the norm. When you make a claim it is up to you to prove it, and you haven't done that, all you've done is disregard any evidence you don't like, which includes accounts of people who live in the setting, and literally every fuedal world except for one. -- Triacom (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Bad-faith argumentation, just like I said. You have not proved yourself right...and neither have you proved me more wrong than you. Good to know this is about preserving your personal fanwank and ideological bias at any cost rather than establishing objective truth.

You do realize that "objective truth" is meaningless in a fictional universe written by several different authors with different interpretations.--2600:1010:B15E:8FE9:8999:B464:2D77:61B7 21:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Using sources to point out that no other fuedal world is as bad as your example is not a bad faith argument, neither is pointing out that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. It's not preserving an ideology when you ask somebody else to show their source, and it's not fan-theory to put actual in-universe descriptions on the main page. Lastly, "objective truth" is not ignoring everything in the setting save one example. -- Triacom (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Sarlacc, all the more reason to delete the section in question: it is yet *another* individual interpretation, but unsanctioned by GW; therefore, it is fanwank and headcanon, and should not have a place here. Your suggestion that I write a "couterpoint to the counterpoint" would run counter to this point I'm trying to make. This wiki should not be a repository for individual theories, interpretation, inference, speculation, leaps to conclusion, or other assorted aspects of fanwank; it should present nothing more than what is explicitly spelled out in the lore. The section in question should never have been allowed for that reason, and a rebuttal to it is simply more of the same. There should never have *been* a counterpoint in the first place, because any proposed counterpoint is by definition non-canon and symptomatic of an outside ideological bias. Triacom, by definition you are making a counter-claim, and have not yet provided any proof in support of it; you are still arguing in bad faith, and I have no reason to acknowledge your arguments.

"it is yet *another* individual interpretation, but unsanctioned by GW-" Weird, since even you said sections you were deleting were accurate. "Triacom, by definition you are making a counter-claim-" By definition I'm asking for you to prove your assertion correct, you have not done that, instead you've discarded everything that doesn't agree with your opinion. -- Triacom (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Bits of the section were *technically* correct, but the section's overall narrative and the conclusions drawn were fanwank, which has been my point all along (btw, the best lies contain bits of truth, so it looks like you've been suckered in). If people want to draw conclusions from evidence presented, that is their prerogative, but these individuals' conclusions should not be posted on the wiki as if they were canonical fact, and that is what the section *is*. "The Imperium isn't really that bad" is an individual opinion, not GW-sanctioned canon. "I'm asking for you to prove your assertion correct" Funny, I'm asking you for the same thing, and here you are continually attempting to evade doing so. This is bad faith, and I'm done treating it with respect. I'll address you again when you prove *your* assertion correct.

Then why were you deleting it and saying it was all wrong? Furthermore it is on you to prove your assertion when you make a claim, if somebody calls bullshit you need to prove it isn't bullshit. As I've already said many times, the burden lies with the person making the claim, and saying "prove me wrong" is not making a point. I also did prove you wrong already, no fuedal world is as bad as the one you claimed is the norm. -- Triacom (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Anon, like I said, you're only going to lose this way. Your persuasion skills suck, as does your argument. This wiki allows for reasoned fanwank, full stop. We're not Wikipedia, we're closer to TVTropes. Reasonable fan-theories are explicitly allowed here (there are exceptions, but they involve labeling a fantheory as fact or misrepresenting sources). Our captcha questions referring to popular fan-created characters should have clued you into that, at least. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"No feudal world is as bad as the one you claim" has still not been proved. I defy you to find a single sentence that says anything even remotely similar to "Alone of all feudal/mining/feudal mining worlds in the Imperium, Sepheris Secundus is objectively the absolute rock-bottom worst." Enough bad-faith argumentation, Triacom. Sarlacc, then if it *is* fanwank, why did you originally disagree with that assertion? For the umpteenth time, it sounds like the problem isn't my argument, but your ideological bias. "labelling a fan theory as fact" You mean, like the section in question does?

Yes it has, I've looked up every single fuedal world that has ever made it into the setting, none of them are remotely close and when I pointed this out you ran away. Secondly, it isn't fanwank. -- Triacom (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
You're grasping at straws. The tone of the section makes clear that we're entering into analysis mode, where what the text directly says is less important than what is implied and logically required. Removing the whole section for not being explicit about that is not productive (in other words: It's correctly labeled as "effectively fan theory", which, to be clear, is a distinct (if sometimes overlapping) set from "fanwank"). Saarlacfunkel (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"I've looked up every single feudal world" Sure, I totally believe this person arguing without proof on an internet forum. You just keep digging yourself deeper into your hole of bad-faith pedantry, Triacom. Step it up. "Labelled" Where was this label, Sarlacc? "a distinct if sometimes overlapping set from fanwank" No possible way to objectively support that statement and you know it. Talk about grasping at straws. Once again, the only vandals are the people trying to keep this garbage on the page, like trying to keep graffiti on a school wall.

"Sure, I totally believe this person arguing without proof-" That's what you've been doing. You make assertions and you haven't provided proof for any of them. Where is any of your evidence? -- Triacom (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Once we enter into analysis mode, no label is required, so long as no facts are misrepresented. Analysis is usually theoretical. Further, fantheory and fanwank are distinct classes of discussion, if they in many cases overlap. "Fanwanky fan theory" refers to the quality and sanity of the theory; a "non-fanwank fan theory" considers the evidence available, and points out what is likely given the evidence. For an example of non-fan-theory fanwank, look at what you're doing: Insisting that all attempts to critique the work are "fanwank" is itself fanwank of the worst sort. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
To be clear: insisting all criticism is "fanwank" is so fanwank that I think it crosses the line between "permitted fanwank" and "so stupid even we can't tolerate it". Saarlacfunkel (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"I've looked up every single feudal world" Then list every single feudal world. Provide your proof, Triacom. If you can't, why should I believe you? Why am I wrong, when you can't even prove why? I've provided proof, even if you don't like it. You've provided nothing at all.

Sure, here they are:
  • Acreage: A world consisting mostly of midieval peasants and better off nobles, known for shipping out ores and guardsmen. Was a stable planet before its king died, and is an example of a mining planet where its citizens aren't worked to death.
  • Asgard: a world we know little about, aside from the guardsmen regiment it produces who make excellent scouts.
  • Attila: A world with a nomadic people who live surprisingly good lives despite a lot of the planet being uninhabitable. The parts that are habitable have turned out pretty well.
  • Barathread: the only thing we know about this planet is that Marneus Calgar helped it's people push off the Night Lords.
  • Battakkan: A little known world that was under Tau occupation once, whose only notable mention is its mutant livestock.
  • Calderis: a surprisingly independent arid world with a feral Ork population. Aside from that the people there are making steady progress at advancing through the ages.
  • Centius Prime: another little known world, what we do know is it was invaded by Orks, but they were destroyed.
  • Coralax: Another world we know nothing about, aside from that they love Space Marines.
  • Coseflame: another world we know nothing about.
  • Elros: all we know is that a death cult dominates the planet, but we know nothing about the cult itself. If they're anything like "normal" death cults, then their name makes them sound a lot worse than they are.
  • Fervious: a planet where everyone is in one city and you can kill your rivals. Still not as bad as your example because nobody forces anyone to work themselves to death or force them into uninhabitable living conditions, not to mention there's no mention of the governors being nearly as hedonistic.
  • Heterodyne: a planet used as an AdMech research station.
  • Hilarion: a fuedal world that is stable, and a rather safe place to live. Peasants and serfs are given work to do and otherwise are free to live as they please. It's the polar opposite of Sepheris Secundus.
  • Ichover: nothing really known.
  • Krastellan: a very stable world due to being right next to Baal.
  • Mancora: a world kept in perpetual conflict to make for good Space Marine recruits. Still not a place where you work in a mine until you choke to death on the smog, and the places that aren't warzones seem stable.
  • Penopass: a fuedal world known for its dancers. Oh no, what horror!
  • Sacris: a world consisting of warring tribesmen, however that's exactly how its population likes it so they have no desire to change it.
  • Sepheris Secundus: an absolute hellhole you claim is the standard for Imperial worlds.
  • Solstice: a world saved from genestealer infestation by Uriah Jacobus, other than that it's people seem content (and surprisingly friendly, given Jacobus' task), in spite of their environment.
  • Sophano Secundus: had a hidden Chaos cult on it at one point, but it was discovered. We know nothing besides that.
  • Tranquility-II: a world beset by xenos, until the xenos were destroyed.
  • Triandr: a world consisting mostly of two warring states, though the war is never fought within their own territories.
  • Vandred: a recruiting ground for Space Marines, we know nothing besides that.
  • Vhospis: a place we know nothing about until it was the sight of a failed Daemon invasion.
And that's it. For obvious reasons I'm not including world's destroyed by an outside event when we know nothing of those worlds, and I'm not including world's I could not find separate sources for. As I said, none of them are nearly as bad as your example. Now it's your turn, where's your proof? You say you provided it, so where is it? -- Triacom (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Further bad faith, Triacom. This certainly isn't every feudal world, nor have you given references as to where you obtained the entries. For someone as fixated on proper proofs and argument protocols, you are doing a piss-poor job at meeting your own standards. Furthermore, you seem obsessed with the idea of "stability" as a metric synonymous with "not-grimdark" at least, "actually good and ok" at most. Would you then make the case that the "stability" of the society described in 1984, the relative condition of "peacefulness" for the average individual in the post-apocalypse of Mad Max, or the "stability" imposed on the citizens of the Matrix are evidence for saying "actually those societies aren't really that bad"? Your obsession with ad-hoc rationalizations for intolerable situations betrays your outside ideological bias. I mean, your pathetic reach to justify Mancora is evidence alone. I reject the entire premise of your argument, as well as your methods.

"Further bad faith, Triacom. This certainly isn't every feudal world-" It's every fuedal world that we've been given a look into, and which I could find a source for, no matter how brief. You asked me to post every single feudal world, and then when I did so you say it's a bad faith argument, which is just a lie, I did exactly what you asked for. "Furthermore, you seem obsessed with the idea of "stability" as a metric synonymous with "not-grimdark" at least-" Because a 'stable' world is a world that isn't torn apart by war, invasion and doesn't throw its citizens into a meat grinder. "Would you then make the case that the "stability" of the society described in 1984-" I would argue that the society in 1984 is not as bad as Sepheris Secundus, especially if you were arguing that Sepheris Secundus was the standard of living. Same goes for Mad Max and the Matrix. "Your obsession with ad-hoc rationalizations for intolerable situations-" Look at that list of planets, which among them besides Sepheris Secundus has "intolerable situations"? Are you really that scared of something like the dancers of Penopass? "I mean, your pathetic reach to justify Mancora is evidence alone." And the middle-east in the real world has been a site of near perpetual conflict these past decades, yet I doubt any of the people who live there would tell you that it's the same as a place where you're worked to death in areas the air is almost unbreathable. My point isn't so much that it's a good place to live, it's to point out that you're lying when you call Sepheris Secundus the standard. "I reject the entire premise of your argument, as well as your methods." AKA you reject literally all the evidence in the setting because you don't want to be wrong. You've yet to show your source for why you think Sepheris Secundus is the standard feudal world, and you're ignoring how every other world is nowhere close to it in terms of how bad they are. -- Triacom (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anon A lot of what you say feels like saying based on "Midsommer Murders" source material sleepy English Villages are more dangerous places to live than some warzones. The stories are about war and exciting things not stuff is actually fine here, haven't had a war for a bit. To me it feels like outside of the crazy and important worlds where most things happen (Hive, Fortress, Death and Forge), life would go on in a way that people wouldn't be much worse off than life here. Unless you were a mutant or a psyker. As in they'd have the odd war and major terrorist attack, but it would be a rare event rather than the norm as it is for places like Cadia or Armageddon. I think dwelling on the sheer over the top grimdark nature of the Imperium actually weakens the setting as it takes it into caricature. I also think that worlds more like ours (which if you look at the amount of wars we have had isn't exactly paradise) are the norm statistically rather than the more interesting extremes that get the focus. Like ours they aren't peaceful, but they aren't the total shit (Hive, Fortress, Death and Forge), so to me it seems like there is room to argue that the Imperium isn't totally grimderp to live in. Same goes for some of the egalitarian stuff (although class is still a huge factor). Overall it's still a shit place, but doesn't mean large amounts of its citizens wouldn't lead normal enough lives. User:Because (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2020

You're dead on the money and that's the point of the sections the anon was trying to remove. -- Triacom (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed although if it could be done in 1/4 the words it would be better, it is just too much for an alternative perspective. Anon is right in that GW push the grimdark to 11 as canon often and while I think the reasons in the counter are valid and should be shown, it'd be good if they took up less than half of the page!--Because (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

If anyone in the Imperium lives a "normal-enough life," it is *despite* the Imperium, not *because* of it. After all, people in the real world manage to adapt and lead "regular" lives under intolerable regimes---that is not an excuse for why those regimes aren't bad, it's a testament to the endurance and adaptability of the human spirit. So it is in 40K. I do not see why what is otherwise a paean to the indomitable nature of our species against any adversity or oppression (even that of other humans) should be twisted into an ad-hoc justification of the Imperium as a discrete sociopolitical entity or philosophy of governance, especially against the explicit canonical portrayal by GW, which is specifically what the section in question is attempting. Once again, that goes WAY beyond "fan-theory" (arbitrary distinction anyway, all fan-theory is fan-wank by definition) and smacks of ideological bias in service of an outside agenda. There are specific pages designated for fanfiction and speculation. Let it be placed there, if it must remain at all.

Right, I'm sure the Imperium has nothing to do with saving worlds from xenos predation, daemonic possession, and especially outside threats like Enslavers. Come on, do you really think the Imperium intentionally goes out of its way to make worlds worse? The general answer is no, there's a few Space Marine chapters who do, but for every world you can point to you can also look at something like the 500 worlds of Ultramar to see the opposite effect, not to mention literally any world the Space Marines save from some kind of invasion. The Imperium itself isn't a good organization, but that doesn't mean they will intentionaly try to make every world into Sepheris Secundus like you claim. -- Triacom (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You see to me the fact that people can lead a normal life in a setting with chaos and that many hostile alien races is a sign to be of what this section is trying to say. The Imperium may be harsh, but it is a necessary harshness to ensure humans can survive. People on those worlds aren't surviving in spite of the Imperium they are surviving because the Imperium has kept them safe so that they can enjoy a better life. The Imperium isn't like 1984, where the oppression is more for the sake of it and the constant wars seem to be a reason to have the status co than a necessary fight for survival. The Imperium do make extreme choices (and has it's shares of idiots as well), but they are often because they are the only choices available to stave off a worse threat, rather than because they get their kicks out of persecuting folks. It'd not like it's trying to keep it's population in check to protect the rulers liken some real world dictatorships, it is doing it to save humanity from the worst elements of the galaxy and internal threats aligned with those forces. --Because (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"it is a necessary harshness to ensure humans can survive" Humans survived for 30,000+ years before the Imperium, and still survive *outside* the Imperium. This is canonical fact. The Imperium self-justifies its existence by claiming its own necessity, but even a cursory glance at the fluff reveals this as a lie. If the Imperium were so necessary, it wouldn't have to use force to conquer independent human worlds or continue ruling them once conquered; they'd be tripping over themselves to join up voluntarily. Successful, peaceful, mutually-beneficial human-xenos interaction is canonical; successful non-Imperial human resistance to Chaos is canonical. Evidently, the Imperium is *not* the only, best, or even most efficient solution to the problem of humanity's survival---it continues to exist only through sheer inertia and ten thousand years of habit. Just because something exists does not mean its existence is good or justified; that's a fallacious assumption along the lines of the naturalistic fallacy or the might-makes-right fallacy, which I'd argue that the creators were and are trying to lampshade. I'd also argue that the Imperium *is* worse than the 1984 government, precisely *because* it views itself as acting in humanity's best interests. C.S. Lewis wrote, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." Even Leto II Atreides in Dune never viewed his repressive rule as the only, best, or even most efficient solution---it was never intended to last. Dan Abnett also had a great bit from The Armour of Contempt, where Gaunt argues with Inquisitor Welt about the heavy-handed reclamation of Gereon. Gaunt asserts that force of will is the only truly effective prophylactic or cure for Chaos, rather than the Imperium's focus on the supposed anti-Chaotic properties of the venom of Gereon's moths. This is an apt metaphor for the Imperium's overall approach, the exceptions to which only prove the rule. Gereon continues to resist, except now they resist the Imperium, and may more easily turn to Chaos in the future. Considering the Imperium's harsh oppression of the vast majority of its citizens, it can be reasonably argued that it sows the seeds of its own undoing by trying to artificially create force of will, removing the freedom of choice necessary for most to develop true force of will, relying instead on rote habit, brainwashing, and brutal force...creating fertile ground for rebellion and Chaos.

"Humans survived for 30,000+ years before the Imperium, and still survive *outside* the Imperium." What sweeping generaliztion, I wonder if there was some series of events during those 30k years before the Imperium that wiped out nearly all technological progress for many worlds, broke humanity apart, let them fall prey to horrible creatures outside their worlds/reality and also left a lot of worlds in much worse states than before. "Successful, peaceful, mutually-beneficial human-xenos interaction is canonical-" Weird, you don't seem to want to acknowledge this or you wouldn't be deleting it from the main page. "The Imperium self-justifies its existence by claiming its own necessity, but even a cursory glance at the fluff reveals this as a lie." So what would happen to the Tyranids if the Imperium didn't exist? Oh right, Hive Fleet Behemoth would have ripped right through the area now known as Ultramar and might've grown too large to stop, proceeding to devour all life in the galaxy. The Imperium itself is a very obvious necessary evil that could be made a lot better if the people in charge A) wanted to make it better, and B) had unified goals. "Evidently, the Imperium is *not* the only, best, or even most efficient solution to the problem of humanity's survival-" Again, no Imperium, no galaxy because the Tyranids would've destroyed it. Furthermore we can look at pretty much any pre-Imperial planet and see that they're usually just ticking time bombs, or too weak to survive. Even the Interex for example would've been destroyed by a sufficiently large Ork WAAAGH! Let alone the forces the Beast pulled out. "Just because something exists does not mean its existence is good or justified-" And just because something exists doesn't mean everything else in the setting is just like it, yet that didn't stop you from claiming every Fuedal World was like Sepheris Secundus. "Considering the Imperium's harsh oppression of the vast majority of its citizens, it can be reasonably argued that it sows the seeds of its own undoing-" And if this had been your point then there wouldn't be an argument or an editwar. Yes they sow the seeds of uprisings unintentionally, no they don't intentionally make worlds into the hellholes you think are the standard. -- Triacom (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

“Mkvenner, one of my original team, had a notion. He reckoned Chaos didn’t destroy us. It didn’t taint and infect like a disease. It didn’t work like that at all, which is why there could be no cure.’ ‘He believed in force of will, I presume,’ said Welt. ‘Precisely. Chaos isn’t evil. It simply unlocks and lets out our propensities for evil and desecration. That is why it is so pernicious. It brings out our flaws. Force of will, determination, loyalty… these are the qualities that combat Chaos taint. If a man can remain true to the Throne, Chaos can’t touch him. A hatred and rejection of Chaos becomes a weapon against it.’ ‘The armour of contempt,’ said Welt. ‘I am familiar with Inquisitor Ravenor’s writings. The idea was not original to him.’ He stepped back from the rope rail. ‘You may be right. It is an ennobling notion. We might save mankind by strength of character, rather than by an extracted tincture of moth venom. History will like the former better.’ He looked back at Gaunt. ‘But you’ll forgive me for testing the moth venom.”

1st off the 30,000 years prior to the rise of the Imperium, were I'd agree with you better for people. Until it got destroyed by the men of iron and the rise of psykers amongst humanity. From that point on the galaxy has become a much harsher place. The birth of Slaanesh and increased Chaos activity especially after Hourus Heresy when Chaos became the threat to humanity. Since then you have the rise of the Necrons and the arrival of the Tyranids. These are threats that isolated systems can not face off against and survive. The Imperium can and does. No one is saying it's the best or most efficient, but that doesn't make it an irredeemable evil either. Regarding the argument from Armour of contempt. You see I'd agree with Welt the notion that through strength of character you can resist Chaos is great, but it doesn't work if humanity doesn't have that strength of character. I don't think that people fall to Chaos because the Imperium is oppressive to them (let alone something like Genestealer cults), I think that people don't all have that strength of character. Therefore the certainty of pissing off the population of 1 world is worth the risk against the prize of protecting a million others. You see to me the Imperium isn't the best solution, but that doesn't make it inherently evil towards it's citizens. 1984 works on crushing it's citizens from embracing freedom. The Imperium is doing what it can to survive. Look at warp travel, humanity is only able to traverse the stars because the imperium can harvest enough psykers to feed to the Astronomican. You are right if like in the pre age of strife it could do this mechanically it would make the current set up a barbaric monstrosity. Currently though humanity can only havee interstellar travel because the Imperium can harvest enough psykers to fuel the Astronimican. Again not the best solution, but the setting hasn't given them alternative options. Not saying it's the best, but considering the hand it has been dealt and the threats it faces and the sheer distances involved it's not irredeemably evil as an organisation either.

This thread is why Commissars exist. --Piroko (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Be careful what you say. Somebody could interpret that as a threat.--2601:203:480:4C60:DCEB:FD70:E1AF:7AA4 00:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
And that is what I call a passed perception check. Bravo. --Piroko (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Then don't make threats. It is dangerous, and rude.--73.41.249.220 03:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Well aren't you just such a good little Amalathian. --Piroko (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I am just trying to be nice.--73.41.249.220 04:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

If the Imperium were the only sapient species of note in the galaxy, you might have a point regarding the predations of Chaos, Necrons, and Tyranids. As the situation stands, the only reason the Imperium continues existing is because all the other factions fight among each other as often as they fight against the Imperium, not because of the Imperium's inherent worth or efficacy. The Imperium would not have survived Hive Fleet Leviathan had it not been for the Orks, for instance. It survives out of plot armor cobbled together from sheer inertia, dumb luck, and the strength of the human will, as I said, not because it *works* or *is good.* Anything good about it is due to the species, not the sociopolitics. And to repeat, better alternatives canonically exist, therefore the Imperium is unjustified--no further argument necessary. The technological alternatives, to say nothing of the moral/sociological alternatives, certainly exist; the Imperium is FAR removed from the heights of glory achieved and achievable by the human species. The Imperium is also *not* improving the lot of the species as a sociopolitical entity; it is explicitly stated to be in stasis trending inexorably toward net decline as a direct result of its current policies, which can only slow the inevitable end, not fix it. This is only "better" insofar as being a vegetable on life support is "better" than death; the difference is practically non-existent. The true grimdark tragedy of a situation like the Imperium rarely lies in a proposal for a better solution being incorrect--rather, it lies in the proposal being correct but either forgotten by mistake or ignored/subverted on purpose; a frustratingly missed opportunity for improvement either way. That's the whole root of the 40K universe, from Mankind's fall during Old Night through to the Horus Heresy and onward. It's not that better ways that work don't exist; it's that they do, yet are never taken. If you want to say that the creators can never *allow* them to be taken because that would change the narrative/tonal tension that drives the grimdarkness of the entire setting, that's a different argument, and one that I agree with. But they're still *present,* otherwise the grimdark wouldn't be possible. Concerning Welt, you may agree with him, but Abnett and GW do not. Gaunt's view is explicitly portrayed as canonically correct, and Welt as incorrect, yet able to ignore Gaunt's wiser counsel for both individual and systemic reasons--he doesn't agree, and has the material power as a duly appointed Imperial representative to implement his incorrect ideas regardless. In the meantime, the Imperium may be the *protagonist,* may even be the *hero* in the original devoid-of-moral-connotation Greek sense, but they are not the *good guy* because their actions are plainly and explicitly Not Good. This is basic storytelling: protagonist =/= good guy, or even relatable guy. American Psycho is a great example. I also hold with Matthew Farrer's insights in his introduction to the Shira Calpurnia omnibus: "The Imperium isn't a society based on rights and freedoms, but on duty and obedience. It doesn't believe that authority is granted by a mandate from the people: all authority comes down from above, from the Emperor, and those who wield authority don't owe the people on whom they wield it a damn thing. Imperial philosophy ascribes no inherent value to human life or dignity: life is given meaning and value by one's usefulness to the Emperor and His divinely ordained Adeptus." This is not good, not desirable, and not even worthwhile from an efficiency standpoint, as I've already stated.

"If the Imperium were the only sapient species of note in the galaxy, you might have a point regarding the predations of Chaos, Necrons, and Tyranids." Name one other entity that can withstand all of the above. Eldar? Not likely, they barely withstood a splinter fleet, were nearly destroyed by Slaanesh and are a fraction of a fraction of what they once were, so the Necrons would crush them. Tau? Good joke, again a splinter fleet nearly wiped them out, they have no clue what Chaos is and they got their asses kicked by Necrons. Orks? Well seeing as how they were locked into a stalemate for the longest time against a hive fleet tendril smaller than Behemoth's wave, I'm again going to say no. The only way they could've withstood it is if the Beast had made a galaxy-spanning Empire but as we've seen, that would've been miles worse than what the Imperium does because they reduced humans to drug-addled cattle. "As the situation stands, the only reason the Imperium continues existing is because all the other factions fight among each other as often as they fight against the Imperium, not because of the Imperium's inherent worth or efficacy." I see we're just glossing over major events and conflicts like the Horus Heresy. The Imperium did go to war with pretty much every other faction, and that was the result, had it not been for Chaos then the galaxy would be a much different place and the Tyranids wouldn't have stood a chance against the united Space Marine Legions backed up by their Primarchs. "This is not good, not desirable, and not even worthwhile from an efficiency standpoint, as I've already stated." Nobody is saying that is the case, what they are saying is that the Imperium doesn't shit in your cereal. They're saying that there are worlds in the setting that aren't hellholes, and that the vast majority of the worlds are not absolute nightmares to live in. "And to repeat, better alternatives canonically exist-" But you just won't name them or cite any sources, as usual. -- Triacom (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Odd you use Hive fleet Leviathan as an example as that was done by the Imperium sacrificing on a scale that was horrific and yet practical. More importantly though it showed that the Imperium couldn't stomach the scale of damage inflicted on it's people. Also while moral and sociological alternatives exist, but I'm not certain that the technological ones do unless aliens were willing to work with humans. So much of the grimdark in the setting is because technology doesn't seem to work the way it does for us, or when it does is taken away like all of the good stuff from the dark age of technology (how come the Emperor and other perpetuals didn't think that stashing a datacore form an STC device somewhere safe would be a good idea for example). Sure the Imperium could join the greater good and get access to real technology or the Eldar could show humans how to use the webway and negate the need to travel the warp or the horrors of the Astronomican entirely and quickly unify the entire race. But the setting is what doesn't allow this. GW don't want people to have nice things (as it's the war that sells the game), hence Eldar dickery and the Tau becoming more sinister towards ally races making the clear cut logic of co-operating with what seemed to be the only sane force in the galaxy become an iffier prospect.

So to me it feels that the status quo has been kept that way by plot rather than just the Imperium itself. Therefore interested to see how the current itineration under papa smurf which has technological progress and a focus on improving things and getting stuff done, as the Ultramar section that he ruled feels like a good example of the Imperium not failing.

Essentially though I feel we'll have to agree to disagree as to me it seems it boils down to. Could the Imperium be better? Yes. Does the fact that it isn't better mean that it is worse than the 1984 or other true distopias that are built by those in charge to suppress it's people for their own ends? To me as it is trying to protect in a very hostile setting and does succeed in some cases (Ultramar, paradise worlds etc) that makes it not all bad (hence voting to keep the article). To you the fact that it is doing this to protect people, but failing on so many levels (which we both agree it is) makes it worse than 1984 as it doesn't succeed enough to offset the many negatives it brings. If I have paraphrased your viewpoint incorrectly apologies, but that admittedly in a crude simplification is what it seems to come down too from my point of view.

Oh and regarding the page itself I think the Imperium not all bad bit should get purged to 1/4 it's size and you should put as strong a counter as you feel to it beneath that section where you can explain why you think the way you do and then we can mark it all as skub and go on with our lives. I'm only one of the people who were reverting your deletions though so not sure what other peoples take on the above would be. --Because (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Odd you use Hive fleet Leviathan as an example as that was done by the Imperium sacrificing on a scale that was horrific and yet practical. More importantly though it showed that the Imperium couldn't stomach the scale of damage inflicted on it's people." Wrong from beginning to end. Kryptmann's grand strategy was not halted for any "moral" reasons; there is no fluff to support this. It was halted because Kryptmann was using Exterminatus not as a last resort on already-doomed planets, but on valuable worlds with valuable material resources and manufacturing/agricultural infrastructures that were still worth defending---and ultimately it was stopped because even despite all that, IT STILL WASN'T WORKING. It was outright failing to stop the advance of Hive Fleet Leviathan. The only thing that DID stop Leviathan was Kryptmann's eventual use of captured Genestealers to divert its path away from Imperial space into the Ork-held Octarius space. (There was a similar Imperial attitude during the Medusa V campaign---it was explicitly stated that despite the unavoidable doom of Medusa V due to the expanding warpstorm, the Imperium refused to evacuate the citizens until the last possible moment in order to eke out every possible bit of industrial output from the planet's manufactoria, and that all Imperial troops were deployed for this purpose as well. This delayed evacuation resulted in millions of civilian deaths, and most of the military was never going to be evacuated at all. Imperial lives were viewed as less important than material objects, and none were given a choice in the matter---coerced sacrifice is barbaric and dystopic.) In addition, I don't see how anyone can say that 1984 is a "true" dystopia while the Imperium isn't. By sheer scale alone, the Imperium is worse because it encompasses more than one planet. Besides, the average person in 1984 leads no less a "normal" "stable" life than the average person in the Imperium, and statistically speaking, when comparing populations life would be more likely to be shitty in the Imperium than it would be in 1984. And yes, your summary of my view is more or less correct, with the addition that because better alternatives exist canonically in 40K, the Imperium is no less a regime established purely for the sake of power and control in themselves than the 1984 government, because it does not take advantage of those alternatives. Ultimately intention means very little, considering the paving material for the road to hell.

"Wrong from beginning to end. Kryptmann's grand strategy was not halted for any "moral" reasons-" Yes it was, he was excommunicated because of them. "It was halted because Kryptmann was using Exterminatus not as a last resort on already-doomed planets, but on valuable worlds with valuable material resources and manufacturing/agricultural infrastructures that were still worth defending-" And because of the horrific loss of life. Those planets weren't worth defending, anyone can look at the size of Leviathan to see they had no chance of saving them and any planet they could not save was a planet that strengthened their enemy by a very hefty margin. Anyone claiming that they had infrastructure/resources worth saving is using that as a shield, and is also wrong. "and ultimately it was stopped because even despite all that, IT STILL WASN'T WORKING. It was outright failing to stop the advance of Hive Fleet Leviathan." Oh so you haven't read the lore, well then allow me to help. The point wasn't to stop the advance of Hive Fleet Leviathan, it was to prevent it from growing. There, now you know why he did what he did. "The only thing that DID stop Leviathan was Kryptmann's eventual use of captured Genestealers to divert its path away from Imperial space into the Ork-held Octarius space." And if Leviathan was a hundred worlds larger the Orks wouldn't have stood a chance, and then Leviathan would've washed over the rest of the galaxy. "There was a similar Imperial attitude during the Medusa V campaign-" And there was the opposite effect during the defense of Rynn's World, as well as when the Space Wolves were fighting off Hive Fleet Leviathan because in both of those incidents saving civilians was one of the higher priorities (in fact many Wolves gave their lives to make that happen). "In addition, I don't see how anyone can say that 1984 is a "true" dystopia while the Imperium isn't." Nobody is saying that the Imperium isn't a dystopia, what we're saying is not all dystopias are equal. A world where you've been reduced to warring tribes hurling spears at each other because all your computers were trying to murder you is not as bad as a world where you're forced to work to death in an environment you can barely breathe in, but both are dystopias. -- Triacom (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys, I think you all should move this discussion off of Root's talk page since he is not involving himself in this discussion and what you are currently talking about is not about him.--73.41.249.220 03:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Fresh conversation starts here

Anon, you do realize that the thing about 1984 is that the rulers intentionally chose to the be that way. The Rulers of the Imperium have no choice on a lot of horrible stuff, which counts for a lot in a lot of people's minds. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
For the record I'm still going to reply to earlier paragraphs right below those because it's easier to see the flow of conversation there. -- Triacom (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

From the 4th ed Tyranid codex: "The decision to abandon hundreds of worlds in the face of the alien advance was met with howls of outrage. Many influential Inquisitors called for Kryptman to be declared Excommunicate Traitoris. When these barren worlds were swiftly claimed by the Orks migrating ahead of the Tyranid invasion, Kryptman's detractors cursed him for a radical, a traitor and a fool. A Carta Extremis was issued, stripping him of his title and forcing him into hiding as a criminal of the worst kind." Nobody cared that *people* were dying as a result of Kryptmann's strategy, because as already stated, the Imperium does not view human life as having any inherent value--an incredibly dystopic position for a government to take. The Imperium objected to the strategy conceding valuable *TERRITORY* to the xenos, that *WORLDS* with resources and manufacturing/agricultural infrastructures were being expended and destroyed not only for no active gain to the Imperium, but at an outright net loss for them AND a distinct active gain to their enemies. It was the abuse of Exterminatus as a casual tactic against hundreds of still-viable worlds rather than for anything else than a last-ditch pyrrhic denial of a singular world, in addition to the Imperium losing control of the Exterminated worlds to the Orks afterwards, that finally galvanized the Imperium into excommunicating Kryptmann, not his mass execution of Imperial citizens. Had the Imperium been able to sacrifice the citizens while keeping the worlds, they would have gladly made that trade despite it being an objectively evil, dystopic action that prioritized territory/resources over lives and spite against the enemy over care for the citizens (not even just the military, the *citizens*). Plus, I don't care what the Space Wolves' or the Crimson Fists' attitude toward civilians is, because it is explicitly stated time and again that they are *NOT* typical of standard Imperial policy, and that in fact the Space Marines as a minority sub-faction are exempted in practice from following certain points of standard Imperial policy. They are exceptions that prove the rule, not exemplars of the norm. Also, Sarlacc, you've already admitted you're not a 40K-head, so your only worthwhile opinions concern 1d4chan itself. In addition, this entire conversation was sparked over the validity of that view of the Imperium as "only doing what's necessary out of a lack of choices" and that this somehow absolves it of its crimes and turns it from merely being a "protagonist" faction into a "good guy," which I do not agree with and have demonstrated over and over is not true. The Imperium is not good, nor is it necessary. Yet again, I agree that the creators cannot *allow* the Imperium to take advantage of the better canonical alternatives for the sake of the setting's tone, but the fact that the better canonical alternatives *do* exist and that the Imperium *doesn't* have to be as it is, is unquestionable. Anyone asserting otherwise is motivated by bias in service of an outside ideological agenda, and is vandalizing the page with a non-canon interpretation to push that agenda.

Funny how you're posting a quote that defeats your argument. "Nobody cared that *people* were dying as a result of Kryptmann's strategy-" Citation needed. "Plus, I don't care what the Space Wolves' or the Crimson Fists' attitude toward civilians is, because it is explicitly stated time and again that they are *NOT* typical of standard Imperial policy-" Citation needed. "in fact the Space Marines as a minority sub-faction are exempted in practice from following certain points of standard Imperial policy. They are exceptions that prove the rule, not exemplars of the norm." Citation needed. "and have demonstrated over and over is not true." You didn't use any sources in your earlier posts, so no, you didn't. "The Imperium is not good, nor is it necessary." I think the events of the Beast Arises and the Tyrannic wars disagree with that. "the fact that the better canonical alternatives *do* exist-" Citation needed. You sure are insisting a lot despite having no in-universe source backing you up on your claims, it's almost as if these are your fan-theories that you're trying to pass off as legitimate. -- Triacom (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Kinda hesitant at getting back in as I think this won't get anywhere as I think our take on the same facts is different, but I want to say a couple of things. 1. I don't think you need to be a 40k head, to have a worthwhile opinion, I don't think there is an canonical objective truth here, just peoples takes on stuff and just because some one is less well versed in the law it doesn't totally invalidate their opinion. By all means try to teach them so that their opinion can be more informed, but a more casually interested persons view is useful as if nothing else it sits as a barometer for how most people view the setting. 2. No one is arguing (or at least I sure as hell am not) that the Imperium is a "good guy", just that it is not as outright evil like 1984. I know you view scale as more important than intent and I can see the logic, but it doesn't work for me. The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but being evil is to me about intentions. To me it's one thing to fail while trying to do the right thing, but another to actively set out to do evil like the difference between murder and manslaughter. Again see your side of it, I just think my take on it is valid too. I'm not really trying to open up old arguments with this though and am happy for you to refute any of the above as this isn't me trying to get the last word in or anything.

What I would be interested in is to know what you believe the canonical alternatives that the Imperium isn't taking are. Only interested in things that could be achieved post Heresy as the Imperium before then under the Emperor is a very different beast and I think 10,000 years should give you plenty enough time to find examples in. Just say taking the Astronomican alone I am not sure what alternative humanity has for FTL travel without it unless they get help from aliens who haven't seemed too inclined to share so far.

Lastly and a bit unrelated to the rest, but what is your take on Papa Snurf and Crawl's Brave New World, is that not a sign the Imperium could be heading in a better direction more co-operation with sensible xenos, technological improvement, shaking up the moribund high lords. Albeit baby steps, but is it not a sign that the Imperium could finally be going the right way? Again not interested in examples or anything too in depth as I feel I've wasted enough of your tine I just wondered what your take on it is.--Because (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Just keep pushing the anon on their sources. If they want to claim that the average Imperial world is a hellhole then make them reveal where they're getting that from. That's what's at the core of this argument, the anon's making claims that just aren't true. -- Triacom (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Weirdly to me that's less of the issue. I do think a lot of imperial worlds are hell holes. Especially by the standards of people who have the free time and money to spend on toy soldiers, let alone spend this long debating how good the made up world our toy soldiers live in may or may not be ; ) I think that life in the Imperium is fairly sucky in many senses for a lot of it's subjects and depending on how you judge it you could definitely say that this is the case for the average Imperial citizen. If nothing else by most standards all the big population clusters (Hive, Forge & fortress) suck, although as you say it's not like that for all. I also don't believe that the Imperium is a true evil like some of the other examples listed. It's trying to save humanity (albeit sometimes as a whole rather than at an individual level) from itself and external forces in an absurdly hostile setting. Considering the state of technology, the horrors of Chaos and Genestealers from the inside and the existential threats like Necrons, Tyranids and the occasional super Ork Waargh, that there are 1 million planets out there that have lasted 10,000 years (longer than any of our civilisations have) is a sign that it's having some success. The key question between me and anon is are its intentions and success enough to be worth the price it's citizens pay?

Thus the above questions are more for my interest than anything else, as I don't think either of us will "win" this argument as I think with me and Anon we have different interpretations on the same facts and that there is no objective truth to be found here. I kept undoing the deletions as I think my interpretation is as valid as theirs on this one (and don't seem to be alone on that) and so wasn't happy with removing a view point that while way too waffly I believe has merit in being presented on this page.--Because (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no doubt a lot of Imperial worlds are hellholes, but if somebody wants to claim that they're the average Imperial world, aka they make up most of the Imperium's planets in spite of what we see in nearly every single novel/codex/rulebook, then they're going to have to back that up with some solid evidence. -- Triacom (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I like to chime in here, but for those who state the IoM is worse than 1984 has clearly never read 1984. The IoM does questionable things because there are no good options, depending on the situation. The IoM's ideology is based on an idealistic human utopia where humanity would be safe from the horrors of the Galaxy and would remain the dominant species of the Galaxy; so when the Imperium cracks down on something, they are exercising their power to keep that dream afloat, no matter how degraded and perverted it has become. The end goal of the IoM is to preserve humanity's dominance and protect the human race as a collective rather than on individual rights. Contrast this to 1984 where the three superpowers' ideology is based on not only absolute control, but the absolute break down of humanity in to simple cogs to ensure the totality of control. The ideology of IngSoc is not the preservation of the human race, but the destruction of it. The Emperor's ideas would be considered naive, foolish and idealistic by the standards of 1984, in the same category as Nazism and Communism as stated by O'Brian. Oceania, unlike the Imperium, do horrible things just for the sake of it. They exercise power and authority just because they can. Everything in Oceania is controlled, even foreign policy is a controlled set piece unlike the Imperium's situation where everything is not in their control. If the most puritan and conservative Inquisitor or Ecclesiarch were to step foot in 1984, they would be sent to Room 101 for not being totalitarian, loyal and cruel enough. Hence, the worse part of 1984 is that it does not need some cosmic horror to make the place shit, the place is already shit because of human nature to control others. Which is what makes Oceania so terrifying unlike 40k, because it can happen to any society. That is why George Orwell's books are in the history of literature, because only a handful of dystopian political fiction could rival 1984 in pure abject horror and 40k is not one of them. Derpysaurus (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)