First, I think Lego are right to protect their brand and cancel this release if they think this project will be attacked by some groups. Not worth it.
However, on the merit, I think it is a shame, it's a fine piece of equipment, presented by Lego in a respectable use case, painted with rescue colors, not militarized at all in this role.
To be clear, this aircraft is only used by the military. Making some bits orange is a huge stretch.
I think the big issue is that this set would be directly funding arms manufacturers (Boeing and Bell), and goes against the companies own stated policy (despite the feeble attempt at circumvention). I am glad that fans are holding the Lego Company accountable.
Good point probably, except we can accept the difference between distant past fantasy, and current state of technological warfare. In three hundred years, I bet there will be little controversy over a historic flight series including the Osprey.
I'm sure there are other cheeky examples of past things LEGO released without responding to or hearing customer complaints. I could even argue the Apollo program was fundamentally a military program, this isn't the point.
The osprey is used by the Coast Guard. It's hardly weaponized by other services. It's used much like other helicopters, for transport. I would get it if this was an Apache with guns designed for one thing only, but it's not.
Not that it would change my opinion much given the Osprey was developed for military purposes, by contractors for the military and is used almost entirely by the military, keeping in mind the Coast Goard is a branch of the "armed forces" - though I get, they aren't out in front-line battles these days... that said, I don't see any reference to the coast guard for this on Wikipedia - I assume it operates in a support role via the Marines who probably are working with the Coast Guard.
The internet was designed by and is still highly leveraged by the miltiary. Technologies including encryption designed by the US D.o.D (NSA notably) are used and leveraged. Originally designed and funded with military funds.
This craft is primarily a transport craft. Simple google search will show you the Coast Guard usage.
If this was an Apache Attack Helicopter you'd have a good argument, but it's not, it's pushing goal posts. For better or worse, the Military contributes and provides for the ability of everyday actions by constituents in their respective countries. In this case, the US military.
Where do we draw the line for the "Outrage?". Lego won't make an apache, they chose to make an Osprey. It was only when the mob came out as being outraged, they pulled back. That is not healthy for anyone that wants a free open society. Consumers will vote with their wallet. Those outraged aren't the target market. If the tables were flipped and this was someone going after a firm for manufacturing something it views as controversial would the same argument hold true? I would bet it wouldn't.
> That is not healthy for anyone that wants a free open society. Consumers will vote with their wallet. Those outraged aren't the target market.
I understand you may be disappointed if you would have enjoyed this kit, but I cannot understand your logic here at all. Either:
1) Lego are adhering to a broader set of principles - acting as in a free or open society
Or
2) Lego are purely seeking to maximise profits - in which case they have determined that releasing the product will, in a broader sense, reduce profitability.
One of these two outlooks is driving the decision right?Which one do you object to?
Except in this instance Lego didn't adhere to a broader since of principles, they fell under pressure from a third party group. The product wasn't allowed the chance to have the populous relate their opinion. One group, one voice, and fear of internet mob reprisal, took all of that away.
Did you support lego reducing, removing, and stoping manufacture of Police and Firemen sets? What about the White House? Where do you draw the line?
" I feel that Lego under represents bricks in non primary colors. As such they need to either remove their color or make all pieces in all colors so that I can enjoy them without being subjected to the hatefulness of harsh and cold primaries."
Its either a moral pressure (option 1) or a financial pressure (2) isnt it? What other kind of pressure is there?
Regarding your examples, i have no doubt that if Lego felt releasing such kits either violated their ethical standards (1) or threatened their profitability (2) they wouldnt make the kits, and that is where they (not I) presumably draw the line.
We don't draw the line for outrage, the outraged do, and we should just listen. Listening doesn't mean acting though, but until you listen you're not really going to have a clear understanding of what to respond to in the first place.
The google search for coast guard osprey shows a lot of remote control models, not an actual functioning unit, what am I missing?
I don't feel that you are engaging in good spirit.
But we did draw a line rather than listen. The action of canceling a product because of one groups position and fear of the mob, is forcing an action.
Both the US and UK Coast Guards have osprey deployed for a myriad of reasons. The largest barrier to more widespread deployment is their cost.
As for engaging in good spirit, I would argue the same for you. You seem to be drawing a line for "my outrage" and not listening. See how easy it is to flip flop and try to make someone else out as the bad guy? That's not fair to you, nor to I.
Is your argument that using the Boeing name supports war through purchases? Or is it that the Osprey represent war? Maybe that's where we're not seeing eye to eye here. Is the same argument not applicable to support commercial air travel on Boeing, Airbus, and other companies? All of which build craft and have derived technologies from military craft? In this instance with Boeing, flying on their craft Supports them in the same exact manner?
Lego builds locking plastic toys. The Osprey model, is a non combat designed product model. It does not represent guns, explosives, etc. in any way shape or form. It's simply a Boeing designed craft that is leveraged by the military. It follows all of their existing (though you could argue contradictory) standards. As i've stated, if you don't want kids to have an apache, and Lego has taken that stance, we won't have one. Clearly there is a market here for people and enthusiast that support not only the Osprey, but the concept behind engineering marvels.
What you haven't explained is just because we listen does that mean we have to action? In an instance like this, where it's not forced on people to buy it, can't people vote with their wallet? Where does one groups rights stand over another groups? What if I hold the beliefs that modern medical science is a farce, does that mean that a company should buckle to my position and stop producing medical related toys? No, it shouldn't. This is an example of a small mob of people trying to exert their opinions wether supportive or not, and that's dangerous. If you truly believe in listening we have to do the same for all. Equality is everyone having a right to their voice, equality of outcome is impossible.
This same narrative is being used for all sorts of products and technologies. AI is a big example of where these biases of "my truth is greater than your truth" can be weaponized and used against the very people in the manner in which they think they're preventing things.
Show me the US Osprey in service operated and owned by the Coast Guard. You've made the assertion multiple times in the thread, and your argument seems based on it, so it's not worth engaging until you can show you're willing to invest the effort in the conversation.
Learn the rules of trolling people in comments on the internet, you should be frantically refreshing your browser tabs to see all updates, and taking screenshots to make sure you have receipts.
I can’t help you with your LEGO brick problem, but if you need help learning how to be a better troll, and you are interested in subscribing to the “Punch Up” philosophy that I offer, please let me know,
The Osprey is not and has never been used by (EDIT: 'operated by', for the pedants out there) the coast guard, as far as I can tell. From LEGO's own statement in the article:
>While the set clearly depicts how a rescue version of the plane might look, the aircraft is only used by the military.
Wrong, the Osprey has been used in numerous Coast Guard operations, notably in joint efforts with the DEA. Just because you don't see every story publicly doesn't mean it's not used. Their statement doesn't contradict this, while the Coast Guard falls under the Treasury, it is still considered a component of the military.
Pirates is a label that they don't identify with, they prefer socio-economic liberators. Can't you see, Pirates with guns aren't violent, they represent the repressed standing up against the imperialistic military industrial complex of Legomen!
Proceeds from many actions people take on a daily basis go to companies that actively support, design, and deploy technologies for use by the military.
Seems like whataboutism to me. Other people and companies doing a bad thing doesn't make doing the bad thing ok. Stopping one entity from doing evil is still a good thing even if you haven't stopped all evil everywhere.
Rather than complaining about people doing a small thing to improve the world, we should consider how we can scale up the small thing into something bigger.
To be specific, technologists like the people on Hacker News need to take a stand against providing technology (or funds) to the military. The industry should unionize so that programmers taking a stand against providing technology to the military can protest without being fired. The industry should produce a code of ethics that includes not selling tech to the military, and we should hold corporations to ethical standards.
How does stoping an Osprey from sale improve the world? I genuinely don't see it.
The military is and always will be a part of modern societies. There will always be someone that has to take that role within. It took CHOP 24hrs before a self imposed group provided "Policing and Support". Making an argument about something like this is counter productive.
The arguments to be made are how to use that tool to the benefit and betterment of man kind.
It's extremely clear that most of the HN crowd have had limited interaction or experience within government and or the military. It's the same with politics, many people yelling about it from the outside, but very few actually participating and trying to change from within.
Boeing doesn't give Uncle Sam a discount because a LEGO project pays them money. If they do work for the military, they will bill it directly to Uncle Sam.
I doubt the amount of money even matters to them. It's most likely linked to retaining their trademark or something similar.
Finally, the V-22 isn't an attack craft. All experiments into the idea have been outright rejected and the only weapon it carries is a single browning machine gun which is optional (and could easily be mounted to basically anything). This is like protesting the creation of a truck model because technicals exist.
I think the complaint was limited to its arms manufacturing section, not Boeing as a whole.
> The arms section of Boeing® also produces fighter jets, fighter helicopters, bombs and rockets (even intercontinental nuclear rockets). There are numerous examples of the use of Boeing® arms violating human rights, humanitarian and international law.
Otherwise they would also complain about LEGO Boeing 787 Dreamliner:
Right, but by that standard this craft doesn't display arms. It's no more a reference to violating human rights than a Police set, or a Piracy set. If this wasn't branded Boeing is it now ok? Can Lego release it as "VTOL CRAFT" instead? My guess is no.
But.. why? It's a great piece of engineering and it looks cool! I couldn't have cared less if it was used by the military when I was a kid and I sure don't care now.
I honestly don't understand what's the point of these campaigns - it's not like much will change about armed conflicts just because you hide it from retail shelves...
It's a quick dopamine kick for people to feel like they're doing something good. When the reality is they're not equipped or interested in fighting actual issues. This is easy, so they push for it. I mentioned in another response that it's dangerous logic too. By this standard all the DC, Marvel, and Star Wars sets need to be removed for creating a positive view of violence.
It's just dumb. Besides, Technic is literally a series about technical feats, of which, the Osprey is.
They've toed the line carefully, but this is nonsense and you won't be able to convince me otherwise. Plenty of lego sets project violence and violent actions more than an Osprey.
Surely you can appreciate that there is a distinction between “violence” and “war”. A distinction that is evidently important to Lego since the company has a longstanding policy against producing sets that depict military vehicles and, to your point, a long history of producing sets that do indeed depict varying degrees of violence.
There is a non-zero chance of a kid seeing the Lego brand on a box with a vehicle the foreigners who killed their friends used to invade their country. While most Americans see their military as a force for good, that sentiment is not echoed everywhere. Not all people are grateful for being "liberated" that way.
and they're now just realizing it 10 days before release? Now they realize they have values and morals?
Lol. Please!
They just don't want to be on the wrong side politically. That's all. They'd have released this thing if no one had complained, because like most companies, all they really care about is making money.
Yes, they discontinue them after a year or two. The point made is this is a 2010 policy everyone is referencing about a vehicle that has no overt military connection in design.
Where as the Sopwith for example, is a set released in 2012, that is explicitly related to the military and specifically to WWI.
I'm just pointing out that the Osprey isn't a big deal. It's a VTOL that happens to be used by the military. There are hundreds of sets that could be seen as more violent that are made today, many you could argue break this rule.
It says a lot that I'm turning 40 and it never occurred to me that I never played "war" with my LEGO bricks... I owned GI Joe, so it's not as if I was unaware of the possibility. It never occurred to me that the lack of weapons as built-in components would have such a profound effect on how I played with them. It's obvious in hindsight, I guess.
Obviously, if I were more creative I could have created things that were weapons/war like, but wow, without being prompted, I guess I didn't.
I made a lot of airplanes, boats, and exploration type vehicles.
Interesting, I was of the other side. I often had space battles with the space sets (White vs Blue) as well as my pirates sets (often colored blue or red based on their sails).
Both sets came with weapons of sorts with pirates having over guns, cannons, etc. But I also built giant dinosaurs, volcanos, and everything else. I was a kid and I was playing.
As an adult I build giant battle scense from Star wars. Recently I build a Pirate combat moc with the re-released Pirate bay set (one assembled as the boat, the other as the cove).
None of these have made me more or less violent, just as I assume you playing with GI Joe didn't you. Playing with things is a healthy way for the mind to work through right and wrong, to conceptualize thoughts in your mind. I would argue repression of these behaviors is far worse.
Lego has never made modern war items, I totally get that and am fine by it. They do however make toys that allow you to play out violence. Jurasic Park, Marvel, DC, Star Wars, hell even Minecraft, all have components of violence. I don't believe in the slightest that any child playing with these toys is predisposed to turn out violent. Just as I wouldn't expect a kid playing with a VTOL craft too.
I would argue part of our problem over the past 15 years has been the result of too much limitation of how we raise children and allow them to interact with the world around them. It's why every thing is blown into a huge issue, because to them it is, when the reality of it is that it just isn't.
I will say being of similar ages, our experiences may have been different than the more younger HN crowd, but I'm glad you had legos and enjoyed them the way you saw fit. I would imagine the creativity and ability to be rewarded for solving challenges played a great impact on you.
Maybe i'm misplaced in thinking that proper parenting is a key to everything. Besides, I would argue kids are exposed to way harsher or riskier things on television / movies / the internet, than they ever would be by building the Osprey.
Violence has always been a part of "play"--and we as a human race seem to have survived thus far without breeding a massive army of cold, unforgiving, killing machines who see murder as childplay.
I've had a lot of time to observe my 7-yo with her friends playing in our shared lawn (I can see them from my home office) and I find it fascinating that the most "violent" weapon-like toys they have are water guns and there is no sign of good x bad roles in their games or even the notion that the main goal is to shoot at each other.
My own childhood was much more violent, with cap guns and always present roles of deadly antagonism.
Is this helicopter exclusively for war, though?.. are these not used for rescue missions or other humanitarian things? If not then should anything that is used for battle or violence be retracted?.. I had a lot of Legos with guns (westerns), blasters (star wars) and other tools.
It's not and it's a Transport vehicle. That's why this is nonsense. An apache would make sense because it has one function, this is a utilitarian vehicle. It's just stupid all around. The fact that a large company like lego bows to this ridiculousness is stupid. I'm an AFOL and probably spend around 5k a year on Lego. I've been a pretty consistent purist with exception of some Moc Cars (mould king). All this does is push me away from the brand.
Anecdotally, my Aunt had banned all guns and violent toys from her house. One morning, after serving breakfast, she noticed that my cousin had bitten his toast into the shape of a gun and was making "pew-pew" motions. They laugh and laugh about that. It is what it is.
I love the Osprey! One of my all time favorite aircraft. I probably wouldn’t have bought this, so I guess they don’t care what I think, but I thought this was super cool.
There's a bunch of them out there, I hope to snag one before they go too crazy. If you're a small shop and you got your shipment, sit on them for a couple years, thats new house money.
That doesn't compute: if they see it as a violation, they remove it, if they don't they ship it anyway.
Sometimes things just slip through and mistakes are made - this is pretty normal and product recalls happen all the time. What makes a policy violation different from a defective product in this regard?
I think they didn't view it as a violation, but outsiders did. Lego did the math and figured the production, shipping, marketing, recall, destruction of product, and loss of sales would cost less than potential bad publicity.
There is no such thing as a for-profit company that does things because it is "the right thing to do". They make decisions based on what will bring in the most profit (or result in the least amount of lost profit).
It wouldn't have gone through the year + process of becoming a product without this discussion and being over-ruled. Plenty of documentation out there on how lego selects a theme / item, designs, plans production, and releases a product. It passed theses rigors, but not the "mob".
> Plenty of documentation out there on how lego selects a theme / item, designs, plans production, and releases a product. It passed theses rigors, but not the "mob".
Again, the same can be said about recalled products as well - years of development and planning and even post-production QA, yet f-ups happen all the time.
That was not addressed by the article and thus is isn't relevant in this context.
Also - Firemen and Police sets as well as the White House set are still on the shelves, so what even is your argument here? If the company deems themselves in the right, they ignore "the mob" as you call it.
I highly doubt that in this day of cancel culture "companies ignore the mob".
The context of the above is relevant, they too were products approved, that were then backtracked because a small few expressed concerns about how they saw the products.
It may not be in the article, but given it is two instances of this happening in a short period, it's very much relevant.
True, but it's framed as a war between good and evil. Nobody remembers every storm trooper killed, every Tie pilot shot down is the parent, child, or sibling of someone else that'll mourn them in their home planet and condemn the terrorists who blew up the Death Star and countless other installations.
My grandpa fought in WWII as the commander of an anti-aircraft artillery group. He never talked about it. After Alzheimer's took over and his memories came back vividly and uncontrollably, I learner how much he was haunted by the people he killed while protecting his land.
My point wasn’t that they should support war based toys, it’s that if your argument is that LEGO should not produce toys that glorify violence and death, then Star Wars clearly qualifies.
I don't think that's the argument Lego is making. Their attitude seems to be that this toy glorifies actual war and death many kids experienced first hand instead of a fairy tale of a clearly defined good versus a clearly defined evil.
It's quite a deep rabbit hole, frankly, since LEGO is metaphorical by nature: it's a blocky model of something. In this case, the chain of metaphor is shorter than that of Star Wars, but I'm sure there are many with PTSD who cannot handle certain scenes in Star Wars given the analogs it may have to their past experiences in actual war.
In other words, one needs a more objective standard I think if such a policy is going to be seen as a moral value. It is not hard to imagine someone whose parents were killed in gun violence from having a visceral reaction, no different than the ones you mention, from watching a gunfighting scene in Star Wars, or seeing blaster battles played out on commercials for LEGO products.
Next, RPG games are banned because they use swords.
Next, Action movies are banned because they use guns.
Next, Fantasy books are banned because they contain catapults.
"In August 2020, LEGO will release the LEGO Technic set “42113 Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey”. This is a model of a military vehicle that is deployed in ongoing armed conflicts. For this set, your company cooperates with Boeing and Bell. In 2018, Boeing sold military equipment worth of US-Dollar 29.15 billion; it is the second largest arms manufacturer in the world. Bell is number 27th of the world.
Due to the deployment of this military aircraft all around the world, innumerable civilians were killed. That is why parents, LEGO customers and brick fans disapprove of the vehicle’s replication.
Companies that produce weapons, which in many countries of the world cause human suffering and death, should not be cooperating with LEGO. Because of this, you stopped LEGO’s cooperation with the controversial oil company Shell in 2014. With the new set, you violate your own company’s basic principles.
We urge you to stop the cooperation with Boeing und Bell and not to produce any further modern military vehicles."
This is a bit ridiculous though. It's not a set designed to represent a weapons mounted combat airship. By the same notion, I would argue the Star Wars series, Marvel Series, DC Series, etc. all represent violence and violent actions (to include guns, explosions, massacre etc.). Simulated or Fake violence is still the projection of violence.
We have to draw the line some where and stop this nonsense. Brushing reality under the carpet doesn't and won't change anything. Are we to now pull every toy used as a means of expression for children? How many dolls fight? How many transformers are military vehicles? How many kids have water guns and balloons?
People need to relax and get worked up over real issues facing the world like, literal ongoing slavery, child exploitation, human trafficking. But instead because those are hard, they focus on something like this to get their feel good dopamine kick.
It looks like they already did draw the line somewhere, just like you suggest. They made a mistake and crossed their line they had already drawn earlier, and now stepping back behind the line.
Star Wars licensed toys are OK. Military aircraft are not, because they kill real people and the licensing money goes directly to the aircraft manufacturer.
You can take thousands if not millions of products in use today, directly created by and for the military in multiple nations and make this argument. Does that mean we stop using them? That we disconnect from every service or tech provider that provides tech or services to a military?
Is the argument that the Boeing association will make Children / Adults more violence prone because of the relationship of this Craft? What about Nasa and the space race, fueled by the Cold War? What about Jurassic Park where we are perpetuating an un healthy understanding of science... Star Wars where the exact goal is to defeat the empire with Blasters, Light Sabers, and other destructive means.... Everyone and anyone can make any argument as to why every one of these things is bad. Kids need to play, toys allow them to work through emotions. Proper parenting can easily address this if it's really a concern.
It's plastic toys, designed to foster excitement and respect for engineering. It's a cop of out for Woke Culture and it's yet another example of extreme views alienating not only the right, but those of use that are realists on the left.
Let's get ahead of all this and just stop using the internet and all the luxuries of modern life because most are related to empirialistic behaviors and benefactors of military might and conquest.
That sounds like a good argument for not drawing the line at the more extreme end. But that's not where Lego drew the line. A different toy company might decide to not produce anything related to violence, and yet a different toy company may decide to abandon using the internet and all the luxuries of modern life for the reasons you specify.
But that's not what Lego did. You said you have to draw a line, and they drew a line to the left of military vehicles and to the right of Star Wars and allowing themselves to use the internet.
I grew up playing with a lot of realistic toy guns and WWII era tanks. I hardly ever see kids play with that. I don't think Lego is the only company who decided not to make war vehicles, and I think many toy companies made this decision long, long time ago.
I think you need to relax and get worked up over real issues, rather than getting mad that a company exercised its freedom to choose not to sell toys that represent real life military vehicles.
They have chosen to draw a line. They don't produce toys that represent real military vehicles. You just don't like the line. I suppose you will have to purchase your toy military models elsewhere.
I work regularly on "real issues", i've spent a lot of time in Northern Africa working on these issues, notably human traffic and slave trade. Have you? I'm a consenting adult that purchases lego as an outlet. In fact, the largest group purchasing these sets are AFOL.
They didn't chose to draw a line, they let a mob draw it for them.
Rifles, pistols and weaponry in Star Wars, Pirates, Jurassic Park etc. all bear resemblance to modern firearms.
We regularly found pre WWII Era weapons in Afghanistan, Iraq, and throughout Northern Africa.
In this instance "Realistic weapons don't apply". The argument must stand on equipment children might recognize from hotspots around the world.
There are hundreds of Jets, Police vehicles, Helicopters, Cars, Trucks, that are all based on vehicles in use by the military. The only variance with the Osprey was the branding.
Lego recently pulled Police and Firemen sets for the same arguments. So lets say I agree.
Why did Lego remove promotion for the White House Architecture set? It doesn't represent weapons or military equipment? They did it because someone decided that it was a symbol of oppression. It's pure lunacy.
All of these sets were manufactured after 2010. The only commonality is that someone felt offended. In fact, I can't find any historic evidence of either of these situations having ever happened in the history of Lego (one that is long and varied). It all happened within the past couple of months.
You can't say it's not complete hysteria over nonsense. Forcing all these brands to bend to your unique opinion is horrible. The fact that they're bending is just as deplorable.
Thankfully some brands like Redbull are pushing back.
However, on the merit, I think it is a shame, it's a fine piece of equipment, presented by Lego in a respectable use case, painted with rescue colors, not militarized at all in this role.