40516 Everyone Is Awesome

[2lazeetomakeaname]

28 minutes ago, Clone OPatra said:

All in all I have been pleasantly surprised at the overall civility and hope that nobody ever feels unsafe on Eurobricks. Staff definitely want to ensure that it's a good place for everyone.

This is a surprisingly untoxic forum. Most would have descended into childish name calling within minutes

[RichardGoring]

1 hour ago, Alexandrina said:

Oh okay. Never seen it (for reasons which are way off-topic) but I guess that makes sense. 

On this day, in this thread, with all of the 'controversy' and you go and drop a bombshell like that?! Go watch it. Go watch it now! (It is, unsurprisingly, awesome). :)

1 hour ago, 2lazeetomakeaname said:

They could have named it like most sets and called it the ULTIMATE MEGA PRIDE HELICOPTER ATTACK BATTLE or something

Now that is the true LEGO name. Just missing PACK at the end.

https://brickset.com/article/59474/review-40516-everyone-is-awesome

I enjoyed reading Brickset's review of this and seeing how many parts they've recoloured to do it. Quite a lot of investment, but well worth it.

[Lord Insanity]

This set is a fantastic value.  I might have to pick up two of these for the parts usage alone.

As far as the message of the set, I have to seriously question how anyone can not see the obvious problem and implications of being opposed to equal rights for everyone. 

 

2 hours ago, 2lazeetomakeaname said:

Yes, we agree on this! But they are not representing Christianity like a literal pride flag is representing...pride! The point that was originally being made by @Vindicare was that they wouldn't make an actual, Biblically based set or even just have a nativity in a WV set, because it would cause controversy. 

I don't think people are quite understanding that for many Christians Santa and the Easter Bunny are not at all allowed in their homes as they are secular symbols completely against the "true meaning" of the holidays.

Originally in the U.S. Christmas was something Christians did not celebrate (and actively discouraged others from celebrating) because it was a secular Pagan holiday.  It wasn't until the Poem Twas the Night Before Christmas made the holiday take off as a widely popular secular holiday in the late 1800s that Christians then started the whole "keep the Christ in Christmas" thing.  We still have church paid commercials on TV "selling" that "Jesus is the reason for the season" around Christmas time.

[danth]

9 hours ago, jimmynick said:

Can we cancel Star Wars because Anakin was born out of wedlock? 

He also...you know...sliced up little kids with a light saber. I mean, you can't really do anything more evil than that.

And yet, tons of SW sets, and nobody complaining about morality.

[danth]

11 hours ago, Pdaitabird said:

I don't believe that TLG should produce a set that celebrates sexual immorality of any kind.

 

7 hours ago, Vindicare said:

I personally would rather they didn’t do this set, because it makes them look like hypocrites.

Guys.

Guys!

GUYS!

I have this totally new concept for you. Are you ready to have your mind's blown?

 

 

IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT....

 

 

DON'T BUY IT.

 

😏😏😏😏😏

12 hours ago, Vindicare said:

They’re not seen sleeping together, or holding hands, or kissing. Nothing a coupe would do is shown on the box art. If you see a couple, that’s on you. 

Same for this set. It's just minifigs in monochrome colors. If you see anything gay or trans, that's on you.

[Vindicare]

12 minutes ago, danth said:

 

Guys.

Guys!

GUYS!

I have this totally new concept for you. Are you ready to have your mind's blown?

 

 

IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT....

 

 

DON'T BUY IT.

 

😏😏😏😏😏

Where did I say I don’t like it? I’ve actually stated the opposite, a few times I believe. I can still like it & think the company hypocritical, it is a possible thing for people to do.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Vindicare

[RichardGoring]

6 hours ago, Lord Insanity said:

As far as the message of the set, I have to seriously question how anyone can not see the obvious problem and implications of being opposed to equal rights for everyone. 

Such a shame about your username, because this is one the most sane things said on the topic!

[BrickBob Studpants]

10 hours ago, Vindicare said:

Jabba’s Palace was pulled from shelves because of religious purposes, if I’m remembering correctly. Despite the set itself not having a thing to do with  religion(outside of some design cues). 

I love that story For those of you who don't know/remember: After a wave of complaints from a Turkish community in Austria, claiming the set was mocking a mosque, TLG stated that 1) they should get in contact with Lucasfilm instead because the set is very faithful to its movie counterpart and 2) they would still listen and retire the set, which the community then took as a win. Little did they realise that the date TLG announced (end of 2013) was most likely already the planned EOL date for the set, so they didn't actually pull it  Perfect response on both accounts in my book

7 hours ago, 2lazeetomakeaname said:

This is a surprisingly untoxic forum. Most would have descended into childish name calling within minutes

Agreed, which is why I like EB so much. Discussions can get heated, but they rarely devolve into toxicity unlike every other forum or social media platform I know of 

Edited May 21, 2021 by BrickBob Studpants

[Blondie-Wan]

16 hours ago, icm said:

Common sense tells me to keep out of an internet argument, so I'll keep this short.  I've already expressed my opinion on the set earlier in this thread.  @Aanchir, you don't like being bullied.  Please don't bully others. 
 

Okay, and you don’t go around stealing LEGO and killing people. I mean, since we’re just making a point of telling people not to do things they weren’t doing and all...

Quote

Let's keep Eurobricks a welcoming place for people of faith who sincerely try to live their brand of Christianity, just as we try to keep it a welcoming place for the kinds of people who are celebrated in set 40516, like yourself.  Christianity is a religion with a broad spectrum of beliefs - and yes, I use the word spectrum intentionally, by analogy to the spectrum of gender and sexual identities represented by the Pride flag and set 40516.  It is not for you, or me, or anyone else to call someone "un-Christlike" simply because their set of Christian beliefs differs from your set of Christian beliefs, or mine.  I bet if you met @Pdaitabird offline, say at an AFOL convention, you'd get along well despite your differences.

Because who doesn’t get along well with people who say others are inherently immoral for merely existing!

“Both sides” are not equal here.

14 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

Oh okay. Never seen it (for reasons which are way off-topic) but I guess that makes sense. 

😳

You may want to check it out; it’s astonishingly good.

(And as it happens, this set’s designer also had a hand in its creation!)

11 hours ago, Lord Insanity said:

This set is a fantastic value.  I might have to pick up two of these for the parts usage alone.

Apparently, several elements here are new in these colors - not just unprinted monochrome minifigure parts, but even some of the ordinary 1x2 bricks or plates, according to what I’ve read (edit: just realized I’m thinking of the Brickset review, helpfully linked to by RichardGoring elsewhere on this page). I’m looking forward to a detailed parts breakdown, and thinking of getting multiples myself (one to perhaps keep built indefinitely in the LEGO room as a display piece, and one or more as parts packs).

Quote

As far as the message of the set, I have to seriously question how anyone can not see the obvious problem and implications of being opposed to equal rights for everyone. 
 

SO MUCH THIS. 

Quote

Edited May 21, 2021 by Blondie-Wan

[FrkW]

Well, this is what Lego themselves have to say about it. 

[Blondie-Wan]

28 minutes ago, FrkW said:

Well, this is what Lego themselves have to say about it. 

(pic snipped)

Perfect. Nicely done, TLG. 

[Alexandrina]

1 hour ago, FrkW said:

Well, this is what Lego themselves have to say about it. 

That statement is on point! So happy that Lego are saying these things, and my love for them only grows. 

[Ardelon]

If TLG is arguing that the set is not political, I dare say that they're wrong. The issue is political simply by virtue that there are politicians and parties for and against LGBT+ rights all over the world, and these issues are fought over in the political arena. Furthermore the anti-LGBT+ political stance is still part of the mainstream in the West, and dominant everywhere else, not some kind of fringe view of extremists that can be discounted - even though I would prefer it was so. The fact that the LGBT+ rights camp wants to expand rights while the opposing camp want to restrict them is a crucial point, but that is not the definition of a political issue.

One problem I see here and elsewhere is that the statement "LGBT+ issues are political" is seen as the opposition to "this is a fundamental right to identity and equality which is above politics". Actually, I suggest that the "LGBT+ stance is political" is the middle ground - the opposite viewpoint is that "LGBT+ is fundamentally immoral because it goes against our religion, or against our vision of the natural order, and is thus above politics". My point is that defensiveness towards the "this is political" stance can be misplaced (I am assuming good faith of both parties; I recognize that the "political" claim can be used as a smokescreen for bigotry) or even come off as conflict-provoking (understandable if someone feels their identity or rights are being attacked, but still).

Having said all that, TLG can take any stand on any issue it wants, while reserving the right to not take a stand on others. I simply think they should explicitly recognize that this is what they are doing, rather than claiming the set is not political. Especially since to "feel included" can hardly be defined as a right - there can be a right to "BE included" (in something specific), but feelings are internal. I know I'm splitting hairs, but using kumbaya rhetoric against a valid point is not helpful either. But sure, the internal feelings depend on the surrounding environment, and this set helps. Still political, though.

I do think TLG is on the right side of history here, even though the history is still being written and fought over. Though I wonder that the strength of the backlash will be. But more power to TLG with pushing the envelope - lets have some BLM sets, pride sets, religious sets, military sets, Ospreys, Crooks hideouts and more! 

As for the set itself, I have no strong feelings about it. I'm not into monochrome minifigs, nor into these bright colors. Its visually striking with a nice message, but not really for me. The hairpieces are what attracts me the most. 

[Lira_Bricks]

21 minutes ago, Ardelon said:

If TLG is arguing that the set is not political, I dare say that they're wrong.

Women having rights is political for some people. Every single Lego set not containing a religious symbol is political for some people. People daring to write with their left hand is political for some people.

I really do not get this debate. People getting angry because Lego does not agree with their discrimination.

And the people saying things like "the truth lies in the middle", yeah no. One side is people existing, the other side is people trying to make the initial side stop existing.

[Aanchir]

4 hours ago, Lira_Bricks said:

Women having rights is political for some people. Every single Lego set not containing a religious symbol is political for some people. People daring to write with their left hand is political for some people.

I really do not get this debate. People getting angry because Lego does not agree with their discrimination.

And the people saying things like "the truth lies in the middle", yeah no. One side is people existing, the other side is people trying to make the initial side stop existing.

I think you're both right, in a way — LEGO is definitely taking a firm and supportive stance by insisting that this is not political, and I applaud them on that, but the reality is that more things are still politically divisive than a lot of people (including the LEGO Group) would like to admit. Let's not forget that less than a decade ago, a Cheerios ad got pulled off the air because of all the complaints about it having the audacity to (gasp) portray a multiracial family!

This is an issue a lot of people even in the United States would like to believe was resolved after the Supreme Court ruling Loving v. Virginia struck down laws against interracial marriages and forced all states to grant equal recognition to those marriages. But legislative/judicial progress and actual societal progress don't always move at exactly the same pace, and there are many people who continue to oppose equality on personal grounds long after they've lost that battle on legal grounds.

The inverse is also true — there are certainly plenty of parts in the world where legal challenges or obstacles to equality continue to spring up even long after those forms of equality achieve popular support among ordinary people. Even in places where government officials are chosen by popular vote in theory, that doesn't mean that their actions accurately reflect the viewpoints of their constituents in practice, particularly since even in ideal circumstances, it can be very difficult to completely snuff out the possibilities of bribery or corruption.

Anyway, you're right that in reality, there's a LOT of stuff LEGO does that would be considered political in certain circles, and that remaining "politically neutral" on a lot of those issues is not really possible one way or another. So instead of hoping for them to "avoid" politics, it's more productive to hope that they make wise decisions about what stances they choose to take and what values they choose to embrace. In this case, I feel like they absolutely made the right call. In others, I think they still have room to improve.

Edited May 22, 2021 by Aanchir

[Vindicare]

On 5/20/2021 at 4:17 PM, Alexandrina said:

I can I suppose see why someone might feel an inconsistency and have it rankle. That said, putting aside the fact that I'm naturally defensive on these issues anyway as they have deep personal significance and I've had my fair share of attacks for simply being who I am, I haven't seen many comments from people arguing against these sets that have really elucidated why they're opposed to it. (And I'm not aiming this particular remark at you).

For my mind, there's two things at play. First, there's a difference in what people see as being too political. Personally I think it's plain to see how LGBTQ+ representation isn't even in the same universe as Nazis, but there is a line in the sand that Lego won't cross, and I can fully respect that people might have different views on where that line is. But secondly, there's a difference between those who are opposed to the set because they see it as crossing the political line in the sand and those who are opposed to it specifically because it's an LGBTQ+ positive set. As you say, this is a public forum and better than a lot of what I've seen on Facebook/Reddit etc. These public forums naturally bring out all sorts of opposing viewpoints - including the unfortunately too-prevalent hate mobs. When this set's discussions have become a lightning rod for comments arguing that an entire demographic who are just living their lives are immoral, or that Lego is disgusting for daring to acknowledge their existence, anybody who has valid complaints should take the time to elaborate on those complaints rather than adding to the chorus of hate - even if their own comment isn't coming from a place of hate, it doesn't feel that way when it's part of a tide of identical comments.

 

The Easter Bunny is indelibly tied to Easter. Easter is a profoundly Christian holiday - the very fact that it's celebrated in sets is a nod to the Christian heritage of Western countries, even if the sets themselves might not be explicitly religious in content.

The only reason I’m against it(too strong a term which I will go into) is because this was something they wouldn’t typically do. Now, I’m not against the set or the message, it just seems to go against their hot button type of material. If they changed that, great...they have every right to change as company. It just feels strange, considering past actions(that have been mentioned previously here). For what it’s worth, when I saw the leak I didn’t even connect the color organization, I just saw colors. I do plan on buying this, possibly on day one because I love bold, bright colors. I’d love to see them continue this with their full palette. With the messaging behind this set I don’t see that happening though. 

And that’s probably the biggest problem with this set, perspective. There’s people who love it for everything it is, some who love it for the set itself/parts, those who think it’s neat but not for them, and sadly, those who hate it simply for the messaging. And this set, being what it is, will undoubtedly get more outside hate(and love) due to being the first of it’s kind. 

And just to touch briefly on the Easter bunny(I know it’s moved on from here, but...) being synonymous with a Christian holiday doesn’t mean it’s Christian. There’s no Easter bunny or Santa Claus in those Bible stories. Those inclusions are a far cry from having a cross and nativity in any set for those holidays. 

[Karalora]

10 hours ago, FrkW said:

Well, this is what Lego themselves have to say about it. 

Hey, who left this microphone on the floor? It's like they just dropped it here...

[timemail]

I'm all for this set and more representation in Lego. Happy to have a set with just masculine coded minifigs, or just feminine coded minifigs as a family unit.

I work in a Christian organisation with a strong LGBTQIA+ community presence and I know many people who will be happy to see representation in these sets.

My main hope from this is that Lego will also review their policies to create other sets for groups they have typically excluded, such as churches, mosques, temples, and other religious type sets.

[Aanchir]

22 minutes ago, timemail said:

I'm all for this set and more representation in Lego. Happy to have a set with just masculine coded minifigs, or just feminine coded minifigs as a family unit.

I work in a Christian organisation with a strong LGBTQIA+ community presence and I know many people who will be happy to see representation in these sets.

My main hope from this is that Lego will also review their policies to create other sets for groups they have typically excluded, such as churches, mosques, temples, and other religious type sets.

That's certainly something that would be interesting for them to consider, especially as a way of celebrating different cultures' architectural tradtions even in contexts with religious or spiritual connections. They have been willing to portray a few religious buildings in the Architecture theme, but mainly just as part of the larger "skyline" sets. And I have to admit that there are a lot of amazing churches, mosques, temples, and synagogues that would be amazing to see at a much higher level of detail than those sets allow for.

I do think they are likely to continue to avoid many other types of religious representation, though truth be told, I often think that their concerns about that sort of thing is less to do with alienating people who DON'T share the particular faith being portrayed, and more about respecting particular sects or denominations of the actual faiths they wanted to represent, especially those that have strict stances about idolatry, or those that would simply be uncomfortable with foundational aspects of their faith being commercialized.

After all, while I recognize that in some countries there is a very strong market for religious-themed products of all sorts, including toys, I also feel like a lot of groups (including certain Christian denominations) would be uncomfortable about their gods, prophets, and important religious figures, traditions, and writings reduced to something that resembles a child's plaything. Even more so if they feel it is exploiting those aspects of their culture/heritage for financial gain —  think about the concerns we've seen from some people about THIS set and the possibility that LEGO isn't truly committed to the LGBTQ+ affirming values it represents, and multiply that by a hundredfold (since in the case of religious sets, critics from the very communities being represented might see them not just as corporate greed, but actual blasphemy).

One way or another, if LEGO were to start exploring that sort of thing, I hope that they'd handle it with the same caution, sincerity, and sensitivity they demonstrated with this set — including, ideally, ensuring that designers who actually belong to the religious groups in question get to play a role in the development of those products.

Edited May 22, 2021 by Aanchir

[Mister Phes]

4 hours ago, Karalora said:

15 hours ago, FrkW said:

Well, this is what Lego themselves have to say about it. 

4 hours ago, Karalora said:

Hey, who left this microphone on the floor? It's like they just dropped it here...

And when the microphone gets dropped on the floor anyone can pick it up...

The LEGO Group is absolutely correct, the right for all children and families to feel included isn't political.

However, they've chosen to base a product on symbology which has been heavily politicized through agendas intended to influence political decisions. Meanwhile, there are other ways to represent inclusion and diversity, such as those observed by @williejm in an earlier post.

But what's concerning is, the LEGO Group is gaslighting one of their fans for quoting past company policy. They're blatantly using children and family rights as a strawman argument rather than owning up to the fact, yes the symbology which inspired product has a strong political association.

[Alexandrina]

6 minutes ago, Mister Phes said:

But what's concerning is, the LEGO Group is gaslighting one of their fans for quoting past company policy. They're blatantly using children and family rights as a strawman argument rather than owning up to the fact, yes the symbology which inspired product has a strong political association.

I don't see how that's the case. LGBTQ+ people's existence is not political, our rights to be represented in Lego are not political. Yes, this set is based on a flag - but the flag is just a representation of a group. National flags are also representations of a group of people, yet those flags have been associated with political issues. It doesn't mean that a set including those flags is inherently political - and indeed, Lego have included national flags on several occasions.

In any case, Lego are neither gaslighting or strawmanning. At no point do they deny their policy exists. And they don't mention families and children as a non sequitur, but rather as the crux of their reply. 

[Mister Phes]

17 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

National flags are also representations of a group of people

Could you please list all the national flags released in official LEGO sets and I shall review them further...

17 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

In any case, Lego are neither gaslighting or strawmanning. At no point do they deny their policy exists.

Yes they are. They're using an argument to subvert lauriel.kami's observation.

17 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

our rights to be represented in Lego are not political.

No group has the "right" to be represented in a commercial product, however a manufacturer may choose to represent certain groups.

 

[Alexandrina]

34 minutes ago, Mister Phes said:

Could you please list all the national flags released in official LEGO sets and I shall review them further..

Off the top of my head, there were sticker sheets for England, Finland, Holland, Scotland and Sweden in 3405, as well as others such as Brazil, USA, Canada, Germany, Austria, Russia, Czechia, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Wales, Switzerland, Mexico, France, Argentina, Italy, Korea and Japan in the various colour variants of the same set.

They've also released the UK flag in 2011, the US flag in 2003, flags on flagpoles with the flag of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, GB, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA.

39 minutes ago, Mister Phes said:

Yes they are. They're using an argument to subvert lauriel.kami's observation.

I disagree that you can define something as gaslighting just because it's arguing against a point. Gaslighting has a specific meaning. In any case, that debate isn't on-topic so I won't go into it any further.

40 minutes ago, Mister Phes said:

No group has the "right" to be represented in a commercial product, however a manufacturer may choose to represent certain groups.

If that's so, then surely LGBTQ+ representation should be met in the same way as representation for differently-abled people, or representation for women, or any other minority group. Yet I've never seen people argue that Lego should only produce male minifigures, since women as a group don't have the right to be represented. It's only an argument that seems to rear its head when we're talking about LGBTQ+ people - and you'll forgive me therefore for feeling as though it's less about perceived political neutrality and more about a dislike for LGBTQ+ representation. In any case, as you say the manufacturer may choose to represent certain groups. That's Lego's prerogative, and they have duly done so. It doesn't make it a political issue.

[jimmynick]

There's a joke I've heard about society in America that can be modified to no end, to suit the point you want to make and where you happen to live. Versions of it go: "there are two sexualities: straight and political", "there are two genders: male and political", etc. etc.

At the risk of killing the joke, it underlines the fact that choosing not to portray something or someone really is a choice, as others have said in this thread already. It's a privileged position to be able to look at a status quo and think it is not political. The more we normalize something that is "other", the less "political" it gets.

[Mister Phes]

1 hour ago, Alexandrina said:

Off the top of my head [...]

Thank you for that in depth response. I shall investigate further when time permits.

Although I'll note some countries are more politically motivated that others... so why hasn't China been represented?

1 hour ago, Alexandrina said:

I disagree that you can define something as gaslighting just because it's arguing against a point. Gaslighting has a specific meaning.

Yes, you are correct. Gaslighting is an informal term used to describe manipulating someone to doubt their reality. So I will rescind my statement regarding gaslighting, however I will maintain my position regarding the straw man as the response did not address the issue directly enough.

1 hour ago, Alexandrina said:

and you'll forgive me therefore for feeling as though it's less about perceived political neutrality and more about a dislike for LGBTQ+ representation

A couple of years ago we discussed ways the LEGO Group could incorporate LGBTQ+ representation and I postulated whether there would be a problem if they released a drag queen minifig.

Now granted, drag queens are only one aspect of LGBTQ+, why do you feel the need for the need for such overt representation seen on 40516 Everyone Is Awesome, rather than more subtle means? E.g. casually slipping a LGBTQ+ minifig into a set as though its perfectly normal without drawing any attention to it.

And I acknowledge you personally don't see the LGBTQ+ pride flag as overt or political, however those unfamiliar with the LGBTQ+ community may find it confronting or confusing.