40516 Everyone Is Awesome

[Alexandrina]

17 minutes ago, Mister Phes said:

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.

I wouldn't say I feel the need for "overt representation". Any representation is good imo, but this is the set that we're getting. My being pleased by this set doesn't mean I wouldn't have also been satisfied with subtle representation (though I would suggest that trans representation would be difficult to do without either resorting to gross stereotypes or using a flag/emblem).

I would also argue that someone unfamiliar with the rainbow flag isn't going to make the connection anyway. Rainbows as iconography have many other uses - for instance, they have been frequently used as a symbol of support for the NHS in the UK in the past year. 

20 minutes ago, Mister Phes said:

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

That I couldn't say. The vintage flags were very much Europe oriented, with only a handful of other countries (America, Australia) while the early 2000s stickers were associated with the 2002 World Cup I believe. That said, China actually qualified for the 2002 World Cup (their only appearance) so not sure necessarily why they weren't included. 

However my guess is that Lego opted for a handful of common colour schemes and added flags of appropriate nations rather than seeking to represent everybody at the World Cup. Australia, Nigeria and Tunisia all qualified in 2002 and didn't get their flags included. As China was neither a major target market at the time nor a footballing powerhouse, its possible Lego ignored them to focus on markets more likely to buy football products. 

[williejm]

3 hours ago, Mister Phes said:

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.

Always fun to be used to justify the other side.

GB and Germany got their own CMF series. Many national, regional  or cultural archetypes have shown up in CMFs and elsewhere. There is a whole subtheme of Lunar New Year sets which we know is representative of and targeted for East Asian audiences. As others have stated, queer representation in sets might be hard to get right, or easy to discount.

Lastly, ‘children and family’ includes queer children, LGBTQ+ families, and people who have family who are LGBTQ+ 
 

representation matters. If it doesn’t matter to you, chances are, you’re already well represented. 

[Mister Phes]

46 minutes ago, williejm said:

Always fun to be used to justify the other side. 

I haven't taken a side. There doesn't even need to even be sides. You can agree with certain aspects of an issue while disagreeing with others.

I was noting there are other ways to represent diversity and inclusion without resorting to symbology that has been frequently used to support political agendas.

46 minutes ago, williejm said:

representation matters. If it doesn’t matter to you, chances are, you’re already well represented.  

Yes, there is that chance. There is also the chance not every single person wants be represented by a corporation, irrespective of whether that corporation is currently representing them.

 

 

[FrkW]

2 hours ago, Mister Phes said:

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.

Just as people might find police sets confronting and confusing. Why is it always the things a certain group finds offensive that's up for debate? If the stance truly is that Lego should "stay away from politics and controversies", why never follow the principle to it's logical conclusion. No police, no Harry Potter, no Jurasic Park, no female police officers, firemen or doctors, no cars (fuel and enviromental concerns), no Christmas. But somehow it's always the LGBTQIA+ sets that cross the line in to "just too political". 

 

2 hours ago, Mister Phes said:

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?

China have a whole series of sets catering especially to them, so I don't think they feel too forgotten. 

[Karalora]

I think people who are not very involved with politics consider the threshold for "political" to start at "something I saw people yelling about on the news and otherwise know little about."

[Mister Phes]

4 minutes ago, FrkW said:

Why is it always the things a certain group finds offensive that's up for debate?

When something doesn't cause offense or controversy it generally doesn't fuel debate.

5 minutes ago, FrkW said:

Just as people might find police sets confronting and confusing.

There have been police themed sets for more than 35 years now. And no doubt some people have always found them to be confronting and confusing, but perhaps a lot more people feel this way because of the narrative certain media outlets have been pushing during the past 12 months.

10 minutes ago, FrkW said:

But somehow it's always the LGBTQIA+ sets that cross the line in to "just too political". 

Which other LGBTQIA+ sets were considered "just too political"?

The point I was trying to make is, people who aren't associated with LGBTQIA+ community or live in a region without a strong Neo-liberal presence generally observe the LGBTQIA+ flag through news media reporting on its political aspects (E.g. it's being waved around at a rally in front of a government building) hence why they may feel 40516 Everyone Is Awesome is too political for a company who has stated "we will not make political sets" .

 

[JaBaCaDaBra]

On 5/21/2021 at 12:47 PM, Lord Insanity said:

keep the Christ in Christmas

I always thought that this was a Midwinter Fest.
 

[Alexandrina]

15 minutes ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

Isn't it Xmas now?

The abbreviation has been around since at least the 70s. I'm not aware of anyone actually saying 'Xmas' other than the voice cast of Futurama. 

1 hour ago, Mister Phes said:

There is also the chance not every single person wants be represented by a corporation, irrespective of whether that corporation is currently representing them.

But objecting to LGBTQ+ representation (and only that, since there's been no uproar about increasing say female representation in sets) comes across as saying LGBTQ+ people aren't allowed this representation. 

 

25 minutes ago, Mister Phes said:

The point I was trying to make is, people who aren't associated with LGBTQIA+ community or live in a region without a strong Neo-liberal presence generally observe the LGBTQIA+ flag through news media reporting on its political aspects (E.g. it's being waved around at a rally in front of a government building) hence why they may feel 40516 Everyone Is Awesome is too political for a company who has stated "we will not make political sets" .

That then begs the question: how do you represent trans people? If using the colours of the flag is too political, I don't see how it can be done. Are we not allowed to have good representation at all, lest it offend pearl clutchers who don't want to see a rainbow? 

[Mister Phes]

15 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

But objecting to LGBTQ+ representation (and only that, since there's been no uproar about increasing say female representation in sets) comes across as saying LGBTQ+ people aren't allowed this representation. 

Maybe I've missed some posts, but who is objecting to LGBTQ+ representation in LEGO? The objection I was noting was toward the perceived politicization of a brand who has stated "we will not make political sets".

 

19 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

That then begs the question: how do you represent trans people?

I certainly can give suggestions but as I don't identify as trans myself, maybe I'm not best qualified to answer that question.

Perhaps the question should be; how do trans people want to be represented?

 Is a rainbow flag really the only way?

[Alexandrina]

4 minutes ago, Mister Phes said:

I certainly can give suggestions but as I don't identify as trans myself, maybe I'm not best qualified to answer that question.

Perhaps the question should be; how do trans people want to be represented?

 Is a rainbow flag really the only way?

I am trans, and tbh rainbow and trans flags are the only way I can think of without either creating a full narrative or resorting to crass and offensive stereotypes. 

5 minutes ago, Mister Phes said:

Maybe I've missed some posts, but who is objecting to LGBTQ+ representation in LEGO? The objection I was noting was toward the perceived politicization of a brand who has stated "we will not make political sets".

But that's the thing. Maybe you specifically weren't, but it's clear that a large chunk of people are using the excuse that this is 'political' to decry a set representing LGBTQ+ people. As I have previously said, there was no outcry about the inclusion of wheelchair bound or hearing impaired minifigures - it's only when LGBTQ+ representation comes up that people start complaining about it being political. 

This isn't exclusive to Lego. Any time you see an LGBTQ+ character or actor, there will be accusations that it's political. When Doctor Who had a lesbian companion who dared to mention her girlfriend once, the Internet was up in arms, despite not having batting an eyelid when heterosexual relationships were mentioned. Honestly at this point it's a tired argument used often as a crutch by people who want to shoot down any notion of LGBTQ+ representation without directly saying it. 

In any case, there's been at least on comment here saying that they don't approve of Lego condoning "sexual immorality". That sounds a lot like being opposed to LGBTQ+ representation to me. 

[Mister Phes]

4 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

As I have previously said, there was no outcry about the inclusion of wheelchair bound or hearing impaired minifigures

Perhaps it's because wheelchair bound and hearing impaired people don't have an official flag which they're presenting at political rallies, hence why they don't have the same political association.

Or are there now Ableist rallies which I'm unaware of?

14 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

But that's the thing. Maybe you specifically weren't, but it's clear that a large chunk of people are using the excuse that this is 'political' to decry a set representing LGBTQ+ people.

Thank you, that is a point worth noting.

[Alexandrina]

15 minutes ago, Mister Phes said:

Perhaps it's because wheelchair bound and hearing impaired people don't have an official flag which they're presenting at political rallies, hence why they don't have the same political association.

That's a very disingenuous point. There's no official LGBTQ+ organisation pushing policies and organising rallies. People go to rallies and bring the flag, just like people might bring a national flag to a rally - but that doesn't mean the flag represents their politics. 

In any case, I don't think subtle representation alone is enough. I have gone through the horrible adolescence unsure of who I am, what it is to be trans, if I'm even allowed to be trans - and I know how much better off I would be now if there had been signals from the world that its okay to be who I am. I also grew up not able to afford a huge amount of Lego (though I had more than some). I would get maybe five or six sets a year, rarely more than £20 and never more than £50. It meant I didn't see the small details in most sets. Sure, I read the catalogues so I knew what sets existed, but that's it. What subtle representation (a photo frame with a same-sex couple, for instance) would achieve is to restrict the representation to those lucky enough to have the set in question.

Overt representation is seen by every young Lego fan who is unsure of who they are and where they fit in the world, and it tells them that they're okay. They count. Just like everybody else. 

[williejm]

It’s all so ... exhausting. In some ways I have more respect for the openly bigoted people, than those who try and use *every* *other* *whateboutery* argument that just-so-happens to justify their bigotry. I appreciate you’re being smart and all, but we see you.
 

Human Rights and Equality should not be political. They are not political. Yet they are. 
 

Again, representation matters. Bravo, Lego, this set is both a joy and a milestone.

[Mister Phes]

43 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

That's a very disingenuous point. There's no official LGBTQ+ organisation pushing policies and organising rallies. People go to rallies and bring the flag,

No, you're missing the point. It's what people (who aren't part of the LGBTQIA+ community or live in a region without a strong Neo-liberal presence) associate with the flag with.

Often,they unaware of who is pushing policies and organising rallies. What they see on TV is the flag being waved at a rally in front of a government building with around 20 seconds of narration, and that's what forms the association.

 

43 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

People go to rallies and bring the flag, just like people might bring a national flag to a rally - but that doesn't mean the flag represents their politics.  

And while this is true, there is a double standard.

Some people perceive the pride flag solely as political because their only exposure to it has been through political media, whereas, national flags have a much broader usage and part of their everyday life.

 

[Alexandrina]

1 minute ago, Mister Phes said:

No, you're missing the point. It's what people (who aren't part of the LGBTQIA+ community or live in a region without a strong Neo-liberal presence) associate with the flag with.

But if that's the case, why does it matter what some people think the flag means? It's not a political symbol, Lego don't see it as a political symbol, so if someone is uninformed and thinks it is political that's on them for not understanding. Let's face it, the usual suspects will crow about any symbol representing LGBTQ+ people being political - so the perceptions of the uninformed should not need to be taken into consideration.

If anything it's a learning moment. Somebody with a good heart but no knowledge on the subject might say "that's political" then do some research and realise that no, it's not political - it's just basic human decency for people who have done nothing wrong. And that's a good thing. 

[Rockstaremcee]

I apologize these quotes are out of order.  There is so much that is great in this thread.  I tried to shorten quotes to what I was quoting.

On 5/18/2021 at 11:36 PM, BrickBob Studpants said:

My $0.02 on the matter: Being neutral in regards to every single subject matter simply isn’t possible, nor desirable or morally sound (and I’m saying that as a Swiss ). ...

I laughed way too much when reading that.

 

On 5/20/2021 at 4:50 AM, Lego-fire said:

I wish they had faces

1. Monochrome minifigures are usually desired to be free of printing, I'm sure that is the primary reason they don't have faces.
2. Adding faces could be construed or misconstrued as assigning/assuming gender etc, easier hurdle to avoid and

On 5/20/2021 at 10:10 AM, MSY-MSP said:

...In contrast to a BLM set, this set relates to something that transcends race, religion, or national origin.  It has meaning to people across the world who can relate to it in their own way.  It doesn't matter if you live in ... if you associate yourself as LGBT+, know someone who is, or simply believes that everyone is free to be whomever they want to be then this set is built for you.  I applaud TLG for doing this and don't see it as a political statement at all.

Now this may be my very old memory coming out from something i read in the early 80's, but I seem to recall when Lego introduced the first figures and then minifigures that they intentionally chose yellow for head and hands, because no human was actually yellow.  In that way a child anywhere in the world could play with the toy and pretend the people are just like him/her.  If they had chosen colors that matched individual skin tones, they felt that the figures would no longer be inclusive.  In a sense this was an ideological decision not to offend any culture. 

 

On 5/20/2021 at 11:43 AM, HoMa said:

Every Spaceman is Awesome

I love the idea and the set #40516 ... and couldn't wait to build a Spaceman version ;-))

I love this.  And said tongue-in-cheek (idk if that phrase/colloquialism translates for all ), should it be Every Spaceperson is Awesome ? 

On 5/20/2021 at 1:58 PM, Pdaitabird said:

I don't believe that TLG should produce a set that celebrates sexual immorality of any kind.  I realize that many of you will interpret what I am about to say as "hate;" but I assure you, I wouldn't say this if I didn't love all of you enough to warn you.  If I saw someone running toward the edge of a cliff, would it be loving to remain silent? As mere mortals, we have no right to redefine the institution of marriage established by our Maker as the lifelong union of one man and one woman.  It is likewise an act of rebellion against the Creator to reject the gender he gave you.  I am just as deserving of God's judgment as anyone else - we have all rebelled against our Creator in various ways. We are all cosmic traitors worthy of eternal separation from God and can never be good enough to earn His favor.  But God, in His vast mercy, has sent His only Son Jesus Christ to live a life of perfect righteousness and die the death we all deserved.  He rose from the dead to prove that He could really save us.  Repent of your sins and cast yourself on the mercy of Jesus and you will be saved!

Mods, I understand that this post violates Eurobricks rules and will likely get me banned from the forum.  I would rather be banned than think that someone's soul might be lost because I kept silent.  As Martin Luther said, "Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."

I want to thank you for sharing your opinion, especially knowing the likely negative response and possible repercussions.  I can understand your point of view although mine differs.  The hardest area to navigate is to express those views without name-calling or demeaning the audience you are trying to reach.  Where I may see this as very thoughtful choice of words to explain your beliefs, others may not.

On 5/20/2021 at 2:04 PM, Aanchir said:

Don't let the door hit you in the rear on your way out. I'll be sure to pray for you to be saved from your own hateful and decidedly un-Christlike ignorance.

I feel this to be the improper response (although it appears to be light-hearted.) Diversity is including people from different social and ethnic backgrounds.  In order to grow, we need to be open to dissenting viewpoints, even if they make us uncomfortable.  We all can disagree on some things (i.e. I would say Castle sets > Star Wars sets) that doesn't mean we need to respond with sharp words.

On 5/20/2021 at 5:06 PM, 2lazeetomakeaname said:

...Also, would you all be offended by a modular church set? If its non denominational, I feel like LEGO should be able to make it.

I think sets like 40516, should open the door more to the possibility of a church set, as it is something that comes from another different (diverse?) background.

On 5/20/2021 at 5:52 PM, Clone OPatra said:

It doesn't matter if there are overt Christian symbols or not. Advent Calendars are inextricably linked to Christmas. Santa Clause sets are inextricably linked to Christmas. Easter Bunny sets are, guess what... inextricably linked to Easter.

There are huge populations in the world that don't celebrate Christmas and Easter and for whom therefore those things (Santa, Advent, Christmas Tree, Easter Bunny) are not part of their life. There are minority populations within the countries where those things are prevalent who don't as well. That many irreligious people have adopted practices of having a Christmas tree and an Easter Egg hunt doesn't divorce those symbols from the particular religious framework from which they originated.

However, you never see people who don't subscribe to those practices complaining that LEGO is ramming Christianity down our throats or overlooking all of the other world religions.

Chinese New Year sets are bringing a whole new view of cultures

On 5/20/2021 at 6:29 PM, williejm said:

The line can always move. 

I agree, not all people do.

On 5/20/2021 at 7:20 PM, 2lazeetomakeaname said:

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

I would definitely buy a set named that.  I imagine a multitude of awesome minifgures like Lego Movie 2 Sparkle Spa characters, Power Rangers, the song Kung Fu fighting, and a bunch of soul train dancers led by Afro Jack.

On 5/20/2021 at 7:42 PM, DBlegonerd7 said:

This set name does remind me of “everything is Awesome song from the Lego Movie (2014). I have to be honest, I like that set nam tho! But only I can see LGBT+ and People of Colors in this set, where are minifigures with disabiliies. 

Yellow monochrome guide dog, please!

Agreed! Or monochrome guide dog. :) 

Ingenious solution!  And thank you for sharing about yourself and your feelings on terminology of disabled people vs. people with disabilities.

On 5/21/2021 at 1:26 AM, danth said:

...
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. ...

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

I agree on the sentiment.    But not for nothing, people recognizing a color pattern that identifies a movement of people wanting to be seen should be considered a good thing.  The goal is not having to hide.

23 hours ago, Blondie-Wan said:

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...

... 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).

SO MUCH THIS. 

I meannnnnnn... you don't know that for sure...       Just kidding!   I am also looking forward to getting a few,

On 5/18/2021 at 3:51 PM, strangely said:

That's for Lego to decide, if they don't feel it's political, it's not. They internally made this decision, so it clearly falls within their interpretation of their standards.

I feel like Lego had the exact goal of making it "not political"

19 hours ago, FrkW said:

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

twitter picture: lego @lauriel.kami The rights for all children and families to feel included isn't political. We believe it's important to recognize and celebrate creativity and diversity of the world around us.

 

On 5/18/2021 at 2:19 PM, PhoenixBuilder said:

Agreed on this entirely. Very excited about the idea of a Pride set, but if the money just goes to Lego's pockets I'll feel uncomfortable about it. There are plenty of charities the proceeds could go to that represent the message behind the set. 

I mean... the money always goes to Lego... right?

 

On 5/18/2021 at 5:10 PM, FrkW said:

The fact that the right to be yourself have been politicized in some countries doesn't make it inherently political. 

Also, it's fun colours! Colours are great. And for everyone. I'm sure the Lego staff won't ask us for gay credentials when we get it, just like they don't ask us if we celebrate Christmas or Easter or Lunar New Year, or are really getting (heterosexually) married when we get any of those sets. 

Thank goodness. I dont have any of those, and I really want these sets..

On 5/19/2021 at 1:07 PM, TheMainBricker said:

...

I just find this talk of inclusion strange, because I didn't know that Lego wasn't inclusive? I didn't know that my sexual orientation had anything to do with being AFOL. Will Lego now have to make sets with identifiably LGBT minifigures? Will there being a Gay Pride set every year? Will they make charitable donations, and if so disclose what charities it's going to? It's Pandora's box....

I feel like anyone that has spent time in the AFOL community and meeting people would notice how diverse and colorful the fanbase is and see

On 5/19/2021 at 1:58 PM, williejm said:

*sighs in gay* 

Simply fantastic.   I just wanted to say you have many, many, well-worded and insightful responses in this thread. I appreciate your responses, as I am always learning.

On 5/19/2021 at 2:35 PM, DBlegonerd7 said:

...I apologize if it’s way off tropic and it totally doesn’t relate to LBGTQ+ at all. But personally, I really don’t like “disabled” word, just let you know. There is a certain difference between “disabled person” and “person with disability”. Please don’t get me wrong - I am actually a deaf-blind (Usher’s syndrome, a combination of deafness and gradual loss of vision) and I find being labeled “disabled person”, well, not ok. I mean, I can walk/run but I can’t hear and I can’t see very well. I would say I am a Lego fan with disabilities.  ...

Well said.

On 5/19/2021 at 2:57 PM, MSY-MSP said:

I think that there are so many different ways to look at this set and I feel that this set is not so much a pride set but a set celebrating humanity as a whole.  The name of the set "Everyone is Awesome" is about including everyone.  So what i feel that Lego is doing is saying we don't care who you are, or where you come from: we want you to enjoy our products. 

I think a BLM set won't be coming out from TLG ever.  The donation is one thing, a set is another thing.  Living in Minnesota and being around the BLM movement for awhile have shown me that what this movement is about is dealing with a systemic issue that is mostly an issue within the US as a result of both our history as a slave nation and segregation and legalized discrimination, and primarily focused on policing.  ...

YAY MINNESOTA!!!
I agree BLM is primarily a US issue.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I am not an authority on any of these subjects (except Castle is better than Star Wars ) I would like to believe that people can talk about differences without name-calling or sharp words.  I am far from perfect, so I won't be throwing any stones.  I strive to learn and understand people.  I love to promote positivity and communication and the love of LEGO.

[williejm]

6 minutes ago, Rockstaremcee said:

I agree BLM is primarily a US issue.
 

Although racism, prejudice and oppression against people of colour most certainly is not. BLM is a beacon on this around the world, and some countries’ media and social reach us much larger than others, so to my mind this is not primarily a US issue, and what also what happens there matters everywhere.

Big shout out to the many people being honest, open and patient in responding on this thread and elsewhere. It’s important to so many others who don’t post or can’t be as open. 

[Mister Phes]

7 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

If anything it's a learning moment. Somebody with a good heart but no knowledge on the subject might say "that's political" then do some research and realise that no, it's not political

Idealistically people would do that...  but research alone perhaps isn't enough. The most effective way to understand and develop empathy for people is to interact with them and form meaningful connections.

But not everyone has that inclination or the opportunity to do so.

7 hours ago, williejm said:

I appreciate you’re being smart and all, but we see you.

Or maybe you're only seeing in absolutes.

So you're saying someone has to agree with your perspective 100% or they're a bigot and trying to hide it?

[Lira_Bricks]

28 minutes ago, williejm said:

It’s all so ... exhausting. In some ways I have more respect for the openly bigoted people, than those who try and use *every* *other* *whateboutery* argument that just-so-happens to justify their bigotry. I appreciate you’re being smart and all, but we see you.

Well said. The amount of fallacies used here is insane...

[Alexandrina]

3 minutes ago, Mister Phes said:

Idealistically people would do that...  but research alone perhaps isn't enough. The most effective way to understand and develop empathy for people is to interact with them and form meaningful connections.

But not everyone has that inclination or the opportunity to do that.

That may be so, but it's still not a reason for Lego to avoid doing something good just to appease ignorance. For Lego to actively not produce a set on something that they rightly consider not to be political, purely because they worry some people will see it as political, is cowering away in the face of bigotry. 

21 minutes ago, Rockstaremcee said:

Where I may see this as very thoughtful choice of words to explain your beliefs, others may not.

With all due respect, a comment that begins by calling a decent subset of the population immoral (by extension, by defining their orientation as sexual immorality) and then proceeds into a sermon that also denies the identity of another subset of the population (my womanhood is not a rebellion against any creator, but rather a fact of my being) is hardly a thoughtful choice of words. 

[williejm]

19 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

With all due respect, a comment that begins by calling a decent subset of the population immoral (by extension, by defining their orientation as sexual immorality) and then proceeds into a sermon that also denies the identity of another subset of the population (my womanhood is not a rebellion against any creator, but rather a fact of my being) is hardly a thoughtful choice of words. 

Yes but their G/god(s) made them do it, apparently. 

22 minutes ago, Lira_Bricks said:

Well said. The amount of fallacies used here is insane...

Isn’t it spelled ‘phallacies’? 

[Alexandrina]

3 minutes ago, williejm said:

Yes but their G/god(s) made them do it, apparently. 

More significantly, this is a good example of the sort of strategy employed by certain types on social media (not that I'm ascribing this motivation to anyone here, but it definitely has a parallel outcome). A user says something hateful or extreme, draws a reaction - and then later on someone comes along and portrays the original comment as reasonable and thoughtful. It's often left unsaid but the implication here is that the poor person who made the frustrated response is being unreasonable. It's an insidious tactic which hateful media outlets have perfected and I sincerely hope isn't going to be put into use here on EB.

[Lira_Bricks]

57 minutes ago, williejm said:

Isn’t it spelled ‘phallacies’? 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fallacy

https://www.dictionary.com/misspelling?term=phallacy

Nope :P Although you never know with English x)

59 minutes ago, williejm said:

Yes but their G/god(s) made them do it, apparently.

 

49 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

More significantly, this is a good example of the sort of strategy employed by certain types on social media (not that I'm ascribing this motivation to anyone here, but it definitely has a parallel outcome). A user says something hateful or extreme, draws a reaction - and then later on someone comes along and portrays the original comment as reasonable and thoughtful. It's often left unsaid but the implication here is that the poor person who made the frustrated response is being unreasonable. It's an insidious tactic which hateful media outlets have perfected and I sincerely hope isn't going to be put into use here on EB.

Agree with both of you. Most religions have no issues with the things that most "religious" people have issues with. They just don't like something and then start shouting that it is against their holy book/scriptures, which they probably never read themselves anyway...

[Aanchir]

On 5/20/2021 at 6:20 PM, 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.  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.

I strongly doubt it, to be honest. I don't have any opposition to people "living their brand of Christianity". But we're talking about somebody who clearly has a deep dedication to the parts of that "brand" that involve condemning complete strangers for "rebelling against our Creator" because of entirely harmless aspects of their identity. So deep, in fact, that they're willing to risk severing every tie they have with their fellow AFOLs here on Eurobricks in order to proselytize to those complete strangers. I doubt they'd be very chummy with "cosmic traitors" like me and my wife if they encountered us offline, given that neither of us has any shame whatsoever about those supposed transgressions against our God-given nature. Particularly since I would not have any more patience with this sort of holier-than-thou proselytizing in person than I do online.

Do you realize how easy it would have been to believe this sort of degrading drivel about people like me, without flaunting both the rules of this site and basic standards of decency to lecture us about it? No matter WHAT a person's faith dictates, it's unspeakably arrogant and patronizing to act like they know us better than we know ourselves, let alone to baseless accuse of us of rebelling against God and pretend they're somehow doing us a favor by doing so.

And I don't think it's "bullying" to call somebody out on that when they've made it perfectly clear that they would rather permanently cut ties with this site than show even a modicum of consideration for the beliefs and dignity of others.

2 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

With all due respect, a comment that begins by calling a decent subset of the population immoral (by extension, by defining their orientation as sexual immorality) and then proceeds into a sermon that also denies the identity of another subset of the population (my womanhood is not a rebellion against any creator, but rather a fact of my being) is hardly a thoughtful choice of words. 

This. I'm generally willing to acknowledge and respect polite, harmless "dissenting viewpoints". But I can't and won't pretend to respect comments that disparage my identity or the legitimacy of my lived existence as a trans woman and a lesbian. Maybe scoffing at a person's hate is an "improper response"… but comments like this do not DESERVE a "proper response". And if my unwillingness to take that sort of flagrant disrespect lying down reflects badly on me? Then so be it. I'm human, same as anyone, and I don't owe patience or deference to those who don't even have the decency to quietly tolerate my existence.

[Alexandrina]

3 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

And I don't think it's "bullying" to call somebody out on that when they've made it perfectly clear that they would rather permanently cut ties with this site than show even a modicum of consideration for the beliefs and dignity of others.

What blows my mind is that not only was the comment made - it was made in response to a thread where multiple users had identified themselves as LGBTQ+. That's about as direct as you can get without sending a private message!

And all that in response to a set which makes the wholesome statement "everyone is awesome".