gedren_y

40516 Everyone Is Awesome

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

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.

Preach.

I think that sometimes an unwillingness to engage with some of *those* comments and commentators with any seriousness is one of the only things to do. I’m aware I can scoff and ridicule, but really, what else do you meet this with? Rational arguments don’t work against irrational people, and no one should have to justify their very existence. Those of us who have lived through it to be spiky and unwilling to take this megablocks usually have plenty reason for doing so; but one of the biggest is wanting to make it better for those who come after.

I would say though that -in general- I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the nature of the discussions on Eurobricks on this set, especially given some of the stuff I’ve seen in the past to anyone suggesting it might be a good idea to increase or balance representation of gender or people of colour. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lira_Bricks said:

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...

True, very true—Christians being against homosexuality is particularly ridiculous to me coz’ it’s only mentioned in a questionable translation of a book most never follow anyway. I’ve been lurking here for a while, and I’m gonna try to come back and put my thoughts into this topic later when I’m not about to eat lunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all very much for the information! :classic:

This ist a great looking display set with monochrome minifigs! :thumbup:

Imo only it would have been nicer to have a "normal" rainbow to celebrate deversity in general - instead of reducing it here to only sexual orientation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

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. 

I suspect that that somebody would come to the opposite conclusion after doing the research: its a community of people fighting for certain rights - that's the most political thing there can be. 

How a broader community (such as the citizenry of a polity) apportions rights between its members is an inherently political question, born from competing philosophies - unless someone believes in a deity or cosmic principle "legislating" rights from above.

The thing is from my POV, if you say "this issue is not political" that can be interpreted both ways, as per my previous comment, as "its so obviously true that to politicize it is to relativize an objective fact" or "its so obviously false that to politicize it is to lend legitimacy to a movement that has none". Claiming an issue is political does not mean it is illegitimate (though it can be used that way in bad faith), I see at as the middle ground.

Or perhaps the issue is that the term "political" is understood differently by different people, I don't know.

In order to make this post less theoretical and more grounded, the thing I have issue with here is TLG claiming it doesnt do political sets or commentary, then taking a supremely political issue and moving the goalposts by saying its not political. By the same token, they could make military or religious sets and claim that the military or religion is above politics - not that I would object to such sets, just as I don't object to Everyone is Awesome, but the apolitical stance would become a meaningless platitude. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This surely has been a long day for this topic. :classic:

Edited by Jack Sassy
Not a review but just casual discussion, my mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ardelon said:

I suspect that that somebody would come to the opposite conclusion after doing the research: its a community of people fighting for certain rights - that's the most political thing there can be. 

That's the thing, though. It's not inherently a community of people fighting for rights. Somebody is part of the LGBTQ+ community by virtue of their sexual orientation or their gender identity (or both) - neither of which is chosen. This does not come with an inherent requirement to fight for rights, and indeed there are a great many people who have no interest in fighting for anything. They're just living their life. And that's the crux of the matter.

If Lego were producing a set based on the Stonewall Riots, of course that would count as political! But Lego haven't done that. Lego have released a set that tells their LGBTQ+ fans "you're welcome here too". It's an acknowledgement that we exist and that we are welcome in the Lego community, and I still don't see how that's a political statement.

32 minutes ago, Klaus-Dieter said:

Imo only it would have been nicer to have a "normal" rainbow to celebrate deversity in general - instead of reducing it here to only sexual orientation.

Having a "normal" rainbow would actually be more a celebration of sexual orientation. I'm not super familiar with the black/brown elements of the flag - but I know that the light blue/white/pink are representations of the trans flag, and being transgender has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. I can say for nothing that it feels great to be included in this, and I feel represented in a way that I wouldn't with the rainbow alone.

17 minutes ago, 2lazeetomakeaname said:

Wow your gay? I never would have guessed based on the 49 times you mentioned it:grin:

Funnily enough, in a thread about a Lego set specifically celebrating the LGBTQ+ community, it tends to be a pertinent point if a member is part of that community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching the discussion, and I think there are two things that are worth mentioning:

  • I appreciate that many people in this thread may not have engaged in conversations around LGBTQ+ issues before - welcome to the party! But for the LGBTQ+ people who are in this thread, we will (likely) have all had these discussions dozens of times: with family, friends, classmates, workmates, strangers, you name it. If we seem impatient, it's because we face these conversations a lot. And while for some people this may be just about a Lego set, for us it is about our identities and our lives. I'd ask, if you're not part of the community, that you might keep that in mind when having these discussions: by their nature, they're going to cut deeper for us than for people not directly affected. 
  • I also appreciate that some people are genuinely confused / concerned by the seeming change in Lego's policies, and want to express that. However, again, for LGBTQ+ people, we have heard very similar arguments be used as a cover when the person is really arguing against our rights. Can I suggest that a separate thread might be a good place to have the discussion around Lego's policies and its potential implications? By conflating the two, there is the risk that the language is dog-whistle-y, and so separating the two lines of discussion might be better.

I say those to hopefully give a sense of where at least some of the LGBTQ+ members heads might be at (I haven't spoken to anyone, but as I feel this way I imagine others might), so it might give some greater context. 

For those who are against the idea of a set focusing on the LGBTQ community, I'd ask what the harm is in this set existing? I don't understand how a message of inclusiveness has a negative effect. When this year has seen huge rollbacks in tolerance for the trans community in the USA, and an ongoing campaign against trans people in the UK; large amounts of harassment against LGBTQ people across social media, and the negative effects that lockdown have had on LGBTQ youth (report from Ireland), if a Lego set can provide some relief or sense of recognition for LGBTQ+ people then that seems like a good thing? 

My DMs are open to anyone who would like more information, or any LGBTQ people who need to have a chat :classic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

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.

[...]

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.

@Aanchir, thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.  Having read your longer response, I can appreciate why you decided the best way to respond to @Pdaitabird was to write a quick, flippant one-liner and move on.  Often that's the best thing to do in an argument, particularly one that provokes a strong emotional response.  I wrote what I wrote because I initially read it as you lobbing an insult, rather than just moving on, and I didn't want to see this thread devolve into an acrimonious exchange of insults - it's that sort of thing that has led to several members with high post counts being bullied off the forums in the past, so I wanted to put a word in edgewise beforehand.  Unfortunately, there's a long history of terrible conflicts between sets of Christians of different faith traditions calling each other un-Christian, and I didn't want to see that recapitulated in microcosm on Eurobricks either.  Also, in a thread like this, fortunately or unfortunately, it can be hard to know where the line is between discussion focused on a particular Lego set and discussion of broader societal questions, so based on that alone I didn't think Pdaitabird had written a ban-worthy post.  The mods don't seem to have taken any action, and this was their one and only post in their entire post history that wasn't strictly about Lego, so it's not like they had a pattern of repeated hate-speech violations.

I guess it might be appropriate to say a bit about my perspective and background.  I was raised by married, churchgoing biological parents in a Christian denomination that places supreme emphasis on cisgender, heterosexual marriage.  Regrettably, it also has an ugly history with gender and racial equality.  As an adult, I've had to deliberately review the attitudes, biases, and assumptions I absorbed from my parents' congregation and consciously reject the ones that are racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory.  It is an ongoing struggle to grapple with this history, and the present-day flaws of my church, and decide how and whether I can remain engaged with the faith of my forebears.  My general attitude is to go with the "good parts version", to borrow a phrase from The Princess Bride: I do my best to live the teachings about kindness, tolerance, inclusion, and empathy, while setting aside the uglier teachings of the Old Testament and parts of the Epistles.  After all, many new denominations in Christian history can be described as "good parts versions" of the churches that their founders split from.

Thanks to @Aanchir, @Alexandrina,and others, and also thanks to plenty of media coverage and a good deal of internet research (stemming in part from my own deep-seated discomfort with many of the gender and sexual norms in my church), I've come to understand and empathize with LGBTQ+ perspectives a good deal more than in my youth, when I was, I admit, ignorant, prejudiced, and somewhat bigoted.  (Stuck at my computer all the time for work, I haven't met a lot of out LGBTQ+ folk offline, though I'm sure I'd learn a lot if I did.)  I wouldn't say what Pdaitabird said now, but in middle school I might have.  My church encourages people to talk with friends and colleagues when questions come up, and to take a stand of some kind when it feels necessary, so from that background I entirely understand why they spoke up.  Even knowing that the historic power differential is all on your side (cishet Christian), it can still be hard and somewhat frightening to speak up and disclose your religious identity in mixed company, in case someone is offended or chooses to bully you.  I'm not saying that it's nearly as hard as coming out of the closet and living your life according to your LGBTQ+ identity!  Please don't misunderstand me when I say that!  But it's not entirely easy either.  I try to empathize with all people of good will who are just trying to live their lives according to their deeply held identities, whether they be LGBTQ+ or religious or both (many are both!), so for that reason I felt like I had to speak in support of Pdaitabird's right to speak (using the word right loosely, recognizing that Eurobricks is a private platform not bound by the First Amendment), even though I didn't agree with all that they said, nor with quite how it was said.

But again, this was all a misunderstanding.  If I'd understood the intent of @Aanchir's post better, I would have let it go and not replied.  So I apologize for that.  Aanchir, thanks for your efforts to be a vocal advocate for marginalized people on this site.

@Alexandrina, most of this is stuff I would have said in the DM I was going to send you, so I don't think I'll send it after all.  I was specifically wanting to respond to your question,

Quote

I promise I'm not trying to catch you out or anything, but I'm genuinely having trouble understanding the mindset of someone who complains about this set. Obviously not everybody has to want/be enamoured with it, but if someone simply doesn't want it because it doesn't interest them, do they need to comment on it? As an example here, I'm not a Technic fan so Technic sets aren't aimed at me and don't appeal to me. Doesn't mean I go into the Technic thread when a new set is revealed to say that I don't want to see that set. And if someone doesn't want to see this set because it's supportive of the LGBTQ+ community and they don't agree with that... does that not make them a bigot?

That's a good question, and I don't have a good short answer (hence the DM request).  I guess, it depends on how you use the word bigot?  To me that's a highly loaded, pejorative term.  As I see it, you can't be a bigot and be a good person.  A bigot acts with deliberate malice towards people in a group they don't like, stubbornly refuses to even begin to empathize with people in that group, and wants to punish anybody who disagrees.  Anybody in any demographic group can be a bigot towards anybody in any other demographic group, regardless of the power differential between those groups ... though if the power differential is too great, and the existential power one group wields over the other is extreme, then bigotry begins to change into perfectly understandable self-defense.  So it's not a really clear definition of who is a bigot and who isn't, but most words are pretty fuzzy anyway outside of highly specialized technical contexts.  So I can understand how Aanchir's response to Pdaitabird was perfectly understandable self-defense, and also how it seemed a little bigoted in the other way when I first read it, and also how Pdaitabird might have thought their posting/taking a stand was perfectly understandable self-defense of their set of Christian beliefs, and also how Aanchir and others saw Pdaitabird's post as hateful, bigoted, or un-Christian. 

My point here is empathy.  According to my personal sense of what words mean, acting without empathy for how the other side feels is the essence of bigotry.  The core of my personal Christian belief system is empathy, and I do my best to believe (though it can be challenging at times) that even in the most unequal societies, most people are trying their best to be good as they understand it, most of the time.  Someone can be highly prejudiced in many ways simply because of the environment they were raised in and the environment they live in, and still be a good person.  Most people are not bigots, even if they carry the prejudices of their society.  That's an idea that often gets lost in the culture wars, but it's an idea I find essential to everyday life.  I just can't go about seeing the worst in everybody.  So I support LGBTQ+ rights and believe in fair and full participation in society for LGBTQ+ people, but I try not to condemn people who are, shall we say, behind the times due to deeply held religious beliefs.

Quote

 

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.

 

@Aanchir: I agree with everything you say here.  Incidentally, Loving v Virginia encapsulates many of the things that my church used to teach decades ago that it has almost (but not completely, root-and-branch) renounced today.  That illustrates the struggle many faithful Christians in the United States have today with LGBTQ+ rights: We (speaking for the historical church) were wrong back then.  Absolutely, shockingly, terribly wrong on the question of interracial marriages.  Today I can hardly believe that my church would ever have taught some of the racist things it used to teach.  So if we (speaking for the church) were wrong on major questions of civil rights back then, how do we know we're not just as wrong, wrong, wrong on major questions of civil rights today?  That's why I choose the "good parts version" and generally support LGBTQ+ rights, but it can be a hard thing to choose your own conscience over your church's teachings, when those teachings are associated with eternal reward or punishment.  That is, again, why I try to maintain empathy and understanding towards opposing views.

Quote

 

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.

 

Again, agreed.  I appreciate your understanding this particular question so well.  I would also, truth be told, be very uncomfortable if Lego were to start making Bible toys just because it's an untapped market for more cash.  I would also hope that any Bible stories sets would be handled with the same caution, sincerity, and sensitivity they demonstrated with 40516, and I'm also impressed with the caution, sincerity, and sensitivity that they do seem to display with 40516.  For instance, despite the ubiquity of crucifixes as devotional items and necklaces, I would be very uncomfortable if Lego were to make a retail set out of an event as sacred as the Crucifixion, or the Resurrection.  In fact, there is quite a large market for scripture toys and religious decor, especially in people of my faith tradition, and most of it makes me uneasy about these things being exploited for financial gain.  But I made the Bible stories wishlist topic because I thought it would be a good outlet for some of the discussion in the 40516 topic ... and also because a great big Noah's Ark made out of Lego would be super fun :)

Gee, long post!  I think I'm finally out of things to say for now!  Cheers, everybody!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, icm said:

That's a good question, and I don't have a good short answer (hence the DM request).  I guess, it depends on how you use the word bigot?  To me that's a highly loaded, pejorative term.  As I see it, you can't be a bigot and be a good person.  A bigot acts with deliberate malice towards people in a group they don't like, stubbornly refuses to even begin to empathize with people in that group, and wants to punish anybody who disagrees.  Anybody in any demographic group can be a bigot towards anybody in any other demographic group, regardless of the power differential between those groups ... though if the power differential is too great, and the existential power one group wields over the other is extreme, then bigotry begins to change into perfectly understandable self-defense.  So it's not a really clear definition of who is a bigot and who isn't, but most words are pretty fuzzy anyway outside of highly specialized technical contexts.  So I can understand how Aanchir's response to Pdaitabird was perfectly understandable self-defense, and also how it seemed a little bigoted in the other way when I first read it, and also how Pdaitabird might have thought their posting/taking a stand was perfectly understandable self-defense of their set of Christian beliefs, and also how Aanchir and others saw Pdaitabird's post as hateful, bigoted, or un-Christian. 

My point here is empathy.  According to my personal sense of what words mean, acting without empathy for how the other side feels is the essence of bigotry.  The core of my personal Christian belief system is empathy, and I do my best to believe (though it can be challenging at times) that even in the most unequal societies, most people are trying their best to be good as they understand it, most of the time.  Someone can be highly prejudiced in many ways simply because of the environment they were raised in and the environment they live in, and still be a good person.  Most people are not bigots, even if they carry the prejudices of their society.  That's an idea that often gets lost in the culture wars, but it's an idea I find essential to everyday life.  I just can't go about seeing the worst in everybody.  So I support LGBTQ+ rights and believe in fair and full participation in society for LGBTQ+ people, but I try not to condemn people who are, shall we say, behind the times due to deeply held religious beliefs.

I have to say, I found your whole post thoroughly interesting, and I'm glad you posted it :pir-wench:. I'm going to make one final remark here - not out of a desire to keep arguing with you, but more just to make sure I got my initial point across - I'm worried looking back that perhaps I wasn't specific enough in the wording. To clarify: I wouldn't call someone a bigot for not liking this set, not at all. When I asked my question, it was specifically with regards to the particular niche of people who are against this set for the sole reason that it's supportive of LGBTQ+ people (that is to say, not because they don't like the build, and not even because they see it as political per se - but entirely because of the demographic it's supportive of). I'm of the view that somebody who rails against this set - or indeed any other consumable media - because it voices support for LGBTQ+ people and they see LGBTQ+ people as being inherently a bad thing to support is a bigot. Now, when I say this, I'm not talking about anybody here - it was more in reference to certain unsavoury comments now-deleted that I saw on the Reddit post announcing the set, but I felt it was relevant enough to discuss here. I agree with you broadly speaking that you can't be a bigot and be a good person (in actuality I have a more in-depth view of what it means to be good/bad which is entirely irrelevant here so I won't go into it) - but a person who hates me/believes me to be somehow bad as a result of certain aspects of my identity that I didn't even choose to have is not somebody I would be afraid to tar with the 'bigot' brush.

And like you, I don't condemn people for their religious beliefs. I've never personally been religious (I think that's partly cultural - as I understand it the UK is broadly less ardently religious than many countries, and even people who identify as belonging to a religion don't necessarily attend church on a regular basis - but I'm looking at it from a limited perspective so I might be wrong in that regard) but I've never thought less of someone because of what they choose to believe. Sure, in my edgy teenage years - amplified by a sense of not knowing who I was and not feeling like I belonged in my own body - I did sometimes scoff at the teachings of a religion (which was wrong to do, and I've long since apologised to those I scoffed at) I never thought less of the individual. However, rightly or wrongly I do condemn people who see fit to condemn me for something I haven't done wrong.

Something I think is at play is that this thread is the convergence of two demographics. We're all Lego fans here, but other than that we're from a wide variety of backgrounds. As @PhoenixBuilder pointed out, those of us in the LGBTQ+ community are not new to this sort of thread. We've seen the same conversations played out a thousand times, and while there are always open bigots there are also often people who very deliberately straddle the line of plausible deniability. I know I've personally seen this so often that at this point I'm wary of anybody who - intentionally or not - follows the script perfectly. It's an insidious script that tends to come in the form of repeating technically-not-bigoted lines over and over and subtly shifting the goalposts, all the while coming across as perfectly reasonable to the uninformed observer. Eventually, this causes someone in the marginalised community to get fed up and snap - and then the new line is that the marginalised community are the unreasonable ones. I for one came to this thread the first time braced for these sorts of comments.

At the same time, you have lots of Lego fans who are not from the LGBTQ+ community - and who thus have had little interaction with the community previously. This isn't a problem. Everyone has their own online worlds, and nobody is under any obligation to step out of their comfort zone and interact with others. Nothing I'm saying now is with the intention of belittling people who haven't interacted with the LGBTQ+ community, not in any way at all. It merely means that those people are not exposed to the types of comments that LGBTQ+ people have faced on a regular basis. Add in the possibility for genuine bigots being here too and you have the recipe for this whole thread. There's LGBTQ+ people fed up that once again we have to see the usual comments in the usual order - and others who are genuinely not bigoted at all and mean well, and are upset that their well-meaning comments are being misconstrued as bigotry.

I'm no saint here. I've got genuinely agitated at times reading comments that I've read many times before, and posted things in a slightly more aggressive way than I would have liked (though I like to think I've at least calmed myself down a bit before posting). At the same time, I think this discussion has opened up some very interesting dialogues and built bridges between users, in the name of progress, and it's to Lego's credit that their product has facilitated this.

On a personal note, it's through this thread and the dialogue it fostered that I have really publicly embraced my identity as a transgender woman. I created this account back in 2015, when I first came out to myself as trans, and started being active at the beginning of this year (with a handful of posts dotted throughout last year too) - and all the while I never mentioned that I'm trans. The Internet gives us the ability to mask ourselves by the screen, so while I got a feel for what the community was like I presented myself as being female without giving any indication that I was also transgender. Why? Because once you come out, online at least, you can't go back in. My being trans was never relevant before, and it would open me up to potential abuse, so I didn't mention it. But it's become clear, while discusing 40516, that I'm far from alone, and that Eurobricks is generally speaking a wonderful, tolerant place to be. And that's something worth protecting. Case in point: we're eleven pages into discussion here, and it's been pretty much exclusively polite and reasonable back-and-forth, with talk of the build itself woven in. There are many places on the Internet that would have generated nothing but regurgitated jokes and veiled hate, and the bricks themselves would have been an afterthought.

I realise I've rambled on quite a bit - and I'm sorry about that! - but I wanted to lay all my thoughts on the table here, especially since you've just done the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I dislike about the argument "this is against Lego standards!" is simply that the majority of licenses they take on regularly feature almost everything that violates Lego standards. And oh sure, the sets don't feature those elements, but if the Pride set has to take on all the periphery and politics associated with the concept, than it's only fair that your licensed sets do the same. If you want to say that Lego has a double standard, sure, it's well documented. But maybe examine if you yourself have one if you aren't likewise complaining when Lego makes sets for mature franchises.

All in all, I find the general response (beyond the threads here at Eurobricks, though some parts of this thread might apply) to this set rather disheartening. To the people who are tired of hearing about politics, and not wanting it in your hobby, I get that completely. But I'd invite any of you who feel that way to consider how it feels for a person who is confronted by it constantly simply because they exist.

I'll say, I'm proud of Lego. They took a stance that will likely cost them in some way either in money or in the court of public opinion, but they took the stance anyway. This gesture makes me feel supported and I'm glad that as a company they'd even bother to make the gesture at all. Good job Lego, you keep on proving how awesome of a company you really are.

Edited by strangely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, strangely said:

court of pubic opinion

I'm compelled to point out this unfortunate typo! :pir_kiss:

And I have to say, you have nailed it with your post. Either it's a corporation who have done the maths and stand to profit, or it's a corporation that stands to lose out and yet have released the set regardless. Either way, the support is so so welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

I'm compelled to point out this unfortunate typo! :pir_kiss:

Thanks, good catch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

I'm not super familiar with the black/brown elements of the flag

I think I can field this one. The LGBTQ+ community came under criticism from certain queer people of color, who felt that it put exclusive focus on the white queer experience and did not represent them. A version of the rainbow flag with additional black and brown stripes was developed to essentially say "We hear you, we take your criticism on board, you are certainly welcome, and your stories are part of the whole." The Progress Pride flag includes these colors for the same reason.

Of course, another reason to use the Progress Pride flag as the basis for the set, rather than a "normal" rainbow, is that we get more colors this way. You want only six/seven stripes and the same number of minifigs, instead of ELEVEN?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mister Phes said:

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

If the "perspective" they disagree with is that gay people should be treated as equal, then yes, absolutely they are a bigot and trying to hide it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just gonna... 2 cents, right here... 

I think it's an amazing model. The minimalistic design coupled with the combination of colours really makes a statement in and of itself and I think it'd look good on display in any circumstance (then again, I've always had an appreciation for colours, especially rainbows, in general so I'm already a bit biased :tongue:) Price is... Acceptable (speaking as a European who gets knocked around when it comes to price conversion), some interesting parts; I might pick it up.

So... Yeah, I'm just gonna get to it: Good on Lego. Is there gonna be criticism? Oh, definitely. Do I think it's worth putting out? Oh, absolutely. I'm, well, I'm not LGBTQ+ myself but I personally understand the need for representation (as a result of other circumstances in my life that aren't always... well represented in the wider world) and I think we should always welcome it when it has a chance to spread positivity and awareness. I for one wasn't aware of the progressive pride flag and everything it represents before this so that's something. Equal rights and being accepted for who you are are just, like, the most obvious things to me and so I can kind of see what Lego mean when they say that the issue isn't political; because it shouldn't be, it should be such a no-brainer that it shouldn't even be a discussion. But there is. So it is.

I don't think it's even comparable to the Osprey or the dynamite factory or a lack of religious imagery; putting out a product in support (one could argue how much and toward what end but based on the designer's comments I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on pure capitalism) of people oppressed the world over because of who they're attracted to, not attracted to, or how they identify themselves compared to an actively used military aircraft, a set depicting a police raid (I think some of us might've heard a name or two in the last few years that miiight give negative connotations to that) or religion, arguably the most politicised subject on the planet? It's just a set telling people that it's awesome to be who they are. I know I'm incredibly privileged to be able to say that I don't understand why that fact, the fact that everyone is awesome, isn't the most normalised thing ever (though I know why it unfortunately isn't in most cases) but I also know that absolutely nothing changes if one just adheres to keeping quiet for the sake of not rocking the boat. As long as one person can look at this set and remember that they are, no matter what the world says, in fact awesome then it's a win, moaners and complainers be damned.

LGBTQ+ rights all the way, baby. :thumbup: Oh, and congratulations to the monofig enthusiasts out there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, strangely said:

The thing I dislike about the argument "this is against Lego standards!" is simply that the majority of licenses they take on regularly feature almost everything that violates Lego standards. And oh sure, the sets don't feature those elements, but if the Pride set has to take on all the periphery and politics associated with the concept, than it's only fair that your licensed sets do the same. If you want to say that Lego has a double standard, sure, it's well documented. But maybe examine if you yourself have one if you aren't likewise complaining when Lego makes sets for mature franchises.

They use the excuse of being “fantasy.” Take no military sets *cough* Osprey *cough* yet take a look at the Black Widow set...it contains a Chinook.

Even in house does this. City Police had a Chinook as well(which makes the cancellation of the Hideout even more ridiculous). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

I always thought that this was a Midwinter Fest.
 

That was pretty much the whole point of what I was saying in the full quote.

12 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

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.

The abbreviation Xmas is actually centuries old.  It stems from the original Greek word for Christ, Χριστός.  Thus the hilarity of a certain subset of modern Christians that complain about "Xmas" not understanding that the "X" literally represents Χριστός or in English, Christ.

 

So on the whole bigotry thing, it might be helpful (especially for non-native English speakers) to go back the definitions I learned in grade school.  "Bias" is something people don't know or realize they have.  "Prejudice" is something people do know they have.  Someone can be biased without malice because they don't realize they are in fact biased.  Prejudice is when people know they are making a specific judgement and doing so anyway.

The only comment in this thread that really went "there" could possibly be "only" bias. The whole metaphor of "trying to save someone that is about to go off a cliff" reads like he actually means well to me.  The problem with the metaphor of course is that the "cliff" his a figment of his imagination.

Just to explain my perspective and in the interest of full disclosure due to the gracious nature of several people sharing personal details of their own lives, every major branch of my family's ancestors came to the U.S. specifically to escape religious persecution.  I am very much a proud supporter of equal rights for everyone and routinely correct conservative Christians that in the U.S., they have the right to be Christian and all they have to accept is that fact that everyone else has the right to not be.

Growing up my parents took my siblings and I to several different churches of all different denominations in an attempt to find one that was actually worth going to.  Over the years I learned quite a diverse representation of Christianity.  It ranged from "the Bible is the literal word of God"  to "the Bible was written by mere mortals and must be carefully interpreted away from human biases".  Needless to say we prefer churches toward the "interpretation" end of the spectrum.

Several years ago my wife and I attended a service at a conservative Mennonite church.  Most of the people there tended toward the "literal word of god" end of the spectrum.  So it was really interesting when the pastor starts quoting different language translations of the bible and suggesting to the congregation that the "prohibition of homosexuality" was not what it seems.  He stated it was actually not a prohibition of people that are born that way, but rather the people that were engaging in behavior contrary to their born orientation just for the thrill, in the same way youth today decided to start eating Tide pods.  It was rather fascinating to see a bunch of old conservative Christians have their minds blown.  Quite a few of them seemed to have an actual realization that the previous interpretation was in fact wrong.

It is hard to correct the biases of someone that has been taught them their whole lives.  If they are still prejudiced after having their biases taught to them, they deserved to be called bigots.  Just because there are two sides to an issue doesn't mean one side isn't completely wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, williejm said:

*sighs again in gay* 

We heard you and we get it. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lord Insanity said:

The abbreviation Xmas is actually centuries old.  It stems from the original Greek word for Christ, Χριστός.  Thus the hilarity of a certain subset of modern Christians that complain about "Xmas" not understanding that the "X" literally represents Χριστός or in English, Christ.

See that I genuinely didn't know! The oldest reference I could think of was the Slade song, which is definitely said as "Christmas" even if it was spelt differently.

8 hours ago, Lord Insanity said:

It is hard to correct the biases of someone that has been taught them their whole lives.  If they are still prejudiced after having their biases taught to them, they deserved to be called bigots.  Just because there are two sides to an issue doesn't mean one side isn't completely wrong.

That's a very valid point, and in light of it I might even reframe my own view. I would suggest that if somebody were to say, for instance, that I am not a woman - that would be a bigoted statement, but the person saying it would not necessarily be themselves a bigoted person. If they were then corrected and proceeded to double down/continuously say that I am not a woman, at that point they would cross the line into being bigoted themselves. (Obviously bigoted statements can be directed at any group - I'm just using a personal reference for example's sake). Equally, if someone didn't explicitly deny that I am a woman but said that I am a bad/immoral person because I am a woman - that would also be a bigoted statement. In the reverse, I'd agree that it would be a bigoted statement to say that somebody is bad/immoral because they are Christian, or any other group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, danth said:

If the "perspective" they disagree with is that gay people should be treated as equal, then yes, absolutely they are a bigot and trying to hide it.

The perspective I was referring to was corporate policy, not equality.

On 5/21/2021 at 8:20 AM, icm said:

Common sense tells me to keep out of an internet argument

This topic isn't intended to be an argument with the intent of an outcome,  but rather a discussion to express different views so we can learn from each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mister Phes said:

The perspective I was referring to was corporate policy, not equality.

I think the fundamental issue here is that anybody in the LGBTQ+ community is likely to have a very hard time seeing how this set can be defined as political, without there being some underlying bigotry involved. There are 100% political issues at play in various parts of the world that involve trans people (and the rest of the community too, but I'm less plugged in there so I can't speak as confidently on what those specific issues are) - but set 40516 doesn't mention those issues. Matthew Ashton's statement on the set ends with "This sends a signal to everyone that this is what we stand for at The LEGO Group and that we want to embrace all of you, because creativity is for everyone. We do truly feel that everyone is awesome. We all have the right to be accepted, to be loved and also to be creative. With this set, we hope to show that we care, no matter who you are." That's not saying anything about any political battlegrounds. It's saying that everyone - both within and without the community - is welcome in the Lego family.

And we're going to be defensive. For years and years we've had the same discussions, where the mere suggestion of an LGBTQ+ presence in something is fuel for a barrage of online trolls telling us that our very existence is political, and they use the same arguments that are carefully worded for plausible deniability. At its core these arguments come from bigotry, in the form of "LGBTQ+ is wrong". Again, let me be clear - I'm not ascribing these motivations to you or anybody else in this thread, but merely pointing out that those of us in the community are intimately familiar with these arguments as we have heard them many times from people whose motivations are bigotry.

In any case, set 40516 is very explicitly in keeping with corporate policy on diversity and inclusion. That link isn't dated, and it's not on the Wayback Machine so I can't be sure exactly how long it existed - but it certainly wasn't posted upon announcement of this set. I found the same/a similar page back in January when - as a trans woman early in her transition who has to be careful about her choices of prospective employers - I looked to see whether Lego had jobs going/whether Lego as a company was trans friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

I think the fundamental issue here is that anybody in the LGBTQ+ community is likely to have a very hard time seeing how this set can be defined as political, without there being some underlying bigotry involved.

Indeed, however my aim wasn't to downplay bigotry, but suggest lack of awareness also plays a part. You, yourself said "I'm not super familiar with the black/brown elements of the flag", so if someone who is part of the LGBTQ+ community isn't familiar with the entire range of colours, how is someone outside the LGBTQ+ community supposed understand what it means?  Sure the press release had some quotes, but that isn't necessary enough to provide the average person with a fundamental understanding.

34 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

At its core these arguments come from bigotry, in the form of "LGBTQ+ is wrong".

I've been subjected to anti-gay bigotry since my late teens, and it's been expressed through verbal and physical abuse rather than careful wording.

34 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

Again, let me be clear - I'm not ascribing these motivations to you or anybody else in this thread, but merely pointing out that those of us in the community are intimately familiar with these arguments as we have heard them many times from people whose motivations are bigotry.

Your input has been very insightful and I thank you for taking the time to share.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mister Phes said:

I've been subjected to anti-gay bigotry since my late teens, and it's been expressed through verbal and physical abuse rather than careful wording.

My intention wasn't at all to downplay overt bigotry at all - and I'm sorry that you've had to deal with that. It's a stain which should no longer exist in the world. But generally speaking this overt abuse is recognisable as overt abuse, horrible as it is. The bigotry disguised by careful wording also exists, and it's not readily obvious to people not in the community, so it more often goes unchallenged.

3 minutes ago, Mister Phes said:

Indeed, however my aim wasn't to downplay bigotry, but suggest lack of awareness also plays a part. You, yourself said "I'm not super familiar with the black/brown elements of the flag", so if someone who is part of the LGBTQ+ community isn't familiar with the entire range of colours, how is someone outside the LGBTQ+ community supposed understand what it means?

That's the thing, though. If someone doesn't recognise the flag AT ALL, they won't see it as political, because to them it's just a rainbow of colours. (And indeed, the secondary selling point of the set is the variety of monofigures). If someone is not sufficiently aware of the flag/colours to KNOW that it's not a political statement, then by all means they can express uncertainty - but at that point, anybody who's taken that view through lack of awareness can no longer use that, because it will be explained that the set is not a political statement. In any case, I'd make the argument that somebody who's aware of the colours but is unaware enough to think them political is probably misinformed by the media - and Lego's policy on political issues should not be influenced by the shortcomings of news media in fairly educating its viewership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.