Discussion Should LEGO make a Military Theme?

[Itaria No Shintaku]

As seems to be the case every time this thread is resurrected, it turns into a repetition of people's opinions on whether TLG should make military sets or not, whether they're hypocrites for making a particular set that includes violence and whether that violence falls under their definition of "modern day violence/war". The discussion in this thread does not seem to progress any further and a lot of posts only seems to cause arguments.

We'll be keeping a close eye on this thread and if this arguing doesn't stop immediately, we'll be forced to lock it.

Thank you all.

Sage words! I totally agree.

There is no way this discussion may go on, I'd like this topic to be closed once and for all.

I would just add my 2p on a topic that hasn't been discussed.

That is: I do not endorse companies which have controversial behaviours.

If all those people find TLG to be hypocritical, then I have serious problems in understanding why they buy LEGO products.

I believe, but these are my 2p again, that people calling someone hypocritical and then buying their products, are hypocritical too.

[Ardelon]

I think any „negative“ influence of military toys is way overblown. If toy soldiers havent turned our kids into brainwashed child soldiers or our societies into militaristic jingoists, I dont think that LEGO military sets would do that.

My own opinion is that TLGs stance is more a PR ploy than anything else. Not sure if its hypocritical, since formally, they have done the mental acrobatics to justify all other „types“ of violence (historical, contemporary licensed, sci-fi) except the contemporary nonlicensed „type“ . (How ridiculous to classify violence like this). So I would call their stance more cynical than hypocritical. Thats not necessarily a bad thing if it helps TLG thrive. I recognize that theyre a company that needs to make money, not an NGO or a Church.

I believe that this stance is not as unchangeable as some here claim. We went from a time when TLG didnt want to produce gray and green bricks to what we have today. And since this isnt the end of history, I belive the already fine lines will get more blurred until they will disappear altogether.

A step in this direction could be stand-alone vehicles or aircraft devoid of context, like the WW1 fighter planes or the recent Creator jet (but in more practical colors). Or a theme inspired by films like Independence Day or War of the Worlds, with realistic and contemporary miltaries fighting a non-human threat. Why couldnt the next Alien Conquest theme come with Human vehicles in olive green, or the various tans and grays, rather than blue?

At the end of the day, none of this really matters. The parts are mostly there, and as someone said above, we are free to build whatever we want. Its more a theoretical question than one with any practical implications.

As seems to be the case every time this thread is resurrected, it turns into a repetition of people's opinions on whether TLG should make military sets or not, whether they're hypocrites for making a particular set that includes violence and whether that violence falls under their definition of "modern day violence/war". The discussion in this thread does not seem to progress any further and a lot of posts only seems to cause arguments.

We'll be keeping a close eye on this thread and if this arguing doesn't stop immediately, we'll be forced to lock it.

Thank you all.

As to the bolded part: Well, that is kind of the purpose of this thread. And since both sides have relevant arguments, their repetition isnt a bad thing, it shows us which of them are the most accepted and thus most relevant.

As to the rest: Yes that is a shame, but i think we can all handle some rough words, since theyre usually (I hope) born out of a passion for ones beliefs. It would be a bigger shame to lock this thread, since it would deprive new members of having an equal say on the subject. And after all, argument and controversy are the seeds of progress.

[ToaSalvus(lego)]

I think any „negative“ influence of military toys is way overblown. If toy soldiers havent turned our kids into brainwashed child soldiers or our societies into militaristic jingoists, I dont think that LEGO military sets would do that.

My own opinion is that TLGs stance is more a PR ploy than anything else. Not sure if its hypocritical, since formally, they have done the mental acrobatics to justify all other „types“ of violence (historical, contemporary licensed, sci-fi) except the contemporary nonlicensed „type“ . (How ridiculous to classify violence like this). So I would call their stance more cynical than hypocritical. Thats not necessarily a bad thing if it helps TLG thrive. I recognize that theyre a company that needs to make money, not an NGO or a Church.

I believe that this stance is not as unchangeable as some here claim. We went from a time when TLG didnt want to produce gray and green bricks to what we have today. And since this isnt the end of history, I belive the already fine lines will get more blurred until they will disappear altogether.

A step in this direction could be stand-alone vehicles or aircraft devoid of context, like the WW1 fighter planes or the recent Creator jet (but in more practical colors). Or a theme inspired by films like Independence Day or War of the Worlds, with realistic and contemporary miltaries fighting a non-human threat. Why couldnt the next Alien Conquest theme come with Human vehicles in olive green, or the various tans and grays, rather than blue?

At the end of the day, none of this really matters. The parts are mostly there, and as someone said above, we are free to build whatever we want. Its more a theoretical question than one with any practical implications.

As to the bolded part: Well, that is kind of the purpose of this thread. And since both sides have relevant arguments, their repetition isnt a bad thing, it shows us which of them are the most accepted and thus most relevant.

As to the rest: Yes that is a shame, but i think we can all handle some rough words, since theyre usually (I hope) born out of a passion for ones beliefs. It would be a bigger shame to lock this thread, since it would deprive new members of having an equal say on the subject. And after all, argument and controversy are the seeds of progress.

The last paragraph.

The final word has not yet been said.

[rx79gez8gundam]

The last paragraph.

The final word has not yet been said.

A debate is an exchange of ideas, where each side presents new (emphasis on this word) arguments to bolster their case and attempt to persuade their opposition.

You keep restating the same argument, like a broken record. You bring nothing new to the conversation, and are bordering on a flame war.

As for Itaria, I've read through all your old posts, I can't fathom why you're even still reading this thread if it offends you so much. You seem a glutton for punishment. If the topic bothers you, go on to another.

[ToaSalvus(lego)]

I have new points to add to the conversation.

[rx79gez8gundam]

I agree with Richie, legos being hypocritical in that they make pirate sets (thus promoting theft, killing, etc.) ninja sets (promoting assassinations and loyalty to country/religion) and battle sets (Star Wars) but refuse to make military sets.

That's like someone saying they don't eat meat, but then go and stuff their face with bacon.

What dose that have to do with it? It's still violent, and it's (aside from star wars) real.

I don't mind violence, I just wish lego would accept that they make violent sets already and just live with it.

And thanks for fixing my spelling error.

There's nothing to explain.

Lego makes violent sets, but won't do military themes, making them hypocritical.

The don't must make it?

I'd love to see a modern military series. So many possible sets.

But it's still hypocritical to make ninja and pirate sets, but no military.

Violence is violence, either on the battlefield or on the deck of your ship as pirates kill your crew.

No.

The last paragraph.

The final word has not yet been said.

I have new points to add to the conversation.

You have had ample opportunity to bring new ideas and thoughts into the conversation, instead you have restated the same argument again and again. Your last few posts have added nothing to the conversation whatsoever.

[Rijkvv]

I would just add my 2p on a topic that hasn't been discussed.

That is: I do not endorse companies which have controversial behaviours.

If all those people find TLG to be hypocritical, then I have serious problems in understanding why they buy LEGO products.

I believe, but these are my 2p again, that people calling someone hypocritical and then buying their products, are hypocritical too.

As for me, I don't understand the TLG policy according to violence in sets and themes, I disagree with some of their choises but that doesn't mean I don't like TLG at all. And even more I like the building product itself. I have to admit I shoud've expressed myself different though.

[ToaSalvus(lego)]

You have had ample opportunity to bring new ideas and thoughts into the conversation, instead you have restated the same argument again and again. Your last few posts have added nothing to the conversation whatsoever.

Fine then, I'll just see myself out.

[Peppermint_M]

The Last Word to be considered is this:

Locked.