sj1984

We're not 'discussing' racism, though. We're discussing the possible racist implications of a Lego comic a member made and posted in this topic - making it the perfect place for such a comment. I'm not going to make a 'racism topic' because there's nothing to discuss in terms of racism itself (because we all know that racism = bad, end of discussion) - but in relation to this comic that was posted and whether or not it could be considered racist then yes, this is the right place to do so. Besides, racism isn't some controversial or adult subject. Racism is bad, there's no controversy or possible upset to be caused there. Again, this is the topic to mention it, because it's my response a comic that was posted here. People post in this topic to 1) show their comics and 2) give feedback on others' comics (even if that's a simple 'hey, that was funny'). My comments definitely fall into the second category, so this the right place to bring it up. Racism isn't some taboo, controversial subject, so it's not one of those political/religious/etc discussions that sites tend to try and avoid.

This is, frankly, unbelievable. I mean a 'Hey, I can understand the problem here but....' response might've been okay, but to flat-out defend it? Without even a degree of questioning it? That's ridiculous. Er, it's discussion. I said 'Hey, this is racist and here's why', others disagreed, so I responded. That's discussion. You seriously shooting people down for discussing something on a discussion forum? Seems to be majority rule, here. 'Oh, well all these people think it's okay, so it is', combined with a 'Oh hey, this guy's been here a while and is a well-respected member of the community, so we can't possibly call him out on this kind of stuff'. The comic - regardless of intent - does not represent a 'parody' of racism. It just comes off as racist. And to say 'Oh yeah, but I'm not racist and didn't mean it to be racist' really doesn't change that! To clarify, I don't think Oky IS racist - just naive, I suppose.

Nah - the number of people who do/don't say something has no connection to whether or not it's offensive.

Er, because I'm female....? Light hearted humour, sure - NOT the casual racism that's been displayed here, and is now being somehow excused by people. Yes, it definitely, absolutely does. I can't believe you're even asking that.

Well, evidently they didn't....Similarly, nobody seems to batter an eyelid at the regularly sexist remarks in the 'Ladies, Stand Up' topic. And that set's good. I know you're trying to bring up the whole 'Hey Jabba's Palace is a racist set' thing that happened a while ago, but that was pure nonsense and not at all comparable to this (very, very blatent) racist 'joke'. Ah, okay. Still, whether or not people find something offensive doesn't alter whether it is or isn't okay. It's pure racism, and that isn't really up for debate.

'Found it racist'? It's not a question of someone 'finding' it racist - it IS racist. It's not a subjective thing.

What's worrying is that it was posted almost a year ago, with nobody calling him out on it in that time....

But they don't, so it is.

Well yeah, I know that - but the whole 'where on the doll did he touch you?' is standard procedure in cases of sexual assault. It's not really 'parodying' racism, though. The core of the joke is 'Haha, they're both black and therefore look the same'. That's just racism. For something to 'parody' racism, there has to be some point or intelligent comment to be taken from it. This does not have one. The punchline is essentially 'Haha, racism is funny!', when it should be more along the lines of 'Haha, racist people are idiots'. But at its core, the member saw the War Machine minifig, thought 'Ha, there's a lightsaber on his shoulder, how can I get that into a joke? Well, he's black too, and so is Mace Windu, so I could say that they look the same HAHAHA'. To be honest, that's the thought process of a closet racist.

'Jokes' about sexual assault aren't okay. Also, this one: More accurately, YOU'RE being racist. How are these considered okay?!

Hi, I just wondered if this site had any outlet to submit feedback about the site and its staff? If not, think we could set that up? :)

As you'd say, learn to read. At no point have I said you're pro-Nazi. Like, I've not even remotely touched on anything like that at all. But to make your point, you should've been comparing two fictional instances of violence. As I said, Itchy and Scratchy cartoon violence against the violence in an adult horror movie. That's a fine comparison for what you're trying to achieve. But in that case, the reason is obvious. You could've simply compared one fictional instance of violence with another, like a horror movie. That'd have made it relevant - obviously Lego isn't going to make sets based on a real-life mass murder, so your comparison doesn't really work. Thanks for the caps lock. Why would you compare fictional violence to real life violence in this context? It doesn't make sense. You could achieve the same point (and make it more relevant) through a comparison between two works of fiction. Lego produce sets based on IPs that have 'okay' cartoon violence. They don't produce sets based on IPs which feature extreme, horriffic, graphic instances of violence. That's your point, right? I agree. I made that point in one sentence, there, with no Nazi references. Fair, I've not seen the sketch/characters - it may well be quite intelligent, in fairness. But in many instances, comedy based around racism is passed off as 'okay' because the person doing it isn't actually racist - BUT it still serves to perpetuate such beliefs among the public. Also, once again - I can read. I can read so well that I can extensively pick flaws in your poorly structured post. So, please, since I've proven I can read, can we lay that to rest? Right. At no point did you say the words 'I am okay with this'. You're right on that. But the content and tone of your post imply as much. I mean, as above, you just defended him. You said 'some people say he's offensive but' and that he's just pointing out the absurdity of racism. That suggests that you are okay with it - though you did not say the sentence 'I am okay with it'. I can read so well that I can take the meaning of the words you say and know what they mean. Crazy. Er, like what? Thanks for turning a potentially intelligent and interesting discussion into a 'YOU CAN'T READ, CAPS LOCK ON, STOP HAVING TANTRUMS' schoolyard fight. You didn't say that it was fiction! I never said that you said it was fiction! I said you treated it like it was fiction. That is a very different thing to you outright saying it's fiction! Which you didn't do! It's called reading. Seriously. I take your words. I see their meanings. I can take things from what you write. For example, you like Colburt. You never SAID you like him, but it's clear from your post that you do. You never SAID the Holocaust is fiction. You don't believe the Holocaust is fiction. HOWEVER, in your post, you put it alongside fiction in your comparisons - thereby treating it as fiction. As you're saying it's comparable to fiction. As you say 'Hey a video of a Nazi killing someone is on the same level as a video of a movie character killing someone'. (Again, you didn't SAY those EXACT words in that order, but that is the meaning that was created with them). Yes - you SAID it was history, you KNOW it's real life, BUT contained within that single post is the TREATMENT of those events as fiction. You TREATING them that way is DIFFERENT to you SAYING that they are fiction. I never said that you SAID it was fiction. Thanks for the insults once again. I think I've just demonstrated my critical thinking skills. You wrote your original post poorly. You put across certain ideas that I'm sure you didn't intend. Reading your post, it comes across as if you think that the ONLY REASON Nazi stuff is worse is because it's more violent and it's the 'bad guys' winning. That may not be the meaning you intended, but that's the meaning that people will take from it. So, just....learn to write. Thanks, that sure added a lot to the discussion!

I read perfectly fine, thanks - perhaps have a look at your post again. Whilst you're right that context affects violence - i.e the cartoon violence of Itchy and Scratchy is different to the violence of, say, an adult horror movie - your way of explaining that is ridiculous and borderline offensive. Here's why - comparing cartoon violence to real life murder, and then flippantly saying that the latter is considered worse 'for whatever reason' is incredibly offensive. It's worse because it's the taking of an actual human life - a real thing that really happened. And, in your post, you never touch upon it being worse because it's real. You say that if you watch a video of Hitler killing someone, and then watch Captain America killing a terrorist, you're watching two comparable things, and the former is worse just because it's a bad guy doing the killing. Not because, y'know, it's real. And don't even get me started on your racism 'point', where you believe it's 'okay' because it's done in a 'funny' way and is therefore not harmful. Ugh. Also, one persion saying 'Hey I understand your post' doesn't mean it's not nonsense. I definitely agree that the context of violence in fiction is relevant to whether Lego produces stuff. But you tried to bring real-life violence and the murder of millions into that conversation, and at no point did you say 'This is worse because it's real life'. You treated it like it was fiction, said it was worse because it was 'bad guys' doing it, and said Lego don't produce Nazi sets 'for whatever reason'. That's the problem.

Yes, you're right - the real-life murder of millions is worse than Itchy and Scratchy "for whatever reason". Don't compare a real-life murder to Captain America, either. You know the Nazis and all that - that all actually happened. You realise that, right? Because you're talking about it as if it's another work of fiction, that is 'worse' than Captain America because a) it's the 'bad guys' winning and b ) it's gorier. When in reality it's worse because it's, y'know....real. That's real life. Please don't encourage him...

See, that's not an appropriate comment. Surprised nobody called you out on that (particularly staff....) Anyway, whilst Lego tend to release two UCS sets a year, there's no reason why they couldn't release three this year. It's not set in stone that they're only allowed to release two - they can change it up should it be profitable, which it would be (as it's SW...).

Mreh - I like to assume that people can read, and will therefore clearly understand the tone of my post. Thanks for being patronising, though!

There's an emote for sarcasm? I'd have thought the sarcasm was clear from the things we were saying....

You're right - it would be a terrible business decision for TLG to re-release one of their most sought after sets ever. Especially since it's one of the most iconic sci-fi ships ever, and there's hype building for a brand new trilogy it's bound to be featured in. Star Wars itself is awful in terms of merchandise - nobody ever buys anything, it's not popular and doesn't have any appeal to adults and children at all. So yeah, you're probably right - rereleasing the Falcon is in no way sensible, and could potentially destroy TLG as we know it.

Er, yeah, it makes quite a lot of sense, actually. Like how we got Avengers sets - sets for a movie that wasn't even out at the time. And how we got PotC 4 sets before the movie was out. And how we got Star Wars PT sets before the movies were out. And how we got Man of Steel sets before the movie was out. And how we got The Lego Movie sets before the movie was out. Lego release these kinds of sets to promote something for the licensers. Releasing an Arkham Knight Batmobile is extremely sensible - the game series is a big deal, the Batmobile is going to be a key part of the game, so yeah - it's not out yet (obviously) but releasing a set alongside the game certainly does 'make sense'.

Actually I'd say this isn't a silly article at all. It's making a decent point, and to brush it off as 'silly' is a huge error. Well, not necessarily... But men can have curves. Men can also wear lipstick or eyelashes. None of those 'identifiers' are a universal identification for women. I'd say that's more to do with your own sexism than anything else. Why not have a witch instead of a wizard? Why can't a male character also be thin on the hips? Why can't a woman have stubble? Because of the sexist expectations that society has laid upon you (not your fault, mind!). But it doesn't. So far, Lego torsos have been gender neutral - just look at Emmet's torso, or Bad Cop's. They can be used for any gender. To say 'Hey, torsos which don't have the thin hips are male, and torsos that do have hips are female' is DECREASING the number of female torsos - because now only the thin hip-torsos are female, whereas before ANY torso could be female. Please, let's not devolve into straw man arguments - the article isn't silly and has a valid point to make. To belittle it is to belittle the topic of gender equality itself. This is along the right lines. These 'female' torsos with the small waist are now considered 'female' torsos - and any character who doesn't have one isn't female. So now all the old, non-small-waist torsos will be seen as male, instead of being gender neutral as they used to be. Which, as I say, decreases the number of female torsos. Not to mention that the idea that a small waist is how you identify a female is pretty harmful in itself. That said, the ending point of the article about Wild West Wyldstyle IS silly, though I think it's more down to a lack of understanding as to how Lego markets itself (by putting 'default' versions of characters in full sets - it just makes sense from a business perspective).

the main set i'm hoping for is a UCS Slave I (boba's version). it seems weird that they made a b-wing ucs before the slave i

this set looks really good, the cop speeder is nice. i just wish there were more minifigs included. thanks for the review anyway

great review thanks, i like the look of the barn helicopter and there are some good minifigs too - i might wait until theres a discount though. thanks for the review.

i like the look of this. but is the metalbeard in the sea cow set the exact same build? looks like it might be scaled down a bit, does nayone know?

really excited for this movie, i love the animation style and it looks pretty funny, too.