7 ms·

First, I think Lego are right to protect their brand and cancel this release if they think this project will be attacked by some groups. Not worth it. However,

by doe88 6y ago

First, I think Lego are right to protect their brand and cancel this release if they think this project will be attacked by some groups. Not worth it. However, on the merit, I think it is a shame, it's a fine piece of equipment, presented by Lego in a respectable use case, painted with rescue colors, not militarized at all in this role.

rozab 6y ago
To be clear, this aircraft is only used by the military. Making some bits orange is a huge stretch. I think the big issue is that this set would be directly funding arms manufacturers (Boeing and Bell), and goes against the companies own stated policy (despite the feeble attempt at circumvention). I am glad that fans are holding the Lego Company accountable.
- ethbro 6y ago
  And I suppose these were rescue pirates? https://brickset.com/sets/1481-1/Pirates-Desert-Island https://brickset.com/sets/1481-1/Pirates-Desert-Island https://brickset.com/sets/1970-1/Pirates-Gun-Cart https://brickset.com/sets/1970-1/Pirates-Gun-Cart https://brickset.com/sets/70413-1/The-Brick-Bounty https://brickset.com/sets/70413-1/The-Brick-Bounty
  - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
    Pirates is a label that they don't identify with, they prefer socio-economic liberators. Can't you see, Pirates with guns aren't violent, they represent the repressed standing up against the imperialistic military industrial complex of Legomen! /s
  - codezero 6y ago
    Good point probably, except we can accept the difference between distant past fantasy, and current state of technological warfare. In three hundred years, I bet there will be little controversy over a historic flight series including the Osprey. I'm sure there are other cheeky examples of past things LEGO released without responding to or hearing customer complaints. I could even argue the Apollo program was fundamentally a military program, this isn't the point.
    - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
      The osprey is used by the Coast Guard. It's hardly weaponized by other services. It's used much like other helicopters, for transport. I would get it if this was an Apache with guns designed for one thing only, but it's not.
      - codezero 6y ago
        Not that it would change my opinion much given the Osprey was developed for military purposes, by contractors for the military and is used almost entirely by the military, keeping in mind the Coast Goard is a branch of the "armed forces" - though I get, they aren't out in front-line battles these days... that said, I don't see any reference to the coast guard for this on Wikipedia - I assume it operates in a support role via the Marines who probably are working with the Coast Guard.
        ganoushoreilly 6y ago
        The internet was designed by and is still highly leveraged by the miltiary. Technologies including encryption designed by the US D.o.D (NSA notably) are used and leveraged. Originally designed and funded with military funds. This craft is primarily a transport craft. Simple google search will show you the Coast Guard usage. If this was an Apache Attack Helicopter you'd have a good argument, but it's not, it's pushing goal posts. For better or worse, the Military contributes and provides for the ability of everyday actions by constituents in their respective countries. In this case, the US military. Where do we draw the line for the "Outrage?". Lego won't make an apache, they chose to make an Osprey. It was only when the mob came out as being outraged, they pulled back. That is not healthy for anyone that wants a free open society. Consumers will vote with their wallet. Those outraged aren't the target market. If the tables were flipped and this was someone going after a firm for manufacturing something it views as controversial would the same argument hold true? I would bet it wouldn't.
        codezero 6y ago
        We don't draw the line for outrage, the outraged do, and we should just listen. Listening doesn't mean acting though, but until you listen you're not really going to have a clear understanding of what to respond to in the first place. The google search for coast guard osprey shows a lot of remote control models, not an actual functioning unit, what am I missing? I don't feel that you are engaging in good spirit.
  - s_m 6y ago
    This would be a reasonable analogy if proceeds from the sales of these sets funded ongoing piracy.
    - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
      Proceeds from many actions people take on a daily basis go to companies that actively support, design, and deploy technologies for use by the military.
      - skyfaller 6y ago
        Seems like whataboutism to me. Other people and companies doing a bad thing doesn't make doing the bad thing ok. Stopping one entity from doing evil is still a good thing even if you haven't stopped all evil everywhere. Rather than complaining about people doing a small thing to improve the world, we should consider how we can scale up the small thing into something bigger. To be specific, technologists like the people on Hacker News need to take a stand against providing technology (or funds) to the military. The industry should unionize so that programmers taking a stand against providing technology to the military can protest without being fired. The industry should produce a code of ethics that includes not selling tech to the military, and we should hold corporations to ethical standards.
        ganoushoreilly 6y ago
        How does stoping an Osprey from sale improve the world? I genuinely don't see it. The military is and always will be a part of modern societies. There will always be someone that has to take that role within. It took CHOP 24hrs before a self imposed group provided "Policing and Support". Making an argument about something like this is counter productive. The arguments to be made are how to use that tool to the benefit and betterment of man kind. It's extremely clear that most of the HN crowd have had limited interaction or experience within government and or the military. It's the same with politics, many people yelling about it from the outside, but very few actually participating and trying to change from within.
    - angelbar 6y ago
sharken 6y ago
This case is similar to the discussion of online shooters and whether they should be banned or not. It is sad that a vocal minority can sway the public opinion and force companies into submission. Too many people are ready to be offended over small things, it sucks !
- ganoushoreilly 6y ago
  It does, when the vast majority of these issues can be drastically reduced by education and strong adult interaction with youth. This whole issue of peoples feelings being hurt is only going to backfire against those that think it protects them.

by doe88 6y ago

rozab 6y ago

To be clear, this aircraft is only used by the military. Making some bits orange is a huge stretch. I think the big issue is that this set would be directly funding arms manufacturers (Boeing and Bell), and goes against the companies own stated policy (despite the feeble attempt at circumvention). I am glad that fans are holding the Lego Company accountable.

ethbro 6y ago
And I suppose these were rescue pirates? https://brickset.com/sets/1481-1/Pirates-Desert-Island https://brickset.com/sets/1481-1/Pirates-Desert-Island https://brickset.com/sets/1970-1/Pirates-Gun-Cart https://brickset.com/sets/1970-1/Pirates-Gun-Cart https://brickset.com/sets/70413-1/The-Brick-Bounty https://brickset.com/sets/70413-1/The-Brick-Bounty
- ganoushoreilly 6y ago
  Pirates is a label that they don't identify with, they prefer socio-economic liberators. Can't you see, Pirates with guns aren't violent, they represent the repressed standing up against the imperialistic military industrial complex of Legomen! /s
- codezero 6y ago
  Good point probably, except we can accept the difference between distant past fantasy, and current state of technological warfare. In three hundred years, I bet there will be little controversy over a historic flight series including the Osprey. I'm sure there are other cheeky examples of past things LEGO released without responding to or hearing customer complaints. I could even argue the Apollo program was fundamentally a military program, this isn't the point.
  - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
    The osprey is used by the Coast Guard. It's hardly weaponized by other services. It's used much like other helicopters, for transport. I would get it if this was an Apache with guns designed for one thing only, but it's not.
    - codezero 6y ago
      Not that it would change my opinion much given the Osprey was developed for military purposes, by contractors for the military and is used almost entirely by the military, keeping in mind the Coast Goard is a branch of the "armed forces" - though I get, they aren't out in front-line battles these days... that said, I don't see any reference to the coast guard for this on Wikipedia - I assume it operates in a support role via the Marines who probably are working with the Coast Guard.
      - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
        The internet was designed by and is still highly leveraged by the miltiary. Technologies including encryption designed by the US D.o.D (NSA notably) are used and leveraged. Originally designed and funded with military funds. This craft is primarily a transport craft. Simple google search will show you the Coast Guard usage. If this was an Apache Attack Helicopter you'd have a good argument, but it's not, it's pushing goal posts. For better or worse, the Military contributes and provides for the ability of everyday actions by constituents in their respective countries. In this case, the US military. Where do we draw the line for the "Outrage?". Lego won't make an apache, they chose to make an Osprey. It was only when the mob came out as being outraged, they pulled back. That is not healthy for anyone that wants a free open society. Consumers will vote with their wallet. Those outraged aren't the target market. If the tables were flipped and this was someone going after a firm for manufacturing something it views as controversial would the same argument hold true? I would bet it wouldn't.
        codezero 6y ago
        We don't draw the line for outrage, the outraged do, and we should just listen. Listening doesn't mean acting though, but until you listen you're not really going to have a clear understanding of what to respond to in the first place. The google search for coast guard osprey shows a lot of remote control models, not an actual functioning unit, what am I missing? I don't feel that you are engaging in good spirit.
- s_m 6y ago
  This would be a reasonable analogy if proceeds from the sales of these sets funded ongoing piracy.
  - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
    Proceeds from many actions people take on a daily basis go to companies that actively support, design, and deploy technologies for use by the military.
    - skyfaller 6y ago
      Seems like whataboutism to me. Other people and companies doing a bad thing doesn't make doing the bad thing ok. Stopping one entity from doing evil is still a good thing even if you haven't stopped all evil everywhere. Rather than complaining about people doing a small thing to improve the world, we should consider how we can scale up the small thing into something bigger. To be specific, technologists like the people on Hacker News need to take a stand against providing technology (or funds) to the military. The industry should unionize so that programmers taking a stand against providing technology to the military can protest without being fired. The industry should produce a code of ethics that includes not selling tech to the military, and we should hold corporations to ethical standards.
      - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
        How does stoping an Osprey from sale improve the world? I genuinely don't see it. The military is and always will be a part of modern societies. There will always be someone that has to take that role within. It took CHOP 24hrs before a self imposed group provided "Policing and Support". Making an argument about something like this is counter productive. The arguments to be made are how to use that tool to the benefit and betterment of man kind. It's extremely clear that most of the HN crowd have had limited interaction or experience within government and or the military. It's the same with politics, many people yelling about it from the outside, but very few actually participating and trying to change from within.
  - angelbar 6y ago

sharken 6y ago

This case is similar to the discussion of online shooters and whether they should be banned or not. It is sad that a vocal minority can sway the public opinion and force companies into submission. Too many people are ready to be offended over small things, it sucks !

ganoushoreilly 6y ago
It does, when the vast majority of these issues can be drastically reduced by education and strong adult interaction with youth. This whole issue of peoples feelings being hurt is only going to backfire against those that think it protects them.