4 ms·

"Star Wars" - it's literally in the name.

• rbanffy 6y ago
  True, but it's framed as a war between good and evil. Nobody remembers every storm trooper killed, every Tie pilot shot down is the parent, child, or sibling of someone else that'll mourn them in their home planet and condemn the terrorists who blew up the Death Star and countless other installations. My grandpa fought in WWII as the commander of an anti-aircraft artillery group. He never talked about it. After Alzheimer's took over and his memories came back vividly and uncontrollably, I learner how much he was haunted by the people he killed while protecting his land.
  • gfodor 6y ago
    My point wasn’t that they should support war based toys, it’s that if your argument is that LEGO should not produce toys that glorify violence and death, then Star Wars clearly qualifies.
    • rbanffy 6y ago
      I don't think that's the argument Lego is making. Their attitude seems to be that this toy glorifies actual war and death many kids experienced first hand instead of a fairy tale of a clearly defined good versus a clearly defined evil.
      • gfodor 6y ago
        It's quite a deep rabbit hole, frankly, since LEGO is metaphorical by nature: it's a blocky model of something. In this case, the chain of metaphor is shorter than that of Star Wars, but I'm sure there are many with PTSD who cannot handle certain scenes in Star Wars given the analogs it may have to their past experiences in actual war. In other words, one needs a more objective standard I think if such a policy is going to be seen as a moral value. It is not hard to imagine someone whose parents were killed in gun violence from having a visceral reaction, no different than the ones you mention, from watching a gunfighting scene in Star Wars, or seeing blaster battles played out on commercials for LEGO products.