7 ms·

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:/

by 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.
        ganoushoreilly 6y ago
        But we did draw a line rather than listen. The action of canceling a product because of one groups position and fear of the mob, is forcing an action. Both the US and UK Coast Guards have osprey deployed for a myriad of reasons. The largest barrier to more widespread deployment is their cost. As for engaging in good spirit, I would argue the same for you. You seem to be drawing a line for "my outrage" and not listening. See how easy it is to flip flop and try to make someone else out as the bad guy? That's not fair to you, nor to I. Is your argument that using the Boeing name supports war through purchases? Or is it that the Osprey represent war? Maybe that's where we're not seeing eye to eye here. Is the same argument not applicable to support commercial air travel on Boeing, Airbus, and other companies? All of which build craft and have derived technologies from military craft? In this instance with Boeing, flying on their craft Supports them in the same exact manner? Lego builds locking plastic toys. The Osprey model, is a non combat designed product model. It does not represent guns, explosives, etc. in any way shape or form. It's simply a Boeing designed craft that is leveraged by the military. It follows all of their existing (though you could argue contradictory) standards. As i've stated, if you don't want kids to have an apache, and Lego has taken that stance, we won't have one. Clearly there is a market here for people and enthusiast that support not only the Osprey, but the concept behind engineering marvels. What you haven't explained is just because we listen does that mean we have to action? In an instance like this, where it's not forced on people to buy it, can't people vote with their wallet? Where does one groups rights stand over another groups? What if I hold the beliefs that modern medical science is a farce, does that mean that a company should buckle to my position and stop producing medical related toys? No, it shouldn't. This is an example of a small mob of people trying to exert their opinions wether supportive or not, and that's dangerous. If you truly believe in listening we have to do the same for all. Equality is everyone having a right to their voice, equality of outcome is impossible. This same narrative is being used for all sorts of products and technologies. AI is a big example of where these biases of "my truth is greater than your truth" can be weaponized and used against the very people in the manner in which they think they're preventing things.
  - rozab 6y ago
    The Osprey is not and has never been used by (EDIT: 'operated by', for the pedants out there) the coast guard, as far as I can tell. From LEGO's own statement in the article: >While the set clearly depicts how a rescue version of the plane might look, the aircraft is only used by the military.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
      Wrong, the Osprey has been used in numerous Coast Guard operations, notably in joint efforts with the DEA. Just because you don't see every story publicly doesn't mean it's not used. Their statement doesn't contradict this, while the Coast Guard falls under the Treasury, it is still considered a component of the military.
  - kilo_bravo_3 6y ago
    The Osprey isn't used by the Coast Guard.
- oblongx 6y ago
  Piracy is fantasy?
  - codezero 6y ago
    Not off the coast of Somalia today, but their gear looks only a little different actually :)
    - oblongx 6y ago
      and the gear of the "past fantasy" was exactly the same :)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
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

by ethbro 6y ago

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.
      - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
        But we did draw a line rather than listen. The action of canceling a product because of one groups position and fear of the mob, is forcing an action. Both the US and UK Coast Guards have osprey deployed for a myriad of reasons. The largest barrier to more widespread deployment is their cost. As for engaging in good spirit, I would argue the same for you. You seem to be drawing a line for "my outrage" and not listening. See how easy it is to flip flop and try to make someone else out as the bad guy? That's not fair to you, nor to I. Is your argument that using the Boeing name supports war through purchases? Or is it that the Osprey represent war? Maybe that's where we're not seeing eye to eye here. Is the same argument not applicable to support commercial air travel on Boeing, Airbus, and other companies? All of which build craft and have derived technologies from military craft? In this instance with Boeing, flying on their craft Supports them in the same exact manner? Lego builds locking plastic toys. The Osprey model, is a non combat designed product model. It does not represent guns, explosives, etc. in any way shape or form. It's simply a Boeing designed craft that is leveraged by the military. It follows all of their existing (though you could argue contradictory) standards. As i've stated, if you don't want kids to have an apache, and Lego has taken that stance, we won't have one. Clearly there is a market here for people and enthusiast that support not only the Osprey, but the concept behind engineering marvels. What you haven't explained is just because we listen does that mean we have to action? In an instance like this, where it's not forced on people to buy it, can't people vote with their wallet? Where does one groups rights stand over another groups? What if I hold the beliefs that modern medical science is a farce, does that mean that a company should buckle to my position and stop producing medical related toys? No, it shouldn't. This is an example of a small mob of people trying to exert their opinions wether supportive or not, and that's dangerous. If you truly believe in listening we have to do the same for all. Equality is everyone having a right to their voice, equality of outcome is impossible. This same narrative is being used for all sorts of products and technologies. AI is a big example of where these biases of "my truth is greater than your truth" can be weaponized and used against the very people in the manner in which they think they're preventing things.
- rozab 6y ago
  The Osprey is not and has never been used by (EDIT: 'operated by', for the pedants out there) the coast guard, as far as I can tell. From LEGO's own statement in the article: >While the set clearly depicts how a rescue version of the plane might look, the aircraft is only used by the military.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
    Wrong, the Osprey has been used in numerous Coast Guard operations, notably in joint efforts with the DEA. Just because you don't see every story publicly doesn't mean it's not used. Their statement doesn't contradict this, while the Coast Guard falls under the Treasury, it is still considered a component of the military.
- kilo_bravo_3 6y ago
  The Osprey isn't used by the Coast Guard.
oblongx 6y ago
Piracy is fantasy?
- codezero 6y ago
  Not off the coast of Somalia today, but their gear looks only a little different actually :)
  - oblongx 6y ago
    and the gear of the "past fantasy" was exactly the same :)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

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