3 ms·

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 an

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.
  - codezero 6y ago
    Show me the US Osprey in service operated and owned by the Coast Guard. You've made the assertion multiple times in the thread, and your argument seems based on it, so it's not worth engaging until you can show you're willing to invest the effort in the conversation.
    - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
      I like that you ignored everything else here. Do you work for the D.o.D or treasury? Do you work for the government in General? Prove to me they aren't. How about you show us what is dangerous about a VTOL aircraft Lego set today, that hasn't been dangerous with the hundreds of other sets mirroring vehicles in use by the military. Remember, this is the OSPREY, not a Military OSPREY, use by one doesn't make it the only factor, otherwise it would be labeled as such. What's the danger in the Firemen or Police sets the same mob have pressured lego to limit marketing or outright stop production on? How about the White House? Show me in the history of Lego (outside of the past 4 months) where these have ever been issues before? Show me the forum were multiple voices were heard rather than one loud voice of a minor group of people? Show me how they aren't pressured to toe the line? Show me a company that has willfully stood up against the online mob and come out unscathed? Or to keep it simple, show me how your childhood with sets that features themes of violence turned you into a murderous killer. Though you probably can't, as in a previous comment you stated just as much. You enjoyed the toys and didn't think about that factor. Nothing about this isn't 100% about buckling to a mob. Nothing anyone in this thread has show otherwise, in fact the only argument is "We shouldn't support the military". If that's the stance people are going to take, it's a macro problem they're trying to solve with a micro solution in an un related capacity. It's foolishness plain and simple. All it's going to do is continue to push people away from the real issues we should be supporting. EDIT: Apparently Op edited their post after and didn't note it. Show me how the OSPREY in any way shape or form represents any branch of service? This model is the osprey. Whom has it or doesn't becomes a straw man argument. I've been in and around OSPREY VTOL used for a variety of missions all multi agency. I don't have to prove anything. Lego made attempts to make sure it was removed from representing a service component. Your own argument would show that. What's the excuse for the Sopwith Camel, or Red Barron's Fokker. Both historical military craft, both made by lego. The policy being referenced here is 2010.. The Sopwith came out in 2012. https://brickipedia.fandom.com/wiki/10226_Sopwith_Camel https://brickipedia.fandom.com/wiki/10226_Sopwith_Camel You have not put forth one piece of information other than military bad. You have not show how this piece is any different than other sets, nor have you shown that "mob rule" didn't dictate this action. This is the same kind of reasoning being used in other tech discussions. You yourself said you played with legos, to include themes that have weaponry and violent functions, themes far greater than this one set of a vertical lift helicopter plane hybrid. Until you can show how this without a doubt is a violent craft, you haven't proven any point. Regardless of who flys it.
crc32 6y ago
> 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. I understand you may be disappointed if you would have enjoyed this kit, but I cannot understand your logic here at all. Either: 1) Lego are adhering to a broader set of principles - acting as in a free or open society Or 2) Lego are purely seeking to maximise profits - in which case they have determined that releasing the product will, in a broader sense, reduce profitability. One of these two outlooks is driving the decision right?Which one do you object to?
- ganoushoreilly 6y ago
  Except in this instance Lego didn't adhere to a broader since of principles, they fell under pressure from a third party group. The product wasn't allowed the chance to have the populous relate their opinion. One group, one voice, and fear of internet mob reprisal, took all of that away. Did you support lego reducing, removing, and stoping manufacture of Police and Firemen sets? What about the White House? Where do you draw the line? " I feel that Lego under represents bricks in non primary colors. As such they need to either remove their color or make all pieces in all colors so that I can enjoy them without being subjected to the hatefulness of harsh and cold primaries." Where do you draw the line?
  - crc32 6y ago
    > fell under pressure What kind of pressure did they fall under? Its either a moral pressure (option 1) or a financial pressure (2) isnt it? What other kind of pressure is there? Regarding your examples, i have no doubt that if Lego felt releasing such kits either violated their ethical standards (1) or threatened their profitability (2) they wouldnt make the kits, and that is where they (not I) presumably draw the line.
mcphage 6y ago
> mob came out as being outraged What does “mob” mean to you, and what does “outraged” mean to you?

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.
- codezero 6y ago
  Show me the US Osprey in service operated and owned by the Coast Guard. You've made the assertion multiple times in the thread, and your argument seems based on it, so it's not worth engaging until you can show you're willing to invest the effort in the conversation.
  - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
    I like that you ignored everything else here. Do you work for the D.o.D or treasury? Do you work for the government in General? Prove to me they aren't. How about you show us what is dangerous about a VTOL aircraft Lego set today, that hasn't been dangerous with the hundreds of other sets mirroring vehicles in use by the military. Remember, this is the OSPREY, not a Military OSPREY, use by one doesn't make it the only factor, otherwise it would be labeled as such. What's the danger in the Firemen or Police sets the same mob have pressured lego to limit marketing or outright stop production on? How about the White House? Show me in the history of Lego (outside of the past 4 months) where these have ever been issues before? Show me the forum were multiple voices were heard rather than one loud voice of a minor group of people? Show me how they aren't pressured to toe the line? Show me a company that has willfully stood up against the online mob and come out unscathed? Or to keep it simple, show me how your childhood with sets that features themes of violence turned you into a murderous killer. Though you probably can't, as in a previous comment you stated just as much. You enjoyed the toys and didn't think about that factor. Nothing about this isn't 100% about buckling to a mob. Nothing anyone in this thread has show otherwise, in fact the only argument is "We shouldn't support the military". If that's the stance people are going to take, it's a macro problem they're trying to solve with a micro solution in an un related capacity. It's foolishness plain and simple. All it's going to do is continue to push people away from the real issues we should be supporting. EDIT: Apparently Op edited their post after and didn't note it. Show me how the OSPREY in any way shape or form represents any branch of service? This model is the osprey. Whom has it or doesn't becomes a straw man argument. I've been in and around OSPREY VTOL used for a variety of missions all multi agency. I don't have to prove anything. Lego made attempts to make sure it was removed from representing a service component. Your own argument would show that. What's the excuse for the Sopwith Camel, or Red Barron's Fokker. Both historical military craft, both made by lego. The policy being referenced here is 2010.. The Sopwith came out in 2012. https://brickipedia.fandom.com/wiki/10226_Sopwith_Camel https://brickipedia.fandom.com/wiki/10226_Sopwith_Camel You have not put forth one piece of information other than military bad. You have not show how this piece is any different than other sets, nor have you shown that "mob rule" didn't dictate this action. This is the same kind of reasoning being used in other tech discussions. You yourself said you played with legos, to include themes that have weaponry and violent functions, themes far greater than this one set of a vertical lift helicopter plane hybrid. Until you can show how this without a doubt is a violent craft, you haven't proven any point. Regardless of who flys it.

crc32 6y ago

> 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. I understand you may be disappointed if you would have enjoyed this kit, but I cannot understand your logic here at all. Either: 1) Lego are adhering to a broader set of principles - acting as in a free or open society Or 2) Lego are purely seeking to maximise profits - in which case they have determined that releasing the product will, in a broader sense, reduce profitability. One of these two outlooks is driving the decision right?Which one do you object to?

ganoushoreilly 6y ago
Except in this instance Lego didn't adhere to a broader since of principles, they fell under pressure from a third party group. The product wasn't allowed the chance to have the populous relate their opinion. One group, one voice, and fear of internet mob reprisal, took all of that away. Did you support lego reducing, removing, and stoping manufacture of Police and Firemen sets? What about the White House? Where do you draw the line? " I feel that Lego under represents bricks in non primary colors. As such they need to either remove their color or make all pieces in all colors so that I can enjoy them without being subjected to the hatefulness of harsh and cold primaries." Where do you draw the line?
- crc32 6y ago
  > fell under pressure What kind of pressure did they fall under? Its either a moral pressure (option 1) or a financial pressure (2) isnt it? What other kind of pressure is there? Regarding your examples, i have no doubt that if Lego felt releasing such kits either violated their ethical standards (1) or threatened their profitability (2) they wouldnt make the kits, and that is where they (not I) presumably draw the line.

mcphage 6y ago

> mob came out as being outraged What does “mob” mean to you, and what does “outraged” mean to you?