Lego Helicopter Kit Cancelled 10 Days Before Release
gizmodo.co.uk
gizmodo.co.uk
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.
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.
https://brickset.com/sets/1481-1/Pirates-Desert-Island
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.
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.
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.
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.
Learn the rules of trolling people in comments on the internet, you should be frantically refreshing your browser tabs to see all updates, and taking screenshots to make sure you have receipts.
I can’t help you with your LEGO brick problem, but if you need help learning how to be a better troll, and you are interested in subscribing to the “Punch Up” philosophy that I offer, please let me know,
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?
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?
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.
What does “mob” mean to you, and what does “outraged” mean to you?
>While the set clearly depicts how a rescue version of the plane might look, the aircraft is only used by the military.
/s
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.
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.
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 !
This whole issue of peoples feelings being hurt is only going to backfire against those that think it protects them.
It's ok though because anyone that has flow commercially has indirectly funded a military. It's nonsense.
I doubt the amount of money even matters to them. It's most likely linked to retaining their trademark or something similar.
Finally, the V-22 isn't an attack craft. All experiments into the idea have been outright rejected and the only weapon it carries is a single browning machine gun which is optional (and could easily be mounted to basically anything). This is like protesting the creation of a truck model because technicals exist.
> The arms section of Boeing® also produces fighter jets, fighter helicopters, bombs and rockets (even intercontinental nuclear rockets). There are numerous examples of the use of Boeing® arms violating human rights, humanitarian and international law.
Otherwise they would also complain about LEGO Boeing 787 Dreamliner:
https://www.lego.com/en-my/service/buildinginstructions/1017...
I honestly don't understand what's the point of these campaigns - it's not like much will change about armed conflicts just because you hide it from retail shelves...
It's just dumb. Besides, Technic is literally a series about technical feats, of which, the Osprey is.
Have you flown commercial before? If so you've indirectly funded the Military in the same manner. Are we going to stop using commercial transport?
https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/sopwith-camel-10226 https://brickset.com/sets/10024-1/Red-Baron
Usually the next comment is.. but that was long ago. Which is so Ironic give the other hot bed issues about things from long ago.
People just want to be outraged for any reason. That in turn creates more outrage.
I'll buy the Mould King / Lepin (whatever they're branded as now) model and be done with it.
I can understand why Lego would not want that.
Lol. Please!
They just don't want to be on the wrong side politically. That's all. They'd have released this thing if no one had complained, because like most companies, all they really care about is making money.
Pure pandering at its most blatant.
No one pressed them to cancel these sets when released? How many kids bought these and decided to go out and attack people with Bi-Planes?
https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/sopwith-camel-10226 https://brickset.com/sets/10024-1/Red-Baron
Where as the Sopwith for example, is a set released in 2012, that is explicitly related to the military and specifically to WWI.
I'm just pointing out that the Osprey isn't a big deal. It's a VTOL that happens to be used by the military. There are hundreds of sets that could be seen as more violent that are made today, many you could argue break this rule.
Obviously, if I were more creative I could have created things that were weapons/war like, but wow, without being prompted, I guess I didn't.
I made a lot of airplanes, boats, and exploration type vehicles.
As an adult I build giant battle scense from Star wars. Recently I build a Pirate combat moc with the re-released Pirate bay set (one assembled as the boat, the other as the cove).
None of these have made me more or less violent, just as I assume you playing with GI Joe didn't you. Playing with things is a healthy way for the mind to work through right and wrong, to conceptualize thoughts in your mind. I would argue repression of these behaviors is far worse.
Lego has never made modern war items, I totally get that and am fine by it. They do however make toys that allow you to play out violence. Jurasic Park, Marvel, DC, Star Wars, hell even Minecraft, all have components of violence. I don't believe in the slightest that any child playing with these toys is predisposed to turn out violent. Just as I wouldn't expect a kid playing with a VTOL craft too.
I would argue part of our problem over the past 15 years has been the result of too much limitation of how we raise children and allow them to interact with the world around them. It's why every thing is blown into a huge issue, because to them it is, when the reality of it is that it just isn't.
I will say being of similar ages, our experiences may have been different than the more younger HN crowd, but I'm glad you had legos and enjoyed them the way you saw fit. I would imagine the creativity and ability to be rewarded for solving challenges played a great impact on you.
Maybe i'm misplaced in thinking that proper parenting is a key to everything. Besides, I would argue kids are exposed to way harsher or riskier things on television / movies / the internet, than they ever would be by building the Osprey.
I've had a lot of time to observe my 7-yo with her friends playing in our shared lawn (I can see them from my home office) and I find it fascinating that the most "violent" weapon-like toys they have are water guns and there is no sign of good x bad roles in their games or even the notion that the main goal is to shoot at each other.
My own childhood was much more violent, with cap guns and always present roles of deadly antagonism.
We may be succeeding at producing better humans.
Lots of MOC sets out there, if you google image search mad max lego, there are some really impressive sets.
I love the Osprey! One of my all time favorite aircraft. I probably wouldn’t have bought this, so I guess they don’t care what I think, but I thought this was super cool.
Sometimes things just slip through and mistakes are made - this is pretty normal and product recalls happen all the time. What makes a policy violation different from a defective product in this regard?
Again, the same can be said about recalled products as well - years of development and planning and even post-production QA, yet f-ups happen all the time.
Also - Firemen and Police sets as well as the White House set are still on the shelves, so what even is your argument here? If the company deems themselves in the right, they ignore "the mob" as you call it.
The context of the above is relevant, they too were products approved, that were then backtracked because a small few expressed concerns about how they saw the products.
It may not be in the article, but given it is two instances of this happening in a short period, it's very much relevant.
There is no such thing as a for-profit company that does things because it is "the right thing to do". They make decisions based on what will bring in the most profit (or result in the least amount of lost profit).
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.
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.
I also appreciate that they haven't taken action against companies like Brickmania[1] which cater to those looking for kits like this.
We have to draw the line some where and stop this nonsense. Brushing reality under the carpet doesn't and won't change anything. Are we to now pull every toy used as a means of expression for children? How many dolls fight? How many transformers are military vehicles? How many kids have water guns and balloons?
People need to relax and get worked up over real issues facing the world like, literal ongoing slavery, child exploitation, human trafficking. But instead because those are hard, they focus on something like this to get their feel good dopamine kick.
Star Wars licensed toys are OK. Military aircraft are not, because they kill real people and the licensing money goes directly to the aircraft manufacturer.
Is the argument that the Boeing association will make Children / Adults more violence prone because of the relationship of this Craft? What about Nasa and the space race, fueled by the Cold War? What about Jurassic Park where we are perpetuating an un healthy understanding of science... Star Wars where the exact goal is to defeat the empire with Blasters, Light Sabers, and other destructive means.... Everyone and anyone can make any argument as to why every one of these things is bad. Kids need to play, toys allow them to work through emotions. Proper parenting can easily address this if it's really a concern.
It's plastic toys, designed to foster excitement and respect for engineering. It's a cop of out for Woke Culture and it's yet another example of extreme views alienating not only the right, but those of use that are realists on the left.
Let's get ahead of all this and just stop using the internet and all the luxuries of modern life because most are related to empirialistic behaviors and benefactors of military might and conquest.
But that's not what Lego did. You said you have to draw a line, and they drew a line to the left of military vehicles and to the right of Star Wars and allowing themselves to use the internet.
I grew up playing with a lot of realistic toy guns and WWII era tanks. I hardly ever see kids play with that. I don't think Lego is the only company who decided not to make war vehicles, and I think many toy companies made this decision long, long time ago.
They have chosen to draw a line. They don't produce toys that represent real military vehicles. You just don't like the line. I suppose you will have to purchase your toy military models elsewhere.
They didn't chose to draw a line, they let a mob draw it for them.
> The basic aim is to avoid realistic weapons and military equipment that children may recognize from hot spots around the world
The Osprey unequivocally is captured by the above standard.
We regularly found pre WWII Era weapons in Afghanistan, Iraq, and throughout Northern Africa.
In this instance "Realistic weapons don't apply". The argument must stand on equipment children might recognize from hotspots around the world.
There are hundreds of Jets, Police vehicles, Helicopters, Cars, Trucks, that are all based on vehicles in use by the military. The only variance with the Osprey was the branding. Lego recently pulled Police and Firemen sets for the same arguments. So lets say I agree.
Why did Lego remove promotion for the White House Architecture set? It doesn't represent weapons or military equipment? They did it because someone decided that it was a symbol of oppression. It's pure lunacy.
All of these sets were manufactured after 2010. The only commonality is that someone felt offended. In fact, I can't find any historic evidence of either of these situations having ever happened in the history of Lego (one that is long and varied). It all happened within the past couple of months.
You can't say it's not complete hysteria over nonsense. Forcing all these brands to bend to your unique opinion is horrible. The fact that they're bending is just as deplorable.
Thankfully some brands like Redbull are pushing back.
Due to the deployment of this military aircraft all around the world, innumerable civilians were killed. That is why parents, LEGO customers and brick fans disapprove of the vehicle’s replication.
Companies that produce weapons, which in many countries of the world cause human suffering and death, should not be cooperating with LEGO. Because of this, you stopped LEGO’s cooperation with the controversial oil company Shell in 2014. With the new set, you violate your own company’s basic principles.
We urge you to stop the cooperation with Boeing und Bell and not to produce any further modern military vehicles."
They produce kids toys and don't want to glorify current violence.
There is no LEGO Osama Mountain Hidout + Spec Ops blackhawk attack team.
Only pirates, knights, police and robbers.
Of course they could rebrand it, and they will in few years. For now its probably not worth the risk of backlash.
https://screenrant.com/dungeons-dragons-satanism-controversy...
"The public outcry regarding the content in Dungeons & Dragons resulted in demons being renamed tanar’ri and the devils being called baatezu."