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.