On 5/23/2021 at 6:35 PM, strangely said:

Once again I'm confused about people feeling that Lego has suddenly gone down such a dark path. Harry Potter is occult, superhero movies have sex and violence. We have themes about pirates and castles (and in those sets they can include alcohol bottles). Was Hidden Side or Monster Fighters not Satanic enough to draw some ire? Why has nobody tried saving my soul in those threads!?! 

This simply will not do! 

Fun fact - there’s a large toy chain in the U.K. that doesn’t carry Lego HP line because it conflicts with the owners’ beliefs.

  On 5/23/2021 at 6:39 PM, Alexandrina said:

More than that, there's an implication that one of the women in PoBB is trans iirc

Yeah, that was a nice touch, Robyn Loot, right?

Given that Lego sets were so dominated by male minifigs for so many years, I’m pretty sure my Lego City is a gay resort 🤷🏽‍♂️

  On 5/23/2021 at 6:39 PM, williejm said:

Fun fact - there’s a large toy chain in the U.K. that doesn’t carry Lego HP line because it conflicts with the owners’ beliefs.

Yeah, I've heard about that. I hope their shoppers enjoy imitation brand plastic bricks that don't quite click together right.

I can't wait to see what J.K. Rowling does once she finds out that Lego is an ally. Lego should really cast a protection spell before her followers finish that ritual and she regains physical form.

  On 5/23/2021 at 6:44 PM, strangely said:

Yeah, I've heard about that. I hope their shoppers enjoy imitation brand plastic bricks that don't quite click together right.

Yeah my money doesn’t work there, unfortunately 

Please calm down, enjoy the nice colors and stop harassing / picking on each-other. Even if we not always agree on the same ideas, people should enjoy the LEGO hobby together.

  On 5/23/2021 at 4:59 PM, Alexandrina said:

In that case the statement is doubly wrong - since not only is acknowledging that LGBTQ+ people are welcome not a matter of politics but rather of human decency, neither the Danish company Lego nor any of their LGBTQ+ fans in the other 191 countries of the the world are beholden to US political divides. 

I was just defining the use of "liberal" in this case, not offering any commentary. For some people this quickly becomes a political issue. I assume that "the statement" is a reference to the prior conversation? And yes, of course no one else from anywhere else is beholden to anything from the US. I wasn't suggesting that at all.

  On 5/23/2021 at 8:45 PM, Captain Dee said:

I was just defining the use of "liberal" in this case, not offering any commentary. For some people this quickly becomes a political issue. I assume that "the statement" is a reference to the prior conversation? And yes, of course no one else from anywhere else is beholden to anything from the US. I wasn't suggesting that at all.

Oh yeah, I didn't mean the reply to be to you - sorry if that was unclear! I responded to the quote with the intention of showing that my comment was informed by the context that you'd given, not under the impression you were offering commentary.

Apologies - I should have been more clear. 

  On 5/23/2021 at 8:46 PM, Alexandrina said:

Oh yeah, I didn't mean the reply to be to you - sorry if that was unclear! I responded to the quote with the intention of showing that my comment was informed by the context that you'd given, not under the impression you were offering commentary.

Apologies - I should have been more clear. 

No harm done. I thought that's what you meant. 

  On 5/23/2021 at 10:43 AM, Lego-fire said:

I think the reason why people are saying this set is political because this is Lego clearly taking a side in the trans culture war, on which there are varying opinions such as on self-ID and whether self-ID is a substitute for born sex.  

I mean, yes, that's one of the MANY ways that anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment is being pushed on the general public right now, but hardly the only one. If you look at comments on social media or in other places that are less civil or well moderated than Eurobricks, you'll see lots of people employing much older talking points:

• Claiming that kids can't possibly be LGBTQ+ or understand those aspects of their identities, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
   
• Treating support for LGBTQ+ kids as a way of "sexualizing/preying on/corrupting children", and comparing people with LGBTQ+ affirming viewpoints to child abusers or sex traffickers.
   
• Insisting that humans are only meant to be in opposite-sex relationships and that anything else is denying nature/God/reality.
   
• Accusing anybody who accept LGBTQ+ identities (including parents, teachers, medical professionals, and LEGO themselves) of "promoting mental illness".
   
• Describing LGBTQ+ identities as a form of "social contagion" or "degeneracy" that fundamentally weakens humanity and threatens the perpetuation of the species unless it's snuffed out (which has been a popular anti-LGBTQ+ talking point since the early days of the Nazi Party in the 1930s).
   
• Insinuating that their OWN freedom of speech or freedom of thought is threatened by LEGO advocating for their company values. This one tends to be paired with allusions to Nineteen Eighty-Four., generally overlooking the bits
   
• Arguing that "LGBTQ+ pride/rights/acceptance" are actually code for "LGBTQ+ supremacy", and that our end goal is somehow to completely rid the world of straight or cisgender people.

…And so on. There's only so much of that sort of intolerance I can bear to read, let alone describe to others, before my stomach begins to turn.

Moreover, nothing about this set even makes any sort of statement in favor of (or against) specific policies or legal measures involving the LGBTQ+ community. It simply encourages acceptance and support for the LGBTQ+ people around us.

Surely even people opposed to specific policies aimed at protecting trans people (you know, the classic "I'm not transphobic, but…" ) should have no objection to the idea that trans people like me exist, or that we deserve respect and acceptance? Because that's the only trans-supporting message this set clearly expresses.

  On 5/23/2021 at 11:36 AM, Lego-fire said:

Maybe that’s what you think, but a heck of a lot of other people will see what Lego is really saying. 
Do you remember when JK said all women have periods and Lego replied with ‘we support diversity in all its forms etc etc’. That sure wasn’t supporting JK, and if you look at it cynically, it was supporting the other side.

I don't think that's cynical at all. Rowling made a statement that was wrong and hurtful, not only towards trans men (who DO menstruate) and trans women (who don't), but also towards post-menopausal women and other cisgender women who don't menstruate for various reasons. Not to mention the various other harmful things J.K. Rowling has said about trans women, which I don't have the mental or emotional fortitude to get into right now.

So I don't think it's weird for LEGO to clarify that they don't support those statements. They likely would have made a similar statement if, say, Matt Groening had sparked a huge social media firestorm by spreading false and hurtful claims about some marginalized group back when LEGO was still making sets based on The Simpsons. While I genuinely believe LEGO does truly believe in supporting and affirming the identities trans folks like me (particularly since at least one set designer actually reached out to me on social media for help understanding trans folks' perspective when that whole fiasco went down), a brief, non-commital statement like the one LEGO made is basically just run-of-the-mill corporate damage control.

  On 5/23/2021 at 4:05 PM, John Cromwell said:

Oh Lego, what have you done?

Why have you forsaken the middle ground to jump on the bandwagon of the Liberals? Why?

Come on, now. LEGO is a Danish company. Viewpoints that would be considered liberal from a U.S. perspective are generally considered mainstream or even conservative by Danish standards. Plus, LEGO has been embracing other "liberal" causes like environmentalism, feminism, and multiculturalism, for years or even decades at this point. And they have numerous LGBTQ+ folks on their design team, including not just Matthew Ashton (the VP of Design responsible for designing this set), but also other designers who are responsible for a lot of the AFOL community's most beloved sets and themes. So why is their support of the LGBTQ+ community so surprising to you?

Moreover, it's not as though their values are somehow a threat to your own. You can continue believing whatever sort of transphobic or homophobic drivel you please, no matter how many decent people you drive away in the process. A toy company can't somehow control your beliefs any more than you can control theirs. And you're entirely free to put your money towards toy companies that better reflect your own values (or even start your own!) if you truly find theirs so objectionable.

  On 5/23/2021 at 5:41 PM, John Cromwell said:

Go ahead, ban me if you want. I will always advocate truth, regardless of the penalties.

I guess that's one thing we have in common — I don't care if you get banned any more than you do. In fact, I'm beginning to believe it might be a net positive for the site, since you clearly have a hard time showing basic respect for trans people.

Regardless of what you believe about us, surely you realize that it'd be just as disrespectful to call me a man as it would be for me to call you a woman. It's the same as how I wouldn't call you by your real name if you asked me to use your screen name. It doesn't matter whether I consider your real name more "truthful" — referring to people by the terms they're most comfortable with is just basic etiquette.

Edited May 23, 20213 yr by Aanchir

  On 5/23/2021 at 12:36 PM, claudio_ctc said:

Completely agree. I am not sure where LEGO is heading to with this kind of "toys".....Please stick to true toys as always.

Well, to me it feels TLG is doing more "display" sets than it used to. Use it as home decor, just have a look at the Arts, Dots or Botanical series. Not to get me wrong, I like many of these sets. It's just as if they realized that a group of people would like to have neatly arranged model as home decor. Just have a look at their artsy insta-style set photos. 

As for the set in question, it's a rainbow set of minifigs, so a toy, although not very construction like.

  On 5/23/2021 at 9:08 PM, Aanchir said:

Regardless of what you believe about us, surely you realize that it'd be just as disrespectful to call me a man as it would be for me to call you a woman. It's the same as how I wouldn't call you by your real name if you asked me to use your screen name. It doesn't matter whether I consider your real name more "truthful" — referring to people by the terms they're most comfortable with is just basic etiquette.

And this, I think, is the crux of the matter. Thanks for being a voice on the side of reason! 

  On 5/23/2021 at 9:23 PM, Redhead1982 said:

Well, to me it feels TLG is doing more "display" sets than it used to. Use it as home decor, just have a look at the Arts, Dots or Botanical series. Not to get me wrong, I like many of these sets. It's just as if they realized that a group of people would like to have neatly arranged model as home decor. Just have a look at their artsy insta-style set photos.

Yeah, and while I realize a lot of LGBTQ+ people (including myself!) are still very eager to see more diverse representation in actual playsets/play themes (City, Friends, Creator, etc)… I don't think it's hard to recognize that this set was created more with more of a display purpose in mind, or to recognize how appealing it might be as a display piece. In fact, as Matthew Ashton stated in the designer interview, he created the original version of this model not as a set, but as a personal bit of office decor for his desk at work. It was only later, when designers came together to brainstorm ideas for a Pride-related set, that he presented it to his colleagues at that meeting as one possible approach they could take.

Truth be told, I'm a bit curious whether this set was even the only outcome of that meeting, or whether there were other ideas brought up that might wind up appearing as sets in the future! Certainly we've already seen LGBTQ+ set designers and graphic designers make subtler gestures of support to the LGBTQ+ community: for example, Diego Sancho creating a rainbow-patterned heart tile for LEGO Dots, or Marcos Bessa advocating for the BrickHeadz Wedding Bride and Wedding Groom to be sold separately instead of as a two-pack so they could be used just as easily and affordably for either same-sex or opposite-sex couples. So one way or another, I doubt this will be the be-all and end-all of LEGO's efforts to represent LGBTQ+ people in their products.

And honestly, anybody who's bothered by the prospect of minifigs being gay or trans can just pretend they AREN'T gay or trans, just like we've usually had to do to feel represented or included in previous sets and themes! Other AFOLs have been telling us for years that the minifig is a "blank slate", and that it can be whoever and whatever you want it to be, regardless of the designers' intent. I see no reason that minifigures created to represent the LGBTQ+ community would be any different!

  On 5/23/2021 at 10:33 PM, Aanchir said:

So one way or another, I doubt this will be the be-all and end-all of LEGO's efforts to represent LGBTQ+ people in their products.

I can envisage Lego incorporating the LGBTQ community into the subtle stories it does over several sets - such as family that's grown up and had children of their own over three different City sets. How wholesome would it be if the current child of that lil family has a male partner in the next set? 

  On 5/23/2021 at 10:41 PM, Alexandrina said:

I can envisage Lego incorporating the LGBTQ community into the subtle stories it does over several sets - such as family that's grown up and had children of their own over three different City sets. How wholesome would it be if the current child of that lil family has a male partner in the next set? 

Yep! Similarly, an older version of a previous set's "child" character could be portrayed presenting as the opposite gender of their previous portrayal to show that they've transitioned in the years since. And there are all sorts of ways this sort of inclusivity can be achieved through graphic design: a decorative pride flag on a wall or desk in a character's bedroom, pride flag motifs or other LGBTQ+ symbols on a character's clothing or accessories, a family photo of a character and their same-sex partner or with two same-sex parents, graffiti with two same-sex characters' initials separated by a plus sign or heart, a bouquet of flowers in pride flag colors, etc.

There's no limit to the number of possibilities out there, and for the most part, none of them are any more limiting from a creative standpoint than the various other sorts of easter eggs or symbols (including those unrelated to gender, sexuality, or relationships) that we're already used to seeing in all sorts of sets and themes.

  On 5/23/2021 at 5:36 PM, John Cromwell said:

By Liberal, I mean every person that does not have conservative ideological beliefs i.e. the murder of unborn children being ok, or being able to change your gender on a whim, etc.  

 

  On 5/23/2021 at 5:41 PM, John Cromwell said:

Go ahead, ban me if you want. I will always advocate truth, regardless of the penalties.

Guys, he just advocates the truth -- like liberals thinking it's okay to murder children.

I mean, as a liberal myself, I try to murder at least a few children a day, preferably five- or six-year-olds who are somehow "unborn" and still in their mothers womb's, because blastocysts/zygotes/embryos just isn't evil-sounding enough, and "unborn children" totally isn't an oxymoron.

  On 5/23/2021 at 9:08 PM, Aanchir said:

surely you realize that it'd be just as disrespectful to call me a man as it would be for me to call you a woman. It's the same as how I wouldn't call you by your real name if you asked me to use your screen name. It doesn't matter whether I consider your real name more "truthful" — referring to people by the terms they're most comfortable with is just basic etiquette.

Disrespectful? Basic Etiquette? I am not going to participate in your little dream world and your delusional fantasies. I really don't care if something I say offends you or not! I will speak the truth, and call out lies and falsehoods when the opportunity presents itself.

  On 5/23/2021 at 9:08 PM, Aanchir said:

Rowling made a statement that was wrong and hurtful

Wrong? Wrong? J.K. Rowling stated the truth, the true truth and nothing but the truth, regardless of whether it was 'hurtful' or not.

  On 5/24/2021 at 3:09 AM, John Cromwell said:

I am not going to participate in your little dream world and your delusional fantasies. 

Having your opinions is one thing, but directly and aggressively insulting other members is something we don't tolerate on Eurobricks. You called for us to ban you yourself; I think it's time.

  On 5/23/2021 at 11:45 PM, Aanchir said:

Yep! Similarly, an older version of a previous set's "child" character could be portrayed presenting as the opposite gender of their previous portrayal to show that they've transitioned in the years since. And there are all sorts of ways this sort of inclusivity can be achieved through graphic design: ... a family photo of a character and their same-sex partner or with two same-sex parents, graffiti with two same-sex characters' initials separated by a plus sign or heart ...

I would like to see more representation along this line in the sets however would be concerned it would cause more uproar, especially if it was in sets aimed more at kids like City or Friends. I do wonder whether the 18+ Lego exclusive is simply to reduce the appearance that the set is aimed at kids, as it won't be in toy stores or similar - granted it is over the internet (especially due to the "controversy" around it). Fingers crossed that one set will make it easier to release sets with LGBTQIA+ representation in the future, especially if they can be released with more reach. Hopefully more sets will lead to greater acceptance (or at least less resistance).

On the political set issue that was raised:

I do feel this is a political set. The set is essentially a flag which is an inherently political thing. It is not used in any obvious context (granted Lego have explained the context but most people only care for the headlines), such as being at a sporting match, which would reduce the "politicalness" of the flag. This flag is a symbol which many people use to fight (justifiably IMO) for representation and change, however that to me makes it political. I am aware that many people use this flag with no political thought, and no one organisation uses it as there flag, but it is used by many LGBTQIA+ organisations as a symbol.

Taking the environmental route which was mentioned earlier in one of the threads. I would not consider an electric car or wind turbine to be political, nor would I consider a protester with a logging truck to be political (unless the loggers were clearly labeled as being evil), however if Lego were to release a set with logging protesters and an extinction rebellion flag, I would consider it to be political. It is about the context, however a flag or representation of a flag by itself will always look political to me.

  On 5/24/2021 at 11:51 AM, timemail said:

It is about the context, however a flag or representation of a flag by itself will always look political to me.

The counter to that is that Lego have happily released national flags in sets over a period of decades, without a word of complaint from any party 

  On 5/23/2021 at 9:08 PM, Aanchir said:

I don't think that's cynical at all. Rowling made a statement that was wrong and hurtful, not only towards trans men (who DO menstruate) and trans women (who don't), but also towards post-menopausal women and other cisgender women who don't menstruate for various reasons. Not to mention the various other harmful things J.K. Rowling has said about trans women, which I don't have the mental or emotional fortitude to get into right now

As much as I don’t want to get into this disagreement again, all JK was talking about was the erasure of women as a concept and as a biologically distinct class, with different needs than men(abortion, period care, women having substantially higher rates of being victims of domestic abuse, etc etc)  and the march forward of self-ID. She was saying she had a problem with non- biological women being allowed into women’s shelters and prisons, because of clear biological differences, such as strength and, well, you know. 
 

That’s why Lego standing on a certain side is clearly political. I think it’s great that Lego is showing the diversity of people’s orientations - but I wish it was just in City sets, where kids could have two dads, rather than this set. It’s a money-grab and extremely political. But that’s my opinion. 
 

EDIT: Just wanna say, I’m not disparaging your identity, just having a discussion! If you feel offended we can finish here. 

Edited May 24, 20213 yr by Lego-fire

  On 5/24/2021 at 12:31 PM, Alexandrina said:

The counter to that is that Lego have happily released national flags in sets over a period of decades, without a word of complaint from any party 

Absolutely. A lot of those are in sporting sets or have some other context (or simply multiple flags) which to me removes the political elements, but the fact the I feel it is a political set is not really the issue. Most of the complaints I have seen about this set have nothing to do with a political opinion and more to do with ignorance or bigotry. I am sure that some people would complain about Lego doing a Stars and Stripes set on its own (they may do an Art flags set if the theme doesn't die), but this set would get far more complaints as the issue that most people have is not that it is political, but that they don't like the LGBTQIA+ community (or occasionally some who feel that the set is cheap pandering or trying to cash in on Pride week). I mean you could just compare the complaints received about the White House set (very few about the political nature) to the complaints received about this set, and you can clearly see that the issue isn't about Lego doing a political set.

In the case of this set I am sure that many of the people complaining would not even consider reading the description, let alone watch the designer video for that context, and in cases like this that context is important.

  On 5/24/2021 at 1:03 PM, Lego-fire said:

As much as I don’t want to get into this disagreement again, all JK was talking about was the erasure of women as a concept and as a biologically distinct class, with different needs than men(abortion, period care, women having substantially higher rates of being victims of domestic abuse, etc etc)  and the march forward of self-ID. She was saying she had a problem with non- biological women being allowed into women’s shelters and prisons, because of clear biological differences, such as strength and, well, you know. 

I have no intention of derailing the thread and I don't think this is particularly about Lego, but if you're willing I would quite like to have a chat on some of these points in DMs? No worries if not. 

  On 5/24/2021 at 1:56 PM, Alexandrina said:

I have no intention of derailing the thread and I don't think this is particularly about Lego, but if you're willing I would quite like to have a chat on some of these points in DMs? No worries if not. 

Sorry I’m pretty sure I switched off my DMs cuz I was getting too much spam 

  On 5/24/2021 at 5:10 PM, Lego-fire said:

Sorry I’m pretty sure I switched off my DMs cuz I was getting too much spam 

No bother then 

  On 5/23/2021 at 4:05 PM, John Cromwell said:

Oh Lego, what have you done?

Why have you forsaken the middle ground to jump on the bandwagon of the Liberals? Why?

Gee, maybe if so many Conservatives weren’t intent of demonizing people and saying they’re inherently bad for merely existing as their true selves, LEGO’s positive affirmations of basic decency wouldn’t come across as “Liberal”.

  On 5/23/2021 at 9:08 PM, Aanchir said:

I mean, yes, that's one of the MANY ways that anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment is being pushed on the general public right now, but hardly the only one. If you look at comments on social media or in other places that are less civil or well moderated than Eurobricks, you'll see lots of people employing much older talking points:

• Claiming that kids can't possibly be LGBTQ+ or understand those aspects of their identities, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
   
• Treating support for LGBTQ+ kids as a way of "sexualizing/preying on/corrupting children", and comparing people with LGBTQ+ affirming viewpoints to child abusers or sex traffickers.
   
• Insisting that humans are only meant to be in opposite-sex relationships and that anything else is denying nature/God/reality.
   
• Accusing anybody who accept LGBTQ+ identities (including parents, teachers, medical professionals, and LEGO themselves) of "promoting mental illness".
   
• Describing LGBTQ+ identities as a form of "social contagion" or "degeneracy" that fundamentally weakens humanity and threatens the perpetuation of the species unless it's snuffed out (which has been a popular anti-LGBTQ+ talking point since the early days of the Nazi Party in the 1930s).
   
• Insinuating that their OWN freedom of speech or freedom of thought is threatened by LEGO advocating for their company values. This one tends to be paired with allusions to Nineteen Eighty-Four., generally overlooking the bits
   
• Arguing that "LGBTQ+ pride/rights/acceptance" are actually code for "LGBTQ+ supremacy", and that our end goal is somehow to completely rid the world of straight or cisgender people.

…And so on. There's only so much of that sort of intolerance I can bear to read, let alone describe to others, before my stomach begins to turn.

Moreover, nothing about this set even makes any sort of statement in favor of (or against) specific policies or legal measures involving the LGBTQ+ community. It simply encourages acceptance and support for the LGBTQ+ people around us.

Surely even people opposed to specific policies aimed at protecting trans people (you know, the classic "I'm not transphobic, but…" ) should have no objection to the idea that trans people like me exist, or that we deserve respect and acceptance? Because that's the only trans-supporting message this set clearly expresses.

I don't think that's cynical at all. Rowling made a statement that was wrong and hurtful, not only towards trans men (who DO menstruate) and trans women (who don't), but also towards post-menopausal women and other cisgender women who don't menstruate for various reasons. Not to mention the various other harmful things J.K. Rowling has said about trans women, which I don't have the mental or emotional fortitude to get into right now.

So I don't think it's weird for LEGO to clarify that they don't support those statements. They likely would have made a similar statement if, say, Matt Groening had sparked a huge social media firestorm by spreading false and hurtful claims about some marginalized group back when LEGO was still making sets based on The Simpsons. While I genuinely believe LEGO does truly believe in supporting and affirming the identities trans folks like me (particularly since at least one set designer actually reached out to me on social media for help understanding trans folks' perspective when that whole fiasco went down), a brief, non-commital statement like the one LEGO made is basically just run-of-the-mill corporate damage control.

Come on, now. LEGO is a Danish company. Viewpoints that would be considered liberal from a U.S. perspective are generally considered mainstream or even conservative by Danish standards. Plus, LEGO has been embracing other "liberal" causes like environmentalism, feminism, and multiculturalism, for years or even decades at this point. And they have numerous LGBTQ+ folks on their design team, including not just Matthew Ashton (the VP of Design responsible for designing this set), but also other designers who are responsible for a lot of the AFOL community's most beloved sets and themes. So why is their support of the LGBTQ+ community so surprising to you?

Moreover, it's not as though their values are somehow a threat to your own. You can continue believing whatever sort of transphobic or homophobic drivel you please, no matter how many decent people you drive away in the process. A toy company can't somehow control your beliefs any more than you can control theirs. And you're entirely free to put your money towards toy companies that better reflect your own values (or even start your own!) if you truly find theirs so objectionable.

I guess that's one thing we have in common — I don't care if you get banned any more than you do. In fact, I'm beginning to believe it might be a net positive for the site, since you clearly have a hard time showing basic respect for trans people.

Regardless of what you believe about us, surely you realize that it'd be just as disrespectful to call me a man as it would be for me to call you a woman. It's the same as how I wouldn't call you by your real name if you asked me to use your screen name. It doesn't matter whether I consider your real name more "truthful" — referring to people by the terms they're most comfortable with is just basic etiquette.

Beautifully said. 

  On 5/23/2021 at 10:33 PM, Aanchir said:

Yeah, and while I realize a lot of LGBTQ+ people (including myself!) are still very eager to see more diverse representation in actual playsets/play themes (City, Friends, Creator, etc)… I don't think it's hard to recognize that this set was created more with more of a display purpose in mind, or to recognize how appealing it might be as a display piece. In fact, as Matthew Ashton stated in the designer interview, he created the original version of this model not as a set, but as a personal bit of office decor for his desk at work. It was only later, when designers came together to brainstorm ideas for a Pride-related set, that he presented it to his colleagues at that meeting as one possible approach they could take.

Truth be told, I'm a bit curious whether this set was even the only outcome of that meeting, or whether there were other ideas brought up that might wind up appearing as sets in the future!

Indeed, I’ve been wondering whether this could be the first in a series of Pride-themed seasonal sets. They do seasonally-appropriate sets all year round, including the Winter Village line, the Advent Calendars, the occasional Monsters-themed thing around Halloween, various GWPs for everything from Easter to Halloween, etc.; why not make Pride Month a recurring LEGO “theme”?

  Quote

Certainly we've already seen LGBTQ+ set designers and graphic designers make subtler gestures of support to the LGBTQ+ community: for example, Diego Sancho creating a rainbow-patterned heart tile for LEGO Dots, or Marcos Bessa advocating for the BrickHeadz Wedding Bride and Wedding Groom to be sold separately instead of as a two-pack so they could be used just as easily and affordably for either same-sex or opposite-sex couples. So one way or another, I doubt this will be the be-all and end-all of LEGO's efforts to represent LGBTQ+ people in their products.

And honestly, anybody who's bothered by the prospect of minifigs being gay or trans can just pretend they AREN'T gay or trans, just like we've usually had to do to feel represented or included in previous sets and themes! Other AFOLs have been telling us for years that the minifig is a "blank slate", and that it can be whoever and whatever you want it to be, regardless of the designers' intent. I see no reason that minifigures created to represent the LGBTQ+ community would be any different!

Again, 

  On 5/24/2021 at 1:08 AM, danth said:

 

Guys, he just advocates the truth -- like liberals thinking it's okay to murder children.

I mean, as a liberal myself, I try to murder at least a few children a day, preferably five- or six-year-olds who are somehow "unborn" and still in their mothers womb's, because blastocysts/zygotes/embryos just isn't evil-sounding enough, and "unborn children" totally isn't an oxymoron.

  

  On 5/24/2021 at 3:09 AM, John Cromwell said:

Disrespectful? Basic Etiquette? I am not going to participate in your little dream world and your delusional fantasies. I really don't care if something I say offends you or not! I will speak the truth, and call out lies and falsehoods when the opportunity presents itself.

That’s great, really, but you should understand what you’re talking about if you’re going to run around asserting you’re proclaiming truth.

Edited May 24, 20213 yr by Blondie-Wan

  On 5/24/2021 at 3:19 AM, Clone OPatra said:

Having your opinions is one thing, but directly and aggressively insulting other members is something we don't tolerate on Eurobricks. You called for us to ban you yourself; I think it's time.

Question: if someone had said "Anyone who thinks that having an abortion is murder is living in a dream world and is in a delusional fantasy", would you ban them?