rodiziorobs Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 It reminds me a lot of the Jabba's palace controversy, where LEGO essentially said, "No harm intended, we think you're crazy, but officially we feel bad anyway (but we're still only going to halt this set's production run when we're good and ready to)." Just replace that last bit about production with "contract." All TLG has really done here is to get Greenpeace off their back with a well-timed acknowledgement that they still have a contact fill.
Blondie-Wan Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 I'll buy more Shell products and less Lego. My discretionary income level and my age allow me to buy more Lego than what I really need. Both for myself and others. I don't respect companies that cave in to this type of blackmail. Unfortunately, most do...... Do as you like, but a) it isn't blackmail; b) we don't really know whether they caved or not - they say merely that they'll honor the current agreement and then not renew (i.e., we don't really know whether they'd have renewed or not without the Greenpeace campaign); and c) whatever Greenpeace's tactics, hypocrisy, etc., it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong about Shell... which of course is not to say they're necessarily right, either. Having had Shell's ethics, environmental practices, etc. brought into question, it now falls upon us to evaluate Shell's practices for ourselves, using the best available sources of information (which I certainly agree would be something other than Greenpeace), and decide based upon that whether we think LEGO's co-promotion with Shell is a good thing or not (and if not, what we want to do about it, if anything). What we think of Greenpeace really hardly matters, for the most part, I think, as I doubt many if any of us actually support them financially anyway. I'm sure nearly everyone here (myself included) give much, much more money to both LEGO and Shell than to GP (if we give the latter anything at all). I don't think asking exactly what practices that money supports is unreasonable. Personally, I'm actually quite confident LEGO's earnings do in fact support a number of socially conscious and environmentally responsible practices. I'm actually not so sure about Shell's (which is not to say I have an opinion either way, just that I don't know).
Meiko Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Personally I just wish the partnership lasted until 2016, which would be the 50th anniversary of LEGO's partnership with Shell. Hitting that milestone would just be a nice thing to see, since it's one of LEGO's oldest, if not the oldest partnership LEGO has. A redesign of set #325 (the first LEGO Shell set) would be awesome, like they did with the Town Plan several years ago.
dr_spock Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Personally I just wish the partnership lasted until 2016, which would be the 50th anniversary of LEGO's partnership with Shell. Hitting that milestone would just be a nice thing to see, since it's one of LEGO's oldest, if not the oldest partnership LEGO has. A redesign of set #325 (the first LEGO Shell set) would be awesome, like they did with the Town Plan several years ago. If the contract ends in 18 months as indicated in the German article, then that would be in 2016, n'est-ce pas?
Off the wall Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) Less Lego, more Shell. It's obvious that Lego caved in, unless you feel the need to rationalize their weakness. I spend about $80US a week at Shell. We can discuss semantics, or do the 'what does 'is' mean' dance or think like the OJ jury in Goldman case, but.... Blackmail n 1. (Law) the act of attempting to obtain money by intimidation, as by threats to disclose discreditable information 2. the exertion of pressure or threats, esp unfairly, in an attempt to influence someone's actions vb (tr) 3. (Law) to exact or attempt to exact (money or anything of value) from (a person) by threats or intimidation; extort 4. to attempt to influence the actions of (a person), esp by unfair pressure or threats [C16: see black, mail³] Edited October 12, 2014 by Off the wall
Blondie-Wan Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Less Lego, more Shell. It's obvious that Lego caved in, unless you feel the need to rationalize their weakness. I spend about $80US a week at Shell. We can discuss semantics, or do the 'what does 'is' mean' dance or think like the OJ jury in Goldman case, but.... Blackmail n 1. (Law) the act of attempting to obtain money by intimidation, as by threats to disclose discreditable information 2. the exertion of pressure or threats, esp unfairly, in an attempt to influence someone's actions vb (tr) 3. (Law) to exact or attempt to exact (money or anything of value) from (a person) by threats or intimidation; extort 4. to attempt to influence the actions of (a person), esp by unfair pressure or threats [C16: see black, mail³] All those definitions hinge upon intimidation or threats. Greenpeace's campaign wasn't based on those - nowhere do they threaten any kind of harm to LEGO or its employees or customers, nor do they say "we'll disclose this unflattering information about you if you don't give in." On the contrary, the campaign itself already presents and publicizes unflattering information. The model here isn't one of threats or intimidation, but of trying to guilt and shame LEGO into choosing the desired course of action. That's not blackmail.
Off the wall Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) Your definition of 'blackmail' is conveniently narrow, selective and self serving. However, your passive aggressive promotion of Greenpeace goals is clever and I really admire your ability to promote their agenda while seeming to be neutral/fair. Nice job! Edited October 12, 2014 by Off the wall
Meiko Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 If the contract ends in 18 months as indicated in the German article, then that would be in 2016, n'est-ce pas? I think it's too early in 2016 for them to release a set and to sell it for very long. I don't know, I guess we'll see.
Blondie-Wan Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Your definition of 'blackmail' is ... the same as yours. I didn't provide a definition of my own; I merely quoted yours and pointed out the ways in which i don't think it fits the way you're using it. Your own quoted terms are all about threats and intimidation, and I don't see anything in GP's LEGO / Shell campaign that qualifies as either. What is Greenpeace threatening to do if LEGO sticks with Shell? How are they trying to intimidate anyone? These are honest questions - I freely admit it's entirely possible I've overlooked something, and if you can explain to me what threat Greenpeace is making against whom, or how they're trying to scare or intimidate LEGO into doing something, I'm willing to listen. But at the moment, I just don't see it. conveniently narrow, selective and self serving. "Narrow" and "selective" tend to be desirable qualities in a definition, so thanks. I'm not sure where you get "self-serving," though, since I don't stand to benefit in any way from anything connected to Greenpeace or Shell. Honestly, the only one of the three institutions here that I care about is LEGO, and just from the standpoint of being a fan. Now, mind you, I do care about the environment - and why wouldn't I? - but that doesn't mean I think Greenpeace is necessarily right. I agree with lots of the statements elsewhere in the thread about them arguably doing more harm than good, and I don't give them money. That said, I do think they at least occasionally manage to correctly point out an area of legitimate concern. My whole point is that in discussing this whole issue, it shouldn't really matter what Greenpeace says or does; it should matter what Shell and LEGO say and do. However, your passive aggressive promotion of Greenpeace goals is clever and I really admire your ability to promote their agenda while seeming to be neutral/fair.Nice job! It's too bad you think so, actually, since as indicated I'm not entirely sure I care for Greenpeace, given their apparent hypocrisy and their apparent tendency to actually set back meaningful environmental initiatives in favor of merely being disruptive. However, it's true that I do indeed care about the environment, and that's why I think it's not unreasonable to have at least a discussion of Shell's environmental effects and practices and whether or not it might be a good idea for LEGO to reconsider its ongoing relationship with them. As I see it, we can discuss that without saying boo about Greenpeace one way or the other. And please note, I haven't even reached a personal conclusion on this, myself. As I already stated, I actually do in fact patronize Shell service stations from time to time (whereas I've never bought so much as a pithy bumper sticker from Greenpeace).
Off the wall Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) Sure, right...... This isn't the time or place for me to get into a discussion with a Greenpeace advocate over their misguided philosophy and tactics. Others have advised me they are as bored with this as I am. Especially when the discussion has broken down largely to 'it depends on what 'is' is'....... I am always happy to get someone who supports Greepeace to waste as much time and effort on a lengthy response. Keeps them away from other efforts, like getting in the way of legitimate fishermen or pouring good oil on toys. Edited October 12, 2014 by Off the wall
Blondie-Wan Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Sure, right...... This isn't the time or place for me to get into a discussion with a Greenpeace advocate over their misguided philosophy and tactics. Others have advised me they are as bored with this as I am. Especially when the discussion has broken down largely to 'it depends on what 'is' is'....... I am always happy to get someone who supports Greepeace to waste as much time and effort on a lengthy response. Keeps them away from other efforts, like getting in the way of legitimate fishermen or pouring good oil on toys. Sounds good to me. If I actually meet any Greenpeace advocates, I can send them your way if you like, but at the moment I don't know any. I do have to reiterate, though, that I'm not a Greenpeace advocate myself, since you seem unclear on that point despite my having attempted to clarify that to you more than once already.
parksroad Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 I will probably stick with Lego rather than Shell since petrol is less fun to play with, smelly, and harder to store in my home.
Off the wall Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) I will probably stick with Lego rather than Shell since petrol is less fun to play with, smelly, and harder to store in my home. Understood. But, when your car is pushing over 400hp and the manufacturer says premium gas, Shell becomes the priority. It's tough maintaining a large carbon footprint in this day of political correctness and unproven pop science. Edited October 12, 2014 by Off the wall
MAB Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 It would be funny if lego signed a completely new agreement with Shell to start when the current one ends, without telling Greenpeace. It would be like Greenpeace execs flying short haul for years without telling anyone instead of using the train, even though they officially oppose short haul flights.
CorneliusMurdock Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Since LEGO has now cut ties with Shell, there's nothing left to discuss here. Especially since it looks like the conversation has stopped being friendly. Topic locked.
Recommended Posts