40516 - Everyone is Awesome

[Pedilego]

4 hours ago, Gonkalin said:

You’re not part of the problem unless you’re mean to other people. If the other people are being mean to you then they are the problem. If people are nice and decent to other people then there is no problem. I’m not religious but the “do unto others as you would have done to you” is what it is about. 

That's what I used to think, but that's changing.

For example: Ibram X. Kennedy and other major 'thought-leaders' have been preaching that you're either racist or anti-racist. Therefore if you're not actively fighting against racism and racist policies (as defined by them, conveniently), you're perpetuating systemic forms of oppression.

And (by design) this isn't something that can be ignored, either, because their ideology has taken a cultural hold, and they've been developing corporate training and educational curriculum. Curriculum, mind you, that does tell people they're part of the problem based on immutable characteristics (e.g. Coca Cola's training slides that told employees, literally, "Be less white.").

It's frustrating because there's truth in some of their messaging; there are things that need to be addressed. I'm interested in doing the research, too. Unfortunately, I have kids that could be adversely impacted so, lately, that time is spent learning about these "Trojan Horses" that use righteous causes to justify tactics that, to me, violate the golden rule as well as core principals of this country.

[exracer327]

30 minutes ago, raindroplet said:

The wonderful world of flowers alone would disagree. They're are all pretty kinky. And we can't prescribe concepts like male or female to other organisms, because they are human conceptions applied to things that have no need for them. It says more about our societay's expectation of defined sexes than it does the animal when we try to assign binary gender to other things.

X and Y chromosomes are found in nearly every living creature or plant on earth.  Some species are designed as asexual and can change sexes naturally.  If "male" and "female" are problematic, then maybe we should just start calling ourselves XX (female) and XY (male) people.  That would eliminate all other options as there are only two combos that have ever been found.  And why are there two markers?  Because there are two parts, one female and one male that are joined together.  It's not just the XY chromosomes that have two parts, every part of DNA has two parts, one from each sex (23 pairs).  It is also the reason why a human cannot impregnate another species - different chromosome count. 

On a side note, unfertilized  human eggs can begin developing into a child.  However, it will never grow properly and lack a skeleton, muscle, etc.  It is called "Parthenogenesis" = "virgin birth / origin".  So while some species can develop that way, humans are unable to.

The only other exception is intersex people - those having both sex organs.  However, apparently they are only able to impregnate themselves (if they actually have both fully formed sex organs, most do not) and when they do, they only give birth to male children (only 11 such pregnancies are known to date).  With only 11 such pregnancies, that is clearly an exception and not the norm for everyday life.  

I just see the male/female aspect to life like gravity being 32 ft/s^2 (9.8m/s^2).  It's just how the world works.

[Phil B]

If "male" and "female" are problematic, then maybe we should just start calling ourselves XX (female) and XY (male) people.  That would eliminate all other options as there are only two combos that have ever been found. 

Turner Syndrome (X), Trisomy (XXX) and Tetrasomy (XXXX) beg to differ.

Furthermore, it is by now very well known that there is more to the sex you identify with than the chromosomes you carry. Yes we can start calling people “X-ers” and “Y-ers”, but you still create super diverse groups doing so where making assumptions about the whole group brushes people under the rug.

I am personally quite happy with the current notion that you need to celebrate people for who they are. Live and let live.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CosmicSpeed]

Ill drop this here: https://www.raisingzoomer.com/

I saw a report on Kyl and her child Zoomer. I will be honest in that I really was/am on the fence about this. However, it is an interesting perspective on how some people parent and a commentary (albeit a very specific one) on gender roles and perceptions in society.

[elmaslıefendi]

 

[exracer327]

Turner Syndrome (X), Trisomy (XXX) and Tetrasomy (XXXX) beg to differ.

Yes, and there are other exceptions as you describe as well.  However, they are still exceptions, not the norm.

I am personally quite happy with the current notion that you need to celebrate people for who they are. Live and let live.

Yes, me too.  

 

Edit: I'm not sure why this lost the quote from.

Edited May 26, 2021 by exracer327

[joneyyy1981]

2 hours ago, exracer327 said:

Turner Syndrome (X), Trisomy (XXX) and Tetrasomy (XXXX) beg to differ.

Yes, and there are other exceptions as you describe as well.  However, they are still exceptions, not the norm.

I am personally quite happy with the current notion that you need to celebrate people for who they are. Live and let live.

Yes, me too.  

 

Edit: I'm not sure why this lost the quote from.

i think here in the uk people dont really care how you wanna be seen, if you are male & want to live as a woman, go ahead & vice versa. it becomes a problem for a lot of folk when the stuff like JK rowling comes out ( trans women can't have periods etc, trans man to woman sues NHS because they wasnt invited for smear test).. its gets peoples backs up.. hence why labour are now irrelivent. people are sick to death of having stupid crap rammed down there throat...

all this 100 genders & 3 year olds having sex changes. its madness.

this set was in the daily mail & got some extreme heat (not good heat)

 

live & let live but lets just be real.

when they dig you up in 1000 years you will be male or female but thats not the point is it?

[$20 on joe vs dan]

20 minutes ago, joneyyy1981 said:

i think here in the uk people dont really care how you wanna be seen, if you are male & want to live as a woman, go ahead & vice versa. it becomes a problem for a lot of folk when the stuff like JK rowling comes out ( trans women can't have periods etc, trans man to woman sues NHS because they wasnt invited for smear test).. its gets peoples backs up.. hence why labour are now irrelivent. people are sick to death of having stupid crap rammed down there throat...

all this 100 genders & 3 year olds having sex changes. its madness.

this set was in the daily mail & got some extreme heat (not good heat)

 

live & let live but lets just be real.

when they dig you up in 1000 years you will be male or female but thats not the point is it?

social media amplifies extreme views...it's nuts but some whacko can type something and the darn thing could get amplified 10,000x over...and now its a thing

I mean anyone in an urban center knows there are random transients muttering all kinds of foolishness walking the streets...do these people even attempt to listen? Nope...but the same words pop up on their screen and now they need to rage against how wrong it is.

Statements without accountability is the bane of modern times

[Alpinemaps]

12 hours ago, raindroplet said:

Similarly, LEGO makes a lgbt set and it's just one in their entire catalog. However, people come crawling out of the woodwork to complain that it's "too political." What's the only difference here? I can't see anything other than people bristling at the idea of l gbt people being treated as equals.   

LEGO cancels The Punisher.  LEGO cancels The Osprey.  LEGO cancels the Crooks Hideout.

LEGO caved under "political" pressure to cancel each of those items.

LEGO has been dipping it's toe into areas that are political more and more.

I think it's a fair criticism for people to say its "too political" without being labeled as having trouble with "the idea of l gbt people being treated as equals."

[KvHulk]

I identify as an a$$hole. Most people agree.

Edited May 26, 2021 by KvHulk

[Lordoflego]

More to sex than identity etc etc nonsense nonsense 

The minute man will give birth, ill Change my mind. Otherwise, there are men and women. Period. 

[House Schubert]

1 hour ago, Lordoflego said:

More to sex than identity etc etc nonsense nonsense 

The minute man will give birth, ill Change my mind. Otherwise, there are men and women. Period. 

If you have kids, and one of them is less than 100% MAN!!! Or 100% WOMAN!!!, I hope you soften your stance.  Otherwise your kid will grow up hating you and also who they are, and the world will be worse for it. All because you had a narrow vision of what was possible. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by House Schubert

[Roklion]

I still cannot understand why people think this is a "political" issue. How could self-identity be a political issue?

But, well, that's probably also just my political view 

[Lordoflego]

1 hour ago, House Schubert said:

If you have kids, and one of them is less than 100% MAN!!! Or 100% WOMAN!!!, I hope you soften your stance.  Otherwise your kid will grow up hating you and also who they are, and the world will be worse for it. All because you had a narrow vision of what was possible. 

I’m sorry for my narrow view, I’m sorry for making the world bad. 

[raindroplet]

11 hours ago, Alpinemaps said:

LEGO cancels The Punisher.  LEGO cancels The Osprey.  LEGO cancels the Crooks Hideout.

LEGO caved under "political" pressure to cancel each of those items.

LEGO has been dipping it's toe into areas that are political more and more.

I think it's a fair criticism for people to say its "too political" without being labeled as having trouble with "the idea of l gbt people being treated as equals."

Except there's nothing political about the set itself. It makes two messages:

1. Everyone is awesome [subtext: despite our differences]
2. Lgbt people are allowed representation in LEGO form

It's not arguing that trans people be allowed in Target bathrooms or that you should vote yes on prop 6. The statement is "we should respect all people equally." If that seems political, then politics have gotten so warped that we are viewing certain groups of people as worthy of less respect. And if that's the case, it's no longer politics. It's hate under the guise of political ideology.

I don't think LEGO is any more political than it has ever been. We're just more mired in culture wars now, and the internet gives more visibility to crazies of all types. Lego has always been aggressively political in it's refusal to endorse war. It has always pushed the message that every child is capable of building beautiful things regardless of gender. I fail to see how the belief that everyone can build stops at the two classically recognized genders. 

[Darth_Raichu]

On 5/25/2021 at 11:23 PM, raindroplet said:

Your later example doesn't apply here though. The animosity people feel towards this set is the proof that there is still a lot of anti-l gbt resentment in society. If a company wants to make 6-fingered gloves for a small portion of their audience, no one is going to complain. The company is servicing a small portion of their audience who has gone unrepresented in the market. Similarly, LEGO makes a lgbt set and it's just one in their entire catalog. However, people come crawling out of the woodwork to complain that it's "too political." What's the only difference here? I can't see anything other than people bristling at the idea of l gbt people being treated as equals. 

The government isn't forcing companies to make 6 finger gloves. As society moves forward, groups of people are able to see themselves/their needs represented in more products and media. If you don't need a 6 finger glove, then just don't buy it. Complaining about it does nothing but make the 6-finger folk feel unwelcome.  

Disagree with your assessment regarding animosity towards LGBTQ+ people.  I am willing to bet most people don't care if one identifies as L or G or any other parts of the acronym.  Live and let live.  However, the constant reminder (via mainstream media, Hollywood, and social media) of the existence of +-10% of population who needs to be treated differently is going to create some backlash.  At the very least, it is going to create a perception that the LGBTQ+ community needs to be treated with kids' gloves as they are so fragile as a simple mistake of calling them with the wrong pronoun will put them into mental breakdown.

I lived in other countries where the Q people are some of the toughest most resilient people and nobody treated them with kids' gloves.  I just do not see that happening in the US or other western countries, not with this or the next generation.

 

The company in that example was supposed to be an analogy for society.   It was my (ill worded?) way to give an example of how catering to every permutation of the outlier would make the society slow to a crawl.

Also, who said anything about 6 fingered gloves? You assumed the company only needs to cater to people with 1 more finger.  There are actually cases of people with more than 11 fingers on their hands.  You would need to actively work to better your bias and use words that include everyone.

Can't you tell I have taken the inclusion trainings at my office?

[Mathew]

7 hours ago, raindroplet said:

Lego has always been aggressively political in it's refusal to endorse war. It has always pushed the message that every child is capable of building beautiful things regardless of gender. I fail to see how the belief that everyone can build stops at the two classically recognized genders. 

😆  Ever since Lego started licensing Star Wars they have been hypocritical when it comes to the war and weapons issue. 
 

The funny thing is that if Lego ever released a church or house of worship building set people such as yourself would lose  their ****

Edited May 27, 2021 by Mathew

[CosmicSpeed]

9 hours ago, Roklion said:

I still cannot understand why people think this is a "political" issue. How could self-identity be a political issue?

But, well, that's probably also just my political view 

Because the world makes it a Political issue. See NC House Bill 2 originally passed in 2016:

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article68401147.html

Repealed in 2020

https://equalitync.org/news/hb2_is_officially_dead_and_gone_in_nc_heres_why_that_matters/

This was a large issue at the time regarding how you identify and which bathroom you are allowed to use.

2 minutes ago, Mathew said:

😆  Ever since Lego started licensing Star Wars they have been hypocritical when it comes to the war and weapons issue. 

But yet, that is the SOLE reason why they went from just Yellow Minifigures to ones of many colors.

[BricksBrotha]

Review is up on Brickset.

 

https://brickset.com/article/59474/review-40516-everyone-is-awesome

[Phil B]

 
The funny thing is that if Lego ever released a church or house of worship building set people such as yourself would lose  their ****

Funny to see how you accused me a while back of making generalizations based on unconfirmed stereotypes, and then to do exactly that yourself with@raindroplet’s post above.

Personally even though I am an atheist myself, I have absolutely no issue with LEGO issuing church buildings or other places of worship. As long as I retain my free will in chosing whether to buy one, some or all of those sets, I would welcome such a series. I think the **** storm you are describing would be more likely to come from religious zealots attached to other flavors of the same religion, or of different religions, not tolerating any other way than their own.

[elmaslıefendi]

Scrap what I said, I'm getting some popcorn tonight, go on 🍿🍿

Edited May 27, 2021 by elmaslıefendi

[Alpinemaps]

Except there's nothing political about the set itself.

I agree with you. The set, in and of itself, is not political. It’s just a series of minifigures.

However, the topic that the set lends itself to, *is* political. Think of the Osprey. LEGO used medical-centric colors. LEGO made statements about how this set was highlighting the medical capabilities of the aircraft. No political statement there.

However, public opinion is that the plane is solely a military plane. The topic of the plane became a political topic.

Crocks Headquarters- it’s very clearly a joke within the world of LEGO. There’s a big ole TNT sign on the roof. Not intended to be political. I think we know where I’m going with this...

It’s silly to ignore that, as adults, we recognize that there are topics that a children’s toy might invoke deeper, and possibly controversial, discussions about, that may or may not be beyond the intent of the company. I would also argue that in this particular case, though, LEGO was not ignorant to the idea that this set would cause discussion, and that, just as with other companies that are vocal with their support of LGBTQ+ rights, they would also receive some backlash.

[Roklion]

I hate repeating myself here, but why being vocal support of LGBTQ+ right is a political issue? A social issue, maybe, but should never be a political issue - otherwise you are saying some parts of the political spectrum do not recognize this group has basic rights. Educate me.

This set is not about the controversial laws / regulations, which is political (I believe some should not be solved via regulation - it only polarizes the issue more, but should have more education towards recognition of the group). This set is about recognizing and celerating pride month, not even explicitly (otherwise it would be called Pride, which I have no problem with).

It is literarily called everyone is awesome. This whole thread (at least past page 1) reminds me of BLM and ALM arguments. But again, even being called "everyone" is awesome, people still not happy. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Roklion

[Alpinemaps]

I hate repeating myself here, but why being vocal support of LGBTQ+ right is a political issue? A social issue, maybe, but should never be a political issue - otherwise you are saying some parts of the political spectrum do not recognize this group has basic rights. Educate me.

Because it is. Because society has made it a political issue.

And you nailed it with your last sentence. There absolutely are parts of the political spectrum that does not recognize this group as having basic rights.

That’s not me agreeing with either side - but it is a statement of fact.

[Mathew]

1 hour ago, Phil B said:

 

Funny to see how you accused me a while back of making generalizations based on unconfirmed stereotypes, and then to do exactly that yourself with@raindroplet’s post above.
 

 

Agreed that we both made generalizations.