And also Lovely People, yes, I may have been expecting the conversation to wander round to that at some point. But also just feeling excluded from it and stuff.
That Lego set is a bit silly. It just makes a little flag sculpture. Is that all it makes? I think Lego should be less boring.
Nice try, though.
Isn't that flag wrong, though? Unless what they're doing is trying to fit half a transgender flag in at the same time.
@kviiri well to be fair, there is also a loooooot of neurotypical judgment for any behavior they can't personally understand by people who find certain things soothing
like the guy in that linked twitter thread who immediately decided all people taking 20 minute showers are freaks or monsters or wtv
I ended up reading about two months' worth of the account. :-D I don't agree with all of it but some of it, and by eck it has got some good jokes.
I was more thinking about how many people seem to be spending so much time in a state of mind-scrambling terror... but, mind you, re-reading that thread, some of them are like that but a lot of them are really more along the lines of "things I do because I wanna, shut up".
The point of BIPOC representation on the pride flag is to specifically represent BIPOC LQBTQ+ populations which experience specific prejudice
same with Trans representation
Some arguments against it are that the original Pride flag should already represent everyone, and that no particular group is singled out, whereas on the Progress Pride flag specific nods are given to BIPOC and trans floks
@G.Moylan Somewhat ironically, these are not that dissimilar from arguments used to distract from minority-centric calls for justice and equitable treatment
My knowledge of contemporary history of LGBT issues in the US (where much of Pride symbology comes from) is limited but my rough understanding is that the LGBT culture had a bit of a divide between the more affluent white collar side and the lower-class side, and there was a racial component to this divide
@G.Moylan something something politics... wait, I'm in here be dragons... Still, the only answer I have for that is: There is some types of behavior that is so evil that it is especially illegal if coming from cops or military. In the US that's triple-K-stuff, in the EU it's Nazi noncastrated-oxen-excrement.
So I think it's doubly important to stress that everyone in the community should have their voice heard, instead of trying to rally everyone under one symbol which might feel like a foreign one to some members of the community
@Trish Even before that. The concept of slavery being around for so long, and then laws that prevented success or continued inequality for blacks, things like the Tulsa Race Massacre, etc. All of that was before the New Deal
@kviiri Lesbian is the proper term for female-female attraction, just as gay is for male-male. Gay for female-female feels off to me. dropping the is so off
@G.Moylan the two legislations did reinforce it. that's what I meant
@G.Moylan I don't think it's a major movement or anything, but "L" for "lesbian" kinda stands out as being the only gender-segregated one in that list.
@Trish personal experience? I get it's anecdotal but most folks I talk to don't really have an issue with "guys" referring to a mixed group of people and "gays" serving a similar purpose. YMMV
@Trish it means that historically but it hasn't been used that way in earnest for a long time, now
@kviiri I won't be among those, because it messes up translatability. for example, the german equivalent of gay is schwul, which can't be dramatically correctly used with female, and would need to be replaced with either homosexuell or lesbisch.
Best regards, my language is one where every single of those detective show staples of "Uh, huh, and how did you know the killer was a she?!" is doomed to extremely wonky translations and we cope.
@G.Moylan that actually is a quirk of most languages: a group of people that is only female is female. a group of only males is male. A group of males and females is referred to as either male (french & english) or with a neutral circumvention (german)
like "A group of homosexuals(/gays)" "un groupe d'homosexuels" (note un is male) while German goes most simoly "Eine Gruppe Homosexuelle/Schwule und Lesben" (a group of homosexuals/gays and lesbians)
@NautArch I don't think we are, we're discussing why the labels might change and the arguments for or against, as well as the language. I don't think any of us ar advocating for a specific use or label.
The terminology has, and always has been in flux. Especially since non-folklore sources haven't existed beyond a few decades now, and sources predating them have usually had a very outsider point-of-view.
That's why we should be accepting of people using words differently to us and respectful for the labels people choose to use for themselves (even if they come from a direction that would seem unusual to us)
3
(And as a corollary, gentle when encouraging people to shift their vocabulary)
Like, if you want to provide support to queer people ... make actual human representation of us in your products rather than in a single product in which we're solid colors?
Do you think branding for Pride Month is a form of that, or no?
@doppelgreener From the LEGO perspective: LEGO collectors are really excited about new parts, and I think this was an easy way for them to offer minifig pieces in a wide variety of colors all in one place for the folks who want that.
@doppelgreener From the people perspective: I'd wager they didn't want to "assign" any one person or orientation to a specific color, since the colors already have meanings, so they left the minifigs "blank"
But I definitely see how it can be read as dehumanizing
@G.Moylan In the general case, marketing is probably a big driving factor in rainbow branding. One easily observable example is that international corporations seldom do rainbow branding in countries where the popular attitude is hostile to LGBTQ+ people.
@G.Moylan Yes, it's an extension of it. Rainbow capitalism is basically the incorporation of LGBT iconography in order to sell products. Critically, the company basically isn't actually supporting LGBT people, they're just using our flag because it makes them money.
It's very common for companies to brand LGBT for June, make some platitudes about including us, and then drop the branding and act like we don't exist for the rest of the year. If we're lucky, they might even donate some profits to charity! This phenomenon is so common there's memes about it.
@doppelgreener I figured that would be the take. Where is the line, though? Some people want to buy pride-themed products, and some folks want to use services that use rainbow branding, so how can we responsibly go about that?
(I mean it might be for some businesses, but I'd refrain from assuming a company that sports rainbow colors would take longer than a blink of an eye to rid themselves of those colors if it was hurting their business)
@doppelgreener The point is that it gets done a month before June. Would be normal, yet the product is - imho - very low effort. Just a rainbow pattern and 7 minifig with plain coloring and no facial features.
@SPArcheon see my comment about parts. LEGO is likely trying to offersomething pride-themed while also sell boatloads of product to the LEGO collector market that will gobble this up for all the color variety in the minifig parts
and then sell the light-blue hands on the secondary market for a markup, or something
@G.Moylan I appreciate you asking! The best thing you can do is actually buy from LGBT creators. Find your favorite LGBT artist on twitter and see if they're selling merch, for example. Look around on Etsy, alternately.
@G.Moylan Well. On a mere philosophical viewpoint "everyone is awesome" - different colors but no face give a mixed message of different but also standardized in a way. I can't wrap my head around that.
But my real point is that the thing is basically a few plain board pieces, 7 minifigs and it sells for 35$
Rainbow capitalism is specifically a problem because we're a marginalised group and our members can have more trouble than others making ends meet, but the non-marginalised groups are using our image to further line their pockets. (And folks might wonder why so many LGBT people are anti-capitalist; it's because capitalism goes fully mask-off with us.)
@SPArcheon I would rather see them portray actual fully detailed minifigs with beautiful outfits. Give me a Lil Nas X minifig. Give me an enby minifig designed by enbies. Give me a trans male and trans female minifig. Design this with input from associated groups.
@doppelgreener How should we go about consuming brands that do this, though? Like, I use DnDBeyond, for example, and Fandom, while seeming to be pretty accepting in how they operate, uses rainbow branding on that site.
@doppelgreener Hey, they gave us some wild-colored hair pieces and new colors for arms and hands, why can't you be happy!? /s
@NautArch Allyship is a verb. Allyship is expressed in material action. When a company gives some brief lip service but does nothing to help us, we call that performative allyship.
@G.Moylan Brands that engage in rainbow branding are basically net neutral to slight positive; they're doing something. I wouldn't do anything different with them, I just would take it as an empty gesture unless they follow it up with meaningful support of LGBT people somehow. This means if I were using D&D Beyond and saw their rainbow logo, I'd shrug and move on, and wouldn't change how I use D&D Beyond. If they donate to Mermaids UK or Stonewall, then I'd sing their praises for doing that.
Brands doing rainbow branding is nice because it indicates support, but they usually call that a day and end it there, and don't think of LGBT people the rest of the year.
Meanwhile you've got folks like the She-Ra crew who were out there creating LGBT representation regardless of what month of the year it was, because they are acting genuinely with the interests of LGBT people in mind.
@SPArcheon meanwhile, just for a start, every She-Ra character had the same figure (because they only had one doll) and it was an extremely unrealistic body for women. Everyone was white (unless they were purple). Safe to say, nobody was queer. Except He-Man. He-Man's queer. Not that they were going for that, but he is.
I don't want to detail my sexual orientation beyond that I am not marginalized because of it, and I don't intend my takes to step over anyone who actually is. I don't think you should worry about the companies whose products you'd buy anyway being spurious with their rainbow flags, use the energy to actually support LGBTQ+ content creators and business instead.
@SPArcheon In general, it's better to believe in good faith until proven otherwise. But hard to do that with multinationals. Not sure about lego's track record.
Things exist in multitudes. It is probably to a degree sincere, probably motivated by a desire for rainbow cash to an even larger degree. These are not mutually exclusive motivations
@SPArcheon well, LEGO used yellow minifigs for a long time so they wouldn't be indicative of a particular race. But then they went and botched that when they made Lando Calrissian black, which meant that every other character was suddenly white by comparison
although a yellow Lando Calrissian may have been labeled as white-washing or erasure, so it may have been a no-win situation
One of the main concerns in issues like this is appropriation. For example, Rainbow Six recently released a Nakoda character codenamed Thunderbird. She was made in consultation with three Nakoda women who designed her. This means she's actually the Nakoda impression of a Nakoda warrior, not some white person's impression. Her chin tattoos aren't lifting an aesthetic, they were put there by Nakoda people.
And Nakoda people, a marginalised group, have been enriched by their inclusion—money went into Nakoda peoples' hands.
Meanwhile, a few years ago, another game company (I think) created what was supposed to be a Maori man ... but they didn't consult any Maori people. They gave him ta moko and put it only on his chin. Men are supposed to get ta moko across their face; only women get it on their chin. They made an embarrassing ignorant gaff because they wanted to tone things down for the public.
I've heard the concise and attractive, though somewhat reductive argument that all of human ethics reduces to getting humans to choose the "cooperation" option in the constant series of iterated Prisoner's Dilemmas that is life.
@doppelgreener as opposed to the current iteration of Boba Fett, whose actor (Temuera Morrison) if a New Zealander with whom they consulted to redesign the look of the cahracter
@SPArcheon I mean, this scans with Lando, who is constantly trying to seem fancy and rich when he is very much not
Apparenlty it wasn't the Lando mini that started it but it was close (per Wikipedia):
In 2003, the first minifigures with naturalistic skin tones (as opposed to the yellow used until this point) were released, as part of the Lego Basketball theme; these minifigures were also created in the likeness of living people.[3] This also included Lando Calrissian in the Star Wars theme. The following year, the use of natural skin tones was expanded to all licensed products
No joking: as a small kid, due to Simpsons being yellow, having "cracked" edges (eg. with Bart's hair) and the word sounding a bit similar to one of the Finnish words for potato chips, I thought the Simpsons were supposed to be anthropomorphic potato chips.
@Trish From what I understand about the site expectations, system-specific questions are supposed to get answers backed by system-specific expertise. If a question asks about a system, then it's intentional to discourage answers by people who are unfamiliar with the system.
I am not unfamiliar with D&D 5e as RevanantBacon claims or seems to understand. I just have a dislike for how the redaction handles it and as a sult no extreme depth knowledge like in my pet games. I acknowledge that I can't answer the optimisation question, but it most certainly was way too broad. I had voted as such. And I actually don't think it should be reopened in the current shape either. Still lacks in the points I already raised.
@doppelgreener Did I posted this here or just in the Anime room? Can't remember...
"Created in Japan"
and a rice field with ... I guess that is Pai Mei from Kill Bill?
How to insult two cultures with just one single chocolate bar.
(Furthermore, I think it was sold in Australia, so even if the design was more accurate, "Created in Japan" would still be an half lie I guess, unless they meant that the flavor was from Kit Kat Japan but the package from Australia)
@NautArch insincere support is insincere support, but given the vulnerable position LGBT people are in, I would consider it worse
We're seeing widespread attack on trans rights across the Western world in a concerted attempt at divide and conquer. We need companies to do more than go "look! Rainbows! We support you!"
if you stand beside someone while they're getting beaten with sticks while shouting "i support you so much! hashtag solidarity!", you're not really supporting them very much
@Carcer it is, but LEGO has also been making yellow figures in some form since 1975, and the Simpsons released independently in 1989, and on teh Tracy Ullman Show in 1987, so if anything the Simpsons were borrowing from LEGO as far as timelines are concerned, but we also can't prove that one is an inspiration to the other
or inspiration! Just that by that point I don't think Lego could have conceivably gotten away with making yellow models of people who are supposed to be black, because regardless of what the colour was meant to signify when they were first designed, after the simpsons, yellow means white
@Carcer I agree. And it seems they didn't either, based on the wikipedia article and the 2003 basketball sets. After that and Lando Calrissian they did a number of other sets with real people represented in them and they went away from yellow altogether. I think they still release vintage-inspired sets with yellow figures but otherwise they've completely left it behind, AFAIK
@doppelgreener ok, just thought that someone felt slighted because someone voted downtoday... but then again, there are some people that don't feel like that the world of darkness needs those topics. or has them. or they have their own ideas what the books say... (might also be a case of I want to tell you what I believe, not what the books say - for which we had to remove two answers, one contradictory to what the books actually said.)
@Carcer those pronouns were not even something that was used by anyone but them. god, I barely remember it was breaking every convention of the language.
