Comment on YSK that despite being outside of US jurisdiction, Lego has dropped diversity and inclusion terminology from its annual report

• Hazor@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  My understanding was that it was a “no modern weapons” thing. That is, pre-1900 weapons were “acceptable”, hence why the pirates and wild west sets could have guns, but the police sets do not. To my (absolutely non-expert) knowledge, Indiana Jones sets only had revolvers, a pre-1900 technology. As I recall, there was a bit of controversy when they released the Sopwith Camel (a WWI-era fighter plane, i.e. post-1900) set with machine guns on it.

  The Star Wars sets have fantasy weapons, not real modern weapons. Why that or a revolver should be seen as meaningfully different from a modern gun is, evidently, left as an exercise for the consumer. In any case, clearly the stricture has been relaxed over the years.

  source

  • Tattorack@lemmy.world ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    They also release DC and Marvel sets with guns. Sure, the super villains have fantasy weapons, but the goons have pistols and uzis.

    It’s a weird and arbitrary line to draw anyways, if they really do at the 1900s. Bullet go swoosh and person dead. Doesn’t matter if it’s a cowboy rifle.

    It’s also weird they’re fine with swords, maces, warhammers, spears, crossbows, and pole-arms since they’re literal weapons made for murder, dismemberment, gutting, and otherwise turning a human into human’t.

    It’s funny with Bionicle back in 2001 because you have this warrior of fire with a flaming sword that is described as being able to lay waste and cause devastation at an impressive scale, but nope. Oh no. That’s not a weapon, that’s a “Toa tool”.

    Then 2006 came along and even Bionicles were given straight up guns.

    source