Today LEGO has revealed the first wave of Friends sets for 2023, bringing in a new cast of characters and an update to the branding with a new logo. A new LEGO Friends television series will also accompany the new sets.
LEGO’s annual Play Well study revealed that 3 out of 4 children felt there were not enough toys with characters that represent them, so LEGO is aiming to bring more diverse representation to Heartlake City that’s inclusive of not just various ethnicities and genders, but also disabilities and neurodivergence. LEGO says the 2023 sets and series will feature characters with limb difference, Downs Syndrome, anxiety, vitiligo, and even pets with disabilities, including a blind dog and a dog with a wheelchair.
Five new Friends sets will be available starting Jan. 1, 2023, and the new TV show will kick off with a special in February.
41724 Paisley’s House | Available Jan. 1 | US $39.99 | CAN $49.99 | UK £39.99
41727 Dog Rescue Center | Available Jan. 1 | US $59.99 | CAN $74.99 | UK £54.99
41728 Heartlake Downtown Diner | Available Jan. 1 | US $29.99 | CAN $39.99 | UK £24.99
41730 Autumn’s House | Available Jan. 1 | US $69.99 | CAN $89.99 | UK £59.99
41731 Heartlake International School | Available Jan. 1 | US $99.99 | CAN $139.99 | UK £89.99
Here’s the full press release from LEGO:
Friendship re-imagined:
The LEGO Group reveals a new generation of LEGO® Friends
- 3 out of 4 children feel that there aren’t enough toys that represent them*
- The re-imagined LEGO® Friends characters are more representative of the world that today’s kids navigate, inclusive of gender, culture, ethnicity, physical traits and abilities, non-visible disabilities and neurodivergence
- The storylines explore the ups and downs of friendship, while the characters overcome challenges, obstacles, and differences in today’s modern world
Billund, Denmark: A decade on from the launch of LEGO® Friends, the LEGO Group has re-imagined the Friends Universe, with the introduction of new diverse characters, to enable more children to feel represented during play. This next generation is designed to celebrate diverse friendships in the modern world.
Because the LEGO Group values children as its role models, this next generation of LEGO Friends has implemented input from kid testing, research and feedback from letters sent to the company, which all found children had a desire to see themselves, their friends and their families better represented.
The brand-new universe of authentic, interesting, passionate, and diverse characters includes additions of multiple skin tones, cultures, physical and non-visible disabilities, and neurodiversity. The new sets and series will feature characters with limb difference, Downs Syndrome, anxiety, vitiligo, and a dog with a wheelchair. The new friends also explore and work to overcome modern challenges that they face, passions, obstacles, and differences, all while trying to create friendships.
“At the LEGO Group, we understand that children want the characters they encounter to be more like the diverse personalities they meet in real-life”, said Tracie Chiarella, Head of Product, LEGO Friends at the LEGO Group. “We’re continuously evolving our products so that they’re reflective of society today and that’s why we’re proud to launch this brand-new generation of LEGO Friends. We want children to see the new LEGO Friends Universe, both in the physical product and the content we’re launching in 2023, as a reflection of their own friendships and to see the characters as authentic. We have chosen to evolve the LEGO Friends Universe and TV show to be more inclusive in order to give parents and kids more tools to navigate friendship and their emotions as they grow and learn.”
The re-imagined LEGO Friends Universe aims to help kids become better friends to themselves and others while providing emotional and social development through play, to help them better understand individuality, diversity, and the modern world.
Beyond research and insights from kid testing and designers reviewing letters from children, the LEGO Group also revealed recent research that further highlights children’s need for representation.
The LEGO® Play Well Study 2022* showed an overwhelming desire for more representation in play and more discussion on diversity and revealed that parents (97%) believe it is important to discuss the unique individualities between us all, especially mental health (91%), physical disabilities (82%), mental disabilities (81%), and ethnicity (75%). Moreover, parents (85%) say that play and toys can have a key role in helping children learn about diversity (84%).
The research also found that 3 in 4 (73%) children felt that there were not enough toys with characters that represented them and similarly, that 8 in 10 (80%) children would like there to be more toys with characters who look like them. Moreover, children themselves are asking for a fairer, more equitable world with 9 out of 10 (91%) saying they care about everyone being treated equally.
The LEGO Group wants children across the globe to experience the entire Friends Universe as relatable and representative of the real world, both when it comes to products and content. As a result, the storylines of the LEGO Friends TV show have been refreshed in collaboration with the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media** helping to develop the character’s narratives to ensure they’re relatable, inclusive, and reflective of the difficulties and experiences that children face today, including the ups and downs of friendships.
The new LEGO® Friends sets will be available from January 1, 2023, while a LEGO®
Friends TV special is due to air in February 2023 – kicking off the new TV series.
I’m happy I was a kid in the 80es. All minifigures were yellow and had two eyes and a mouth. None of us had a yellow skin but it didn’t matter as playing was mostly make-believe anyways.
Also I think that a dog in a wheelchair is borderline animal abuse as it’s certainly not species appropriate way of life.
As I’ve never particularly cared for LEGO minidolls, this revamp of the LEGO Friends theme is not going to encourage me to purchase any of these sets. However, I will concede that the new hairpieces (and the fact that they are interchangeable with LEGO’s minifigures), are of moderate interest to me.
Overall, I would have to say I agree with Timo’s comment to an extent: as a child of the 00s, I can just about remember playing with some LEGO minifigures with only yellow skin, but I remember mainly playing and buying the LEGO Harry Potter sets after the change to flesh coloured tones, perhaps because on a subconscious level I felt more represented in those sets. (Although, consciously, I would argue it was more likely that I was just interested in the Harry Potter universe as a child). In an ideal world, a toy should be marketed purely to create joy for the child, without any additional considerations getting in the way; however, it does come across to me as a little bit sad that LEGO seems to be moving further away from its historical preference for producing only yellow coloured minifigures. Then again, when the Pirates theme was launched in 1989, it was the first LEGO sub-theme to diverge from the standard smile and black two eyes, so, perhaps we should not read too much into this update from LEGO.
What puzzles me though (without referencing the forthcoming TV show, which is meant to accompany this revamp launch), is how LEGO is going to depict non-visible disabilities and neurodiversity in its minidolls in an obvious yet considerate manner. Visible disabilities such as limb difference, blindness, hearing impairments or vitilogo are much easier to depict in a minidoll then to sensitively depict someone afflicted with austism, for example.
When your percentages in a poll are THAT high, you are clearly feeding your own narrative and/or asking the wrong questions. This begs for some responsible scrutiny on everyone’s part.
Firstly, “The LEGO Group wants children across the globe to experience the entire Friends Universe as relatable and representative of the real world, both when it comes to products and content.” Aside from this being an out-of-proportion plastic toy, what exactly makes the Friends Universe “relatable and representative of the real world”? All that can be gleaned from Heartlake is that it has more schools than residences and more livestock than residents (TLG should also consider Heartlake Dentistry and Diabetes Center to counter all the stores selling sweets and confections.) If “real world” is going to be used, then REAL world should be represented. How about simple mundane retailers like a liquor store, tire shop, or (dare I even say) a gun dealer? Why not a biker bar, lingerie outlet, or a tribal casino? How about the reality of what’s already in Heartlake like a small incinerator in back of the veterinary clinic where they put-down pets, maybe a schoolyard fight at the high school “after school, by the bike racks”, or the coup de gras of a garbage strewn alley behind the Heartlake Mall where all the junkies OD every fifth and twentieth of the month after getting their pension from serving in the army and being thrown out of the VA for PTSD. The real world isn’t all that pleasant nor is it all that bad but glossing over reality in favor of happy pastel colors will not add to coping and navigation abilities. So, claiming that the “Friends Universe (is) relatable and representative of the real world” is nothing short of nonsense. TLG would do well to not say “real world” when dealing with a plastic toy designed to encourage imagination.
Secondly, while on the subject of “real world”, here are a few real-world percentages: vitiligo occurs in less than 1% of the population, Down Syndrome is at a tenth of a percent, and of course handicapped dogs are around ABSOLUTE ZERO in humans. This is pulling a disorder out of a hat rather than anything called equal representation in products and content, which begs the question, “Is the show going to exist for the sole purpose of explaining what disorder is represented as a participation trophy for any child exhibiting the “disease of the week”?” What’s next in the Heartlake line-up? Gluten-free Gail, Anorexic Amy, Tourette’s Timmy, My-feelings-are-hurt-because-someone-used-the-wrong-pronoun-in-a-conversation-where-I-wasn’t-there-to-be-offended-but-compelled-them-to-use-third person-pronouns-prior Pat? What constitutes real world conditions when disorders and disabilities represented barely amount to one percent? That’s simply a statement of awareness; yup, there they are. And? Makes me wonder how many letters of appreciation TLG received back in 1978 thanking them for the minifig and its yellow awesomeness from those with jaundice for finally providing a toy that represents them. This isn’t inclusivity, this is presuming exclusion for a lack of mentioning. Will TLG start taking requests now as EVERYONE will be somehow underrepresented? That sounds profitable.
And finally, I have to ask does TLG feel that the imagination of children incapable of extension. As someone who has praised the open universe LEGO has instilled since day one, I have to wonder how little TLG thinks of the younger generations. LEGO has always been elemental, as in a basic foundation FROM WHICH all imaginations can literally and figuratively build upon. Here are your bricks, here’s an instruction booklet if you want, aaaand GO! But LEGO will now dictate your imagination for you? They’ll even call it “real world” and “relatable and representative” so that they can lull compliance to a set narrative implying that if you do not follow then you are against equal representation (which is how I will be demonized for this post. Thank you in advance.) Basic childhood development will show far superior to anything TLG scripts into their TV show, the likely outcome will be a complete rejection of this trainwreck as EVERY child imparts their own imagination in place of any dictated narrative. This will be a complete waste. TLG should stick to the LEGO City model that police and fire fighters sell the best because The City is either being robbed or on fire OR both. Let the children play, they’ll figure out who they are and who they should care about IN THE PROCESS. That is what play is unquestionably all about.
I may be an old man yelling at clouds, but I can smell a deuce as sure as that cloud is white and puffy (and reeling from my admonition.) I’ve groaned over past themes from LEGO (looking at you, Galidor) but I really hope this entire endeavor fails for LEGO’s sake to escape being identified as a cause looking for an effect. I cannot see this as anything but ham-fisted pandering that simple scrutiny shows to be sadly unsound, poorly thought out, and divisively invalid (in addition to being dubiously conceived through clearly biased means.)
I just wish they would stop making these half sets with such little unique substance. They keep dumbing down their main sets so they can concentrate on less unique series. More LEGO creations and less of this Friends, Potter, and Star crap. I loved the monster hunter sets so much that it got me back into Lego after years of thinking I had left it behind in my childhood. Now I check this blog every single day because I found the joy again. I will say the Friends sets are making me fall back out of love.
Wow, so much virtual ink spilled against representation! I could waste my time with a detailed rebuttal, but I suspect this audience is not receptive. Here’s how I feel:
https://frinkiac.com/meme/S05E20/290489.jpg?b64lines=IEFNIEkgU08gT1VUIE9GIFRPVUNIPyBOTy4KIElUJ1MgVEhFIENISUxEUkVOIEFORCBUSEUKIExFR08gR1JPVVAgV0hPIEFSRSBXUk9ORy4=
No one complains when LEGO makes a character of a random Star Wars figure who appeared on-screen for 0.5 seconds in the background, but apparently LEGO making a handicapped minidoll is a bridge too far. Stop whining about a theme you weren’t going to buy anyway.
What a wonderful step toward integrating diversity and inclusion values into daily home life. Bravo!
TLG isn’t promoting those SW sets based on a poll stating 91% of the parents want more Kit Fisto representation. Those SW characters that show up for 0.5 seconds in the background are not representing anyone buying the sets in this galaxy. The children the SW sets are aimed for won’t feel that the lack of a Gonk droid makes them marginalized and underrepresented. And if having that one set with that one character where TLG had to make that one mold with that one printing isn’t the definition of cost absurdity, then Mr. Mills above is the reincarnation of Daniel Webster. Your example is unsound, invalid, and unreasonable.
This is not a bridge too far on my part, but rather TLGs. It’s a business decision based on faulty metrics, rudderless direction, and unsustainable economics. All of which are driven by some vain attempt to please everyone no matter who is left in the wake. Why do you feel that pandering is a feasible option, or one that is necessary to improve sales? Is EVERY handicap going to be equally represented as a minidoll? And most importantly, why do you not question my simple points that question TLG but instead flippantly cast my observations aside in favor of your own faulty metric that I won’t be buying the sets in order to attempt insult by a claim of whining?
I have come to the table here and would like to talk, but I do question your premise. Is your argument based solely on the notion that inclusion is good? Because if you had read what I said, you would see that I’m the one actually arguing for the inclusion of EVERYONE. I just see it as absurd and impossible too, which begs to ask why bother. Is your argument based instead on TLG can do no wrong and you are just reporting the news/only following orders? Seems counterproductive to any future validity. You’ve reported the statement, analyzing it would go far to separate any propagandist ideology if any is present. Or is your argument based on the fact that the only person that replies in length is Purple Dave and you are flummoxed as to how to debate given that you have never had to do it before and do not grasp the logic bomb dropped on you? It’s there for dissection, please have at it. I am open for discussion. You have made a claim by this article, I have countered it in a logical approach, you rebutted with snark, and I have pointed out the failure of your example, the burden of convincing me is now on you if you would please stay on topic by attacking my argument and not me by my simple skepticism of motive.
If it’s not worth the conversation, then why bother with the comments section? Seems like a meaty topic worth the effort if you’re in (Mr. Mills is invited too if he is capable of adding anything more substantial than a meme.) I’m not afraid to be wrong here, but I will need solid convincing.
It’s funny and sad to read post from adult men complaining about sets aimed mostly at young girls. As a white European male I used to assume that yellow minifigs are perfectly inclusive for everyone, no matter the ethnicity. But then I learned that the world is not only white European, and when you are from India, Africa or South Asia then its kind of hard to see yourself in yellow figs. And these regions have a looot more children right now than white Europe. That said- I never imagined myself as a minifig, I always liked to build stuff from lego and to this day I don’t have any emotional attachment to minifigs, I prefer lego for brick building than staring at the figs. But I can understand that other might want to see themselves in those figs faces. So yeah, good move from lego, and all you naysayers should really talk to a specialist about your insecurities. Also- that handicapped dog being named ‘animal cruelty’ is just plain absurd. Dogs get those wheelchairs from compassion- they have accidents and sometimes they are even born this way- I had a cat like that when I was a kid. But back then nobody cared about handicapped animals so this kitten was euthanized. And that’s animal cruelty, not giving an animal another chance at freedom.
“I never imagined myself as a minifig, I always liked to build stuff from lego and to this day I don’t have any emotional attachment to minifigs, I prefer lego for brick building than staring at the figs.” Yup, pretty much the same sentiment from most in the hobby, myself included. But that is what TLG is imparting here by claiming equal representation. They are filling a gap that does not exist, and they are doing it under the pretense that it is what the parents and children want because they have a poll with dubious results that say so. “But I can understand that other might want to see themselves in those figs faces.” Yup, same here, in fact it is a vital element of development through roleplay. World building and story require an empathetical approach no matter how diverse or unlike a character is, projection of self is that foundation. And all children, boys and girls, are perfectly equipped for that already with curiosity and question. The conclusion is that children will naturally dismiss the narrative created by TLG and impart their own instinctive imagination; this must raise the question of why bother with it then and what use will there be for the show.
This isn’t “complaining about the sets”, it’s questioning the motives when it makes no sense economically to fulfill the promise; this isn’t “naysaying”, this is holding TLG to their claim of equal and real world representation; and if by “insecurities” you mean an ability to logically question a company looking to profit from talking points every parent should already be participating in discussions with their children instead of effortlessly consuming the product and show messages that can never fully encapsulate their target purchaser and audience, then I am 100% guilty as charged. As for “talk(ing) to a specialist”, I have to wonder if I can now be equally represented as a Friends minidoll given my clear dismissal of reality due to my mental disorder of circumspection and skepticism.
Oh boo hoo, the mini dolls show more kinds of people from the real world, the sky is falling. Stop sealioning and acting like this is a “go woke go broke” thing.
Read it again, Vector. I’m not condemning representing “more kinds of people from the real world”, I’m holding TLG to show ALL kinds of people from the real world if they’re going to claim that. Inclusivity is for all, not some; that’s what it means, and this isn’t Animal Farm. Their poll said, “(the children researched) care about everyone being treated equally.” The operative word there is “everyone”. Doing that would be unfeasible and impossible, that is what made the generic yellow fig work fine. Adding different skin tones added to the play, but it was still very generic by design. Now they’re claiming that this new step is more real and representative, that is clearly a slippery slope because it clearly is not true.
“Go woke go broke” as you put it actually applies while only being one part of my argument, but it lends to motivation. This is not aimed at the children, they don’t have the money; it’s the parents that are the target. It is not profitable for TLG to trudge along with ubiquitous, ambiguous, generic figures that worked brilliantly and were accepted universally by rejecting specificity; however, it is very profitable to ride a wave of social collectivism. The most profitable toy company in the world is not free from my simple scrutiny of “follow the money”. It would be better for TLG to have just added these minidolls without any fanfare, we would have noticed and seen it as a curiosity for the most part and progress of a sort in the least. The show will exist only as advertisement (hard to believe given that it’s produced by a toy company moving product. Look up the history of He-Man.) To say otherwise is to go back for seconds of “special” Kool-Aid.
As to your claim of sealioning, I am clearly not the one ignorant of the subject but rather the one who has presented common-sense scrutiny and not blindly follow propagandist corporate shill-ery. I am not ignoring or sidestepping any evidence because none has been presented other than the percentages that any statistician SHOULD question on general principle alone. And there is nothing unrelated or tangential about my questions, they are direct and on point (ignored as well.) I’m offering an opposing view and backing it up with logic, that is all.
Why are people upset about this? Grow up. The sets are clearly not targeted towards you if something like this even remotely upsets you. Swear some people act younger than the age the sets are appealing to.
“Why are people upset about this?” Ugh, I don’t think there’s enough space on the interwebs to spell it all out AGAIN, but it is all there up above if you care to actually comprehend what was written in a second attempt. “Grow up.” If you are implying that scrutiny, skepticism, and critical thought is childish, then I guess it’s never too late to have a happy childhood. Cheers! (Hope I get it right this time. Yes, I promise to avoid that whole gasoline and tennis balls thing on the 4th of July. mmmaybe.) “The sets are clearly not targeted towards you if something like this even remotely upsets you.” Incorrect, and disturbingly ignorant. We are the ones buying the sets, it’s in TLG’s best interest to appeal to everyone. Might even be considered inclusive in that respect. (Hypocrisy is awkward, that’s why pandering is not normally recommended as a long-term business model.) And yet again, the sets are not what is upsetting. “Swear some people act younger than the age the sets are appealing to.” Yes. Yes, they do. But luckily these sets and the TV show will offer a minidoll those people can relate to. Chaz: He’s a lively young lad who sadly has an aversion to reading and is susceptible to gullibility; but when he finds his keyboard, he can be the loudest voice in the echo chamber. Wacky catchphrase: Mmmm, Kool-Aid.
Stay on topic people. Cliff’s Notes version here, follow the bouncing ball: I want inclusion. Inclusion means everyone. At the risk of sounding redundant, I want ALL inclusion. I want this because TLG said they will give me this with these sets because of a super-duper percentage of people polled want it too. Go team! But I have to say that is an amazingly high percentage and I have some concerns regarding these claims given their abnormally high results, the motivationally dubious timing, and the awkwardly zealous promotion thereof. I then wondered why Mr. Malloy chose to not ask any questions to TLG regarding these obvious concerns and just published the article without any analysis. I asked those questions for him (in case they slipped his mind, you’re welcome) with validity, soundness, and logic. Aphasia then swept through the thread, who knew it was contagious? And here we are! Long read, I know. But if staying on topic isn’t possible, then it would be best to follow Mr. Malloy’s example of simply ignoring it all in the hopes that I will eventually go away thinking to myself that TBB is simply misdirecting TLG’s virtue signaling profiting off consumers clearly present and willing to drink the Kool-Aid. And the end result inevitably being TBB will continue their internal thread blacklisting me as “Not of the body of Landru!”
But if nothing here concerns you and the questions I asked feel irrelevant, enjoy the sets and soak in the show. As I stated WAY up above, TLG would have been better off not making the claims of “real world” and “relatable and representative” along with statistically impossible polls and just thrown the minidolls in as a curiosity or simply not at all if the promise can’t be delivered. If anyone agrees, great; if anyone doesn’t, great too. But stay on topic if you care to add anything.
Mr. Rowntree,
Your particular brand of gaslighting and faux concern for rigorous debate while simultaneously choosing absurd versions of the arguments you want to attack is as pernicious as it is toxic. Just to jump in on a few points:
“Firstly, ‘The LEGO Group wants children across the globe to experience the entire Friends Universe as relatable and representative of the real world, both when it comes to products and content.’ … If ‘real world’ is going to be used, then REAL world should be represented.”
The self-evident point that you’re choosing to ignore here is that LEGO is trying to create a *positive* world in which for kids to build. The point of this whole exercise is for them to create a world in which kids can see examples of characters who have the kinds of attributes, quirks, and/or challenges that they might see in themselves, their siblings, their family, and/or their friends that might otherwise be a source of self-doubt, scorn, or ridicule and yet to see these characters doing fun things and having fun interactions. The “relatable” aspect is that kids be able to relate to these attributes in the characters, and the “positive” aspect is that the characters not be held back by these particular traits, but rather that they can all celebrate diversity.
“Secondly, while on the subject of “real world”, here are a few real-world percentages:”
The point here is not to represent every possible condition or trait, but to pick some that are representative, relatable, and depictable in brick, without making the perfect the enemy of the good. Not having every possible condition depicted is not a reason not to depict some now, and maybe more and more of them over time.
“And finally, I have to ask does TLG feel that the imagination of children incapable of extension. … But LEGO will now dictate your imagination for you? They’ll even call it ‘real world’ and ‘relatable and representative’ so that they can lull compliance to a set narrative implying that if you do not follow then you are against equal representation (which is how I will be demonized for this post. Thank you in advance.)”
No one is trying to lull anyone into anything. LEGO is reacting to the feedback they have gotten from a core fan base that they don’t always relate to the characters by giving them more relatable characters. Your pre-emptive assumption that you’ll be demonized does not inoculate you or your post against the well-earned approbation of other readers of the site who don’t agree with your absolutist pronouncement that unless LEGO do everything your way, they shouldn’t do anything. Disagreeing with you and refuting your arguments is not out-of-hand demonization; it is justified pushback against toxic ideas and discourse. The fact that *you personally* never felt a lack of representation in the toys that you built with does not change the fact that some kids do feel that. The fact that *you personally* see no need for your toys to be more relatable does not change the fact that some kids do feel that. So you can try to substitute your values and judgement for everyone else’s, or you can accept the fact that LEGO is doing what they feel is right for a core group of fans and customers. Simple as that.
“I may be an old man yelling at clouds,”
That seems like a distinct possibility. If you can recognize it in yourself, why not try getting a breath of fresh air, learning about what others are trying to do, and embracing the program of making the world more inclusive instead of just yelling at those clouds?
“…but I can smell a deuce as sure as that cloud is white and puffy (and reeling from my admonition.)”
What you’re smelling might be another reason to open a window, as the stench might be coming from inside the house. And news for you: Those clouds don’t react to whatever you have to say.
“…but I really hope this entire endeavor fails for LEGO’s sake to escape being identified as a cause looking for an effect. I cannot see this as anything but ham-fisted pandering that simple scrutiny shows to be sadly unsound, poorly thought out, and divisively invalid (in addition to being dubiously conceived through clearly biased means.)”
So let me get this straight: You’re admitting that you hope that LEGO’s program of making their products more inclusive fails. Why? You’re saying that wanting a toy line to be seen by the kids who build with it as representative of them and relatable to them is “biased”? If so, I’d argue that you’re the one who’s biased. LEGO not only has every right to update their product offerings over time, but a duty to their own bottom line to update the products to make them more palatable and desirable to the consumer.
“It’s a business decision based on faulty metrics, rudderless direction, and unsustainable economics. All of which are driven by some vain attempt to please everyone no matter who is left in the wake. Why do you feel that pandering is a feasible option, or one that is necessary to improve sales?”
So you alone know what metrics are sound? You have access to all of TLG’s internal financial data, sales numbers, focus groups, and market analysis? Because if not, then you have no basis on which to claim whether their metrics are sound or unsound. I’m not sure where your characterization of “vain” comes from, but I will say that what you’re calling “pandering” is what most people in the toy industry would call “targeting a product”, which is something that every successful toy company (and, I would argue, just about every successful company in any field) does routinely. The fact that the particular audience they’re targeting isn’t you is no reason to throw a tantrum.
“If it’s not worth the conversation, then why bother with the comments section? … I’m not afraid to be wrong here, but I will need solid convincing.”
People are happy with a conversation, but real conversation requires not just attacking straw-man arguments, what-about-ism, pettyfogging, and other similar gaslighting tactics. You’re obviously not afraid to be wrong, as you’ve made pretty clear over the course of several posts. And I hate to break it to you, but not one has the responsibility to convince you of anything. But whether you’re convinced of the value of getting along with other members of society, whether in person or online, those of us who do understand that value with thank you not to claim that working toward diversity and inclusion is some kind of “vain” effort or “bias”. When you say that, you’re showing your own bias.
Firstly Mr. sedmison, I want to thank you for actually giving some critical thought to what I said, it was refreshing to see a reply that didn’t simply throw shade at the person offering an opposing view instead of the view itself (except for Trish’s reply, but she has no option to reply differently given her conflict of interest otherwise.) However, your opening statement could have been shortened to “I disagree, here’s why.” instead of that long winded bombast to prove you own a thesaurus.
Your first disagreement explains TLG is encouraging the celebration of diversity. My position is that LEGO has never discouraged it and has been the exemplar ever since the introduction of the minifig and the intent behind it being yellow. More flesh tones broadened that premise while remaining generalized. The generic allows for imagination and projection as it always has. Roleplay is integral in forming those connections early on in development. The specificity imposed here negates that need to form those pathways and resultantly will fail to include every aspect, trait, and characteristic by sheer logistical volume. Everyone needs to learn on their own that everyone is different, being told that can never substitute that realization of self among other selfs (not a word, but you understand.) As for the having fun in spite of the self-doubt, scorn, and ridicule, I have to emphasize the importance of what I said above regarding that self-awareness along with the vital, yet disturbingly lacking, necessity of learning independence. They need to do that on their own and with their family and friends, toys and TV shows will carry the same inanimate value as all the superhero movies.
Your second disagreement (as well as the later one covering metrics) relies on “some kids feel that” and that TLG is covering that core group based on feedback. This is true. And it is as simple as that. But you said it best with “targeting a product.” Absolutely without doubt there is the ulterior motive of sales (and seriously good for them, that’s their job.) And the metrics prove it by nothing lower than 73% and as high as 97%. You’re right, I don’t have access to anything about these polls (there was a level of expectation on my part that the managing editor would provide that information as a level of due diligence. My bad.), but unrealistic results make me question the questions as having a biased tilt (more on bias later.) One: if the results are this high, how was it that TLG has been missing this egregious discrepancy for all these years and why is it now important? Two: who, how many, and what demographics were polled? And three: what were the questions? The first question covers my level of skepticism as to the timing given the sudden change in social climate over the past six or so years (progress for progress’ sake won’t leave anything that lasts), the second covers the significant metrics and their accountable biases, and the third leaves the margin of error wide open (for instance: do you feel that there are enough toys that represent you or do you wish you didn’t ever have to eat cauliflower again? Extreme given that there ain’t enough cheese sauce to make cauliflower taste good, but aside from that every poll has a foundational bias and a Heisenberg-ian fault unwittingly built into it.) Presenting poll numbers has no value if the poll is not completely disclosed or all-encompassing because there is always another one showing the opposite results. Fox News and CNN prove this daily.
But more importantly is the premise. No one would complain that diversity and inclusivity is bad; however, there are some self-evident logistical issues with implementing this in toy form. Namely, naming them without naming everyone. Again, childhood development relies on identifying self among selfs. Asking that from a toy and a TV show is lazy on the parent’s part and presumptuous of TLG. Having worked with thousands of children and college students over the years, I have seen where this assumption that schools, surrogate screens, and the others (psychiatrists, psychologists, clinicians, counsellors, peers, etc.) will cover that base, feeds the irresponsibility. And the meds, DON’T get me started on the meds. Therefore, “targeting a product” is a swift, consumable fix for the purchaser. That is the parent, not the child. Whether or not children find this “relatable and representative of the real world” is far less important than whether or not the parents buy it.
And your third disagreement concerning everything else. Well, pettifogging? I don’t find it petty, and I’m not proclaiming any higher calling of “for the children”; but that implies a level of dishonesty or something unethical to my arguments. I have explained this in far too many words to be the platform TLG has based this product line on. It is pandering, it is virtue signaling, and the only redeeming value is that they will make money from it. Strawman? Hmm, going to have to call that one a swing and a miss. None of my arguments are a misdirection, the replies to them sure have been (this one too to an extent, but I’ll let it slide.) Gaslighting? That one’s a reach. I would argue that not only TLG is keen on that here, but mainly TBB with this brazen manipulation in lock step. What makes it propaganda is the lack of due diligence, and I find it worse. Smelly house? Yeah, I’ll concede that especially with the dog. Cloud yelling? Guilty. Biased? Well, this one’s a sticky widget. Do you mean bias like a poll that runs favor at 97%? Because that statistic doesn’t seem to be without. Or do you mean bias like a prejudice against a group or thing in an unfair way? Because this is where many of the other commenters repeatedly failed in actually comprehending what I wrote. Or do you mean bias like this, “…the well-earned approbation of other readers of the site who don’t agree with your absolutist pronouncement…”? Because that sounds a lot like favoritism and partiality to me.
And the final disagreement I’ll address in your statement is this: “So let me get this straight: You’re admitting that you hope that LEGO’s program of making their products more inclusive fails. Why? You’re saying that wanting a toy line to be seen by the kids who build with it as representative of them and relatable to them is “biased”? If so, I’d argue that you’re the one who’s biased. LEGO not only has every right to update their product offerings over time, but a duty to their own bottom line to update the products to make them more palatable and desirable to the consumer.” The failure to comprehend what I was saying that prompted this is just sad. I’d tell you to read what I wrote again, but I really don’t want you to at this point. Calling any of my arguments strawman when you wrote this is hypocrisy. The only redeeming value here is like the one above regarding “the bottom line” in that it is the motive, and it is a good motive. I don’t need anything to pretty it up or justify it or make it palatable and desirable, and I certainly don’t need it disguised as anything it isn’t or cannot be. I have more faith in the consumers to just buy it because they want it. This isn’t charity, the proceeds go nowhere other than “the bottom line”, and the children will survive with or without a minidoll that they can or can’t relate to. TLG simply needs to produce, we will consume. There doesn’t need to be fanfare and self-gratifying announcements, just tell us when they hit the shelves. And no one needs a toy, a TV show, or the most profitable toy company to tell parents how to parent or children how to children. I want these minidolls to exist, I also see the promise of inclusivity incomplete. I want LEGO to just be LEGO. The trends will come and go, the simple will always survive the complicated, and no one will care about these minidolls as anything other than a curiosity that happened like Jack Stone. As they should be.
“The generic allows for imagination and projection as it always has. Roleplay is integral in forming those connections early on in development. The specificity imposed here negates that need to form those pathways and resultantly will fail to include every aspect, trait, and characteristic by sheer logistical volume.”
Again, you’re making the argument that the perfect should be the enemy of the good. Having incrementally more inclusion is a benefit, even if it is not practical to cover every possible combination of trait and characteristic. Progress comes by increments when it comes at all.
“Everyone needs to learn on their own that everyone is different, being told that can never substitute that realization of self among other selfs (not a word, but you understand.) As for the having fun in spite of the self-doubt, scorn, and ridicule, I have to emphasize the importance of what I said above regarding that self-awareness along with the vital, yet disturbingly lacking, necessity of learning independence. They need to do that on their own and with their family and friends, toys and TV shows will carry the same inanimate value as all the superhero movies.”
Who made you the ultimate authority on how kids learn or need to learn? Some kids learn by having a pattern explained or shown to them and then applying it to specific examples. Others learn by experimenting and positing lots of different ideas and then playing them off of each other until they arrive at patterns or realizations. Others learn by seeing examples of a pattern, and then learning to extrapolate from the examples to the pattern. Putting some representative and relatable characters in front of kids is intended here to help them to see how the stories being built apply to them (or people they know), and to emphasize that what makes people different is not a reason to shun them but rather just part of what makes each of us who we are. Independence *is* one thing that kids need to learn, and so each are connection, community, inclusiveness, acceptance of others, empathy, extrapolation, and a lot of other values that can be communicated by having them form stories with diverse characters (whether playing by themselves or playing in the company of friends or family members).
“There was a level of expectation on my part that the managing editor would provide that information as a level of due diligence.”
The Brothers Brick does not work for LEGO and is not a part of The LEGO Group of companies. How would TBB’s managing editor have any of LEGO’s internal marketing data, financial data, product data, customer data, focus group research, or anything else? Throwing shade at TBB doesn’t advance your case here. You were making assertions that this product move on LEGO’s part was a bad one *for them* and that it was based on “faulty metrics, rudderless direction, and unsustainable economics”. Neither of us have access to whatever metrics, direction, and economics are driving the product decision here, so all we can do is to work from our best understanding of the global economic climate and our own best guesses as to what might work within it. My point is that making a toy line better appeal to the intended market for it seems like a reasonable approach, and in reading through your response above, it seems as though you agree with that point.
“No one would complain that diversity and inclusivity is bad; however, there are some self-evident logistical issues with implementing this in toy form. Namely, naming them without naming everyone. Again, childhood development relies on identifying self among selfs. Asking that from a toy and a TV show is lazy on the parent’s part and presumptuous of TLG. Having worked with thousands of children and college students over the years, I have seen where this assumption that schools, surrogate screens, and the others (psychiatrists, psychologists, clinicians, counsellors, peers, etc.) will cover that base, feeds the irresponsibility. And the meds, DON’T get me started on the meds. Therefore, ‘targeting a product’ is a swift, consumable fix for the purchaser. That is the parent, not the child. Whether or not children find this “relatable and representative of the real world” is far less important than whether or not the parents buy it.”
Yes, the purchaser of a child’s toy is typically the parent rather than the child, but you’re saying that when the parent puts a more inclusive toy in front of her/his child, that that is a bad thing? Or that that is *only* ever done to assuage the parent’s guilt or inadequacy? That is the height of cynicism.
Additionally, your what-about-ism of psychiatrists notwithstanding, LEGO is not setting out to be a one-stop-shop for curing all of what ails every child and every consumer. They can only focus on what they control, and what they control is the line of toys that they sell. In this case, they’re trying to make that toy line more inclusive. If you yourself can agree that no one would complain that diversity and inclusivity is bad, then why come out so strongly against it just because this one step does not in a single stroke cure all of society’s problems? By that logic, no one should ever get out of bed in the morning, because no one of us can do it all alone or in one effort. That is the height of pessimism.
“…unrealistic results make me question the questions as having a biased tilt”
Why does it matter what questions LEGO asked to arrive at their decision to launch this product line? This is where I pointed out earlier that it strikes me as pettyfogging: You’re quibbling over minutia in order to draw the debate away from the real substance. The substance here is that LEGO is addressing what has been a significant, structural bias in how its toys have been developed marketed, going back to the beginning of the LEGO system, and trying to address it. This is just another step in a long journey on their part.
“It is pandering, it is virtue signaling, and the only redeeming value is that they will make money from it.”
And here is where we get to the heart of the matter. The general complaint about “virtue signaling” from companies is that they do it to gain positive sentiment, but don’t actually believe in the virtue they’re espousing and/or don’t follow up to create real change. If I thought that this were all LEGO did, I would be the first to call it out. However, I have seen them put real efforts into making everything they do more thoughtful, more intentional, more impactful, and more equitable, from the way that they hire, to the way that they design toys, to the way that they market their toys, to the way that they do market research, to the way that they do outreach to fan communities, to the way that they use their global communications platforms. So, if your complaint with “virtual signaling” as a general matter is that it often doesn’t go far enough, I will shake your hand and agree with you on that point, but as to whether that applies here, I don’t think that it does, *and moreover* the only way to see whether that is true will be to follow their words and actions going forward, and to evaluate over time. Nevertheless, a company’s signaling to the world that it believes in a value, virtue, or set of values and virtues, *is a good*. It is not sufficient relative to failing to live up to those values and virtues, to be sure, but it puts the stake in the ground that the company cares about those things, and it invites consumers and critics to hold them to account to those values and virtues.
Moreover, even if it really came down to nothing more than an attempt to sell more of this product line, that’s not “pandering” any more than is true of any company trying to sell any product or line of products. You keep throwing that around as though it’s a bad thing. LEGO is trying to be successful and profitable, and that in and of itself is no sin. Rather, that fact *in conjunction with their stated intent to be a force for inclusion and positivity* is about the best that can be hoped for from any company. When a company can do good in the world and be rewarded for doing so, that’s a win-win; why are you so against it?
“Progress for progress’ sake won’t leave anything that lasts”
You’re dead wrong. Fighting for progress is the *only* thing that has *ever* built anything that lasted. The fact that not every action on the road to progress has its immediate intended effect, or the fact that not every intermediate gain turns out to last for eternity, each just show that history does not follow a single, predictable, linear path, and that gains have to be defended lest they be lost. The way to judge progress through history is to look far enough back to see where a given person, group, or issue stood far enough back in the past to compare with the present, and to evaluate what gains the person, group, or issue has made over that time. Arguing that attempting to make progress is wasted effort is just more cynicism.
“Your opening statement could have been shortened to ‘I disagree, here’s why.'”
As far as I can tell, your entire argument over this whole thread could have been shortened to “I don’t like this product line” or “This doesn’t speak to me personally” or “Progress is futile and not worth trying for”.
“…instead of that long winded bombast to prove you own a thesaurus”
Please don’t project onto me some desire to impress you or anyone; I chose my words carefully and deliberately for the denotations and connotations that I wanted. I called you out for pettyfogging because your quibbling about statistics and survey results draws attention to irrelevant minutia and away from substance. I called you out for what-about-ism because your having conjured a litany of things that LEGO *isn’t* building and then having criticized how they aren’t representing the negative aspects of society isn’t relevant given their project or intent as a company. So, one possibility is that those were well-reasoned core arguments on your part, and that their now-obvious irrelevance to the debate will have you agreeing that your position needs a rethink or at least a more cogent restatement. Another possibility is that they were just smokescreens that you put up to give yourself the cover to throw yourself in the way of progress, to stand in the way of kids’ being able to have toys that better reflect what they see in themselves and those around them, in which case you are just *vice*-signaling. If you’re just here to argue *against* social process, social equality, and social justice (all the while claiming that no one would ever argue against such things), then you’re just acting as a troll, and that is what I referred to as pernicious, because this disingenuous behavior hides in plain side and has a corrosive influence on social discourse. If all you have to offer is cynicism and pessimism, that is a toxic combination that isn’t helping anyone, and you shouldn’t be surprised when it gets an unwelcome reception from people. That’s not demonization; it’s well-earned scorn for an untenable position.
Cheers,
Sean
“Again, you’re making the argument that the perfect should be the enemy of the good. Having incrementally more inclusion is a benefit, even if it is not practical to cover every possible combination of trait and characteristic. Progress comes by increments when it comes at all.”
Perfection is always the goal; the only problem is that it is impossible to achieve. That is neither good nor bad, it just is. I’m not saying that it is one way or the other, I’m saying that it is a severely lofty proposition to run up any flagpole to see who salutes. And in business, that can prove lethal. You can’t fault the destination, only the direction to get there. The path TLG is taking here is an unachievable goal. They can work in every inclusivity and diversity in the pursuit of being a perfectly encapsulating product, but the time I see involved is incomprehensibly long; therefore, incremental progress is unsustainable given the model. Additionally, the target audience still exists in minority numbers. The costs involved to accommodate that small percentage cannot justify the path no matter how noble the cause. Cost and time are indirectly proportional to profit.
“Who made you the ultimate authority on how kids learn or need to learn? Some kids learn by having a pattern explained or shown to them and then applying it to specific examples. Others learn by experimenting and positing lots of different ideas and then playing them off of each other until they arrive at patterns or realizations. Others learn by seeing examples of a pattern, and then learning to extrapolate from the examples to the pattern. Putting some representative and relatable characters in front of kids is intended here to help them to see how the stories being built apply to them (or people they know), and to emphasize that what makes people different is not a reason to shun them but rather just part of what makes each of us who we are. Independence *is* one thing that kids need to learn, and so each are connection, community, inclusiveness, acceptance of others, empathy, extrapolation, and a lot of other values that can be communicated by having them form stories with diverse characters (whether playing by themselves or playing in the company of friends or family members).”
I’m not the ultimate authority nor would I claim to be. Anyone calling themself an expert should be greeted with a fair amount of skepticism. Everything here is not in dispute, but this does point out that every child learns differently, and why I see the promise that inclusivity carries with it will not accommodate the actual numbers as I’ve explained above. Relatable and representative is the constant phrase that I cannot see as honest or feasible with the disconnect inherent between TLG, the parent buying the product, and the child targeted. Just as I am not the ultimate authority on how kids learn or need to learn, neither is TLG.
“The Brothers Brick does not work for LEGO and is not a part of The LEGO Group of companies. How would TBB’s managing editor have any of LEGO’s internal marketing data, financial data, product data, customer data, focus group research, or anything else? Throwing shade at TBB doesn’t advance your case here. You were making assertions that this product move on LEGO’s part was a bad one *for them* and that it was based on “faulty metrics, rudderless direction, and unsustainable economics”. Neither of us have access to whatever metrics, direction, and economics are driving the product decision here, so all we can do is to work from our best understanding of the global economic climate and our own best guesses as to what might work within it. My point is that making a toy line better appeal to the intended market for it seems like a reasonable approach, and in reading through your response above, it seems as though you agree with that point.”
To the first part regarding TBB, they have a far easier means to ask questions than the public; a level of impartiality is expected as a source to avoid any perceptions of dishonesty or disregard. The polls are at the heart of this matter as I’ve explained in detail before. A 97% is a throw away, the other stats are equally implausible, and to post it without consideration says there’s not only something rotten in the state of Denmark but also here too. Mr. Malloy reported the story, and while I know that Walter Cronkite is dead, I would think that any news source would want to offer a level of scrutiny when a press release has incredulous numbers. Maybe Mr. Beecraft should consider an op-ed section here to get a true pulse of the blog and the community represented. To the latter part of reasonable marketing, I agree about the destination, not the direction to get there. The destination is profit. The direction is to appeal to small numbers with the variety of inclusively conscious minidolls. But as I explained further up, examples regarding any type of disorder, disability, or divergence are always defined as different from the majority. The contradiction of maximizing the profits by appealing to a minimum amount of people is a flawed path to that destination.
“Yes, the purchaser of a child’s toy is typically the parent rather than the child, but you’re saying that when the parent puts a more inclusive toy in front of her/his child, that that is a bad thing? Or that that is *only* ever done to assuage the parent’s guilt or inadequacy? That is the height of cynicism.”
Actually, I said it was lazy parenting and presumptuous of TLG that was bad, not putting a more inclusive toy in front of a child (I’m not sure how you got that. My intent there was to imply that unloading all that responsibility onto a toy was lazy and presumptuous. Apologies if I wasn’t clear.) Participation in child development should not be as easy as buying a toy or turning on the TV. I will concede the minidolls as an incomplete tool, but the show cannot in any healthy way take the place of the effort to develop a child. As to parent’s guilt and inadequacy, it would be easy to see that as a valid reason for many of the purchases. I would also include the purchase made solely as a statement of recognition to being a part of a collective conscience (that may be cynicism, but that cynicism is well earned through healthy doses of reality.) But I think it’ll be a very minor portion of the purchases. I think the bigger truth is that parents will buy these without any knowledge, forethought, or care about the inclusive minidoll inside. And my cynicism tells me that TLG already knows this.
“Additionally, your what-about-ism of psychiatrists notwithstanding, LEGO is not setting out to be a one-stop-shop for curing all of what ails every child and every consumer. They can only focus on what they control, and what they control is the line of toys that they sell. In this case, they’re trying to make that toy line more inclusive. If you yourself can agree that no one would complain that diversity and inclusivity is bad, then why come out so strongly against it just because this one step does not in a single stroke cure all of society’s problems? By that logic, no one should ever get out of bed in the morning, because no one of us can do it all alone or in one effort. That is the height of pessimism.”
This is incorrect. My argument was focused on the usage of “relatable and representative of the real world.” The real world according to TLG does not comply with reality and the Friends Universe cannot fulfill that promise. I think this statement needs reassessment.
“Why does it matter what questions LEGO asked to arrive at their decision to launch this product line? This is where I pointed out earlier that it strikes me as pettyfogging: You’re quibbling over minutia in order to draw the debate away from the real substance. The substance here is that LEGO is addressing what has been a significant, structural bias in how its toys have been developed marketed, going back to the beginning of the LEGO system, and trying to address it. This is just another step in a long journey on their part.”
It matters because TLG told us it matters. They didn’t say that they simply polled people, they stated the results which are statistically dubious. The questions they asked matter because my example of cauliflower shows the fallacy of polls. The polls dictated the action to move forward on the project, I would hope that mere curiosity would show the relevance of that which determined their business decision. How is it petty for me but vital for them when it is leading them to address their significant structural bias? That is not minutia to them seeing the potential costs involved. I would want to know what prompted this shift. That’s not drawing the debate away, that’s peeling back the veneer to see why.
“And here is where we get to the heart of the matter. The general complaint about “virtue signaling” from companies is that they do it to gain positive sentiment, but don’t actually believe in the virtue they’re espousing and/or don’t follow up to create real change. If I thought that this were all LEGO did, I would be the first to call it out. However, I have seen them put real efforts into making everything they do more thoughtful, more intentional, more impactful, and more equitable, from the way that they hire, to the way that they design toys, to the way that they market their toys, to the way that they do market research, to the way that they do outreach to fan communities, to the way that they use their global communications platforms. So, if your complaint with “virtual signaling” as a general matter is that it often doesn’t go far enough, I will shake your hand and agree with you on that point, but as to whether that applies here, I don’t think that it does, *and moreover* the only way to see whether that is true will be to follow their words and actions going forward, and to evaluate over time. Nevertheless, a company’s signaling to the world that it believes in a value, virtue, or set of values and virtues, *is a good*. It is not sufficient relative to failing to live up to those values and virtues, to be sure, but it puts the stake in the ground that the company cares about those things, and it invites consumers and critics to hold them to account to those values and virtues.
Moreover, even if it really came down to nothing more than an attempt to sell more of this product line, that’s not “pandering” any more than is true of any company trying to sell any product or line of products. You keep throwing that around as though it’s a bad thing. LEGO is trying to be successful and profitable, and that in and of itself is no sin. Rather, that fact *in conjunction with their stated intent to be a force for inclusion and positivity* is about the best that can be hoped for from any company. When a company can do good in the world and be rewarded for doing so, that’s a win-win; why are you so against it?”
Only thing here I disagree with is that I feel pandering is not a good thing. It strikes me as low hanging fruit and elementally dishonest. But as to the rest, I look forward to shaking your hand as you nailed my sentiment exactly.
“You’re dead wrong. Fighting for progress is the *only* thing that has *ever* built anything that lasted. The fact that not every action on the road to progress has its immediate intended effect, or the fact that not every intermediate gain turns out to last for eternity, each just show that history does not follow a single, predictable, linear path, and that gains have to be defended lest they be lost. The way to judge progress through history is to look far enough back to see where a given person, group, or issue stood far enough back in the past to compare with the present, and to evaluate what gains the person, group, or issue has made over that time. Arguing that attempting to make progress is wasted effort is just more cynicism.”
Not quite. Progress for progress’ sake misses the point. While stated earlier that perfection is the goal, it is the process that gets us there. Progress is simply the way it’s judged after the fact, to which we both agree. So, calling it progress is out of our jurisdiction. No one can be against progress, that’s just crazy talk, but there can exist no reference to judge it as such. What I am in full favor of is process because with it is included the necessary failures. And that is what makes any endeavor lasting.
“As far as I can tell, your entire argument over this whole thread could have been shortened to “I don’t like this product line” or “This doesn’t speak to me personally” or “Progress is futile and not worth trying for”.”
False, false, and false as stated above.
“Please don’t project onto me some desire to impress you or anyone; I chose my words carefully and deliberately for the denotations and connotations that I wanted. I called you out for pettyfogging because your quibbling about statistics and survey results draws attention to irrelevant minutia and away from substance. I called you out for what-about-ism because your having conjured a litany of things that LEGO *isn’t* building and then having criticized how they aren’t representing the negative aspects of society isn’t relevant given their project or intent as a company. So, one possibility is that those were well-reasoned core arguments on your part, and that their now-obvious irrelevance to the debate will have you agreeing that your position needs a rethink or at least a more cogent restatement. Another possibility is that they were just smokescreens that you put up to give yourself the cover to throw yourself in the way of progress, to stand in the way of kids’ being able to have toys that better reflect what they see in themselves and those around them, in which case you are just *vice*-signaling. If you’re just here to argue *against* social process, social equality, and social justice (all the while claiming that no one would ever argue against such things), then you’re just acting as a troll, and that is what I referred to as pernicious, because this disingenuous behavior hides in plain side and has a corrosive influence on social discourse. If all you have to offer is cynicism and pessimism, that is a toxic combination that isn’t helping anyone, and you shouldn’t be surprised when it gets an unwelcome reception from people. That’s not demonization; it’s well-earned scorn for an untenable position.”
I won’t bother with this except to say that everything here has been explained above multiple times, in those explanations were my retorts given in answer to undeserved scorn and not before, and I have done and will do my best to maintain and defend my arguments.
Cheers to you as well, Sean!
matt