You just lost the game

I thought we already established that the ninja from Ninjago are ninja practically in name only, with a focus on fighting over stealth, rather than the other way around. They are warriors, not spies. So what's the point of being offended if they're ninja in name only? If they were intentionally being offensive, then you have ground to stand on. If I had a dollar for every time this was proven wrong over the course of history, the chances are we would be having this conversation over crackers and Brie on a terrace somewhere in the Hamptons. ie: you're wrong (usually!) -Tyler Opinions or ideas? I'm talking about opinions. Congratulations, you just called half of the people in this thread dumb. No one is nitpicking because of a desire to feel offended. I'm not personally offended, but I realize that Ninjago is problematic and I'm trying to communicate that point. What is being offended ,but someone's own personal feeling? No one is telling them to be offended, yet they act as so anyway.Yes, because offensive things always come with a sign that says "you should be offended!"Yes, they do.Racist slurs are almost always meant to insult or hurt others. So what's your point? So people can only be offended if it involves a racial slur? Bro, there are lots of ways to be offended outside of race and language. This entire topic is an example. You can be offended by anything. Insinuating someone is doing it on purpose with no real backing to their claims, is wrong.

It was CALLED a shrine, BASED ON a shrine, but given the features of a dojo. You've removed the actual cultural implications of an important cultural object for a quick buck. This all brings me back to my point about Lego unintentionally being offensive by not knowing it's true meaning. Saying that they did it intentionally with no real proof, usually leads to an arguement being ripped apart. You're right in saying that Lego got a couple things wrong, but the main thing is that it wasn't intentional and shouldn't be treated as such.

Congratulations, you just called half of the people in this thread dumb. No one is nitpicking because of a desire to feel offended. I'm not personally offended, but I realize that Ninjago is problematic and I'm trying to communicate that point. What is being offended ,but someone's own personal feeling? No one is telling them to be offended, yet they act as so anyway. Yes, because offensive things always come with a sign that says "you should be offended!" Yes, they do. Racist slurs are almost always meant to insult or hurt others. So what's your point? Congratulations, you just called half of the people in this thread dumb. No one is nitpicking because of a desire to feel offended. I'm not personally offended, but I realize that Ninjago is problematic and I'm trying to communicate that point. What is being offended ,but someone's own personal feeling? No one is telling them to be offended, yet they act as so anyway. See the thing is when people unintentionally offend they still offend. The Washington Redskins aren't intentionally being offensive to the natives but it's still coming off that way. Yet I hear very little of people complaining about it. Maybe because it's not actually offending anyone? Because it's offensive. It only serves to cheaply malign the sanctity of Japanese culture in the eyes of a consumer base too young to truly understand what it means. I really don't get what's so difficult to understand about that point because it seems like garden variety, homegrown common sense. I don't think I'm expecting too much here. -Tyler As I have stated before, the only things taken from Japanese culture is the ninja themselves, the architectural designs, and some names here and there. They didn't take all of Japanese culture and parody it. People of average intelligence can understand that Ninjago isn't meant to be an accurate or even partly accurate representation of Japanese culture. Yet people nitpick at it just because they fell like being offended by something. Let me try and sum up your argument with another analogy: - People with cancer exist out there somewhere. - I don't personally know anybody who has cancer, either because they haven't told me or because they're scared to admit it. - Therefore, I'm pretty sure cancer's a myth. Except that's not the case at all. This is a real problem, especially considering the rest of LEGO's brand image and how progressive they are, as Makaru stated way earlier today, in a number of other lines. It's an anomaly that shouldn't exist, and it's only been lifted up further by decades of further stereotyping in a number of medias. It's wrong. I don't get what's so hard to grasp about that. -Tyler That analogy just went way over my head, as I don't understand how it has any relevance to this discussion. Saying it shouldn't exist, assumes it does exist. When I see Lego making something historically inaccurate, I see it more as flexing their creative license. In Ninjago's case, they barely used anything from Japanese culture, and made what they took into their own creature. Hey, yeah, historical revisionism as creative license, man! Because that's worked out so well...every other time in history! The analogy isn't hard to grasp - just because you do not know people who are offended, or you think they're such a minutely small minority, does not mean it is not offensive. -Tyler They're not taking a point in Japanese history and revising it. They're taking a form of spy in feudal Japan and bringing them to the modern day or sometime in the future. I don't see anything offensive in that. The opinion of the many usually outweigh that of the few. Usually.

You said almost EXACTLY that. Also, not once did I blow it out of proportion. This entire time, I have been saying what the LEGO company did wrong. Nothing more, nothing less. Not Shintoism, the religion being discussed. 1. As I read your original post, I got the feeling that you were saying that Lego intentionally degraded a cuture, where I then drew the perverbial line. I then realised I was wrong ,and then wondered why anyone was really getting offended by it. 2. I know little about Shintoism, but I will say that one of the subjects in question, the so-called "shrine", I believe was meant to be a dojo. I don't really see what you're being offended about in that set ,other than it just looks like a shrine.

Congratulations, you just called half of the people in this thread dumb. No one is nitpicking because of a desire to feel offended. I'm not personally offended, but I realize that Ninjago is problematic and I'm trying to communicate that point. What is being offended ,but someone's own personal feeling? No one is telling them to be offended, yet they act as so anyway. See the thing is when people unintentionally offend they still offend. The Washington Redskins aren't intentionally being offensive to the natives but it's still coming off that way. Yet I hear very little of people complaining about it. Maybe because it's not actually offending anyone? Because it's offensive. It only serves to cheaply malign the sanctity of Japanese culture in the eyes of a consumer base too young to truly understand what it means. I really don't get what's so difficult to understand about that point because it seems like garden variety, homegrown common sense. I don't think I'm expecting too much here. -Tyler As I have stated before, the only things taken from Japanese culture is the ninja themselves, the architectural designs, and some names here and there. They didn't take all of Japanese culture and parody it. People of average intelligence can understand that Ninjago isn't meant to be an accurate or even partly accurate representation of Japanese culture. Yet people nitpick at it just because they fell like being offended by something. Let me try and sum up your argument with another analogy: - People with cancer exist out there somewhere. - I don't personally know anybody who has cancer, either because they haven't told me or because they're scared to admit it. - Therefore, I'm pretty sure cancer's a myth. Except that's not the case at all. This is a real problem, especially considering the rest of LEGO's brand image and how progressive they are, as Makaru stated way earlier today, in a number of other lines. It's an anomaly that shouldn't exist, and it's only been lifted up further by decades of further stereotyping in a number of medias. It's wrong. I don't get what's so hard to grasp about that. -Tyler That analogy just went way over my head, as I don't understand how it has any relevance to this discussion. Saying it shouldn't exist, assumes it does exist. When I see Lego making something historically inaccurate, I see it more as flexing their creative license. In Ninjago's case, they barely used anything from Japanese culture, and made what they took into their own creature.

Though there is a very large difference between words and a deadly disease. How will you know if you unintentionally insulted someone if nobody is allowed to tell you? Religious things are just a part of a culture, and the two are more intertwined than you think. Shintoism, especially, is tied to Japanese culture. 1. I never said that someone couldn't tell you, but blowing it out of porportion or insinuating that someone is racist because they said something they didn't like, is the proper response to such things. 2. Religious things intertwine around culture rather than the other way around, for most cultures.

See the thing is when people unintentionally offend they still offend. The Washington Redskins aren't intentionally being offensive to the natives but it's still coming off that way. Yet I hear very little of people complaining about it. Maybe because it's not actually offending anyone? Because it's offensive. It only serves to cheaply malign the sanctity of Japanese culture in the eyes of a consumer base too young to truly understand what it means. I really don't get what's so difficult to understand about that point because it seems like garden variety, homegrown common sense. I don't think I'm expecting too much here. -Tyler As I have stated before, the only things taken from Japanese culture is the ninja themselves, the architectural designs, and some names here and there. They didn't take all of Japanese culture and parody it. People of average intelligence can understand that Ninjago isn't meant to be an accurate or even partly accurate representation of Japanese culture. Yet people nitpick at it just because they feel like being offended by something.

So you should be allowed to continue doing an insulting thing, even if it hurts other people every time? My points were far more than aesthetic, and also included such things as religious structures/traditions, which neither line you mentioned had. 1. If you know what you're doing is insulting, you absolutely shouldn't be doing it. If you unintentionally insult someone, you'll get away with it once, and then be told to not do it again. Simple. 2. So you're saying this isn't a topic about culture problems, but religious problems? Religious things can be a part of any culture, and have nothing to do with it.

Something does not need to be INTENTIONALLY offensive to be considered offensive. That's the alternative, and it baffles me that it's such a hard concept to grasp. The "pop culture version of ninjas" is practically a racist stereotype at this point. If you wouldn't base a story on ol' Jim Crow, why would you base one on a pop culture ninja? I have spent much of this topic telling you what was wrong: Japanese culture was chewed up, spat out, mashed up, whitewashed, dazzled up, and turned into a toyline for kids. It's not just a toyline with harmless Japanese influences, it's a toyline that splats Japanese culture wherever it wants, regardless of original significance. The appropriation of shrines and temples is evidence of that. You seem to be choosing to interpret that as "cultural purism" when what I'm actually asking for is a little respect for a culture. 1. If it's unintentionally offensive, it shouldn't be taken as being offensive. 2. I guess European and alien cultures have been degraded to, because you could say Lego does this to them as well. {Overly large pic removed} I swore a solemn vow that I wouldn't step into this quagmire, but...what? If I heard you use a homophobic slur in a bar and grill while I'm watching football, and I'm bisexual, I'm going to turn around and ask you what your deal is, because using demeaning stereotypes and words to associate traits to cultures is offensive in any context. The fact that people on BZP and in the real world really fail to grasp that after the hard work of so many people on and off this site is not only stunning, it is thoroughly depressing and disappointing. There's no other way to phrase it, and there's no way to pretty it up or sugarcoat it. It's offensive, and by letting it slide because "aw shucks gee whiz I didn't mean it man" is only ensuring the same problem will be shouldered onto the next generation. As for offending alien cultures, I'll send ET and the Martian Manhunter my regards the next time we pass by each other. -Tyler The problem with this, is that you use calling someone a homophobic slur, as being the same as someone "degrading" a culture. You can unintentionally insult someone's culture because you don't understand the history. If you use a slur, you use it for what you know it means. But this entire topic has been dedicated towards listing the ways that it's offensive so that people understand how Japanese culture is degraded. Ignoring all the points made over three pages of discussion just so you can continue backpedaling and saying how no offense was meant with the theme is just contributing to your own ignorance, and all it does is make some critics more and more right by the post. At this point, you know how the culture is being degraded with the theme, at least in the eyes of its protesters, and you know the basis behind the slurs. So why continue to support either? Yes, lots of posters pointed out how Lego is so-called "degrading" Japanese culture. The thing is, Lego didn't do this intentionally, so why should it be taken in an offensive manner?

Something does not need to be INTENTIONALLY offensive to be considered offensive. That's the alternative, and it baffles me that it's such a hard concept to grasp. The "pop culture version of ninjas" is practically a racist stereotype at this point. If you wouldn't base a story on ol' Jim Crow, why would you base one on a pop culture ninja? I have spent much of this topic telling you what was wrong: Japanese culture was chewed up, spat out, mashed up, whitewashed, dazzled up, and turned into a toyline for kids. It's not just a toyline with harmless Japanese influences, it's a toyline that splats Japanese culture wherever it wants, regardless of original significance. The appropriation of shrines and temples is evidence of that. You seem to be choosing to interpret that as "cultural purism" when what I'm actually asking for is a little respect for a culture. 1. If it's unintentionally offensive, it shouldn't be taken as being offensive. 2. I guess European and alien cultures have been degraded to, because you could say Lego does this to them as well. {Overly large pic removed} I swore a solemn vow that I wouldn't step into this quagmire, but...what? If I heard you use a homophobic slur in a bar and grill while I'm watching football, and I'm bisexual, I'm going to turn around and ask you what your deal is, because using demeaning stereotypes and words to associate traits to cultures is offensive in any context. The fact that people on BZP and in the real world really fail to grasp that after the hard work of so many people on and off this site is not only stunning, it is thoroughly depressing and disappointing. There's no other way to phrase it, and there's no way to pretty it up or sugarcoat it. It's offensive, and by letting it slide because "aw shucks gee whiz I didn't mean it man" is only ensuring the same problem will be shouldered onto the next generation. As for offending alien cultures, I'll send ET and the Martian Manhunter my regards the next time we pass by each other. -Tyler The problem with this, is that you use calling someone a homophobic slur, as being the same as someone "degrading" a culture. You can unintentionally insult someone's culture because you don't understand the history. If you use a slur, you use it for what you know it means. Hm so if I wear blackface accidentally, nobody should call me out on it? I should be allowed to continue? If I burn your house down on accident, should I tell you you cannot grieve over the lost house? Those are all aesthetic nitpicks. Knights still serve the purpose knights serve. Kings are still kings. Norsemen are still Norsemen. When sapient aliens make themselves known, I'll give you this point. 1. I edited my point here, so it would make more sense. The problem with this, is that you know using a blackface would be insulting to someone. There's no excuse for it. Borrowing things from other cultures can be unintentionally insulting if you don't understand the history of said culture or what you're borrowing 2. No different from the things you say Lego is doing. 3. Indeed.

Something does not need to be INTENTIONALLY offensive to be considered offensive. That's the alternative, and it baffles me that it's such a hard concept to grasp. The "pop culture version of ninjas" is practically a racist stereotype at this point. If you wouldn't base a story on ol' Jim Crow, why would you base one on a pop culture ninja? I have spent much of this topic telling you what was wrong: Japanese culture was chewed up, spat out, mashed up, whitewashed, dazzled up, and turned into a toyline for kids. It's not just a toyline with harmless Japanese influences, it's a toyline that splats Japanese culture wherever it wants, regardless of original significance. The appropriation of shrines and temples is evidence of that. You seem to be choosing to interpret that as "cultural purism" when what I'm actually asking for is a little respect for a culture. 1. If it's unintentionally offensive, it shouldn't be taken as being offensive. 2. I guess European and alien cultures have been degraded to, because you could say Lego does this to them as well. 1. No, if it's unintentionally offensive, it's still problematic. If I accidentally blackface, I still need to own up to it and make amends. 2.Lego IS European, and the Castle and Viking lines are actually way more respectful to their origin cultures than Ninjago is. Do you know why? Because people from a culture know the boundaries of the culture. As for alien, I have long objected to the fact that in every space line besides Life on Mars the aliens are solely antagonists. That has no bearing on this discussion, however. 1. Indeed, but that's only if someone complains over it, which they shouldn't, if it's unintentional. 2. No, not really. In the case of the castle themes, mideval knights would not have the symbol of their city or state on their shields. Instead they'd have their family's Coat-of-Arms on their shield so that other knights would know who they were. Lego puts the symbol of whatever sect they belong to on their shields. In the case of vikings, they never actually had horns on their helmets, but Lego added them anyway because it's the stereotypical view of vikings. I could name more, but I won't unless need be. 3. It has bearing because it brings up the same issue.

Something does not need to be INTENTIONALLY offensive to be considered offensive. That's the alternative, and it baffles me that it's such a hard concept to grasp. The "pop culture version of ninjas" is practically a racist stereotype at this point. If you wouldn't base a story on ol' Jim Crow, why would you base one on a pop culture ninja? I have spent much of this topic telling you what was wrong: Japanese culture was chewed up, spat out, mashed up, whitewashed, dazzled up, and turned into a toyline for kids. It's not just a toyline with harmless Japanese influences, it's a toyline that splats Japanese culture wherever it wants, regardless of original significance. The appropriation of shrines and temples is evidence of that. You seem to be choosing to interpret that as "cultural purism" when what I'm actually asking for is a little respect for a culture. 1. If it's unintentionally offensive, it shouldn't be taken as being offensive. 2. I guess European and alien cultures have been degraded to, because you could say Lego does this to them as well.

1. http://www.majhost.com/gallery/gatodesu/HerpDerp/wankgate/1372521884234.gif 2. Toning down ninjas from being spies to being warriors. You use the word 'trained killers.' Warriors would seem to fit that definition better than spies. The implication that you couldn't be true to Japanese culture without making them into cold blooded murderers is preposterous. While it is true that ninjas were involved in things such as assassinations, that wasn't the only thing they did. 3, Please explain to me how this isn't degrading Japanese culture. You referring me to previous arguments that I and others have made points against does not successfully debunk my points. 4. First remove the idea that shrines are for weapons and all that jazz entirely from the narrative. Make the ninjas actual ninjas who do stuff like reconnaissance missions and sabotage. Change the name of spinjitsu to something else entirely. Be more respectful to Japanese culture in general. Etc. etc. 5. I am glad that we agree that Ninjago is not above criticism for things that it does wrong. 1. Second best GIF I've seen all day. 2. I know that ninjas didn't do just assassinations, such as modern day spies, but it was part of their job description. 3. I totally forgot what I was arguing about on this point, so I'll leave it empty until I feel a need to argue this point. 4.If I recall correctly, I only remember one instance of a "shrine" being used as a weapons-depot ,and even then I think it was a dojo that kinda sorta looked like a shrine. If I also recall correctly, there are several instances in the TV series where reconnaisance and sabotage are used by the ninjas. So in this sense, they are ninjas, just with the power to turn into tornadoes. They could change the name, but to what? Spin-Fu? The ability to change into tornadoes? Ninjas were obviously trained in the art of ninjitsu, so making these ninjas masters of spinjitsu makes some sense. A combination of Ninjago's trademark spinning and ninjitsu. Maybe the better thing to do, would be to call the ninjas, 'Spinjas', as to more accurately represent what they are. 5.Indeed First off, we're not talking about those lines (so why bring them up?) and even if they were relevant to mention, pirates and knights are prominent within the cultural history of where Lego exists (it's part of their own culture, in other words and they aren't as grossly misrepresented as in this case). (Also Ninjago isn't a toned down version of a ninja, or of Japanese culture at all -- it's completely incorrect, unless you really think religious shrines are used to house weaponry? Or that Spinjutsu is really a toned down ninjutsu [because no it's not], or that violence is all that makes something culturally relevant? -- The post below explains a lot better what could be done to make it more respectful) Ninjago suffers from taking something that belongs to one culture and removing all cultural significance from it, erasing the culture that created it from the picture (or incorporating it in insulting manners, namely with using religious shrines as weapon depots, or putting forth common stereotypes of that culture -- look at Sensei Wu) and they're just trying to make money off it. It's not respectful to take someone else's culture, to remove any and all significance and respect for it, reduce it down to a child's plaything that bears no resemblance to the source material or pays no respect to the source material, all to make a profit off the ideas, concepts and creations of that source -- that culture. I don't know why everyone's defending Lego for it, granted Lego could do a lot better by actually not using lazy writing and disrespecting other cultures. 1. If you're going to say Lego is degrading a culture, why not bring them all under questioning? If Lego is actually degrading a culture, it's entirely plausible to say they're doing it to another! You could even say Lego is racist to aliens because they're almost always the bad guys! 2.You're right, Ninjago has almost nothing to do with Japanese culture. Thanks for clearing that up. 3. The only thing that Ninjago took from Japanese culture, is the ninjas themselves, architectural design, and that's about it. Ninjago isn't a parody of Japanese culture, it's its own unique fantasy land, so why should it be taken as a degrading of a culture? Lego even gets its own culture wrong in the form of its Castle themes, yet I hear no one complaining about it. 4.lol I love it when someone adds an intelligent and well thought out point to a thread.

Yet it contains content that's directly tied to the real world, content that is taken seriously by groups of people (like religious icons, such as shrines) and it is rather disrespectful for a company to approximate these facets of a culture -- things that individual people do take seriously, that are important to them and hold meaning to them -- on the entire premise of profit. Just because a fictional world is fictional, doesn't mean it can't be disrespectful of cultures, people or groups in the real world. Parodying a culture to make a buck isn't respectful, fiction or not. Pirates and knights are "parodied" by Lego. I don't see anyone complaining about them. Then again, they're not even being "parodied" like you say. They're being toned down. If pirates and knights were made to be as realistic as possible, we may have some problems here. So in what possible way could you make ninjas more "respectful" to it's source material, without coming off too violent for kids, or eliminating any creative license put into it? You mean the incredibly condescending one complete with Bonesiii's signature ';)' passive aggressiveness This topic was made out of concern for the blatant cultural appropriation in Ninjago that could be easily rectified by actually showing some actual respect for the culture that they are objectifying. Whether or not it is intentional is not the point being made here. The point being made is that it is actually happening. The point isn't that it should be 100% true to life with no deviation whatsoever. The point is that Ninjago should at least make the semblance of an attempt to be respectful to a culture that actually exists in real life and has often been mangled in western depictions of it. Just because it is a fictional story does not mean that it is above reproach. 1. lol 2. I'd say it's more the toning down of what ninjas really are. I'm sure parents would love their kids playing with trained killers in Lego form. 3. No it isn't. See above point. 4. And please tell me how you'd do Ninjago better. 5.Indeed

After reading all this, I've decided to throw my two cents in. This whole arguement is rather moot after you read the intelligent post Bonesii made earlier, but for some reason that wasn't clear enough. This topic was only made because of an overeaction over what Ninjago is and isn't. Lego is not trying to degrade Japanese culture. The very idea is moronic, to say the least. Ninjago isn't "The Ninja: A Totally Accurate Representation of Japanese Culture". This isn't National Geographic or the Discovery Channel, folks. Ninjago is a toy-line set in a fictional world, filled with fictional characters; and that's what it should be taken as.

I tried to read through all the SCP's, but I only made it to 900 and something. One day I'll finish reading them all. Don't really believe in cryptids, but they're always interesting to read about or watch videos about them.

FUS RAWR DA!

2/5 Seen you about.

The TF2 spy trying to act smart.

From mankind's perspective, the Matoran would be considered aliens.

The Matoran helped to maintain Mata-Nui (Character) to keep him alive. The way I see it, is that as long as the Matoran maintained Mata-Nui's inner-workings, the land would remain fertile, and everything would be kept in normal order, for the most part. The Matoran are like blood cells, and the islands are like organs.

I don't remember ever hearing that the seas in the Matoran universe were made up of salt water. Even if it was or wasn't, I'm sure they'd have some way to filter out the stuff they couldn't drink.

Most of the Barraki could have been written much better. Most Toa teams are too one-dimensional for me. Sidorak could have been done WAAAAAAY better. Umbra seemed pretty boring to me.

Thanos, Ultron, Sandman, Electro, Rhino, Fantastic Four, Galactus, X-Men, and Green Goblin. These need to be made immediatley.

06' will always be my favourite.