SSCReader
2mo ago
Ok we have a problem here, your comments about the government wanting to purge anti-lockdownists, and the papers you provided were all from the UK. But now you are saying actually that is only really in the US?
So are you conceding that the UK government actions were likely not motivated by trying to purge political opponents? And we already established the lockdowns weren't.
And then applying your argument to the US also runs into problems because Covid restrictions there were generally state based not Federal, and they didn't particularly have what the UK had in lockdowns overall. So when you said the vaccine mandates were targeting anti-lockdown people, then you are mixing two different countries. Covid restrictions in the US were very light-touch overall compared to the lockdowns in the UK. And varied state by state and were more severe in Blue cities. If they were targeting Reds that would not be the pattern we would expect to see.
It just seems that you are trying to weave a narrative across different nations with different responses and governance systems in different places and as a result it ends up as an incoherent mess, of who is supposed to be purging who for what reason. I live in the US and the harsher restrictions I had here were mainly from the city not the state or Federal government. And that meant it almost exclusively targeted urban people. If their goal was to purge the Red tribe, for a start they would actually have to find some to purge, and secondly their restrictions put much more of the bulk of compliance on the Blue tribe itself because of that. If they were specifically wanting to disadvantage Reds you would see lesser restrictions where more Blues were (because they were actually not scared, but just trying to hurt the outgroup, so no need to disadvantage the in group) and more (imposed from above) where more Reds were, but that isn't what happened.
SSCReader
2mo ago
Ok, so you would roughly agree lockdowns were driven by fear then?
But then why would you think the government needs vaccine mandates to target and purge anti-lockdown activists? It simply can. As you point out Parliament is sovereign. It can just pass a law to lock em up or use anti-terror mandates it doesn't need a convoluted vaccine mandate which only really applied to healthcare workers to then purge anti-lockdown activists. It doesn't make sense. Plus they didn't actually purge them!
As for dates, prior to March the Government was already getting huge criticism. Including letters from hundreds of scientists being published in the media.
Once they have decided to change tack, then messaging to increase compliance will be used. That's SOP. But it doesn't mean that is WHY they changed tack. Pressure was mounting through Feb and into March and Boris had already gone stricter and stricter as you can see above.
The pressure was coming from voters and the media.
The reason I think its important to understand that is not to absolve government of blame. Because whatever the pressures, they could have chosen otherwise. Their reasons for doing so, don't impact on the morality. But rather because when the next crisis happens in 15 or 20 years with a new crop of politicians perhaps of different parties, then you might think it won't happen again. But as long as the same public and media pressures are brought to bear, and incentives for politicians remain the same I am telling you it will. Whether it is Labour or Tories or Lib Dems, or the Reform Party in charge.
SSCReader
2mo ago
Opponents of lockdowns and the pandemic response in general. Because as a group, we were the only meaningful opposition and threat to the government at the time.
But that can't have been the group the mandates were originally intended to target, because that group only exists post the mandates! Its not even a meaningful thing without them. The government may have targetted those ignoring/against mandates or rules after of course. But that can't have been WHY they imposed lockdowns or the like because that group was created by their lockdown actions in the first place. Like Prohibition wasn't put in place to target bootleggers, it created them, then the government cracked down on them. But it can't have been intended to purge bootleggers.
In any case, they were certainly not a threat to the government at all. Certainly not more so than hundreds and thousands of their own voters demanding action. The Tories didn't lose the recent election because of Covid response, they lost it due to a soggy economy and having been in power for 14 years.
Whether you want to believe it or not, the vast majority of MPs only pressured Boris to change course, because they individually were under pressure from their constituents. They aren't cartoon villains who were secretly wanting to take over.
The government is made of MPs, who are very susceptible to pressure from their voters. The government wasn't the one driving the fear initially. Remember Boris getting a lot of criticism for being seen to just want to let Covid burn through the population? If he was planning lockdowns and mandates why bother taking that bad PR? It was the media and to an extent people themselves, social media plus the 24 hour media cycle amplifies everything nowadays more so than the past. Remember in the early days the government was downplaying fears, and discouraging the idea lockdowns would be helpful. They could have started lockdowns and mandates much earlier had they wished and indeed they took huge criticism for not doing so. They didn't accidentally stumble into lockdowns and mandates, those decided to do them of course. But the timeline of government action is just not consistent with the government being commited to making those decisions in advance to target some specific group.
In addition, you can take this or not, but I used to work in government and for both Labour and Tory parties, and I know quite a few MPs personally, including some very high up in the decision making tree. They were indeed pressured into making those decisions by the public. They were terrified of the amount of vitriol they were getting for not acting.
To be clear, if you dislike the lockdowns and mandates, then the government and MPs are certainly responsible for their actions, pressured by their voters or not. They could have stood on principles and refused. And indeed some few did. But they didn't instigate lockdowns and mandates to purge anyone. They were blindsided by the publics reaction and then did what politicians will almost always do. To do something. Which instinct is to be very clear, responsible for a lot of very bad laws and very probably lockdown and mandates are far from the last we will see.
SSCReader
2mo ago
It is, But given my ex-position and contacts I can confirm that Boris et al, really did not want to. Not that Boris is principled, just that he thought it was going to make him look bad, due to the financial hit. We even have access to many of his messages as part of the various probes into parties at Number Ten at the like, if you don't (understandably!) want to take some internet strangers word for it.
I am not saying that Boris and the Conservatives had a particularly ideological commitment against lockdowns, and mandates, particularly, just that most of the reports commissioned showed very little gain for considerable cost.
SSCReader
2mo ago
Except that doesn't account for the Boomers as above. Who are more likely to be conservative themselves. The motive that best explains the turn is simple fear.
As I'll keep repeating every time this was brought up, the Tory British government did not want to mandate lockdowns and the like, the original response was not to do that. But so many MP's got inundated with letters and emails and phone calls from fearful constituents that they made a very public U-turn. Particularly from older voter's who are more likely to be on the right.
Conservative UK Boomers were not trying to purge their political enemies, they were simply scared. Now you can certainly make the argument that they were wrong to be so badly scared (though of course age did make them more susceptible than younger folk), and you can certainly make the argument that the media et al was part of why they were so scared, but they were not calling for tighter controls and lockdowns and vaccinations as an excuse to purge political enemies. It simply does not pass the smell taste. There was simply no reason for them to want to do so. Indeed, unlike in the US, Conservatives were more likely to be Covid vaccinated than Labour voters.
And given the government didn't want to actually take the steps they ended up being forced to take also suggests that they weren't using it to purge political enemies, again because the government was a Conservative one, and didn't even want to do the things they ended up doing in the first place.
What group of people who are statistically more likely to be unvaccinated do you think the Conservative government driven by Conservative voters were trying to purge?
SSCReader
2mo ago
Whether the dog has rabies or not, he's not going to break the leash, and you can get a shot in any event. But the guy on the other end of the leash created this situation, and he has significant control over how bad it gets. He's the real problem, not the dog.
If the dog breaks the leash, savages the leash holder and then you (or you and then the leash holder for that matter) that is worse than just being menaced (in my opinion of course). I think that it is possible for the leash to break in this analogy. And whether the dog is crazed and rabid, hungry, or been beaten has some significant impact on whether the leash can or will be broken and what the dog will do after. Dogs are not my strong suit but hopefully you take my point.
The temperament of the dog is actually useful information. If it hates the owner as much (or more!) as it does you, then cutting the leash yourself is a dangerous but possibly useful option. If it is trained only to hate you and loves its owner then cutting the leash is not a good idea at all. Is it very well trained and thus will only bite on command, or will it bite of its own accord? If the former then preventing the owner from issuing commands could help.
To put it in the Northern Irish context, some of the Loyalist paramilitaries were closer to the Unionist parties than others and some to the government (unoffically) and whether the UDR was out to get you or the UVF, or the UDA etc. determines where you could go, and who might help you (and likewise with Sinn Fein and the various IRA's and the like). If you got in trouble with the Provos you could go to your local Sinn Fein rep and ask them to intercede. But if it was the "Real" IRA (who believed Sinn Fein were traitors to the cause), then even though both would be against the British, then you would definitely not want to go to Sinn Fein to intervene. The same overall goals, but different levels of control, ideology and internal enmities. And indeed you can exploit those internal enmities when one faction will share information about another faction to their shared enemies. Which has happened more than once. Lenny Murphy (Shankill Butchers) was sold out to the IRA by his own side for example.
If you get targeted by antifa, if they are mainly a group of disorganized anarchists, then that leads to different set of options than if they are a centrally organized Marxist communist group, and changes again if they have direct access to Blue Tribe resources, or are reliant on whatever scraps they get thrown. And changes once again if there are different factions with a balance of power between them. Or to go back to the dog analogy, knowing if you are running from a dog that will stop every 2 minutes to chase a capitalist squirrel vs a dog that has been trained from birth to sniff out Red Tribers for an organized purge, is pretty useful information to have.
Put simply, even if you are correct about who is deploying weapons (or holding the leash etc.) against you, correctly understanding the specifications of the weapons (or training of the dog) themselves is also tactically and practically helpful information.
SSCReader
2mo ago
I think you are misunderstanding me. I think anarchists are bad, and I think Marxist communists are bad. And I do not support either of their visions of the future, because I think either will be significantly worse than current. However, it is still really important to understand the differences, in local terms. Violence on the streets is generally bad, but it is not as bad as either a communist state or a complete state of anarchy.
Even granting your entire premise about the Blue Tribe using antifa, it has a number of different outcomes, depending on exactly what happens.
- Blue Tribe have or gain control over antifa, this results in street violence but not much more, and they specifically want to maintain the current hegemony - this is bad but it is not catastrophic at a national scale. Many groups have used violence without destroying peace and order entirely (KKK, Weathermen, the IRA, the UVF, Black Panthers etc.), limited controlled violence is bad, but it is not in and of itself an existential threat. It is obviously bad for Reds if turned against them, but it isn't necessarily destructive of the entire order, any more than the KKK was.
2)Actual Marxist-communists have or gain control over antifa and use it as part of a campaign to institute real communism - this is exceptionally unlikely but would be catastrophic.
- Anarchists have or gain control over antifa and use it as part of a campaign to institute the destruction of government and introduce anarchy. This is exceptionally unlikely but also catastrophic. Whether this would be more or less catastrophic than Marxist communism, is unclear, but it would I think be still pretty horrific.
I am saying pragmatically, that what happens next and how bad it is, can depend very much on who has, or gains control. You think it won't be 2) or 3) and I agree it is unlikely. But the world is full of more extreme people winning internal struggles and seizing power over an organization (See IRA to Provisional IRA to the "Real' IRA and so on). If one had the ability to know which splinter faction was going to take leadership, you could do something about it.
If I tell you, a hardline communist will take control of antifa (which would obviously have to include some amount of re-organization and purging) from say distributed Blue Tribe Bob's, do you think they will be less violent or more? If you had a choice of preventing it is your argument that it wouldn't really make a difference? As you yourself point out, the Blues want to run the system roughly as it is now. And if antifa is more anarchist than communist, then who you need to be keeping an eye out for and what kind of changes might be indicative of an increase in threat is very different.
I've lived with a simmering ideological conflict between factions, which includes street violence and much more and it isn't a picnic by any stretch of the imagination...but kids can still go to school and play in the park and listen to music and you can still watch the football and bbq (assuming Northern Irish weather allowed for it!). It's not an existential threat to the system. And the destruction of the system in a nation of 330 million people will be catastrophic.
SSCReader
2mo ago
It hinders your accuracy because it elides the differences inside the group. If they are Marxist communists then you are at risk of a Stalinist totalitarian state. If they are anarchists they might want to tear down the state but do not want it replaced. They'll be happy to burn a police station, but aren't going to reintroduce the Stasi.
Both might be the same now, but one is much more dangerous long term. You are always going to have people who want to tear down whatever the current system is. That is a given. Anarchists are a low threat though overall, they won't harness state power for gulags, or death camps. They're street level problems. Marxist communists onnthe other hand are a different kettle of fish.
Also it will mean you will miss steps (see Hitler vs Rohm) If antifa gained any sort of power, and starts infighting (which given it is a coalition defined by being against something and has multiple factions who disagree on what should be built instead it will) it is absolutely crucial to understand whether Marxist communists or anarchists or whoever started it and who is winning. Because that is going to be crucial as to what happens next. Out-group homogenity bias means you lose information about your opponents. If you are correct and elites are communist friendly. Then it is highly likely they will have to purge or get rid of an anarchist antifa for example. Again see Rohm. Is an elite clamp down on antifa proof of moderation or proof they are cleaning house to take over more thoroughly? Is it a welcome return to law and order or another Night of Long Knives? Without considering that antifa is not all the same, and understanding factionalism inside it, you will have no clue.
Now I am not arguing if you are caught in a dark alley with black bloc, it makes much of a difference, but socio-politically it really does.
As for the foundation, here is the link. So you can evaluate for yourself.
SSCReader
2mo ago
and I observe a current generation of violent Communist thugs organizing widespread political violence with the tacit support of their local institutions, as well as local, state and federal governments.
Are you sure? How many are actually communist? US Antifa is much more extensively anarchist than it is communist (antifa is non-hierarchal), and outside of that, most of the rioters aren't espousing much in the way of an economic political ideology. Why do you think they are actually communist thugs? Being anti-fascist and/or anti-capitalist is not the same thing as being communist after all.
If communism had even reasonable approval you would have an actually influential communist party, and Trump using communist as an attack against Harris, would not be worth doing (because people would not see it as bad), nor would she have to say she isn't in response. In fact only 14% of Americans even have a favorable opinion of the term communism. (55% have a favorable opinion of the term capitalism just to contrast and socialism at 40%, 10% for Nazism/fascism).
I agree that worldwide communism is roughly as bad as Nazism, in as much as we are balancing huge amounts of horror. But in the US, the reason (in my opinion) why Nazism is seen as worse is that your own history is tangled up with racialized politics. Communism has no real significant negative history inside your nation, nor does it have any real chance of overturning your free(ish) market capitalism. Whereas you had an entire Civil War over an ideology that treated people differently because of race, which pattern matches much closer to Nazism, than Communism. That plus your "golden age" was just after defeating the Nazis and before the Cold War grew monstrously, so seeing the Nazis as the ultimate evil which the US defeated is part of the redemption myth-arc that many conservatives value. In overcoming a racist ideology, you began to overcome your own demons. It's not just left wingers who see Nazis as worse after all. The Silent Generation and Boomers dislike communism more than younger generations, but even they dislike fascism even more (roughly 43% think fascism is the most violent ideology, about 25% think communism or Marxism.)
You (as a nation) dislike Communism, but you HATE Nazis, because your own history is closer to almost becoming Nazis, than it is to becoming Communists. A nation that has emerged from Communism will probably hate Communists more than Nazis (Ukraine and Azov brigade as an example perhaps?) because of their experiences, not because they are making a rationally weighted decision that Communism is worse across the globe and all time than Nazism. So I think wanting America to hate Nazis and Communists just as much is only going to happen after you have a significant Communist government or civil war split across Communism vs Capitalism. Which I do not view as very likely, I admit.
(All stats are taken from polls commissioned by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation which works to try and educate Americans as to the fact that Communism/Marxism is as dangerous/more dangerous than fascism, so should if anything be swaying respondents to communism being bad. To be fair they do say: "Positive attitudes toward communism and socialism are at an all-time high in the United States. We have a solemn obligation to expose the lies of Marxism for the naïve who say they are willing to give collectivism another chance." so they agree with you directionally. Their own figures still show that it is regarded pretty negatively overall. They do accept donations and run museums and sponsor teacher certifications and the like, so if you do feel strongly about their mission, they do seem to be right up your alley so to speak. For transparency, I have donated to them before.)
SSCReader
2mo ago
And being publicly senile is also somewhat bad for a politician presunably you would agree.
But still examples of politicians having a scandal or crime or some crisis, maintaining they won't step down, then stepping down under pressure is common, which is the point.
Liz Truss in the UK is another example, Al Franken as well. Newt Gingrich on the other side.
SSCReader
2mo ago
Why? Trump has been convicted and didn't stand down, because there is no-one in the GOP with enough pull to pressure him into it. Both a conviction and being unable to stand up to your opponent in a debate (to put it mildly) hurt your chances. So the party if able will put pressure on you for the "greater good".
Politicians are generally self-interested and ambitious, if they are not made to they will try to hang on even when damaging the overall chances of their party. Hence why parties have whips and the like. To exert pressure. That is their entire purpose. To whip the party members into line (Not literally nowadays of course) but through pressure, dirt, promises and the like. I am sure Biden and his inner circle were getting inundated with pressure from lots of angles. And that is all entirely normal in any situation where a politician does something that weakens his party.
SSCReader
2mo ago
Of a politician stepping down? How about Menendez?
Here he is saying he definitely will not resign:
"MADISON, N.J. -- Convicted U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez has told CBS New York he's not stepping down, even as some fellow senators have called for his resignation.
Menendez has vowed to appeal his corruption conviction and on Wednesday, despite reports he was caving in to demands to resign, the senator dug in and told reporter Christine Sloan, "I can tell you that I have not resigned nor have I spoken to any so-called 'allies,'" adding, "Seems to me that there is an effort to try to force me into a statement. Anyone who knows me knows that's the worst way to achieve a goal with me.""
Then 5 days later he steps down:
"Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey will resign his seat effective August 20, according to a copy of his resignation letter obtained by CNN. In July, Menendez was convicted of 16 counts — including bribery, extortion, wire fraud, obstruction of justice and acting as a foreign agent — for his role in a yearslong bribery scheme."
What do you think caused this miraculous change of heart in 5 short days? Intense pressure from his party. Specifically the party whips whose job it is to get their party in line.
SSCReader
2mo ago
As for Biden “stepping down” he was forced out. Again norm breaking.
Politicians being pushed to step down IS the norm. It happens every other Tuesday. I honestly do not think you understand how much influence national political parties have over their candidates and how often they use it. Which is a lot. Biden will have been pressured for his stances on the Ukraine and Israel, and taxes and many other things. Sometimes he will have spent his political capital to win, sometimes he will have lost. That is the reality of organized political parties.
Here he did not have the political capital to win, and this is entirely normal in political parties. The President is not some all-powerful figure. Unless you are saying they put a gun to his head, then it is normal for parties to pressure their politicians, to an extent that is what they are for. To push their politicians into doing what the party thinks is best. Sometimes they will have the clout to do it, and sometimes the politicians have the clout to push back.
But there is no norm against a party pushing a candidate to stand down. In fact if they did not try to get a candidate they think will do badly to change or step down they would be lax in their duty. Whether that is a damaging affair, being outed as gay, or whatever, I guarantee you that there are politicians all over the world right now, who are about to step down because they are under pressure from their party. They will give some speech about needing to spend more time with their family and how they thank the people for giving them the chance to serve etc. etc.
Why do you think a Presidential candidate should be or is immune to this?
SSCReader
2mo ago
No, but then again, this will not happen. I will happily put up money on this.
Sure, probably not. But if both sides are inconsistent, then the argument is moot.
SSCReader
2mo ago
Except they did the same back in 1980 but were stopped only by their internal rules. Which they then changed, so they could do it if they wanted. The fact they haven't needed to, doesn't change the fact they were prepared for it, over 40 years ago.
People can understand all sorts of things, it doesn't mean those things are true. As long as the DNC is competent at convincing their voters then we have established there is no actual other impediment. In fact the Supreme Court relied on the ultimate norm. The Constitution. The first amendment is what allows the parties this broad latitude.
Is your position that norms should override Constitutional rights? Because that seems somewhat problematic for other rights you probably support. Its certainly been the norm in blue states to make owning guns difficult. Does that trump 2A rights? If New York is forced to allow open carry will you curse this overriding of norms?
At the end of the day, what happened was legal. Indeed it would have been legal even without Biden stepping down. With him stepping down it is both legal and I would argue within the norms most people consider. My delegate will choose someone other than my candidate if they step down or die is one of the norms of primaries after all.
If enough people dislike how it was done, they can punish Democrats at the ballot box.
SSCReader
2mo ago
But it is still true. You are right to point out state involvement. But most states have no law about whether delegates are bound legally and those that do almost invariably have an exemption for the candidate withdrawing. Plus many other exemptions for being unbound after rounds of voting or if their chosen candidate is doing too badly.
But regardless of all that the Supreme Court held that state election law cannot override a parties internal processes in any case. It is literally legally an internal matter.
Regardless of the primaries, the delegates were legally free to pick Kamala. All the DNC delegates are bound to do is in good conscience represent their voters. If they in good conscience think their voters would no longer want Biden they can and indeed should switch even if he didn't step down. Note this rule was changed in 1980 when they were trying to replace Carter as acandidate with a Kennedy, and only their own internal rules prevented them from doing so. So this is something that has been planned for. The only thing they have to do is manage the political fallout if any.
The truth is the primaries are theatre legally. The only thing that binds the parties are their internal rules. Hence an internal matter.
SSCReader
2mo ago
Would WASPs not be American then? Given that is essentially a good amount of the founding stock? Does Anglo-Saxon trump American? I'm just trying to explore the boundaries here, because I think for large portions of the time America has existed people would have claimed to be WASPs or Cajuns or Texans AND Americans both?
SSCReader
2mo ago
There definitely is a disconnect, where we are told (and Lucas says!) the Jedi are good and moral and wise, and then shows them or implies them doing things which should render that judgement clearly flawed. Even back in the old RPG before the prequels the (Lucas approved) Jedi sections talk about how the Jedi would test and take force sensitive children, and that most parents saw this as an honor, but the ones that didn't had no choice. And how even alien species who had their own unique connection to the force were studied willingly or not by the Jedi, which is why there were so few extant Force cults because many of them went into hiding or died out.
The only option that seems to reconcile the two is that individual Jedi were good, but they were essentially operating within a system that had taken and raised them as children, taught them what was good and bad and was connected to a deeply corrupt Galactic Republic and so their viewpoint was very attached to this.
Yoda in the Revenge of the Sith novelization indicates he realizes this at the end, that the Jedi had become too entwined with the Republic, and too unbending rather than learning and evolving given they had become a galactic organization. And that Qui-Gon was probably right all along about listening to the living force.
It is perhaps to be expected that if you are writing a story about an order of wise enlightened space-knights who can see the future who at one point get wiped out, you are going to have to have these wise people holding the idiot ball at some stages of the story. They basically have to have been deeply flawed and blind for the plot to work. At the same time as being great role models for the last of them to want to take up the mantle again.
SSCReader
2mo ago
The deconstructions of Star Wars and the Jedi have become far more numerous than the original depictions.
But isn't that just the point? The original depiction and backstory of the Jedi Order was that they were flawed, arrogant and compromised their ideals in service to politics. That directly led to them neglecting the will of the Force, having their abilities clouded and weakened and led to their fall. It isn't a deconstruction to show that. KOTOR II is a great example. But in the vast majority of media the Jedi are depicted as always being unambiguously good and competent. That surely is then the deconstruction? Or perhaps Flanderization, that they serve the Light side of the force so therefore they must be all good, all competent.
I think 2 is more likely. That now people see it as enemy action (and perhaps it is!) and therefore instinctively side against it, even when arguably it is in fact being portrayed accurately.
SSCReader
2mo ago
At this point the majority of the total high budget content-hours are about this, despite the fact that the majority of the years and cultural influence are not. It's all over the Disney content.
Really? I think most of it still shows the Jedi as much less flawed than they should be. What Lucas said or intended and what he actually showed, wrote and licensed are very different things. Even prior to the Disney take-over. I stand by my argument that a lot of the people criticizing the shows for being woke transfer that energy onto other elements of the show that are arguably exactly as they should be way before Disney ever got involved.
If you think the lead characters being black and asian or the lesbian witches vs Jedi is a woke overreach and this impacted the quality of the show, I think that is understandable. But I think a lot of people then want to criticize everything about the show through the same lens. Especially people who weren't around during the heyday of the expanded universe before the prequels where for example Palpatine gets resurrected and corrupts Luke. And that wasn't anything to do with white men bad or whatever.
In the end I would rate the Acolyte as 6/10. Lovely choreographed saber fights, recanonization of cortosis, the Corporate Sector (Han Solo at Star's End was one of the first Star Wars books I read all the way back in 79.), an interesting look at how even good guys can do the wrong thing for the right reason. Some sub-par acting (especially the child actress), some creaky dialog and a little too much fan service without pay off (Darth Plagueis and Yoda). Though at least Plagueis feeds into the Legends idea that he directly or indirectly created Anakin using dark sorceries gathered in secret.
SSCReader
2mo ago
1789 Constitution.
The US was founded in 1776 though. Possibly by 1789, you had enough of a change (though I would think it probably took significantly longer), but that still means that it was not founded by Americans.
I suppose that does also pose the question, would you consider those brought into the US via the Louisiana purchase Americans? Do they get a pass because the territory being incorporated was carried out by the Founders? Are Cajuns Americans in your system?
SSCReader
2mo ago
Some of the subtext in the prequel trilogy is that the Jedi were blind idiots, but most people just paper that over with uhhh Sith force powers? and then get on enjoying the black and white story, which is what Star Wars is "supposed" to be. It takes a lot of mature writing to make Andor work despite the deviation from that.
But what this shows is that it's the exact opposite problem surely? People were complaining that Disney ruined the Jedi by making them evil and stupid. But the truth you are claiming is that the audience is just not able (or willing) to absorb the kind of nuance which says actually the Jedi (as acknowledged by themselves and other external sources) were kind of stupid, arrogant assholes at the systemic level. Even as much as most of them, were good people at heart. That is fundamentally part of the story Lucas wanted to tell. That is what Star Wars is "supposed" to be.
It's fine that people want to paper over that nuance, if they don't find it enjoyable. But that is a different complaint than, this is all new stuff made up by Disney. Especially when they heap scorn on the creators on not being "real" Star Wars fans, when as you say they themselves have just decided to Flanderize the Jedi in their heads and ignore all the set up. Complaining about wokeness or bad writing and acting is one thing (and to be clear the Acolyte has significant problems in places there, in my opinion. Child actors are tough, but the young version of the twin's were simply not capable of carrying the story beats they were weighed down with.) But it is just ironic that much of what they are complaining about is literally what the story of the fall of the Jedi order is about, while they are complaining that real Star Wars fans know the Jedi are omni-competent good guys while complaining that Rey was boring because she was an omni-competent good guy.
And that is what is slightly annoying me, because as a Star Wars fan, I would like to see more stories about that. Where the Jedi are not simply perfect do gooders. So now the chances of getting some more stories which explore the contradictions in the Jedi philosophy and the interesting bits of Star Wars lore is probably dead in the water.
C'est la vie I suppose. Maybe I'll start up my old Star Wars D6 campaign using the old West End Games rules and set it in the era prior to the Empire, and give the Jedi characters some complex moral topics to wrestle with.
SSCReader
2mo ago
Except the Jedi weren't shown as evil, rather misguided and arrogant. Pre-Disney canon says that the pre-Empire Jedi had become over-zealous in their role about collecting force sensitive children and this had driven many smaller force religions into extinction or hiding. Check.
The Jedi had become corrupted by their political role, arrogant and complacent. Yoda says this. Palpatine says this. And is part of the reason their connection to the living force had waned. And why Qui-Gon was seen as a rogue operator by the Jedi. Check.
But even so every Jedi in the Acolyte is trying to do what they think is right. Note the fight is partially caused by the more militant witch choosing to mind control a Jedi, when Sol is only there because he thinks the girls are in danger. The Jedi are not shown as evil, they are shown as good people convinced of their correctness. Which is exactly the arrogance Yoda speaks of.
Now was the show good? Not really, creaky dialog and odd story beats. But was it bad because it suddenly retconned pre-Empire Jedi to have been evil? No, because it showed them in the light, we keep being told they were. The fall of the Jedi was set as soon as they became part of the political sphere in the Republic.
That is the tragedy of the Jedi. And that no-one remembers that, is the tragedy of the Acolyte.
The writer had issues with dialog, and some of the acting was ropey, but they clearly paid a lot of attention to pre-prequel EU material. From cortosis to the Corporate Sector, to yes the Jedi Order basically deciding they should be the only force game in town. What was shown of the Jedi is exactly what we have ben told. Good people in a systemically corrupt institution, that over centuries began to blind even people with access to super-powers.
Yoda, too late realizes this when confronting Palpatine, that he couldn't win, that the Jedi were doomed to lose from long before his own birth. That they had been blinded not by the Dark Side, but by their own hubris. And this is the wisest of the Jedi, who already thought the Jedi were getting too arrogant (as he notes in Ep 2.) This is why he becomes a broken figure in the original trilogy. Why it takes Obi-Wan to convince him.
SSCReader
2mo ago
I'm just correcting an erroneous statement. Because you said in Northern Ireland you can see mementoes of groups using small arms to get (not try to get) concessions from their government.
First the Provos main and most effective weapon was arguably bombs not small arms and they failed to get the concessions they wanted, means your statement is facially incorrect.
To address the main argument, I think explosives not small arms is arguably the only plausible route for an asymmetric insurgency (see IED's, PIRA bombs in Canary Wharf etc.) Whether even that is enough is I think arguable, but small arms won't do it, for the same reason the IRA moved to bombs. Guns put your small number of people who are willing to kill at risk against government forces. Expertise and access to bombs seems much more important than firearms.
Indeed most firearm use at the end was about punishing their own side and defectors. (Kneecappings and executions). Used to maintain control of their own enclaves. Indeed, the Loyalist Paramilitaries relied on guns more frequently because they lacked big targets for bombs as they were not fighting a government. Conflict at similar (low) power levels is more conducive to firearms I think, whether that is neighboring groups or criminals.
Interestingly enough, I got a Pro-Trump leaflet through the door, and about a quarter of it was dedicated to debunking the fact that Trump supported Project 2025 along with some Trump quotes calling them wrongheaded or something similar.
That tends to suggest at least some of the Trump PAC's et al think connecting him with Project 2025 is a potential weak point. Otherwise you don't spend time and money counter-pointing it. Though my wife had never heard of Project 2025 so all it succeeded in doing for her was make her look it up in a kind of Streisand effect way.
More options
Context Copy link