[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/hobby/ - Hobby

"Our hands pass down the skills of the last generation to the next"
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

File: 1618491962647.jpg (7.38 KB, 282x179, download (1).jpg)

 No.15143[View All]

Star Wars thread; To discuss, laugh and meme about Star Wars

Don't be a cunt and may the Force be with you

New general since last one hit bump limit.
Previous general:
204 posts and 65 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


interesting. latest story dealt with sentient droids and the possibility of a droid rebellion. definitely a parallel to slavery… or so i thought until they removed the agency of the droids malfunctioning to a sole individual. also the "happy slave" mindset, a la Harry Potter Elves, "we're happy to serve". But at the same time it outright states that the whole planet would collapse were it not for the droid's labor. Hell the droids themselves are shown to have their own bar and sentience, and a "fear" of being replaced as the threat of being scrapped, their entire population being genocided, is a very real reality in which the non-droids can vote to decomission them in their organic only direct democracy. it seems self aware of the implications of droid programmed labor but at the same time, these underlying politics are shoved under the rug due to them finding the culprit and needing to move onto the main story. even then one of the royals, played by jack black, was an ex-imperial and the camera focused on his reaction a bit longer. the head of security was not killed but sent to exile so i foresee a future storyline with himdefinitely a star wars equivalent of a left leaning radical, droid rights activist, communist, post left anti democracy sentiments as well as the political exile having unexplained beef with the ex-imperial democratically elected lord of state. Part of the episodes resolution involves stopping the Political Exile from resetting the droid's programming and thus causing a collapse of automated space luxury communism, so the awareness that the droids labor run their society is there, but its a conclusion that I cannot tell is left unanswered on purpose or shoved under the rug and glossed over for "political correctness". an interesting episode.


I think the world will be revisited later a la Navarro because Mandalore stood as the leader of a Galactic Non-Aligned Movement in the past and likely will do so again, and the only reason the plot wasn't explored more imho is there is only 2 episodes left in the season and some semblance of Mandalorian society needs to be restored, and some kind of greater overarching villain needs to be revealed to set up the Ahsoka show.

It is funny, though, how utterly awful the New Republic is shown to be, while a single planet with just mildly shrewd use of resources the New Republic was trying to destroy and dispose of en masse has achieved a comprehensively luxurious lifestyle.

Really just shows the excessive ideological waste of the New Republic / liberalism because they so fervently want to adhere to the symbolism of the Republic they are willing to condemn an entire group of very clearly sentient people (in battledroids) to death. The NR is basically doing a mass droid genocide for the sake of their own aesthetics.


moff gideon's mando armor kind of looks like a roblox 3d model i made and so thats cool.




I find it interesting since my head initially went to robot/proletarian allegory as well, but really the planet is living the FALSC dream exactly as many contemporary socialists imagine it - everything automated, free to live in nobility-esque luxury. It is clear that not all the droids are fully sentient or autonomous, evident by Din kicking the super battle droids and their lack of reaction. Perhaps it is truly a model society?


Droids may not earnestly care about doing harder labor if they don't feel exhaustion and don't have to worry about a biological clock, and it beats being genocided by the New Republic. If the story wants to earnestly affirm space communism with Jack Black characteristics, then I don't think it'd be that hard.


File: 1681332606273.png (6.84 MB, 1590x3738, ClipboardImage.png)


execute all aristocrats


Automated Gay Luxury Space Communism with Jack Black Juchian Characteristics(NOT CLICKBAIT)


> direct democratic elections


Libs think democracy is when you can ellect anyone, the more you let Trumps and Bolsonaros be elected, the more Democratic it is.


jar jar binks comics from star wars tale is really funny
but also sad about his mother and father just being a fake marriage


the finale was okay, I guess


File: 1693507283118.png (859.7 KB, 1024x650, ClipboardImage.png)

Well she's gotta make ends meet somehow lol

Those episodes were so asinine in retrospect, it's like all the characters had their intelligence downgraded and may of them have completely inappropriate lacks of reaction to situations. The IG droid situation was pointless and made no sense considering that he blew himself the fuck up. The Mandalorian who we learn has his son taken by that flying monster barely reacts to the fact, even though the Mandalorians are supposed to be passionate hotblooded warriors, even if they are coldly militant at times.
The retroactive aspect of Grogu and Luke is annoying too. They had this entire build up and finale at the end of S2 then just roll it back because "that baby Yoda sure brings in the money!" Also removing Gina Carano was a mistake, she had good chemistry with Mando. The new character meant to fill in her "kickass woman" role in the series (the Imperial Remnant Officer) just lacks charisma (or the body for that matter) to pull off the Amazonian warrior aspect Cara Dune brought.

Also Andor sucks. It's typical liberal "moral greyness" that isn't actually grey and is just inanity. The show ends up making the Empire look good because it essentially makes the rebels out to be a bunch of miserable cowards, sociopathic freaks and mindless drones; Wow, much grey, very real. Absolute trashfire. Andrew Serkis was one of the few parts of the series that I enjoyed, because he's a phenomenal actor and had some control over writing the character out.


Ahsoka Tano was a Padawan of the Jedi Order, so young and so underaged, she could use the miniskirts to influence the men to create… boners. She had such a knowledge of the jailbait, she could even keep the ones she cared about from the FBI.

The underaged side of the seduction is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be… illegal.

She became so powerful that the only thing she was afraid of was losing her power, which eventually of course she did. Unfortunately, she taught her fellow Padawan Baris Offee everything she knew, then Baris framed her for the Jedi Temple bombings. The public dismissed her claims of an inside job as conspiracy theory.

Ironic, she could save others from the FBI, but not herself.


So basically the same scene as from The Rings of Power when the elves visit the Dwarf King.


LMAO I made that last one a decade ago when I just graduated from high school. To still see it posted here…


Was Anakin right?


>Also Andor sucks. It's typical liberal "moral greyness" that isn't actually grey and is just inanity.
Moral greyness is a real thing when it comes to war or rebellion. That doesn't make a cause more right or wrong and the rebels are portrayed as being still on the right side of history. What's great about Andor is that they drop hints about the possible negative, proto-fascist aspects of the Republic, which is much more realistic than the Empire falling from the sky out of nowhere.
>The show ends up making the Empire look good because it essentially makes the rebels out to be a bunch of miserable cowards, sociopathic freaks and mindless drones
What, because they don't have plot armor this time? The Empire wasn't made to look good but more competent and fascistic. Maybe you could sympathize with some Imperials becase some of them were pretty young trying to do their job after they were placed in a position of responsibility and just drank the Imperial kool-aid - very reminiscent of actual fascist movements.

Were the writers liberals? Yeah, probably. Duh.


So what's the consenus on the Ahsoka show? I find it good enough not to find it bad - it's made pretty well, music is nice, it looks gorgeous, the dialog is a bit clumsy and some motivations of the characters don't make sense to me so far but I can overlook that. Some stuff triggers me, like Ahsoka jumping from platform to platform without a rope or magnetic boots in the vacuum of space - but she's a force user, so whatever. Space magic.

Some complain that it's "too girlbossy" but I don't think that is happening at all, it's not "in your face" it's just a show with a lot of female characters. Did you that the actress who plays shin, the Dark Jedi apprentice is Ukrainian and cultural ambassador of Zelenski?
>be Ukrainian actress
>play a fascist
The joke makes itself.


File: 1695063140549.jpg (321.46 KB, 1280x720, Remove Huk.jpg)

>Moral greyness is a real thing when it comes to war or rebellion
Yes it is, but how it is depicted matters, because in a story just saying "muh both sides" with no other genuine point is just inane, it doesn't actually go anywhere. It resembles Чернуха, a genre of Russian film where it's just so nihilistic and meanspirited that you're just left thinking "so what's the point then, that everyone and everything sucks?" - utter misery porn. You want a good depiction of revolutionary moral greyness in a story? Read Sholokhov's Quiet Flows the Don or watch the film. Or Bulgakov's The Days of the Turbins, or the film Come and See, or Бумбараш and any number of Soviet books and films regarding war and rebellion.

>the rebels are portrayed as being still on the right side of history

Except they aren't. Ironically the Star Wars Rebel's cartoon does a better job of this than Andor. The Rebels are a mix of fanatics, greedy bourgs and liberals that use people with nothing to lose or that fight for money to do their dirty deeds. They cause misery and problems for the population and their leadership dismisses it, they have no plan or real methods and just come off like a bunch of wreckers provoking a fascist government. They actually make the fucking Empire look good in comparison, since the Empire's harsh actions are a result of their "rebellion" most of the time. There is no bright side here. The liberals want Mon Mothma to BE the bright side, but she's a SuccDem liberal pacificist.
Saw Guerrera is also annoying as hell, an obvious and negative allusion to Che Guevara that is unprincipled (changing his mind for little good reason), unnecessarily violent and uncaring of the pain he may bring others and generally just being all bluster about rebellion while having no other ideology than "muh freedum" a complete mockery of Che's legacy and of revolution in general. Not a single one of the rebel characters has genuine ideals or revolutionary passion, not a single one is even an authentic fanatic, they're all just miserable vermin clawing for power, influence, money, revenge or vague shallow imitations of ideology.
>Maybe you could sympathize with some Imperials becase some of them were pretty young trying to do their job after they were placed in a position of responsibility and just drank the Imperial kool-aid - very reminiscent of actual fascist movements.
True, but at the same time they're also the most authentic characters in the show, genuinely wanting to do good and thinking they are doing the right thing. At least these characters, caricaturesque as they are in places, have more heart in them. You feel sympathy for them. I look on the rebels and every one of them is one or another sort of scumbag.

>What's great about Andor is that they drop hints about the possible negative, proto-fascist aspects of the Republic

Except that's not great at all. The entire POINT of the original trilogy and prequels was the rise and fall of a fascistic empire that arose from the corrupt greed of a capitalist hegemon. Coruscant and the developed planets are LITERALLY a depiction of America and its allies relative to the Outer Rim (3rd World). Even the CIS is a depiction of a grand-scale conflict involving Second and Third World planets fighting against the First World Core. These are on a grand scale. Obviously on a low level there are going to be moral grey zones, but the overarching ideals remain.
The Rebellion was thematically a rejection of all fascism and tyranny, it was a heroic fight against oppression that was supposed to conclude with a new, reformed republic. What we get instead is just a return to the status quo and "muh realism (TM)" which is the most tiresome, edgy trope imaginable.

>because they don't have plot armor this time

<Rebels lose most battles in Old Star Wars and even in the 2 climactic victories they had over the Death Stars lost immense numbers of ships and troops.
<Ignores the story being character driven
<ignores even main characters dying or having horrible shit happen to them
Ah yes, like Darth Vader and his plot armor of losing all his limbs or Luke losing his arm and nearly dying several times.
Yeah no. This shit about "muh plot armor" doesn't apply to OG SW. Star Wars isn't a hyper-realistic setting. It's always been a character-driven story set in a mix of Space-Western and Swords and Sorcery. A good morally grey and relatively more realistic space-western that doesn't do "plot armor" as you imply would be Firefly + Serenity, as it doesn't shy from killing characters and has the good guys lose or get hurt plenty.
>The Empire wasn't made to look good but more competent and fascistic.
It's depicted as far less fascistic in Andor prior to the Rebel's actions, and the Empire has always been competent. This "incompetent Empire" meme is just that a meme, born of the fact that we follow its exploits through the lens of characters opposing and negative towards the Empire, and so scornful of it. Andor still has us follow the story through characters that dislike the Empire… and yet the Empire still looks like the lesser evil in comparison, that's a major fuck up, though as you said - The Writers are libs, duh.

Unironically I think the Boba Fett show was better, and it was a mess relatively. Even the lame Mandalorian Season 3 was better than this shit.

TL;DR: Star War's is science-fantasy fiction, it's meant to be thematic first and foremost, thus Darth Vader's actions of slaughtering children and killing his wife, thus the purity and naivety of Luke, thus the rough-around-the-edge but good-at-heart Han Solo. Moral greyness has its place in Star Wars, you can see it in the very first film, however how it is done is important. Andor fails in this aspect. It's plot is inane, the main character just an insert that just ends up in these situations and everything is just bleak and miserable with no real upside.
Better depictions of "moral greyness" can be found in Star Wars Legends EU, such as General Grievous' backstory.


You are a midwit.

The creator is left wing. He also made the Bourne series of movies which criticized the EU's treatment of Greece and Russia's 90's collapse and privatization along with the CIA and tech sector and he even said he was inspired for Andor's robbery scene from the early Bolshevik train robberies. In fact you sound like you've never watched the show the entire point is Andor's radicalization journey from "I don't care leave me alone and I'll go find a beach somewhere to retire" to "holy shit we have to fight there is no other way". Not to mention the presence of genuine idealists like Cinta or Nemik involved in the fight.

The empire does not look good at all. They torture people, hand out unjust prison sentences, massacre their prisoners, and are just so odious that if you walked away thinking the Empire looked good that says more about you than anyone else.


Meaningless ad hom
>C-creator is LEFTIST
Liberal LARPers are not leftists
>made the Bourne series of movies
irrelevant, and other than the first 2 films, the Bourne series was contrived as fuck and literally pulls the "secret evil sect of the CIA that akchually is a rouge operator" BS that Hollywood always does.
>he even said he was inspired for Andor's robbery scene from the early Bolshevik train robberies.
LARP and as someone that grew up watching Неуловимые Мстители and Как Закалялась Сталь his imitation was awful. The illogical actions of characters are so beyond the suspension of disbelief in this "realistic take" that it's impossible to ignore. C ass's search for a "surviving sister" which was a lie and a pointless insert in the story for the sake of introducing misery porn, the Hostess at the brothel approaching some random stranger that looks like a bum rather than the Imperial patrons that came earlier was retarded when everyone under the Empire would know better than to ignore such customers, especially in cutthroat establishments like a bottom-rung whorehouse. This creates the entire shitty situation outside in the rain and then Andor just casually murders an unarmed mook begging on his knees, a man whose only crime is at worst being an asshole. Murder for being an asshole… amazing history.
>the entire point is Andor's radicalization journey from "I don't care leave me alone and I'll go find a beach somewhere to retire" to "holy shit we have to fight there is no other way".
And it FAILS at that because his motivation for joining feels forced as fuck. It jumps from cartoonishly caricaturesque evil to "muh uber-realism" and back again.
LMAO I'm not even going into that laughable liberal depiction - literally "strong non-white womyn" stereotype that Disney inserts everywhere. Oh and of course lesbian too, for the alphabet-soup brownie-points. But of course it's only alluded to with the "share a bed" line so as to not hurt sales in China and the Middle East.
I'll admit that I skipped over him, but yes he is a genuine idealist, so I'll give you that, however his role in the story is tiny and creates a plot-hole. We hardly know the contents of the Manifesto and its impact on the Rebellion is negligible, seeing how we never hear even an inkling of it in The Mandolorian, The Original Trilogy, The Legends Books, the Disney Novels or anywhere else, because it's a retcon.

>They torture people

So do the rebels, and often in contrived and unnecessary circumstances. Moreover this behavior worsens as a reaction to the rebels' actions, in essence causing people misery and pain, as much as the Empire.
>massacre their prisoners
Cartoonish and contrived as fuck, like I said, only Serkis saved that episode from being garbage written by someone that has never been in prison or bothered to study how prison guards actually abuse prisoners. On a large-scale non-political prisoners do not make for good radical revolutionaries, Soviet Revolutionaries went to prison AS revolutionaries, not vice-versa. It's also something that the prisoners are mostly innocuous compared to the cartoonishly evil guards, when such high-security prisons are rife with corruption and vileness like rape, rackets and more, yet we hardly see that, only overbearingly evil prison management. It attempts to homage THX-1138 and in doing so fucks up the aspect of "realism" in the story, as THX's story and oppression featured within is a rather distinct type of cyberpunk dystopia that doesn't fit the theme of a more traditional fascist regime like the Empire, which relies not on the elimination of emotions but on the harnessing, control and direction of them; from propaganda meant to evoke pride or hatred to dissenters, to the very design of the storm-trooper and ISB uniforms meant to evoke fear and dominance.

The over-all theme of Cass realizing he can't escape the empire and can either be crushed under the Imperials boot or fight back. This becoming accelerated as the ISB clamp down on the people as a result of the train robbery creating increased tensions is theoretically good, but the execution of this idea, in depiction and script is typical burger libshit, and this is among the better episodes. Other ones are worse and the first one was just fucking inane from all sorts of angles. Moreover the problem of "he can't escape the Empire's oppression" is fucking stupid because he can just flee to the Outer Rim, a safe haven for criminals and where the rebellion also hid much of its forces, thus it further undermines the plot since the entire situation is contrived, even more so because, even if he isn't arrested for the train robbery, and instead a trumped up charge, he still DID commit a crime, which means regardless of what the official charge was, he's a criminal. If they depicted him as having nothing to do with the actual robbery, but having been aware of it through interactions with 'rebels' and then arrested by proxy, that would be much more thematically consistent.

Also compare this to the character Ezra from Star Wars Rebels, he isn't an adult that knows the criminal world well enough to smuggle himself out, he's just a delinquent whose parents were arrested and executed. This street rat disliked the empire, but also is skeptical of the rebel movement. As he matures, he opposes the Empire with actual purpose and direction while warming up to the rebellion. He has no option to flee until later and by the time he could, he no longer will.
>just so odious that if you walked away thinking the Empire looked good that says more about you
Reading this I have to say YOU are the midwit and a speedreader too; I said that in comparison the larger representation of the rebellion the empire appears good, not that the empire itself is good, you fallacious imbecile.

The only reason people "like" Andor is
A) Because it's edgy and gritty and not Star Wars*
B) Because it's better than that idiotic Kenobi series and other recent Disney project failures

*Star Wars is supposed to be, exciting, emotional, colorful and futuristic with serious, sad and philosophical moments, encapsulated within old-school story-telling. It is not supposed to bare-bones misery-porn and political preaching. While George Lucas was certainly touching on politics in his films and stories, the main point was not just the main character of the story he was telling, but also the story, without one or the other the film would fail.

Andor fails this because it's base idea may be interesting, but the execution lacks any charm and has little passion. Nemik is the most passionate character in this (although performance-wise Serkis did a fantastic job of displaying this as well) yet relative to the story he's a side-character and does not set the tone for the rebels or the protagonist who are muddier than a catfish. Cass feels like a Self-Insert, and not the idealist kind as Luke is often claimed to be; almost like Player Character in a DnD quest. Roll a d2, get kidnapped from your stupid Planet of the Children, Timeskip and get into a criminal plot, Roll a d15 - train robbery goes well. Roll a d2, get arrested by guards for false charges and imprisoned etc. etc. The main character is like some puppet thrown into a formulaic plot and wriggling through them towards an inevitable characterization dictated by a different prequel retcon movie (Rogue One).


File: 1695162450412.png (1.11 MB, 1080x1920, seventh sister 3d.png)

3D CG has really advanced since the 2010s, especially regarding skin-textures, shading, movement flexibility and reducing clipping.
Also 3D pron thread >>>/siberia/297367
3D sfw >>>/draw/1454
>>>/draw/3811 Alunya 3D
SFM >>>/hobby/35530


> The show ends up making the Empire look good
the show pretty much presents the empire as a fascist police state running concentration camps where prisoners are worked to death and somehow it makes the empire look good? why do people come to leftypol to say the stupidest contrarian shit imaginable. i mean you could plausibly argue that they make the empire look a bit better than nazi germany because they only showed the concentration camps and didn't really dwell on the extermination camps but even that's pushing it a lot.


seems crazy fucking boring. even huge fans of the clone wars show should avoid watching that shit and do something more entertaining such as filing taxes.


>why do people come to leftypol
I've been on leftypol since before the leftpol split on 8ch.
>say the stupidest contrarian shit
<It's contrarian because the person doesn't like the show that everyone is praising
No faggot, I explain quite thoroughly in my posts, rather than seething, short bitch-fits like yours'

>the show pretty much presents the empire as a fascist police state running concentration camps where prisoners are worked to death and somehow it makes the empire look good

Stop being a speedreader; I said that the depiction of the main character and the "rebels" and whatnot make the empire look good by comparison, not that the Empire IS good. And moreover the depictions and actions of many characters are inconsistent, illogical and clash with the ideas the story is attempting to present, especially given its emphasis on "realism" within the setting.
>you could plausibly argue that they make the empire look a bit better than nazi germany because they only showed the concentration camps and didn't really dwell on the extermination camps
That's the problem, like in a lot of shows depicting fascism heavy-handidly, they fail to present it as bad and so have to resort to extremes so as to point and say "see it really IS evil" even though it feels dysfunctional and disjoined within the setting. The Empire IS evil and concentration camps would be consistent, but the depiction of it is so stupid, especially when the opposition we're supposed to be cheering for is a dismal lot of scum that aren't any better, and are only not doing the same because they don't have the power to do so. It's the equivalent of supporting the Polish Government in Exile (from WW2) relative to Nazi Germany, when the Polish Sanitsia was just as scummy, and were simply incapable of enforcing their own form of oppression and exploitation. It's inane, especially since within the original story of Star Wars, regardless of the minor details, the Rebellion was truly a force of good and justice, that may not have been perfect, but had moral and ideological highground over the Empire, which is part of why they win. The Rebellion in Andor reminds me of Nazi propaganda depictions of the French Resistance.


Don’t tell this nigha about the elicit activities the bolsheviks carried out while in exile lmao


Also you didn’t actually explain how the show makes the Empire look better you witless faggot, all you did was whine about the fact that the regular people who ended up with the galactic insurgency weren’t all squeaky clean heroes who never feared and always knew what they were doing

It’s actually ironic as fuck to see a site where most people worship the bolsheviks and USSR but your ass is here whining about how the Rebellion had to do some shady shit to be able to confront an extremely powerful, murderous, unstable fascist regime


File: 1695268592273.png (419.03 KB, 500x631, ClipboardImage.png)

Reread my post you imbecile, I grew up on films and books about the Revolution, given my background. My own great-grandfather was one and his father as well.
>implying that the Bolshevik movement was unitary before 1920
<implying that the Bolshevik leadership condoned anarkid wrecker shit
Lenin was hardcore about reigning and directing red terror in a manner that benefited the Revolution, not random sabotage, encouraging a united leadership in ideology as well as action, not this inane bullshit conglomerate that Andor has, consisting of space-Kulaks and liberals.
>hine about the fact that the regular people who ended up with the galactic insurgency weren’t all squeaky clean heroes who never feared and always knew what they were doing
Nice strawman there faggolo. That's not what I said at all. What I said is that this is fiction with a story that has a specific idea behind it, through a specific character. However the idea is skewed because of multiple reasons such as the hero being violent not because he has to be, but because he's a cowardly, snivelling sociopath going with the flow, and the other rebels are mostly the same. He's supposed to be motivated to join the rebel movement, but instead just gets dragged along, like shit in a current.
>the Rebellion had to do some shady shit to
No you brainless, speedreading simpleton. The rebellion in the original and pre-Disney works also did shady shit. Stealing from a train for example isn't the problem - it makes sense and is obviously a rebel-partisan act. It's how this is executed, and with what motivations and characters; The motivations are not revolutionary, it's just petite-bourgs fucking around because the Empire didn't cut them into the deal and so they're lashing out, using mercenaries and psychopaths to do it. That's not the actions of a leftist revolutionary, that's the actions of a reactionary subversive element, like the Basmachi counter-revolutionaries that the Bolsheviks fought AGAINST in Mid-East Asia.
>you didn’t actually explain how the show makes the Empire look better
I did, in simple terms: the rebels act just like the Empire - greedy, ruthless, violent and scummy, but even worse, because their actions harm the people they're supposedly fighting for. It would take literal essays to break-down each moment of the Empire compared to the Rebels in this show to see how the Empire looks justified to anyone looking at this from a neutral lens and not already aware that the rebels are supposed to be the 'good guys'. The imperial raid has some moron literally rush them when told to stop so they gun the fat fuck down… even though in the context of the scene, it's utterly illogical for whats-his-face character to do that and the ISB literally responded to an attempted assault. I'm not defending the empire here, I'm stating that from the way we see this scene in episode 3 the actions of the Agents appears more rational and justified than the actions of the supposedly justified rebels. Let me repeat - the show makes THE EMPIRE'S AGENTS appear MORE RATIONAL and JUSTIFIED than their opponents.

Compare this to Cass who gets into a fight with a couple of drunken mook asshole who don't know him and who he will never see again, nor have a way of tracking him, yet when the man is begging for his life in the street, he shoots him in the head in cold blood. Wow, such moral greyness, much drama! And then even more comedically the local Imperials decide to sweep it under the rug - the command literally decides to mark it down as a tragic accident and dismiss it, rather than (as expected of a fascist empire) cracking down harshly, locking down the area and mass-arresting suspects as has been depicted in other shows, films and books of Star Wars and in real life dictatorships. And the reasoning for this is literally taken from anti-Soviet propaganda about Soviet militia forces under-reporting crimes because of "muh bureaucracy". Especially when, if the crime report was supposed to look good to the upper command, they could simply have done what they do in another episode - arrest and frame some random person and mark the case solved.

So to compare - Imperial Agents kill a man that may assault them (excessive police violence) vs our "hero", beats up a drunk pair of glorified deputies and then when they are no threat to him and have no way of IDing him, fucking murders them execution style, which is not only abhorrent, but also stupidly illogical because any criminal knows that cop-killing is a surefire way to get the fucking feds hunting you, a desperate, aimless criminal like Cass would be avoiding that at all costs. So not only does Cass appear far more immoral to the Imperials, but he also is depicted as doing so not only with no clear reason, but directly contrary to his own interests at the time. So yes in the context of Cass and the other "rebel" characters the Empire appears more justified and decent than it has any right to be. Hilariously enough Andor later spares an Imperial Officer in Episode 3 despite having MORE reason to kill the officer… why? Because who fucking knows, because he never has any impact on the plot after this. Maybe Season 2 will have something, but regardless it'll be contrived.

The entire show is like this with fucking CawofDoody tier writing, but because Western audiences fap to this LARP conception of revolutionaries (projecting their inner fantasies, insecurities and strawmen), they lap this shit up as "realistic" and 'gritty'. It isn't, this is stupid writing from both a realism perspective, and from the perspective of a story with greater themes over the base plot. Since the actual actions and depictions gainsay much of the supposedly intended themes.

Another example is in Episode 4 where supposedly the shepherds in the mountains were oppressed by the Evuuul Empire… even though within the conversation of Andor and the StrongWomanStereotype#243 it's revealed that the Empire built apartments and homes that most of the indigenous residents basically chose to live in rather than remain troglodytes… and it's even proven to be a choice because there remain people that prefer to live in nature as hermits. In episode 6 we actually see more of these Indigenous peoples that the 'rebel' group Andor joins is supposedly sympathetic to; on a pilgrimage to the area of the rare natural event that will occur, which is also conveniently near a developing Imperial base. The Imperials wish to place an landing pad on the sacred plateau, that the local population venerates. And how does the EVUL EMPIRE behave towards these undeveloped aboriginals? Do they massacre them with superior firepower, intentionally and unintentionally spread disease among the population, rape their women, take their lands and resources while forcing their remainders onto sparse reservations like the United States did to the Native American tribes? Do they enslave and force them to work on plantations like the British and Americans did to Africans? No. Instead they offer transport to the plateau, build taverns for rest, food and drink catering to local tastes. Not only that, but those remaining 60 pilgrims that continue onwards are not warded off with guns, but greeted cordially, and the Imperial Officer in charge proceeds to personally greet and welcome these people, respecting their traditional ways, requesting politely to join them and exchanging goat skins with them as a token of peace and friendship. All to subtly discourage this religious remnant of a tradition. Let me remind you that this is not the corrupt Republic, but the FASCIST GALACTIC EMPIRE led by one of the most evil villains to exist in fiction or reality. Let me also remind you that discouragement of religious spooks is something encouraged by communist thought, while rhetoric such as Nemik's harping about the better past that is "forgotten" is reminiscent of typical succdem bleating about "good capitalism not bad capitalism!" As a reminder, the Bolsheviks tore down churches that were not considered culturally significant or works of art. Compare this to rebels' attitude towards the aboriginals that reeks of typical entitled american liberal rhetoric, of "you poor uneducated minority, let me act on your behalf, you just don't know you're being oppressed by these actions!" taking away all agency of this indigenous people, who are not being maltreated in any way, but in fact are being treated well in an attempt to benignly integrate them into the Empire.

Then the rebels burst in, kidnap the Officer's family including his young son, and when the Officer states that regardless of what he'll do, they'd kill all of them anyway, to which LeadStrongWomanStereotype#243 accuses him of doing the same, in spite of his actions on the planet being in direct contrary to this claim. The actions following, wherein the "rebels" force the guards to load coin until the old one dies of heartfailure, results in the Imperials REBELLING against the rebels. The writers probably thought they were being very clever with this ironic turn of events, but it's just stupid, and again just makes the rebels out to be little more than bandits.
>inb4 muh Romanoffs
The EMPEROR of an empire is completely incomparable to some officer in some backwater who has literally done nothing to evoke such retribution, not to mention that revolutions rely on low-level officers and troops being swayed to the opposing side such as in the case of the RKKA. Moreover Lenin himself was against the execution of the Tsar's family as it made him a martyr and the killing of the children was pointless given that the Czar had abdicated long before the Bolsheviks even took power, the Ural Soviet took action on their own and against Lenin's orders. I'm not even going to mention that in regards to children Stalin held a policy that "the son is not responsible for the sins of the father" in regards to counter-revolutionaries and their families. This action may be realistic, but the point is that in regards to this entire situation, AGAIN, the Empire appears more benign than the fucking rebels, especially considering the violent backlash these activities cause. The entire heist is supposed to be an "homage" to Soviet films, but it's so ass-backwards that I can only assume that either the writer is an anti-communist, or has hands growing out of his ass.

Let me reiterate for umpteenth time, the Empire is an evil, fascist dictatorship, but these depictions of it and the rebels are so fucking contradictory to this narrative, that the only reason we see the Empire as evil, is the backlash that the rash, wrecker activities of the so-called-rebels inflict upon the local peoples, while the actual rebels remain unscathed. That isn't grey morality or realism, that's just retarded story-telling.

Or another example, when Cass gets snitched on by Bix's jealous BF, his criminal report regarding actions ranges from assault, to sabotage and other felonies each of which on their own in the USA today, can land you a 5-15 year prison sentence at the very least, yet this fucker is free as a fucking bird despite being known to the Empire as an active dissenter and criminal - how the fuck does that work? Either the Empire is a totalitarian, regime that brutally cracks down on crime in excess or it's an incompetent bunch of idiots. Frankly speaking why the fuck should I care about Cass? He's a swindling, murdering dirtbag that, out of all the characters, deserves his prison sentence. You think the Bolsheviks were tolerant of this shit? 70+% of the Gulag was criminals, and not political ones either, were they all secretly revolutionary for doing crime? Or I guess the USSR was evil for punishing looters, rapists and war criminals in its ranks with execution by firing squad? In real life loose canons like Cassian would be fucking shot in the back by fellow rebels, for being a scumbag. The depiction of "concentration camps" is literally the same shit people screech about Gulags, but because everyone already has the concepts of the rebels being good guys overall and the Empire being a fascist dictatorship, (holding over from the OT), it skews everything, creating a mess of a message.

The biggest fucking comedy of all is that this entire shitshow takes place less than FIVE YEARS BEFORE A New Hope and it's stated, seen and implied over the series that the Empire only cracked down just now, with the rebels already "existing" as is even though
A) In the original canon, the crackdown began with the fall of the Republic, and is seen in examples like the glassing of Geonosis, and so should have been going on for much longer than 5 years
B) The rebels, like any revolutionary group began actively fighting back as the fascist Empire's actions drove people to rebel, and as the Empire tried to suppress this, drove even MORE people into the rebellion.
Yet according to Andor the Empire has been relatively complacent until very recently and it takes an extremely short time for dissenters and disgruntled people to rise up… which goes directly against dialectical materialist analysis and reality itself - the Russian Empire was harsh as is, but rebellion didn't take off until WW1 worsened things by so much that the people literally had nothing left to lose.
In the OT by the Battle of Yavin, the rebellion was an organized group with a military discipline and organization that supposedly all came together in 5 years? The Russian revolutionary groups took decades to gain such influence, unity and organization, and even then part of the reason the Red Army had any discipline and military capability was because many Tsarist officers and White Army soldiers defected and were a driving force behind the military arm, for example Marshal Zhukov, or Budyonny.
So not only is this show's plot a retcon with counter-revolutionary ideology masquerading as "revolutionary" but it also is in direct conflict with reality and realistic depiction. So what we have is an edgy, nonsensical mess, pretending to be "DEEEEEP"

You want moral greyness? They should have had one of the rebel "leaders" get lynched by his men for trying to use the rebellion for his own ends, rather than being true to the cause, that would have been fucking moral greyness. Or having a Rebel fighter group capture a group of storm-troopers and ISB agents, but because they have no way of keeping POWs and can't just let them go to fight against them another day, are forced to execute them. Or do what Come and See did, with the actions of the rebels having huge consequences for local civilians under occupation, in the form of war crimes, and when the rebels finally take the village/planet/etc., they execute the war criminals without a trial, and move on to fight the next grim battle. THAT is morally grey and mature writing of a revolution, that is a display of rebels in gritty reality without stooping to making the rebels merely a ragtag loose group of liberal oppositionists, opportunist kulaks and marauding bandits masquerading as an opposition to the Empire. Anyone that likes Andor's counter-revolutionary depiction of rebels is either a blind moron or a fucking toxic psychopath.

TL;DR: Andor's depiction of "revolutionaries" and "rebels" is literally /pol/'s old meme of Commissar Jamal coming for your toothbrush. I've literally cited examples of morally grey stories about revolutionaries and rebellion in >>36440 and >>36406 that are actually good. This show is not and you're a moron for not seeing the blatant liberalism oozing from this edgy shitpile of a show. FUCK ANDOR AND FUCK YOU.


That’s quite a wall of text of tankie seething


File: 1695346635982.png (95.98 KB, 987x640, tl;dr words.png)

>hurr you didn't explain yourself and you're just a contrarian
<explain my points further
>LOL ur just a seething tankie
Ok liberast, thanks for conceding.

Also you're a typical /pol/-tier, product-consooming burger; when actually given an argument, you just resort to ad hom, because you can't read. Go back chinlet.


give it up ginjeet


Loving authority and state power doesn't make you a leftist


>Stop being a speedreader;
uygha nobody will read your retarded walls of texts thoroughly, you say nothing of worth anyway. must be kinda sad to be you, a witless fuck unable to communicate ideas in a compelling and concise way.


Imagine being this mad about a series with space glow swords and laser guns and tiny bears living in a forest. Have sex, touch grass, go outside at least to feel the sun, which is an actual thing in the real world.


>The show portrays the rebels in a counter-revolutionary manner that makes the empire look COMPARATIVELY good
<LOL u just luv uthority
Cope more ankid.

>More TL;DR cope
I stated my opinion succinctly, and was accused of "not explaining" but when I explain myself further; you bitch and moan about not reading it and use ad hominum like a typical infantile moron - hiding your illiteracy and ignorance behind dismissal
>unable to communicate ideas in a compelling and concise
I'm critiquing a TV-show that has an overall run-time longer than several films, I've been very concise, considering I've made several points within a few paragraphs, when a full analysis of a work this large is usually essay-level. As for compelling, the fact that you have no rebutall and have been VPN samefagging your cope replies says more about you. It's sad to see how leftypol has gone from posting and reading large amounts of text because we were more literate than our /pol/ counterparts, to where basic posting is now "text walls".

>a series with space glow swords and laser guns
Ah yes, of course, the typical deflection of "it's just muh space fantasy". Putting aside how that strawman isn't an argument, it's funny how the entire past few posts is about Andor being a "realistic" story that is distancing itself from the magical portions of such a setting, proving at least one of my points about how inane it is conceptually.
>Have sex, touch grass, go outsid
Unlike you permanently online, projecting NEETs, I work for a living, and I read literature and watch films as a form of relaxation, entertainment and education, thus I don't soyface over every show with fake-leftist themes like a LARPing ignoramus such as yourself. I suggest you either make an argument or go back to circle-jerking on r/Andor or whatever the subreddit for that show is named.


You claim to not be NEET but you demonstrate such a naive way of looking at the world that your brain becomes nonexistent when analyzing themes. For instance you criticize the rebels for acting ruthlessly.

Let's take a concrete example from the show: The heist was done in order to provoke an extreme reaction from the Empire so that they would launch a crackdown and push more people into the rebel camp. Does this sound familiar to you? It's the exact same playbook the CIA uses to try to ferment fbi.gov in color revolutions. The people in China in Tienanmen Square (the protest leaders anyways) confessed that their goal was to get the PLA to massacre everyone so that people would rise up and overthrow the government. They failed because Deng was very restrained.

So we literally have real life events mimicking one of the very same tactics used in the show and you complain because it's not 100% morally "correct"?

Forget about watching shows you should stay in Kindergarten because you've never progressed past that point.


>You claim to not be NEET but you demonstrate such a naive way of looking at the world
You're implying a false narrative here by trying to tie in the concept of a "NEET" with "naivety" when they are irrelevant to one another.
>ou criticize the rebels for acting ruthlessly
And again you prove yourself to be a speed-reader. I criticize the DEPICTION of the rebels being manipulative, opportunistic bastards that aren't just ruthless, but needlessly cruel or violent, something that has been criticized in revolutionary rhetoric constantly. The problem isn't the actions of violence in themselves in the instance of rebellion, as I pointed out regarding the heist, but the way, reasoning and methods that we see, especially in comparison to the Empire. I further provided examples of what could be ruthless and dark actions by the rebels that could still be justified or at the very least be understandable acts of a rebel group, rather than just counter-revolutionary depictions of the rebels being a bunch of discount bandits LARPing as revolutionaries and "freedom fighters". It reminds me of Nazi troops, massacring and marauding while purporting to be "freeing" the world of "le bolshevik menace" or the Basmachi, a bunch of glorified Tatar bandits that were "against le evul Soviets".

In other words
A) The Empire and its oppression is closer to a American propaganda depiction of the USSR from the 80s than the depiction of Nazi Germany and the United States as Lucas intended.
and B) the rebels, who are supposed to be heroic revolutionaries are depicted as glorified bandits, that use rebellion as a justification for their awful behaviour, something that every Revolutionary theorist and leader has criticized, from Lenin and Mao, to Che and Sankara.
It's muddled nonsense that feels like an anti-communist, anti-revolutionary jibe.

>The heist was done in order to provoke an extreme reaction from the Empire so that they would launch a crackdown and push more people into the rebel camp.

Which is fucking retarded. Lenin, Che and Castro would spit at this, because while they understood that sabotage and rebel acts would cause crackdowns, which MAY drive people to support the rebellion, that was not the main reason for these actions. Acts like robbing bank-trains was to fund the revolution and cause damage to their political enemies first, and backlash would be mitigated because these actions were grassroots rebellions, from local populations, not from the outside. And furthermore they infiltrated the ranks of the military, agitating revolutionary ideology and making them question the morality of killing their own people, thus destabilizing from within, not harassing from the outside and simply being slapped back.

Yethere we see rebels operating in an area where the people are not rebelling or heavily oppressed, so it's not a grass-roots movement but a foreign provocation that is more likely to drive the locals into supporting the Empire, since logically the Empire would crack down not on the local population, but on people arriving to the planet, making them more likely to lockdown areas and arrest those arriving or trying to leave instead of people staying put in their homes.

>The people in China in Tienanmen Square (the protest leaders anyways) confessed that their goal was to get the PLA to massacre everyone so that people would rise up and overthrow the government. They failed because Deng was very restrained.

Except it fails regardless, and only caused the Chinese people to support the government even more.
In England and the USA during the 1930s the government used tanks to deal with workers protests, let alone acts of rebellion, and the result? A resounding silence amongst the population, and indeed many supported the government, because they blamed the protestors for causing worsening conditions. The same thing happened with the Right-Wing IRA groups during the troubles, as many of their indiscriminate terrorist acts, unlike those by the leftIRA, caused the Brits to crackdown and Northern Ireland's population was temporarily divided as many were angry at the IRA for bringing the British military onto their heads, while the IRA themselves were hiding in their safehouses.

There's a reason the Bolsheviks did not openly antagonize the Russian Empire into military action very often, and instead capitalized on existing acts of violence against peaceful protests or grass-roots rebellion - making sure to spread the news and agitate, which garnered them support in 1917 by the proletarians and peasants, especially as they were organized enough to actually liberate areas and protect them from retribution. Trying to accelerate things like this has almost always worsened things for the Revolution, since it's only made them more marginalized. Revolutionary accelerationism only functions when conditions are already bad enough that rebellion is just under the surface, and a crackdown would be enough to make it erupt. An example would be in the 1930s USA, when workers conditions were getting so bad that people were all but ready to rebel, which is why FDR rushed to give them as much as possible with Social Democratic Welfare Capitalism, assuaging the population, defusing the situation and, in his own words, saving Capitalism. The Empire is an efficient fascist machine, yet its actions in the show are contradictive to the narrative of a fascist Empire - assuaging the locals of that planet makes no sense given the narrative of fascist imperialism - which is why I brought up the USA's massacre of Native Americans. The Republic of the Clone Wars era would have and did use token manipulation to get native populations on planets to side with them or permit their colonialism, but the entire point of the Prequel trilogy was that at the end, the Republic became the Galactic Empire and had gone from a diplomatically manipulative Capitalist society to a militaristic, repressive fascist one and that this became the roots of the growing rebellion, which itself held lingering roots in the CIS' attempt to break away.

>you complain because it's not 100% morally "correct"?

No, I am criticizing it's depiction not matching the stated intent and the contradictory narrative relative to the setting, creating a show that frankly espouses childish and frankly counter-revolutionary depictions of revolution, rebellion and sabotage. That's not even going into shoddy acting, blatant liberal preaching, contrived and illogical actions, plot induced stupidity of the characters and poor cinematography. I'll stick to rewatching/rereading Неуловимые Мстители and Capitaine Casse-Cou, because this is garbage and people that think it's actually good objectively have no taste, comes with the territory of mindlessly consuming Hollywood's schlock of the past decade.

As for you: You've ignored 90% of my argument to make a fallacious strawman, continue with idiotic ad hom and provided a single cherry-picked example of your point, that isn't even relevant to the actual show, given the complete difference of Deng's market-socialist China and The fascist Galactic Empire, as well as the scale of the Tianamen protests compared to the scale of the rebels' actions in Star Wars. Thus you demonstrate a complete lacking in revolutionary history, revolutionary theory, cinematographic depictions of revolution and revolutionaries and in story-narratives.


File: 1695609232300.png (1.16 MB, 1002x1271, ClipboardImage.png)

>Muh Andor is good becuz it's "le dark and gritty"
>Muh grey morals, muh realistic rebellion and No Jedi LOL!
Did I time travel to the 90s or something? Andor is another shitty Disney exploitation of the Star Wars IP, it is boring ass liberal schlock using pseudo-leftist rhetoric and rebel LARP and professing it as revolutionary. Anyone actually well-read in the theory of real revolutionaries should recognize that - regardless of whether the intent of the creators was genuinely meant in good faith - the depictions are all sorts of counter-revolutionary.

Andor's flaccid attempt at material analysis is inconsistent with the narrative it is meant to portray and inconsistent with the narrative of the original films' continuity its setting is based in. The creators openly stated they don't care if they retcon the original Star Wars, which already brings up the question of "Why set it in Star Wars to begin with?" the answer to which is simple; if it wasn't set in such a well known IP, nobody would watch or care for this shit, because it's literally the same as every other crappy, mass-produced radlib Netflix show. There aren't even any stakes because we know how Andor dies… in Rogue One, and almost none of the other characters are sympathetic. I can think of maybe 1 or 2 characters that aren't unlikeable variants of either fodder, walking tokens, writer self-inserts or caricatures.

As for Jedi and the force not being present, one of the things that makes Star Wars so distinct among its contemporaries in the science fiction and science fantasy genre is The Force, it's literally a defining part of the series and avoiding it is just retarded

The first 2 seasons of the Mandalorian did Grey Morality better, hell even Rogue One, though chock-full of dumb shit, did a good depiction of the Fascist Empire's ruthlessness, revolutionary accelerationism, more radical sects of the Rebellion being morally questionable and characters not being plot-armored, all without preaching ideology through lazy idpol stereotypes talking at the audience in exposition dumps and still including the force and even Darth Vader, utilized minimally, but to dramatic effect. Again Rogue One is not a good film, to be honest, but I can admit that it has good portions and the story is at least narratively consistent, even if there are retcons and plotholes and stupid character moments. Andor fails this and people lapping it up are just contrarian hipsters or ignorant as hell.


>Lenin, Che and Castro would spit at this, because while they understood that sabotage and rebel acts would cause crackdowns, which MAY drive people to support the rebellion, that was not the main reason for these actions.

Meanwhile in reality:
>Initially, it was intended that women, children and elderly workers should lead, to emphasize the united nature of the demonstration. Vera Karelina, who was one of Gapon's inner circle, had encouraged women to take part although she expected that there would be casualties

You are an idiot who has no contact with reality. I don't have to address anything else because your childish bleating over what you think your beloved socialists may or may not have done has no basis in the real world.

You do not serve socialism. You serve a man-made religion that you have constructed for yourself that you call "socialism" because you are stubbornly unwilling to accept that socialist leaders or figures took ruthless actions when needed in order to push their respective causes forward.


I disagree


File: 1695686197577.png (1.08 MB, 965x965, ClipboardImage.png)

And again you prove you're a speed-reading retard with half-assed ideology for brains.
>in reality
<bloody Sunday 1905
I fucking knew you'd bring this up, because like all Western-fags that base your knowledge from Wikipedia and Western historiography, your understanding of the situation leading up to 1905's revolt is nonexistant.
>she expected that there would be casualties
<A Revolutionary expected backlash to a protest, so that means that revolutionaries WANT people to be oppressed for "muh revolutionary gainz"
<Leading a protest for workers rights while understanding it has a chance of violent retribution is the same as actively attacking a non-native area with no existing rebellious dissent for the sake of provoking a fascist crackdown and enriching some pissy Kulak
Go outside, find a cliff and take a dive you insidious bad faith faggot.

You are a stupid warped projector who feels attacked because I pointed out what a shit-show this garbage series is relative to cinematography and revolutionary depictions. You WANT revolutionaries to be unscrupulous killers and sociopaths because you are one and want to feel justified in it.
I stated a fact
>Revolutionary accelerationism only functions when conditions are already bad enough that rebellion is just under the surface, and a crackdown would be enough to make it erupt.
Relative to 1905 Russia, this is exactly the case, because unlike Germany at the time, workers conditions in Russia were at snapping point.

>You do not serve socialism

No I don't, because I'm not some mindless drone kowtowing before some violent effigy that you've created in your head. I serve the people, the proletariat and humanity.
>man-made religion
Beyond redundant - all religions are man-made you babbling twat.
>you have constructed for yourself
Meaningless nonsense, every human interprets things in their own way, and while there are some things that are generally universal, each person's experiences and understandings are their own and shaped as much by their own personal lives as the surroundings they share with others.
>you are stubbornly unwilling to accept that socialist leaders or figures took ruthless actions
Yet again you are a blatant, slanderer. I've stated this numerous times, the problem is not ruthless actions, it is wanton ones that serve no purpose or are merely imitations of revolutionary action, but that are played straight by the characters of the series. Moreover socialist leaders and revolutionaries took harsh actions, but reprimanded any brutalities and excesses, because they did not serve the Revolution. Lenin was critical of the Ural Soviet for executing the entire Romanov family the way they did, unnecessarily including the children as well, and in a brutal manner when simply putting a bullet to the back of the head would have sufficed. Such examples are numerous. I already stated examples of ruthlessness that could be depicted of revolutionaries and rebels which would not be disdainfully first-world depictions of what burgers think revolutionary violence is, but clearly you are too busy being a contrarian to see that.

I'd say read a book, but you're clearly an illiterate so I'll do you a favor and post some excerpts myself:

"A chekist can only be a man with a cold head, a hot heart and clean hands. Anyone who becomes cruel and whose heart remains insensitive to prisoners must leave here. Here, as in no other place, you need to be kind and noble." - "Iron" Felix Dzerzhinsky
"The life of a single human being is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man on earth." - Che, 1960 On Revolutionary Medicine (1960)
"We should not go to the people and say, "Here we are. We come to give you the charity of our presence, to teach you our science, to show you your errors, your lack of culture, your ignorance of elementary things." We should go instead with an inquiring mind and a humble spirit to learn at that great source of wisdom that is the people." - Che, 1960 On Revolutionary Medicine (1960)
=="Why does the guerrilla fighter fight? We must come to the inevitable conclusion that the guerrilla fighter is a social reformer, that he takes up arms responding to the angry protest of the people against their oppressors, and that he fights in order to change the social system that keeps all his unarmed brothers in ignominy and misery." - Che, Ch. I: 1. Essence of Guerrilla Warfare


>ok yes so there are indeed cases of socialist leaders knowingly pushing people to get killed in order to serve the greater cause but I carved out an exception for myself to not get owned in an argument and stated it should only happen during a revolutionary situation what now huh???
yeah ok so the KGB writing off Chile early on and deciding to provide no material support but just make propaganda attacking the CIA for killing Allende and the rest never happened and neither did Stalin selling out the Greek workers in the civil war simply to prevent a potential WW3 against the allied powers and neither did the billion other realpolitik decisions that took place haha wow

like I said: you are a child


>>36525 (continued)
Also here since you're so mad that I lazily cited wikipedia I'll piss you off even further by citing a Russian historian with connections to intelligence services who calmly admits that they should have sacrificed France in 1968 in order to achieve a propaganda victory (and nothing else not even a successful revolution - just for propaganda) instead of falling for the exact same trap the Americans pulled in Czechoslovakia.

You should just stop being involved in politics because even if you were involved in a socialist party that won a revolution you'd lose immediately afterwards because you have repeatedly demonstrated a childish naivete about how states actually work to win. I am actually astonished that you seem to imply that you are a Russian citizen but mentally you are less intelligent than a tiktok addicted Western teenager who at least won't try to claim that they are an expert researcher.


File: 1695753771657.png (678.97 KB, 900x469, ClipboardImage.png)

>Ok yes let me strawman again about death caused by a rebellious act as a possible byproduct and the concept of intentionally evoking pain and suffering onto the people for my own goals
>the KGB writing off Chile early on
This shit again, Allende rejected Soviet help himself, because of his pacifist approach which let Pinochet remain as a general in spite of his ideology. Material support can only be provided if it is willingly accepted. Moreover this was a Soviet mistake, to not directly involve themselves in stopping counter-revolutionary groups like Pinochet or the Contras, not a question about morality or wanton violence. In this case there was violence coming either way.
>Stalin selling out the Greek workers in the civil war
Your examples are nonsequiturs, regarding a socialist state choosing to intervene in a revolution of another country, not a revolutionary group itself taking action within a revolution and so is irrelevant to what is being spoken of here. The scale of this is incomparable to what I am speaking of. A revolutionary group is fighting a war, in the grand scale, those are violent and bloody, but we're not looking at the rebellion from a grand-scale, we're looking at Revolutionaries on a ground-individual level in Andor, which means comparisons of over-arching realpolitik are not applicable.
>"At a meeting with Yugoslav leaders in early 1948 (a few months before Yugoslavia's break with the Soviet Union), described by Milovan Djilas, second-in-command to Tito, Stalin turned to the foreign minister Edvard Kardelj and asked: "Do you believe in the success of the uprising in Greece?"
>''Kardelj replied, "If foreign intervention does not grow, and if serious political and
military errors are not made."''
>''Stalin went on, without paying attention to Kardelj's opinion: "If, if! No, they have
no prospect of success at all. What, do you think that Great Britain and the United
States — the United States, the most powerful state in the world — will permit you to
break their line of communication in the Mediterranean? Nonsense. And we have
no navy. The uprising in Greece must be stopped, and as quickly as possible."''
Furthermore, not assisting Greece or Chile because of real-life futility (compared to Vietnam, Korea or Cuba) is ruthless and calculated action, not wanton violence for the sake of it by individuals.

Like I said, you're a slanderer, who has ignored a massive number of my points, hyperfocused on a strawman of one of my arguments and then goal-post shifted to the point where the conversation is no longer about the merits (or lack thereof) of Andor as a TV-series depiction of Star Wars rebels.

>cite a Russian historia

That's not the meaning of citation. You're an idiot that babbles around, using terminology you don't understand.
>calmly admits that they should have sacrificed France in 1968 in order to achieve a propaganda victory (and nothing else not even a successful revolution - just for propaganda)
He is a historian, and that was his opinion, I even know which interview this is from. Even putting aside how this is irrelevant to the situation being debated (a grassroots revolution under a hegemonic empire) you've completely misrepresented what Fursov is saying here. Fursov is criticizing Soviet reactive politics in terms of the long-term impact, but he understood and explains the geopolitical reasoning. Furthermore I disagree to a point regarding France and Czechoslovakia in 1968, because the post-Stalin backlash to Khruschev's Secret Speech in both countries, the French communist party lost power and support by the people in the government, and open communist agitation so soon after, in 1968 would have been seen in a similar manner to other such agitations in Europe - as a Soviet provocation. Moreover Fursov speaks of the propaganda victory if NATO had been forced to crush protests violently… he ignores the fact that repressions did in fact happen but the reaction was restricted to police and national guard security and never escalated from there. He also ignores similar actions in the USA such as in 1992, 1967 etc. when the military repressed rioters and protestors with tanks, armored vehicles and gun-fire, yet it did nothing to change the status quo, because media control in Western States is sophisticated, as was the means of preventing dissenting media from being spread. The USSR was not as effective in this and suffered for it, but one cannot say that they weren't harsh enough at cracking down on anti-communists, as the Glasnost revealed.
Czechoslovakia in the meantime had been subject to years of Radio Svoboda propaganda and the anti-Stalin push in the Warsaw Pact of the 60s further gave liberals and counter-revolutionaries the opportunity to make a grab fro power within the system. But this is just debate on what course of strategic action would have been more successful, not the morality of it or individual actions.
I suggest that anyone that isn't a bad-faith ideologue such as yourself watch Егор Иванов's КАК ПОБРИТЬ ЕЖА. К 50-летию пражской весны, wherein you will see the background, reasoning and justifications of the Soviet intervention in Prague.

As a side note I've been talking about realpolitik for years and I was the one that did not accept the narrative of "Stalin betraying Greece" and brought up the reality of the situation. You're literally parroting my words back at me nearly sentence for sentence, it's fucking laughable.

>you'd lose immediately afterwards because you have repeatedly demonstrated a childish naivete about how states actually work to win.

LMFAO you've moved the goalposts again! First it was the actions of the revolutionaries in the TV-show being imitations of revolution that you failed to debate, then it was "revolutionary violence is necessary" which you misrepresented in an attempt to present it as "violence during a revolution is justified in anything it does" and now it's moved on to "how states work" which is not only hilarious, but utterly irrelevant to the conversation at hand, because the Soviet involvement (or lack of it) in civil unrest and COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY actions in Chile and Czechoslovakia aren't at all relevant to a story depicting a rebellion within a massive fascist empire. And is even MORE irrelevant to the main topic that I brought up, gratuitous violence for the sake of it, rather than rational necessity as is expected of a Revolutionary fighter or leftist partisan.
>mentally you are less intelligent than a tiktok addicted Western teenager
You're projecting again
>won't try to claim that they are an expert researcher
Where did I claim that?

Let me break this reply-chain down for you honey;
>I stated that Andor was a lazy, liberal depiction of moral greyness, that makes the evil empire look ambigious and the rebels look like scum, which makes the empire look better by comparison - NOT that the Empire was good in itself, but that the depiction makes it appear like the lesser evil because it wasn't committing typical fascist actions that it both canonically did, an should be seen doing in the story, long before the "crackdown".
<An anon stated that revolution has moral greyness, which I did not disagree with
>I stated that the depiction in Andor of the Republic, Empire and Rebels, is inconsistent, contradictory and poorly done and that the rebels of Andor are closer to counter-revolutionary depictions of rebels than the intended effect, and that this makes the show bad on an ideological level as well as other reasons
<You lash out and say I've explained nothing and that the show is good, using ad hominum, and addressing NONE of my points, and instead bringing up the nonsequitur of "the creator is 'left-wing'" and that his intent was to show a revolutionary journey, except that liberalism is not left-wing, vaguely referencing Soviet film does not make something leftist, and that the Revolutionary journey is a lazy, sloppy self-insert character floating around a radlib's conception of rebellion.
<You again ignored all my points and in fact skipped my post entirely to reply to a different post of mine, screaming about contrarianism even though the fandom for this show is contrarianism personified, because it's literally "A Star Wars show that isn't like Star-Wars"
>I replied, repeating that violent necessity and calculative actions are not the same as utter disregard for backlash against the people and is not the same as random violence, and that space-kulaks and liberal pacifists are not our allies. Furthermore I stated that this was counter to the narrative about the rebellion and using several exact examples, I demonstrated how illogical, inconsistent and inane the actions of the rebels and Andor are, and how they resemble counter-revolutionary mercenaries rather than a revolutionary rebel group.
<You reply with ad hom about "seething" and refuse to read like the ignorant /pol/ak you are and VPN samefagging to boot. I point this out
<You then proceed to use more ad hom, bring up irrellevant examples to somehow prove that wanton violence is good, and not only end up disproving your point, while using false equivalencies, but also strawman my argument for the umpteenth time while addressing NONE of the other prior points I made about cinematographic depiction in a counter-revolutionary manner. I also pointed out that the revolution did not just provoke violence against people, it made sure to have the people's back if it did provoke violence from a fascist/capitalist/imperial state, and so garner support and good-will from the population.
>I reiterate what I stated and pointed out again the difference between rational, calculation in making impersonal ruthless decisions, and just being a fuckng loose-cannon wrecker.
<You bring up Bloody Sunday, which proves my prior point about the Bolsheviks and violence
>I explain this and also state quotes of communists and leftist in regards to revolutionaries and communists needing to have regard for the people and human life, and that ruthless action, is not the same as callous disregard
<You ignore this, lash out again like the child you keep accusing me of being and bring up nonsequiturs
So far in this farce of an argument, you've barely attempted anything resembling good faith, and only recently began providing any actual examples of your words (even if misconstrued) simply because I've brow-beaten you into it. Just do yourself a favor and go back to reddit and masturbate to your violent fantasies there.

If you want to argue about violence and the state and bring up Stalin and whatnot, then I'll actually use an example that is more applicable than your own geopolitical ones which have no relevance to a discussion of individual revolutionary groups' actions: The Soviet Policy in regards to POWs and Civilians of Germany.
1) Illya Ehrenburg's "Kill" is well known and appropriate, it was specifically worded to be about encouraging the Soviet troops to fight and kills German troops invading their homes and killing their people (a material and humanitarian concern). It was the Germans that spread edited leaflets where Ehrenburg supposedly encourages the Soviet troops to take German women as their own and rape them. This is counter-revolutionary propaganda meant to provoke and invoke excessive violence
2) In spite (again) of the hatred for the Nazi invaders, Soviet POW policy was humane and a direct contrast to fascist German treatment of their prisoners, this humanity caused many a German soldier to defect to the Soviet side.
3) Upon entering Germany, Stalin and the upper military command issued edicts - any rape, looting or excessive violence would result in harsh reprisal, and they followed through on it, and nobody was above reprimand. Furthermore the Soviets provided supplies, food and help to the cities they liberated, feeding German children and housing German women.
4) The Partisans of Belarus who I brought up before and you summarily ignored, fought against the fascists and the resulting partisan reprisals often decimated towns, further provoking partisan uprising. But this isn't the same as the situation in Andor, the Belarus partisans cared for their people, they did not want reprisal against them, but it would happen regardless under fascist occupation, if not because of them, then for another reason. The people of these captured territories were not being catered to or given humane treatment, they were treated like scum, massacred at a whim and living in constant fear, not peaceably left alone by the Empire, having ceremonial goatskins given to them and provided food and drink a plenty.

Executing war-criminals and traitors is not wanton violence, nor is making POWs do labor, restoring the country they helped destroy. But causing deliberate murder or the innocent for the sake of it is counter-revolutionary barbarism.

The Soviet's did not play pacifist with the Germans, they weren't holding back in battle, they killed, and fought and ruthlessly sought to destroy their enemy, and THAT is justified, those are actions of grey morality, but beyond that? It would be nothing more than subhuman violence, stooping to the level of the fascists they fought against. Trying to justify this and using manipulations of history to try and justify yourself, simply outs you for what you are; a sociopathic scumbag that, like the characters of Andor's rebellion yo identify with, seeks to drape your violent tendencies in a red-flag and pretend it's revolutionary. That's not what revolutionary violence is for and is nothing more than Western, burger bloodlust.

Just as an aside regarding Vera Karelina and Georgy Gapon, who were Right-SRs (political enemies of the Bolsheviks in the coming 1917 Revolution); He was a petty-bourg orthodox priest and traitor that encouraged and wrote the St.Petersburg Workers Petition because of the financial support from Imperial Japan, and until 1905 had been preaching a rhetoric about the Good Czar being bogged down by the corrupt Boyars. He was not even a leftist revolutionary. He was also revealed as a police informant and rightfully murdered after trying to recruit others.


>regarding a socialist state choosing to intervene in a revolution of another country, not a revolutionary group itself taking action within a revolution and so is irrelevant to what is being spoken of here. The scale of this is incomparable to what I am speaking of.
Why is scale relevant here? Actions are actions regardless of how big or small they are. Arguably the "big" "macro" scale is even worse. If you're bitching so much about small revolutionary groups taking actions that will lead to wanton violence why would you have a different opinion when a state takes the same actions? The state taking the same action would be even worse and lead to even more people dying. You can't criticize one and support the other which is what you're desperately trying to do to dig yourself out of the logical inconsistency you trapped yourself in.
That's ok I understand that ESL anons don't really understand the nuances of English. :^)

Anyways let me break down the actual chain of argument since I wasn't even here for the beginning of the argument and only dropped in near the end which must have confused you:

Here I mentioned an example from the show and tried to relate it to real life.

In Andor the heist (besides just giving the Rebellion additional necessary funds to continue operations which I forgot to mention in that initial post) was also intended to provoke the Empire into massively overreaching by seeing traitors everywhere and launching a mass crackdown.

I then mentioned how this was a basic CIA tactic used multiple times before in history, with failure cases (like China in the 90s) and success cases like here >>36526 where they successfully managed to provoke a Soviet intervention into Czechoslovakia.

I mentioned Bloody Sunday as an alternative socialist case (and by the way while the debate over Gapon's leanings are still ongoing and questions arise over his loyalties Karelina who was the one who predicted that it would end in bloodshed and she also sided with the Bolsheviks over the Mensheviks so the smear over her being a Right-SR is quite wrong and she was happily living in Leningrad until the 1930s) and since you didn't like that example I also used the vid to point out that Soviet intelligence believed they could have provoked a similar situation in France in '68 and really that there's no reason to take your word over theirs because they were the ones actually in power at the time and you just like me are an internet anon nowhere near the corridors of power.

So there is really no point in continuing the discussion when you've outed yourself as such a stubborn mule. I literally related several real-life examples to point out that Andor used a real-life tactic which was realistic which you are still bitching about 200 posts in or however long this thread is because you claim that "real revolutionaries" don't do this. Well history would disagree and people in power at the time would disagree what else is there to say? Are you a materialist or an idealist? It doesn't matter what you "think" it matters what actions people take. If you choose your own interpretations over what actual former state officials and their friends assessed and did, you are choosing to indulge in delusion over reality.


File: 1695869817208.png (323.59 KB, 349x552, ClipboardImage.png)

Citation in academics involves proper sourcing, one of the reason Conquest's "citations" are criticized in historiography, something /leftypol/ has pointed out to /pol/ many times.
>"(to) quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work."

>Why is scale relevant here

Because the discussion is about a rebel group and small individual factions/actions, not the overall movement, idiot. Moreover the actions of an outside state intervening and supporting a rebellion are different to a grassroots rebellion within a state/empire. Thus the 1917 Revolution was different to the Soviet supported rebels in Vietnam, since the latter is acting with the assistance and direction of an organized state.
>Actions are actions regardless of how big or small they are
More goalpost shifting
>the "big" "macro" scale is even worse
The difference is that this is a strategic scale outside of personal or local considerations on a ground-level. This is the same argument used to defend American Vets in Vietnam "It was the government that was doing bad, the troops were just following orders" also known as the Nuremburg defense.
>why would you have a different opinion when a state takes the same actions
Because the examples given are not actions leading to wanton violence by the socialist state/rebellion. In reality the enemy will indulge in wanton violence regardless, (example relevant to Andor; US government genocide of Native American tribes), however within the show we see that the Empire is NOT in fact indulging in wanton violence until prompted to do so by wanton violence of self-proclaimed rebels. That's what my problem is. Had the Empire been depicted as it always has been - the brutal fascist state, crushing dissent and not wasting time with diplomatic bullshit, (an important plotpoint in transition of the Republic into the Empire) then the actions of the rebels wouldn't be nearly as jarring and unnecessarily provocative, since (as in Imperial pre-Revolution Russia) the situation was awful as is. That's my point - the depiction is asinine.
>I understand that ESL anons don't really understand the nuances of English
Ah yes, typical burger self-important ignorance. Citation in academics and academic discussion, as I stated, involves proper sourcing format (Chicago style for example). That's why I don't claim to be "CITING" anyone, I am quoting people, but that is not the same thing.
>I mentioned an example from the show
Yes and I countered that example with my own, explained the context of your example and how it's inane, and why Tianamen is not comparable.
>also intended to provoke the Empire into massively overreaching by seeing traitors everywhere and launching a mass crackdown.
I already covered that, and from what we see in the show, the "funds" are being controlled by the rich-fag that commands the brigade.
> this was a basic CIA tactic
You did not mention the CIA at all, and moreover your argument is again not applicable to this situation, since in both cases the funding came from the outside. You're mixing 2 different things, a revolutionary group stealing funds for a revolution and causing backlash in hunting dissidents, and a foreign provocation in the form of public protests, funded by the foreign powers.
>the debate over Gapon's leanings are still ongoing and questions arise over his loyalties
The debate is ongoing for fools, the man was a police informant and killed rightfully for it. He was, until 1905, propagandizing reactionary "the good king, with the evil underlings" nonsense. It is self-evident.
>Karelina who was the one who predicted that it would end in bloodshed
She predicted the likeliness, but wasn't seeking to just have it done through blatant provocation, moreover the situation at the time was that of near-breaking point.
>she also sided with the Bolsheviks over the Mensheviks
Trotsky also did, before attempting to form his own bloc after Lenin's death, it's called opportunism; joining the winning side to continue to operate.
>really that there's no reason to take your word over theirs because they were the ones actually in power at the time
Except I explained and provided examples of similar examples of Western states quelling leftist riots with military force and receiving little backlash in public media for it, because they controlled the media and so forms of information spread. Today this would be different, the internet allows near-instant information release, meaning the CIA has to use other tactics now, compared to then. This is all in the COINTEL PRO handbook.

>I literally related several real-life examples

So have I, and I addressed all of yours, you have not addressed mine.
>Andor used a real-life tactic
Oh yes, the same tactic the Basmachi and Banderites used; cause chaos, get cracked down on, and then cry about being repressed and fighting against oppressive government. That's been my point the entire time - Andor's depiction of rebels makes the rebellion out to be more like the counter-revolutionary bandits than the revolutionary rebels they are supposed to be.
>you are still bitching about 200 posts in
Nice hyperbole faggot. Recall that this all started from my off-hand statement that Andor is a poorly made liberal depiction of "rebellion", nobody made you reply and demand an explanation.
>it matters what actions people take
Yes, and in film it matters how these actions are depicted and written, because that determines what those actions mean.
>history would disagree
History is not dichotomous, just because individual revolutionaries took such actions does not mean it is universally accepted or condoned, nor does that mean that rational strategic actions that are ruthless are the same as the spiteful activities of individuals and groups acting under the name/banner of a greater movement. You would not attribute the actions of Islamic militants to all of Islamic religion would you? Or the manipulations of the Rothschilds as being the ideology of all Jews, would you? I posted a few quotes, but Che spoke often about not being cruel or spiteful, that the actions of a revolutionary group should be of necessity, and that they should keep in mind and weigh the greater considerations at hand. I gave the example of several such groups, such as the Belarus Partisans, and WHY their actions, which led to backlash are different to the actions we see depicted in Andor.

>you've outed yourself as such a stubborn mule.

Pot, meet Kettle
>you just like me are an internet anon nowhere near the corridors of power.
Then why are you even bothering to argue at all? At that point, what's the point of criticizing and analyzing capitalist atrocities? You and I are nowhere near the spheres of power that could influence this one way or the other. That's not the point of discussion
>there is really no point in continuing the discussion
Agreed, good day.


bruh putting aside the ongoing argument you couldn't even read a single picture showing you a definition for "cite" that you were unaware of and you decided to double down on pretending that it only relates to academia instead of admitting fault and recognizing that words can be used in different contexts.

this is why it's so pointless talking to you you can't even admit that your English is worse than a native speaker. everything has to become a hill to die on.


>you couldn't even read a single picture
I did, and I quoted a different definition and explained my reasoning, based on my experience within the academic community. When writing an academic article, or even having an academic discussion, to quote or paraphrase someone improperly, means that quote/paraphrase/reference would not be considered a citation, regardless of what the layman's definition can be stated as.
include the last name of the author followed by a page number enclosed in parentheses. "Here's a direct quote" (Smith 8). If the author or source's name is not given, then use the first word or words of the title.
>decided to double down on pretending that it only relates to academia
I did no such thing. The discussion at hand involves a discussion of revolutionary depictions and history, which falls under the purview of Academics. It is my fault indeed, for having assumed that I'd have an intelligent discussion with someone with such clear bad-faith argumentation, deflection, argumentative fallacies and ad hominum.
>it's so pointless talking to you you can't even admit that your English is worse than a native speaker
In what way exactly? Because I disagree with this childish-burgeroid use of the definition of citation? In that case I can just as easily state that you are even worse at speaking it than I am, given your numerous grammatical errors, and unlike myself you have no excuse as a "native speaker". I learned the terminology and usage of citations in their intended meanings, it is why I don't call my quoted excerpts "citations" because they are NOT proper citations.
People don't use "Cite" in common, every day conversations, it doesn't come up because the very meaning of the term is usually linked to academic discussion, and the way it is used in academia is the way I described it. I learned that through actual historical debates and peer-reviews of papers, when people would be dismissed for failure at citation, an example of which can be seen in the likes of Robert Conquest, whose lack of actual citations, resulted in even Western historiography dismissing his works, and rightfully so.
>everything has to become a hill to die on
Again, Pot, meet Kettle.

Unique IPs: 20

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]