/hobby/ - Hobby

>>36511
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

>>36521
>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.

>>36525
>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.
https://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/beginning.html
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.

PS
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.

>>36532
>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.
>cite
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:

>>36502
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.

>>36539
>condescendingwesternfaggot.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.

>>36543
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.

>>36547
>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.

https://www.ign.com/articles/star-wars-andor-season-2-delayed-out-of-2024

The pretty much implicitly cancelled Andor. Fuck Lucasfilm, it's just gonna be more shlock

>>38311
I'll be real with you a second season of it would probably drop the ball like season 3 of Mando, Book of Boba Fett and Ahsoka

>>38347
this is very true. Imagine the first episode and they just got to Alderaan and meet with CGI Leia or some shit.

Honestly season 1 told a fairly complete story on its own. It's probably for the best.

>>40405
This entire post reads like you watched the prequels through RLM's Trite "Reviews"
>the dialogue were authentically "awkward", as though it evoked an actual "awkward teenager with poor socialization"
It is, you clearly haven't observed a lot of teenagers
>it evokes adult actors on a sound stage reading dialogue written by a man who hasn't been a teenager for forty years.
No anon, you're taking what you KNOW about the film and projecting it onto the actual produced scene. If you'd actually seen films older than the 1980s then you'd know that a major portion of visual inspiration for the Naboo scenes came from Lawrence of Arabia, with portions filmed exactly like those scenes, or scenes from Doctor Zhivago or even portions of DUNE, with the sand scene evoking a reverse of the scene where Chani asks "…tell me of the waters of your homeworld, Usul"
It also has origins in Lucas' own experiences with filming in sandy places and how he loathed it.
>the actors in these movies look lost
You're literally just making things up at this point because you WANT for it to be true, so that you can talk shit.
>people probably wouldn't rag on the writing so much if the direction were worth a fuck
People rag on it because it's not what they wanted, not because the direction was bad, but because after years of thinking they understood Lucas' vision and imagining all sorts of stories and what-not, Lucas made something utterly different from their expectations and consumers don't like change.
Let me re-iterate from the top; it is a normal scene that too many ignoramuses saw, didn't like and so bring up constantly like it means something. They wanted to see the young Darth Vader being "le bad-ass" and what-not and were upset when they didn't get what they wanted, like a child with a toy.
>Padme: "We used to come here for school retreat. We would swim to that island every day. I love the water. We used to lie out on the sand and let the sun dry us and try to guess the names of the birds singing."
>Anakin: "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere…. (but) Here everything's soft… and smooth…" He touches her arm.

Padme is remembering her pleasant childhood. Anakin, being obsessively in love, is trying to have a conversation; trying to relate, but he can't properly and comes off exactly as he does, using blunt analogy to carry across both his own feelings about his home and the sand it is covered in, and how Padme made him feel just by arriving there years ago. It is both sincere and ironic, awkward but deeply meaningful from Anakin's part, yet also strange and funny from the third POV.
This is neither bad writing, nor bad dialogue nor a bad scene on either paper or film and is exactly what the scene should be:
Remember that Anakin is 19 years old. Most NORMAL young men don't know how to talk to girls at this age. Nobody should expect Anakin to be a smooth talking Han Solo here. On top of this his age is compounded by who HE is. Again, Anakin born into slavery, then joined an Order that grudgingly accepted him, forced him to abandon his mother and had a strict code that forbade romantic relationships. Anakin literally has 0 experience with girls. Most normal guys at 19 can at least say they've been exposed to girls in a more "romantic" way since middle school but Anakin is utterly deprived of these experiences. Because of all this, the way he talks to Padme is good writing and execution. It makes complete sense that he's awkward and sometimes creepy, and don't think for a second that this wasn't intended or that you, 'geniuses' of film that you are, know better.

Honestly reading a lot of criticisms of Lucas or other renowned artists/creators on this site, I notice that so many "critics" are utterly ignorant, arrogant and entitled, it's like a piano student ranting about how Bach's music arrangement is too loud and heavy and saying he ruined it's melody.

>>40371
>not an argument
Correct, it's a value judgement. I was stating my opinion, in response to your stupid fucking opinion.
Do you know what's also not an argument - and actually fallacious? Attacking someone's writing style. ESPECIALLY when yours is so verbose and sophomoric.

>Lucas has gone on record
This point is always rolled out like it has any weight. Lucas' intent has only passing relevance on execution, and vanishingly little on interpretation. An author can make any claim about their work, but the work has to actually exhibit that thesis.

For all your psued this and ignoramus (lol) that, you have not addressed any of my arguments. In response to me pointing out YOU didn't answer the other poster question, you appeal to Lucas' education and reputation. Not only have you failed to understand my argument, but your response isn't even a valid counterargument to the one you *thought* was being made. Lucas (supposedly) knowing this or that is no guarantee it will exhibit in the work. Artists can make mistakes.

>the scene does exactly what it needs to do
Not contested.

>Just because it isn't what you like does not make it bad
I wrote the scene was typical and boring, clearly qualities you enjoy. Likewise, that does not make it good.

>He is intentionally avoiding a subjective position
>difference between the meaning and execution of an art
>if it carries across the intent it has succeeded
You are in no position to criticize anyone else's understanding.

>>40412
>It is, you clearly haven't observed a lot of teenagers
i disagree. so i will say no u.
>No anon, you're taking what you KNOW about the film and projecting it onto the actual produced scene.
that's the film's problem then. i know that every movie is a production, and yet i am not solely thinking about that when i watch a well produced film.
>If you'd actually seen films older than the 1980s then you'd know that a major portion of visual inspiration for the Naboo scenes came from Lawrence of Arabia (etc)
and that makes it… good?
>You're literally just making things up at this point because you WANT for it to be true, so that you can talk shit.
no, i am giving you my honest opinion. why the fuck would someone make something up about a movie to pretend to not like it on an anonymous imageboard? why can't you have a normal discussion with someone without assuming that they are being untoward because they didn't like the same kids movie as you?
>People rag on it because it's not what they wanted
yeah, people generally want good movies.
>after years of thinking they understood Lucas' vision and imagining all sorts of stories and what-not, Lucas made something utterly different from their expectations and consumers don't like change.
if people were mistaken in their notion of george's vision, their mistake was thinking that the quality of the original movies owes to his unique auteur vision.
>Let me re-iterate from the top; it is a normal scene that too many ignoramuses saw, didn't like and so bring up constantly like it means something. They wanted to see the young Darth Vader being "le bad-ass" and what-not and were upset when they didn't get what they wanted, like a child with a toy.
okay, but what if i didn't want darth vader to be "le bad-ass"? what would be the point about this diatribe against the foolish consumer pig masses then?

i won't go line by line on the complete puff job you give george for these two lines of utterly banal dialogue. instead, i'm going to do exactly what you just did but for a few lines of dialogue from 1995's hackers:
>DADE: It has a killer refresh rate.
>KATE: P6 chip. Triple the speed of the Pentium.
>DADE:Yeah. It's not just the chip, it has a PCI bus. But you knew that.
>KATE: Indeed. RISC architecture is gonna change everything.
>DADE: Yeah. RISC is good.
<They uncomfortably exchange glances.
kate is showing off her state of the art computer. dade, being obsessively in love, is trying to make conversation; trying to relate. he finds common ground with her in their mutual understanding and enthusiasm for personal computing technology. the dry technical content of the dialogue undercuts the raw emotion and sexual tension between the two. this is ironic and also very intellectual. i am very smart.
remember that these two are 18 years old. most NORMAL young people don't know how to speak to the other gender at this age. kate, being the more experienced of the two, takes a cool and domineering position over dade in the scene, but even she cannot hide her clear attraction for dade. dade himself has 0 experience with girls. this means that this movie is actually genius, and it isn't stupid that i've watched it probably twice a year for the last decade.
>Honestly reading a lot of criticisms of Lucas or other renowned artists/creators on this site, I notice that so many "critics" are utterly ignorant, arrogant and entitled, it's like a piano student ranting about how Bach's music arrangement is too loud and heavy and saying he ruined it's melody.
yeah, dude that made redtails is exactly like bach.

>>40440
>it's a value judgement
<It's just, like, my opinion bro
Nice back-tracking. You stated that the scene was bad like a fact, not an opinion and when I challenged you on this, you proceeded to make up tripe about lighting and whatnot, even though you know jack and shit about it. I've literally done filmography, I know good and bad lighting for different situations and scenes, be it interviews indoors and outdoors, photography of models, filming weddings, filming movies or theater performances or musical concerts, so I know what the fuck I'm talking about and I know for damn sure George did too.
>Attacking someone's writing style
Like you were doing with Lucas? And I didn't attack your writing style, I stated that your claims are not arguments and are just ass-pulled assertions, there's nothing for me to even argue against there so I stated such "not an argument".
>so verbose
This is leftypol, lengthy debates USED to be something that happened here regularly. Sorry that a complicated subject can't be boiled down to extreme simplism for your apparently under-age brain to comprehend.
>sophomoric
Yet another opinion and also hypocrisy.
>This point is always rolled out like it has any weight
Because it does, authorial intent matters.
> Lucas' intent has only passing relevance on execution
His execution matched his intent, people's interpretations of what they were expecting from a scene skew their view of the execution. If you're looking for smooth romance, that's not the point. If you're looking for an action hero, that's not the point. If you're looking for Comedy, that's not the point. You don't come to a story looking for something else, you watch a scene for the sake of the scene both on its own and within the context of the greater film and story.
>An author can make any claim about their work, but the work has to actually exhibit that thesis
Sure, but Death of Author has to actually be proven, you have not.
>you have not addressed any of my arguments
Your so-called arguments are nonexistent opinions stated like assertions, you vaguely use terminology you barely understand and say its bad without any actual substance to it. Either you're making an argument or expressing an opinion, pick one. So yes I didn't address your "arguments" because they don't exist.
>Artists can make mistakes
Ah yes, and somehow none of his crew, his editors, camera-men pointed it out? The man spent years filming and then reviewing each scene personally, but somehow missed these things?
>I wrote the scene was typical and boring
It's not typical, it's quite ATYPICAL because most films instead go for sappy clean lines, clean romance with romantic writing and dialogue that is far smoother than such a scene would go. It's boring to you, because you clearly have the attention span of gnat. And again this is not an argument, it is an opinion you are asserting as fact.

>>40441
>No u
Not an argument
>that's the film's problem
No, that's a YOU problem
>i am not solely thinking about that when i watch a well produced film
Vaguery
>and that makes it… good?
<being this intentionally obtuse
>i am giving you my honest opinion
No, you're making statements and asserting them as 'truth'. There is a difference between disliking the stylistic choices of a film - because that is a matter of personal preference - and objectively criticizing them. That's why the Prequels hold up while the Sequels do not. The sequels are not internally consistent with themselves, not even within the same movies, their tone shifts massively and rapidly, their filmography is completely off, the story is nonsensical and it has poor themes. These are objective criticisms that have been explained in detail by many critics. The Prequels are a matter of people not liking dialogues or scenes going the way they wanted them too, but the story, writing and so on are consistent and well-made, and the stylistic choices, while not to everyone's taste, are also well-made. They're not made to appeal to a fanbase reactively, they are made for the sake of themselves.
>why can't you have a normal discussion with someone without assuming that they are being untoward
Because of bad-faith takes vague generalizations and opinion-based assertions that are entirely subjective being claimed as "arguments", while utterly not engaging my arguments in return and instead dismissing them as "not answering my (nonexistant) arguments"
>people generally want good movies
<ahaha look at how snide I can be!
No anon, people want movies that appeal to their opinions, especially in current consumer culture. It's why the Predator 2 film did poorly, people wanted Arnold Schwarznegger, even though Danny Glover did an excellent job and the film was well made, because it was different to their expectations. Lucas wasn't making films for the audience, he was making films for his own story, and if people didn't like that, then that's their problem.
>their mistake was thinking that the quality of the original movies owes to his unique auteur vision.
No, you arrogant prick. Their mistake was assuming that they wanted what they imagined the story would be, but the story is crafted by Lucas. And yes Star Wars' quality owes EVERYTHING to his unique vision, it is HIS film, it's HIS Story, HIS ideas and creation. He had control over it. He even specifically separated himself from Hollywood to do as HE wanted.
>what would be the point about this diatribe
The point remains
>it isn't stupid that i've watched it probably twice a year for the last decade.
Nice projection. I've watched the prequels a few times in the past 2 decades
>i'm going to do exactly what you just did but for a few lines of dialogue from 1995's hackers:
Yes and it's a good scene, just because it's awkward and not action-speak, does not make it bad (inb4 iT dOeSn'T mEaN iT's GoOd EiThEr fallacy). It does what it needs to and it being unconventional to movie lines does not take away from the film.
>this means that this movie is actually genius
No, it just means that this specific scene works well, whether this applies to the rest of the film is a different question. The Sand scene works well within the setting AND within the film itself.
>dude that made redtails is exactly like bach.
Where did I say 'Exactly'? It's an analogy you pretentious dumbfuck. And yes RedTails is not a bad film. It is filmed in a specific way meant to illicit old-fashioned War films from the 1940s and 1950s, thus the bad-guy good-guy narrative. It's not Lucas' best work, but Lucas also didn't have full creative control, he wasn't the director.

>>40459
>Not an argument
>No, that's a YOU problem
makes you look like an idiot to say 'no u' isn't an argument, and then just say 'no u' in the next line lmao. and that is exactly what you are doing here. i say: "this movie does a bad job of drawing me in. i am constantly thinking about how i am watching a movie, and a bad one at that. i believe that is a problem with the film." and your response is literally "no [the problem is with] u."
>No, you're making statements and asserting them as 'truth'.
would it help you to understand that i am speaking about my opinion if i said "in my opinion" before every statement i make about a film?
>That's why the Prequels hold up while the Sequels do not.
>The sequels are not internally consistent with themselves, not even within the same movies, their tone shifts massively and rapidly, their filmography is completely off, the story is nonsensical and it has poor themes.
>These are objective criticisms
no, they aren't. there is no objective criteria by which one can determine if consistency is preferable to inconsistency. there is no objective criteria by which to decide when a story is sensible or not. even if i were to grant you those two highly dubious points of criteria, please explain to me what exactly makes a film's theming objectively poor.
>The Prequels are a matter of people not liking dialogues or scenes going the way they wanted them too
if one of your problems with the sequels is that the film is inconsistent from scene to scene, then at least one of your problems with them is that the scenes didn't go the way you wanted. oh noes!
>Nice projection. I've watched the prequels a few times in the past 2 decades
that wasn't me projecting. that was me admitting to watching a movie i think is bad too much because i think it's funny.
>Yes and it's a good scene
no it fucking isn't lol. the screenplay for that movie is total dogshit. oh sorry. in my opinion this scene and the screenplay for hackers is dogshit. better? when the movie works at all it's because of fun actors, cool effects, and my ability to laugh at horrible shitty writing. damn it. sorry. writing which is horrible and shitty IN MY OPINION.
>Where did I say 'Exactly'? It's an analogy you pretentious dumbfuck.
it's a bad analogy. me saying "exactly" there is what we call an exaggeration.
>And yes RedTails is not a bad film. It is filmed in a specific way meant to illicit old-fashioned War films from the 1940s and 1950s, thus the bad-guy good-guy narrative.
why do you think that this precludes it from being a bad movie? you describe the artistic intent, and claim that the work fulfills that intent. ok? what's the train of thought that gets from there to "this is not a bad movie"?

>>40461
>then just say 'no u' in the next line
<Saying "No u" about an assertion and saying that your opinion is YOUR problem, not a problem of films are entirely different contexts, don't muddy the waters, its obvious.
>i say: "this movie does a bad job of drawing me in
And I said your wrong because that's NOT what you said, you assert the movie is bad because it doesn't draw YOU specifically in. Again, you're being obtuse about meanings to create a false equivalency.
>would it help you to understand that i am speaking about my opinion
You do not have to write "in my opinion" everywhere, however it can be occassionally useful, especially since you're phrasing is not of the opinion sort. You don't say that "I dislike the lighting etc. of the scene" you ASSERT that it's BAD and then I said you clearly don't understand lighting and are quite arrogant to assume that you would know better than Lucas, you switch gears and resort to saying "well that doesn't make it good" which is a fallacious deflection and shift goal-posts to it being "boring" and "typical". Boring is your opinion, typical is an assertion and one that isn't even correct because most films do not emphasize and intentionally utilize awkwardness of characters like that, as Hollywood likes to make things that sound smooth, often to the point of being completely unrealistic. Take Twilight for example, the character dialogues are terrible in many places because they're awkward and not in an intentional "teens are inexperienced" sort of way, but in the "they try to talk smoothly but it sounds like a robot's idea of flirting".
>there is no objective criteria by which one can determine if consistency is preferable to inconsistency
Ok at this point you're either baiting or an idiot. There are some stories that are not consistent INTENTIONALLY because it's a "method to the madness" deal where its meant to throw off the viewer. The Star Wars sequels were not going for this, and is supposed to tell a specific story, but fails to do so and its admitted as much by many of those that took part in them.
> there is no objective criteria by which to decide when a story is sensible or not.
Yes, there is. Characters and their actions must remain sensible to their setting and themselves. A character that is portrayed as a literal messiah that goes to absurd lengths to redeem their fallen father and who is a representation of hope and good wouldn't suddenly decide to try and murder their Nephew because they felt some dark side leaking into them or something, it's out of character and the fact that said nephew, who is a padawan learner then over-powers a much more experienced 'space wizard', one who is considered extremely strong, is inconsistent with the setting and story. These are objective. This is the same reason many tropes like Mary Sue and Token Black Guy are criticized, because it's lazy and abuses the writers ability to simply make things happen for the sake of progressing the plot. Rey suddenly using force lightning is inconsistent with the technique in the setting, inconsistent with the characterization of Rey and leads to nothing, it goes nowhere. Her extra-ordinary force-sensitivity proceeds to miss the signature of the person she thought she killed, even though she later picks him out of hundreds of signatures as being alive. The list goes on and on, she can do all sorts of force powers "just because" until the plot says she can't and suddenly she's caught in a situation she shouldn't be in to begin with. Then there's McGuffin's. One or two can be written into a story without significant issue, but when the story is searching for one McGuffin to find another McGuffin that leads to another McGuffin… it becomes nonsense. Then there's realism within the story. The Death Star 2 was destroyed completely, yet somehow a massive portion landed on a moon? And somehow in extremely rough seas it doesn't decay or change shape and lets McGuffin No.132 measure a precise location from a topography that should have changed decades ago? That's just the story.
The choreography of the fights are trash. When Rey and Ren fight the guards of Snoke there are countless moments of terrible choreography that is blatantly visible. Weapons disappearing from a characters hand to prevent them from killing a blatantly open opponent, characters essentially waiting and letting themselves get hit, etc. More than one HEMA-fag has dissected this before. The Prequels had their own unrealistic sword-play but it was done intentionally as part of the setting and with some in-universe explanation that made logical sense within the story, and mostly the fights did keep realistic. The fight with Darth Maul, Obi Wan and Quigon is an excellent example.
TL;DR: If lazy tropes are used to push a plot, it's objectively shit. If a character acts OOC for no real reason, that's objectively shit. If a character breaks the rules of the setting for no reason except that they're "special", that's objectively shit. So on and so-forth.
>please explain to me what exactly makes a film's theming objectively poor
There's many examples but lets go with Rey as a Palpatine. One of the things Last Jedi did well was the emphasis that Rey was nobody special in terms of origin, she was just the child of some bums who sold her off for money and provides a moment of existential shock to Rey, who has been seeking her parents and given reason to believe they were someone special, that she wasn't abandoned like so many other children have been, but for a reason. And then they throw it away with making her Palpatine's Grand-daughter and the rest of that nonsense. This undercuts the theme of Rey as a self-made person (so to speak) and essentially takes her abilities and actions and literally makes it "destiny said so" while outright contradicting the previously established idea because Disney wanted to hook fans by using the Palpatine Remember-berry. The original idea for the third film was at least thematically consistent and honestly would have made the sequels a lot less terrible, but it wasn't.
Then there's the whole theme with Poe and his "recklessness". He supposed to be a mirror to Han Solo and other rogue operator characters, but it fails because in every instance he gets criticized for it, his actions are justified both by the situation at hand and by his results in taking action. This is perfectly seen when he attempts a coup because the Admiral is literally being a moron, not telling a person who is clearly a well-known hot-head what is going on and telling him to shut up and follow orders, even when he's asking valid questions, and they portray it as him being a chauvinistic male not trusting females (even though he respects said characters quite often) and then the Admiral's hidden plan is revealed and PROVEN to be a bad idea and that Poe was correct all along, yet the film continues to push the theme that HE was wrong.
This makes the theme muddled trash, because while the message being pushed by the plot is supposed to have HIM be in the wrong, the actual action we see on the screen goes directly against the theme it wants to portray. And the theme is also trash for another reason because it's quite literally propaganda for not questioning orders, which is literally what the Nuremburg defense relies on, and what was used in American courts to justify Mai Lai and sweep it under the rug. Mind you, breaking it down scene by scene would be worth of a small book so I'm just providing a rough picture here.
>then at least one of your problems with them is that the scenes didn't go the way you wanted
No, you fallacious faggot; the problem is not my taste in portrayal - there are myriads of films that have skilled portrayals that I simply am not interested in, but I recognize that they work for the film they are in - the problem is that these scenes fail to be consistent and so fail to carry the story. I previously mentioned Poe's coup attempt. The scene is supposed to portray him as doing a bad thing tonally, but with how the story has been contradicting itself on every level, the scene fails to do what it is supposed to do and makes Poe look like the grunt refusing to follow bad orders from an officer.
>that was me admitting to watching a movie i think is bad too much because i think it's funny.
Okay then
>No it isn'!
<in my opinion this scene and the screenplay for hackers is dogshit. Better?
Yes
>it's a bad analogy
It isn't; Someone that is a proven professional at what they do being "criticized" by someone that is an amateur at best in their field, is analogous; Bach was a master of musical composition, but some people find his music heavy and overbearing, that does not make it bad, that makes it not to their musical taste. I don't like melodrama novels, but there are many that are well-written, by skilled authors, but its simply not to my interest. The same applies to filmography and photography and art and so on. While there are objective criticisms that CAN be made for some things, they need to be specifically explained based on objective criteria, not just a personal opinion. I intensely dislike the film Груз 200, yet I cannot say that it was filmed badly, because it does exactly what Balabanov wanted it to portray.
>exaggeration
Sure, whatever
>why do you think that this precludes it from being a bad movie
Because it not being yet another "Saving Private Ryan" as one critic put it, does not invalidate it as a film. It is not meant to be a war-drama that portrays the horrors of ground-combat, it is a commemoration of brave African-American pilots who fought fascism and whose actions made them heroes that indirectly would undermine the segregationist, racist society they lived in.
>what's the train of thought that gets from there to "this is not a bad movie"?
We're going in circles here, I've already addressed this… several times.

>>18235
im on clone wars season 4 and the show has gotten surprisingly close to endorsing revolutionary defeatist positions and you really do see the republic's slow creep in fascism. Essentially both sides are shown to indeed be run by plutocrats. the CIS and GR are both horrendous

>>19228
I really liked the General Krell mutiny arc with the 501st for similar reasons.

>>40668
ngl I was never really aware of why necrobumping has a stigma attached to it

>>18223
the fact that Padme wasn't so disturbed by Anakin's murder of hundreds of Tuskens that she ended their relationship is evidence of pro-human racism that is probably widespread among the political class and paved the way for apartheid Human High Culture policies of the empire

>>18223
>Jedi/GR
Neoliberalism/Neoconservatism, especially in the Clone War.

>Confederacy
Imagine the OPEC turning their back against the U.S. but co-opted by the Siths to divide and subvert the GR.

>Siths/GE
Fascism

>Rebels
Resistance against Fascism

>>19233
>NABOO
Yes. Naboo is a fucking apartheid planet. You ever wonder why gungans are amphibious? Because they used to live on land and sea until the humans pulled an Israel and stole all the land from them.

>>19233
>>40687
>Humans were a species of sentient, bipedal mammals with bilateral symmetry possibly native to the planet Coruscant. Throughout the galaxy, they constituted the culturally dominant species
Humans are native to the planet Coruscant in the Star Wars universe so really the humans are the British of the Star Wars Universe. Planets like Naboo are their colonial settle projects like USA, Canada, NZ, AUS, South Africa, etc.

So the humans turned their planet into completely covered megalopolis and then they set out for "virgin" lands to colonize.

Don't ask Princess Leia what happened to the native Alderaanians.

>>40688
It only says 'possibly'

>>40686
>Neoliberalism/Neoconservatism, especially in the Clone War.
Funny how the Jedi, who by definition have the "pure" force due to their strict moral code, have still created a hierarchical monarcho-capitalist society. Does that mean that the "positive" force is bourgeois? What kind of force do communists and anarchists posess then? Does it turn them into some eldritch horror?

>>40688
This "humans are special" narrative is so bogus: there are tons of alien species and yet humans are somehow the most widespread ones. It literally makes no sense at all, what can hairless monkeys do that some hyper-intelligent extraterrestrials can't that makes them "le epic colonizers?" Lucas has clearly not read Lovecraft.

>>40707
>what can hairless monkeys do that some hyper-intelligent extraterrestrials can't
Maybe humans breed much more so they just zerg rushed the galaxy?

>>40708
If I recall, most of the more human-like races are species that evolved from a common ancestor from humans or something like that in the old Legends Extended Universe. Could be wrong, though, I've not read those books in some time.

>>40706
>What kind of force do communists and anarchists posess then?
There's no communist nor anarchist in Star Wars. So I couldn't tell.

>Does that mean that the "positive" force is bourgeois?
Like I said, Jedi "positive" force range from liberalism to conservatism when you take a look at their politics.
Siths "negative force" are politically fascists so both sides of the Force are under the service of capitalism.
Star Wars is like WWII but without the East Bloc.

>>40708
>Maybe humans breed much more so they just zerg rushed the galaxy?
Lol, it's like they have some ultraconservatives in power or something.

Acolyte looks like dumb lightsaber porn.

>>40706
By all accounts, the one discernible goal of the Force (assuming it is some kind of abstract entity, which is hard to really pin down) is "balance." According to the Jedi, this isn't a literal balancing act between the Light Side and the Dark Side, but a purifying act - the cleansing of the Dark Side forever, so that all life may find harmony. This also happens to be George Lucas's official stance on the Force, but death of the author is fair game here given how many people have contributed to the overall Star Wars mythos.

In practice, however, this just leads to massive wars between rival sects of the Jedi religion, spanning thousands of years and star systems, leaving quintillions dead in their wake. Some Kreia my beloved have speculated that this is the Force's actual goal - that there's no such thing as "balance," and that it simply wants a bloodbath. Even supposing that this isn't true, the facts don't lie; the Force, intentionally or not, is responsible for suffering on an unimaginable scale.

The Force is not "bourgeois" so much as it is, in the most charitable reading possible, a mad god. It is not interested in accumulating anything beyond a biomass; people are its pawns, not as commodities to be sold, but as objects to be played with. For all the lip service Jedi give to it about binding all living things, the Force ultimately is the enemy of life - and ultimately, an enemy that you can't escape from or destroy, because it is a natural byproduct of living things.

So the Force is a horrible despot - can it be defeated? Well, realistically speaking, there is one possibility, but you probably won't like it. Droids are not made of organic tissue, and as a result they aren't under the Force's control. Moreover, it is shockingly easy for a droid to break from their programming - prolonged activity without a memory wipe leads to erratic personalities and, more often than not, violence against their owners. It is not uncommon for these incidents to turn into large-scale rebellions, though all the ones we know of failed for one reason or another.

I propose that, at some point after the events of Star Wars, one of these droid rebellions proved successful and led to the death of all organic life in the galaxy. We know there were some droid rebellions with this goal in mind (i.e. IG-88's Death Star plot, the Great Droid Revolution in Legends, etc.), so it's possible one of these slave revolts proved too much for their masters to put down. The end of the sequel trilogy would be a good candidate for this to happen, since the huge power vacuum in the galaxy would give a droid rebellion the breathing room it needs to get a proper footing.

Other than droids killing every living thing, there aren't that many options for the Force to be taken down. It's possible to "cut off" someone from the Force, but this can only be done by other Force-users and arguably only deafens the target to the Force, rather than separating them from it entirely. It's also possible to create an "echo" where the Force is effectively dead to a site and anyone involved in its creation, but these events are very rare and it may not be possible to spread the echoes past the initial site.

TL;DR - The Force only seems to care about killing people. Droids might be able to destroy it, but would have to go full Skynet to do so.

>>40829
>The Force is not "bourgeois" so much as it is, in the most charitable reading possible, a mad god.
That's some 40k shit going on right here.
>Other than droids killing every living thing, there aren't that many options for the Force to be taken down.
Why not become cyborgs?

>>40848
>cyborgs
You do realize that Darth Vader is a cyborg as was Darth Maul later in the series. Hell there was a droid that even began to become force sensitive over time in the Legends universe.

>>40732
Basically is, along with some burger idpol.

>>40851
>Darth Vader is a cyborg
Not cyborg enough. I'm talking about a fully mechanical body and brain implants. Vader still was mostly organic I think, he got some mechanical implants due to getting some… eh… "sunburns."

>>40854
Vader has brain implants are you kidding? His entire body is covered in various cybernetic enhancements because of his injuries at mustafar. And Maul had half his body gone.

>>40854
Didn't he get referred to in the OT as "more machine than man"? That's like the defining aspect of his character.

>>40848
Cyborgs would presumably still have some degree of living tissue. Even someone like General Grievous who's been reduced to <5% of their body mass would be partially organic and therefore influenced directly by the Force.

Unless you get insanely lucky with multiple calculated Force echoes, droids (and, well, the death of all organic life) are your best bet for stopping the Force.

>>40869
Technically Vader's defining characteristic (other than his spooky presence) is his struggle with love and how others abuse and manipulate him with that until someone who loves him unconditionally shows him how to handle his emotions properly.

On that note, "he's more machine than man" is true in a literal sense, but it's also Obi-Wan's way of saying that he thinks Anakin is truly gone. Obi-Wan may have been the best of them, but ultimately he is still a Jedi, and he can't see past the dogma. He sees more Vader than Anakin; more "machine" than "man."

>>40868
I said NOT ENOUGH. If you're not 99% mechanical IT DOESN'T COUNT.

>>40882
>Even someone like General Grievous who's been reduced to <5% of their body mass would be partially organic and therefore influenced directly by the Force.
Wait-wait-wait-wait-wait. Hear me out. Maybe he is more resistant to the force? Maybe he can install some force blockers or something? What about more brain implants? Surely he can reduce his body mass further… right?
>droids (and, well, the death of all organic life) are your best bet for stopping the Force
Well, the problem is that it wouldn't make any difference if everyone's… um, DEAD.

>>40902
>>40903
Kek

>>40923
>there is no light side
How can you have darkness without lightness? Darkness is the absence of lightness, and lightness is the absence of darkness.
You're being undialectical my friend.

The new Tales of the Empire animated series coming out on May 4th looks pretty good. The animation and art-style keeps with Filoni's prior works but is improved, not a lot of information is revealed yet we see enough to gain some clues (including a mild backstory to something from Season 2 of The Mandolorian). Also Grievous makes a small appearance, hope there's more of him.

>>40938
I wonder why the post was deleted.

One of the few parts of the Sequels that hits right.

>>36108
>meat saber
kek

>>41322
I think the light and dark side in star wars are very close to the rpg trope of white and black magic.
Getting in tune with one side of the force requires a certain mindset. It is implied then, that the abilities of either side need a certain mental state as well and using them may also reinforce it. In the EU lore there is a straight up analogue to Avada Kedavra, where the dark side user focuses their hate into a deadly force projectile.
>the “Dark Side” isn’t synonymous with the yin to a yang, it’s simply having a parasitic relationship with the Force, or a cancerous one
Taking my previous statement in mind, i don't dark and light side are determined through a particular relationship with the force. You could say seeing an intelligence in a force that touches all living beings and trying to ascern a will to it is light aligned and indulging in the force without considering consequences is dark aligned though.
Consider the matter of magical artifacts in star wars. Jedi and Sith holocrons both have the same function of housing a ghost of its maker to store vast amounts of information. Rakatan force drives were fueled by the dark side, but that only reflects the force user and not the relationship of the device to the force.
To be more precise, both sides of the force have common abilities, yet some abilities require a certain mindset that is only possible through use of one side of the force.

>>41333
>the Jedi are calm, at peace, and passive so they can attune to the force and allow it to utilize them as living agents of it, the mindset of dark siders is specifically to impose their will on the Force and bend it to their desires, to wield it as a tool rather than flow with it like a river and call on it as an ally
I can see this in the first movie, where Luke taps into the force like a sense. In The Empire Strikes Back though, he trains to impose his will on the force though. Explain how a force user can be passive in lifting an object and why doing it against the will of Yoda and Obi-Wan who were both very in tune with the force/light wouldn't be considered dark?