General grievances (random fan rants)

I suppose Yoda and Obi Wan lived a very exiting social and etc. life in OT, encouraging Luke to follow the same path and have fun even in this direction. (Sarcasm intended).
Now, seriously, did we watched the same movies? It is exactly in ROTJ when Luke, well, became a Jedi according to his friends he became calm and more patient, not to mention, ascetic. Yes, he struggles with his feelings towards Leia (while he in the beginning does not know why he has such) but struggle is the word.
I will not bring to the table the visuals as argument although cinema is a visual art. The Jedi look like monks (the robes). What they wear under the robes is more like Japanese traditional warrior costume but the robes (especially with the hood on) are typical monk robes (we have such discussion with one of the users on the forums of the.force.net).
The funny thing is that in OT the Sith looks like monks also, more let say it as inquisitors, being the bad side. It is not a coincidence that in EU and after that in Rebels the 'acolytes' of the Sith are called indeed inquisitors.
In short, this is the next "I don't like it this way, so it doesn't exist" argument.

tonyg
Another Star Wars hasn't been good since the OT rant!
x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1801634526130495815

People who reference SW to a very narrow political period in a specific country (in this case, USA) couldn't be defined as wide-minded. Yes, SW is American movie, this is a simple fact. However, Lucas tried to implement more universal or at least wider message to it and he succeeded, otherwise SW couldn't have so wide fanbase all over the world. Limit it on a national level (in the worst possible meaning of this word) is not a compliment.

I don't even mind right wing clickbait media (especially Alex Jones), but Matt Walsh is like Ben Shapiro for even bigger douchebags. What a militant normie prick.

Cryogenic
And the comment from STC that i linked above?
Here it is again.
Reddit Embed

Not really. Stampid wrote that Walsh is a "militant normie prick", and if Walsh is militant on anything, it's bashing the LGBT movement and endlessly sowing fear and discord against those with non-cis identities. He has practically made mocking them and preaching against any form of transgenderism his personal brand.

Now, as you probably know by now, I have a few bones to pick with those on the political left, and I can see how a term like "transphobia" isn't always as valid as the other side makes it, but that doesn't mean there isn't true phobia -- i.e., bigotry/ignorance -- out there against those with different gender identities and sexual orientations.

I mean, when a comfortable white guy like Matt Walsh, enjoying his constitutionally-protected freedoms because he lucked out by being in the United States of America, casually defends fucking Uganda, of all places, outright imprisoning homosexuals (and for life), I'm happy to stick, at a minimum, to saying the guy is phobic and an outright bigot. Such positions to me are not merely regressive, but outright immoral and evil. 


This is a typically eloquent takedown, nicely expanding on what stampid wrote before. Matt Walsh's argument with Joe Rogan was super-cringe, and it comes to something when the dude-bro mentality of Rogan is able to run rings around the denatured pastiche of soggy, empty rhetoric lamely advanced by the likes of Walsh. 

And no, generally speaking, bigots don't have much imagination (except all the Freudian energies they're trying to suppress). It's no surprise whatsoever that Walsh is unable to "gleam anything romantic or quixotic from Lucas' complete Saga" when Walsh himself is so lacking in any appreciation for texture or nuance in the sociopolitical sphere, and is clearly very historically ignorant, too. Those with beams in their eye are far too sight-impaired to even begin to see what they're not seeing.


Glib or edgelord, it really doesn't matter -- fact is, as you just (eloquently) said, he's unlikely to offer any unique insight or reasoning to back up his lazy Twitter-based dismissals (which, yes, seem more like fishbait to draw attention and potentially start random tangents that can be monetised). 


A key difference is that the (classic) RLM material is relatively apolitical. Unless things have changed recently, the RLM people haven't gone out of their way to malign Disney for wokeness, nor do they use their material to shove in backdoor ideological agendas. At root, they're just a bunch of nerdy movie guys having fun. They have a more innocent 1990s/Early Noughties vibe about them: more MST3K than Rush Limbaugh. The territory is different now. The culture wars has turned things ugly.

A lot of modern conservatives are pretty awful -- although, when I say that, I'm thinking of a lot of Internet-based ones, and all the damage done by Trump's former presidency, which hasn't really helped matters (but, perhaps, in some ways, has caused necessary damage). A more respectable conservative operating in a largely online space would be Jordan Peterson. He's at least worth listening to sometimes and generally puts his opinions across thoughtfully and respectfully.

All in all, I identify as more of a liberal (especially in both my general antipathy toward religion and my support of LGBT rights), but I also dislike the tyrannical behaviour from some elements of the left; some of which I have been on the receiving end of, as a damn ally -- or, at least, I thought I was an ally. Ergo, I don't really have a "tribe" anymore, and I wax and wane somewhere between the poles of conservative and liberal. Hell, I'm ready to give someone like Andrew Tate a fair shake (although, in some regards, he's just as bigoted as Matt Walsh). Yet it's when I see people like Matt Walsh pouring scorn on trans people, and trans-affirming practices, over and over again, that I'm reminded I'm more of a liberal at heart, despite my ongoing disappointment and (sometimes) disgust with the left. In fact, for all my dislike of Walsh, I feel inclined to at least defend him over his right to free speech. In any case, whatever you consider yourself to be, your takes are always enjoyable to read, Ingram. That's about as soppy as I'm going to get! 

I have no idea who this person is and let's say it in a haughty way: should I know him and why is he so important?! But my thesis is simpler: being narrow-minded can be achieved in different ways, including being a liberal (this is not some sort of vaccine to be opened to larger view as many people think today). Or conservative or centrist for that mstter. Anyway, the problem with narrow-mindness here is simple: why saying that SW was not good since the Reagan era? Why not since the 80ties or something? This is not even original because if the author thinks that the Reagan era is like Jurassic period for the cinema... well, guess what, is not, cinema is older. The irony is that Lucas made a series that was in the same time popular but like against the mainstream: the infamous "PT has too much CGI" is a typical example of the problem (and moreover, it is not true).