General grievances (Disney rants)

Oops! I guess I didn't go to bed yet. Fresh wave of energy tonight. But I'm about to. However, to comment on a couple of things here, in reverse order:



I know you're trying to be an impartial peacemaker here, but Disney aren't really to blame for this -- as your image and paraphrase of Palpatine render plain.

Star Wars has always been political -- i.e., it is a political allegory in space. It was just conveniently ignored until the prequels, where it was then downplayed, derogated, and dismissed (with occasional acknowledgement and middling acclaim) by the vast majority of fans and commentators.

I'm not saying Disney hasn't necessarily brought it to the fore in some ugly ways. Yes, it became weaponised, in some respects. Instead of being a commentary on Death Stars, it kinda turned into the Death Star (or the superlaser). 

But let's not pretend Lucas wasn't aiming big from the start. He even wrote in an early draft of the original film that "the empire is like America ten years from now". I mean, it doesn't get much blunter than that. And while I've already shared this quote a few times on Naberrie Fields, I think it's worth sharing again:


"Machiavellian", "plotting" -- i.e., Lucas always intended to make the backstory more overtly political in nature. 

Commenting on the backstory in 2005, Lucas said the following:

foreignpolicy.com/2005/05/16/the-confessions-of-george-lucas/


Thus, it's the good ol' anti-capitalist democratist GL himself that put the politics front and centre. Indeed, the failure to understand and accept this is, in part, what doomed the prequels to a negative reception. Censorship always turns people into useful idiots. For years, some fans have tried getting the message out -- only to be met with rancour merely for suggesting the prequels have important story/thematic content, or yes, sometimes being shut down for "getting political". Again, George did it first.  


Now, Smitty:


You know, you earlier said you were a leftie, and you're obviously a dedicated prequel fan, so I really think you should develop an opinion on this -- though your comment as it stands is perfectly fair. I say this in light of the above. There are many important political dimensions to the Star Wars Saga. It's absolutely clear and undeniable once you start delving into Lucas' quotes, his notes, etc., and tracing the general outline of his thoughts (on life, the universe, and everything).

Politics is also the backdrop for basically every story every written. Even religious literature manifests political overtones and is clearly something that emerged in a particular time and place. Ultimately, it isn't possible to evade politics -- although many people (and institutions) try to make themselves out as apolitical. Even the gloriously "pure" system of Buddhism, with all its venerable ascetism, ultimately cannot wriggle out of politics.

That's a general rule, by the way: Never trust anyone who pretends they're being objective. You already appear to have some decent wisdom there. There is always some slant that people have. Nobody sees with perfect vision and nobody has all the answers to life. Still, that isn't a reason not to aspire to knowledge and understanding -- indeed, it's all the more reason to. Have fun becoming a Padawan learner about more and more!

Oy!

Well, for someone that charges others to teach them how to read, I hope you don't charge too much if you can't read a simple name.

Your impression on what I "read into" or didn't about Petersons statement is assumption on your part, which is why assumptions are more wrong than right.

First of all, Jordan Peterson is not known for wording things carefully. He is more of an off the hip, off the cuff, even sometimes irritated/agitated and angry, type speaker/interviewee. We actually see that in his statement because he is replying to another persons critique of capitalism, and he makes sure to put a nice little dig in there at the person. 

As I have said to Cryo not that long ago in these forums, Peterson is well known for saying that he uses his lectures as a way to focus and refine his thoughts. Meaning that his more detailed views of topics might change from lecture to lecture as he refines his thoughts on said topic. Peterson is not well known for "carefully-worded statements". 

Even with that said, there was nothing for me to read into with his statement on twitter. He said what he said. He is not anti-capitalism, a true statement. I never said he was a full on capitalist, an assumption on your part. He states firmly that capitalism is not the foundation or fundamental cause of inequality. That is a defense of capitalism, that is a downright dismissal of the anti-capitalist view that he was responding too. Nothing to read into there. That is why, at best, you bringing Peterson into a statement where Lucas is clearly taking his shots at capitialist is ironic. At worst it is you having no clue who the person you are talking about, is.

I am well aware of what Peterson says he is and isn't. Just labeling him as a wishy-washy liberal is also a gross generilization of what and where he says he lands on the political spectrum and his overall belief system. 



www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/16/why-the-classical-liberal-is-making-a-comeback-218667/

He has also called himself a clssical british liberal. 





Now, I am not going to get into a whole thing about what is and isn't a classical liberal or a classical british liberal. I am sure if you don't know, you can google it. The point is, that he has made clear where he lands on politics, and it is clear that he has leanings that in todays political climate are a little bit on the left, and a little bit on the right, with more of an emphasis to the left. But obviously you see a reason to degrade him for that more centric view as you want to label him as wishy washy. 

If only more people were "wishy washy" on their politics instead of being so damned steadfast and blindly loyal to their political idealogies, maybe we could get somewhere in understanding one another.  


Now onto Lucas. Again, as Cryo can attest, I am well aware of where Lucas lands. Cryo and I have had conversations on Lucas in the past, where I freely (meaning not coeorced or forced to admit through points being made against my stance), that Lucas struggles with what he has become. He is an anti-capitalist, yet, sells his company to Disney to build wealth. He says he is anti-capitialst, yet, he believes in intellectual property rights, which means making sure the wealth he has accumulated through his creations stays his and continues to accumulate wealth (or capital) for himself. 

However, at the end of the day, he still says he is anti-capitalist. He has said it, or at least inferred it over the years. He is, by his own admission, a product of the hippie movement. Which were, anti-capitalists, anti-corporate, etc etc...

As for the little zoom interview you are refrring too, I had to go back and re-watch the zoom call, because I think I would have remembred Lucas saying something like what you are implying he said. I had my suspisions because the tell on your statement was that "they" said this. That was a bit of a red flag that I should probably look the video up again. ... So.. No.. No, "They" did not say that Capitalism was the best system etc etc etc. Mellody said that, Not Lucas.

In fact she made it a point to say "I" as in "she" believed that, not "we" as in a collective agreement betwen her and her husband. Lucas stood sheepishly behind her as she talked about her  beliefs. When it came time for Lucas to throw his two cents in.. nadda word about capitalism. He chose to instead speak about art and loving one another etc etc etc.. 

Example...If my wife and I were interviewed, and someone asked me my stance on religion, I would say that I am an avid atheist, that does not believe in a god or a creator, but, that I also believe that religion has a place in our society for those that choose to believe in god or religion. If you were to assume that my wife held that same belief, because she is my wife and because that's what I said I believe, than you would be dead wrong and laughed at without mercy. Maybe even chasitsied for thinking in such monolythic framing that two people whom love each other have to share the same beliefs across the board, to the point where there is no indivdual agency or thought, only a collective thought where when one speaks for themselves, that means they are speaking for the other as well. That is some cringe worthy stuff right there...

For those that want to see it for themselves...  It's in the last 20 minutes or so of the video...

Cryogenic

Yeah I won't be losing sleep over the whole Slave I debacle, but it sure is worth lawling at. Maybe I went a little too far in a few places too. My disgust with the left's conduct can do that. Yeah, I probably can't just throw all of my values out. It is more the left's approach I don't like than anything.

Artistic insemination. That's an image I won't be able to shake anytime soon. LMAO

It's funny you put it like that. While the Enlightenment bequeathed many civilising values onto Europe and to the intellectual storehouse of humanity in general (you couldn't have the United States of America and its secular constitution without the Enlightenment), there's also the less-spoken-of "dark side" of the Enlightenment. Perhaps, ironically, it takes a more "subjective" style of person, like an artist or a philosopher, to articulate it. In everything: a yin-yang. I am a big fan of the following essay, for example:

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-zerzan-time-and-its-discontents

Thank you, Smitty.

While it was an interesting comment, it seems an odd thing to pin on a particular paradigm shift -- despite the fact that I think capitalism has, in its current form, inflamed differences, frayed tempers, and encouraged materialistic chest-beating; and generally overwhelmed people's tolerance and sense of empathy for one another.

If anything, the Enlightenment actually helped develop some of the tools necessary to understanding why people behave in the ways that they do. It also reduced the power of the Catholic Church considerably -- and religion is an excellent example, in my opinion, when it comes to encouraging in-group/out-group intolerance, bigotry, and fanatical hatred of others (sometimes over very minor things).

There's much good in the Enlightenment, as well as some bad or troubling aspects. Ultimately, too many people are apathetic about the benefits of humanity going down a more materialistic and rationalistic path, and all the struggles and setbacks along the way that eventually set us upon it. After all, science is hard. Look at all the fools who deny the reality of COVID or climate change, and it's obvious that the problem in society generally isn't in people (and institutions) embracing science too much. That said, no system in life is the be-all, end-all, either. Living fully means embracing a multiplicity of things -- albeit in the right amounts.

stampidhd280pro
and now this

eljedicolombiano
appreciate the like now what are your thoughts on this Buffoonery?

I stopped paying attention to Twitter towards the beginning of this year- frankly, these kind of posts are made simply to elicit controversy and draw in those who dislike the ST and like the PT.

And well your average SW podcaster simply wants attention from Lucasfilm