LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Torrocca]

A case could easily be made for either.
Personally I'd say the left, taken as a whole, leans more Sith, what with the glorification of wanton violence and support for giving the state more authority.

The Sith are more like Anarchists or Fascists. Will to power and extreme individualism.

Trying to figure out how the construction of a human-supremacist galactic empire that serves as an allegory for Nazi Germany and leaves everyone under the heel of space authoritarianism blends with Anarchist political theory is causing my brain to melt.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The Sith are more like Anarchists or Fascists. Will to power and extreme individualism.

Trying to figure out how the construction of a human-supremacist galactic empire that serves as an allegory for Nazi Germany and leaves everyone under the heel of space authoritarianism blends with Anarchist political theory is causing my brain to melt.

Tbh that's just Palpatine, not the Sith in general.

[Galloism]

EDIT: And by all means, do continue to call out the actions of individual feminists who act stupid (I do), but I'd simply ask to not ascribe their actions to all of us.

Oh I think the whole patriarchy ideology is hateful, as it casts half the population as villains and it's broadly accepted within the movement as a tenet. But that being said, this is the LWDT - I'll quote and link to you over in the feminism thread (since it's back again).

[Nakena]

Funfact: The Empire was also nationalizing commerce in the central systems and had something akin to draft. Around minute 4.00

[Byzconia]

So does the Left lean towards the Sith or Jedi?

A case could easily be made for either.
Personally I'd say the left, taken as a whole, leans more Sith, what with the glorification of wanton violence and support for giving the state more authority.

Because there are no rightists who glorify wanton violence and support giving the state more authority.

Likewise, there are totally no leftists who are opposed to violence or the state. (And fyi, most leftists are generally opposed to violence except as a means of last resort. Source: I'm a leftist who frequently interacts with other leftists. Anecdotal? Sure, but still more than you provided )

[Torrocca]

Trying to figure out how the construction of a human-supremacist galactic empire that serves as an allegory for Nazi Germany and leaves everyone under the heel of space authoritarianism blends with Anarchist political theory is causing my brain to melt.

Tbh that's just Palpatine, not the Sith in general.

Nah, the Sith in general were imperialist assholes.

[The East Marches II]

The Hutt Empire is a clear allegory for the State of Illinois

[Byzconia]

The Sith are more like Anarchists or Fascists. Will to power and extreme individualism.

"group X is like group Y or the exact opposite of group Y"

Philosophically-speaking, he's not entirely wrong, actually. Specifically, though, this would apply more to Stirnerite egoist anarchism than anarchism as a whole. Both anarchists and Fascists were also influenced by Nietzsche, and it'd be hard to argue the Sith don't represent Ubermensch philosophy.

That said, it's also very easy to see why some anarchists would object to the comparison, which is also valid.

[Ostroeuropa]

The Empires ideology is so completely ridiculous because it necessitates the destruction of planets in revolt, which necessarily pretty heavily empowers the planets you're using as a supply chain to build your stupid superweapons and turns the entire affair into a gigantic money pit.

Is this what Palpatine wanted to do with his time? Take over, sit in a chair, gaze out into space, and order everyone to build stupid superweapons?

That's not exactly power. I mean, it's a kind of power I guess, but it's the dumb kind.

We saw from the first movie that a blockade brought a planet to its knees, and that shit was a renegade force, not the entire Imperial fleet. That's like, obviously a better way of doing things?

[Torrocca]

The Empires ideology is so completely ridiculous because it necessitates the destruction of planets in revolt, which necessarily pretty heavily empowers the planets you're using as a supply chain to build your stupid superweapons and turns the entire affair into a gigantic money pit.

Which is a pretty accurate allegory for Nazi Germany's economics, which makes sense given that The Empire is literally a Nazi Germany allegory.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The Empires ideology is so completely ridiculous because it necessitates the destruction of planets in revolt, which necessarily pretty heavily empowers the planets you're using as a supply chain to build your stupid superweapons and turns the entire affair into a gigantic money pit.

Is this what Palpatine wanted to do with his time? Take over, sit in a chair, gaze out into space, and order everyone to build stupid superweapons?

That's not exactly power. I mean, it's a kind of power I guess, but it's the dumb kind.

We saw from the first movie that a blockade brought a planet to its knees, and that shit was a renegade force, not the entire Imperial fleet. That's like, obviously a better way of doing things?

This tbh. We shouldn't compare Star Wars to the real world because Star Wars isn't a storyline with any commentary on reality that's worth anything. The Empire is evil and the Rebels are good, any ideology after this is just an afterthought, not serious allegory, at least until you reach the prequels, which, while being worse movies, are vastly more intelligent.

[Ostroeuropa]

The Empires ideology is so completely ridiculous because it necessitates the destruction of planets in revolt, which necessarily pretty heavily empowers the planets you're using as a supply chain to build your stupid superweapons and turns the entire affair into a gigantic money pit.

Which is a pretty accurate allegory for Nazi Germany's economics, which makes sense given that The Empire is literally a Nazi Germany allegory.

Nah, the Nazis had their workers build weapons so they could invade other places, steal their shit, and enslave the inhabitants to make consumer goods. That's at least coherent.

The Empire is more like if in the middle of the cold war the USA adopted a policy where it would launch its own nukes at a city whenever there was a protest there or they suspected communists might be organizing there.

And it's pretty clear the Empire doesn't have north korea levels of obedience to fall back on. There's no pervasive propaganda system and criminals openly operate. So...

[Nakena]

The Empires ideology is so completely ridiculous because it necessitates the destruction of planets in revolt, which necessarily pretty heavily empowers the planets you're using as a supply chain to build your stupid superweapons and turns the entire affair into a gigantic money pit.

Is this what Palpatine wanted to do with his time? Take over, sit in a chair, gaze out into space, and order everyone to build stupid superweapons?

That's now exactly power. I mean, it's a kind of power I guess, but it's the dumb kind.

His motives were obviously to destroy the Republic to bring a new order and peace to the Galaxy.

The massive military build up were done obviously done with benelovent intentions as Palpatine knew about the Yuuzhan Vong and that they would be coming for the Galaxy. So the Empire had to be prepared for that, as the weak republic would never been able to fend off such an enemy.

[The East Marches II]

The Empires ideology is so completely ridiculous because it necessitates the destruction of planets in revolt, which necessarily pretty heavily empowers the planets you're using as a supply chain to build your stupid superweapons and turns the entire affair into a gigantic money pit.

Is this what Palpatine wanted to do with his time? Take over, sit in a chair, gaze out into space, and order everyone to build stupid superweapons?

That's now exactly power. I mean, it's a kind of power I guess, but it's the dumb kind.

His motives were obviously to destroy the Republic to bring a new order and peace to the Galaxy.

The massive military build up were done obviously done with benelovent intentions as Palpatine knew about the Yuuzhan Vong and that they would be coming for the Galaxy. So the Empire had to be prepared for that, as the weak republic would never been able to fend off such an enemy.

Which really makes Palpatine the good guy at the end of the day.

[Torrocca]

The Empires ideology is so completely ridiculous because it necessitates the destruction of planets in revolt, which necessarily pretty heavily empowers the planets you're using as a supply chain to build your stupid superweapons and turns the entire affair into a gigantic money pit.

Is this what Palpatine wanted to do with his time? Take over, sit in a chair, gaze out into space, and order everyone to build stupid superweapons?

That's now exactly power. I mean, it's a kind of power I guess, but it's the dumb kind.

His motives were obviously to destroy the Republic to bring a new order and peace to the Galaxy.

The massive military build up were done obviously done with benelovent intentions as Palpatine knew about the Yuuzhan Vong and that they would be coming for the Galaxy. So the Empire had to be prepared for that, as the weak republic would never been able to fend off such an enemy.

F in chat for Legends, murdered ruthlessly by The Mouse. o7

[The East Marches II]

His motives were obviously to destroy the Republic to bring a new order and peace to the Galaxy.

The massive military build up were done obviously done with benelovent intentions as Palpatine knew about the Yuuzhan Vong and that they would be coming for the Galaxy. So the Empire had to be prepared for that, as the weak republic would never been able to fend off such an enemy.

F in chat for Legends, murdered ruthlessly by The Mouse. o7

F

[Galloism]

The Hutt Empire is a clear allegory for the State of Illinois

Shots fired.

[Aquelessia]

His motives were obviously to destroy the Republic to bring a new order and peace to the Galaxy.

The massive military build up were done obviously done with benelovent intentions as Palpatine knew about the Yuuzhan Vong and that they would be coming for the Galaxy. So the Empire had to be prepared for that, as the weak republic would never been able to fend off such an enemy.

F in chat for Legends, murdered ruthlessly by The Mouse. o7

o7
My tears are shed for what happened to the Old Republic era ):
And the Imperial Civil War era

[Byzconia]

There is the problem. If the nutters are always in the camera and making the news; silence doesn’t really give the “normals” the right to say “how dare you call us *whatever*”.

And as I've also already mentioned, there are feminists who speak out. I know idiots love to go on about how "Twitter isn't real life derr," but yeah, it happens on Twitter a lot. Literally today I just saw a feminist bashing another one for saying that "white men are evil and the cause of all this country's [the US] problems." The former's response was, "The award for Worst Take of the Year goes to..."

But that's the thing, isn't it? Shit like that doesn't fit the narrative, so it's conveniently ignored and forgotten about while the latter type of feminist gains all the spotlight because it's "proof" that feminists hate men. The media's (and that includes both traditional media and internet media) goal is to sell a story. Facts are secondary at best.

This is a thing of Religion in general.

And it's bullshit when it happens there, too. Even as an atheist who actively hates religion, I also hate smears and logical fallacies more. I judge individuals by their own actions and ideas (at least, as much as is reasonably possible), no one else's. It's the only realistic way to avoid jumping down the slippery slope of fanaticism and bigotry (not saying you have, just pointing out that it's a threat everyone should be weary of).

I worked with Muslims a couple companies ago and when all the terror talk was going down, they said “People can’t say bad things about Islam; they weren’t real Muslims”

And? They very likely believe that that's true. That's how religions, ideologies, and philosophies work. Everyone thinks their interpretation is the correct one. Notice how I've generally tried to avoid saying that misandrists "aren't real feminists," but rather simply acknowledging that they're shitty ones who contradict the core idea of feminism (equality between the sexes). That's a deliberate choice on my part, but would I necessarily be wrong for saying they're "Not True Feminists"^TM ? I don't think so, no. This is why definitions are so relevant. I'm aware of the existence of the No True Scotsman fallacy, however, most people use it inaccurately. The No True Scotsman fallacy occurs when one changes the definition of what constitutes a "True Scotsman," not simply rejecting the claim itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I have always stayed consistent in my definition of feminism as "equality between the sexes," therefore me stating that, "Misandrists aren't feminists," is completely logically consistent and not a fallacy. It would only be a fallacy if someone I claimed that someone who does believe in equality (rather than female supremacy) isn't a "true feminist." Likewise with your Muslim example above, for all I know their definition of a "real Muslim" could've included "is not a terrorist," so they'd be completely justified (and consistent) in their statement.

Again, this all comes down to denying the individual in favor of an abstract generalization. (It's understandable why humans do this--it's a form of compartmentalization--but that hardly makes it justified.)

There is a growing negativity towards religion. The people who actually follow the teachings have to rethink their ideas and address the image being presented by the nutters.

Sure, but again, it comes down to the definition. For instance, much of the growing negativity towards Christianity in the US has to do with treatment of homosexuals. Now, of course, the Old Testament is clear on homosexuality (homosexuals are to be stoned to death), but the New Testament is largely quiet on the subject. Scholars and theologians across the world have tried to interpret what Jesus's teachings mean in regards to homosexuality. More conservative ones would argue that homosexuality is still an abomination while more liberal ones would argue that, at the very least, execution should be out of the equation. Is either side necessarily wrong or "Not True Christians"? Well, they may or may not say that of each other, but I'd argue no, as both sides have justifiable arguments (I'm talking in terms theological interpretation, not executing gay people--that is unequivocally wrong, obviously).

[Proctopeo]

A case could easily be made for either.
Personally I'd say the left, taken as a whole, leans more Sith, what with the glorification of wanton violence and support for giving the state more authority.

Because there are no rightists who glorify wanton violence and support giving the state more authority.

Likewise, there are totally no leftists who are opposed to violence or the state. (And fyi, most leftists are generally opposed to violence except as a means of last resort. Source: I'm a leftist who frequently interacts with other leftists. Anecdotal? Sure, but still more than you provided )

Looking for a more nuanced opinion, it's more that Jedi vs Sith is closer to Libertarian vs Authoritarian, though it gets fuzzy when you look too close. Certain types of right-authoritarians would fit more as Jedi, while the LARPers (and armchair wannabee LARPers) of the left are more Sith, with left-libertarians in general being a bit of a toss-up - it depends largely on if they're bona fide or just authoritarians in sheep's clothing.

[Northern Davincia]

I see it enacted in Florida to greater effect.

Florida is shit, tho. People I know from the Deep South literally insist that "Florida isn't the South" because they don't want to be associated with "America's wang."

It's good enough that people flee from my state to move there. Living in a Democrat's paradise has the nasty habit of driving folks out.

[Byzconia]

Because there are no rightists who glorify wanton violence and support giving the state more authority.

Likewise, there are totally no leftists who are opposed to violence or the state. (And fyi, most leftists are generally opposed to violence except as a means of last resort. Source: I'm a leftist who frequently interacts with other leftists. Anecdotal? Sure, but still more than you provided )

Looking for a more nuanced opinion, it's more that Jedi vs Sith is closer to Libertarian vs Authoritarian, though it gets fuzzy when you look too close. Certain types of right-authoritarians would fit more as Jedi, while the LARPers (and armchair wannabee LARPers) of the left are more Sith, with left-libertarians in general being a bit of a toss-up - it depends largely on if they're bona fide or just authoritarians in sheep's clothing.

Better, but that then raises the necessary question of, "What's the reasoning/justification for this?" I mean, you could have a good argument, you just haven't really made it yet.

Though, I'll say right now that idk how much I agree with Jedi vs. Sith as Libertarian vs. Authoritarian. I'd say they each have shades of both when looking at both their philosophies and actions. For instance, the Jedi Code is mostly about finding peace in the service of the Force ("There is no death, there is the Force"), which could be interpreted as authoritarian (though, it's probably more accurate to say it's more of non-individualistic mindset, which isn't necessarily authoritarian per se). Whereas the Sith Code is about finding freedom in power ("The Force shall set me free"), which could be interpreted as either. In practice, the Jedi acted as "Guardians of Peace" in defending the Republic while the Sith keep trying to establish autocratic dictatorships, which would seem to indicate a Libertarian-Authoritarian divide, but at the same, the Jedi had very strict rules on how Jedi were actually allowed to act (as most religions do), which strikes me as not exactly Libertarian. Then you have to factor in that the Republic was a statist bureaucracy, which also goes against the Libertarian ideal.

And yes, I am taking this way too seriously.

[Galloism]

Looking for a more nuanced opinion, it's more that Jedi vs Sith is closer to Libertarian vs Authoritarian, though it gets fuzzy when you look too close. Certain types of right-authoritarians would fit more as Jedi, while the LARPers (and armchair wannabee LARPers) of the left are more Sith, with left-libertarians in general being a bit of a toss-up - it depends largely on if they're bona fide or just authoritarians in sheep's clothing.

Better, but that then raises the necessary question of, "What's the reasoning/justification for this?" I mean, you could have a good argument, you just haven't really made it yet.

Though, I'll say right now that idk how much I agree with Jedi vs. Sith as Libertarian vs. Authoritarian. I'd say they each have shades of both when looking at both their philosophies and actions. For instance, the Jedi Code is mostly about finding peace in the service of the Force ("There is no death, there is the Force"), which could be interpreted as authoritarian (though, it's probably more accurate to say it's more of non-individualistic mindset, which isn't necessarily authoritarian per se). Whereas the Sith Code is about finding freedom in power ("The Force shall set me free"), which could be interpreted as either. In practice, the Jedi acted as "Guardians of Peace" in defending the Republic while the Sith keep trying to establish autocratic dictatorships, which would seem to indicate a Libertarian-Authoritarian divide, but at the same, the Jedi had very strict rules on how Jedi were actually allowed to act (as most religions do), which strikes me as not exactly Libertarian. Then you have to factor in that the Republic was a statist bureaucracy, which also goes against the Libertarian ideal.

And yes, I am taking this way too seriously.

Well, and the Jedi acted as enforcers for the statist bureaucracy, at least at times. As you recall, the prequels opened with them being sent to threaten negotiate with the trade federation.

[Byzconia]

Florida is shit, tho. People I know from the Deep South literally insist that "Florida isn't the South" because they don't want to be associated with "America's wang."

It's good enough that people flee from my state to move there. Living in a Democrat's paradise has the nasty habit of driving folks out.

I mean, is there any real evidence that flight from your state is any worse than most others? Also, aren't most of the people who move to FL older people who want the warmer weather and lower taxes? That's not exactly a brain drain, like my Blue Dog (so, basically, moderate-Republicans-in-drag) state has been suffering for literal decades from the lack of jobs here. Hell, the only reason I'm still here is because I don't have the resources to leave yet (due to aforementioned lack of jobs), though I'm working on it. And once I do leave, they'll never see me again; this state fucking blows.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Actually disgusted Andropov is not an option in the poll.

OP, make it so.