ST A Call For Civility From A Fellow Poster

I don't think I can do that without "making it about the posters", so no.

And one of the points I've been trying to make is that what one person finds to be "compelling evidence" may simply not strike someone else that way- with no intent of rudeness.

 

Compelling evidence in the context I’m talking about isn’t a matter of opinion. Like, it’s not a matter of opinion that a Luke youtube video edits together everything negative whilst leaving out the positive comments - and failure to acknowledge bias of a source is detrimental to conversation

 

From a certain point of view.

 

Yes.

Here is what I think is a good example of missing the point. I'm using it because it's one I've seen by fans of the film as much as detractors.

"Let the past die, kill it if you have to".

I've seen people on both sides of the love it or hate it divide and in both cases, anyone saying that that is the message of film is missing the point. We have the villain espousing it, and a hero espousing it, absolutely. But the final act refutes that way of thinking. The text of the film makes this clear with Luke's final words about the Jedi and the Rebellion being reborn, and Broom Boy underscores this idea further by showing the young kid inspired by the core symbols of SW goodness - the rebellion and the Jedi. But if one misses this from the film, fair enough, we also have numerous quotes from the direct making it clear that "kill the past/ let the past die" is not where the film comes down by its conclusion. So we have the film and the director as evidence. Yet people still regularly miss the point on this. Fans and haters alike.

Opinion on what the message is is ultimately secondary to the actual facts, even though art and opinions around it remain subjective.

 

I mean, it’s quite telling that even as a hypothetical, some are not acknowledging that sometimes it’s possibke to just be wrong

 

Not really what I was thinking of- but even there, I think it's best to tone down the hostility. I am talking about the sort of arguments where one person says, "such-and-such a character's behaviour doesn't make sense"; a second person gives a possible explanation, based on personal interpretation and/or external material, to which the first person says, "well, I don't agree with that, either" or "I only count what's in the film". That's all about opinion, not fact- but too often it goes south very quickly. It's a problem.

 

That's just, like, your opinion man.

ETA to my above post - perhaps rather than the loaded "you missed the point" - something like, "that's not what the film is saying/ attempting to say" is more constructive.

 

Part of the problem - I'm guilty of this - is that a lot of us have been here for a long time, and the arguments and beefs have been rumbling for about 4 years now. So while not an excuse at all - these are supposed to be fun movies, not controversial issues of disagreement - it's all too easy for some (not everyone, many are quite capable of rising above it) to come in harder on a post made by someone where you're rolling in their posting history. That's not very helpful, but I can see why it happens.

 

If you're talking about me than I do not think that is any way a fair representation of what I have been saying. At all.

I also do agree with something Martoto77 said earlier, that is not automatically a "shutdown" to bow out of a conversation that seems to be no longer productive, and I think I may have to do that here. I've done my best to make some suggestions that might improve things, and hope people will consider them. I think that's sufficient.

 

But sometimes an an interpretation can be wrong, surely?

 

Just anecdotally. I've attracted rebukes in the past for ignoring someone's declaration that they don't wish to continue discussing a particular point with me, and continuing with the conversation - or ignored being "shut down", if you prefer.

 

But people misunderstand things in films all the time. TLJ is not some impenetrable mystery.

Obviously there will be plenty of points where "well, I think that could have been clearer or executed better" is the next valid part of the debate. But that's what @CEB is trying to get at I believe when he talks of establishing certain basics before getting on to the actual debate proper.

I miss the point of films, shows and books all the time. Sometimes that's on the material, sometimes that's on me. It doesn't mean I'm never wrong no matter what.

 

Off topic for the sole reason to post this gif because this quote is overused in my household on a very regular basis.

 

Is that a fact?

 

I want to talk about "whataboutism."

Whataboutism is indeed a logical fallacy under academic debate due to the structure of academic debate where one person is required to be "for" a position and another is required to be "against" that position. We don't have that here. This is a discussion forum where third party participation is frequent and in many situations helpful to the ongoing discussions themselves. This is the key difference between academic debate and this forum and it's crucial that we acknowledge this key difference because it's often there that "whataboutism" occurs from a third party and often it occurs when a claim from one person has overstepped and claimed that something is unprecedented when it can be argued that it may not be.

And it's that inclusion of unprecedentedness into claims that invites historical context through selective observation, which is its own logical fallacy.

Example:

"No film in Star Wars history sets up a villain like Snoke while explaining so little about him" moves the discussion away from how you hoped you would be given more exposition on Snoke to a more extraordinary claim related to unprecedentedness within the release structure of Star Wars on a film by film basis. Countering that claim, third party engagement or not, requires a discussion on what's occurred previously in other films on a film by film basis. Doing so isn't whataboutism. It's addressing the claim.

Instead, if someone says:

"I would have preferred that Snoke be given far more backstory than what the OT gave the Emperor" then all whataboutism is entirely removed from the table entirely. Word choice is everything. If you claim that something is unprecedented, breaks the established rules, or is in direct conflict with other aspects of Star Wars then the discussion becomes about what has previously been observed, or the perceived established rules that may or may not be changed within Star Wars. Selective observation, bias and selective outrage combine and lead to hyperbole and the desire to make an extraordinary claim related to context within the saga.

But even beyond that... I again remind that what we do here is not academic debate between a "pro" side and and "against" side and more just a sharing of thoughts on these films. So, even in the second example... I might say, “I’m sorry you feel that way. The lack of info on the backstory didn’t bother me as I watched the original trilogy one by one prior to the prequel trilogy and I guess I’m fortunate that the lack of backstory on Snoke doesn’t either.” We’re just sharing our thoughts here.

 

Citing precedent is nevertheless an inevitable part of discussing an eight part going on nine part saga with recurring characters, themes and ideas.

 

This!

Especially when someone is arguing that X hasn’t happened in Star Wars and you are arguing how Y can be interpreted to be very similar to X

 

I don't mean to derail, but I have a small observation/question:

When the creative minds behind the current incarnation of LFL (Story Group, director of a film, producers, etc.) deliberately post snarky digs on their social media (i.e. Twitter, etc.) at fans who don't seem to "get" their vision, is that a definition of "uncivil"?

For example: Rian Johnson & Pablo Hidalgo posting photos of themselves holding "Your Snoke Theory Sucks" placards...or promoting certain themes about their film and doubling down on them in interviews knowing (and stating) that it will cause division, et. al., is that "civil", "uncivil", or just having a "goof" with the fans?

Genuinely curious about this because if TPTB foment "incivility", how will it not bleed over onto fan site discussion forums?

 

Except other people's behavior doesn't give anyone the green light to be rude or condescending to others. I can't think of a single situation where that gives anyone permission to behave poorly. We each are responsible for our own actions.

 

If the tweets were in response to comments that "Your movie sucks." or "You suck.", then maybe the argument about civility is moot or has been inherently bypassed.

 

The people getting called out by the likes of Pablo and RJ deserve calling out. The harassment and abuse on twitter has been horrendous, just as some of the abuse George got was horrendous. And I think it would be better to call that kind of abuse out in general rather than turning a blind eye to it because one also doesn't like the film.

 

This is actually a great example of the danger of an echo chamber. The context of those images wasn't frequently shared within the Sanctuary, leading many to believe perhaps that Johnson himself made them to hold up and anger fans.

The "Your Snoke theory sucks" meme/sticker/saying comes from a popular Star Wars podcast that asked guests to hold that sticker up before participating on the podcast. Should people associated with Lucasfilm have turned down that request? Perhaps. Should they see their roles more the way politicians do and realize that every photo and every soundbite that CAN BE MISINTERPRETED WILL BE MISINTERPRETED or turned into clickbait headlines? Possibly.

It's a sad state that we so often react to headlines/images/quotes WITHOUT SEEKING CONTEXT though and when you combine that with any echo chamber then you start seeing conspiracy theories that enrage people. Read this for a great example of this concept:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...ile-conspiracy-gunman-fake-news-a7456681.html

 

True - and at all times, RJ and others have made it clear that disliking the film is more than OK.