Full Series Unpopular TCW Opinions

anakinfansince1983
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuicidalPacifism

I'm pretty sure someone (whether that be George, Katie or Filoni) doesn't understand pacifism, because both the Lurmen and Satine act in the stupidest manner possible. There's a very good way to portray pacifism (you know, it being a pretty good trait and all), but TCW doesn't use it.

 

And how exactly would you guys define pacifism then? If pacifism means preferring not to go to war but going to war anyway, then it may as well not exist as a word. You can make your points against the Satine/Lurmen form of pacifism, but if you don't think it qualifies as pacifism just because you think positively of the term and negatively of their actions, I would suggest it is you (in the general sense, qualified with an "if") that requires enlightenment regarding the definition of pacifism. (And projecting your own misunderstanding and slanted view of the term onto the writers.) Although I personally am against almost all wars and have a very high bar for justifying one (the last justified war in my eyes is probably WWII, and even then I'm unsure of the morality of the atom bomb), I absolutely do not consider myself a pacifist because a pacifist is someone who will not engage in violence no matter what.

Peaceful movements have a real-life world history. It's not an abstract example, it's real history that peaceful protesters have been beaten and killed yet remained peaceful across the globe. And I'm sure if you assembled a representative group of self-professed pacifists they'd disagree on some things, but the purist pacifists would be exactly like Satine (in her better moments obviously, not when she's violent) and the Lurmen. It's worth repeating: there's really no point to having pacifism as a concept otherwise. Everyone who's reasonable would prefer not to go to war if it was an inconsequential choice. That's not pacifism. It's just not being a hawk. A pacifist is not a simple dove, but at heart an extremist for peace.

 

I didn't say true pacifist, I said purist pacifist, and I think extremist pacifist is basically a synonym for that. That's my way of saying I agree that it is an extremist viewpoint. Self-defense and aggression are different, but if you bomb someone in self-defense, that's not peace, and ergo not pacifist. I don't consider the Jedi in the era of the films to be pacifist. They're all about violence and even war as a solution.

From dictionary.com:

You and I think US participation in WWII was a good idea, therefore we are not, by definition, pacifists. I'll be surprised if you can find a definition that explicitly states otherwise, and this is just my go-to web dictionary, I didn't hand-pick this out.

One of my heroes is fellow PA native Bayard Rustin who was the main organizer of the 1963 March on Washington we just passed the 50th anniversary of. He was raised a Quaker and a strict pacifist. He was jailed for refusing to go fight in WWII, and stated his pacifist beliefs as the reason. He said he did not think killing fellow man was a viable solution no matter what the problem. This guy really existed, and he wasn't the only one. He and they were pacifists. I probably would have gone overseas to shoot me some Nazis. I'm not.

Jedi Crash, Defenders of Peace, and The Mandalore Plot feature characters like Bayard Rustin. If they said they preferred not to go to war but did anyway, they wouldn't have been like Bayard Rustin, and these wouldn't be stories about pacifism. Pacifism, like any (especially extremist) ideology, has its pluses and minuses, isn't practical as an absolute rule, and can be framed in an unfavorable light.

 

Uh, not to seem argumentative or anything, but that is not really all that different from what a pacifist would do. A purist pacifist would stand there and get beaten to death by goons before raising a hand in violence against another living being. It's happened. Brian Orend summarized it nicely. as "A pacifist rejects war and believes there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war. War, for the pacifist, is always wrong." Emphasis mine.

Neither Switzerland nor Costa Rica is pacifist though. They are neutral, but that's not the same thing as being a pacifist.Governments cannot, as a rule, be pacifist, precisely because others are not.

If any circumstances whatsoever that would cause you to say that it is morally justified to kill another human being, then you aren't a pacifist. You're someone who dislikes violence and thinks of it as a last resort, ie. most of us (I hope).

 

Dark Lord Tarkas

You can't pull that one on me for these examples. The Lurmen aren't merely pacifists, they are suicidal pacifists. Upon being told that they were going to be attacked, their response wasn't to run away or hide somewhere on the planet, but to stay completely still and offer no resistance. They weren't anti-war, they were anti-doing anything.

Satine's situation is completely different, yet equally moronic. She is the leader of a Council that covers 1000 systems. Are we honestly expected to believe that no faction has ever tried to take that power? Hell, if she's not going to do anything, a random Ithorian could take over Mandalore. There's no way she could be in her position and be anti-doing anything.

I've met people who hold the ideal that, yes, they would rather be killed than survive by killing another. But I've never met anyone who wouldn't try to survive by other means (running, hiding, non-lethal methods).

 

One can be opposed to violence of any kind, yet take part in it anyway. Just like honest people can tell a lie and good people can do bad things. It's called a paradox.

Ever hear of a martial pacifist? A paradox, right? The goal of many martial arts is to not resort to violence, to stop conflict before it starts, to win without fighting. In Enter the Dragon, Bruce Lee referred to his style as the "art of fighting without fighting".

The guy who wrote the Art of War was a pacifist, he said so himself. He believed that the best way to keep the peace, to save the most lives, to shed the least blood and to prevent suffering was to be so damn good at war that you could win without fighting, or with as little fighting as possible. He even praised preemptive war, yet he was still a pacifist.

The Lurmen Chief was absurdly stupid. As jones said, a truck was heading right for him and he wouldn't even get out of the way, he wouldn't even let his people get out of the way. He was just determined to die and take his whole tribe with him. Worse, he wouldn't even have to kill anyone, just scrap some droids.

As Zand said, Satine was all over the place. One moment she was blasting fools gangsta style, the next she was OMG MY HANDS ARE STAINED WITH BLOOD. When her planet was invaded, she just stood there looking sad. She wasn't willing to get her hands dirty, but she was fine with letting her meager security forces get slaughtered. Why didn't she just surrender from the get go and save some lives, since she was such a pacifist, right? But when the fight came to her she surrendered instantly to save her own life, however briefly. She was fine with others fighting and dying, but she was quick to try to save her own life.

Not really. Pacifism can mean a lot of things. It can mean avoiding war and violence whenever possible, with survival possibly being the only exception. Not everyone is like this, not even close. A lot of people are quick to resort to violence, or see many justifications for violence. It can be like Sun Tzu's pacifism, the desire to maintain peace and harmony by preventing others from causing mass death, destruction and suffering by means of war.

You're suggesting there's only two kinds of people when there's a lot more nuance. You suggest there's only:

• people who will not go to war no matter what
• people who prefer not to but do it anyway

But there's also

• people who will go to war with the slightest excuse
• people who absolutely prefer war at every opportunity, excuse or no.

Maybe everyone who's reasonable would prefer not to go to war if it was an inconsequential choice (when one is even considering war, it rarely is inconsequential), but then there's a lot of unreasonable people, and even reasonable people make unreasonable decisions.

In fiction you have people like the Klingons, who make war for fun. Throughout much of Star Wars history the Mandalorians have been that kind of culture, one that craves war for honor and glory. Sometimes when these warrior cultures are done well they really don't seem all that unreasonable. I guess it just depends on what kind of person you are, what your point of view is.

I'd say the Lurmen Chief's pacifism was absolutely unreasonable, even more unreasonable than warmongers. At least warmongers have a chance to survive. Satine's supposed pacifism is a little more reasonable on a personal level, but absolutely unreasonable and appallingly irresponsible for a leader of so many lives.

If someone refuses to resort to violence no matter what, not even to save their own life, that's their choice, I'll just think they're stupid. No biggie. I guess they think it's worth it, and I'm sure they don't care what I think of them. I'm less forgiving of leaders who refuse to save the lives of the people they lead, especially when those people want to be saved, even if violence is required to save them.

Like anything, there's smart pacifism and dumb pacifism, there's effective pacifism and suicidal pacifism, and TCW pacifism is the dumbest, most suicidal pacifism there is.

There is also a scale of pacifism imo, ranging from suicidal pacifism, to staunch but limited pacifism, to Sun Tzu pacifism and everything in between.

 

I completely agree. I was providing the definition to show that pacifism is not a nuanced term, it describes an extremist ideology. Like I said, I'll be interested if someone can find a definition of pacifist somewhere that just says someone against most wars, but I don't think that's going to happen. If someone who fought in WWII told Bayard Rustin that they were a pacifist, I don't think he would have taken too kindly to that. The point of the previous post, as stated in it, is that pacifism is 1.) a real thing and 2.) as such has its pluses and minuses. You don't just "feel" like a pacifist, you're either against war in 100% of cases no matter what the hypothetical example might be or you're not, and if not, you are by definition not a pacifist. It is extreme, and it is also the definition of the word.

Back to the episode itself though, I think focusing on the flaws in the elder Lurmen logic as a centerpiece of the episode(s) is a huge mistake. The consequences of those very flaws played out when we saw that they all would have been burned alive if the younger Lurmen who were less dedicated to the old traditions didn't fight back alongside the Jedi. The flaws in his reasoning were an integral part of the story, not an oversight. (Why do I feel like I've said that before?) It shows how not only the Lurmen but the Jedi Council can be put in a situation where no matter how anti-war they are they must fight to survive. That's my takeaway on it, aside from the stuff about the definition of pacifism.

 

Other people's reaction when you have an unpopular opinion about Star Wars

Should post this on the bonus content spoilers allowed thread.
Dang, they can be hostile!

 

I disagree with just sticking to a definition in a dictionary and excluding all other interpretations, and I disagree that the only pacifism is extreme pacifism, and I believe in paradoxes, that one can be a pacifist yet resort to violence, one can be against war in 100% of the cases, yet resort to it anyway.

While I'm sure the Lurmen chief was intended to be the way he was, I also think it was essentially strawmanning pacifism and a better example could have been set. Representing pacifism with a suicidal moron brought down the quality of the episodes. There are ways to portray non-violence as effective even against opponents determined to wipe you out, it's called cunning and competence.

Balance has been a recurring motif in Star Wars and especially in TCW, but there was no balance in the portrayal of pacifism in TCW.

 

I liked Nomad Droids.

 

I tend to agree with you that the portrayal of pacifists in TCW isn't balanced overall, tending to show them as not the brightest lot. My posts were in response to the assertion that it somehow wasn't really pacifism, which was a completely incorrect assertion. Perceived-to-be-strawmanned pacifism is still pacifism. I also think it is completely incorrect that one can be against war in 100% of the cases, yet resort to it anyway. If you've resorted to war at any point, then you are not against war in 100% of the cases, that's a mathematical fact. There isn't nearly as wide a spectrum of pacifism as there is with most ideologies because pacifism is defined as opposing war 100% of the time, like Bayard Rustin. Saying you're a pacifist who supports some wars is really no different from saying you're a vegetarian who eats some steaks. To say it as anything other than a joke reduces the whole concept to a joke.

I disliked all the droids episodes except the two from S4, so I'm with you there.

 

Dark Lord Tarkas I like the S4 Droid episodes mostly because they remind me of Droids.

 

I love the S4 droids duology. Interestingly, not a fan of Droids. It's quality hasn't held up, and it was made in that time before the EU became what it is now - leaning much more heavily towards the sci-fi aspects of SW, rather than the pure fantasy aspects.

I couldn't have a whole show of R2-3PO antics, but take out Jar Jar, take out Gascon, and I'll very much enjoy a couple of misadventures from the droid duo every season.

 

That's kind of funny because I kind of despise Droids. I think they're the only TCW droids episodes I like because they're really the only one with enough of a plot. For some reason all the other droids episodes have virtually no plot, or a plot so thin that it can move super, super slow. But both the S4 episodes have nice narrative arcs, and I particularly love the second of the two for how much jumping around the galaxy it does.

 

I like the "political" episodes. Call me crazy but I see it as somewhat intelligent. Now I'm not saying intelligent the way that a Jason Bourne movie is, but I see it as having a lot of intrigue and at times mirrors our own world in certain ways.

How'd ya like that for unpopular?

 

I love the series more than the PT. And I like it equally with the OT.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but the only opinions that I will get hostile about are anything about Jar Jar being good and The Prequels being the worst thing since Cancer. Slight Contradiction I know.

And anything dissing my favorite characters, but then again doesn't everybody freak out about that one?

 

Well, that was certainly something new; first time I've ever heard about people who have even tried to defend the sandpeople who kidnapped and tortured Shmi.

 

To be fair, when I've seen people debate that angle, they argue that the Tusken Raiders deserved punishment, but not for their entire camp to be exterminated, men, women and children all.

I don't think they're wrong either. You shouldn't murder children. Ever, in any circumstance.

That said, it's a moment of weakness for Anakin. He's broken down by the death of his mother and isn't acting rationally.