Saga Star Wars- an anti-power fantasy saga

Making such inferences can often lead to making the situation worse
As I've pointed out several times, from what *I* can gather on screen (I disregard EU) I can personally *infer* that common life under the Empire would otherwise be peaceful and under control. Simply because there is a totalitarian rule does not mean that there's terror in the streets every day or something. Freedom needs to be sacrificed for safety in cases like this

 

This is the ludicrous and nonsensical argument made by Fascists. If we don't stand by our values at the worst of times they aren't really values. This is why torture is also wrong...

Do you even know what a totalitarian regime is?

 

What equals 'logical inference' is not set in stone, sir. No matter how many act like it is. I believe my friend and I are simply admitting that the Rebels aren't nearly as righteous in our view as many others claim. Which is fine and not cause to attack one's character.

 

When did I bring torture into the equation?
Look, if you're going to call me fascist, whatever. I don't label myself with any political party or anything, but if you want to put me there, whatever

I think at this point, it's best to just drop this conversation. We're getting into real world politics and more often than not, those conversations devolve into plain arguments. Let's just say we disagree about which side is "right" in this case, shall we please?

 

I didn't call you a facist I said the argument is one often used by them.

And torture is relavent to this since you think killing millions because of rebellion is okay.

 

I don't think that's what he said it is simply what you are asserting--difference!

 

But he said it was okay to kill millions because the rebellion had begun...

 

What seagoat and cushy are trying to convey is a worthy message

 

Ah...and here we are. The classic justification for a totalitarian state. People are willing to think this way--for a time--because they're afraid of something...crime, war, poverty...etc. But they never consider the fact they one day they may become a "threat to security" themselves for absolutely no reason. They always assume that they'll be on the "safe" side of a totalitarian regime.

To be honest, I don't think you actually believe that. No sane human would, because history has taught us exactly where your line of reasoning goes. And quite frankly, I know you would never willingly live under that type of government, because you seem smart enough to know better.

Please just tell me that this is trolling. If it is, it's really good.

Otherwise, I don't know what to say at this point. I had hoped that this kind of thinking in the world was dying out, but even I am wrong from time to time.

 

I suppose I could say that the actions of the rebels are part of the chain of causality... but then so is Jawa number 2 and Random Droid number 2. I mean you can't possibly blame the rebels for the Destruction of Aldeeran...

 

I'm not going to bother continuing this. It's getting us nowhere. I apologize for starting this tangent.
Now, shall we talk about Star Wars on this Star Wars forum?

Sent from my C5155 using Tapatalk

 

Sure one can!

 

No sir, your friend's arguments have since abandoned merely questioning the Rebel's moral superiority. He's moved onto making a justification for a totalitarian system in the name of "safety". Would I be correct to assume that you agree with him in this regard?

 

I don't think you are correct in your assertions regarding my friend or I's stances at all. I too am done for now.

 

Interesting you feel so perhaps not everyone does?

 

Mr. B

I think you are spot on concerning Star Wars' anti-power stance. The saga consistently conveys the inferiority of power-seeking. Luke is shown to fail at the Dagobah Cave because of his reflex to physically arm himself rather than serenely accept his position in the cave . He later realizes the consequences of using his lightsaber aggressively in offense 'to gain power over his adversary' instead of defense('A Jedi never uses his weapon to attack'-Yoda) when he cuts Vader's mechanical arm, realizing this robotic mass is to become is future if he embarks on a destructive journey. And of course, Luke is one of the few protagonist that wins the day by laying down his weapon and making a stand against 'fighting fire with fire', letting himself be electrocuted so that Vader's long buried instincts to save instead of destroy get activated again--which happen via his sacrifice to save Luke & rid the galaxy of Palps' evil.

Certain golden lines in the PT enforce the overrate of power. 'All who gain power are always afraid to lose it' by Palpatine informs viewers that having all the power in the world would only give you a false sense of control and security. 'There is always a bigger fish' by Gui-Gon demonstrates the illusion of power-keeping. No matter how big you think you are, someone better and bigger will eventually come along and strip you of your throne. It's a shame Sidious didn't take his own words more seriously-if he did, his overconfidence wouldn't have been his downfall. Luke understood that the true way to have 'genuine power' (self-mastery) was to humble himself. Anakin on the other hand, was seduced by false notions of domination until his ROTJ redemption.

Other than Star Wars, I can think of Harry Potter as a saga that takes a similar stance. Like Luke, Harry vanquishes the dark side(Voldemort) by disarming him via the Elder Wand by an Expelliarmus instead of the killing curse of an Avada kedavra. He first asks Voldemort to feel some remorse to give him a chance to repent instead of being killed by his own greed. Voldemort of course dismisses the idea and pays the price when uttering the killing curse. Indiana Jones also plays by a 'greed will doom you' rule-the Nazis/Russians in the movies always end up dying because of their desire to use artifacts selfishly whilst Indy and co pass the test. The 3 series have a fairy-tale element to them that is meant to discourage power-seeking. Profound as a message, and I think it works well in such works, but of course not something one could always apply in real life crisis.

I am not familiar with most series you have mentioned in your OP as I am a very picky movie viewer, but yes I have noticed a trend of 'badassery preference' in characters. Some idealize Gary-Stus and Mary-Sues, want their heroes to never fail or have a moment of weakness. They want their heroes to only punch, punch, and punch. I don't understand this phenomenon because such characters are very boring IMHO. They are not realistic and they tend to have the depth of cartoons. I think Tony Stark is an example of character who was created for the sake of 'badassery' but others will disagree.

Still just because a character is more angry or angst-ridden it doesn't mean they have no dimension outside of perceived 'badassery' or whatever else. And fans favoring violent darker characters are not necessarily falling in love with abusers or over idealizing 'badass shows'. I know Han and Mace Windu for instance are often referred as 'badass' by fans but assertiveness and might in the battle is not all there is to them. I took a long time to warm up to Han, but I ended up appreciating him for his transition from selfishness to selflessness(well, far less selfish than he was at the beginning of the OT). I like his loyalty and devotion to his friends. His snips can be entertaining, yes, but as far as I am concerned, Han is not reduced to a tendency to shoot physically and verbally. Some may like Mace solely because of his commanding presence or 'Insert_badassery_trait_here' but for me Mace makes my top 5 list mostly because of his subtle TPM-AOTC-ROTS arc. His obvious deviation from the 'traditional, by the book, always serene and passive' Jedi ways intrigues me as does his fervent belief in some of the rigid rules despite his openness to the non-traditional in other areas. I find him fascinating because of the duality I get from him, not because of his power level or his mouthy responses.

That's quite a generalization to make. In general I tend to favor grey, darker characters because they tend to have a greater arc in their saga, not because I can relate to them (Usually I don't, in fact I can't recall last time I've identified with a fictional character) and I suspect many fans with 'dark character' preferences share my opinion. Milder, obviously light characters tend, in my experience, to remain static throughout their series. Often their inner-conflict(if they are given any at all) are too small for viewers to be convinced that they will fail or fall. Take Harry Potter for instance. I was utterly bored by him because of the over emphasis on 'how light he was'. Even when he made questionable decisions, he was mostly never called on them-they were portrayed as 'pure' when they weren't. It was just so obvious he was going to remain on the light side I could barely get involved in his crisis. Severus Snape on the other hand interested me far more because of the mystery surrounding his loyalties and his moral ambiguity.

I find the Jedi very preachy, flawed,shortsighted. I pretty much disagree with most of the PT Jedi code and rules. But I LIKED that portrayal as misguided individuals with Greater Good intentions. It made the Order far more interesting to me. And Mace, Yoda and Obi-Wan, three Jedi who have had the mentioned flaws at one point in the saga, still make my top 5 Star Wars character list (They share the top 5 trophy with Palpatine and Anakin) despite that. Actually I don't think they would fascinate me that much if they were portrayed as 'always right, perfect SuperJesuses' individuals--that would just be boring and unrealistic.

I actually find the Alliance very dull because of their lack of questionable decisions in the OT. I agree with Alliance stances, I find the Empire very revolting for their willingness to kill innocent millions not even involved in the conflict because they want to intimidate the Rebels, but a 100% good side/100% bad side just isn't that captivating to me. I would have liked a few stories of Imperials and Rebels switching sides in the OT to gain a better understanding of the 'Empire lure'. As it stands, I don't understand why the majority of the galaxy would continue to join Palpatine after events in ROTS. Why support an Empire in power that executes anyone disagreeing with them? There was corruption in the senate, yes, but I'm at lost to see how a brutal dictatorship improves the situation.

 

Yeah, that worked out real well for the Naboo in TPM. The Trade Federation put them into containment camps with high death tolls. That is besides the Trade Federation also going after the Gungans, chasing them out of their homes and forcing them to hide in the swamps. The Naboo ended up fighting anyway to save themselves, so their peacefull surrender plan backfired big time.

 

The same reason the Germans supported Hitler - safety and security in an unstable time. Dictatorships are inherently more ordered than democracies, however in the long run they are self-destructive.

 

*Shakes head*

 

Maybe in the same way a Polish resistance fighter has 'caused' the deaths of some fellow Poles who are killed in German retaliation. How is this person responsible however? I mean this is a common theme amongst resistance movements...

See why can't you offer an argument instead?

 

Doesn't make it sound, sir.

 

So people should kneel to a totalitarian regime?