One think I would like is a list of YouTube channels that tend to be toxic. Not ones that give fair criticism, but just toxic.

 

I have to say that, of those 10 quotes, I'd have to agree with the sentiments of 7 of them without hesitation, 2 with some caveats, and the remaining is a question, so its not something that I can agree or disagree with. Now, I'm obviously someone who joined this forum purely out of a simmering hatred for TLJ, but that hatred is born out of my love for the Lucas movies, and - at least - an enjoyment for TFA and R1. If someone is just repeating those 10 posts over and over, without anything new to contribute, then thats just dull and unhelpful to the overall discussion - just as their opposing statements would be dull and unhelpful to the overall discussion.

But where you might see people who are just pissed off and venting, I see a group that is seeing something they care about go in a direction they strongly disagree with. The best analogy I can think of is if you're watching a beloved relative of yours succumb to an addiction or enter a life of crime, and you're in a position that you can't do anything about it, other than yell at the top of your lungs.

I would like to push back a little here: Rose does become a mouthpiece for political messages in the movie that are both incredibly un-subtle and currently debated in the real world (although her character seems to be less focused on social politics rather than economic politics - Holdo would be a better example in the 'SJW pro v con' front). As an inherently political character, its natural for people to discuss how her politics relates to their own and there are going to be people who don't like her because they don't like her politics.

 

It's important to note that this thread was started 4 months ago and before the Sanctuary thread even existed. At the time we were seeing a lot of fans leaving and stating that the anger was too much for them. This place is a community and in some ways a club so it seemed reasonable to at least propose this topic for discussion and that's exactly what I did.

The discussion was fair, balanced, and featured people discussing their concerns from different perspectives. Shortly after this thread came to be the Sanctuary was brought forth and helped keep the peace while things simmered down. I have no idea at all if this thread helped on that or not. I care less about ego on something like that then I do just the community thriving and being healthy and less toxic than it was and I think that has happened thanks to the efforts of the mods who had a very rough, thankless job there for a number of months. A couple months after that the mods thankfully and wisely let the "Call for civility" thread to exist and that sort of picked up some of these same concepts (while introducing plenty more) and helped a lot of people get things off their chest that they wanted to.

Now we are in May and things generally have been more civil with less bans observed recently and more productive discussions so I don't have any regrets at all about at least raising this topic for discussion back in early February.

 

Wow, didn't realize the thread was that old, I was just looking at the more recent date tags on the posts. My mistake. That said, the sanctuary thread was there, it just had a different title (it actually started before opening day). Actually, it was 2-3 threads, that got merged.

 

I agree though it still need not be militant or fundamentalist level. Anger issues(management) is a thing.

Seriously?

 

Seriously. I'm not talking in terms of magnitude here, of course.

 

For the sake of discourse could you expand on this point? I fail to see how she is inherently political and what her politics are when she was in a military role making military decisions? Did her views on the legalization of Glitterstim on Kamino come up?

 

This isn't the thread for that, you can find plenty of discussion of Holdo in threads about TLJ specifically. I was just pointing out that, if someone wanted to object to an SJW message, Rose isn't the best character for that. Also, the bit about 'inherently political' was about Rose, thats why the bit about Holdo is in parenthesis).

 

I'm fascinated by the way so many men have an ongoing problem with The Last Jedi. While I'm sure there are women who dislike it, it doesn't seem to extend anywhere close to the level of hatred I've seen evoked in men.

 

I have a hard time understanding where they are coming from acting like the things being said now are a surprise? Like it's brand new? How quick they forget the crap this fandom put Jake Lloyd through- and some still spew garbage in his direction. I hated it but I wasn't at all surprised to see someone call Alden Ehrenreich something nasty today.

 

Whilst I understand a lot of the negative sentiment about The Last Jedi , once it was put in front of me, one by one; The Force Awakens had set the bar so low, that when I watched it, I was satisfied that at least Rey had a tinsy-wincy bit of training this time, and they did not break any SW physical laws this time, like operating a hyperdrive within a gravity well (TFW, Rogue One).

 

No one has to like everything, and everyone's entitled to their own criticism, but if you make something you don't like about "Star Wars" the bane of your existence, there's clearly something psychologically wrong with you. I mean there's a *clear* difference between, "Yeah, I saw The Last Jedi, I didn't like it that much. So what's for lunch?" and "[expletive] Rian Johnson and [expletive] Kathleen Kennedy and every [expletive] idiot who liked TLJ MUST DIE! ARRRRGHHHH!!!! HULK SMASH!!"

I think a lot of this is psychological, and the fact that some of these fans have serious personal issues. Airing their extreme views garners attention towards them, which gives them fuel. If you run across these kinds of fans, don't argue with them, don't engage with them, just ignore them like they didn't exist. Because even if you debate them, that means that you've given them a platform.

 

Seriously, What political messages? That military profiteering is bad? Slavery is bad? Really these things are something we should debate now. They used to be issues that were settled. Not to mention they are barely mentioned. She asks Finn where the people get their money and he figures it out. She mentions her sister were slaves like the kids.
You know who else was using SJW to attack? Roseanne defenders on twitter. Use SJW and you lose argument.

 

That is the association fallacy. Use a logical fallacy and you lose the argument. I'm not here to argue her positions (or rather, it might be better to say the politics of Canto Bight, as exposited by Rose), just to say that there is an argument. And again, I'm not saying she's an SJW, but that, if you want to have the SJW argument, Holdo is a better foil.

 

This is the second time you have dodged a direct question on a topic that you brought to the fore by illustrating it and while I appreciate your possibly not wanting to retread what you may have posted in other threads, this is this thread for just that discussion along these lines. I'm not looking for you tee off on a character specifically but some specifics from you would be helpful to "the overall discussion".

 

How about you say what politics that Rose went on a monologue about on Canto Bight. In my experience people dont want to say them because it paints an unflattering picture of themselves. How about not using SJW and actually say what you think is politically wrong. SJW hides the issues that people are against like LGBTQ rights, Womens rights, Diversity, Racial Equality, etc. Sounds a lot worse to say you are against those things then to say that so and so is a SJW or Disney has a SJW agenda in Star Wars now.

 

I'm not dodging. I'm just pointing out that there is a discussion to be had, and it is worthwhile to have. Its also better to have in the threads on those subjects, to the degree permitted by the forum rules. I was ultimately responding to the idea that objecting to a character's politics is inherently (or, at least, implicitly) a sign of bigotry. I wasn't trying to debate the actual politics themselves, just standing up for the idea that there is a worthwhile debate.

I don't know how many times or how many different ways I have to say it, but I'm not making any accusations of SJW-ness. I was actually doing the opposite, by saying that Rose wasn't a good example of an SJW, if you wanted to look for one. Rose and Canto Bight are pretty intertwined, and as I said repeatedly, that combo not an avenue of any of those social issues as much as it is about economic issues. The issues that are addreseds through that sequence are a blunt message on animals rights and a rather incoherent attack on capitalism and/or defense contractors. Whether you disagree with my assessment or not, those are both largely economic issues, rather than social issues. Hence me saying (repeatedly) that, for anyone that wants to have that 'Is Star Wars SJW' debate, Rose is not the best example for either side.

 

How about you just define SJW? What issues are they fighting for? I do believe this does exist in the thin red line between fandom and hate.

 

Its a term with so many variables that there's no point in defining it. All I can do is apply the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to it.

 

I rest my case.

 

Thank you.

 

Your welcome, but I suspect you dont know what I meant.

 

I have no objection to Rose' politics, just that she was allowed to lead the narrative.

Based on the single viewing that I had, she indicates that the only way to afford to gamble at the casinos on Canto Bight, you had to be profiting from war, thus justifying her fathier gate-crashing.

As I mentioned elsewhere, if Lando Calrissian had had the opportunity to sell Cloud City, I am willing to bet - no pun intended - that he could afford to rock up to several of those tables; but in Rose' world, he'd have been trampled with the rest of them.