• 0 Posts
  • 11 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle




  • Honestly, that comes down to philosophy. The Sith are about domination. You gain power through fear and anger. They don’t understand anything else. So they rule based on their philosophy. Also, in Lucas’ vision, creating the Empire was to spread fear through the populace. That fear would reinforce the Dark Side and make the Sith stronger. Every time you have some person get angry and kill another person, or a family scared for their lives, it adds to the Dark Side’s power. It’s a metaphysical reinforcement of Sith ideas that make it impossible for Luke to really stand up to Palpatine. But the Jedi way is not to fight using power, but to embrace others as they are. When Luke accepts his father and himself as they are, he becomes a full Jedi and his father sees what he thought was impossible: that getting angry and accessing the Dark Side is NOT a permanent pathway to doom. You can CHANGE YOUR PATH and try to atone for your sins. Being a Jedi is about the idea that NOTHING is absolute. This is why Obi-wan and Yoda fail and Luke succeeds, he is the only person to try to change and improve and not see the Dark Side as a permanent hell but something to be overcome. (This also makes the Luke we see in TLJ nearly impossible to support, he’s undone learning that cost him nearly everything to earn in such a silly way, it’s practically unbelievable.)


  • Your own comment above basically supports the definition of tankie. Specifically, this:

    The term is also used to describe people who endorse, defend, or deny the crimes committed by communist leaders such as Vladimir Lenin,[9][10] Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Enver Hoxha, Pol Pot, and Kim il-Sung. In modern times, the term is used across the political spectrum to describe those who have a bias in favor of illiberal or authoritarian states with a socialist legacy or a nominally left-wing government, such as the Republic of Belarus, People’s Republic of China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Nicaragua, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Serbia, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Additionally, tankies have a tendency to support non-socialist states with no socialist legacy if they are opposed to the United States and the Western world in general, regardless of their ideology,[4][11] such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. (emphasis mine)

    I would take issue with the single word ‘fascist’ that @figaro@lemdro.id is using, as the government doesn’t need to be full-on fascist to it qualify for tankies to defend it. It only needs to be illiberal with a socialist legacy or nominally left-leaning government. So the definition is more broad than what figaro defines. But all the elements of Figaro’s defintion are literally there in your own linked Wikipedia article.


  • At least the the ships being warships carrying civilians things has a real life analog. Many (but not all) colony ships sailing Earth oceans were usually heavily armed. This was to deter pirates or privateers from raiding the ships the day after they left port and taking all the supplies they’d need for their colony. And the ships were full of women and children. And more than a few got into battles somewhere along their voyage. Then when the colonists got where they were going, in some instances they’d just pull the guns off the ship and set them up to defend the colony.