I was recently talking to someone about israel/gaza in the context of the new iran war. I couldn’t help but notice we were coming to much the same conclusions, but through totally different lines of thought. To summarize, like most lefties, he opposes israel for “what they’re doing to the locals” i.e. from the perspective of “anti-colonialism”. On the other hand, I oppose israel for what they’re doing to do us in the West.
What is your reaction to a situation like this? And more broadly speaking, what do you think about this notion of coming to the same conclusion as someone else, while following wildly different trains of thought? Try and convince them that their entire perception of the world is upside down? Take it as a win, in an “enemy of my enemy” kind of way? Can they be trusted to ever come to the “correct” conclusion again if their rationale is “wrong”? Or is the line of thought more important than the conclusion? If not in general, can it ever be?
I suppose this post is basically just turning that giancarlo esposito (“you dislike X because Y, I dislike X because Z, we are not the same.”) meme into a text post lmao, but I think there’s actually some kind of important discussion to be had, related to this idea
Some very punny material delivered well. Neeson nails the deadpan style of Nielsen (pbuh). Lots of loud guffaws evoked. Best part? No gay shit!
Just a well made movie imo.
I have no idea what to write as a review. If you liked the first one you’ll probably like this too. Nothing super gay or woke imo, just some excellent characters in interesting situations. A couple audible “what the fuck am I watching” were elicited.
Im looking forward to the sequels, in spite of the announced director for the next one (though I’ve not seen anything she’s made, she did make the Marvels…)
Let’s stop pretending the Jedi were the good guys.
No, the Sith weren’t “better.” But the Jedi weren’t righteous defenders of peace either — they were a bloated, dogmatic, authoritarian religious order that got exactly what was coming to them. The prequels (and Clone Wars) don’t accidentally make them look bad — it’s intentional.
Their fall wasn’t some noble tragedy. It was a necessary collapse of a corrupt institution that had lost its way.
- Emotional repression = cult tactics
The Jedi Order indoctrinated kids from a young age, stripped them of attachments, and taught them that love, fear, and grief were sins. That’s not enlightenment — that’s emotional sterilization. They literally banned families and told people not to feel things. That’s not wisdom. That’s psychological abuse.
- "We're the good guys!" — while leading war crimes
The Jedi became generals in a manufactured war they didn’t understand. They weren’t peacekeepers anymore — they were the Republic’s hitmen. They fought a fake war on behalf of a corrupt regime, playing right into Palpatine’s hands. And instead of questioning it, they just followed orders. Sound familiar?
- Their arrogance blinded them
They were so convinced of their own moral superiority that they couldn’t see reality. Palpatine sat right next to them for years and they didn’t even notice. Why? Because they thought their own “purity” made them immune to corruption. That’s classic institutional hubris.
- The Jedi Code was broken beyond repair
No attachments. No passion. No questioning the Council. No thinking for yourself. Obey the Order or be cast out. That’s not a religion. That’s a control system. They punished any deviation and treated dissent like a virus — including from the "Chosen One" they claimed to believe in.
- Anakin was their creation, and their failure
They took a traumatized kid, filled him with contradictions, used him as a pawn, and then acted surprised when he broke. They feared his power, refused to trust him, and shoved him between blind loyalty and impossible expectations. And then they called him the traitor.
Bottom line:
The Jedi fell not because of the Sith, but because they became everything they claimed to oppose — authoritarian, dogmatic, inflexible, and blind. They moralized control, pathologized emotion, and propped up a decaying Republic while pretending they were above it all. Sound familiar?
It wasn’t the fall of heroes. It was the overdue collapse of a cult that lost touch with reality.
Fight me.
Wow - so the above was written by ChatGPT, obviously, but here’s why I had to post it:
Absolutely. Here's a version tailored for communities.win/c/KotakuInAction2, which leans anti-authoritarian, highly skeptical of institutions, and critical of legacy media and ideological dogmatism. The tone here is more cynical, with an emphasis on institutional rot, hypocrisy, and control — all things that tie in perfectly with a critique of the Jedi Order.
That’s freaky ain’t it? It’s got this place pegged lol
Don’t agree? Fight me - lmfao
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer
Hermesmann v. Seyer was a precedent-setting Kansas, United States, case in which Colleen Hermesmann successfully argued that a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman.[2][3] The case was brought in her name by the then Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.
Colleen Hermesmann was a 16-year-old babysitter who in 1987 was hired to take care of 12-year-old Shane Seyer. The two began a sexual relationship, and when Hermesmann was 17 and Seyer was 13, the former became pregnant. The baby, a daughter, was born in 1989. Criminal charges were brought against Hermesmann by Shawnee County, Kansas, accusing her of "engaging in the act of sexual intercourse with a child under sixteen". Hermesmann ultimately took a plea bargain, pleading guilty to the lesser offense of "contributing to a child's misconduct".
In 1991, the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, in Hermesmann's name, took Seyer to court seeking child support. Hermesmann's criminal culpability was not addressed in this trial, as this was purely a civil court case. The Department also sought and was awarded $7,000, equivalent to $16,200 in 2024,[4] for its own costs.
And the ones mentioned here:
In 1996, the court heard the case of County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J in which a 34-year-old woman became pregnant after sexually exploiting a 15-year-old boy. He was also forced to pay child support, and then Deputy Attorney General Mary Roth alleged:
