1. Notification emails are working properly again. Please check your email spam folder and if you see any emails from the Cantina there, make sure to mark them as "Not Spam". This will help a lot to whitelist the emails and to stop them going to spam.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. IMPORTANT! To be able to create new threads and rate posts, you need to have at least 30 posts in The Cantina.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Before posting a new thread, check the list with similar threads that will appear when you start typing the thread's title.
    Dismiss Notice

JJ Abrams Says Ep 8 Haters May Be Threatened By Women

Discussion in 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' started by ObiWanKnowsMe, Feb 17, 2018.

  1. Xeven

    Xeven Rebel General

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Posts:
    887
    Likes Received:
    826
    Trophy Points:
    4,692
    Credits:
    2,110
    Ratings:
    +1,678 / 159 / -73
    Where are all the women Directors?
     
    • Cute Cute x 1
  2. RoyleRancor

    RoyleRancor Jedi General

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Posts:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    21,446
    Trophy Points:
    147,167
    Credits:
    16,841
    Ratings:
    +28,031 / 122 / -91
    Largely struggling to get their projects financed and distributed
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Wise Wise x 2
  3. KalKenobi83

    KalKenobi83 Rebel Trooper

    Joined:
    May 16, 2016
    Posts:
    48
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    132
    Credits:
    234
    Ratings:
    +72 / 6 / -4
    Look I enjoy The Sequel Trilogy but JJ please dont Ruin it by having Finn & Poe be Lovers
     
    • Off Topic Off Topic x 3
    • Funny Funny x 2
  4. Adam812

    Adam812 Rebelscum

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Posts:
    169
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    867
    Credits:
    584
    Ratings:
    +466 / 7 / -2
    I’d prefer to keep Finn and Poe’s relationship be a bromance rather than a romance.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Wise Wise x 1
  5. Kylocity

    Kylocity Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Posts:
    703
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    5,592
    Credits:
    1,935
    Ratings:
    +1,941 / 15 / -6
    Interesting non sequitur, but I sympathise with what motivated it.

    I am personally able to discern between someone being threatened by a film and someone just simply disliking a film. The argumentation and approach to criticism of both these groups is completely different. At risk of speaking for someone else and being wrong, I would say that JJ gets it too.
     
    #365 Kylocity, Nov 16, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2018
    • Like Like x 5
  6. metadude

    metadude Rebelscum

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2018
    Posts:
    243
    Likes Received:
    385
    Trophy Points:
    1,637
    Credits:
    688
    Ratings:
    +625 / 11 / -5
    From my perspective it's definitely a weird term to use as negative. When I first encountered it, it was being employed with a negative connotation and I was like "What's SJW mean?" and got the response "social justice warrior" which on the face of it, how's that not a good thing? Justice is good, right? Social justice is good. Warriors fighting for what's clearly good? So, people using the term in a negative seem to be setting themselves up as the bad guys because now it looks like they're fighting against "social justice warriors" it's very peculiar.

    Then use of the term creates an unclear stance of the one using the term, are they meaning "a fringe group the ideology" or the ideology of "social justice" itself? Now that I think about it, it seems to obfuscate the matter in a way that appears designed to do that. It's like using a term to describe the "oppressive fringe" which actually describes the non-fringe ideology that is actually "just". So the more they equate the word that literally describes the whole, with the fringe part that is negative, the more they equate the whole as negative. And the "innoncent" (naive in critical evaluation), would slowly be indoctrinated into the mindset of opposition to any kind of "social justice". Oh that's clever. That would be a well-played directive movement of pawns across the proverbial rubicon.

    Now when I look at the criticisms of the ST, I see manufactured criticisms. Manufactured criticisms exist to hide an agenda. There is something else driving the negative narrative, which is disguising itself as rational. It disguises itself as rational in order to emotionally appeal to those who want to have the appearance of being intelligent. That will get them to jump on the bandwagon, and move in the direction of the wagon.

    Okay now, a major chunk of the criticism is about "SJW message in the ST" especially revolving around Rey as a "SJW superwoman agenda". But when I look at the character of Rey (or, Wonder Woman, or, what little I've seen of the new Doctor Who, etc.) it's not a "flawless superwoman" but it's a woman who has the same strength as the male potagonists prior, yet is beset by flaws. "Weaknesses" such as the need for others, the need to find a group within which to belong, doubts and insecurities in their own abilities, the need for guidance. It's a well-realized character. A character who can show courage exactly because of those "flaws" being present. A character that, despite the claims to the contrary, does fail. And does need others to help them when they fail.

    Now, why would people paint these characters as "superwomen agendas" when they're not? Why all of the manufactured criticism? Why is a "social justice" message a negative thing when these messages are a clear message in basically the majority of stories ever told? I'm again just thinking out loud here, but as I stand back and look at it - it does start to seem like the "backlash" could very well be the result of a mindset that is threatened by women with any form of equality, lurking behind the curtain of the backlash. Note that I'm not in any way saying that everyone involved in criticizing the films are in fact threatened by women, but that all of the "criticisms" (the 'objective/intelligent' ones being obviously manufactured) are being manufactured by the mindset that is threatened by women, and then those jumping on the bandwagon and looking for reason to justify their participation in the backlash, are being used to involuntarily further that mindset.

    It's like, what JJ said in the initial post quote is exactly true of a percentage of the "haters"; and a small percentage can, with the right rhetoric, cause the mindset to spread through the crowd like wildfire. At any rate, there's something behind that curtain, and it isn't reason.

    Sidenote if anyone is thinking "why oh why can this guy not just talk in small bits of tweets and such, why does he just go on and on and on..." I honestly have no idea. I tried it once with a Tweeter account and just ended up tweeting endless essays 140 characters at a time, so. That's just me I guess.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Unoriginal Unoriginal x 1
  7. Rogues1138

    Rogues1138 Jedi General

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Posts:
    2,483
    Likes Received:
    21,131
    Trophy Points:
    146,167
    Credits:
    12,320
    Ratings:
    +22,709 / 62 / -28
    PLZ LUMP ALL THE PASTY BIGOTS IN THE TRASH COMPACTOR ASAP
     
  8. Kylocity

    Kylocity Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Posts:
    703
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    5,592
    Credits:
    1,935
    Ratings:
    +1,941 / 15 / -6
    I agree. Trying to manipulate the meaning of "social justice" and make it sound like something negative is just a device used by those who benefit from the lack of such justice: privileged people who live in fear of relinquishing power and giving way to a more equalitarian society. The efforts of these privileged people to ridicule and make a caricature out of a person with a social conscience are far too transparent... They show not only their fear of being supplanted or dispossessed, but also, as you pointed out, a desire to influence those who are most naive and fall into this fake narrative traps. A desperate move, I think, equal to their using a lame acronym to disguise a simple truth: that there is nothing ridiculous or negative about "social justice".
    --- Double Post Merged, Nov 17, 2018, Original Post Date: Nov 17, 2018 ---
    This is actually a very interesting observation. The mindset does not always fit the rhetoric, that is so very true. How many times we find perfectly nice people who disliked TLJ or the ST using the jaded rhetoric of the bigots: "Rey is a Mary Sue", "too many women in TLJ", "agenda driven story telling", "men act stupid". These words have really stuck in our psyche and perfectly nice people quickly conjure them up when defending their ofter legitimate dislike for these films...
    --- Double Post Merged, Nov 17, 2018 ---
    It's difficult to explain nuanced ideas in tweets, so thank you for taking your time writing your posts. I enjoy them! :)
     
    • Like Like x 4
  9. Jeden.Dwa

    Jeden.Dwa Clone

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Posts:
    11
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    9
    Credits:
    139
    Ratings:
    +25 / 2 / -3
    Given what Rian had to work with NO. Han was Dead. Luke didn't want to join the fight. Leia was not a Jedi master but her role in the film was pivotal. Being only a General Leia comandeered a huge Resistance fleet. The decisions she made seemed more of a responsibility than most Generals in a military typically hold. Naturally, without knowing the outcome of Episode 9,, A character with that much power acted more outspoken as a General while still acting reserved in character. There is always the likelihood if she dies she must leave the chain of command to somebody else. Enter Vice Admiral Holdo. Being her title as once Princess Leia. Mother to Kylo Ren and her descendancy to Darth Vader may have been her reason why chose not to take The title of Admiral. And may have betwen the unseen conflict with the Vice Admiral. No is my answer. Episode 8 focused on Luke and Leia's character development from ROTJ up until now. I think Episode 8 explained this Story Arc very well too.Could it have went too Far with Benicio Del Toros character and how the Rebels got weapons and the funding. Yeah maybe. But an entire film could have been based just upon explaining such a complex plot. Rian did a good job touching the surface and went on to moving the plot of the rest of the film. I think by not explaining the premises of unanswered pivotal question may have been a dilemma. But I think with the roles of more woman in high rank and responsibility just goes to show how a small Rebelliion fleet evolved to becoming a World Wide Resistance.
     
    #369 Jeden.Dwa, Nov 17, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  10. KalKenobi83

    KalKenobi83 Rebel Trooper

    Joined:
    May 16, 2016
    Posts:
    48
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    132
    Credits:
    234
    Ratings:
    +72 / 6 / -4
    JJ Abrams is quoted to have Liked Rian Johnsons Script he would have Directed it too Just sayin
     
    • Like Like x 3
  11. Sparafucile

    Sparafucile Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2017
    Posts:
    852
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    Trophy Points:
    5,592
    Credits:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +2,068 / 66 / -25
    I think most people want equal opportunity for everyone. I know of no one who has an issue with this, it's the rule of the most competent gets the job/position/scholarship ect...

    The problem with SJW's, is that the perception is that they want Equality of outcome. It's my understanding that an SJW's (at least the ones that are being ridiculed) view of the world is that institutions such as the patriarchy, rape culture, toxic masculinity, male and white privilege are prevalent, tolerated, accepted and practiced throughout western society. That their existence makes life intolerable for minorities and women. Therefor special measure need to be taken to fix those issues. Those measures include adding points to GPA's to minorities to give them consideration in schools they would otherwise not have access to with their base scores.

    So in the end it's all based on identity politics. If you agree with identity politics, then SJW's are fine in their view. If you believe in the premise that the patriarchy, rape culture, toxic masculinity, male and white privilege are prevalent, tolerated, accepted, encouraged and practiced throughout western society, then the natural progression of that thought is that extreme measures need to be taken to counter those awful practices.

    If you have an issue with identity politics, then it's laughable and ridiculed. If you don't buy into rape culture ect... then the need to for equality of outcome is just bad practice, putting people who are less competent in positions that they are less qualified for. In school, they take the place of a student that could possibly do better instead of drop out. There are stats on it if you're ever curious enough to dig.

    So basically it comes down to conservative and liberal mindset. Right and left. I think SJW's are seen by the right in a similar way that White supremacists and KKK members are seen by the left. The big difference is that we know where the right goes overboard and we no longer give them a stage. KKK, Nazi, white supremacists are ignore and should be. It's a clear line. The problem is that we know that the left can go that far too, with oddly enough, surprising results (see Maoist China and Cold war Russia), but we don't yet have a smoking gun like the left has for the far right.

    We know Russia had compelled speech, and that's starting to trickle into our society with political correctness in some instances (I'm talking Canada here). The line however is just a little fuzzier. Banned speech could also be seen as a problem. Which takes us to SW.

    When people shout you down because you have a difference of opinion and use "isms", well, that could be seen as banning free speech.

    Related to this is that haters have to first prove they are not an "ism" before they are taken seriously. It's tiresome, but I get it. There's no use having the discussion with a hater if you find out 12 posts later that the hater is KKK or whatever. However, those extremes are what Disney/LFL have responded to the most when it comes to haters, and thus I believe there's a perception that they are larger than what they really are. Otherwise, haters wouldn't have to explain themselves first before getting into the topic at hand. That right there is the frustrating part for haters. Haters have to prove they are not the extreme, lovers are assumed not to be the extreme, and we don't have a clear definition what that extreme is even if they are.

    That's my take on it anyways. If you want to understand more I'd suggest Jordan Peterson on youtube. I don't agree with all of what he says, and these are not all of my views, but it's my understanding of what the source of the perception from the conservative side. I tend to sit center right politically, with some left leaning ideas. So I don't fit in with anyone, but I can listen to anyone and get something out of it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. metadude

    metadude Rebelscum

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2018
    Posts:
    243
    Likes Received:
    385
    Trophy Points:
    1,637
    Credits:
    688
    Ratings:
    +625 / 11 / -5
    I'm not sure what is meant by "free speech" but I'd propose it's not a good thing when it's being used to promote bad reasoning which serves as the justifcation and impetus of illogical behavior. And that's a widespread use of free speech. The problem is that the masses are really poor in the ability to reason, but they think they're not. And by masses, I'm not meaning, "the unwashed illiterate" I am meaning, virtually everyone. Including the people the masses tend to regard as intelligent. It's like a "blind leading the blind" scenario, and thus we find ourselves as a people all in the collective ditch. This isn't meant to be taken as shameful or anything, it isn't. Just a statment of fact. I've no doubt everyone has truly wonderful gifts that are very important, but, the ability to reason well is very rare. I don't doubt that one day we'll all be perfectly working as a whole body, but that day isn't this day.

    It's the problem of rhetoric used to create an emotional environment upon which to act emotionally, while confident in justifcation of the actions because of the "excellent reasoning" being used. People can freely speak the most illogical nonsense, and create an emotional reaction in a large group of people who are regarding the rhetoric as "excellent in reason" creating actions which are sound in justification" and this is because of "free speech" being used for ignorance to plant the seeds of ignorance which then come to fruition after being watered enough with rhetoric. I've not lost faith in our want to do good, but I have completely lost faith in our ability to reason correctly, I've seen it throughout the entire system; and again not just from "common people" on the internet, but everywhere in all the the intellectual endeavors. Free speech just facilitates bad reasoning which in turn seeds the populace which bears the corrupt fruit in action.

    In the first quote you mention "if you agree/don't buy into" and that is at the border of the problem. Exactly what is being "bought" here? We're in a GIGO system, garbage in, garbage out. Most people can't spot the garbage for what it is, and so, what happens when there's two piles of garbage from which to buy? Whatever is being bought, garbage in, garbage out. And looking around at the intellectual landscape of our people (meaning, everyone) it's like seven billioin children standing in a landfill while throwing garbage at each other. While wearing three-piece suits and under the impression that they're sophisticated.

    This is the proverbial fountainhead of all of our problems. It isn't the "left" or the "right" it is the reasoning of both sides used to "justify" the mindset of the two, in opposition. It's not social woes that need "fixed" it's the use of reason that needs fixing. That is the disease, and everything else is just symptomatic. But also, there is the need of the fixing of the heart as well, in a lot of people. I believe most people have good hearts, and it's their reasoning that needs fixed; but I also think there is also a large group with "broken" hearts as well. But I'd propose if we can fix the broken reasoning, the broken hearts will follow.

    I'd propose it's not extremes; "love" and "hate" in this scenario are both somewhat extreme ends of the spectrum. But the haters are more scrutinized because, hate tears down, but love builds up. It's why there's no general objection to "love speech" but there is to "hate speech" because the former isn't intuited as meaning to cause harm or ill-will. That's not to say that "haters" will experience just, fair and reasonable reactions; as I said, the bad reasoning leading to unjust judgment is on both sides, but haters will be more likely to experience it since the attitude toward hate is not the same as that toward love. It's why you won't see me evaluating the words of someone who loves Star Wars because love isn't what ruined Jake Lloyd's life. Love didn't hurt Daisy Ridley or Kelly Tran. It's not love that is threatening Johnson or Kennedy. It's not love that caused people pain and insecurity. It didn't ruin Zach Snyder's life and I still question the potential it played in his daughter's life.

    You may say most haters didn't take those actions, that was a small group. But haters are the soil in which the tree is planted. Their words are the water which sprouts the leaves. The fruition of the small, is just the outcome of the whole. Root, stem, branch and fruit; they are all one tree. Honestly, if that is the fruit, I'd propose the wisest course of action is to stop watering the tree. This brings us back to free speech.

    All of this is of course just a glance at the issues underlying the spirit of the thread. But at the heart I'd propose the problem is singular. Ignorance fueling ignorance through ignorance perpetuating a phantom war against illusory foes causing the worst kind of accusations and actions. I have met so many people that level the worst accusations possible against people who are given no defense, all based on some videos they saw on youtube. All because of "free speech" which appears to me to be, not good at all because it just waters the seeds of ignorance, and there it grows and here comes the fruit.

    Key word in this is "propose"; it's a proposition not a statement of fact.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  13. Sparafucile

    Sparafucile Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2017
    Posts:
    852
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    Trophy Points:
    5,592
    Credits:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +2,068 / 66 / -25
    I mostly agree with what you've said. The issue is without free speech, what's the alternative? Who polices it and applies restrictions? Why trust them over the masses, over our own individual experience and wisdom?

    I think in the absence of actually knowing what drives people to the extremes like Nazi Germany or Maoist China, free speech is our best course of action. Allowing people to speak identifies those extremes. I don't think there's any doubt that it will lead us astray again, because as you say, ignorance abounds and people can get others to follow an ideology that could be fundamentally wrong, but by speaking it eloquently the masses just assume it to be true. But the alternative is worse, and hopefully by continued study of our behavior and actions, we continue to stumble ahead and hopefully don't destroy ourselves. The alternative is an authoritarian state where one person, or one idea dominates others and restricts free discourse and the sharing of ideas. We've had this before, it was called the Inquisition.

    We're in an interesting time in humanity, with technology moving faster than half the population can adapt to, a quarter is barely keeping up and the last quarter is being raised in it. Any answers people, leaders, give us, is likely infinitely more complex then the slogan they try and sell us election day. So we stumble on and do the best we can.

    To SW, yeah, hate drives some people mad to do terrible things to others. As someone who dislikes TLJ, I can't even comprehend why someone would go to those lengths, and I've been here through the worst of it. I suppose the only negative I can see in lovers would be the persecution of those who don't like the same product that they love. The unwillingness or inability in some to not be able to have civil discourse without invoking "isms" when they feel the conversation isn't going their way. I'd say both those extremes don't exist in these forums anymore. Not to say they can't manifest themselves again, but thankfully we have some damn good moderators keeping things in check. Keeping us all honest. We also have the ability to leave if we disagree with them. So it's far easier to set those restrictions in a place like this, then it is in the real world.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  14. metadude

    metadude Rebelscum

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2018
    Posts:
    243
    Likes Received:
    385
    Trophy Points:
    1,637
    Credits:
    688
    Ratings:
    +625 / 11 / -5
    I also mostly agree with what you've said. Any system of government is really only as 'perfect' as the people of which it's comprised. And right now, we're pretty imperfect and any system can and will be abused and corrupted, and injustice will have a place. So there's no way to ban free speech on a mass scale without that being an imperfect solution. We'd have to be a perfect people in order for it to work, and then we wouldn't need it.

    So my proposition would be that, all things begin in smallness, and ripple out from there, affecting the largeness in a kind of, scalar progression. We begin with ourselves. We are our own police, applying our own restrictions to our own speech. Personally, when speaking objectively, presenting or acknowledging propositions, factually, I tend to only acknowledge that which I know from self-experience, universal empirical consensus, and cogent logical deduction with a sufficiency criteria of 100% certainty. In doing so, that means my ability to speak something that isn't true is diminished to nearly zero, if not zero altogether. I care too much about truth to be found in adversity to it. So I police myself. Obviously I'll freely speak my opinions and offer up propositions and such things but I try to make sure it's understood that these are just that. Otherwise, my motto is "I don't know" and I find people really don't like how much I tend to use it.

    I'd propose Yoda was on to something with the "fear leads to anger, anger to hate, hate to suffering" but he left out the first step: ignorance. Ignorance leads to fear. And so on and so forth. So we arrive back at the thread topic. I won't say it's the case for everyone, but I see a lot of things online (as I'm sure does everyone) and there is a lot of ignorance fueling a lot of fear hiding behind the "conversation" but I suppose that's the way it has to be for now. Things go bump in the night.

    But in the end, yeah, we do what we do, everyone is necessary, we live and we learn, and I'm confident that it all leads to where we need to be. And that will be a world that can only be described as, very good.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. KeithF1138

    KeithF1138 Rebel General

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2017
    Posts:
    419
    Likes Received:
    938
    Trophy Points:
    4,142
    Credits:
    1,213
    Ratings:
    +1,262 / 16 / -5
    Not all. Nothing is all. Still when I see someone use SJW as a reason to dislike anything I know who they are because they just told us.
     
    • Like Like x 3
Loading...

Share This Page