HUMOR The ReyLo theory is dead!! Long live the Renporer!!

One part of the story is whether they want to redeem Kylo and if so, then how to pull it off. Strong feelings like love towards other character could be the way and in this case Rey seems to be the most fitting candidate as of now (it could be also Leia but that is off the table I'd say). Or how would you see him being (believably) redeemed otherwise?
Of course they may not go the way of redemption, that's also possible.

 

Reylo is dead? Really? Well that's a relief, it explains why I see pigs flying by my window! Also, I heard they're making snowballs in hell these days.

Oh wait.

 

And to you, Rey Solo isn’t...

I keep repeating this.

It’s not over until IX.

JJ executive produced TLJ and said he wished he was directing its script, and there is probably a storyboard for the ST so all major plot points are constant. Directors are allowed to handle the story of each individual film.

It’s been confirmed as romantic/or at least them getting close and relating to eachother. Mark Hamill said so, and various newspaper publications have echoed his commens. RJ said he shot the force bond to be intimate.

Reylo fans don’t support the ship being abusive, and more Kylo getting redemption and realising he’s been like that so he can reform and become Ben. Yes, they wanr a healthy romance for their favourite characters. How shocking. “Love redeems” is a powerful message and sometimes “evil” (by your standards completely and utterly inhuman, despite him being under an abusive influence for years with Snoke) people repent.

Reylo’s were right with TLJ. For two years between TFA and TLJ they saw something and supported it, and the people mocking then were wrong. Maybe they’ll be right again. I know. Scary.

Reylo aint dead. Get over yourself.

 

There is no logic in pairing Rey with a schizophrenic psychopath, even if he does redeem himself at the end. A redemption won't instantly cure him of his psychopathic impulses and abusive tendencies. The door is shut.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 17, 2017, Original Post Date: Dec 17, 2017 ---

This was the talk before we all saw TLJ. Since then he has gotten worse and doubled and tripled down on everything that made a romantic pairing a horrible idea.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 17, 2017 ---

I don't understand how you get to say that after all that we have seen. There has been NOTHING to show that he won't be anything but psychotic and abusive unless she follows him to the dark side. His ONLY compassion shown toward her was when he wanted her to rule with him.

 

He has to want to change himself first, before he’ll become redeemed. And well done for insinuating that mentally ill people don’t deserve love!

He’s not a psychopath as well. He has humanity, and shockingly he cries and shows remorse in TLJ. He deeply regrets killing his father and it looked like it destroyed him emotionally, the he staves of killing his mother but (assumes) someone in his squad kills her. That’s what he cries over.

He was “worse” in TLJ than TFA. How? It seems to me you one of those “anti Reylo” people before TLJ and now that Disney has dared to acknowledge it, you don’t know how to handle it.

So what, him telling her she wasn’t alone because he related to her troubles, listening her troubles, turning on Snoke because he was told to kill her and not before ? Wow he never showed her any compassion.

He is a immature idiot, and is selfish. But he has reasons to be. (Like Snoke influencing him for years and being abusive to him to stay on the dark side, and past mistakes like Luke holding greenie over him and him reacting in self defense-there are a raft of others. But I’m sick and tired of repeating them over and over and being ignored.)

He doesn’t know how to have a healthy relationship, or treat someone correctly. He is an abuse victim and is acting in the way he knows how and thinks is right. There’s a reason why some abused turn into abusers.

But because he dares be complex, AND a villain, he is an inhuman being undeserving of love or redemption in your eyes.

 

it's a horrible idea right now, yes.

i think @NinjaRen said it best. he was an incomplete villain in TFA. now he is a complete villain. let's see how he bears it.
i'm not giving up on him. this is the middle of the ST and everyone is at their lowest (including Ben).
and if it's not okay to treat Rey like garbage, then it's not okay to treat Ben like garbage either.

if this kid dies in the Dark, then what is the message of Star Wars?

 

What's wrong with "You have no place in this story. You come from nothing. You're nothing. But not to me."? Can't you see it? It's right there! That's how it's done the right way now! And she's just teasing him a little... Don't hurry and give them a little more time.

 

psychopath

[sahy-kuh-path]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoraland antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningfulpersonal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn fromexperience, etc.

I'd say that sums him up very well. You can find a more lengthy explanation here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mindmelding/201301/what-is-psychopath-0

Spoiler: Wall of text

First a bit of terminological history, to clear up any confusion about the meanings of “sociopath,” “psychopath,” and related terms. In the early 1800s, doctors who worked with mental patients began to notice that some of their patients who appeared outwardly normal had what they termed a “moral depravity” or “moral insanity,” in that they seemed to possess no sense of ethics or of the rights of other people. The term “psychopath” was first applied to these people around 1900. The term was changed to “sociopath” in the 1930s to emphasize the damage they do to society. Currently researchers have returned to using the term “psychopath.” Some of them use that term to refer to a more serious disorder, linked to genetic traits, producing more dangerous individuals, while continuing to use “sociopath” to refer to less dangerous people who are seen more as products of their environment, including their upbringing. Other researchers make a distinction between “primary psychopaths,” who are thought to be genetically caused, and “secondary psychopaths,” seen as more a product of their environments.

The current approach to defining sociopathy and the related concepts is to use a list of criteria. The first such list was developed by Hervey Cleckley (1941), who is known as the first person to describe the condition in detail. Anyone fitting enough of these criteria counts as a psychopath or sociopath. There are several such lists in use. The most commonly used is called the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R), developed by Robert Hare and his colleagues. An alternative version was developed in 1996 by Lilienfeld and Andrews, called the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI). The book that psychologists and psychiatrists use to categorize and diagnose mental illness, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (DSM IV) contains a category for something called “antisocial personality disorder” (APD), while the World HealthOrganization delineates a similar category it calls "dissocial personality disorder." These are much broader categories than that of psychopathy. The category of psychopath is seen as included within this category but considerably smaller so that only roughly 1 in 5 people with APD is a psychopath (Kiehl and Buckholtz, 2010).

If we overlay all of these lists of criteria, we can see them coalescing into the following core set:



Uncaring

The PCL describes psychopaths as being callous and showing a lack of empathy, traits which the PPI describes as “coldheartedness.” The criteria for dissocial personality disorder include a “callous unconcern for the feelings of others.” There are now several lines of evidence that point to the biological grounding for the uncaring nature of the psychopath. For us, caring is a largely emotion-driven enterprise. The brains of psycopaths have been found to have weak connections among the components of the brain’s emotional systems. These disconnects are responsible for the psychopath’s inability to feel emotions deeply. Psychopaths are also not good at detecting fear in the faces of other people (Blair et al., 2004). The emotion of disgust also plays an important role on our ethical sense. We find certain types of unethical actions disgusting, and this work to keep us from engaging in them and makes us express disapproval of them. But psychopaths have extremely high thresholds for disgust, as measured by their reactions when shown disgusting photos of mutilated faces and when exposed to foul odors.

One promising new line of research is based on the recent discovery of a brain network responsible for understanding the minds of others. Called the default mode network (because it also performs other tasks and is operating most of the time when we are awake) it involves a cluster of several different areas in the brain’s cortex. The first studies have been done on function of this network in psychopaths and as expected there are problems there. Different studies have noted “aberrant functional connectivity” among the parts of the network, along with reduced volume in some of the networks crucial areas.



Shallow emotions

Psychopaths, and to a degree, sociopaths, show a lack of emotion, especially the social emotions, such as shame, guilt, and embarrassment. Cleckley said that the psychopaths he came into contact with showed a “general poverty in major affective reactions,” and a “lack of remorse or shame.” The PCL describes psychopaths as “emotionally shallow” and showing a lack of guilt. Psychopaths are notorious for their lack of fear. When normal people are put into an experimental situation where they anticipate that something painful will happen, such as a mild electric shock, or a mildly aversive pressure applied to a limb, a brain network activates. Normal people will also show a clear skin conductance response produced by sweat gland activity. In psychopathic subjects, however, this brain network showed no activity and no skin conductance responses were emitted (Birbaumer et al., 2012).



Irresponsibility

According to Cleckley psychopaths show unreliability, while the PCL mentions “irresponsibility” and the PPI describes psychopaths as showing “blame externalization,” i.e. they blame others for events that are actually their fault. They may admit blame when forced into a corner, but these admissions are not accompanied by a sense of shame or remorse, and they have no power to change the sociopath’s future behavior.



Insincere speech

Ranging from what the PCL describes as “glibness” and “superficial charm” to Cleckley’s “untruthfulness” and “insincerity,” to outright “pathological lying,” there is a trend toward devaluing speech among psychopaths by inflating and distorting it toward selfish ends. The criteria for APD include “conning others for personal profit or pleasure.” One concerned father of a young sociopathic woman said, “I can't understand the girl, no matter how hard I try. “It's not that she seems bad or exactly that she means to do wrong. She can lie with the straightest face, and after she's found in the most outlandish lies she still seems perfectly easy in her own mind” (Cleckley, 1941, p. 47). This casual use of words may be attributable to what some researchers call a shallow sense of word meaning. Psychopaths do not show a differential brain response to emotional terms over neutral terms that normal people do (Williamson et al., 1991). They also have trouble understanding metaphors and abstract words.



Overconfidence

The PCL describes sociopaths as possessing a “grandiose sense of self worth.” Cleckley speaks frequently of the boastfulness of his patients. Hare (1993) describes an imprisoned sociopath who believed he was a world class swimmer.



Narrowing of attention

According to Newman and his colleagues the core deficit in psychopathy is a failure of what they call response modulation (Hiatt and Newman, 2006). When normal people engage in a task we are able to alter our activity, or modulate our responses, depending on relevant peripheral information that appears after the task has begun. Psychopaths are specifically deficient in this ability, and according to Newman, this explains the impulsivity of psychopaths, a trait which shows up in several of the lists of criteria, as well as their problems with passive avoidance and with processing emotions.

Top-down attention tends to be under voluntary control, whereas bottom-up attention happens involuntarily. But bottom-up attention can temporarily capture top-down attention, as when movement in the periphery of our visual field attracts our attention. Psychopaths have trouble using top-down attention to accomodate information that activates bottom-up attention during a task. In normal people, this process tends to happen automatically. When the hunter is scanning for deer, a rabbit hopping into the periphery of his visual field automatically attracts his attention. Top-down attentional processes monitor the field of attention for conflicts and resolve them. The standard task for assessing this is called the Stroop task, in which the subject must state which color words are printed in. The problem is that the words themselves are conflicting color words, such as “red” printed in blue ink, so the subjects must suppress a strong inclination to read the words. There are now several studies indicating that psychopaths actually perform better than normal people on these tasks perhaps because they are not distracted by the discrepant color (Hiatt et al., 2004; Newman et al., 1997).



Selfishness

Cleckley spoke of his psychopaths showing a “pathologic egocentricity [and incapacity for love],” which is affirmed in the PPI by its inclusion of egocentricity among its criteria. The PCL also mentions a “parasitic lifestyle.”



Inability to plan for the future

Cleckley said that his psychopaths showed a “failure to follow any life plan.” According to the PCL, psychopaths have a “lack of realistic long-term goals,” while the PPI describes them as showing a “carefree nonplanness.”



Violence

The criteria for dissocial personality include, a “very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.” The criteria for antisocial personality disorder include, "irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.”



Philosophers can play a valuable role here in discerning the consequences of all of these findings for our attempts to build an ethical society. Several questions need addressing. What does the possibility that psychopathy is genetic say about human nature? What steps can we take to “correct” psychopaths and which of these is the most ethical? If it is true that psychopaths have damaged or abnormal brains, can we hold them responsible for what they do? Are there degrees of psychopathy, so that normal people may possess psychopathic traits?

You can explain how he doesn't fit that bill if you like.

Yes, I was against that romance from the beginning and TLJ more than justified my stance. TLJ did acknowledge it AND handled it. There is no need for me to.

You are grossly watering down his psychopathic and abusive tendencies so that you can justify shipping the two characters.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 17, 2017, Original Post Date: Dec 17, 2017 ---

I still advocate that he will be redeemed and that he will sacrifice for good. But he won't be redeemed and his psychopathic tendencies be instantly washed away to live happily ever after with Rey.

 

Copying from,my post in the ‘loved the movie’ thread...

I was happy that Kylo dispatched his master as Snoke has always seemed like a placeholder until Kylo had learned the truth of Han’s opinion that Snoke was using him. I’m torn as to whether he was planning to kill Snoke from the off with Rey as a distraction for Snoke or whether Snoke’s bragging was what made him turn. I truly think that he would have never killed Rey at Snoke’s command. Killing her for rejecting him is another matter.

Kylo is very interesting, psychologically, as he is a classic case of toxic masculinity and ‘Columbine killer’ like lack of self esteem. Some young men see women as trophies for ‘manliness’ or good behavior NOT as full people with truly held beliefs of their own. Ex.: ‘She ‘owes’ me for dinner. Or how dare she ‘reject me?’. I can take what I want, etc.

Snoke had a better sense of Rey’s priorities than Kylo.

The problem for Kylo in Ep. 9 becomes redemption vs forgiveness vs consequences. Forgiveness for Kylo doesn’t negate consequences for his actions after Snoke’s death. Kylo is Supreme Leader now. He freely chose that. He is culpable for the deaths throughout the galaxy from this point onward.

I don’t care if Rey declares undying love for him (which I don’t think will happen as I believe that he had his chance with her). Her ‘forgiveness’ wouldn’t absolve him of culpability for his actions.

 

He was gaslighting her because he was desperate for her to join him. It doesn’t excuse his behaviour at all and he was acting unhealthily admittedly. But he has trauma and was acting the only way he knows how.

She was right to turn him down in TLJ.

But what about “your not alone” and “please”?

 

This is exactly the problem. This is why despite it all, I say that he will be redeemed. He still deserves that chance. However, consequence is a real thing. Luke had to deal with the absolute BRUTAL consequence for having a fleeting lapse of judgement. He lost his academy, and his nephew to the dark side who then ruthlessly butchered whatever students didn't follow him.

Ben Solo will be redeemed, but it will not be without consequence and that does not mean a happily ever after with Rey. Anakin's consequence was his physical death. Ben may see similar.

 

while i understand what you're getting at, you're leveling a medical judgment on a fictional character whose life we only understand a small portion of.
and i don't think you're a doctor (and neither am i).

we can make assumptions about Ben and certainly some of the traits seem to match up.

but we don't know, for example, that he's incapable of learning.
we don't know that he doesn't feel anything (in fact, evidence seems to indicate that he feels things quite deeply).
is he glib? a pathological liar? does he actual have a grandiose sense of self worth?

a lot of his behavior is pretty typical of someone acting out as a result of a failure to be properly socialized, as a result of being controlled and abused, and as a result of being emotionally neglected. that doesn't make him a psychopath. that makes him fragile; for all his power he is very weak (yet another reason he lashes out).

also, i don't think it's fair to say anybody's watering down Ben's problems to make him shippable.
i mean, okay, i'm sure there are people who do that.
but again, i ask you: what's the message of Star Wars if we can't save this kid?

but we've already had this conversation. you're okay with him being redeemed, but not okay with him being made whole again.
i say what's the point of being redeemed if it's not to be made whole again?

 

I don’t “ship” them mainly but disagree with your take on his character. And I was arguing about the use of the word schizophrenic.

You didn't address any of his background reasons for being abusive, or the fact he is a victim of abuse, and just generalised my points to brush me aside as another “mad shipper”.

So despite TLJ showing he had compassion, regret, unhealthy personal habits because of abuse (his way of dealing with the past), and some traces of guilt, it “justifies” your position.

I never argued that his psychopathic tendencies would be instantly washed away, and many people who support Reylo (on here, I haven’t met any on other sites) don’t support an abusive relatinship in the context of it. I acknowledge it would take time and serious development for him to change.

But if I “water down” my tendencies, then you hate the character so much that you are over focusing on his tendencies to the point of not asking or understanding why he is like that.

Because Kylo Ren is a human being.

 

Consequence. A price needs to be paid. Here in life, we have the opportunity to accept the gift of a redeemer. AFAIK, that does not exist in a GFFA. His "typical" behavior as you call it makes sense, but when you add in his murderous ways, he is hands-down a psychopath. There is no glossing over that.

 

sorry, but no. psychopathy is a diagnosis and Ben cannot be diagnosed so glibly.

i'm not saying there aren't consequences. i'm not saying he hasn't got a lot of answer for.
if you want to write him off, that's okay. that's your prerogative.

i won't do it. i'm not going to treat him like everyone else in the galaxy has.
nor am i going to support or foster revenge, retribution, or condemnation against this kid.
no matter what he's done, he's a human being and he deserves better than he's been treated.

if we give him up, we're no better than Han and Leia for dumping him on Luke.
and no better than Luke for wanting to kill him in his sleep.
and ultimately, no better than Snoke, for using him to do his dirty work.

once again, i don't care if there's a romance in this ST.
but if Rey isn't better to him/for him than Ben's parents, his uncle, and his old dead master, then what's the point?

 

He talked to the melted helmet of his Grandfather like it often speaks to him. Schizophrenia.

Every abuser has reasons why they are abusive. How does that justify any of it?

He should be absolved of consequence? How much time do you think it would take to safely love a person like him romantically?

I don't hate Ben and I anxiously await his redemption. I cheered inside when TLJ feigned it in the battle with Snoke and his Praetorians (before we learned that it was all just a selfish move to gain more power). However, nothing in me whatsoever believes that a romance between he and Rey is any kind of good message. KK said it herself, Rey is a hero for a new generation of female Star Wars fans. To prop her up into an abusive relationship with a psychopath with murderous tendencies is NOT a way to show how a strong young woman works.

It is 2017 though and times are certainly changing. Falling in love with a man who murdered his own father and tried to force his way into a girl's brain twice who desperately wanted to rule the galaxy by military threat and force of military might, could be a thing now days.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 17, 2017, Original Post Date: Dec 17, 2017 ---

You can imagine a scenario where a Doctor would not diagnose him as a psychopath?

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 17, 2017 ---

I don't know who said that he isn't worthy of redemption. I can't wait for his redemption. I can forgive him and still expect that he sees justice for what he's done.

 

@TheBBP You saw how powerful Snoke was and how he could get into peoples heads, right?

This far exceeded the extent I thought Ben would’ve been manipulated. I feel sorry for him. He never stood a chance. Sure, he has to do the leg work and redeem himself. But he needs help. He needs love.

To call him a psychopath is to utterly miss the point. He isn’t mentally ill. He was manipulated. Hate drew him to the dark side. Love will bring him back - unless they want to suggest hate is more powerful than love...which they won’t.

 

absolutely. if for no other reason than diminished capacity.

sorry, i got a little carried away ~ hahaha

 

A diagnosis of psychopath IS a mental illness. I feel for him too which is why I cannot wait for his redemption. But he has still done horrible things and in TLJ he not only pledged to keep doing them, but he usurped the role of Supreme Leader to better his options for doing so.

It can't be both ways. Either he is mentally fit enough to understand that he did wrong and seek redemption or he is mentally incompetent and cannot or will not seek redemption.