Oh, I wasn't complaining about any of those things. I think they're awesome. X-Wings and TIE fighters are definitely not using their S-foils for reentry gliding though. I'm a huge Star Wars fan. I think it requires a level of suspension of belief to engage in the storytelling, because it's not supposed to be at all realistic. There is also plenty of Star Wars media that is definitely not for kids or fits closer into sci-fi, but even Andor, the most sci-fi of the Star Wars media I've watched, was definitely still leaning on its fantasy roots.
erin
joined 1 month ago
I don't think a defense of the most-hated parts of the prequels is a great argument. This comes across as George Lucas misreading his audience and trying to defend a product that missed the mark for most of his serious fans.
SW is for children is not a great take. It's just not sci-fi, and shouldn't be judged as such. It's a space fantasy, and it leans into the camp and the suspension of disbelief. They use wings and aerodynamics in space. Destroyed ships "sink." The good guys never get hit and the bad guys die in one shot. Now, the new movies were absolutely disappointing, but Star Wars was never sci-fi, at least not in the ways this discussion is defining the genre.
It was a hypothetical. Pretending those two statements are the same is willful ignorance. You're continuing to pearl-clutch over a statement that doesn't mean what you're claiming it does. You're putting words and intent I people's mouths and then making moral judgements based off your misinformation. You're making ad hominem attacks against a hypothetical. How are you still trying to justify an untenable position?
You continue to change the narrative. The did not say "Death to every [blank]." You said that. They said "death to the IDF." If I say "death to capitalism," I'm not saying "kill all capitalists." They're calling for the downfall of an evil organization. You are choosing to misunderstand them and put words in their mouth. You keep walking back your initial exaggeration. They clearly do not mean kill all Israeli adults. This is the same willful misinterpretation that the rest of the neoliberal media does.
Missing the point. "Death to [organization]" is not synonymous with "kill all members of [organization]." Even if it did, my other point is that the entire country is not in the IDF. You've made claims and extrapolations that have nothing to do with anyone's actual beliefs. It wouldn't be genocide regardless.
How does "death to the IDF" mean death to the entire adult population? Regardless of mandatory service in the past, they aren't in the IDF now, and they aren't the ones "just following orders." I also don't think Bob Vylan is actually suggesting that every person in the IDF be killed, regardless of complicity, but calling for the downfall of the organization perpetuating genocide.
"Death to ICE" doesn't mean the same thing as "kill all ICE agents."
Damn, didn't think I'd see one of these jokes in 2025. Wild.
It's my wife's favorite game. If you do play it, after leaving the starting area, enjoy the song. Don't beeline to the oak tree camp thing, it'll cut the music off unceremoniously.
People like you came up with the Missouri Compromise.
I don't think so. When I cross my eyes, it looks correct. Wall-eyed viewing makes it look like a hole. Crossing your eyes makes them go inward. Wall-eyed makes them go parallel. They're created specifically for crossing eyes.