This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
If we frame Star Wars as mostly about plucky underdogs overcoming insurmountable odds, there's some congruence of message there.
I think the issue is that he had to go to the next level with that whole Canto Bight sequence and imply, straight up, that the only reason the First Order can prosecute a war is because it buys weapons from these war profiteers, who are explicitly only in it for money and thus wish to drag things out as long as possible. It's not enough for the First Order to just be an unambiguously bad force, there has to be some rich people 'behind the scenes' making money off their existence.
And as mentioned, Johnson makes them irredeemable, rather than as with Lando people with warped but extant moral compasses who might still do the 'right' thing.
And add onto the 'reality ensues' issue Johnson has: in that film, everything the protags did during that sequence will be reversed immediately.
Did Lando even have a warped moral compass? From his perspective:
Lando is currently a productive and contributing member of society who is also responsible for the lives and livelihood of his many employees. The Empire shows up immediately before an old criminal buddy is set to arrive. Vader tells him to cooperate in arresting one of the guys (not his buddy) or else they will conquer Cloud City (stick), but will otherwise leave him and all his people alone (Carrot). Vader lies to him about the fate of the others and does not reveal that Han will be given to Jabba.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=q8irC6QMH9A https://youtube.com/watch?v=6_P1eWl77vo
Here's what Lando does after he figures out Vader lied to him:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ojoz7qO8XP8
It's not clear to me what Lando should have done differently.
I don't think we even know that we know that Lando knew why the Empire was after Han, right? Like, the man was a common criminal, and the imperials might just be running a typically heavy-handed regular police operation. He obviously didn't find out about the whole "ritual torture to lure a guy for a magic duel" thing until later.
More options
Context Copy link
If we look at the whole of his history then I'd say his compass doesn't point 'true north' in much the same way that Han's doesn't. Remember Han was gonna just abandon the Rebellion after completing his job, and probably only came back because he wanted to bang the Princess (and felt some guilt or something, I guess).
Hard to say. Resign his post so as not to be a 'Collaborator' and attempt to warn Han not to show up?
The fact that he has no reason to care about Luke is valid, but also not a complete excuse.
Maybe seek some additional, tangible assurances that the deal won't be altered rather than going with a handshake verbal agreement. Lando of all people should expect double crossing.
I'm not saying he shouldn't have taken Vader at his word, but is it fair to say that when the head of the Waffen SS shows up in your town demanding cooperation, you should maybe be a little bit less than fully compliant, and assume something sinister is afoot?
This also doesn't take away from Lando's heroism in the end, because he still did genuinely risk his life in an act of defiance.
Resign his post, get arrested, Han shows up and they get captured when their ship lands ("they showed up right before you did"). Vader loses his dramatic entrance but still accomplishes ihis mission.
Seek tangible assurances from a guy he has absolutely no leverage against? (A point illustrated by the second clip I linked.)
Near as I can tell, the best thing Lando can do is cooperate until he gets the opportunity to actually do something that might work.
This hinges on just how much Lando trusted Vader to keep his word.
It sure looks like Lando didn't choose to resist until it became clear he was going to get screwed either way.
If he warns Han not to show up Vader doesn't accomplish the mission.
I could go into a long discussion on the strategy of refusing to comply with 'evil' vs. going along until the best opportunity to defect arises.
But we wouldn't have much of a story if Lando took the former option, so in the context of the movie, I'm willing to concede the point.
Yeah a fair bit is contingent on stuff like "how feasible was it for Lando to send a message to Han" and "exactly how bad is it all of Lando's people if he resists" - all of which is off screen. (Near as I can tell the answer to the latter is "very bad" given Lando's warning that everyone needs to GTFO.)
But given Lando's later actions (rescue Han/blow up the death star instead of running off and continuing his career as a con man), I'd suggest he's probably a decent enough guy who was put into a tough situation where all choices involve the Empire harming someone.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link