site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   26593 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 4, 2023

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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A better editor would have helped, yes, but IMO the critical flaw in the Prequels was that George Lucas originally intended for the Big Bad Guy to be Darth Jar Jar Binks. The theory is that he chickened out when he saw the overwhelmingly bad fan reaction to the character in The Phantom Menace. But ironically the only thing that would have redeemed the character and the whole trilogy is if this bumbling idiot was just a Kaiser Soze-esque mask for Palpatine's master. Cowardly scrapping that left Episode II without a memorable villain.

For those who haven't seen it already: https://old.reddit.com/r/StarWars/comments/3qvj6w/theory_jar_jar_binks_was_a_trained_force_user/

I love the Darth Jar Jar theory

George Lucas originally intended for the Big Bad Guy to be Darth Jar Jar Binks

That is a desperate fanfiction looking for some explanation why story was so terrible.

Is any indicator for that being true rather than fanfiction surpassing lousy original?

There's a surprising amount of evidence. The theory has been around for a long time. I first heard it around 2005, before the Prequels had finished airing.

Some more tidbits of evidence:

  • Ahmed Best gave interviews at the time Phantom Menace was released, saying Jar Jar would have a big role to play in the remaining movies and implying a twist. Sorry I can't provide a link, this just comes from my own memory of late night talk shows 20+ years ago

  • Count Dooku was not planned to be the villain of Ep 2. The original novelisation of Phantom Menace had Yoda as Qui-Gon's master. Reprints then inserted Dooku in the middle.

  • We see a character design for Darth Jar Jar in a Clone Wars episode (S1E8: Bombad Jedi).

The most convincing evidence for me, however, was reading Asimov's "Foundation and Empire" immediately before a rewatch of Phantom Menace (Jar Jar is the Mule).

I think there's more than a little evidence. Maybe the single strongest piece is Jar Jar's lip syncing to other characters talking:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=NvyPYQ4BtZQ

Jar Jar's lips were animated on purpose, and not a motion capture. In addition, there's lots of little little things that /u/Lumpawarroo didn't mention in his reddit post. Any individually are not that indicative, but taken as a whole are quite suggestive. I'm fairly convinced.

Edit: @basalisk_respecter has the right link.

That youtube link is an hour long video on a different topic. Did you mean this? https://youtube.com/watch?v=WUOwsRv6MLc

Yea, you're exactly right.

It's a hilarious theory, and I thoroughly enjoyed championing it when everyone decided the prequels weren't that bad (they were), but it is ahistorical. I think until the Disney trilogy, every generation had their own "George Lucas = Grand architect" myth - the early gen xers had "George always planned it as 3 trilogies - one about Luke and Leia, one about their parents and one about their children". Then the late gen xers and early millenials had "George had to make the first one for kids so he could show how anakin develops from an innocent and good boy to a conflicted adolescent and then the dark side, the next two movies are going to be much darker and therefore better" and then the late millenials got "George actually planned for jar jar to be the villain but everyone hated him too much"

But the truth has been the same all along - George didn't plan anything. He was blindsided by all of it at every stage, constantly reacting to the last round of criticism without ever understanding it - and aside from A New Hope, the Star Wars movies have always and only succeeded in spite of George's best intentions.

But the truth has been the same all along - George didn't plan anything. He was blindsided by all of it at every stage, constantly reacting to the last round of criticism without ever understanding it - and aside from A New Hope, the Star Wars movies have always and only succeeded in spite of George's best intentions.

Isn't it an old "joke" that the less George had to do with any particular Star Wars movie, the better it ended up being? (pre-Disney acquisition)

Yeah pretty much - which is why Empire remains the best of them.

I haven't read this theory before but I love it.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats