novibe

I liked it because it didn’t feel like nostalgia slop. It felt like trying to take things in a new direction, while still rooted in the universe. Like the best of legends stuff tbh, in intentions and execution. Without being bound to actual legends stuff, making it just nostalgia slop (rise of Skywalker…).

I liked it was just a good movie as well. Great acting, great editing, great cinematography.

I grew up loving Star Wars, but I was never the attached type in general. I will always have the original trilogy, the clone wars tv show, the prequels to watch. Nothing changed about them with what happens in the Last Jedi. I don’t feel offended by a new thing being different.

Idk, it just felt so much better than Force Awakens, which felt like pure nostalgia slop. I actually had hope Star Wars would “get good again”.

I’d say I liked it for similar reasons I like Andor. But I actually do love Andor, and only like Last Jedi.

Maybe it also helped that I watched it in a cool movie theater while traveling and was pretty high…

And the whole “subverting expectations” thing… I don’t think Rian was trying to be edgy or be like “haa fuck you and your ‘expectations’”. J.J. just set up a terrible and fucking boring story with his first movie.

And Rian setting up Rey to be a nobody, and that it doesn’t matter if you have holy royal blood or some bullshit, was GREAT. That anyone can be the hero, not just the “destined one”. Like it was perfectly set up for the first new Jedi to be completely different, led by Rey guided by a changed and “grey” Luke, and the first pupils being the slaves and slum children. Idk… isn’t that much better than whatever the fuck was happening in the first and last movies..?

I mean give capitalism long enough we might be left with just one guy standing. I do mean guy. An immortal white shriveled dude, alone in a utopia of bots serving him.

And I just meant this whole “ah we’re not an oligarchy! We’re a plutocracy” thing is just dumb. What is even the difference in these peoples heads? It’s practically the same thing. And it IS the same thing under capitalism. The few who rule are the wealthy.

That’s the whole point of the system… capitalISM? The owners of CAPITAL rule?

Plutocracy = rule by the wealthy.

Oligarchy = rule by the few.

The wealthy are the few. And with increasing wealth disparity, they are comparatively even fewer than ever before.

Not really any meaningful difference.

Becoming..? The country founded on the principle that only landowners and capitalists should be represented democratically is becoming an oligarchy?

Only landowning or capitalist white men could vote and participate in politics…

Depends on the school of Buddhism sure. That’s true. Some don’t have anything resembling what we call God or even gods tho.

I know, but still, the oldest schools of Buddhism don’t have anything that would equate to what we in the west consider a god, or gods.

I know that in east asia, south-east Asia etc., there are schools of Buddhism that do have gods.

But Buddhism being in many ways a rejection of brahamical religion in north india/nepal, also rejected the idea of gods when it first started to develop. I think that’s pretty uncontroversial no?

Not non-religious, but Buddhists don’t believe in god 🤷‍♂️ it’s something

Yeah… you’re gonna have to do better than that. That article is almost entirely based on the Black Book of Communism, a known bullshit book filled with ridiculous numbers and “estimates”.

Like it includes Nazis killed in WW2 as “victims of communism”. And if those are the victims, good riddance in my books…

What an absurdly bad article. Pure drivel and propaganda, pure emotion without any real analysis.

Source? Never heard of this. They genocided ethnic minorities and instituted privatization, eroding worker rights?

They were at least partially the ancestors of modern native people.