STAR WARS: THE ACOLYTE Gets A Bloody First Poster As Lucasfilm Reveals Premiere Date And Trailer Debut

@Nightwing1015 - We'll see . . . ESB, RotS, and Rogue One/Andor were all pretty dark and, maybe not coincidentally, among the most well-regarded Star Wars properties.

@Nightwing1015 @clintthahamster @dragon316 - well, it ended up being a marketing misdirection.


Just randomly saw this linked and thought it was funny how they tried to fool people.

@TheVisionary25 - Cool.

Thank you!

@harryba11zack - That time of the month huh

@HashTagSwagg - I wonder what PEROID this is set.

@mountainman - what's wrong with Stenberg. Think she's fine, or did I miss another controversy?

@mountainman - It sucks too because I think the greatest Star Wars story yet to be told on the big screen is that of the Sith and their pov. There is a LOT of meat on those bones as far as storytelling. But I have ZERO faith in the creative department at Lucasfilm.

@mountainman - Disney hired Harvey Weinstein's long term personal assistant to make a SW movie. This is real.

@mountainman - Curious, would you feel the same way if the political positions she was espousing were conservative?

@mountainman - "I am neither conservative nor liberal"

Political labels are very fraught these days. I was just saying "right of center," not affiliated with any kind of formal political platform. Speaking for myself, though, I also reject the liberal label, but mostly because classic liberals like Clinton, Obama, and Biden aren't far enough to the left for my taste, too beholden to corporate interests and war profiteers.

But, yeah, it just comes down to perception. I don't see acknowledging, for example, the fact that race and gender (especially in combination with socioeconomic status) still play a role in giving some folks advantages and holding other folks back to be a "liberal" viewpoint, because that position is borne out by facts. There's a political discussion to be had about how best to address those issues, but denying that they exist in the face of overwhelming evidence is a non-starter.

By the by, intersectionality doesn't mean just "considering race and gender." That's a better definition of identity politics. Rather, intersectionality refers to the concept that factors like race and gender can combine and compound (or intersect, if you will) to create unique dynamics. For example, a black woman's experience in America is different from a black man or a white woman's experience. Disabled queer folks face unique challenges compared to straight disabled folks and able-bodied queer folks.

@mountainman - think the numbers isn't that large. Most people even within the fandom, probably don't care or skulk around dedicated websites like us.

I might probably just think that because I consider myself a fan, but I don't care. I don't mind agendas or whatnot, just bad writing. And what's bad is rarely activism-inspired for me.

@mountainman - "Intersectionality is taking marxism from a social class focus to a personal demographic focus."

It isn't, though. That's what you mean when you say it, but that's not what the word means.

When you talk about how a stable, loving home grants advantages to to folks who might otherwise be disadvantaged by their race, you are describing an intersectional concept. That we should not only focus on the plight of disadvantaged people of color, but on all folks disadvantaged by socioeconomic circumstances, THAT is an intersectional concept. It cuts both ways. I was just sincerely trying to help you out with more precise language, and referring to intersectionality in that context is bound to cause some confusion.

Looking at your list of "real" factors that could impact someone's upbringing, most of them are impacted by race and gender issues in America:

- Having a loving and involved family
Per the Annie E Casey foundation, Black and Amer­i­can Indi­an or Alas­ka Native kids are most like­ly to live in a sin­gle-par­ent fam­i­lies.

- Where you are born
The impact of housing discrimination is ongoing, and can impact the quality of schools, pre-K education, access to healthy food options, etc.

- How attractive you are
Western Beauty standards have been shown time and time again to be eurocentric, and young black children have been shown in study after study to think of themselves as less beautiful than white children.

- How intelligent you are
Intelligence tests have been shown to be highly influenced by the socioeconomic status of the test taker, and poorer kids who grow up in poorer schools will test poorly on intelligence tests.

- The luck or circumstances presented in your life that provided you with opportunities
Yes, of course, but these circumstances and opportunities are largely dictated by socioeconomic status, which is highly correlated with racial minorities.

It's not racist or controversial to accept these realities. These are facts, demonstrable via both demographic data and scientific studies.

"Every single person born in a first world country, regardless of their demographics, in many ways is more privileged than kings and wealthy people were 500 years ago."

True. Also irrelevant. If the question is "How do we improve outcomes for all people," how bad it WOULD have been if they lived 100 years doesn't matter at all, because we don't live 100 years ago, we live now.

"Do I think that certain people should get bonus privileges today because of bad things that happened in the past? Absolutely not."

What about bad things that are happening right now? Women are STILL paid 84¢ for every dollar men make for the same work, on average. Black folks face lower pay and higher unemployment rates, and have for decades.
[https://www.epi.org/unequalpower/publications/understanding-black-white-disparities-in-labor-market-outcomes/]

We're not talking about "bonus privileges." We're talking about leveling the playing field.

"We are over this stuff. The “woke” movement had its time for about the last 10 years and we are moving on from it.

There is no "woke" movement. It's an idea, meaning "being aware of social injustices, especially in the context of race." And it's telling that folks have had to make up a new definition to be against, since saying "I'm against being aware of social inustices" doesn't have a very nice ring to it.

"The progressives want more taxes and more government control. The libertarians want the opposite of that."

We kind of already have, though. More progressives live in states with larger populations and bigger cities, because being more prone to thinking about the collective good jibes well with city life. And more conservatives live in states with smaller populations and smaller cities, because isolation and distance from one's neighbors jibes well with thinking about the individual good, the objectivist POV. What's changed in the last ten years is, IMO, that some conservatives (and libertarians, if you prefer) want to have their cake and eat it. They want all the advantages of living in a big city (more cultural and dining options, sports teams, exciting employment opportunities) without doing the OTHER things that big city life requires (living elbow to elbow with people that are very different from one's self, paying higher tax rates.) That's what's causing the friction, in my opinion, combined with the increased partisanship and decrease in politeness that's come with the anonymity of the internet. People are perfectly willing to say things outloud online that would get them a (justified) poke in the nose if they say it to someone's face.

@Clintthahamster - Oh and there is no way I’m responding to every point in your TLDR post, but the fact that you referenced the completely debunked gender pay gap makes me doubt the veracity of everything you typed.

Taking the salaries of every working man and every working woman and comparing the averages of the numbers does not prove pay disparities. The difference is caused by the fact that men choose higher paying career fields and work more hours. That’s it. If a company could save 16% and get the same quality of work, why wouldn’t they hire all women?

There is zero chance I will engage in your literal marxist (despite your denial of this fact) thinking. I judge people by merit. I don’t give a flying F what your gender, sex, etc is. I refused to get dragged into this regressive thinking.

You don’t judge an entire group as the same. THAT is bigotry. All men are not privileged. Higher suicides, shorter life spans, higher rates of being a homicide victim, far more dangerous jobs worked, always lose in family court cases in certain states, incarcerated at higher rates, higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, just to name a few of the many things that are worse for men than women.

And I’m on board with not discriminating. The problem is modern DEI is discriminatory, just against men, whites and asians. So that’s why I’m opposed to it. I dislike discrimination. Race based hiring or college admissions quotas are a form of racial discrimination. Affirmative action is racial discrimination. Having colleges that only allow one race in is racial discrimination. Corporations having employees groups to join and network in for some races but not others is racial discrimination and anti-inclusion. All this modern stuff is so backwards. Making your demographics your defining trait. Telling people how privileged or disadvantaged a person is by their race or sex rather than their personal situation. Saying you want to hire or feature certain people because of their race or other personal info. It’s backwards and you can’t gaslight trying to justify it.

@Clintthahamster - Every single study on the gender pay gap describes it as a median wage of all men vs a median wage of all women.

Here’s an article that pushed the myth of the gap that even proves that it’s just median comparisons: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/01/the-enduring-grip-of-the-gender-pay-gap/

And here’s a nice article explaining the reasons why, that are not bigotry related. Tried to find a neutral source that can’t be accused of being right wing.

https://www.gallup.com/workplace/236345/reality-perception-why-men-paid.aspx

@Clintthahamster - I’ve seen data like that before. Childless women do on average earn more than childless men. Women are also getting degrees at higher rates than men lately.

Here’s my basic idea about this or just about anything - I don’t want the government involved. It’s such a complex and nuanced issue, that a macro policy will be unable to fix problems without creating new ones.

If we went completely communist and all people were paid the same amount no matter their job it would “fix” pay disparities. But it would cause exponentially more problems.

The Childrearing thing is tough. Women are having fewer kids than in the past. More childless women than in the past. Women having kids at older ages than in the past. But it continues to be something that either pulls them from the career force, reduces their hours, or leads to them choosing a lower paying job with more flexibility.

Too many nuanced to fully flesh this out, but realize that some of this is their choice. My wife who enjoys her career has seriously considered either leaving it or going part time now that we have kids.

Another thing to consider is that strengthening family units on a societal level will help with this.My wife works for a small employer that only have her 2 paid weeks off after birth. She used another 2 weeks of her vacation. But she wanted more than 4 weeks off. She took 12 and I did some extra hours for side gig/weekend work to make up the difference. Since we are a family unit we can work together on these things. But children born to single mothers are at much higher rates than in the past. When this happens (and it’s the man and the woman’s fault that it does), it’s really going to put an extra burden on that woman and she won’t have the man to help her out.

I just don’t think 100% equity across the board on everything is ever going to be achievable or even desirable. I think it’s great that men and women are good at different things. And the trash man and a brain surgeon shouldn’t make the same money. I bet they both work hard. And both provide a valuable contribution to society, But there are far fewer brain surgeons so they will get paid more. It’s much more difficult to train into that field than to be a garbage man.

When it comes to racial disparities, I’ll acknowledge that the past plays a role. And trauma can be inherited from one generation to the next. All that stuff is real. But these big government solutions don’t help.

To fix the problems in Baltimore, on the South Side of Chicago, in Memphis, in Washington DC, in Philly, the only way it’ll actually change is for the community to get involved. I get that is harder and people want to outsource their societal improvement to the government, but there is a clear track record of that not working. What the government could do is lower people’s taxes so they keep more of what they earn, stop overspending at the federal level which causes inflation making us all poorer, and make it much easier for people to earn money legally. Easier to start a business, easier to be a gig worker, easier to hire workers, etc. Too much red tape . Some big east coast city (I think Philly) has such a ridiculous cost to be licensed to braid hair. That hurts the poor. Someone could do that out of their house for cheaper than a salon but they legally can’t do that because of stupid regulations. And in a lot of those inner cities, it’s why too many young men turn to crime because they don’t have other opportunities.

So there are ways we can improve outcomes for people. I would say that if you look at a lot of objective data we already live in the best time in human history. But we can improve. But that improvement will only happen when individuals take voluntary action to make it better and not through tearing down groups, making new special privileged classes, increased government and bureaucracy, and create more hate and division like our government and media have done for the past 15 years.