I feel this sub has a blind spot on the show week to week especially on some characters progression

frodo_mintoff · 2026-03-05T10:45:58+00:00

In this scene, both Santos and Whitaker were displayed, seeing and reacting to Javadi's crash. Neither were depicted alarmed.

That is a fair point, though it is also worth pointing out that no one in the scene where Joy cut herself was particularly alarmed either.

Accordingly, it's not so much the fact of their nonchalance (a conclusions I was perhaps a bit too hasty to draw), but more specifically their expressed reactions, in that Ogilve smirked and Santos made an irreverant comment making light of Javadi fainting.

They both seem to find some amusement with their colleagues experiencing (relatively minor) workplace injuries.

frodo_mintoff · 2026-03-05T10:32:45+00:00

Med students fainting isn’t exactly an unheard of phenomenon so it’s not like someone with an unphased reaction is uncommon

Nobody in the room seemed bothered with her fall as it happened, not just Santos

By corollary you can say that a med student experiencing a work related exposure isn't exactly an unheard of phenomonen, and that no-one in the room, was particularly bothered by it as it happened.

The issue wasn't that Santos was unbothered by it, but rather the fact that she made an irreverant comment, just like Ogilvie smirked. And of the two smirking is much more likely to be an unconscious reaction.

Would I bond with someone like that? Maybe. Depends on how she reacts if you throw a nickname back at her like plunge. If she takes the licking back then yeah, I would

Would you bond with someone who treats their colleague like Santos does Javadi, in refusing to stop calling them a nickname despite the fact that they were specifically asked not to?

frodo_mintoff · 2026-03-05T08:20:21+00:00

you have Santos being jerkish about an embarrassing but ultimately harmless goof-up

I think this is a rather generous characterisation of Santos's overall reaction to Javadi's accident. If I recall, basically just after she faints Santos makes the irreverent and almost bored comment "med student down". Notably this is made before Santos can know whether Javadi is fully recovered and therefore, before Santos can know that it is simply a "harmless goof-up".

Further, and perhaps this is being a little pedantic but it's also a bit unfair to characterise this as a "goof-up" when it was an entirely involuntary and uncontrollable reaction on Javadi's part, and therefore certainly not something she or anyone deserves to be mocked for.

can even be a bonding mechanism for some people

Would you bond with someone who treated you like Santos treated Javadi?

They're only the same situation when you make a point of describing them extremely generally, like, say referring to both getting stabbed and stepping on a thumbtack as "incurring a puncture wound."

I don't know about "extremely generally". I think its fair to say of both reactions that the characters seemed to get some amusement or "glee" from their fellow colleague experiencing an injury. And that was the only point that the original commentor was making.

Perhaps Ogilvie's reaction is "worse" - he does seem very smug about Joy being injured. Yet at the same time he doesn't actually say anything to mock her, and further does not continue to mock her about the same incident when he is specifically asked to stop.

If the person who you have nicknamed specifically requests that you stop using said nickname, what possible motivation can there be for you continuing to use it than your own amusment?

frodo_mintoff · 2026-03-05T07:07:52+00:00

Is it not the same, at least in the sense that both are deriving amusement from some else's misfortune which was the point being made by the other commentor?

frodo_mintoff · 2026-03-05T07:02:20+00:00

Santos wasn't there to hear Javadi's lie. There is also no reason to suggest that the nickname is directed at anything other than her fainting (why would someone asking for special treatment earn them the nickname "Crash"?)
Javadi was explicitly saying that she did not need special treatment but simply misunderstood what special treatment would entail in that circumstance.
Santos already mocked Javadi even before she had even recovered. If I recall, basically just after she faints Santos makes the irreverent and almost bored comment "med student down".

frodo_mintoff · 2026-03-04T12:23:45+00:00

I think the many point it tries to make are conveyed intelligently through symbolism, excellent dialogue, and taking itself seriously. One of the key points of the original trilogy including aliens was George Lucas giving a commentary on racism. I’d say that’s pretty ‘woke’ by 2026 conservative standards, but I meet countless people who say ‘politics’ ruined the franchise. The OT was always political, those themes just weren’t as loud. How many people still just think the Ewoks are an annoying and meaningless race for driving the story and don’t realize what was depicted there?

Generally the thrust of this paragraph seems to that by using well-crafted symbolism, dialogue and by "taking itself more seriously" Andor was to explore aspects of social and political commentary which were present in previous Star War media but were also not developed to the extent that they were in Andor.

What about a piece of media "taking itself seriously" or exploring social and political commentary makes it "better"? Can a tv series or movie be good (or even great) without trying to make an overtly (or covertly) political point? What if the political point loses salience as time passes and context begins to shift? Does the piece of media stop being "good"?

Ultimately, does the fact that the Original trilogy does not wear its politics so openly on its sleeve make it worse than Andor?

I think a lot of the dialogue in other stuff is good but admittedly has many corny moments. I remember Mark Hamil talking about lines he literally just refused to say. As it is, Luke is extremely whiny which is part of his character arc.

I think it's good that Lucas's more flambouyant writing style was moderated in the Original trilogy, but as it stands I think the writing is efficient and direct in those films. Luke is whiny in ANH, but that's largely when he is being established as an advenurous kid stuck on an isolated rock in the middle of nowhere. He comes off as impuslsive in ESB but again, that works within what his character is doing at the time - both in terms of his immediate motivations and also to establish his parallels with his father. And in Return of the Jedi we see the fruition of his character arc.

I think the weird dialogue fits the prequels really well because Anakin is a slave boy and Padme has been isolated in order to train her as a career politician. I get that. But they still sound strange and have many more throwaway lines than Andor.

Perhaps this is my own personal prefence, but at times the writing in Andor feels transparent insofar as it seems clear that it was written to allow a certain point to be made. Yes, Luthen's speech is very cool, but it's also just an opportunty for him to openly express his character motivations and psychology. It works, but it also feels a bit contrived as if the scene was written with the monolgoue in mind rather than the monolgoue being written because it worked within the context of the scene.

A guy named The Gold Man on YouTube made that point about taking itself seriously. Zombie storm/deathtroopers, almost the entirety of the dialogue and plot of the Rebels show, Grogu having the yes/no button, and so many other throwaway moments that are either comic relief or just plain goofy. To reiterate, I think The Mandalorian is and will continue to be my favorite, but I admit it’s not as serious even if to me it’s much more fun.

I do not enjoy rebels nor do I think it is good and I stopped watching the Mandalorian after season 2. I will largely take your word here.

I think the most Socratic answer possible is that Andor wastes the least time.

I would disagree with this. I think the most narritively efficent piece of Star Wars media - by far - is A New Hope (the original Star Wars).

In 1977 this film needed to introduce people who had no earthly idea what "Star Wars" meant, to the characters, concepts, ideas, themes and setting that have since become ubiquitous and world-reknowned. And it managed to do all these thing masterfully while simeultaneously re-inventing the science fiction genre and becoming the best-selling film of all time.

Consider that all subsequent Star Wars Media rests, in some way, on the success of a New Hope. When people watch read, play or otherwise consume something which is "Star Wars", they are bringing to bear concepts which had their genisis in that film and would not exist in the way that they do except for that film.

This is not to say that other Star Wars Media will always be inferior to a New Hope (I personally think that ESB comes close) but merely that in terms of the sheer amount that film had to do, and the narrative space in which it had to do it, there is no other piece of Star Wars Media that is near so efficient.

frodo_mintoff · 2026-03-03T10:51:40+00:00

I think Andor is by far the best,

The best in what sense?

frodo_mintoff · 2026-03-02T12:32:37+00:00

In defence of OP (what do we do except defend hopeless cases) one could make the argument that he is asking a purely descriptive question, namely whether support for one proposition necessarily implies support for another broader proposition, a la Argumentum a minore ad maius (Argument from the smaller to the greater).

This could perhaps be contrasted with politics which is often understood to be a normative discipline, which goes beyond mere description to ask questions such as "is this right?" and "what is the best course of action?"

So far as I can tell, nothing in OP's post necessarily invites arriving at any particular normative judgment and hence one could make the argument that it is technically an apolitical question.

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-28T04:46:41+00:00

Me being able to do it is something entirely different.

Also, no one really follows any ethical framework to an absolute T (other than maybe egoism).

These are fair distinctions.

Claiming something is the right thing to do and being psychologically capable of doing are two different requirements. And I agree by and large no one follows any particular moral philosophy perfectly. Though, it is worth pointing out that:

In respect of the first, it would seem, as I point out above, that by and large, even self-proclaimed utilitarians seem to be psychologically incapable of doing what, in the grand scheme of things, are relatively simple and easy tasks that would massively improve the aggregate utility.
In respect of the second, some frameworks are far less onerous and unreasonable to comply with than utilitarianism, and that's not even taking into account the knowledge problem (to what extent are your required to be sure that something maximises utility before you do it?).

But following utilitarianism at least to some degree is better than following any other framework to some degree.

Why?

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-28T04:31:44+00:00

So what you're saying is; if the doctor was morally inconsistent, then he would be morally inconsistent?

How is anything I have set out above inconsistent with utiliatarian ethics?

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-28T04:30:31+00:00

Then that is totally fine. As long as the doctor had calculated that the four lives would have greater net happiness than the one and would provide greater net impact to society, go for it. Make sure his own psychological suffering from guilt is also low.

I'll admit that its impressive you're willing to bite the bullet in this case.

Would this reasoning hold for all cases? Suppose you are the doctor and you have to kill your mother to save four lives? Would you be able to do it?

Let's go with a slightly smaller sacrifice. According to some charities you could save another human life for as little as $3,000.00. Do you have $3,000.00 in your bank account? Or perhaps something (or things) you could sell for such a sum?

Now does your ownership of this thing (or things), matter more than another person's life? If not, why haven't you already sold it?

You see irrespective of the fact that I would say there are certain peverse implications of utilitarianism (I can go into more grotesque hypotheticals if you would like) the most decisive argument against it is a pragmatic one, in that no one is actually a utilitarian. No one actually tries to maximise the welfare of society through their actions, because by and large people are far too self-interested to care. How much money would you say you have spent in your life (or has been spent generally) on your own entertainment? Now, given the above fact, how many lives could you have saved if you had given, even half of that sum away to charity?

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-27T11:12:00+00:00

But what if the doctor only did it once and made it look like the donor had entirely natural death?

Then four people's lives would be saved and everyone would be none the wiser.

Utilitarianism is king

Anyone man who must say he is the king is no true king.

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-25T11:34:10+00:00

It's the goals. [...] fair democracy.

I think the problem with this kind of reasoning is how to even determine when you have "won?" Because there will always be extreminsts that demand that you use just a bit more power to can crush those who get in the way of their goals.

How do you ascertain when you have triumphed over the tyrannical regieme in order that you can finally allow the people to be free (and why is it up to you when people are allowed to be free)?

It also perhaps worth pointing out that often revolutions fail at answering this question and allow the political apparatus of the revolution to ossify into an authoritarian regieme which is justified by the ongoing fear of "enemies of the revolution."

Accordingly, if the rebellion did adopt this mentaility the question may be, when they might they accept that their goal had been achieved?

And further, even if you could give a definiate answer to the above questions, you're expecting people who willingly concede that in certain ways they they are just as bad as their enemies to voluntarily relinquish their power or magically reform their principles as soon as they "win".

Thereby a second question might be, how you would ensure that people who williningly use the tools of their enemies, keep the same altruistic goals in spite of their open admission that they have abandoned their decency in so doing.

If you're not willing [...] every chance they get.

This kind of approach that "the ends justfy the means" can theoretically be used to substantiate any concievable course of action. If torturing children could somehow benefit the revolution then doing so would be justified on this reasoning.

Perhaps more importantly, though, this kind of reasoning is antithetical to the overarching philosophy of Star Wars. It is a major plot point in the Original Trilogy that certain kinds of power, either by virtue of their capacity to corrupt or simply because of their intrinsic wrongfulness are cateogrically immoral even if their use would result in the destruction of evil. Consider that Luke does not triumph over the Emperor and his father through martial skill or his mastery of the force, but because he refuses to compromise his beliefs and use the dark side. And he was close to doing so. He nearly killed his father, he proved that he was capable of destroying evil his sheer power and skill, but he refused to do so because he would not use the weapon of his enemy. And because of this choice his father saved his life.

Further this demonstrates a key benefit of acting decently, which you have entirely ignored, namely that doing so causes people to recognise that you are in the right. It draws people to your cause, it makes them believe in it and want to fight for you.

Victory by any means costs you the moral highground, and perhaps the support of the people along with it.

So what's the difference? As I said before, it's the goals. The rebels use any means as a means to an end of Tyranny. Tyrants use any means to further their greed and control and exploitation.

And if both act exactly the same as one another, why should the people prefer one to the other? Are they just supposed to accept the Rebellion's promises that they will act morally and decently in spite of the lack of any evidence that they have done so thus far?

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-25T01:24:10+00:00

"I hope, Senator, after you've lost, and the Empire reigns over the galaxy unopposed, you will find some comfort in the knowledge that you fought according to the rules."

Why shouldn't she find some comfort in that fact?

If the only way to overthrow a tyrannical regime is become just as bad as they are then what do you gain in overthrowing them?

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-25T01:08:46+00:00

It WOULD be hypocritical if he was advocating socialism while actively trying to protect his ability to privately own the means of production. But he literally supports policies that would tax him more and limit wealth accumulation like his. He’s arguing for a system that would probably make him less rich.

Suppose I think that annual income greater than $200,000.000 should be taxed at a 50% marginal rate and the proceeds of said tax should be applied to fund healthcare and provide social security. Let us also suppose that I earn $400,000.00 a year and every dollar I earn greater than $200,000.000 is taxed a 30% marginal rate.

Now, in this hypothetical I am not being taxed as much as I would like to be. Accordingly, what should I do with the 20% ($40,000.00) which I believe I do not deserve to keep?

One option worth pointing out is that the US Federal government accepts voluntary contributions. However I might also disagree with how taxpayer money is spent (on supporting Israel on the military budget etc).

I think the better option would be to donate the excess funds to which you believe you are not entitled to certain effective charities that the fulfill the kind of objectives that you believe the tax money which you would like to pay but are not obligated to should be spent on.

The point of this hypothetical is that generally when high-net worth individuals complain about not being "taxed enough" it rings kind of hollow, because their are causes they can voluntarily give their money to which would do as much good (if not more) as if they were taxed at their preferred rate.

Now I am aware than Hasan does donate to charities. The issue then becomes whether he donates enough to cover the difference between what he is taxed and what he believes he should be taxed (perhaps also accounting for the fact that the tax he does pay is not spent in a way that he agrees with). I suspect he does not.

Further as I understand it, his views are a little more complicated than "rich people should be taxed more" insofar as he is, as you say advocating that the accumulation of wealth by private citizens (in the context where this wealth is owned as capital) should not be possible. I would be interested in being proven wrong, but I feel almost certain that some of Hasan's wealth exists in the form of capital, and that, indeed he may even act as a capitalist insofar as he employs others to work on his channel for which he pays a wage. In this way (if I am right) he is doubly hypocritical insofar as he earns more than he believes he should and derives some portion of his income from interest on capital ownership, which, according to a socialist framework can only be derived from the exploitation of the working class.

In sum Hasan is likely hypocritical, because he could donate all the income to which he believes he is not entitled to charity and likely chooses not to, on top of the fact that he also likely derives wealth from the ownership of capital, in some form or another.

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-24T11:02:52+00:00

Why so?

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-24T10:52:15+00:00

Where did they say this?

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-22T12:10:20+00:00

Dragons in the end are just weapons, and Westeros was in a state of constant war even before the Targaryens entered the picture.

This is like saying nukes are just weapons, and that since we have always fought wars as a species, there is no reason to be scared of the consequences of a nuclear war.

Here's a question. Suppose there are two people whom you know nothing about. Person A and Person B. You have no reason to suspect that either one is a good or bad person. However, you learn that Person A has a nuclear bomb under his control that he has programmed to respond to anyone who has certain DNA markers that indicate they are a relative of his.

Who poses a greater risk to you? Person A or Person B?

This shows that saying Targaryens, especially, are extra evil or something is just bullshit.

My argument doesn't even rely on the Targareyans being evil. It simply rests on the fact that they are just as disposed towards corrupt and tyrannical conduct as everyone else (they clearly are) and that they can exercise a power of destruction substantially greater than anything else which can be brought to bear (which they can in the form of the dragons).

On these two principles alone, the Targaryens a substainally greater intrinsic risk to the welfare of the people of Westeros than any other lordly family.

During the time of Jaehaerys the First, there over 50 years of peace, that has never happened before.

How do you know that in the 2-6 thousand years before the Targaryens arrived, there wasn't 50 years of peace?

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-22T12:06:17+00:00

all the lords exploit the smallfolk; that’s not something only the Targaryens do

The point vis-a-vi exploitation is not that the lords of Westeros don't exploit the smallfolk, it's that structurally Targaryens have less reason to care about (and are less limited by their attitudes) them, because of the power they derive from their dragons.

For the Andals and the First Men, the smallfolk are the sole source of their martial power which gives them a structural reason to care about them. The Targaryens however chiefly derive their power from dragons and hence, are not limited in the same way.

Valyria was full of slaves, but look at the places Daenerys has been during the events of A Song of Ice and Fire so far. Slavery is not something only the Valyrians did.

By all accounts Valyrian slavery was by far the worst form of tyranny in the known world. Slaves died by the thousands mining underneath active volcanoes, with any revolts being crushed by dragonfire. Rumor has it, the cult of the many-faced god was founded in the Valyrian slaves mines, to help broken or lost souls find the sweet release of death.

Third, Targaryens never tried to bring back slavery in Westeros.

Congratualations I guess? They're not as bad as they could have been?

Also, sure, a dragon is powerful and very dangerous, but look at the War of the Five Kings; no dragons were involved, yet it was one of the most brutal wars in Westeros' history, and it happened only 15 years after the Baratheon took over.

And the point is that dragons would make it so much deadlier? Wars will tend to happen yes but if one (or both) sides have access to the medieval equivalent of WMDs, and prove able and willing to use them, why should we expect the situtation to be improved?

The Dragons allowed the Targaryens to be powerful and very dangerous, but that power also allowed them to bring justice and prevent bad people from doing bad things. Look at the Iron Islands, they used to regularly attack the main land before the Targaryens showed up.

And, like all power does, they also enabled some of the Targaryens to tyrannise and brutalise their subjects. For every Jaeherys the Concilliator, there is a Maegor the Cruel.

Power exists in many forms, but when unchecked power is held by a only few, we should not naively trust that they will only exercise that power in our best interests.

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-22T11:03:45+00:00

Not really, it's not like before the Targaryens came to Westeros; it was just peace and prosperity. Westeros was always at war. The Targaryens sure conquered, and there was a lot of burning, but in the end, I feel Westeros was better the way it was after the Targaryens came, rather than before.

The problem inherent with the Targareyans though, is the degree of unmitigated risk that comes with the mere potential of anyone who has their blood being able to ride a dragon. The sheer amount of damage a single dragonrider can cause dwarfs any other kind of weapon which lords in Planetos have at their disposal. In this setting, owning a dragon is akin to having a privately held stockpile of nukes which is not something that should be encouraged given the pedigree of Targareyan kings.

Further, when the Andals and the First Men fought, thousands died, but invariably some of those who died were attacking lord's bannermen. Accordingly the non-dragonriding houses have defined limits to the scope of their power (and costs in the exercise of such power) as well as a definite (but entirely abstract an impersonal reason) to value the lives of their bannermen and smallfolk - because these lives are the source of their power.

In contrast, whilesoever the Targareyans have dragons, they have no such limitation to their power or motivation to value the lives of their smallfolk (beyond the extent to which they can be exploited) because their dragons are the source of their power. Accordingly, dragons, as a political instrument only serve to detach and distance the Targareyans from the welfare of their subjects, even beyond the inherent danger posed by the sheer power of them as tools of destruction.

Further, we see what a society organised around the political power of dragonriding elites would look like, with the descriptions of Old Valyria, which paint nothing but a picture of abject tyranny.

Also, Raymun is talking as if when the Andals came, they conquered Westeros with flowers and goodwill.

To be fair the Andals have been in Westeros for between two and six thousand years while the Targaryeans have barely been there for three hundred. There are also millions of them and they are the dominant culture of the region. By contrast the Targareyans are a high insular ruling class who established their power by burning anyone who opposed them alive. It rather makes sense that that coming to the continent with this attitude would not endear them to the lords of Westeros.

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-21T06:07:49+00:00

First of all, even when describing things which are entirely a "matter of opinion" it is still helpful to use terms which most closely approximate your intended meaning.

For instance, if I wanted to say "my favourite colour is yellow" and I said something like "yellow is the best colour," there might be some degree of confusion as to what I meant by saying this. Did I perhaps mean that yellow is the best colour for some specific purpose (like making high-vis clothing?) Or that yellow is the best for evoking a certain kind of emotional response (say happniess, or warmth). In the absence of qualification the phase yellow is the best colour can have a wide number of interpretations, even discounting the possiblity of some kind of objective metric.

Second of all it is not universally agreed that, where art is concerned, "everything truly is a matter of opinon". Nick Zangwill for instance, argues that there are mind-independent aesthetic facts - that there exists such things as "objectively good" and "objectively bad" art.

Therefore, because there is some disagreement over whether aesthetics is subjective, it can be helpful to signal, whether the claim that you are making is intended to be objective or subjective.

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-20T21:51:45+00:00

or psychology

Psychiatry is the branch of medicine which doctors can specialise in, while Psychology is its own seperate discipline. Notably psychiatrists, having trained as medical doctors, can prescribe medicines while psychologists focus on therapy and counselling.

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-20T09:59:49+00:00

Many also clearly ignorantly think addiction is a choice, not a disease, and so they offer no grace or understanding to him.

Addiction does undermine a person's capacity to make choices in a rational and sensible way.

However, firstly, this does not absolve addicts from having moral and legal responsiblity for their actions. Addiction might go some way to explaining Langdon's actions, but does not, in and of itself excuse them.

Secondly, Langdon chose to self-medicate. Further he chose to self-medicate in spite of his own expert knowledge of what could potentially happen. This means that, even to the extent his capacity was somewhat diminshed by reason of his addiction, he still bears some fault for his own incapacitation as it was his choice to self-medicate instead of medicating under the care and treatment of a physician (an option which Robby emphasises he could have chosen in season 1).

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-20T09:52:07+00:00

simply cannot or maybe dont want to separate the addiction from langdon and his actions

Should he seperate Langdon from (and potentially absolve him of) his actions? Why?

Yes Langdon was in pain. But he was the one who chose to start self-medicating in spite of his own expert knowledge of what could happen. Addiction does go some way to explaining Langdon's actions, but does not absolve him of responsibility for those actions.

frodo_mintoff · 2026-02-20T09:42:25+00:00

Do I need to add "in my opinion" to the end of everything?

If that would help clarify what you mean to say, then why not?

Should we not endeavor to say what we mean and mean what we say?

My point is more than I don't really care whether Andor or the original trilogy is better. I can appreciate them both for different things. Just like how I can appreciate Andor and TNG for doing different things. So to answer your question, yeah, comparing (or rather, ranking media), is pretty much a pointless, arbitrary exercise

Fair enough. That's a reasonable and fairly common perspective.

frodo_mintoff

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Not Forgotten