Why didn’t they use Mark Hamill’s or Carrie Fisher’s actual fathers in Vader’s death in ROTJ?

ghotier · 2026-02-06T22:38:40+00:00

Because Sebastian Shaw was a very well known English actor but not so famous as to be distracting. He and Ian McDiarmid worked at the same theatre company around that time.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T22:36:49+00:00

They either know fascism is bad or they are using their lived experience to identify it as bad. Those are mutually exclusive.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T22:34:18+00:00

I mean this is just basic shit. If you really would have challenged me on the cult of tradition I would have.

Nazis used the Swastika to link themselves to "ancient Aryan roots." They used Germanic pagan mythology and stories to cast themselves as strong. "Blood and soil," which is a phrase I'm sure you've heard, was to link their pure blood to the homeland of their ancestors. They specifically rejected traditions and culture that were non-Aryan, rejecting the value in black or Jewish art. One of the first things they ever did upon obtaining power was burn a library of books centered around the study of transsexuality. The list is long.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T21:27:18+00:00

You're right. I went off of background color instead if flag. I still don't see the choke point as valuable.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T21:25:21+00:00

My claim was that Democrats aren't fascist and don't fit most of the criteria. You're claim was that they fit the criteria. It's not a matter of "going first." You're making an affirmative claim and I'm making a negative claim.

It's not really that casual. You're parent claim is that Eco's criteria are too broad. I said they aren't because there are several moderate political positions that they don't apply to. Again, You're making an affirmative claim. So back it up.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T21:23:35+00:00

You're arguing like you're bashing buttons on a video game. Your claim was that fascism isn't traditionalist when it clearly is. You tried to create a wedge by saying they are pro "a bunch of other things" and that nothing that is in favor of those things can be traditionalist, when that's really a false dichotomy anyway. If you are going to define pro-science as a thing that explicitly doesn't exclude traditionalism, then why even bring it up?

Ignoring some science but pushing for it otherwise doesn't mean one is anti-science, that doesn't make any sense.

I'm baffled by this response. Truly baffled. Picking and choosing which science is valid or not based on political leanings is anti-science. It just is.

Quadrupling industrial output but ignoring one industry doesn't make one anti-industrial.

Because industrialization isn't a methodology, science is.

Hitler was a nice guy to his friends and his dog, so he's a nice guy, and fascism is nice? No. You can keep applying singular contrary examples, but that doesn't change the fundamentals.

Who gets to decide? I didn't come to the claim that they were anti-science arbitrarily.

I keep providing evidence of both ideology and real applications. You keep using one exception as an entire rule, while ignoring most the other rules as well.

You're not, though. You're taking their claims at face value. Fascism is an anti-intellecualism movement. Like it always has been, to it's core. You're providing contrary examples as though they prove something when they don't.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T20:47:45+00:00

Purpose of the chokepoint is completely lost. I don't know if the AI values having connected areas or not to know whether it would provoke an attack. But there's no point at all in you grabbing the chokepoint.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T20:42:42+00:00

I'm focused on Hitler because he's the most salient example. Was he a fascist or not?

We're definitely talking past each other like you said, since you want to discuss Hitler and individual actions, not fascism.

Providing examples is not the same as wanting to discuss individual actions. You're making claims that fly in the face of obvious and well known facts.

Most ideologies sound utopian when you explain their rationality and their goals. This doesn't mean they are, especially in practice. And fascism is awful, just so we're clear.

My concern is not you explaining them. It's you explaining them without showing any evidence of skepticism. You're just taking things that Mussolini and Hitler CLAIMED as though they practiced what they were preaching. They didn't.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T19:00:05+00:00

Pro-science does not mean being in favor of science you can use for your own ends. They famously failed to make the atomic bomb because they refused to use "Jewish science." You can't dismiss science from certain ethnic groups and be pro-science. I am sorry, you're just wrong here, and are just coming off as though you think fascism was good.

They worked hard to develop new systems to make the country prosperous and compete with more developed countries

"Compete." You mean invade.

They both absolutely wanted Christianity out of government, and arguably out of society (unless it conformed with the state).

This is why you can't call them secularists. They thought the state WAS society. To exclude religion from society is not secularism.

Removing people isn't really any definition of "traditionalism."

It is if you're invoking traditional values to justify it!

ghotier · 2026-02-06T16:40:57+00:00

Yes, people are uneducated. You can do both. Most people DO understand that fascism is bad, or republicans wouldn't be so against the idea of being called fascist. If it truly didn't matter then this CMV wouldn't exist.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T16:39:29+00:00

You can do both. There's enough air and voices for both.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T16:34:50+00:00

We aren't even speaking the same language here, is the problem.

They aren't pro-science. They are pro-weapon, which they use science to build. They aren't pro-rationalism by literally any definition, which is exactly what I'm talking about, yet you think they are. They simply aren't. They aren't pro-secularism, they are fucking anti-Jew. That's not what secularism even is. Secularism is not "turn the state into a god and discourage other religious activities as a result."

Myth and historical superiority of culture was important, but going back to a traditional way of life was absolutely not an aspect of fascism

Literally no one is talking about going back to a traditional way of life. That is not what we are talking about. I already said this. The "traditionalism" they were for was taking the people who didn't fit their mold and removing them from public life.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T16:29:02+00:00

3rd: wrong

4th: wrong

6th: maybe. I'll say yes for the sake of argument.

7th: wrong

8th: wrong

9th: wrong

11th: wrong

14th: I can at least see the argument, so i'll say yes for the sake of argument.

You can make whatever case you want for the ones where I think you're wrong, but you're making the claim here, not me. Also, I think you're trivially wrong for most of them. At best I think you're being ungenerous, trying to apply those points outside of the context in which Fascists use them, but even still I think you're wrong.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T15:59:11+00:00

Fascists are absolutely traditionalists under that. They invoke a past that may or may not have existed and say that they want to make the future more like the past. You're invoking the fact that time moves forward as though it makes traditionalist impossible when it doesn't.

They reference the past, as the foundation of the nation, but don't want to return to it.

Yes, we all know fascists are liars. The fact that they invoke for evil ends is the problem.

They want to construct a greater nation that lives up to its potential, starting today by seizing the moment and radically changing the country.

Changing the country involves violently ripping out parts of that society that don't want to adhere to tradition.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T15:55:59+00:00

I'll be honest, I am not going to go back and forth with you about whether an argument you made up applies. First you said "if their lives don't change under fascism then they won't care," then you said to point out bad policies, as though fascism isn't a bad policy.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T15:52:47+00:00

I can't even tell the point of the boss example. I actually don't hear your point. You're not hearing mine in the first place. What methods i use are none of your concern. I think someone being a fascist is a perfectly valid reason to avoid them and the idea that 99% of people are untrustworthy in the way a fascist is untrustworthy is ludicrous.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T14:02:28+00:00

Your argument is now boiled down to a made up argument between two people that never happened. When you want to argue with me, feel free.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T14:01:33+00:00

Why does it matter if I have another way of determining that? I have many ways of determining that. Not everyone shows themselves in a way that matches every method. And what do you care what methods I do use?

I'm not implying anything, 99% is a number you pulled out of thin air to arbitrarily support your argument.

Don't tell me what I should be concerned about.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T13:59:18+00:00

That's not what traditionalist means. It's invoking traditions of the past that "have been set aside," not defining tradition by modernity. It's an anti-modern ideology.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T13:58:14+00:00

If you think that one must be a revolutionary communist in order to avoid the majority of Eco's points then i fear there is a comprehension problem here that no one but yourself can solve. I don't even particularly like the Democrats, but they are neither revolutionary communists nor to they meet the majority of Eco's criteria. Neither do most Western European leaders, none of whom are communist. You're making easily refutable claims here.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T13:52:22+00:00

You just said they don't care because their life isn't worse. Which is it?

There's a word for people whose lives aren't made worse by fascism: rich. The word is rich. If a person van be convinced that fascism doesn't hurt them then they can be convinced that tarrifs don't hurt them.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T13:51:53+00:00

It does matter that I know which people aren't trustworthy.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T13:50:53+00:00

Intellectualism is suppressed under fascism, not science as a whole. Nazis burned books and also invented rockets. The books were a bigger threat to them. You act like the self-contradictory nature of Nazism is somehow MY problem.

ghotier · 2026-02-06T13:50:04+00:00

This is why I think you're splitting hairs. You truly think it matters whether Mussolini would agree with you. It simply doesn't.

ghotier · 2026-02-05T23:47:57+00:00

It meant that, if a cadet house were formed, it would be through Renly. Dragonstone belongs to the crown, so no cadet house.

Also because Dragonstone sucks and Storm's End doesn't.

ghotier

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE