Well... there is a more generous interpretation, but I'm not sure how valid it is.
Palpatine created the clone army and then used the separatists to manufacture a threat that would cause the Republic to accept it. This was an integral part of his plan, it allowed him to kill all the Jedi and consolidate power, because the clones were trained to know nothing but battle and to blindly follow orders. "How does a republic turn to fascism?" is a question that the prequels seem to want to answer, and the clone army is part of that.
The most generous interpretation would say that the movies intentionally lead the audience on to accepting the Republic as the good guys and the clone army as necessary, and then shows that leading to disastrous results with the aim of prompting the audience to reflect on their willingness to accept the militarization of the Republic as a good/necessary thing.
However, if that's the idea, the execution is pretty questionable. It's never really made clear who should've done what differently to prevent Palpatine's rise to power. Padme has a line in Ep. 3, "Do you ever wonder if we might be fighting for the wrong side?" But the other side is also being manipulated by the same guy, and even if the Republic were to resist militarization and offer negotiations and diplomacy, Palpatine would probably just get the Separatists to push further in order to create the threat he needed. The writers seem to think it's enough to provide foreshadowing, rather than presenting actual alternatives.
A better version of the prequels would have clearly established a couple of things: 1. Palpatine's influence over the separatists is not absolute, and they are open to peaceful negotiations, 2. At least somebody (like Padme) is clearly critical and opposed to the Republic's militarization and the use of clones from the start, 3. The Jedi are not ontologically good, and/or have significant disagreements with the Republic, the war, and the use of clones. If those things were established and clearly communicated, then what we have is a story of a fascist using a manufactured/exaggerated threat to justify the controversial creation of a massive military accountable only to himself, while well-meaning people (the Jedi) struggle with the question of at what point should they stop being loyal to a government moving in an increasingly worrying direction. Instead, it really just comes down to the classic lib narrative about Hitler's magical force powers charisma enchanting everyone.
On the one hand it's not a great sign about which way the winds are blowing, but on the other hand my mind is just so much more at ease not seeing the cursed pride logos of Raytheon and the Pinkertons.
Mao had just said, "uhh the state is an oppressive institution so now we'll just dismantle everything and y'all can just organize horizontally or whatever."
The funny thing is, he kinda did. The result was these roving, undisciplined militias calling themselves Red Guards and holding (actual) struggle sessions and killing each other, and committing a bunch of atrocities.
I know there were actual historical reasons but I like to imagine that one day Mao somehow got possessed by a redditor and started doing what any "anti-tankie" would say he should do, denouncing the government as having fallen to bourgeois opportunists and calling on the people to rise up in this structureless, "anti-authoritarian" way. But since the outcome was bad, it's of course, "No, not like that."
The only places where it's possible to have any kind of informed, intelligent, and nuanced discussion of Deng's reforms are Hexbear and Lemmygrad, where they are frequently discussed and debated. I've posed questions about it to people on other servers, and the only responses I ever get are people attacking me as a tankie for even considering the question of whether China was better off before or after Deng's reforms, or what should've been done differently, regardless of which position I take - assuming they don't just ignore it or give a "tl;dr" for having the audacity to ask them a question that requires them to actually engage their brains instead of mindlessly reciting their preferred bumper sticker ideology.
It is kinda funny that the rating implies the Arbalest is included in "front-line combatants" despite being one of the most strictly back-line units in the game.
"NOT RECOMMENDED. Contains overtly DEI messaging. Features multiple female heroes who are front-line combatants, including the Arbalest, a WOC wearing full plate armor and wielding a giant crossbow."
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
If you pressed him on it, he'd just say, "Who said anything about Jews? Why are you bringing Jews into this? What, you just automatically assume that if someone's a sinister, manipulative puppetmaster, they have to be Jewish? That sounds kinda racist if you ask me." I cannot describe the degree of bad faith this person uses, like his brain operates in permanent bad faith. My center-right brother mentioned that Robespierre was called, "The Incorruptible" (because he was a true believer) and also, "The Angel of Death," and my fash brother started attacking him, like, "Oh, so you think Robespierre was an 'incorruptible angel,' why do you love Robespierre so much?" I'm 100% sure he didn't even know who Robespierre was before the conversation.
![Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/95738997-d971-4856-a4cb-c5c61598d694.webp?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her] @ Zuzak @hexbear.net Posts 42Comments 1,269Joined 5 yr. ago
I think Rebels Thrawn does him as much justice as you could reasonably expect from a kids' show.