UltraMagnus

I think the main difference between original trilogy and KOTOR series would be whether or not the Force has a will - original series treats the Force extremely closely to the concept of Tao (Lucas being a methodist buddhist), without any particular 'agenda'

KOTOR2, especially Kreia, treats the Force more sapiently, and as something that can be killed - which seems to contradict Obi-Wan's original description of it in a New Hope (if the Force is created by living things and binds the universe together, then surely you could only "destroy" the force if the universe and living things in it are gone).

OTOH, you could easily say that Kreia is unreliable, which would make this interpretation simply Kreia's perspective, rather than KOTOR2 trying to adjust canon. Or you could also say that Obi-Wan is simplifying things greatly since he doesn't have much time, and he isn't exactly truthful about other things, either. (And it's been a few years since I played the KOTOR games so I could be misremembering)

It's also fair to say that George Lucas doesn't always follow George Lucas' original vision... (i.e., midichlorians, which certainly depart from original buddhist inspirations). Personally, taking the "original vision" and cleaving to whatever was made first isn't important to me, so long as you can tell a good story I don't mind what retcons/worldbuilding changes happen.

Probably falls under same case law with Sony's VCRs being able to record cable TV way back when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc. Though this predates use of internet for streaming/piracy/etc, supresupreme court could interpret differently now

I think DS9 works if you consider it more as a "show about star trek" rather than just as "star trek". E.g., it's a good deconstruction of what is "necessary" for a utopia, or for looking at the limits of how a utopia van operate in practice.

DS9's characters and their dynamics are my favorite amongst any star trek show, but I think it's fair to say that the show does not stick to the core world building "pillars" of star trek. However, I think it would be unfair to dismiss it as simply edgy for the sake of edginess.

(Similar to KOTOR and star wars - really cool how the game turns the idea of the Force on its head, but definitely not in line with George Lucas' vision. I would still want to see a movie about this anyways)

I agree that it's too early, but disagree that it would never be possible. If the EU can successfully move away from Microsoft like they're trying to do now, then I think that will provide an excellent model for moving away from other tech monopolies.

Personally, I prefer social communities to not be so heavily monetized. On the other hand, it would be nice if Frendica ran a bit better, but I can hardly complain if I'm not giving any time/money to that project to make it so.

Ghibli might be a more interesting case study - Miyazaki repeatedly said that he did not write his stories with an audience in mind besides himself, but his movies quite clearly have universal appeal. His stories are quite clearly grounded in his own culture, but they touch on universal human experiences.

However, there are definitely stories with a specific audience in mind that do not have universal appeal (e.g., Transformers smut fanfic) though generally authors are aware of this.

I think there are also folks who write stories with an idea in mind of universal appeal, but do not understand themselves enough to actually do so - things they take for granted as "common sense" may not actually be human universals. Or, because they fail to say anything at all in their work, it ends up fading into the background. (I don't believe in sociopolitically "neutral" works, we are all shaped by our beliefs and cultures).

These works aren't necessarily bad, either- I think Andy Weir has said a few times in interviews that his works aren't meant to be "political", but the two that I've read (The Martian, Project Hail Mary) are both a sort of "sci fi optimism" about people from different nations coming together to solve a problem. That may be "common sense" to some people, but it is certainly NOT a universal (even if I do share the outlook that people of Earth should work together to help each other regardless of national boundaries).

Exactly. Star Trek takes place in utopia - and the creators' version of utopia is one with equality, freedom, and respect for all. If someone's version of utopia doesn't align with this, I think that says a lot more about them than it does about how "woke" Star Trek is

All the more reason to make every community better. If quality of life is improved across the board, then everyone gets access to the benefits and you get rid of the risks of gentrification.

I think it is good that there are organizations tracking this sort of thing based on multiple criteria. As individuals, we are prone to bias, and our outlook can be overly optimistic or pessimistic based on what news we happen to read and how our lives are going.

Additionally, knowing the rate of change is important. Sure, "everyone" knows that the planet is getting hotter each year due to climate change. I still want scientists out there checking thermometers each day so that we have data to support better decision making. The attitude of ignoring legitimate research and relying on "common sense" is part of how so many people were swayed by MAGA bullshit in the first place (i.e., they dont want someone with a fancy medical degree telling them they should vaccinate their children). Maybe we can get off our high horses for a bit and look at what experts are saying from time to time.

I suppose that's why they're asking you to take the results based on the research data rather than faith. It's important not to confuse pessimism with objectivity.

Well, if you read the article, there's some good news for you: they haven't taken this long.

If you would read to at least the second paragraph (and I know I'm asking a lot), you would see that this organization has been tracking the descent since 2017. The "new" bit here is that it seems to have stabilized, i.e., it isn't currently getting worse than it already is. The bad news (which you have to read more of the article to get) is that it isn't going to get better any time soon, either.

Doesn't bombing civilians just make it more likely that the survivors will take up extremist stances, though? From a long term standpoint, attacking civilians is always a bad move if your goal is peace/stability. I feel like the last hundred years has been a lesson in this

Maybe I'm missing context, though, since the comment you replied to was removed by mod.