The Anti-AntiJedi

And i think that is what throws people off, it's a really uncommon message in mainstream media, typically you'd only see it in religious media (and you know the kind I'm referring to), most of the time when it comes to faith (read: Christianity) in media the story is of someone rejecting the faith (Christianity) out of disillusionment or harm received from it, and people expect that

But the Jedi are not Christianity, they're Buddhism, and turning his back on the Jeci/Buddhist teachings is what causes disaster for Anakin's life, it's rather subversive, and that confuses and angers people, they want things to be the way they expect them, they don't want different, so they construe a version of SW that fits their preconceived notions of religion (specifically the Christianity they grew up in) where the Jedi are oppressive and controlling over the congregation and Anakin is someone who got sick of it and broke free like they the viewer did (never mind how many of them never unlearned their mindsets born out of a Christian upbringing and just apply that mindset to other things)

One of the things we find in ‘Revenge of the Sith’ is that the dark side is not tempting Anakin to anything… that Anakin is looking at the dark side and saying, ‘That’s what I want.’

Aside from the fact that the comics I reference are indeed still canon (Heroes of the Republic: Anakin and Obi-Wan having A) come out after the EU's decanonization in 2014 and B) never been retconned before by shows or movies) the main idea of this post...

... is to explore the fact that in the narrative, the originally-intended message of blaming Obi-Wan for Anakin's downfall was a concept that George Lucas eventually abandoned for a much stronger theme about personal responsibility, and the consequences of giving into pleasure and greed over joy and compassion.

It's an out-of-universe overall analysis. Doylist, moreso than Watsonian. However, if that post doesn't really tickle your fancy I've also got others that solely reference the films and George Lucas' words:

Re: pinning responsibility for Anakin's actions on anyone other than Anakin himself (or Sidious for his corrupting influence), I wrote this:

Only one comic referenced, the same one you refer to in your original question, anon.

This one is about how Obi-Wan's arc in Episode I is to aligning his way of thinking more with Qui-Gon's; aka listening to the "Guide" archetypal characters, instead of always being such a prudent rules-stickler.

This one about how Obi-Wan's character arc in Episode II is - in fact - trusting Anakin and getting off his back.

These ones too: no comics referenced.

Again: Obi-Wan's never not gonna feel guilty for what happened to Anakin, and there's always more that could've been done.

But at some point, the narrative of the story states that if...

any effort made to help Anakin by the Jedi, Obi-Wan, Ahsoka, even Padmé,

then gets contrasted and undone by Palpatine merely wedging himself into Anakin's life no matter what (by virtue of being the most powerful political figure in the galaxy and - if worst comes to worst - the most powerful Sith Lord in history),

... then...

the only person who could've saved Anakin - and the person who shares most of the blame for what happened to Anakin - is Anakin himself.

The writer of the Acylote said that is how we're supposed to feel:

"You want to feel Osha’s triumph. You want to feel her joining forces with The Stranger...Even though they are standing there, looking out at the sunset, ready to conquer the world, the tragedy is we know they don’t."

Note: the tragedy is NOT that a lot of people died, but that the two can't be together (because of Plagueis). (interview here)

Now, if that doesnt absolve villains of their bullshit, I dont know what does.

Let me try inserting some other fictional baddies.

"You want to feel Walter White's triumph. You want to feel him joining forces with the Nazis......Even though they are standing there, looking out at the desert, ready to conquer the world, the tragedy is we know they don’t."

"You want to feel the Frey's triumph. You want to feel them joining forces with the Boltons. ...Even though they are standing there, looking out over the Red Wedding, ready to conquer the world, the tragedy is we know they don’t."

Isn't it, like, not true ?

Maybe I forgot something from The Clone Wars, but Anakin was the one not trusting her, something he had to unlearn.

I suppose it's about The Wrong Jedi arc, but it was only once, and Anakin wasn't the only Jedi who stood by her. By now, she should have understood it even if it wasn't as obvious.

Woah there. Coming in a little hot. Take a step back, take stock, and chill. Even when we're discussing (read: "arguing") about stuff, it's Star Wars. It's a fictional universe. We're talking about movies and TV shows and comics aka... having fun.

(Which is advice that applies to me too, for the record)

That said, you trimmed out what I said, so I'll copy-paste it below (blue text) before expanding.

For context, someone said that (paraphrasing) the clones are referred to as “property of the Republic” by Shaak Ti in an argument with Nala Se regarding Fives and there is no rejoinder, so this acknowledgment of the clones being property of the Republic makes the Jedi complicit in their enslavement, as they partake in a flagrantly immoral command structure that sent slave soldiers to their deaths.

My response:

Tone and context are everything. There's an intonation on the word "property" when Shaak Ti says it. She isn't saying:

"Fives is property of the Republic."

She's saying:

"Correction! Technically, Fives is 'property' of the Republic."

She's taking Nala Se's cold, callous term and turning it around on Se with a technicality to score a point and pull rank, in order to save Fives' life. The subtext isn't "Fives is my slave," it's "you don't get to take this living being's life without my say-so."

Ti is regurgitating Nala Se's lingo to tell her to shut the fuck up.

In-universe, "there is no rejoinder" because Fives is aware of this subtext and knows Shaak Ti's in his corner. His life was on the line and Shaak Ti saved him.

Out-of-universe, "there is no rejoinder" because it's the ending of a 22-minute episode from a children's TV show 😃 and the point of the scene isn't to argue semantics about the ownership of the clones it's to save Fives' life. The beats of the scene can be boiled down to:

Nala Se argues fervently for Fives to die.

Shaak Ti is like "stfu no, I'm taking him to Coruscant"

Fives is grateful that Shaak Ti saved his life.

If the argument Nala Se used was, I dunno... "he must be terminated because the virus is contagious" then the beats of the scene would play out the same. Because again: the narrative, the story being told in this episode, ends with Shaak Ti coming in with the clutch and saving Fives.

The lore/sci-fi-ness of it all are mere details to move this children's story along.

You can read the rest of my response here, but since then, the user expanded on their point, explaining that while they acknowledge that Fives knows Shaak Ti's in his corner, what they meant is that there is no rejoinder from Nala Se. If it wasn't true that Fives was "property of the Republic", Nala Se would have said so in her cold and clinical terms.

Thus, for them, the point still stands.

And, uh, I'm not sure it does. Because the episode right before, Nala Se does counter Shaak Ti's argument by saying "nu-uh, the clones are property of the Kaminoans and we're leasing them to you."

So at some point, we either:

Point and go "IT'S A PLOT HOLE, BAD WRITING!" and acknowledge the point is thus moot.

Headcanon our way through this, theorizing that this point of semantics was argued by Shaak Ti and Nala Se and subsequently solved off-screen, in-between the two episodes. In which case, Shaak Ti's word on the subject is indeed final.

Acknowledge that this is a 22-minute story for kids, it was the end of the episode, and they needed Shaak Ti to come up with a technicality so as to save Fives without seeming unreasonable, and this is the best the writers could come up with.

I'm gonna go ahead and take option #3.

But, anon, this reaction of yours does open the door on a bigger point I've argued before.

All I did was bring proper context back to Shaak Ti's words, when they had been taken out of it.

And in discussion about the Jedi, this gets done very often. A sentence - or even words within one - will get plucked out of context and lore or fanon will form around it.

Here's some examples.

"Obi-Wan said that Anakin is pathetic!"

Context:

A pathetic life form.

He's comparing Anakin to Jar Jar, y'all.

AKA someone who had been exiled and was later about to be executed when they found him. AKA someone who has pathos, who inspires pity. Aka someone PATHETIC.

George himself describes Vader as pathetic.

That's because "pathetic" isn't just a judgmental term.

Resulting interpretation: Obi-Wan isn't saying Anakin is "ew, pathetic!" he's disagreeing with Qui-Gon's tendency to pick up strays and fails to see the point of them tagging along on the mission. He is proved wrong later and this ties in to his character arc about learning to see the value in listening to Guide archetype characters like Jar Jar or Ep. 1 Anakin.

"Yoda said the Jedi are arrogant."

Context:

Obi-Wan is bitching about Anakin being arrogant due to being so skillful, and Yoda tells Obi-Wan:

Resulting interpretation: Yoda is speaking in riddles, as per usual. He's being cheeky and implicitly telling Obi-Wan that he can be arrogant too sometimes, in his own Yoda-esque way.

Yoda is not "lamenting how far the Jedi have fallen". It's just another way of saying "we're all human, nobody's perfect."

"Mace said he doesn't trust Anakin."

Context:

Obi-Wan: “Anakin did not take to his assignment with much enthusiasm.” Mace: “It’s very dangerous putting them [Anakin & Palpatine] together. I don’t think the boy can handle it.”

Resulting interpretation: Anakin - not, by his own admission, the most subtle Jedi - is being asked to secretly spy on someone he considers a close friend, a mentor, a father even... aka someone who'll read Anakin like an open book (which is exactly what ends up happening).

Would you trust Anakin with that mission?

Because I sure as hell wouldn't. And that's what Mace is saying.

1. People regulate thier emotion and communicate to you logically. No need to understand social cues when you're an empath.

2. No pressure to marry, be in a romantic relationship and live in a nuclear household my entire life.

3. I can just?????? Help people?????? Without the extra cost of a system working me to the ground to achieve certain things????

4. No strings attached companionship and friendships? Amazing.

5. A caring and respectful community who council each other and accepts who I am as a person? Count me in.

6. Lightsaber go brrrrrrrrrr

7. Being able to do what I want career wise (Gardening, art, politics, piloting, exploring, childreering, medicine, teaching, etc.) without having to worry about money.