The thing is, whether or not you analyze the crap out of a movie, the story, structure etc, what really matters is if you are having a good time watching it. And even though the prequals have some amazing lightsaber battles, the rest of the movies are boring bullshit that makes one fall asleep. I watched the two first prequals before the original trilogy when I was a kid, and I loved the originals while I thought the prequals were boring. In other words, the prequals should be nostalgic to me, not the originals, but I knew what movies were exciting or not.

I agree that Revenge is the best prequal though.

But these words haven't changed.
Plenty of people are still using them correctly, particularly in the rest of the Anglosphere that isn't Burgerstan.
Only Americans, and only some part of the American right-wing, and only that part that isn't ever asked to give an official political opinion (because they don't use the commonly accepted definitions for political terms) seem to get this particular thing wrong.
There is a word for what you're thinking of, and it is "progressive", or "neoprogressive" if you wanted to be specific. It is not liberal. It has never been liberal. It is not even becoming liberal, because nobody will sit through the idiocy of redefining a word just because a slice of America can't learn how to use it correctly.
It's moronic that my political discourse has to be tainted by people who can't be bothered to get into the common language and communicate properly.

As much as i understand your position I do want to reinforce that words change, that alone is not up for debate, very little research into the bastard child that is the English language will reveal that. Now while i may feel that the liberal movement is changing and not just in America that is up for debate and at the very least nothing will change for a good while. But i do see the Liberal movement in the past as something i would support but as of current in Europe and America it has changed focus in my opinion. I could be wrong about that, it could just be the small chunks of horrid crap that i see, but i would find it easier to separate from them that trying to stop them from calling them self liberals.

>and yet liberals vote for them and support their policies?
Who are you even talking about at this point?
These are blanket statements that are overly encompassing so many disparate groups with different ideologies that I'm struggling to even understand who you're trying to stereotype.

>they call themselves liberal
But they don't.

I don't see your point.

Feminism is a broad ideology that's been constantly developing alongside society for the last century, but very little of its core beliefs have changed in that timespan. Feminist media has adapted to the current social climate and its issues.

Besides, liberalism as a political ideology is a lot more clear-cut.
When people say "librul", they are typically talking about leftists, or more specifically, neoprogressives, particularly those among them who tend to be reactionaries.
They aren't necessarily liberals, though parts of the left can be.

Times change, definitions change. Words change, ain't an argument it's a fact. For FJ everyone knows that feminism movement has changed to the extent that the words meaning has changed. For political parties this is very common, many people would say that X person was with X party but would be today, this is due to the development. Liberal's are of no exception, liberal's have changed from freedom to reimbursement for past faults. Their motive of freedom is non-existent in current day liberalism. Of course local appropriation should be taken into account. But is common to assume everyone is American. I say this despite being Irish.

But these words haven't changed.
Plenty of people are still using them correctly, particularly in the rest of the Anglosphere that isn't Burgerstan.
Only Americans, and only some part of the American right-wing, and only that part that isn't ever asked to give an official political opinion (because they don't use the commonly accepted definitions for political terms) seem to get this particular thing wrong.
There is a word for what you're thinking of, and it is "progressive", or "neoprogressive" if you wanted to be specific. It is not liberal. It has never been liberal. It is not even becoming liberal, because nobody will sit through the idiocy of redefining a word just because a slice of America can't learn how to use it correctly.
It's moronic that my political discourse has to be tainted by people who can't be bothered to get into the common language and communicate properly.

As much as i understand your position I do want to reinforce that words change, that alone is not up for debate, very little research into the bastard child that is the English language will reveal that. Now while i may feel that the liberal movement is changing and not just in America that is up for debate and at the very least nothing will change for a good while. But i do see the Liberal movement in the past as something i would support but as of current in Europe and America it has changed focus in my opinion. I could be wrong about that, it could just be the small chunks of horrid crap that i see, but i would find it easier to separate from them that trying to stop them from calling them self liberals.

>and yet liberals vote for them and support their policies?
Who are you even talking about at this point?
These are blanket statements that are overly encompassing so many disparate groups with different ideologies that I'm struggling to even understand who you're trying to stereotype.

>they call themselves liberal
But they don't.

No, people use words wrong.
Nothing's changed.

Feminisim.

I don't see your point.

Feminism is a broad ideology that's been constantly developing alongside society for the last century, but very little of its core beliefs have changed in that timespan. Feminist media has adapted to the current social climate and its issues.

Besides, liberalism as a political ideology is a lot more clear-cut.
When people say "librul", they are typically talking about leftists, or more specifically, neoprogressives, particularly those among them who tend to be reactionaries.
They aren't necessarily liberals, though parts of the left can be.

Times change, definitions change. Words change, ain't an argument it's a fact. For FJ everyone knows that feminism movement has changed to the extent that the words meaning has changed. For political parties this is very common, many people would say that X person was with X party but would be today, this is due to the development. Liberal's are of no exception, liberal's have changed from freedom to reimbursement for past faults. Their motive of freedom is non-existent in current day liberalism. Of course local appropriation should be taken into account. But is common to assume everyone is American. I say this despite being Irish.

But these words haven't changed.
Plenty of people are still using them correctly, particularly in the rest of the Anglosphere that isn't Burgerstan.
Only Americans, and only some part of the American right-wing, and only that part that isn't ever asked to give an official political opinion (because they don't use the commonly accepted definitions for political terms) seem to get this particular thing wrong.
There is a word for what you're thinking of, and it is "progressive", or "neoprogressive" if you wanted to be specific. It is not liberal. It has never been liberal. It is not even becoming liberal, because nobody will sit through the idiocy of redefining a word just because a slice of America can't learn how to use it correctly.
It's moronic that my political discourse has to be tainted by people who can't be bothered to get into the common language and communicate properly.

As much as i understand your position I do want to reinforce that words change, that alone is not up for debate, very little research into the bastard child that is the English language will reveal that. Now while i may feel that the liberal movement is changing and not just in America that is up for debate and at the very least nothing will change for a good while. But i do see the Liberal movement in the past as something i would support but as of current in Europe and America it has changed focus in my opinion. I could be wrong about that, it could just be the small chunks of horrid crap that i see, but i would find it easier to separate from them that trying to stop them from calling them self liberals.

>and yet liberals vote for them and support their policies?
Who are you even talking about at this point?
These are blanket statements that are overly encompassing so many disparate groups with different ideologies that I'm struggling to even understand who you're trying to stereotype.

>they call themselves liberal
But they don't.