The Postmodern Jedi

I sincerely tried to keep an open mind but I became pretty disenchanted with the guest’s views very quickly. Here was the position that kept me from being able to make space within myself for his views. Early on he suggests that it is impossible for the military to embrace critical gender theory and still function - noting that precious resources are being diverted to addressing whether or not sexual discrimination has taken place. Ergo: “We can’t both keep this nation safe and treat women equally therefore you must decide which you prefer.”

I don’t accept that our nation’s safety requires that we tolerate misogyny. I understand that from the point of view of the guest, critical gender theory might make claims that some people find unreasonable and that will absolutely require difficult debate and an occasional re-setting of standards. But his thesis seems to be that an entirely woke government (to use his terminology) could not function therefore we cannot even ask that people be trained on race and gender theory - and I just don’t co-sign on that.

But I appreciate the opportunity to watch the video as I believe an important part of holding an opinion is to expose oneself to thoughtful arguments against that opinion.

I do appreciate your concern Lumen, speaking as a newcomer.
I won’t get too political but I have to admit, this is a deeply divided country America is; with how new Jediism is we don’t have the population or power yet to calm down these dividing parties; Left and Right wing.
The IP Admins are right, patience is a virtue.
I can’t even see eye to eye with both parties; in turn attracting me to the Jedi Order.
A solution to the military gender conundrum will pan out sooner or later.
However, we must keep in mind that even fictional Jedi have experienced their civil wars.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Jedi_Civil_War

I guess suitability for any role should be based on suitability for that role, rather than anything else. Anti-discrimination should be adopted and well understood by all at all levels within the military, but gender norming is not an effective strategy, nor is gender exclusion.

For those of you who don’t know, I spent 15 years in the u.s. army including two years of combat in Iraq. While serving as a squad leader in an engineer company, I can say some of the best soldiers I had were female. I’ve served on the marksmanship team with females who could pick which nostril to put a round in at 300 meters. I’ve seen female sergeants lead there soldiers just as well as anyone else. We’ve spent months together in the field, slept in the same mud hole, bled the same blood, cried the same tears, shot at the same bad guys, ran from the same explosions,carried the same weight on our backs while doing it. The only difference is they went potty behind a different tree. They didn’t act any different and in turn weren’t treated any different.

I will say that all soldiers of any gender hate when people who have never served a day in there life, make huge deals out of things they know nothing about. We have a gender neutral army already.....no males, no females.....just soldiers. The way it should be. I can’t vouch for the other branches as a disclaimer.

As far as non traditional genders are concerned, most people in the military could care less. Do your job, follow the rules, carry your weight, if you can do that, I don’t care what gender you are, what your sexual preferences are, you can jump in my fox hole and fight by my side. If you can’t do that, then go be a civilian cuz we don’t need you. It’s not about gender or names or who you fall in love with.....it’s about ability. This last paragraph is personal opinion as I’m unsure about what the army’s current policy is on transgendered soldiers. But I will say give the army time, they will catch up.

I apologize for the length of this post. I do my best not to write these little novels anymore but I guess I just have a lot to say on this topic.

Disclaimer: Apologies to you specifically, Loudzoo but I did not watch the video. I am simply responding to your questions at their face values.

Loudzoo wrote: What is the role of a Jedi in a culture war?

zeit·geist
/ˈtsītˌɡīst,ˈzītˌɡīst/
noun
:the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time.

:the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era.

Copied from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zeitgeist
"Scholars have long maintained that each era has a unique spirit, a nature or climate that sets it apart from all other epochs. In German, such a spirit is known as "Zeitgeist," from the German words Zeit, meaning "time," and Geist, meaning "spirit" or "ghost.""

I think it perfectly apropos that "zeitgeist" is a German word. Not so long ago, the Germans had themselves one hellacious run at a culture war which culminated in one super-hellacious zeitgeist. I assume we all know (at least in broad strokes) how that turned out. The TL;DR version is that it was worse for some than others but it was pretty much horrible for pretty much everybody.

The Russians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodians, and a long list of others have also had some pretty gnarly culture wars leading into some horrific zeitgeists with their respective forays into communism. Knowledge of communism's bloody legacy is but a web search away.

Anyone who is interested can go on an exploration of the term "genocides" and be confronted with a disturbingly long list of other horrific zeitgeists. Zeitgeist is what a society is left with once the culture war of their era has been essentially won by one side or another.

With history giving us such examples of the consequences of allowing culture wars to go off the rails, I'd say that at the very least Jedi are obligated to be aware of the culture war of our own times, to make a sincere and ongoing inquiry into the ideas, movements, and actors which characterize and propel it , and to intervene, at least periodically, as emissaries of rationality and open-mindedness and as advocates of peaceful means conflict resolution and social reconciliation.

What is truth? Is it always a compromise?

How many thousands of years have humans been trying to answer the question of Truth lol. I'm not going to fall into the philosophical quagmire but I will say these:

1) I believe that there is such a thing as objective reality but this term may only be applicable to the physical, material world. "Truth" may have a moral or in some other way immaterial or physically intangible element to it which exceeds the limits of what we can refer to as "Objective Reality".

2) As beings who can only assess the world through the filters of subjectivity I believe that we do not have the perceptual capabilities to grasp the full scope of objective reality.

3) As organisms which are capable of rational thought and as inheritors of many thousands of years of cultural development, we are able to identify individual features of both Truth and reality (if there is a distinction to be made between them) which are so consistent and reliable that to treat them as anything less than true or objective reality is absurd.

4) As social organisms whose individual well being is enmeshed in and bound by the conditions of the society and culture in which we are immersed, it is contrary to our best interests to think of the moral dimensions of "Truth" as being purely relative or subjective. It is undeniable that there is a degree of subjectivity and relativity here but these concepts can only be stretched so far before we start eating our own children. Which is probably not good.

5) Whether Truth is or is not a compromise, peaceful coexistence pretty much always is.

As Jedi - how can we prevent our intention to be respectable, compassionate and likeable being employed by potentially destructive forces?

What are the characteristics of "destructive forces"? This is not a rhetorical question: as subjective beings with vastly different intellects and histories, we may each hold slightly (or greatly) different conceptualizations of what constitutes a destructive force. I think the important thing is to ask the question seriously and to make a determined effort to find some answers. As our answers become more and more matured, so will (we hope,) our ability to identify and interdict these forces before they can spiral out of control. Perhaps we can even help to course-correct some of the destructive forces which have solidified into long term patterns within our national and cultural histories.

Can we be neutral AND effective in the world? Or, do we have to take a side?

The word "neutral" may have as many different connotations and contextual variances as there are people to read or write it. MY PERSONAL ANSWER to this question is not only "no" but also "why would you want to be neutral in the first place?" Ever hear of the book or the expression "you can't be neutral on a moving train"? The closest thing to neutrality that I can justify is a sort of intellectual openness which is characterized by the willingness to acknowledge the valid points of any and every side, even (especially) the ones with whom we disagree. I'd even go so far as to say that if we cant admit and explain the things that the other side gets right it is a dead give away that we aren't looking at the topic fairly and honestly.

Thats as close to neutral as I can get. The events of today will be the history of tomorrow. To my way of thinking, trying to be neutral is to assume that the world around us will just behave because you know, it just SHOULD. None of us can be expected to bear the weight of the overall momentum of our individual cultures but how can we consider ourselves even to be responsible citizens, much less to be Jedi if we are not making some effort to nudge our little pieces of the world away from those destructive forces? I dont think we can.