#every day'' (by which was meant; with believed inherent synonymity: poor people) & then i also will oft forget i pushed for it any further

[unproduciblesmackdown]

that moment when: everyone's lives are restricted and constricted and these imposed consequences are attributed to anyone's continual individual failures to seek, find, and follow the Correct Path through Life, and so everyone is left on their own to only be seeking & finding these failures as well as the only answer to how their lives can be better....versus Not seeing the world as the free marketplace meritocracy of everyone's personal failures/successes, nor everything in your own life, and thus not forever having to scrutinize Where You Must Be Bringing It Upon Yourself by fucking up or at least failing to do the correct thing, and exist only in perpetual punishment for your ongoing failure and occasional temporary reprieves from it. recognizing everything that wasn't & isn't & wouldn't be [this is because you're bringing it upon yourself] and thus having more capacity & capability to look at the realm of your personal individual self, reality, experiences, life through the perpetual instances of seeking, finding, and following your own needs/wants through one's inherent personhood and exercises of autonomy and recognition of where & when & how one recognizes moments of their existing freely & in more resonant genuine alignment with themself, you know? endless examples to be found in endless fractals of [where & how are people's lives made smaller]. and that of course this doesn't preclude the ability/option at any time to question one's choices, since you'll be able to find more Actual choices available to you (and, also crucially, find more actual choices made by others that are in the pursuit of limiting Yours) to look at, and people getting to exercise their autonomy isn't the same as "everyone doing anything they want regardless of how it affects others" since that [how does it affect others?] element instead being Regarded would be able to lead to recognizing that, in fact, an effect might be the infringement on others' autonomy, hence: There's A Problem....like the ability to just go ham with [questioning???] anything in existence, certainly including oneself, b/c the "norm" is such that rather you're only supposed to be able to question yourself for your failings (or those positioned as less than, thus, beneath you) and not even have the language to express a questioning of aspects of life beyond that b/c stop calling anyone "cis" they're just Normal, Just Be Normal and it would all be fine

[permian-tropos]

The Case for Redeemable Rax, a Three Part Saga

@absolxguardian​ this massive rambly essay started with our discussion of Galli vs. Tom Riddle as you will see 

it’s extremely long though and I’m publishing it mostly for personal reference, just to have it archived on my blog

also it might end up being character notes for fanfic so if it just gets repeated in narrative form somewhere else that’s why

Episode I: The Phantom Personality Disorder 

the warning signs Dumbledore missed with Tom Riddle were definitely meant to be of a personality disorder, most likely psychopathy. there are a ton of similarities between Galli & Palpatine’s first meeting and Tom’s first conversation with Dumbledore, but contextually it’s different since Palpatine is mega evil and Dumbledore (while flawed) is not. Dumbledore doesn’t threaten to kill Tom, and he certainly doesn’t start feeding him overt fascist ideology. but Tom is also unlike Galli because he’s in control of the conversation. he’s just a kid, but he’s charismatic and calculated and even when Dumbledore intimidates him into giving back the toys he stole, it’s suggested (or is it directly stated? I don’t quite remember) that Tom won that round — he got a demonstration of a wizard’s power to intimidate and control people, even if the person being controlled is himself. it’s not deterrence because he was just told he could one day have this power for himself.

so these are particular psychopath warning signs that we don’t get from Galli — or even adult Rax! we see him interact with Palpatine three times and we hear about his relationship to Kolob, and something that doesn’t happen (even though neurotypical people can learn to do this, even neurotypical kids) is Galli trying to leverage their power to his advantage

when he’s faced with someone who has power over him, Rax doesn’t know how to turn the tables or even stay afloat. with Palpatine, he never says or does anything outside of “yes, sir” and assorted synonyms. he wasn’t charismatic enough to charm Kolob or the other anchorites so he could get away with bullying other kids. 

those same other kids followed his lead when he left the orphanage, but it’s not because they let him have power over the others. he didn’t need to be that cunning to get them to leave -- he could have told them in good faith that they’d be taken to a better life off Jakku with him. when he’s waiting for Palpatine in a state of terror and false bravado, thinking, “he won’t kill me, I killed for him” -- this is almost certainly right after he killed the other children and it makes fear and desperation the primary motives. 

we learn that he burned down the orphanage before he left, and that Kolob didn’t know what happened to the other kids, so Galli must have done this on his own. it wasn’t something Palpatine would have needed him to do, and he never attacked the anchorites before then. it could have been a final act of spite, but he’s not smug or satisfied afterwards, he’s thinking about how he might be okay dying in this chair because it’s so comfortable, ha ha, it was all worth it for this, ha ha Ha. what I can imagine happening is that, after years of clinging to the hope of a better life, he was abruptly told he wouldn’t get it or would even be killed if he didn’t kill the rest of the children. he did the deed impulsively, in a panic, and then Palpatine left him alone on Jakku just long enough for him to wonder if he’d be played, if he killed his friends for nothing and that he was going to be next. he would've only had the anchorites to take out his rage and anguish on (he could easily blame them for everything), and Palpatine took him offworld after his rampage was over.

and you’d think maybe he’s just young and learned manipulative skills later, but when Sloane is about to kill him he actually has something he could use as leverage — the information about the Eclipse and the other ships sent to the Unknown Regions — but instead he weeps and begs for mercy. Sloane isn’t soft-hearted or empathetic and Rax would know this. seeing him suffer makes her revenge that much sweeter. so he’s not very cunning on instinct, when his life depends on it.

compare this to Palpatine leveraging his own vulnerability in the fight against Mace Windu to turn Anakin to the Dark Side. and I do think he was genuinely vulnerable and not entirely faking because Palpatine gambles with his life again with Luke and Vader, only he loses. his prologue scene with Rax in Book 3 reveals he’s perfectly aware of the risk he’s taking, because he hopes for high rewards.

Rax is just not very good at being an Evil Slimy Advisor. unlike a Wormtongue or a Jafar or a Lady Macbeth, he doesn’t even try to convince Sloane that she’s the one in control. he takes nominal steps towards this — making her Grand Admiral, promising her the throne — but they openly discuss the fact that she’s a puppet ruler, and when Sloane is like “so uh when are you going to drop this act and just be the Emperor or something” he’s like “no, no, I’ll keep telling everyone I support you, you’ll still be respected”. Sloane’s not pleased by the paltry offer, obviously she wants to rule for real and it feels like he’s not even trying to seduce her with power yes I think she genuinely gets pissed that he’s not being seductive enough; the culmination of all her hatred comes out as “did you really think I would join you after everything? you think I’m that cheap??? the fuck??”

conclusion for part one: Galli specifically averts the (pop science 101) psychopath trait of leveraging power from a position of weakness.

if he’s mentally disordered (and I think he is) the most believable diagnosis is actually ADHD. lmao yes I’m being serious here even though I’m biased since I’m projecting onto him: he’s disobedient and difficult to contain as a kid, kind of flaky and dreamy as well if he’s distracted by “stories”, he’s intense and comes off as wound-up or unstable, he’s impulsive, easily overstimulated by emotion or sensation, has hyperfixations that he turns to for stress relief, is rejection-sensitive (Sloane calling him “precious orphan” is enough to ruin his moment of triumph), and he can’t even keep his hands to himself when he talks to people

otherwise he acts like (and is) someone trained to have complete deference and submission to authority. he can’t manipulate, because authority is absolute and you either accept it to be good, or lash out at it to be, as Palpatine puts it, nasty and naughty. 

[Intermission] because this essay is fucking long get up, stretch, refill popcorn, use the bathroom

Episode II: Attack of the Societal Factors

Rax’s fall to the Dark Side and subsequent abuses of power seem like a product of patriarchy. I don’t actually mean that he has an internal gender bias — he behaves in patriarchal ways (being a sugar daddy, condescending to people, refusing to yield status and control) but towards men and women, except in his apparent heterosexuality. Chuck Wendig generously makes Sloane a bit of an escapist fantasy for the gals, where people pretend not to respect her but deep down they all do. but he’s also continuing the long Star Wars tradition of being visibly patriarchal but not overtly sexist.

patriarchy isn’t exactly the same thing as male supremacy. male chauvinism is built into it, but the word itself means “rule of the father” and that describes the intersection of a hierarchical structure and a gendered chauvinism. not all men are fathers, not every patriarch is ruling a household or family (they can be a monarch, a CEO, a schoolteacher, a military commander), not all rulers in the role of “patriarch” are male. Rae Sloane behaves EXACTLY like a patriarch in a lot of ways, and even exercises what the Romans called “patria potestas”, the power a patriarch has over the lives of their family members. Sloane kills her subordinates, she kills her “daughter”, she kills loyal allies who she decides have outlived their use — because she acts as if it is her right to do so.

the way that Rax abuses his power is the way a lot of people do in our own patriarchal society — pushing boundaries to see what you can get away with. literally, he “tests” and goads Sloane as if he’s waiting for her to snap, he pushes the Empire into further chaos by “testing” them all, he terrorizes Armitage by telling him graphically what the Jakku orphans would do to him, even as he’s being sympathetic and trying to relate to the poor kid, and with Adea he acts in that dubious-consent area of not actively taking a “no” as a “yes” but not taking a lack of a “yes” to be a “no”. later we find out that she’s thoroughly enamored with him and eager for power, which sort of shows why Rax can be the way he is without being inherently evil: pushing boundaries doesn’t always backfire. if you’re being rewarded for it, just like Galli was rewarded for betraying and killing people under Palpatine, it can become a fixed pattern of behavior.

and that comes back to the anchorites cause this is the idea I had that turned into this essay — testing people’s boundaries is a very immature thing to do, but it’s not because kids are worse at being good people than adults. the average kid is good at doing things that are emotionally healthy for a kid. testing boundaries is something kids need to be willing to do. it’s not healthy for them to be overly deferential and unwilling to upset anyone. they have to learn a variety of social skills through trial and error. that’s why it’s okay that kids are kind of assholes — as long as they’re in the right environment where they can’t permanently traumatize each other or become locked into abusive patterns.

an environment where kids can’t test their boundaries against authority, by rebelling or being stubborn or throwing tantrums or anything like that, is a deeply unhealthy environment, and foundational to patriarchy. the younger you are, the more you’re at the mercy of adults, and kids need to accept some adult authority to stay safe, but it’s also really dangerous if a kid will do anything an adult tells them to, so they need to have an instinct to push back. and kids also need this to become healthy adults with agency and self-respect. adults aren’t healthy if they're “skilled” at deferring to “because I told you so” or “those are just the rules” or “don’t talk back to me” or “you’re not showing enough respect” from other adults. they’re especially not healthy if this is wielded through religious abuse, where they are forced to accept a divine patriarch whose will goes unquestioned. 

if you demand absolute obedience, if people can’t push against authority (a correct and healthy outlet for fear or anxiety or frustration), they end up with this grab bag of options: be a doormat (and likely be self-destructive or self-loathing), take it out on their peers, or take it out on people they have power over. these are adaptive strategies that a majority of people living in a patriarchy have to some extent.

Galli stood out from the other kids, in ways anchorites clearly believed were bad and going to lead him to the Dark Side, but unlike Tom Riddle, they weren’t real warning signs, and unlike Anakin and Ben Solo, it seems like he didn’t have any positive support systems that he had to reject in order to fall to the Dark Side

so he comes across as, not a troubled child, but an unfortunately gifted one. he has exceptionally high cultural intelligence. he’s brilliant at honing in on the core beliefs of an ideology — but patriarchy and fascism have core beliefs that look appalling when brought to the light. he captures the essence of the Empire, the thing Rae Sloane is supposedly so passionate about, and it absolutely disgusts her. and Rax can’t understand what he’s doing wrong. he's figured out exactly what the Empire is all about, why should he keep it to himself? isn’t Sloane an elevated mind? well, it’s all true, but he shouldn’t say it. 

Rax isn’t manipulating Sloane to get what he wants -- when it’s not working out he specifically refuses to interfere. he’s manipulating Sloane because it’s an act of self-expression, of artistic creation; he thinks of it as composing an opera. his creativity lies in faithfully recreating and perfecting the ideology and culture he was victimized with. Palpatine made him believe the abuse was good for him. and for Rax to be cunning, for him to hide his true intentions, he’d have to understand that nobody wants to be abused and manipulated. and apparently, understanding that would be enough for him to realize it’s just unconditionally bad for people (instead of “sharpening some blades, and ruining others”), therefore it was bad for him, and therefore he’s a horrifyingly broken unloved wretch

Episode III: Revenge of the Horrifyingly Broken Unloved Wretch

because he does start to realize this on Jakku, as he’s insisting to himself that Sloane’s rejection was just a fluke and a disappointment, then moments later he’s facing down Kolob and laying into him with righteous indignation. he starts wanting to get rid of Brendol Hux, while feeling protective of Armitage. he stops admiring Palpatine through his hate — he starts to embrace disdain and disgust for the man. and he clearly starts to more actively hate himself because it all comes spilling out as he’s dying. 

just a few months after one (1) woman rejects him because he’s simply being too much of an asshole, he starts to realize that he’s been crapped on and strung along for his whole life. it’s still hard to say if he could have really recovered. plenty of his actions were already unforgivable. but Darth Vader took years to process the fact that his son was alive. and in those years, Vader continued to do evil things, and if he’d been killed before RotJ, it would have been perfectly justified. so Rax deserved what he got, and his evil plans needed to be foiled, and I would have thrown in a kick in the nuts if it were up to me.

but suppose we redefine redeemability not as a true/false binary, but instead a variable measure of how quickly someone can convert good influences into good attitudes, after bad influences gave them bad attitudes. we’ll call it their Redemption Quotient. their RQ, so to speak. just for fun. 

heroes (in the moral alignment sense) by nature have a higher than average RQ. they’re not heroic because they’re flawless or infallible, but because they absorb good influences faster than most -- Finn gets over being a stormtrooper as soon as something in his heart tells him it’s wrong. Han overcomes his defensive selfishness as soon as he meets some pure good cinnamon rolls to protect. Luke gets over his nihilism as soon as he meets a pure good cinnamon roll to protect. anti-heroes and anti-villains fall in the middle of the spectrum, and true villains by nature fall below that.

all things considered, Rax might have a high RQ for a villain.