Scientific American is a science magazine founded in 1845 that has published articles by more than 200 Nobel Prize winners. The magazine has featured brilliant minds such as Hans Bethe, James D. Watson, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Linus Pauling, and Albert Einstein.
However, now one of the science magazine’s goals is “advancing social justice,” which was evident in a recent article attempting to cancel the Jedi in “Star Wars” for being “problematic.”
It took a total of five Scientific American writers to spew out a 2,060-word article titled: “Why the Term ‘JEDI’ Is Problematic for Describing Programs That Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.”
The opinion piece oozed out an exhausting laundry list as to why the Jedi are “inappropriate symbols for justice work.” The wokescold composition explained why Jedis — the mythical knightly order in the fictional movie “Star Wars” — should not be compared to the acronym “JEDI,” which stands for “justice, equity, diversity and inclusion.”
The article listed all of the ways that the members of the fabled Jedi order are problematic, including white saviors, toxic masculinity, and even the phallic-shaped lightsabers (which are also used by the enemy Sith).
They are a religious order of intergalactic police-monks, prone to (white) saviorism and toxically masculine approaches to conflict resolution (violent duels with phallic lightsabers, gaslighting by means of “Jedi mind tricks,” etc.). The Jedi are also an exclusionary cult, membership to which is partly predicated on the possession of heightened psychic and physical abilities (or “Force-sensitivity”).
The social justice overreaction over the beloved space opera then attacked the “Star Wars” franchise for “trafficking in injustices such as sexism, racism and ableism.”
“‘Star Wars’ arguably conflates ‘alienness’ with ‘nonwhiteness,’ often seeming to rely on racist stereotypes when depicting nonhuman species,” the post said.
Even Darth Vader’s heavy breathing is allegedly a problem, “The series regularly defaults onto ableist tropes, memorably in its portrayal of Darth Vader, which links the villain’s physical disability with machinic inhumanity and moral deviance, presenting his technology-assisted breathing as a sinister auditory marker of danger and doom.”
“What’s more, the bodies and voices centered in Star Wars have, with few exceptions, historically been those of white men,” the article stated.
Many people on the internet blasted the article quicker than Han Solo could shoot Greedo with his DL-44 at the Mos Eisley cantina. Numerous Twitter users deemed the article to be more worthless than bantha fodder.
Someone just blow up the Internet already… pic.twitter.com/OpzkHPotqQ
— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) September 23, 2021
So @sciam was founded in 1845.
Is it weird to be deliberately burning through 170+ years of credibility by publishing bizarre, anti-scientific political propaganda like this?
Or are you guys shorting your own stock?
— Geoffrey Miller (@primalpoly) September 23, 2021
Re: that insanely woke Scientific American anti-Jedi op-ed, it seems like every time something like this comes up, everybody laughs and asks how can something like this happen at a place like that … but it keeps happening. There is no red line.
— Rod Dreher (@roddreher) September 24, 2021
“Legitimacy crisis. @sciam has been corrupted by woke ideology,” wrote one blue checkmark.
“For over a thousand generations the Jedi were the guardians of peace and justice. Before the woke times. Before The Scientific American,” one person wrote.
“Some activists for Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion call themselves JEDI, which is kinda cool. But no, this is “problematic” because Star Wars is too white, male (phallic lightsabers!), colonialist & capitalist (Disney). This is science @sciam ?” wrote another blue checkmark.
“Five people wrote this. They’re not embarrassed. Neither are the editors at @sciam. They all should be.” Jason Ratz commented.
“.@sciam is an absolute joke. “Through its connections to Star Wars, the name JEDI can inadvertently associate our justice work with stories and stereotypes that are a galaxy far, far away from the values of justice, equity, diversity and inclusion.” another person added.
“You’ve got to be kidding me! I submitted a proposal for an article in SciAm, which was not even reviewed, on how cognitive factors explain why “vitality” is so hard on social media. Instead, they give space to writings as this?” one person wrote.
This is an excerpt from TheBlaze.
Scroll down to leave a comment and share your thoughts.