Scientific American says Jedi in 'Star Wars' are problematic white saviors steeped in toxic masculinity; the internet strikes back

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"). Strikingly, Force-wielding talents are narratively explained in Star Wars not merely in spiritual terms but also in ableist and eugenic ones: These supernatural powers are naturalized as biological, hereditary attributes. So it is that Force potential is framed as a dynastic property of noble bloodlines (for example, the Skywalker dynasty), and Force disparities are rendered innate physical properties, measurable via "midi-chlorian" counts (not unlike a "Force genetics" test) and augmentable via human(oid) engineering. The heroic Jedi are thus emblems for a host of dangerously reactionary values and assumptions. Sending the message that justice work is akin to cosplay is bad enough; dressing up our initiatives in the symbolic garb of the Jedi is worse.

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.

But even when the science-fiction franchise became more inclusive, it wasn't enough. "And while recent films have increased gender and racial diversity, important questions remain regarding how meaningfully such changes represent a departure from the series' problematic past," the writers alleged.

"Those unfamiliar or uncomfortable with Star Wars­­—including those hurt by the messages it sends—may feel alienated by the parade of jokes, puns and references surrounding the term JEDI," the article said.

Even saying the word "Jedi" is apparently an issue because it provides Disney "with a form of free advertising, commodifying and cheapening our justice work in the process." The SJW authors then trashed Disney for a "long and troubling history of circulating racist, sexist, heterosexist and Orientalist narratives and imagery."

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.