I think Rebels Thrawn does him as much justice as you could reasonably expect from a kids' show.
Zuzak
joined 5 years ago
Well... there is a more generous interpretation, but I'm not sure how valid it is.
Palpatine created the clone army and then used the separatists to manufacture a threat that would cause the Republic to accept it. This was an integral part of his plan, it allowed him to kill all the Jedi and consolidate power, because the clones were trained to know nothing but battle and to blindly follow orders. "How does a republic turn to fascism?" is a question that the prequels seem to want to answer, and the clone army is part of that.
The most generous interpretation would say that the movies intentionally lead the audience on to accepting the Republic as the good guys and the clone army as necessary, and then shows that leading to disastrous results with the aim of prompting the audience to reflect on their willingness to accept the militarization of the Republic as a good/necessary thing.
However, if that's the idea, the execution is pretty questionable. It's never really made clear who should've done what differently to prevent Palpatine's rise to power. Padme has a line in Ep. 3, "Do you ever wonder if we might be fighting for the wrong side?" But the other side is also being manipulated by the same guy, and even if the Republic were to resist militarization and offer negotiations and diplomacy, Palpatine would probably just get the Separatists to push further in order to create the threat he needed. The writers seem to think it's enough to provide foreshadowing, rather than presenting actual alternatives.
A better version of the prequels would have clearly established a couple of things: 1. Palpatine's influence over the separatists is not absolute, and they are open to peaceful negotiations, 2. At least somebody (like Padme) is clearly critical and opposed to the Republic's militarization and the use of clones from the start, 3. The Jedi are not ontologically good, and/or have significant disagreements with the Republic, the war, and the use of clones. If those things were established and clearly communicated, then what we have is a story of a fascist using a manufactured/exaggerated threat to justify the controversial creation of a massive military accountable only to himself, while well-meaning people (the Jedi) struggle with the question of at what point should they stop being loyal to a government moving in an increasingly worrying direction. Instead, it really just comes down to the classic lib narrative about Hitler's magical ~~force powers~~ charisma enchanting everyone.
On the one hand it's not a great sign about which way the winds are blowing, but on the other hand my mind is just so much more at ease not seeing the cursed pride logos of Raytheon and the Pinkertons.
Huh, I woulda thought People would be about, you know, people, and yet, no one mentioned in that article is a person.
Mao had just said, "uhh the state is an oppressive institution so now we'll just dismantle everything and y'all can just organize horizontally or whatever."
The funny thing is, he kinda did. The result was these roving, undisciplined militias calling themselves Red Guards and holding (actual) struggle sessions and killing each other, and committing a bunch of atrocities.
I know there were actual historical reasons but I like to imagine that one day Mao somehow got possessed by a redditor and started doing what any "anti-tankie" would say he should do, denouncing the government as having fallen to bourgeois opportunists and calling on the people to rise up in this structureless, "anti-authoritarian" way. But since the outcome was bad, it's of course, "No, not like that."
How could you leave out the Apotheosis of Washington?
GermaNazi
All we have to do is nuke them, and we'll be greeted as liberators 
If I say, "Knight to B4," does that sound like something a person playing chess might say? Then it did it's job.
Think of an LLM as an actor. You don't hire someone to act as a grandmaster in a movie based on their skill at chess, they might not even know how to play, but if they deliver the lines in a convincing way, that's what you're looking for. There's chess AIs that are incredibly good at chess, because that's what they're designed for and trained on. That's why this is a very silly test, it's like testing a fish on its tree-climbing ability, the only thing sillier than this test is that people are surprised by it.