To be fair, structural critiques of power mechanisms in society are pretty French and Gay, which you think about it.

When Foucault was young his father sent him to a famous psychoanalysis named Jean Delay, due to self harm, and suicide attempts. Apparently this experience, where he was more or less diagnosed as his homosexuality being the source of all his problems, may have caused many of his anti-psychiatry ideas that he later wrote about.
Michael Sugrue had a great lecture on this.

I'm actually in favor of Bakunin here, where soccer rules, and even the immediate enforcement of the rules, are governed by some kind of direct democracy. So if the crowd boos the red card, they just take it away.

Sports under anarchism actually would be much better. Coaches would be elected by the population, instead of appointed by the rich guys who own the teams, etc. Imagine how much more entertaining that would be? Like if this guy sucks and the crowd hates him, they could fire him. When appointing the new coach they would run like politicians, promising how much more they will press for goals, instead of playing defensively or whatever.
Rules would also be written by the population at large. Right now a lot of people are mad at the computer overturning goals because someone is a millimeter offsides or whatever, and seem to be unironically arguing that the rule should be that you can be "a bit" offsides. I would love to see the mob right the rules, especially when they are emotional after a loss. Change it halfway through the tournament! Anarchism! Power to the people!
And don't forget this classic comic: World Cup Philosophy.

A lot of people say virtue is "worth" more than money and land etc, but rarely do people put their money where their mouth is and do a straight up trade.

To be clear I'm not making fun of vegans, I'm making fun of people who stay out of politics while a power mad politician normalizes viscous cruelty in society.

Quintus Sextius was a quasi Stoic Roman philosopher, who apparently came from a wealthy, powerful family, and turned down a Senate role from Julius Caesar. He had an interesting argument for Veganism, which is based more around the Greek and Roman ethics of the time. Instead of talking about suffering, it talked about the virtue in the individual. Eating things which have their origin in cruelty causes the person to become accustomed to cruelty. In a way it erodes your virtue and soul.
Of course, if there was anything in Roman society that got you accustomed to cruelty, it was probably politics. The incredibly brutal acts of Caesar were celebrated and praised officially, so it seems like maybe he could have gone into politics to try to temper the cruelty of the State. I mean, they would have just ignored him probably, but most people probably ignored his vegan argument too, so maybe poor Sextius was doomed either way.

To be clear I'm not making fun of vegans, I'm making fun of people who stay out of politics while a power mad politician normalizes cruelty in society.

How the new Star Wars should have ended, honestly.

"Postmodernism" is a broad philosophical and cultural movement in late 70s and 80s. In fact The Postmodern Condition was published in 1979, two years after Star Wars came out. It describes how society at large had more or less lost faith that single driving "meta-narratives" were the end goal of history. No one really believed anymore that single narrative like Communism, the Enlightenment and Science, or for that matter a all powerful "Force" controlling our destiny, which would eventually resolve all contradictions and reach humanity's ultimate goal. Instead, society is fractured into a multiplicity of people with different goals and understandings.
An interesting part of this is that we also seemed more and more incapable of making movies that straightforwardly portray epic struggles between good and evil. The age of postmodernism is the age of sympathetic villains and dark heroes. Artists and audiences alike reject tales of Light defeating Dark once and for all. We simply aren't able to write the original Star Wars anymore today.
A lot of people recognized this when the new movies came out, of course, and thought it was being incorporated into the movie itself. Rey was to be the girl from nowhere who would reject the binary and grand meta-narrative of the light side of the force triumphing over the dark side of the force, and recognized that only by fracturing that story could humanity finally move past the struggle, and allow for individuality and dissent within a new Jedi Order that incorporates competing conceptions of human existence and knowledge.
Instead, on account of the fact that they were mostly morons who understood none of this, we got a weird attempt to do both. Or maybe they were being doubly postmodern by having multiple directors who couldn't even agree on the narrative of the movies. Who knows.