State of the Game

No it doesn't!

yea, it does. an empire that improves the lives of 80% of the population but worsens the lives of 20% is not as evil as one that worsens the lives of any larger number.

Just like in reality, where no country is 100% good or evil...but some are more evil than others.

the benefits of the empire have to be weighed against it's negatives and it would seem far more people benefited from it than not. Our view of them is biased to the nonconformist rebels but that group was a minority in the galaxy. Sure they blew some planets up. But they were barely populated and full of enemy combatants. Their destruction saved countless imperial lives from a drawn out land and air war that would have raged on for years. due to the terrain and really poorly thought out war machines that have laughably large weaknesses.
 
og_dreams_redlamb.webp


covid-dream.gif
 
yea, it does. an empire that improves the lives of 80% of the population but worsens the lives of 20% is not as evil as one that worsens the lives of any larger number.

That's not even an equivalent statement to the one I quoted, but I largely disagree with that one as well.

A government that slightly worsens the lives of 80% of it's population to spare 20% from suffering is something I'd be far more tolerant of than one which throws 20% under the bus to better those who are already doing relatively well.

the benefits of the empire have to be weighed against it's negatives and it would seem far more people benefited from it than not. Our view of them is biased to the nonconformist rebels but that group was a minority in the galaxy.

My view of them is based on the authority they exercise. They'd seem just as 'evil' to me if all I got was the Imperial version.
 
That's not even an equivalent statement to the one I quoted, but I largely disagree with that one as well.

A government that slightly worsens the lives of 80% of it's population to spare 20% from suffering is something I'd be far more tolerant of than one which throws 20% under the bus to better those who are already doing relatively well.
that doesn't make any sense. you wouldn't be more tolerant of a government that was worsening the lives of more people than one that was worsening the lives of less. You'd be much more likely to be in the worse population of the former than the latter.

The Empire improved the lives of a huge number of people at the expense of a few. That's better than a government that improves the lives of a few at the expense of many.

And we know the empire is the former because it and repeated systems like it keep spawning. The bulk of the people prefer it. They just have not been able to control the top to curtail the corruption of power. Remember, the empire spawns from a collection of participant systems. It's not the result of a singular system leveraging power over the rest.

My view of them is based on the authority they exercise. They'd seem just as 'evil' to me if all I got was the Imperial version.

that's a weak point of view. Authority isn't good or evil - each instance of it being applied has to be considered separately. With that point of view, near anarchy would be preferable, and that point of view is only shared by people who will do well on their own, it doesn't bode well for people being taken advantage of or vulnerable. Worlds run by the equivalent of war lords and the mafia are not preferable to law and order. Poverty and joblessness compared to the empire's plentiful government programs that take people off of the street and out of crime and into helpful and useful vocations.

The empire brought order and security and unity to many words and untold numbers of people who were under the rule of despots and dictators or criminal organizations and simplified trade and business across worlds and systems.
 
You'd be much more likely to be in the worse population of the former than the latter.

That was implicit in the statement. Anything above a certain, fairly modest, level is surplus that I am willing to sacrifice if I think it will make my world a better place to exist in.

That's better than a government that improves the lives of a few at the expense of many.

As I said, that depends on the relative degree.

I wouldn't walk away from Omelas, I'd burn the whole ing thing to ashes.

Authority isn't good or evil - each instance of it being applied has to be considered separately.

I consider the imposition of authority to be a bad thing, in and of itself. Something to be done only in extremis, and only to the minimum degree and magnitude required to prevent a greater problem, and something has to be pretty goddamned bad for me to think it's worse than sticking my nose into someone else's business.
 
That was implicit in the statement. Anything above a certain, fairly modest, level is surplus that I am willing to sacrifice if I think it will make my world a better place to exist in.



As I said, that depends on the relative degree.

I wouldn't walk away from Omelas, I'd burn the whole ing thing to ashes.



I consider the imposition of authority to be a bad thing, in and of itself. Something to be done only in extremis, and only to the minimum degree and magnitude required to prevent a greater problem, and something has to be pretty goddamned bad for me to think it's worse than sticking my nose into someone else's business.
Authority evolves towards being self-serving, in the same way online discussions evolves towards discussing Nazism.

Overheard on campus once: "If you are in a discussion and draws a parallel to WWII, and someone immediately invokes Godwin's Law, does that make them Godwin Nazis?".

:D S
 
I thought the Star Wars thing was just a funny meme thing, but you guys really took it and ran with it!

it beats threads about how fdev isn't telling us anything or that it might be in the middle of a buyout and doom and the lack of content etc etc.

debating the merits of a fictional government in a laughably simplistic universe can easily be more engaging than just beating dead horses. Unless you're a bronie

That was implicit in the statement. Anything above a certain, fairly modest, level is surplus that I am willing to sacrifice if I think it will make my world a better place to exist in.
obviously that isn't shared by the masses in star wars universe, because the empire is recreated over and over thru it's history. and it's not a rogue government. It's an evolution of a shared desire among thousands of member states.

I consider the imposition of authority to be a bad thing, in and of itself. Something to be done only in extremis, and only to the minimum degree and magnitude required to prevent a greater problem, and something has to be pretty goddamned bad for me to think it's worse than sticking my nose into someone else's business.

everyone is all about their freedom and keeping the government out of it until a bigger guy comes and tries taking your stuff and/or ruining your way of life. Then it's more authority to an entity even bigger than them so that everyone plays nice with eachother.

You can venture out and try being mostly alone, but anywhere where your concentration of people gets to be bigger than what you find in a small town, you start to need police, lawyers, the empire ...to make sure everyone can coexist so every day you're alive isn't a potential last day you're alive and you're not having to protect your way of life constantly with the threat of violence.

the empire isn't inherently bad because of it's authority and power and control. It was bad because it was being run by a religious zealot bent on genocide and power. But it would have had just as much power and authority and control if it had been run by it's less sith-y managers and would have avoided much of the evil as witnessed by the unwilling member states shown in the movies.

But even with that destruction and devastation, the empire could have come back from that still overall good if it hadn't been bankrupted and fragmented by the actions of a mad leader. We never get to see much of the actually populated worlds where the empire was supported. The hundreds if not thousands of planets that voted it into existence. We dont see what their situation is like without that authority, and how quickly that vacuum of power is sucked up by uncertain/unknown people or organizations with their own motives and connections to who knows what. But if there's so much criminal interest and murder invested in a sand pit like tatooine, the potential for problems and the need for a strong authority is going to be felt greater by magnitudes in densely populated city planets and the like.

even what we see of the rebel alliance trying to bring order to their territory is impotent with this insufficient numbers and inability to enforce their authority. The need for security and order among different species and among hundreds of billions of sentients ...is valued as a greater good than what you give up in freedom ...because that freedom is what gets you war lords and the mafia having fights and releasing monsters in the streets destroying your home and business and killing your friends any day of the week without recourse. The empire controlled and stopped that (where they were in power) and the people were better off.

so long as the galaxy tries living together ..the empire is inevitable ... not as an evil bad entity. But because it's the minimal degree solution for the quality of life most of the population desires and gets to experience. and as long as that number of people is greater than the number it negatively impacts...it's not evil. And certainly not as evil as one that is negatively impacting more than it benefits,...like some rogue state.

The jedi and sith orders have both played puppeteer to their own ends at the expense of millions of lives (the jedi's hands are not clean either). Their existence is more of an evil than what the empire was. Their orders benefit extremely few people and yet they orchestrated entire wars. Their negatives far outweigh their positives. The Jedi and the Sith should be treated as hostile ...borderline terrorist organizations that should be dismantled and eliminated. Way more than the empire.
 
it beats threads about how fdev isn't telling us anything or that it might be in the middle of a buyout and doom and the lack of content etc etc.

debating the merits of a fictional government in a laughably simplistic universe can easily be more engaging than just beating dead horses. Unless you're a bronie
Absolutely true!
 
it's not a rogue government. It's an evolution of a shared desire among thousands of member states.

war lords and the mafia

I'm not really seeing the distinction here, except in matters of scale.

destroying your home and business and killing your friends any day of the week without recourse.

As long as liquid accelerants are cheap, there is always recourse.

Imagine if all the Dennises of the galaxy had matches. I'm sure the Empire, or it's successor-state would try to outlaw fire, but that would probably hit galactic GDP pretty hard and sow even more resentment than usual.

The empire controlled and stopped that (where they were in power) and the people were better off.

You can poll them after I set them on fire for being complicit in my repression!
 
I'm not really seeing the distinction here, except in matters of scale.
scale is what we were discussing. evil is a scale just as good is.

As long as liquid accelerants are cheap, there is always recourse.
victim blaming then? that's your answer to that?

Imagine if all the Dennises of the galaxy had matches. I'm sure the Empire, or it's successor-state would try to outlaw fire, but that would probably hit galactic GDP pretty hard and sow even more resentment than usual.

You can poll them after I set them on fire for being complicit in my repression!

that would be assuming you are being repressed. That's hardly a guarantee as the empire isn't anti specific beliefs or things or people. Really you'd have to be so upset at any authority to just set people who are benefiting from the empire on fire, that it's unlikely you'd make a good citizen in any government anyone would want to live near/interact with. So if you were anything but a recluse in some rural area that can be ignored, it's likely you wont get to set many on fire before you're either jailed or killed for setting people on fire.
 
scale is what we were discussing. evil is a scale just as good is.

Not the scale I was talking about.

victim blaming then? that's your answer to that?

Perpetrator blaming. And my answer to perpetrators is arson.

that would be assuming you are being repressed.

That would be for me to judge.

Really you'd have to be so upset at any authority to just set people who are benefiting from the empire on fire

I didn't say anything about people who are simply benefiting from the empire only those who are empowering and perpetuating it. There is certainly much overlap, but I'm probably not just going to set people on fire for being victims of taxation, for example. I'd have bigger fish to fry.

So if you were anything but a recluse in some rural area that can be ignored, it's likely you wont get to set many on fire before you're either jailed or killed for setting people on fire.

If storm troopers and the yes-men of the middle management are anything to go by, the law enforcement arm of the Empire is even less effective than most real-world law enforcement, which are predominantly filled with lazy, ignorant, flunkies more concerned with intimidating a populace and abusing their power than accurately identifying criminals or being precise with their deterrents. They'd undoubtedly string up hundreds of alleged terrorists before stumbling upon me, and with every innocent they crushed, discontent would grow.

Hell, I'd probably be a mid-ranking Imperial officer in charge of the investigations in my jurisdiction. I'd immolate a good mix of supposed allies and opponents in the military bureaucracy, maybe fake an attack against myself (killing some of my more annoying or effective subordinates in the process), use the troops under my command to crack down on the actually loyalist 'traitors and insurgents' I had framed, then lay down the box of matches for a while, declare victory, and immediately request a transfer before any extrajudicial retaliation caught up with me. I'd eventually be caught, but between my suicide capsule and concealed grenade, I'd probably have a fairly quick death. And if by some miracle of my enemies' incompetence I survived the end of that Empire (dramatically switching sides at the last moment, of course), I could do it all over again from within whatever replaced it.
 
Not the scale I was talking about.



Perpetrator blaming. And my answer to perpetrators is arson.

Your response was that there is always recourse because you always have violence in your back pocket.

But that's not a true option if you dont want your life to revert into tribal survival of the fittest animal farm style living.

That would be for me to judge.

I didn't say anything about people who are simply benefiting from the empire only those who are empowering and perpetuating it. There is certainly much overlap, but I'm probably not just going to set people on fire for being victims of taxation, for example. I'd have bigger fish to fry.

for the most part, that's the extent of people's experience with the empire. taxes and bureaucracy. There's no definitive notion that you'd be repressed by the empire just due to it's existence, size and scope.

If storm troopers and the yes-men of the middle management are anything to go by, the law enforcement arm of the Empire is even less effective than most real-world law enforcement, which are predominantly filled with lazy, ignorant, flunkies more concerned with intimidating a populace and abusing their power than accurately identifying criminals or being precise with their deterrents. They'd undoubtedly string up hundreds of alleged terrorists before stumbling upon me, and with every innocent they crushed, discontent would grow.

normal law enforcement has to deal with people they can relate to and understand. Storm troopers have to enforce laws across species and cultural boundaries unseen by humanity. They probably do a pretty good job for the most part. And they probably almost never see any real action because people dont openly attack them or do bad things.

What we see are the frontier systems where these people are deployed to deal with situations they're not really experienced with dealing with. And so we see a lot of blunders and failures.

But we'd see the same kind of thing if you took a cop in a quiet reliable suburb and put them in a ghetto.


Hell, I'd probably be a mid-ranking Imperial officer in charge of the investigations in my jurisdiction. I'd immolate a good mix of supposed allies and opponents in the military bureaucracy, maybe fake an attack against myself (killing some of my more annoying or effective subordinates in the process), use the troops under my command to crack down on the actually loyalist 'traitors and insurgents' I had framed, then lay down the box of matches for a while, declare victory, and immediately request a transfer before any extrajudicial retaliation caught up with me. I'd eventually be caught, but between my suicide capsule and concealed grenade, I'd probably have a fairly quick death. And if by some miracle of my enemies' incompetence I survived the end of that Empire (dramatically switching sides at the last moment, of course), I could do it all over again from within whatever replaced it.

i think you'd join the empire. long before you grew to oppose them.
 
Your response was that there is always recourse because you always have violence in your back pocket.

Yes, depriving the state of that monopoly is a prerequisite to opposing the state. As Stokely Carmichael once said, "in order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience"...states don't.

But that's not a true option if you dont want your life to revert into tribal survival of the fittest animal farm style living.

My use of violence doesn't imply this any more than a state's use of violence. Quite the opposite, I'd wager.

But we'd see the same kind of thing if you took a cop in a quiet reliable suburb and put them in a ghetto.

And we do.

Police departments in every city I've ever lived near tend to import a large portion, if not the majority, of their officers from fairly well-off suburbs. And this is in one of the world's bastions of liberal democracy and freedom. A more overtly tyrannical empire isn't going to want their enforcers identifying, or sympathizing, too closely with those they 'police'.

i think you'd join the empire. long before you grew to oppose them.

I think I'd probably join them so it would be easier to set them on fire.
 
Back
Top Bottom