State of the Game
- Thread starter Fuglydog53
- Start date
Well if that masterfully crafted advertisement doesn’t make you want to buy a banana I don’t know what will!
Snot bananas... ...now I've seen it....
And... erm... I'm not sure that he's been taking bananas...
the empire isn't pure evil until you get to the top. otherwise it's just the product of wanting to not live in a wild west of lawlessness and uncertainty and poverty.
That's why it repeatedly comes into existence in one form or another.
But like the alliance in firefly, at some point joining becomes non-voluntary and you start getting a bit evil. But that has to be weighed against the good it's done still.
That's why it repeatedly comes into existence in one form or another.
But like the alliance in firefly, at some point joining becomes non-voluntary and you start getting a bit evil. But that has to be weighed against the good it's done still.
The guys from Clerks really changed my mind on who was more evil. Luke goes in and destroys a "death star" full of innocent civilian contractors.
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.
You're 100% hideous.
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.
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.
The more you play with it, the worse it gets.
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.
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.
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?".
S
