Maybe Palpatine was correct. The Sith is not evil...

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Kaz will be here soon if he isn't already.

The cunt's already made six revoltingly apologetic posts.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Kaz will be here soon if he isn't already.

The cunt's already made six revoltingly apologetic posts.

If you had been reading my posts carefully, rather than just taking any minor disagreement on the validity of certain arguments as a sign of apologism, you will easily see I'm not on Rommie's side on this one (or the last thread he made on a similar topic for that matter).

[Spanky The Dolphin]

You're still making the arguments of a Sith/Imperialist apologist.

[dworkin]

Can't you tell I'm not seriously trying to say the Emperor is a good guy?

'Not as evil' seems to be your claim. I also detect no humour

Did you watch the PT? Palpatine manufactures conflicts to justify his power. If the Rebel Alliance didn't exist Palpy would of invented one.
Just like he engineered the invasion of Naboo, the Separatist uprising and the Clone wars.

For all it's inefficiencies and inertia the Republic did not do this. Nor did the Jedi.

[Master of Ossus]

Ignoring, temporarily, the fact that I don't believe in evil governments, the GE is clearly evil. For one thing, Padme's right in that it has no form of representation whatsoever. I don't like democracies very much, but allowing some form of input from the governed seems like a prerequisite for a decent system.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Errrr....to Kaz's credit there is an Imperial Senate.

[Lord Zentei]

Which was dissolved as soon as it wasn't needed anymore.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Which was dissolved as soon as it wasn't needed anymore.

More accurately, as soon as it was convieniant to do so, with the completion of the Death Star.

[Publius]

The Galactic Empire is certainly an interesting organization -- this author has written over 56,000 words on the subject on his site -- but interest should not be confused with virtue. The Empire brutally repressed and subjugated countless billions of sapient beings, ruling despotically without concern for the rights of its citizens, offering only slavery and death to those who disagreed with its autocratic principles. Its government was founded on dishonesty, duplicity, and deception, and even its own leaders were not safe from treachery and assassination from within. The Galactic Emperor himself regarded the Empire as a "nest of vipers."

PUBLIUS

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

'Not as evil' seems to be your claim. I also detect no humour

I was definitely going for humor with you. As a 700+ post SDNer, you should, after all, know about appeals to authority.

That being said, if there is a valid chance (at least IMO), of making an argument that makes Sith/Empire less evil, or to put their evil in perspective or anything of that sort, I will try it. If I think one of your "evil" arguments don't wash, I'd say so. Let's just say that this makes for a more 3D world. This I enjoy.

Besides, it is one of the few positions I make that are not inside a Majority Flow (making it very easy to go along).

Did you watch the PT? Palpatine manufactures conflicts to justify his power.

I also noticed that they gave it to him pretty easily at that point.

If the Rebel Alliance didn't exist Palpy would of invented one.

If he created his own Rebel Alliance (and it became the dominant Rebellion like the real Rebel Alliance), while still an evil act, would probably actually allow him to do less brutality than he did. After all, he knows exactly where their big shit is gonna happen. That's going to allow him to control the entire thing, giving him beautiful, precision victories over his own Rebel Alliance. Conveniently, this will allow him to crush dissidents by sending them to Imperial traps.

On the other hand, it is not clear he will want one at all. The Rebel Alliance wasn't formed for most of two decades of Imperial rule, yet resistance cells have been going on far longer. Yet he had not acted. He's already the Imperial regent. If he wants to rule the galaxy as a Sith - got that, why ruin it. If he wants his DE-style Force-vampirism, he needs docile citizens, and working up a Rebellion ain't so good for that.

[Tychu]

[quote="Rommie2006]
No. I was referring to the time before Palpatine became Chancellor.
The Old Republic couldnt care less when Naboo was invaded. They also turned a blind eye to all those atrocities that were committed in the Outer Rim, e.g. slavery in Tatooine (I'm sure there were more).


Anyway, I think you guys are probably right. But what if there was no Rebel Alliance, would the GE/Sith kill/destroy indiscrimantely?
Remember Palps said that "finally the Sith will rule the galaxy once more". Their acts of destruction/evil all along were only committed against the Jedi, or committed to sort of "get back" at the Jedi. Is pursuing an age-old Vendetta with your enemy that wrong?[/quote]

who says the Republic didnt care less that Naboo was invaded? The Chancellor sent the Jedi in to stop the problem diplomatically, the Republic really had no fleet to send, and They did restrict the Trade Federation from having alot of wepons, It wasnt until a Palpatine backed Pirate organization "attacked" The Trade Federation which caused them to plea for more weapons

[Nephtys]

I don't see Sith Philosophy to be all that 'evil'. It's just their traditions and ways about doing things. They believe that competition breeds power, and that one needs to focus on the self to get their strength. The Jedi believe that tradition and focus on the outside gives them strength. It's the entire 'Chaos, Order' deal. Only, the Sith do it like evil bastards.

The Sith went about slaughtering and conquering, killing and such. They also advance by killing their superiors. Which is definately an evil way to do things. Palpatine's rise and the GE are most certainly evil. Competition does not have to be that way. But the Sith we always see do things that way.

But the basic reasons why are not. The Jedi could have been equally evil, forcing people to live to their beliefs, and enforcing things if they didn't. But they don't. Thus, by default, they are 'good'. At least in comparison to the other option.

I see it like B5's two notable ancient races. Shadows are Sith. Vorlons are Jedi. Only in that case, BOTH sides were evil bastards, despite having ideals of competition promoting strength, or order. Neither ideal is inherently good or evil, just the way it's applied is what matters.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

who says the Republic didnt care less that Naboo was invaded? The Chancellor sent the Jedi in to stop the problem diplomatically,

Sending two diplomats is hardly "concern". I call it a "symbolic gesture", especially since according to you, they had no way to back up said gesture.

the Republic really had no fleet to send,

If that's so, it sucks so much it cannot enforce its decrees. It is a lousy government that enforces decrees everywhere, but a government that cannot enforce its decrees when it is necessary is worthless.

This is the galactic equivalent of the police sending in a negotiator to talk with hostage-grabbing criminals, but have no SWAT or even any assault team to back him up.

They did restrict the Trade Federation from having alot of wepons, It wasnt until a Palpatine backed Pirate organization "attacked" The Trade Federation which caused them to plea for more weapons

In a working government, there would be corresponding increases in the size of the regular Fleet. Except the Republic can't get enough cohesion in it to do so.

[Tychu]

but you people are basing all of that on that "IF Palpatine was in power they could have stoped everything"

you fail to relize, before Palpatine started using his Sith influence on everything, the Chancellor had no real power, it was up to the senate to do everything

Valorum came from a long line of Chancellors, he did everything that his family did in that position, it must have been good cause they kept electing his family to the Chancellorary.

the Chancellors best way to deal with the problem with the Trade Federation was send Jedi negotiators. He didnt want a full scale war because he knew that if it came to that the Senate would be afraid "The Republic hasnt been in a full scale war since the formation of hte Republic", its not that he didnt have a viable number of capital ships at his disposal to take care of the Trade Fed problem its just he was afraid to do so.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

the Chancellors best way to deal with the problem with the Trade Federation was send Jedi negotiators. He didnt want a full scale war because he knew that if it came to that the Senate would be afraid "The Republic hasnt been in a full scale war since the formation of hte Republic", its not that he didnt have a viable number of capital ships at his disposal to take care of the Trade Fed problem its just he was afraid to do so.

I agree that the best first move was probably to try negotiation. The problem is the next move. Trying to say it is either "negotiations" or "full-scale" war is a false dilemma. All he had to do was challenge the blockade with his own fleet and if necessary shatter it.

Even a full blown Imperial-style Suppression complete with Occupation is not a "full-scale war". It is a limited action to maintain the order of the Republic.

One may also take into account that the negotiators were nearly murdered.

[Kurgan]

Just think about it, what makes the Galactic Empire and the Sith SO evil compared to the Old Republic and the Jedi? The Old Republic was equally corrupted - it turned a blind eye to the sufferings of the people in the Outer Rim, and couldnt care less if the sovereignty of their members world were attacked.

The argument could be made that the Empire did the same, so in that sense it wasn't as if they were more evil, just equally evil. But one could also say that many of the problems the Republic was experiencing were a direct result of the Sith's meddling, so in a sense they created those problems on purpose for their own power, which would be considered evil. After all, the only thing that their meddling accomplished was more death and destruction and giving power into the hands of even fewer corrupt individuals.

Maybe if we just viewed the Original classic trilogy in total isolation and didn't have the canon heirarchy...? I dunno.

The Sith are the mortal enemies of the Jedi, so it is natural for them to fight the Jedi at every turn.

And the Sith were originally traitors to the Jedi, and backstabbers of each other as well. Then again, one could try to argue that the Jedi should have just let them go, and maybe they were too strict if people were deciding to leave their order... but that's all speculation.

If we take the EU revised history of the Sith into account though I'm not sure. I mean, did the Sith start out completely independant of the Jedi, or were they always renegade Jedi seeking after power starting these various Sith cults? I mean the actual Dark Force users, not the "aliens" that bore the name.

Plus, the only reason why we see the Sith/Galactic Empire as evil is because Lucas portrayed them in such a light.

And since it's the first, truest, and most accurate record of them we have, then what are we supposed to think?

I mean yeah, I suppose it could be a conspiracy (SOD), but what's the real story?

Think about it. Had there been no Rebel Alliance would the Galactic Empire be truly evil then?

If nobody rebelled you'd think either their Totalitarian Rule was completely successful or the people were just cowards and sheep, with no heroes among them desiring something better. Could one then argue that "well those lazy saps deserve to be under a dictatorship then since they don't lift a finger to help themselves"? Hmmm.

They wouldnt have blown up planets with the Death Star as there was no disession amongst the subjects, so no need for "demonstration". They wouldnt need to occupy worlds and leave garrisons everywhere if the local systems did not rebel against them.

If we take ROTS into account I don't think this point carries as far. What threat is the weapon if they never use it? One could say there is an analogy with real world nuclear weapons, but remember they HAVE been used in wartime demonstrations, and every nuclear test is a defacto "demonstration."

The Empire could use it to blow up uninhabitated planets, moons or asteroids every so often to show what could happen to potential traitors, without slaughtering entire populations each time. Anyway, many many points have been made in the debate of "Is the Empire Evil?" so I'll leave you with those, sorry for any repetition, but there's my 2 cents.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

The argument could be made that the Empire did the same, so in that sense it wasn't as if they were more evil, just equally evil.

I don't know. Imperial presence was visible even in far off places like Tatooine.

But one could also say that many of the problems the Republic was experiencing were a direct result of the Sith's meddling, so in a sense they created those problems on purpose for their own power, which would be considered evil.

IMHO, the problems were exacerberated by the Sith, but without a weak Republic, they would never have gotten that far.

After all, the only thing that their meddling accomplished was more death and destruction and giving power into the hands of even fewer corrupt individuals.

On the other hand, giving the power to the hands to fewer people may have allowed a superior ability to mobilize resources.

And the Sith were originally traitors to the Jedi, and backstabbers of each other as well. Then again, one could try to argue that the Jedi should have just let them go, and maybe they were too strict if people were deciding to leave their order... but that's all speculation.

Considering that they now decided most Jedi are conscripts from birth, this argument of traitor does weaken a bit.

Besides, if you kill people just because they don't agree with you ... gee, shades of the Galactic Empire, anyone?

And since it's the first, truest, and most accurate record of them we have, then what are we supposed to think?

Take it, but rigorously cross-examine the Rebel account at every turn. Think like a defense lawyer for the Empire. Don't get duped by their bad spin jobs like that Nuoba Neva...

If nobody rebelled you'd think either their Totalitarian Rule was completely successful

Let's just shoot for "tolerable."

or the people were just cowards and sheep, with no heroes among them desiring something better.

Or maybe they were realists, and realized that even if they tried and overthrew the Empire somehow, they got nothing good to replace it with - a much better attitude if you ask me than that bunch of "heroes" who let's skip the rest.

If we take ROTS into account I don't think this point carries as far.

Why? (No, this is no sarcasm. I really don't understand this and request clarification).

What threat is the weapon if they never use it?

IF they never have to use it, the weapon served its purpose just fine.

Sometimes, I don't understand Star Wars. I can understand they are at least trying to say "Tolitarianism is Bad" (though IMO the events they provide are sometimes not as solid as the authors wish they were). What I can't see is whether they are trying to say "Democracy is Good" or "Democracy is even Worse." If they are trying to say "Democracy is Good", why is it that in the entire period of available High-Res (basically from TPM to the end of NJO), democracies tend to look rather fractitious, inefficient ... etc? The authors of course try to blame other things - Sith, Imperial Remnant, Zsinj, Yevethan, Vong ... but if democracy is strong, the events they depicted simply shouldn't have bounced off.

[Noble Ire]

I think the general point is that government at its core is inherently unstable, no matter what type it is, and one must always be watchful of those people and events who try to upset its tenuous hold on order.

By the way, there is no explanation in hell how Alderaan was justifiable. Dont give me the "stopping terrorists" crap (is it justifiable to Nuke a country that is aledged to have terrorist connections without any diplomatic attempts beforehand or even an ultimatum to turn over terrorist elements) or the "Hiroshima" type bull (Hiroshima was barely justifiable to stop a war that could kill millions more, many of them civilians. This is not the case for the Empire, who were simply doing it to inspire fear and take out an old grudge.)

[AdmiralKanos]

Sometimes, I don't understand Star Wars. I can understand they are at least trying to say "Tolitarianism is Bad" (though IMO the events they provide are sometimes not as solid as the authors wish they were). What I can't see is whether they are trying to say "Democracy is Good" or "Democracy is even Worse." If they are trying to say "Democracy is Good", why is it that in the entire period of available High-Res (basically from TPM to the end of NJO), democracies tend to look rather fractitious, inefficient ... etc? The authors of course try to blame other things - Sith, Imperial Remnant, Zsinj, Yevethan, Vong ... but if democracy is strong, the events they depicted simply shouldn't have bounced off.

Star Wars' chief message seems to be (like it or not) that certain cherished institutions are noble, but weak. Democracy is good, but weak. Prone to corruption, regionalism, factionalism, etc. The Light Side of the Force is good, but despite all of Yoda's spin-doctoring, it is also weak. Passive, unwilling to proactively fight injustice, emotionally barren, etc.

Conversely, in Star Wars, evil is strong. The Dark Side of the Force gives power. UNLIMITED POWER!!!!! And an Empire is strong; able to rule a civilization that tends to tear itself apart without a strong hand, and able to defend against external threats which can push a democracy to the brink of collapse.

If one is to derive a moralistic message out of that, it can only be that good will never triumph over evil by sheer force of arms, but by some other means.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

"Evil will always triumph because Good is dumb."

[18-Till-I-Die]

I always felt the message was simply dont give up hope. The title of Ep 4 'A New Hope' kidn of references this.

The idea is...yes the republic is weak and demoncracy can sometimes be manipulated, but not to completely give up hope in democracy and, to that end, the republic. Because the Empire is not just weak, but strong...a terrible strength bought solely with abuse and terror.

And yes the Rebellion is weak and small and under the gun, but you have to hold out hope. Even if it seems impossible to win, you cant just give up, you have to at least try and oppose tyranny because if you dont fight for yourself, have hope for your own future, then who will?

Just my two cents, i'm sure others have their own opinion of the general moralistic message of SW, but to me it's all about one thing: hope triumphs, tyranny collapses. It might take a while, and tyranny may appear stronger and is more frightening to stand up against, but in the end hope and courage proves inherently stronger.

[Morilore]

How about "When you try to fix a broken system, do make sure that your fixes actually improve the situation"?

[dworkin]

That being said, if there is a valid chance (at least IMO), of making an argument that makes Sith/Empire less evil, or to put their evil in perspective or anything of that sort, I will try it. If I think one of your "evil" arguments don't wash, I'd say so. Let's just say that this makes for a more 3D world. This I enjoy.

OK show how the Empire is not as evil as depicted. It is a totalitarian state formed over the bodies of billions. It built and used massive armed forces. Enslaved populations of former member races. It's formation sparked a galactic civil war and was designed to collapse into total chaos should the Emperor die.

I do not have to show the empire is evil btw. You're the one making the claim. You prove it.

I also noticed that they gave it to him pretty easily at that point.

The Republic is over-large, inefficient, with a crippling bureacracy and few, if any checks/balances. It is incompetant but certainly not evil.

If he created his own Rebel Alliance (and it became the dominant Rebellion like the real Rebel Alliance), while still an evil act, would probably actually allow him to do less brutality than he did.

Expalin how Palpy's manufactured rebellion would cause less brutality than the real McCoy. Remember his samples from the PT. Concentration camps on Naboo, massive armies causing destruction in the Clone Wars.

On the other hand, it is not clear he will want one at all. The Rebel Alliance wasn't formed for most of two decades of Imperial rule, yet resistance cells have been going on far longer. Yet he had not acted. He's already the Imperial regent. If he wants to rule the galaxy as a Sith - got that, why ruin it. If he wants his DE-style Force-vampirism, he needs docile citizens, and working up a Rebellion ain't so good for that.

Creating conflicts to maintain power is the MO of real world totalitarian states and Palpy. We know from the PT that this is Palpy's favourite and he's good at it. Remember the entire Battle of Endor is set up to seduce one person to the Dark side. In the course of this plan, how many died/were considered expendable?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

OK show how the Empire is not as evil as depicted. It is a totalitarian state formed over the bodies of billions.

The Clone Wars? Agreed.

But one can argue that it is step up over another "government" that was built at similar cost, and can hardly even be called one for its lack of cohesion...

When you change governments in a non-democratic fashion, there's a blood price to be paid. The problem is what you do with it afterwards.

It built and used massive armed forces.

Not a crime in itself. The Old Republic and the New Republic are horribly undermilitarized. We see the Old Republic can't deal with an insurrection by one of its corporations. I don't even want to discuss the New Republic anymore.
Even the Empire, when you see the insane economic might of some of its companies (which could be taxed) and its population (in the quadrillions range) is quite undermilitarized.

Enslaved populations of former member races.

Agreed.

It's formation sparked a galactic civil war and was designed to collapse into total chaos should the Emperor die.

But if the Emperor doesn't die, as he eventually arranged it to be, it will work.

I do not have to show the empire is evil btw. You're the one making the claim. You prove it.

You see the problem? People are so certain the Empire is evil they think they don't have to prove it is anymore. Generally, when you say someone or something is evil, the onus is on you.

The Republic is over-large, inefficient, with a crippling bureacracy and few, if any checks/balances. It is incompetant but certainly not evil.

If it is incompetent, it might turn out to be no different from "evil" as far as people are concerned. People suffer. A totalitarian government with a Will can mobilize the people better than a democratic government Without. Education and the Justice system were two things that apparently improved under the Empire (ISB).

Expalin how Palpy's manufactured rebellion would cause less brutality than the real McCoy. Remember his samples from the PT. Concentration camps on Naboo, massive armies causing destruction in the Clone Wars.

You see, unlike back then, he's now incumbent regent. He doesn't want disturbances and disorder. He wants Order. Order encourages docility, which is also what he wants for his eventual DE plans of Apotheosis (sp?). A semblance of Order helps keep him on his seat and popular (he's aware stomping on too many planets makes him unpopular, so actually 79 out of 80 planets are left alone). This is not altruism, just self interest - but that's enough.

Creating conflicts to maintain power is the MO of real world totalitarian states and Palpy. We know from the PT that this is Palpy's favourite and he's good at it. Remember the entire Battle of Endor is set up to seduce one person to the Dark side. In the course of this plan, how many died/were considered expendable?

Let's not forget the small part about destroying the Rebellion in one good stroke in that Battle. As a governmental leader, if you can kill your Rebellion and get a powerful assistant, what's so wrong about the plan?

Generally, people create external enemies for the trick you mentioned, and only when their population is quite unhappy. Since it appears that the Core doesn't really mind him, he wouldn't want to topple off the balance.

As an aside, it is getting funny how this has turned from a Sith/Emperor discussion to an Empire discussion. While the head of the Empire is a Sith, the two are not exactly the same. For example, most of the Empire are both unaware and would probably recoil if they ever figured Palpy the Sith's plan at Force vampirism. So this is something of the Emperor but not the Empire. In fact, one can argue the Empire itself is a victim of Palpy the Sith on this one.
As a counterexample, the Emperor seems to have no major problem at race (he has quite a few non-humans like Thrawn and Maul and a few others in his top staff). But some of his Imperial underlings seem to love High Human Culture, so that's something one can argue the Emperor doesn't have but the Empire does.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Just my two cents, i'm sure others have their own opinion of the general moralistic message of SW, but to me it's all about one thing: hope triumphs, tyranny collapses. It might take a while, and tyranny may appear stronger and is more frightening to stand up against, but in the end hope and courage proves inherently stronger.

I'd agree with you if this we took only the films. But this theory, IMO does not adequately explain the EU addition of that POS successor government (if it was any less cohesive, it should be called the United Nations) called the New Republic. Where's the Hope?

How about "When you try to fix a broken system, do make sure that your fixes actually improve the situation"?

Strange. That's what I often say about the New Republic.