blah the Prussian

Wait, people thought episode 2 was going to ge good? Admittedly I was too young to see it when it came out and to get involved in the hype for it, but still. Actually one of my first memories was everyone losing their shit that Revenge of the Sith was about to come out.

Based on the expanded universe the gist of it seems to be that Bail Organa is also the King of Alderaan or something, and the Republic isn't actually a Republic, its more like the European Union in that it is a very loose federation of a bunch of different planets with different government types. Naboo was also a monarchy and it is part of the Republic. Then again, Naboo has its own problems given that the Queen is apparently elected which means that a. the head of state can only be a woman, which is sexist, and b. the people of Naboo elected a sixteen year old girl to lead them! And we thought the people voting for Trump were morons...

This film was very, very conflicted for me. On the one hand, it is virtually scene for scene A New Hope. Also, I really, really, really hate Kylo Ren as a villain. He has the same problems as Voldemort, really; extreme buildup, followed by disappointing payoff. I also found the symbolism to be far too heavy handed, especially in the scene where Kylo kills Han. Now, apart from that, this is a great film. If it came before A New Hope, it would be the better movie, especially in terms of acting. I might get some flak for this, but the acting in A New Hope sucked, except for James Earl Jones and Alec Guinness. Fortunately all the actors straightened their acting out for Empire. There's also the fact that Princess Leia's home, family, people, and culture get annihilated in what the UN would call the perfect genocide, and she is not in the least affected by this. She sobs a little, and that's it. The presentation is great, and the First Order is far less... confused than the Empire. The First Order knows what it wants to be; a Fascist dictatorship. The Empire is a monarchy without hereditary rule based around a religious order that is basically Objectivism with magic. I'm pissed, though, that Leia gave up her royal title, but that's just because I'm a monarchist. This was the second best Star Wars movie for me, but I think that the only great Star Wars movie was Empire. This movie suffered from its lack of originality. It would have been as good as Empire if not better, but Empire actually had an original storyline. The good news is, if the next film has an original plot and the same caliber of writing and acting, it will be a worthy successor to the originals.

Not in Europe. I was at a McDonalds once and the cashier looked at me like I had ordered cyanide when I ordered still water over club soda.

Ah man, forgot about Unit 731. That was fucked up too. Not to mention that Japan had institutionalized sexual slavery. Still going with the Soviets, though, due to the sheer number of dead people.

Private individuals should not be able to prosecute legal cases, just civic ones. Furthermore, my definition of hate speech is speech that incites to violence, not speech that offends. I would say when the law is extended to include speech that is milder than hate speech.

No, the Crusader States were pretty clearly supported by the Crusaders.

If you could make one change to one work of fiction of your choosing, what would the work be and what would the change be?

With the Holocaust, yes. With all atrocities total, no. The Nazis were set to commit the biggest genocide of all time by systematically starving all the Slavs to death, too. Of course, the poll is other than Germany, so that's kind of a moot point. Also, for less widespread but just as sadistic bad guys, the Arrow Cross in Hungary and the Ustaše in Croatia were both absolutely evil. The Ustaše, for example, would saw off the heads of Jews and Serbs within their concentration camps and take pictures of themselves doing it. The Nazis at least had the decency not to brag about their atrocities, while the Ustaše thought that that made them worthy of praise. Reportedly their concentration camps made even the SS sick.

Theoretically, when you give so much that there is no longer enough for you. I don't know of any real life example of this happening, though.

Firstly, the Reichstag was not set on fire by the Nazis. Secondly, I am aware of the Beer Hall Putsch. That was what convinced Hitler that he needed to obey the law. And like you said earlier, laws mean nothing if nobody enforces them, and obviously nobody is enforcing whatever law was against the Brownshirts.

That is the case for the common grunt. But what about the leaders? The wrongdoings f the grunts can be excused because it was the society they were in, but the leaders were responsible for creating that society.

Another idea I've been thinking about is banning all political parties who want to abolish democracy. This would apply to both the Nazis and the Communists. The problems in Wiemar Germany all stemmed from the issue of enforcement. Hitler, however, was actually very committed to the idea of coming to power in Germany within the framework of the law, so I don't know what you're talking about there. The Nazis came to power entirely legally, until they changed the law of course, but they did that legally, too.

It's really hard to decide between the Soviets and Japanese, but I'm going to have to go with the Soviets, especially for their role in the Nuremberg trials and how they made an absolute mockery of criminal justice. There was one incident where the Soviet judge convicted an SS brigade for massacring a specific group of Polish partisans, which the Soviets themselves were actually guilty of. That sounds like something strait out of a Phoenix Wright game, but it's true.

Then why has it not been crossed in any government that bans hate speech?

So do you think that the atrocities of the Mongols and the Crusaders should be excused? It was normal for the time after all. Yes I am bringing up old shame for me here.

The Communists were not guilty of hate speech. Once again, you absolutely need to have a very clear line that cannot be crossed, and that line should be hate speech. Hitler was very clearly violating the German constitution, and it was the duty of the Reichstag and the German people to not let him get away with it, but they were absolutely on board.

No, Hitler, Marat, and Lenin all were about doing bad things to people because they deserve it (the Jews, the nobility, and the bourgeoisie). And limiting speech is not a totalitarian thing, because plenty of functioning democracies limit, for example, hate speech, and have remained democracies, like virtually every EU country, and Canada. I am not calling for groups to be censored, I am calling for opinions to be censored. If a Feminist says all men should be castrated, then that should be censored. That doesn't mean that Feminism should be censored, because feminism isn't about that and we all know it. If a Palestinian declares that all Israelis should die, that should be censored. That is because it is hate speech. Wanting a Palestinian state is not hate speech. Wanting to kill all Israelis is. As long as you have specific guidelines for what will be censored in the constitution of whatever state we are talking about, you will not jump down the slippery slope, unless you want to tell me that the EU and Canada are totalitarian dictatorships.

The problem is that she's thirteen. The time to grow out of it has come. I would hope that my friends would be concerned for me if I started to act strange.

Giving a shit about what other people think about you is great. I used to not give a shit, and I had no friends. Then, I stopped acting like a contrarian asshole when we moved to Prague, and I got friends. The real world isn't a place where you can pretend to be a wolf. It's that simple.

I concede, I concede, I was just playing devil's advocate. And I will say that more often than not freedom of speech has actually initially at least led to totalitarianism. If people like Jean Paul Marat, Hitler, and Lenin had been censored, a lot of lives would have been saved.

Didn't he say something about deporting all the migrants from Syria once he's President? I could be remembering wrong, in which case my bad. And it is dealing with the state using force on its people; it's arguably inciting violence, but I mainly said it to be argumentative, and do not care enough to get into a debate about it.

That's not what I was saying, although Trumps declaration that he planned to force all Muslim immigrants in the US to leave could be interpreted as inciting someone to violence.

Oh, of course, I was talking mainly about hate speech, not stuff like micro aggressions or any other PC bullshit. The way I see it, public speech calling for violence against any group of people should be banned. So for example, it should be fine to say "I hate Muslims" but not fine to say "I hate Muslims and we should kill them all."

Well, of course it is. Censorship isn't always bad though. It is a fact of modern society that freedom of speech needs to have some form of limit.