My whole argument has been that your comparison is far too general, that you've picked some superficial similarities and then extrapolated from those to the implications that your ideological positioning recommends. As @lexiconical and I have both argued, when you get to the finer grained details, your comparison breaks down. So when you say "Yeah, I was totally being super general, I don't have any details," I totally agree that that's true, but that also makes your argument pretty weak. I mean, if all we have are "extremely generic," "general political situation" comparisons, in which you quite proudly refuse to discuss specifics, then what are you really able to say? You said quite clearly above, when I pushed you for a more detailed, more nuanced comparison, that they were "exact. same." You are waaaaaaaayyyyyy overstating this argument. You're making claims that you just don't really have evidence for. You've refused to acknowledge that we can know any specifics about North Korea, and you deflect or disregard any empirical challenges to your assessment of the Star Trek universe. So you have nothing here except the most general comparison--which I get is sufficient for you, but that's because your ideological positions can do the heavy lifting here, filling in all the blanks that you refuse to fill with empirical evidence. Since I do not share your ideological positions, I find your argument superficial. I'm glad that by proudly touting your disregard of details, you've confirmed that.