[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by karice67

Your example bases it on one aspect of society - criminal law.

Of course. That's the only aspect of Sibyl Japan that received extensive focus, making it open to a thorough evaluation. The rest involves all sorts of guesswork.

But that is not my point. Based on what we've been shown, I don't see Sibyl as being worse than a lot of authoritarian governments today (I will elaborate on why a bit more below).

Well sure. I don't deny that. There's plenty of harsh totalitarian governments around the world. But that doesn't make Sibyl any more or less acceptable.

And returning to the discussion from a few months ago, I still want to emphasise this point: is non-institutionalised discrimination really that much better than non-institutionalised discrimination?

Institutionalized discrimination formalizes it, and gives it the credibility of the state. So I do think its generally more problematic than non-institutionalized discrimination, but non-institutionalized discrimination can be harmful as well of course.

My focus is on the discrimination that has been associated with the readings, to the point that relatives are assumed to be 'infected'. It appears to me that your contention is that the laws/regulations have to be changed for the perception to be changed,

My contention is that if you want people to believe that latent criminals can recuperate from their poor PP readings than you need to have some good actual examples of it to point to. So you would naturally want laws/regulations that lend themselves to a higher rate of effective rehabilitation.

So far, she has succeeded in Division I: she proved to Kougami, Yayoi and Gino that they shouldn't shoot just because the Dominator tells them too.

When have either of the three of them been shown decided not to shoot a Dominator after it tells them to shoot the target? I honestly don't recall any scene where Kougami, Yayoi, or Gino refrained from shooting while in such a situation.

And she also changed the attitude of inspectors of latent criminals (i.e. the enforcers) within Division 1. The effects of this are shown in how Kougami and Yayoi respond to her.

She simply was more humane and respectful to enforcers than Gino was. We can hope that she sets a good example that gets followed from here on out, but that's far from certain, imo. At various workplaces, you'll get good bosses and you'll get bad bosses, and it's often unpredictable which will follow which.

This is why institutional and structural change is so important. That's change that is less depended upon the "luck of the draw" when it comes to the character of the new boss.

Furthermore, how much of it is about the care itself, and how much about the discrimination associated with the reading?

I admit that I don't quite follow you here. Could you please elaborate a bit.

And who's to say that people in today's so-called democracies do?

Most modern democratic governments have their dirty secrets. This is frankly common knowledge for anybody who follows politics closely. But not all dirty secrets are of the same magnitude of course. Sibyl's dirty secret would be on the level of, say, it being revealed that the US President is actually an android that was designed by a political activist group, and that group controls him remotely. So it's a bit more severe than your typical government dirty secret.

Who controls the information that they are given? As I said, I really don't perceive that Sibyl to be that much different from a lot of authoritarian governments today. Hence, giving up on societal change within Sibyl is akin to giving up on those governments.

To an extent, sure, this is true. And with this in mind, why do you think the Arab Spring is happening?

If your interpretation of Sibyl differs from mine, then of course you're not going to see things the same way.

What's your interpretation of Sibyl? I'm really curious to get your answer to this, because to me, Sibyl isn't all that ambiguous in what it is and in what it's doing. I'm not sure what exactly needs to be "interpreted".

Honestly speaking, you're not going to convince me to change my interpretation, because it's dependent not on the show, but rather on what I understand of contemporary politics.

So your view of contemporary politics is completely closed to changing?

By presenting the issue as 'either/or', you're implying that the lies will never be brought to light,

Let me explain my thought processes here. You previously wrote this: As per her admittedly idealistic argument in the final episode, people are always striving for a righteous way of living. And they cannot truly make that choice if someone makes it for them, whether by destroying the system that holds up what they believe to be righteous, by undermining it by cultivating a backlash based primarily on emotion (as revelation that human brains were actually running it would provoke),

From what you wrote there, my impression is that you're basically saying, Jack Nicholson-style, "The people can't handle the truth!"

Well, if that's your position, then you're basically saying that the people of Sibyl Japan should continue to make decisions based on the lies of Sibyl. To which I responded: Emotion based on truth has more legitimacy to it than logic based on lies.

If people find a particular truth to be outrageous and unacceptable, and it stirs a mostly emotional response, then maybe that response has legitimacy, and we shouldn't be so quick to discredit it just because it's mostly emotional.

If that wasn't what you intended, that's fine, and I apologise if I offended you.

It's Ok. I wasn't offended, just a bit puzzled.

Do you really? I mean it, seriously sit down and consider this claim about so-called 'democracies' over the past 50 years or so. The theory may be sound, but I'm talking about the practice of it, and about the people who control power in those democracies.

Some countries, provinces, and states really do have effectively one-party rule. And in some cases, this is probably due to vote-rigging. So yes, I understand your concerns.

But putting vote-rigging aside, at least an effectively one-party state is getting its mandate to govern directly from the people. The people are choosing to constantly stick with that one party, for good or for ill.

But the people no longer get to make any choice at all when it comes to Sibyl.

And I believe that the truth will be revealed to them one day. I just don't think that the majority of people are ready for it. Furthermore, the trust in people that I'm talking about isn't about how they will react to the truth, but rather that they will come to recognize the as-yet unrecognised discrimination that is arising from the Sibyl system, and thus begin to deal with it. Rather than someone from above telling them that "what we're doing is wrong", that, to me, is how social change starts.

I have to admit, I don't really share your hope or optimism here.

My view is that most civil rights movements had notable leaders that helped spearhead them. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks are famous in this regard, of course. The women's and gay rights movements likewise had notable people that helped pushed then forward.