[karice67]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Perhaps it would be good to examine why we differ over how harsh a dictatorship Sibyl is. *snip*

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

From my vantage point - just as it is from others - it is deplorable that children are locked up. That people are locked up based not on what they have done, but rather on a reading that seems arbitrarily decided.

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). 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 institutionalised discrimination? What are the implications of each for society and societal change?

I'm not looking for an answer here (though, as it turns out, I will present my argument), because it is a debate that people will take different positions on. But it needs to be properly considered.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

How did Akane prove this was a mistaken belief?

Because the first victim came back after her reading soared.

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, i.e. we have very different ideas about how social change works. My argument is that Akane has to change that perception before she can even try to argue for better treatment, because the belief is institutionalised. 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. 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.

Not that I'm saying that how social change occurs is either/or, but I honestly believe that some social change has to occur first, before the laws/regulations can have an effect. Isn't this what has happened with e.g. women's and GLBT rights in most Western countries?

Originally Posted by Triple_R

That's not necessarily my contention. But given the lack of any evidence to the contrary, it is my default position. We simply do not have any evidence that Sibyl can be moderated from within.

If you mean from being amongst those brains, then of course not. But I do see change in other parts of the society as possible, if people like Saiga get out of the house and get involved in it.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

One example of a person recuperating from a bad PP reading is not much to go on. It really isn't. She could be a rare outlier of a certain sort just like Makishima is.

But you don't know that. Furthermore, how much of it is about the care itself, and how much about the discrimination associated with the reading?

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Sibyl's hopes for the future doesn't change what's true right now. Sibyl's secrecy does make it currently impossible for people in Japanese society to truly choose the rules and system of order that they want to follow. They're not making informed choices.

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

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

Originally Posted by Triple_R

There is no such implication in the statement of "Emotion based on truth has more legitimacy to it than logic based on lies." *snip*

By presenting the issue as 'either/or', you're implying that the lies will never be brought to light, whether by people within the system, or by Sibyl itself. And, as I observed above, I don't believe that is inevitable.

If that wasn't what you intended, that's fine, and I apologise if I offended you. But I do want to make clear that that's the impression I got from the way the statement is phrased.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

No matter how liberal or illiberal a democracy is, you can still vote to change the government once every few years.

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.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Sure she was in such position. Sibyl wants to win her over, and Sibyl made that abundantly clear. That gives Akane at least one card she can play. *snip*

My position on this is pretty much the same as Goldenland.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Even if you put massive trust in people, those people still need to know the truth in order to make informed decisions.

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.