[karice67]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I've never been forced to look at 'grotesque' art. Allowing darker artwork to exist is not the same as creating a captive audience for it.

Well...if the person who creates it does not have a high Crime Coefficient, would it not be 'allowed to exist'? Same with the music - it was 'allowed to exist', was it not?

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I respect the "social harmony" focus of Japan. In some ways, it has an edge over the more "individualism" focus of America. But Japan has managed that "social harmony" focus while still having a truly democratic form of government and some basic human rights for its people.

From what I know of Japanese politics since WW2...it hasn't actually done that all that well. It hasn't had a truly democratic form of government (it was effectively a one-party government for a long time, and there were restrictions and punishments for anyone who expressed sympathy with communist values. A number of scholars I know actually say that only now is Japan transitioning towards a more democratic, multi-party democracy.), and many things are still determined by the bureaucracy rather than elected politicians.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

And the value of freedom of expression can be expressed in terms that any culture can understand. Freedom of expression is the most valuable of all freedoms because it is only through such freedom that meaningful, informed, social change can be effected which improves society. Freedom of expression basically means that every person is able to voice his or her concerns and grievances without fear of facing legal penalty for it. This means that society is more likely to find holes in the system, and situations that need to be fixed, as the voice of the people make clear where those holes are.

But in the world of Psycho-Pass, we see case after case after case of people falling through the cracks, with no real way of fixing the issue, because the system essentially disenfranchises them based on clearly questionable readings and enforced standards (like "authorized music").

And what happens when the Director discovers holes in the system? Does she instruct a group of scientists to see if they can tweak the system so that the next Makishima can be taken down by a Dominator, or does she simply do a cover-up and then "disappear" the problem away?

When I look at the Sibyl system in Psycho-Pass I see a system that is indeed horribly inflexible, and is not likely to ever improve due to how it disenfranchises people while putting people like the Director in charge.

I understand your point. But do we know whether the people of this world chose this by themselves? If they did, then why? And if it was merely shaped by the way their society developed, how did that happen? This goes back to the point about institutional structures that I made in the general thread just before the sub-forum was created.

It also relates a bit to Qilin's point: if stability is what they desire, than the vast majority of people at some point may well have decided that they are willing to sacrifice certain 'freedoms'. Alternatively, elected officials (as representatives of the people) may have made that decision. In this, there are similarities to certain decisions made by many governments today: we may think instinctively that some of the secrecy and non-transparency (even in the US and other Western states) is unprincipled and should be abolished, but there are reasons for it.

If such is the case, then any flaws can only be dealt with by people within the system, rather than by people like us, who stand completely outside of it and who probably would never have sacrificed those freedoms.

That's why, to me, what's interesting is how the protagonists are going to deal with this, as that will demonstrate just how flexible (or not) the Sibyl system is.

------

Originally Posted by Triple_R

To me, these are anything but "great benefits". To me, these are horrible negatives. *snip*

That's the key, really - this is what you and many others here think about Sibyl. But what do the (majority of) people of Psycho-Pass think? What does the primary target audience think, given what their society is like at the moment?

My point that it's the protagonists who have to deal with it was just half of it. Another thing I wanted to highlight in pointing out what Japan today is like, is that the question of whether Sibyl is a viable system or not may be less clear-cut than it seems to many people in the West. It may be a question that people would really debate - and I submit we have already seen glimpses of that debate in this sub-forum.

-----

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

But look at Gino, for example. When the director told him she'd reveal information normally above his pay grade, he didn't jump to stop her.

You do realise that this would also happen in government agencies in the real world, right? There are different levels of security, and people are trusted with information that they are not to reveal, for whatever reason. Should this kind of information be revealed to the public, or should the agency try to deal with it themselves first? Perhaps there are scientists within the bureaucracy that are trying to address the issue with the Dominator - but is the existence of such research (if it does indeed exist) something that the director can reveal to Gino?

-----

edit:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

It is exactly because of what you highlight in red that I think why East Asia is still the way it is today. No one in our societies wants to change anything for sake of status quo even if it may be for the better. And the people who are trod down upon by the existing system? Forever we struggle desperately to make our own mark and survive. If no one seeks change even when the change may be preferable even as an experiment, then well, there really will be no change. The Confucian ideal of laying down and dying if need be for society's sake, taken to the extreme in Psycho Pass world sounds all nice and fine....until you are one of those made to do so.

I agree with the idea that trying to stick to the status quo is detrimental. But, to play devil's advocate, with regards to the Confucian ideal being 'nice and fine' only 'until you are one of those made to do so'...is that your point of view, the point of view of the majority, or the point of view of a minority?

And to turn the example on its head, change has often required people to lay down and die for society's sake (whether they do it by choice or not, and I would say that both occur): so perhaps the lack of desire to lay down and die for society's sake is one of the reasons no change has occurred?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

Psycho Pass world is an extreme where declining population and even extinction is possible. Not seeking to wake them up to it or even to go against the idea that led to it in the first place is.....Unless they actually consciously chose it in full knowledge of the consequence in which case "leave them be"

Which is, in effect, my point. At this juncture, what do we know of how the system was born? Why don't we seek that answer before trying to tell them how they should change?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

As for understanding where they come from, yes, understanding helps in so far as maybe trying to make change less painful. But it doesn't make the root of the issue any different. As an example, have you yourself ever been disadvantaged by the systems in those East Asian nations you lived in? Depending on that answer you may or may not understand what point I come from. But does that understanding alter the basic issue underlying the problems and solutions?

I would say that I have, if being restricted and constrained by an annoyingly static bureaucracy counts. But I (and the people of at lease one place I've lived) have also been frustrated by the structures and beliefs that have shaped the so-called exceptionalism, privileges and overriding opinion of a certain Western government, just to give one broad example.

Does it alter the basic issue in each case? Probably not. But it should alter the way that one tries to address the basic issue. It's a question of 'how to seek change' rather than 'should it be changed or not'.