AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Current Series > Psycho-Pass

Notices

View Poll Results: Psycho-Pass - Episode 22 [END] Rating
Perfect 10 29 26.85%
9 out of 10 : Excellent 31 28.70%
8 out of 10 : Very Good 23 21.30%
7 out of 10 : Good 11 10.19%
6 out of 10 : Average 7 6.48%
5 out of 10 : Below Average 3 2.78%
4 out of 10 : Poor 2 1.85%
3 out of 10 : Bad 1 0.93%
2 out of 10 : Very Bad 0 0%
1 out of 10 : Painful 1 0.93%
Voters: 108. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-03-26, 20:05   Link #221
Triple_R
Center Attraction
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Age: 33
Send a message via AIM to Triple_R
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyth View Post
You honestly forgot how ruthlessly she negotiated for Kougami not to get disposed of if she brought Makishima in alive?
Of course I didn't. But that just helped Kougami personally... In fact, it arguably didn't even do that, as Akane never once fired directly at Kougami with any sort of shot.

Ultimately, here's my biggest issue with this ending summed up in a nutshell - Akane should have received some "victory" here. Something concrete. Something that lends some semblance of credibility to her words and her position. Something that validates all of the wonderful character development she had going into this episode.

But what do we get instead?


She completely fails her mission. Kougami kills Makishima, and gets away. Total failure, from both her perspective and Sibyl's. So much for what she negotiated from Sibyl, as it never became a factor anyway.

Later Akane gets into a brief war of words with Sibyl. Frankly, Sibyl's argument sounded stronger to me. Sibyl's position is that through studying Akane, and slowly breaking down her anti-Sybil feelings, Sybil will better learn how to win over the general populace of Sybil Japan itself. That makes sense to me. It's not a bad idea or a bad plan on Sybil's part.

Akane's counter-argument is total Dreamer stuff, which is fine if you're giving a Rah-Rah speech to an army before a big battle or to some protest movement before a big march, but isn't terribly good as a lone individual trying to "speak truth to power", as they say. For Akane's argument to feel like a worthy antithesis to Sybil's, I think that we needed to see something concrete that added credibility to it. Something that affects more than just one guy that happens to be close to Akane.


Just this little added bit would have done a world of good for the ending...

"If you really want to win me over, then there's a suggestion I'd like to make." Akane says, while raising an eyebrow.

"Oh, and what is that?" asks Sybil.

"Our society would improve if the treatment of latent criminals improved. It would increase the likelihood of them successfully rehabilitating back into normal society, which would in turn bring a greater sense of hope and productivity to Japan. Clearly, locking everybody up in solitary confinement hasn't been terribly productive here. May I suggest we allow latent criminals more mobility and freedom within the facilities that house them? If we want them to psychologically recover then letting them socialize with others like them might not be a bad idea."

"Very well." responds Sybil, "We'll take it under consideration."

And then, in the Final credits, we see a scene of latent criminals walking freely in the halls of that facility that Yayoi was housed in, making it clear that Sybil ultimately agreed to Akane's request.


Just this little added bit would have totally changed my take on this ending. In fact, I might have even considered it a perfect ending then.
__________________
Triple_R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-26, 21:37   Link #222
cyth
ふひひ
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
So much for what she negotiated from Sibyl, as it never became a factor anyway.
Again with the sidestepping ... I mean, I get that you were disappointed with the ending, but that she failed her mission (the success of it hinged mostly on tactical execution) doesn't speak anything to her accomplishment, which was, again, finding a solution both she and Sibyl were satisfied with. She was a bit naive to think Kougami could restrain himself, but that's part of her personality as she sees the best in people, and in systems, it seems.

That scene is what you wanted. I delivered. You're still not satisfied. Fine. But that's just you whining now.
__________________
cyth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-26, 23:34   Link #223
Triple_R
Center Attraction
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Age: 33
Send a message via AIM to Triple_R
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyth View Post
Again with the sidestepping ... I mean, I get that you were disappointed with the ending, but that she failed her mission (the success of it hinged mostly on tactical execution) doesn't speak anything to her accomplishment, which was, again, finding a solution both she and Sibyl were satisfied with.
Akane showed she could blackmail Sibyl when there's something highly specific that Sibyl wants (i.e. Makishima's brain, alive and well). That has nothing to do with showing that Sybil can be moderated from within.

Effectively blackmailing a government doesn't mean that government has become more moderate. A government becoming more moderate means that the government is becoming less extreme as a non-coerced act of its own will. In other words, out of its own desire to be less extreme. But Akane has had zero impact on the desires of Sibyl. On what it considers good governance and the Rule of Law.

There is no real evidence that Akane is moderating Sibyl from within. But there is evidence that Sibyl has smart plans to effectively use Akane to its own ends. Who has the upper-hand here, Cyth?


Quote:
That scene is what you wanted. I delivered.
No, that scene wasn't what I wanted. And so no, you didn't deliver. But that's not your fault, of course. The ending gave you nothing to deliver.
__________________
Triple_R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 02:18   Link #224
Dengar
Kamen Rider Muppeteer
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Unknown
Age: 30
^That's your own fault for expecting a happy ending, lol.

It's not simple blackmail though.

If she didn't deliver Makishima, then Sibyl wouldn't be able to evolve. That's less "blackmail" and more "political pressure".
Dengar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 02:25   Link #225
Haruyasha
名前は?
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Washington
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengar View Post
^That's your own fault for expecting a happy ending, lol.

It's not simple blackmail though.

If she didn't deliver Makishima, then Sibyl wouldn't be able to evolve. That's less "blackmail" and more "political pressure".
Technically the ending wasn't sad either... It was just mush.. Nothing epic, nothing spectacular.. seemingly something we saw coming from miles away.
Haruyasha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 02:26   Link #226
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
I'll point out that Sibyl negotiated because they actively wanted Makishima, but didn't give a rat's ass about Kougami. Sure, their own laws dictated he be killed, but they have no problem breaking those for the sake of their own desires.

OTOH, they'll never negotiate away any of their power. That would be admitting they don't always know best, or that free will is important, or that society exists as something other than their personal toy and support system.

It's the difference between a hobo begging for a few coins (which he may get) and that same hobo begging for a few kidneys (it's going to take more than begging).
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 03:10   Link #227
Obelisk ze Tormentor
Black Steel Knight
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Indonesia
Just saw the last episode (yeah I know I’m terribly late. Been busy). Man, I’m torn. On one side, I thought the ending makes sense and even realistic since you can’t just take down a system that gives the society peace and benefit for a long time without proper replacement or the result will be total chaos and more casualties (like many has said). Still, on the other hand, I also thought the ending lack something that kinda ensure us that Sybil will change for the better or that people will change into society that don’t need Sybil anymore. The ending only gave us a glimmer of hope through Akane’s speech and her resolve, nothing more that can notably change the (generally) endless cycle. This kinda reminds me of the old movie The Day the Earth Stood Still in the 50s. IIRC In that movie, the humans basically said this to the aliens: “Don’t vaporize us all! Humanity can change for the better!! I promise you!!!” and the aliens had mercy on them. I think it’s similar to what Akane did in this ending. The only difference is that the people from TDEST use it to beg mercy to the aliens, but Akane use it as some kind of a threat and promise to Sybil. Still, those kinds of speech are just that: a dream of an idealized world, not more. But like I said, I think what Akane has done is reasonable and good enough for what she can do in her capacity. All in all, maybe I’m just a sucker for a more hopeful ending .

Btw, after the credit ends, I saw there’s a word “continues” on it. What’s next? Psycho-Pass: The Dark Kogami Rises?
__________________
Obelisk ze Tormentor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 07:03   Link #228
Triple_R
Center Attraction
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Age: 33
Send a message via AIM to Triple_R
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
I'll point out that Sibyl negotiated because they actively wanted Makishima, but didn't give a rat's ass about Kougami. Sure, their own laws dictated he be killed, but they have no problem breaking those for the sake of their own desires.

OTOH, they'll never negotiate away any of their power. That would be admitting they don't always know best, or that free will is important, or that society exists as something other than their personal toy and support system.

It's the difference between a hobo begging for a few coins (which he may get) and that same hobo begging for a few kidneys (it's going to take more than begging).
This is more or less the point I made to cyth. There's a world of difference between Sibyl compromising over one lone guy ("Fine, do with Kougami what you wish, as long as you bring us back Makishima!"), and Sibyl actually agreeing/consenting to any change that will have significant effects on Sibyl Japan as a whole.

What I would have liked to have seen, in order to lend greater credibility/strength to Akane's position, is that Akane was able to get Sybil to agree/consent to at least one such change (which would make it seem like she could win more such changes from Sibyl over time).

This is a "bad end" that tries to dress itself up as a sentimental "Isn't it great and nostalgic how we've gone full circle?" end. If you're going to be a "bad end" at least be like 1984, and be honest about it. Or, if you're going for a bittersweet, open-ended ending, then actually make it open-ended - Show that Akane is able to influence Sibyl, setting up the idea of a good ying/yang conflict between them as "Sibyl continues" pass the end of this show.
__________________
Triple_R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 07:06   Link #229
karice67
さっく♥ゆうきゃん♥ほそやん
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: breezing through Tokyo...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
If your position is that Akane is playing along with Sibyl for now because she feels powerless to take it down, and that she's actively hoping that somebody will soon arise that can take it down more smoothly/effectively than she can, well... That's perhaps the best interpretation of Akane that this ending leaves open, imo.
I don't think that's the way Akane looks at it - it's just one factor in her decision. To explain, I'll backtrack a bit.

-----

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
So in real life, the normal response to a harsh dictatorship is changing the system from within? From what I've seen in the world since the 1950s or so is that the normal response to a harsh dictatorship is the eventual toppling of the dictatorship.
I disagree with your premise that Sibyl is as harsh a dictatorship as you (and a few others) are presenting, so I'm not sure if we can debate this detail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
Law and order can exist without the Sibyl system. I mean, that's obvious. We have law and order in many real world countries today without any Sibyl system.
Of course. But I was talking about the immediate effects of taking away the Sibyl system in the show, not about an idealistic outcome that might be achieved many many years in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
Someone would have to fill a power vacuum for at least a time if Sibyl was to fall. Here is where I do have faith in Akane. I think she has a generally good conception of law, order, and justice, and what these all entail, and how best to implement them in society. Frankly, I think she has a much better grasp of all of that than Sibyl itself does.
And I contend that Akane knows how much work has to be done before that can happen. It is what the first half of the series was all about, after all, and is also why what Kougami and Yayoi about and to Akane in the last quarter of the series is significant.

The work that I'm referring to is the notion of changing the value that people place in Sibyl's judgement about what is right and wrong, such that they can stop relying on it and return to making judgements by themselves. The first half of the show clearly demonstrated that most people in society place a lot of trust in Sibyl's judgements, to the extent that it is expected that once a PP reading passes a certain point, it can never return. Is it by propaganda that this belief - which Akane was able to prove is a mistaken one - has come to pervade the society? Or is it just by rumour? Or was it because people started to believe in it? We don't know, but I would argue that it is being perpetuated now because people believe in it.

Here is one of the major points where our opinions differ. Your contention is that the only way to overcome this problem is to destroy Sibyl. My contention is that it may also be possible to do that from within the system, provided that this belief is changed first. Akane has started doing this within the CID itself - Kougami and Yayoi, and arguably even Gino and his father are proof of that. Her work with the victim from her first case is another example of it, and if more people are exposed to this reality, then the belief will slowly lose the power it holds, and there may be more resources put into rehabilitating people instead of giving up on them. In fact, I would argue that the belief must be changed first, for if Akane tries to remove Sibyl without doing so, then the fear that it causes of latent criminals and latent criminality will prevent her from implementing her idea of law, order and justice during the resulting power vacuum, even if she could muster enough of the old academics, journalists, critics who are apparently shutting themselves off from society to support this effort. I also don't think that those riots in episodes 15 and 16 shook the general populations' belief in the system as much as you seem to.

As I have mentioned before, the only other option is Makishima's way, and we have already discussed our differences about Akane's position regarding that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
Sibyl's own secrecy makes that effectively impossible, though.
I disagree, even if only because of what Sibyl says it hopes for: to be able to reveal the true nature of the system to the people and still have them choose its governance.

The difference in opinion I see rising from this point is something I will elaborate on at the end of this post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
Emotion based on truth has more legitimacy to it than logic based on lies.
The lack of societal change, of the potential of people to evolve, that is implied by this statement is something I disagree with. Again, this will be elaborated on at the end of this post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
When I look up "democratic peace" on Google, all I see coming up from it is the theory that democracies generally do not favor war, at least amongst themselves. If your point is "If America is so democratic, why does it favor war so often?", then I think you raise a defensible point of critique against America. Nonetheless, it doesn't mean that America is actually non-democratic.

I'll admit that a Google search isn't exactly heavy research, but there are limits to what research I'll do for a tangental point on a debate over anime. So, tl;dr, I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate further on what you wrote here.
My bad, I should have expected that what's available from a quick search wouldn't touch on the details that I was referring to. The point I wanted to raise is actually integral to my position in the debate over whether an oppressive government can become more liberal or not. This is not so easy to summarise, so please bear with me.

The democratic peace has two strands of argument. The first, that democracies don't go to war, is something no one believes in, but the second, that democracies don't go to war against each other is widely regarded as an empirical fact. I'll avoid the debate over the policy implications of this so-called fact; the key thing about this debate is that whilst there is a consensus that democracies haven't gone to war against each other since perhaps WW2, democratic peace proponents have largely be making their case by defining away borderline cases and near-conflicts such as the Spanish-American war of 1898. At this point, both the US and Spain - a constitutional monarchy with a bicameral legislature - were nominally democracies. But neither of them were truly liberal, with a rule of law that was actually far to everyone. Even after WW2, McCarthyism in the 1950s and the corresponding purges in Japan around the same time indicate quite high levels of oppressiveness against certain points of view, and this continued throughout the CW. It got to a point where leftist journalists like Wilfred Burchett were asking questions like "Can a democracy tolerate opinions it considers subversive to its national interest?" As for Taiwan and South Korea, though nominally democracies after the Chinese Revolution and the Korean War, they were both quite authoritarian until around the 1970s or 1980s. Let me leave this here, for I don't want to touch on contemporary politics. I will not touch on your definition of totalitarianism either for similar reasons. Suffice it to say that, from my vantage point, liberalisation in Taiwan, S Korea, and even the US has taken a long time.

Hence, I do not expect liberalisation in the world of Psycho-Pass to happen in what...less than a year?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
At a bare minimum, Akane really should have negotiated for more humane treatment of latent criminals, imo.
As other people have already pointed out, she was not in a position to do that. Her bargaining chip for Kougami's life was Sibyl's desire for Makishima to be captured alive. Having returned without Makishima, and also because of her understanding of the people's faith in Sibyl, she was not in a position to threaten them. Hence, to me, the scene you wish they'd added would have been completely unbelievable at that point in time.

=====

One thing I'm seeing in this sub-forum is not so much a difference in opinion about what to do with an oppressive government, but rather a difference in opinion about putting trust in people. One can certainly say that Orwell was warning us about the dangers of totalitarian governments. However, one can also say that what Orwell's vision expresses is a lack of trust in humans and their struggle for a better world, which is arguably the viewpoint summed up here. This is, I would say, the key difference between Orwell's and Akane's worldviews (which I elaborated on above).

The other clash I'm seeing is about what we viewers/consumers expect stories to do. Most stories raise a question (or several) around which there is a debate, and come down on one side of it. For example, one might say that one question examined in Chris Nolan's Batman trilogy is whether something good can come out of a lie. Nolan arguably presents his answer to this in the third film, and viewers may choose to agree with his answer or not. However, whilst Urobuchi has raised some very interesting questions, which have been and continue to be debated in many places today, it seems like he has not provided a definitive opinion on the one that most viewers wanted him to: what steps should be taken when dealing with an oppressive government? This goes against what many viewers here, people in the West in particular (at least from what I can tell), have come to expect.

Personally, like a few others, I find it refreshing that Urobuchi has done no more than raise the question and present some of the debate around it. I like the idea that viewers are being forced to decide where they stand and argue for their position, for I don't think it's something that enough people have seriously considered for themselves.
__________________



You must free yourself from that illusion,
from the illusion that a story must have a beginning and an end.



"No, you are not entitled to your opinion... You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”
- Patrick Stokes



Last edited by karice67; 2013-03-27 at 07:18.
karice67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 08:03   Link #230
Triple_R
Center Attraction
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Age: 33
Send a message via AIM to Triple_R
Quote:
Originally Posted by karice67 View Post
I disagree with your premise that Sibyl is as harsh a dictatorship as you (and a few others) are presenting, so I'm not sure if we can debate this detail.
Perhaps it would be good to examine why we differ over how harsh a dictatorship Sibyl is.

Here is what I see with Sibyl: It has the power to institutionalize kids the age of five, and drastically limit the life choices of such kids. It has the ability to jail people indefinitely, for no specific crime (and such jailing appears to be exclusively of the solitary confinement type). Sibyl obviously has no respect for basic human rights.

Solitary confinement, outside of rest/sleeping hours, is an exceptionally cruel punishment. This is why prisons in most (all?) democratic countries at least allow their inmates to mix with one another during daytime. Humans are social creatures by nature. Cutting us completely off from socializing with others is psychologically harmful.

So of course these latent criminals aren't getting better. If anything, I'd expect them to get worst.

But I'm not surprised that this is the situation in Sibyl Japan given what Sibyl itself is like. Sibyl looks down on empathy, and generally lacks it. So there's certain emotional truths that I don't think Sibyl is getting, and that is causing the situation to be far worse for these latent criminals than it has to be.


Quote:
The work that I'm referring to is the notion of changing the value that people place in Sibyl's judgement about what is right and wrong, such that they can stop relying on it and return to making judgements by themselves. The first half of the show clearly demonstrated that most people in society place a lot of trust in Sibyl's judgements, to the extent that it is expected that once a PP reading passes a certain point, it can never return. Is it by propaganda that this belief - which Akane was able to prove is a mistaken one -
How did Akane prove this was a mistaken belief?


Quote:
has come to pervade the society? Or is it just by rumour? Or was it because people started to believe in it?
Or is it because it's true? How do you know it's not true that it really is extremely unlikely for people to come back from a poor PP reading once it passes a certain point?

You know, a person can get psychologically scarred to the point that full recovery may be impossible. In other words, they may never be like a person who was never psychologically scarred in the first place.

But let's just say, for argument's sake, that most people are able to recuperate from their PP reading going into latent criminal levels. If so, don't you think there are better ways to go about recuperating such people then locking them up in solitary confinement? If Akane's goal is to show that PP readings are more fluid (and hence recoverable) than people believe, then that should just give her even more reason to try to negotiate for better treatment of latent criminals.


Quote:
Here is one of the major points where our opinions differ. Your contention is that the only way to overcome this problem is to destroy Sibyl.
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.


Quote:
My contention is that it may also be possible to do that from within the system, provided that this belief is changed first. Akane has started doing this within the CID itself - Kougami and Yayoi, and arguably even Gino and his father are proof of that.
I really don't see how Akane has done anything to change this belief when it comes to these four characters. Kougami, Yayoi, and Tomomi never recuperated from being latent criminals (to the best of our knowledge). Gino worsened into latent criminality, and there's no sign of him recovering from it.


Quote:
Her work with the victim from her first case is another example of it,
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.


Quote:
I disagree, even if only because of what Sibyl says it hopes for: to be able to reveal the true nature of the system to the people and still have them choose its governance.
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.


Quote:
The lack of societal change, of the potential of people to evolve, that is implied by this statement is something I disagree with.
There is no such implication in the statement of "Emotion based on truth has more legitimacy to it than logic based on lies."

Are you saying that emotions prevent societal change? If so, that's frankly pure nonsense. Emotions often help fuel societal change. Emotions played a huge role in the work that Martin Luther King Jr. did.

And isn't it better if social change is rooted in truth rather than rooted in lies?

I definitely stand by this statement - Emotion based on truth has more legitimacy to it than logic based on lies.

If you disagree with the statement, then address it directly. Don't read bizarre implications into it that aren't really there.


Quote:
*snip democratic peace bit*
Thank you for elaborating. Nonetheless, it has no bearing on my main point about the key difference about dealing with a bad government in a democracy as opposed to dealing with a bad totalitarian government.

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


Quote:
As other people have already pointed out, she was not in a position to do that.
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.

"If you want to win me over, then there's a suggestion that I'd like you to consider, and here it is..."

To clarify my point, think of Sibyl as a man courting a woman. That woman is Akane. A woman being courted by a man has the ability to wield some influence over that man. She can let it be known, or subtly imply, that if the man does certain things for her that his likelihood of successfully courting her goes up.

Akane has the ability to wield this sort of influence over Sibyl. There's nothing at all "completely unbelievable" about that ability. But she doesn't appear to be even trying to use it.


Quote:
One thing I'm seeing in this sub-forum is not so much a difference in opinion about what to do with an oppressive government, but rather a difference in opinion about putting trust in people.
Even if you put massive trust in people, those people still need to know the truth in order to make informed decisions.
__________________
Triple_R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 09:44   Link #231
GoldenLand
Eaten by goats
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
So of course these latent criminals aren't getting better. If anything, I'd expect them to get worst.

But I'm not surprised that this is the situation in Sibyl Japan given what Sibyl itself is like. Sibyl looks down on empathy, and generally lacks it. So there's certain emotional truths that I don't think Sibyl is getting, and that is causing the situation to be far worse for these latent criminals than it has to be.
What's surprising is that Sybil supposedly doesn't already know this, though. They're not total idiots, or aren't supposed to be. Do they really need Akane to point out to them that they're being massively inefficient?

So there are a few conclusions to make here, IMO.

(a) Urobuchi just did that for the sake of the story, and didn't put much thought into it. Sybil are just idiots in regard to that issue because it's convenient for the plot.

(b) Or, also for the sake of the plot, it really is true that past a certain level, there is little that could be done to lower the psycho-passes of those people, even if conditions were improved for them. (Even though, judging by some scenes in the anime, the system seems very, very much as if it's not even trying to help people who look as if they could probably be helped.)

(b) Sybil do already know, and they don't care. Once somebody has passed a certain level, Sybil deliberately takes a point of no return, "now you are damaged goods and will never really be the same again" view and just writes them off as being worthless to the system. Possibly thinking that because once they'd already passed that level they could well return to it. If they believe that a person's value has become negative, they may not feel they are worthy of spending resources on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
How did Akane prove this was a mistaken belief?
Presumably because Akane's own psycho-pass went up but then down again after her traumatic experience with Yuki and Makishima and the memory reconstruction. But this doesn't make any sense for proving that the belief is mistaken, because of Akane's own abnormality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
But let's just say, for argument's sake, that most people are able to recuperate from their PP reading going into latent criminal levels. If so, don't you think there are better ways to go about recuperating such people then locking them up in solitary confinement?
Looking at the above, I have to wonder if perhaps Sybil doesn't want people to recover from very high PP levels? Perhaps they're using it to as a tool to affect people who aren't at those levels, threatening them to keep them in the right sort of mindset. "If you doubt Sybil, your Psycho-Pass will rise! And there'll be no recovery for you." Perhaps a state of constant vigilance about their psycho-pass is the aim. I don't remember it being public knowledge that most people never recover (it can't be, since Yayoi was surprised) but there must still be something in the public consciousness about it. People who become latent criminals almost never come back, and Gino seems to show that there's a stigma attached to knowing them.

TBH I suspect the no-recovery thing is just supposed to be there as a reflection of some tendencies in current human societies where troubled or mentally ill individuals and criminals who could be treated or rehabilitated are not offered the help they need and are left to rot.

For example, just looking at kids here, children at severe risk of becoming criminals in later life can be identified really early on, and studies have shown that if they're given intensive support from that early age, their outcomes can vastly improve. Sybil is quite possibly representing the society who would say "I won't waste any of my precious tax money on those worthless brats" or "they're already scum that can't be salvaged" even though society would actually make considerable gains from those kids growing up to become useful members of society and not commit crimes.

It's all very odd considering what a holistic system Sybil is supposed to be running. So presumably its choices in this regard are only there to hold up a mirror to things such as harshness behind supposedly caring societies. Lots of the things Urobuchi has done in this series have been noted as being there as reflections of modern society. I remember one person here saying that the way that latent criminals are judged as guilty despite having done nothing wrong is commentary on the way that Japanese culture assumes that a person is guilty if they have been charged with something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
To clarify my point, think of Sibyl as a man courting a woman. That woman is Akane. A woman being courted by a man has the ability to wield some influence over that man. She can let it be known, or subtly imply, that if the man does certain things for her that his likelihood of successfully courting her goes up.

Akane has the ability to wield this sort of influence over Sibyl. There's nothing at all "completely unbelievable" about that ability. But she doesn't appear to be even trying to use it.
I can see what your point is here, but I think what you're overlooking is the power difference. Although Akane is valuable, Sybil can get rid of her any time it likes. They told her outright that she can either cooperate with them, or die. Akane has very little to bargain with, and no expectation of Sybil bending to her will. She was able to bargain that one time with them, but only because she could get them Makishima, and because the thing she wanted from them in return was of no value to them.

That said, during that process she was able to negotiate for the Dominator to be locked, even though Sybil was reluctant to do so and she had to talk tough to them to persuade them to do it. That was a situation in which the thing they wanted would be easier to obtain if they did what Akane said. They can be reasoned with...but there's no reason as of yet to assume that they would be willing to listen if there weren't delicious Makishima brains at stake and the things Akane wanted wouldn't help them to get it.

Sybil isn't courting her. They said "Continuing to observe and analyse your movements will provide us with valuable hints on how to build a methodology for winning over the citizens in the future and getting them to adapt" but also "Fight...Struggle...so that it may lead us to evolve". At least at present, what they want to see is how she reacts to the rock and a hard place situation that she's in. The way they choose to approach her may change later on after they gather more data, but the power difference won't be changing unless Sybil chooses to fundamentally alter the way it operates.

Courtship is a bad analogy for the situation. Akane can't tell courting-Sybil "Get out of my house and never darken my door again, you bastard!" or "Get lost, I'm dating somebody else!". It's a bit more like Sybil is hanging around saying "Bwahahaha, I've set things up so you have absolutely no choice but to marry me and grudgingly obey me even though you hate me. If you disobey me, I'll kill you. I'm going to work on you over time so that in the end you have Stockholm syndrome and you'll accept being the perfect submissive and adoring wife, and the more you struggle with this situation along the way, the more I'll learn how to break you." and Akane is saying "You think it'll be that easy? Someday you'll be gone and I'll be able to get a divorce!" while Sybil laughs at her.
GoldenLand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 10:49   Link #232
Roger Rambo
Sensei, aishite imasu
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
Sybil isn't even asking Akane to break in this setup or to start adoring them. What fascinates them the most about Akane is the fact that she can absolutely deplore them, yet not act on her impulses based on her realizing she'd be causing more harm to people if she tried to stop them. Sybil wants to observe Akane so they can figure out how they might be able to instill such a mentality into as many people as possible, thinking it would eventually allow them to operate out in the open.


Which to be honest, sounds like Sybil misreading the situation. Since of society with a significant number of people like Akane in it would, as Kougami noted, be entirely capable of functioning without Sybil.
Roger Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 11:08   Link #233
Obelisk ze Tormentor
Black Steel Knight
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Indonesia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Rambo View Post
Which to be honest, sounds like Sybil misreading the situation. Since of society with a significant number of people like Akane in it would, as Kougami noted, be entirely capable of functioning without Sybil.
Ah, that’s a really nice way to put it, Roger. I also wondered about whether the people in the society that Sybil desired will be the same as the one Akane & Kogami also desired. If you take it like that, then the ending indeed gave us some hope for the future of P-P Japan.
__________________
Obelisk ze Tormentor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 11:09   Link #234
GoldenLand
Eaten by goats
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Rambo View Post
Which to be honest, sounds like Sybil misreading the situation. Since of society with a significant number of people like Akane in it would, as Kougami noted, be entirely capable of functioning without Sybil.
Yep. In some ways, Akane isn't a good choice for them to observe and learn from. Most people aren't like her, and if they were, removing Sybil would be easy. Sybil with their god-complex probably can't even imagine that people wouldn't need them for anything at all if all they had were convenient Akane clones for citizens.

There might be something they can learn from her, but if they get things wrong and either misjudge her or feel they can apply the things they learn from her to everyone, they could be setting themselves up for disaster as soon as they reveal themselves to the population. Well, maybe Akane could pull off a brilliant scheme to fool them into thinking they can do so sooner than they really can?
GoldenLand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 11:20   Link #235
Kirarakim
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
When I reflect back on Psychopass I think my issues with the ending actually stem from the biggest issue of the series: it's world building honestly sucked.

We don't know how the system came about? We don't know why the system came about (as in why did they think this was the best method to deal with crimes).

Ignoring the fact that if the system is brought down at the end of the series it would create complete chaos (something I can appreciate) the series also wants you to believe that the system has brought peace and security to the society.

However at the same time Psycho Pass goes out of its way to show how bad the system was. It doesn't show me anything that=peace and security.

In fact the one scene I can think used to illustrate this point (that people didn't know how to react to violent crimes because they were so not used to it) also doesn't necessarily paint the system in a positive light. It's one thing not to be afraid of crime, it is quite another thing to not be able to react to it at all. To me it's more akin to the people who can't feel pain, that doesn't mean they can't get hurt.

So really the whole benefit and necessity of the sybil system was just so poorly constructed in the series it makes the ending not work for me. Thus I can't accept that the system will come down when it is no longer necessary when the necessity of the system as it is now was poorly explained in the first place.


I also do not buy Akane's argument of upholding the law is the same things as following a corrupt system of law. Or how she somehow is upholding the people's wishes (maybe if I saw some positive feedback on people's feelings about the current society they lived in).
Yeah I completely understand why Akane would not have followed the path of Makishima or even Kougami but I am not really sure with all that we saw Akane's answer makes all that much sense to me either.
__________________

Last edited by Kirarakim; 2013-03-27 at 11:39.
Kirarakim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 12:05   Link #236
Triple_R
Center Attraction
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Age: 33
Send a message via AIM to Triple_R
Excellent post, Kirarakim. You've succinctly captured many of my own issues with the anime as a whole.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirarakim View Post
When I reflect back on Psychopass I think my issues with the ending actually stem from the biggest issue of the series: it's world building honestly sucked.

We don't know how the system came about? We don't know why the system came about (as in why did they think this was the best method to deal with crimes).

Ignoring the fact that if the system is brought down at the end of the series it would create complete chaos (something I can appreciate) the series also wants you to believe that the system has brought peace and security to the society.

However at the same time Psycho Pass goes out of its way to show how bad the system was. It doesn't show me anything that=peace and security.
The flaws of Sibyl are consistently shown, while the benefits of Sibyl are consistently told.

The problem here ties back into the old "show, don't tell" writing rule of thumb.

That rule of thumb exists because people emotionally connect with something that is "shown" more than something that is merely "told". Also, people more readily accept something that is "shown" over something that is merely "told". It's easier to dispute a mere claim of something than it is to dispute something you see with your own eyes.

So with Sibyl's flaws being consistently show, while its benefits are merely shown, it's no wonder which will resonate more in the minds of most viewers.


Quote:
So really the whole benefit and necessity of the sybil system was just so poorly constructed in the series it makes the ending not work for me.
Yes, it really is hard to see what concrete advantages Sibyl offers over our real lives in the real world. What actual need is Sibyl serving that can't be served just as well (if not better) by something that exists in the real world?
__________________
Triple_R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 13:38   Link #237
Roger Rambo
Sensei, aishite imasu
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
The show versus tell problem I think was a bit of a consistent problem. It DID make it a bit too easy to ignore that there would be SOME benefit to a system like this. I honestly would have liked even just an episode or two to make the system on the whole seem more worthwhile, before revealing just how disgusting it was at the core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obelisk ze Tormentor View Post
Ah, that’s a really nice way to put it, Roger. I also wondered about whether the people in the society that Sybil desired will be the same as the one Akane & Kogami also desired. If you take it like that, then the ending indeed gave us some hope for the future of P-P Japan.
Sybil's problem is a matter of Monsters, men and Saints. It realizes the men that it rules would destroy them if the men discovered that Sybil was really a monster. Sybil clearly needs to replace their men with something else. Obviously you can't replace them with monsters. Monsters might tolerate the existence of other monsters, but they won't submit to their authority. So that only leaves them with saints.

Unfortunately for Sybil, it doesn't understand that under the right conditions, saints kill monsters to.
Roger Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 13:58   Link #238
Reckoner
Bittersweet Distractor
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
The flaws of Sibyl are consistently shown, while the benefits of Sibyl are consistently told.

The problem here ties back into the old "show, don't tell" writing rule of thumb.
Before the riots we were consistently shown imagery of a peaceful society out there with no sense of danger. See parts of episode 2 for example. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, we weren't SHOWN how Sibyl was first established. We don't know how it got engineered into their society in the first place. That much is true. But our peaceful society has been shown, and no better than Gen's "bystander" episode where people could not even realize that there was danger happening in front of them because it had been so thoroughly eradicated in their society.

However, do we need to show how Sibyl came to be? 1984 didn't show how its government came to be. The only thing we can latch onto is that it is a natural extension of our current society (Big brother is watching you) that is a possible danger. Why can't the same logic work here as well?
Reckoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 14:12   Link #239
Kirarakim
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reckoner View Post
Before the riots we were consistently shown imagery of a peaceful society out there with no sense of danger. See parts of episode 2 for example. So I have no idea what you are talking about.
It is certainly not shown to be any more peaceful than the society I am living in now. We don't need a sybil system to maintain law and order so why do they need that system?

To make it worse almost every episode violent crime is taking place. In the first episode we have a guy attempting to rape a woman.

Quote:
But our peaceful society has been shown, and no better than Gen's "bystander" episode where people could not even realize that there was danger happening in front of them because it had been so thoroughly eradicated in their society.
But this has caused them to not even be able to react to a crime, to help someone when they are getting attacked in the street.

There is something positive about not being afraid, there is nothing positive about not know when to be afraid.

Quote:
However, do we need to show how Sibyl came to be? 1984 didn't show how its government came to be. The only thing we can latch onto is that it is a natural extension of our current society (Big brother is watching you) that is a possible danger. Why can't the same logic work here as well?
1984 had excellent world building. The system being horrible was never put into question. 1984 exists to that point because the people let it get to that point. It's if anything a cautionary tale.
__________________
Kirarakim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-27, 14:56   Link #240
Reckoner
Bittersweet Distractor
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirarakim View Post
It is certainly not shown to be any more peaceful than the society I am living in now. We don't need a sybil system to maintain law and order so why do they need that system?

To make it worse almost every episode violent crime is taking place. In the first episode we have a guy attempting to rape a woman.
Well it's a crime detective story. Makes sense. But another point also driven home is that the crimes could only really take place in isolated areas of society (the factory, the school) and so it makes it apparent that it's much harder for crime to take place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirarakim View Post
But this has caused them to not even be able to react to a crime, to help someone when they are getting attacked in the street.

There is something positive about not being afraid, there is nothing positive about not know when to be afraid.
I'm not questioning whether overall this is a positive thing, but the point that something like a violent crime was so foreign and alien to them is what is most striking in this scene. That's the direct evidence that was claimed to be nonexistent.

Quote:
1984 had excellent world building. The system being horrible was never put into question. 1984 exists to that point because the people let it get to that point. It's if anything a cautionary tale.
Couldn't Psycho-Pass also be a cautionary tale? A society that focuses too much on the good of the group and a society that represses the individual (Obvious analogies can be made to current day Japan).
Reckoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:46.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.