Psycho-Pass - Episode 22 [END] Discussion / Poll

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

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.

Yep, such an episode would have made a world of difference.

Gen should have wrote one Psycho-Pass episode that would have rivaled K-On! in its happy-go-lucky feel and "good vibes". I know it's wildly out of style for Gen, but it would have served his narrative better, imo.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Kirarakim

It could be but then they should stick to that not and try to also say the system is a benefit to society.

1984 was much clearer with what it was trying to say.

I thought it was made very clear without question that Gen saw Sibyl as bad. But the reason it still manages to exist is because its faults aren't immediately obvious, they're more subtle. This is in comparison to the obvious stability it brings.

Considering how many people constantly rail against Sibyl, I think Gen succeeded in his viewpoint that Sibyl is a bad idea.

[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.

[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.

[Kirarakim]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I thought it was made very clear without question that Gen saw Sibyl as bad. But the reason it still manages to exist is because its faults aren't immediately obvious, they're more subtle. This is in comparison to the obvious stability it brings.

Considering how many people constantly rail against Sibyl, I think Gen succeeded in his viewpoint that Sibyl is a bad idea.

Yes Gen did a good job of saying Sibyl is bad. He did a very poor job of showing how it came to be in the first place? Why it is necessary to keep this bad system in place or how this somehow aligns with the people's wishes? Honestly the whole thing seems completely illogical to me.

What exactly is Gen cautioning us against? If this type of system can just go away when the people are ready then I guess we have no need to worry.

[Dengar]

Can anyone answer these two questions for me, please?

For a society to be considered a "harsh dictatorship", wouldn't that require people to actually feel oppressed by said dictatorship?

Second, about "latent criminals are abandoned because someoen decided there is no hope for recovery". How is this different from how criminals are treated now? No one trusts a criminal ever again, no matter how much they have learned from their mistakes. The only difference, is that latent criminals haven't done anything yet.

[cyth]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

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

Consider these two prerequisites: Sibyl still mostly operates as the people expect it to operate. In their mind, it's doing its job as intended. Psycho-Pass punishments are, I assume, written down in law, so there shouldn't be any ambiguity here. I think it's safe to say that the people at large are satisified with how Sibyl administrates their society.

Now consider this: The people themselves put Sibyl into power and they themselves decided their species was not fit to be the master of its own fate. So, having relinquished control over their own lives to a _computer system_, whose judgment they supposedly trust more than that of their own kinsmen, should they even get the privilege of making any choices at all? Didn't they forfeit that right when they subjugated their life and matter to the scrutiny of a _computer system_?

Quite frankly, I consider the good people of Sibyl Japan to be quite lucky that human beings, albeit bodiless psychopaths, are still running the show. I think the implications of letting a computer system handle matters of public stature is the biggest issue I find presented, whereas you think the biggest issue is that the people are being deceived. I get that every system should always have a big red button to stop it for any reason what-so-ever, as a matter of smart system design, but I'm saying this as a person who doesn't value the supposed benefits a machine could offer over an intelligent human collective. A fervent Sibyl supporter may see that red button as a threat to the stability of the system.

I guess what I'm saying is that the perception of regular people in contemporary Sibyl Japan has been consistently left out of this debate or written off as poorly documented. That being said, I think I exhausted all that I wanted to say in this thread. Gentlemen, it's been a pleasure.

[monsta666]

I think the thing that makes this argument for and against the preservation of the sibyl system more difficult is because on the surface the system is run in very efficient manner, at least on surface. Off course when we go into the details the story is quite different but superficially we can say it is okay and perhaps in certain aspects it is best as the element of risk and uncertainty in life is largely eliminated (as sibyl makes the decisions for society). This feeling of certainty and control is a powerful force in human psychology and it is surprising what people would be willing to sacrifice for this security.

So I can see why people could defend this regime particularly if we consider that a revolution or overthrow of the current paradigm offers the complete opposite of what the status quo does namely uncertainty and chaos. This devolution into chaos is the real issue that Akane is afraid of and I would agree there will be uncertainty and there will be death, confusion and hardship. But this is where faith comes in and people like Akane should have faith that after the chaotic aftermath man will be capable of bringing a new society that is more equitable than one currently on offer. It is this faith and believe that can show a real strength of character and it is this lack of faith, I would even say meekness that is most disappointing. It is made all the worse for the fact that throughout the series she seemed to be building in character yet at the moment of truth she seemed to have failed miserably.

I think it is important to note that nothing in life that is worthwhile can be had without a struggle. I feel this expression can easily apply to this scenario. People cannot expect an easy transition or evolution into a better future and there is likely to be much conflict and struggle for this future. This is more true in cases where a party holds supreme power over the rest of society which appears to be the case here. In an ideal scenario we would all like a smooth transition and it is prudent to exercise all options but we also need to recognise that in some cases there will be no easy option and radical plans will have be considered. Sometimes we need to acknowledge that you can't make an omelette without cracking some eggs. Playing the waiting game can also have its negative as it allows more time for the current power structure to solidify its power and hold over society.

[karice67]

Originally Posted by monsta666

So I can see why people could defend this regime particularly if we consider that a revolution or overthrow of the current paradigm offers the complete opposite of what the status quo does namely uncertainty and chaos. This devolution into chaos is the real issue that Akane is afraid of and I would agree there will be uncertainty and there will be death, confusion and hardship. But this is where faith comes in and people like Akane should have faith that after the chaotic aftermath man will be capable of bringing a new society that is more equitable than one currently on offer. It is this faith and believe that can show a real strength of character and it is this lack of faith, I would even say meekness that is most disappointing. It is made all the worse for the fact that throughout the series she seemed to be building in character yet at the moment of truth she seemed to have failed miserably.

And my question is: why trust in a 'leap of faith' instead of preparing the world so that a better outcome is certain? The devolution into chaos is not the only thing that Akane is concerned about, and I highly doubt it is the thing that she is most concerned about.

All of us here can look at their society and claim that "Playing the waiting game can also have its negative as it allows more time for the current power structure to solidify its power and hold over society", but how do you know that for certain? If you are basing it on the show, then how do you deal with Saiga's presence and actions (or non-actions, at least until the final credits!) in it?

Originally Posted by Triple_R

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.

But I would argue that it does bring into question how one should deal with it.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

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.

See, I don't think there is an easy answer to that question. Often, it really depends on what the discrimination is and how it is 'institutionalised' (it doesn't have to be made into law to be institutionalised). I see both of them as harmful, but in terms of discrimination that's not stated outright in law, I find it far more insidious because there is no way to fight against it because it's not something that people can prove is happening.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

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.

And my contention is that you have to have examples of that before people will accept a policy change to that effect. Consider the prison system in Norway, in particular the Bastoy Prison. What do you think would happen if a local parliament in certain first world countries suggested that they open one such institution? Would there be absolutely no resistance to it?

This is why I keep arguing that societal attitudes have to see some change first, before such a change in policy can be implemented. I am actually looking into policy implementation for my thesis - and what do you think is one of the the most common factors that hinders implementation?

Originally Posted by Triple_R

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.

I was actually referring to their own perceptions of what latent criminals were. Change in bahaviour might or might not come from that in future, but I would say that it's a start.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

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.

Then Akane is going to have to work towards a point where institutional change is possible, because unlike you and a few others, I don't see it possible at this point.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

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

See what I wrote above: this has to do with what I mean by 'non-institionalised' discrimination. E.g. that encountered by Gino when he was younger.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

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.

To me, what's far more important is to consider the outcome of revealing it. As I have noted before, I expect the result to be no change, with Akane dead. i.e. we'd be left with a much worse situation than before.

I'm not saying that a system built on a lie is in any way acceptable. In this case, however, the fact that the lie is so integral to society (at present) means that it cannot be completely reformed as easily as you seem to be implying.

Let me stress that I am not arguing for retention of Sibyl in the long run, I just want to emphasise the importance of actually considering everything that needs to be done in order to get rid of that lie AND the danger that Orwell was warning against, and whether it is actually possible at this point in the show.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

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

Because the society has reached a point where grass-roots driven change of institutions is happening. The society in this series has not reached that point.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

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".

You see it as totalitarian, oppressive and extremely controlling of the society. I see it as authoritarian - controlling aspects of society based on logic and reasons that are accepted by large parts of the population (with one of the main reasons being 'stability'). It doesn't suppress all kinds of subversive thought - or else the online communities of Spooky Boogie and Talisman would not have existed, Lina's band would have been in jail or dead, and arguably Saiga and a whole lot of other academics would have been locked up.

The logic is built on a huge lie, yes, but I disagree with the idea that the society has reached a point were the whole system needs to be completely destroyed, which is what the methods you and a few others have raised can only lead to.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

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

I was referring to your definition of totalitarianism, which is different from mine. I will reevaluate what modern governments are like depending on what I know of them, but my definition of it is not changing.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

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!" *snip*

*sighs* Look, there's a difference between saying that "people can't handle the truth and will never be able to handle it", and "people can't handle the truth now, so we need to figure out how to reveal it to ensure that change for the better is achieved" (I'm writing this from Akane's perspective, not from Sibyl's. Both agree that it is not time for Sibyl's true nature to be revealed, but for different reasons).

Furthermore, what I was referring to with the bolded section was that such actions would entail Akane making the decision for them, and I don't believe in revolutions from above. For Akane to become like Martin Luther King Jr and Rosa Parks, she needs to have other people who believe in the same things, so her first task is to find or cultivate such people. Which I contend is not as easy as some people seem to think.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

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.

See, I don't believe things are all that different with democratic governments, because what I see in my field is that the rich and powerful in each country, whatever the political system is, have a huge grip on what happens in terms of policy.

Perhaps this is what made the people choose an apparently autonomous system in the first place? And if that is the case, then where do you go from that?

Originally Posted by Triple_R

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

That's the crux of it, I think.

To be honest, I think we will have to just agree to disagree, because we take fundamentally different stances on a lot of points, some of which have to do with how we interpret what was shown to us in the series, and perhaps even with what we think Urobuchi Gen was trying to do with it.

Originally Posted by cyth

I guess what I'm saying is that the perception of regular people in contemporary Sibyl Japan has been consistently left out of this debate or written off as poorly documented. That being said, I think I exhausted all that I wanted to say in this thread. Gentlemen, it's been a pleasure.

Agreed. It's been good reading your arguments, and a pity to see you go...though I do expect that I'll be following you soon.

Originally Posted by Kirarakim

Yes Gen did a good job of saying Sibyl is bad. He did a very poor job of showing how it came to be in the first place? Why it is necessary to keep this bad system in place or how this somehow aligns with the people's wishes? Honestly the whole thing seems completely illogical to me.

What exactly is Gen cautioning us against? If this type of system can just go away when the people are ready then I guess we have no need to worry.

Ok, so this is how you feel about the show based on what you expected to see in it, based on an expectation that Gen is trying to make some kind of statement about such a system.

But is he? Given that he has left us with an ending that doesn't answer the question of 'how should one deal with such a system?' or 'how did such a system arise in the first place?', what could he be trying to say? Assuming that he had a purpose in writing this show - and the assumption that every piece of work has a purpose is not something that everyone subscribes to, particularly in the modern and postmodern words of art - then, given what we have been shown, what might it have been?

I guess that what I'm trying to say is that a creator may not be saying what you want them to say. And if that is the case, then how do you, as an individual member of the audience, react to that? Do you stop at criticising them for not doing what you wanted them to do, or do you try and figure out what they were actually trying to say?

[Kirarakim]

Originally Posted by karice67

I guess that what I'm trying to say is that a creator may not be saying what you want them to say.

You are making an assumption that my complaints are because Gen's points do not align with my own or that the story did not end the way I wanted. That is not my issue with this series.

[karice67]

^ I beg your pardon. Though that is the way your most recent post came across to me.

[Kirarakim]

Originally Posted by karice67

^ I beg your pardon. Though that is the way your most recent post came across to me.

My post was in response to Reckoner's interpretation of the series being a cautionary tale not based on my expectations for the series.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Kirarakim

Yes Gen did a good job of saying Sibyl is bad. He did a very poor job of showing how it came to be in the first place? Why it is necessary to keep this bad system in place or how this somehow aligns with the people's wishes? Honestly the whole thing seems completely illogical to me.

What exactly is Gen cautioning us against? If this type of system can just go away when the people are ready then I guess we have no need to worry.

Well let me ask you a question then. If the story detailed how Sibyl was first created, what benefit would it provide to the overall themes here?

I'm not going to deny that Gen didn't really go into the creation of Sibyl, but at the same time, I am not so sure why this is all that important. In episode 17 Makishima explained the philosophy behind the Sibyl System (As it appears to the people, not the actual truth).

"Management of a fair society by machines... A society that doesn't depend on human egos... People accepted the Sibyl System because that's how it was presented."

So no, we don't get the history detailed to us about the Sibyl System. Gen never tells us who are the original people who created it, and how they convinced society to actually adopt it. He just explained the idea of the system and why it is accepted by the people.

As for why people don't do away with it, what compelling reason do they have? Society is largely safe, and people live really easy lives where they never have to worry about making decisions. Things are all sorted out for them and everybody does what they have the aptitude to do.

[karice67]

Originally Posted by Kirarakim

My post was in response to Reckoner's interpretation of the series being a cautionary tale not based on my expectations for the series.

It made me recall what you said in this post though...and my recent response applies to what you said there too.

Reckoner's most recent post takes up a related point: what benefit does showing those world-building scenes do for the themes that Gen was actually concerned with? Are we sure that we know what themes he was concerned with?

In other words, how have we come to the conclusion that he was trying to do whatever it is we think he was trying to do with this series?

I don't actually have an answer for this. I'm only trying to raise questions about the process by which we, the audience, try to determine what a writer/creator says with any particular work. As such, I'll leave it here.

[Kirarakim]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Management of a fair society by machines... A society that doesn't depend on human egos.

So then what issue would the people have with the system when they find out about the brains? That they are brains instead of a machine or that they have no free will?

Is it the people's wish to be governed by an impartial machine?

Originally Posted by Karice

Reckoner's most recent post takes up a related point: what benefit does showing those world-building scenes do for the themes that Gen was actually concerned with? Are we sure that we know what themes he was concerned with?
.

World building not only helps strengthen your themes it also helps with suspension of disbelief. Unfortunately the world building in Psychopass was a complete mess and filled with contradictions. As Triple R said it's a lot of tell don't show.


I am being told the people are safer and yet we are still shown plenty of crime.

I am told people are content with the system and yet there actually were people shown to be upset with their current situation because of their low psycho pass rating.

I never said I needed every single detail on the creation of the series from the year it was made, the names of its creators, and what programming they used but trying to show the thought process behind the creation of this series would certainly help suspend my disbelief that something so illogical as it came about in the first place.

I don't have every detail for Big Brother but I do understand why it came about.
I don't know all the details about the system in minority report but I certainly understand how it gave the illusion of a better crime system.

I am sure Gen was trying to say something but that is the problem I have with the series, I am not sure. In fact I am not even sure if Gen made up his own mind. Instead I feel he was trying to say a whole lot of things but didn't say anything entirely well. At least for me he didn't. And yes I acknowledge its a personal issue. If someone else got something out of the series I didn't, well more power to them.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by karice67

And my question is: why trust in a 'leap of faith' instead of preparing the world so that a better outcome is certain?

There are no certainties in your proposed approach.

The devolution into chaos is not the only thing that Akane is concerned about, and I highly doubt it is the thing that she is most concerned about.

Really? What do you think she is most concerned about then?

All of us here can look at their society and claim that "Playing the waiting game can also have its negative as it allows more time for the current power structure to solidify its power and hold over society", but how do you know that for certain?

But it is a very real and plausible risk, particularly given what Sibyl openly plans to do.

Sibyl's "long-game" is a good one. A smart one. So Akane needs to demonstrate a viable long game of her own that can match it. This is if Gen is aiming for an ambiguous ending, anyway.

If Gen is aiming for a 1984-esque ending, then Sibyl winning decisively isn't merely fine, it's necessary. But then, if this is what Gen is aiming for, why does the final scene of this anime have an almost sweet sentimentality to it?

This is what confuses me about the ending. I can't tell if it's an open-ended ending or an 1984 one because I see serious presentation problems either way.

I'm almost tempted to conclude that this ending is saying "Sibyl wins, but maybe that's Ok after all." But that seems like an odd ending given the great lengths Gen went to in order to make Sibyl look bad throughout the entire anime.

See, I don't think there is an easy answer to that question. Often, it really depends on what the discrimination is and how it is 'institutionalised' (it doesn't have to be made into law to be institutionalised). I see both of them as harmful, but in terms of discrimination that's not stated outright in law, I find it far more insidious because there is no way to fight against it because it's not something that people can prove is happening.

You can prove the existence of non-institutionalized discrimination. Detectable, and hence demonstrable, patterns arise over time.

Consider, for example, the observation that black men driving cars are much more likely to get pulled over by cops than white men driving cars are. This discrimination isn't institutionalized. I very much doubt there's any cop training manual that encourages it. However, it does happen and people are generally aware of it, and so you can argue against it. People will know what you're talking about.

The relative challenge with non-institutionalized discrimination is that it calls for a keen eye on the lookout for patterns, and a certain degree of vigilance. But the relative benefit with non-institutionalized discrimination is that it better allows for slow, gradual, piecemeal correction - You can start locally, and build up. In my above example, you can work at a pace of one police department at a time, slowly building up minor victories through slowly changing hearts and minds until the wider society changes.

But let's say you actually had a law stating "All black drivers must go through regular police check points. White drivers are excused from such check points". To end discrimination against black drivers, the law itself must be removed. The policy must be changed. Slow, gradual, piecemeal correction is much harder here as long as the law is on the books, because the law weakens your argument when you argue for less discrimination against black drivers.

"Well, lady, I'm only following the law!" Police Officer A says when he's told how he shouldn't discriminate against black drivers.

Police Officer A doesn't have that defense if his department's discrimination against black drivers is non-institutionalized in nature.

And my contention is that you have to have examples of that before people will accept a policy change to that effect. Consider the prison system in Norway, in particular the Bastoy Prison. What do you think would happen if a local parliament in certain first world countries suggested that they open one such institution? Would there be absolutely no resistance to it?

People would resist against the Bastoy Prison model for two reasons...

1) A practical one, that causes myself to have some doubts about this prison. That's completely separate from our discussion, though, so I won't get into it here.

2) The general sentiments that criminals are to be punished for their crimes.


Ah, but what crime is a latent criminal guilty of? In many cases, a latent criminal may not be guilty of a crime at all.

When a criminal is perceived to "get off easy", the people who typically lead the charge against him or her are the criminal's victims. Several cases of this can lead people to feel "We have to get tougher on crime."

I don't think this will be as true of latent criminals, though, because many of them have no actual victims to whip up the general public in the first place. Long story short, I doubt the people of Sibyl Japan feel as much antagonism for their latent criminals as what people in the real world feel for actual criminals.

And what that means is I doubt you'd have many people complaining about latent criminals getting more human treatment than what they do currently. Heck, we don't even know if the populace of Sibyl Japan is even fully aware of what happens to their latent criminals.

You see it as totalitarian, oppressive and extremely controlling of the society.

Slight correction here. I see it as oppressive towards latent criminals. I doubt it feels that oppressive to those who aren't latent criminals.

I see it as authoritarian - controlling aspects of society based on logic and reasons that are accepted by large parts of the population (with one of the main reasons being 'stability').

So you don't see anything illogical about any of Sibyl's decisions? Honestly, I can find plenty of weaknesses to a lot of their decisions. Roger Rambo has been particularly effective at criticizing the decisions of Sibyl.

It doesn't suppress all kinds of subversive thought - or else the online communities of Spooky Boogie and Talisman would not have existed, Lina's band would have been in jail or dead,

How do we know they aren't? Lina's band never showed up again after their appearance in the Yaoyi flashback episode. At least not that I can recall.

...and arguably Saiga and a whole lot of other academics would have been locked up.

Feeling forced into seclusion isn't much better, you know.

So ultimately, I see some weaknesses in your interpretation.

The logic is built on a huge lie, yes, but I disagree with the idea that the society has reached a point were the whole system needs to be completely destroyed, which is what the methods you and a few others have raised can only lead to.

There are times when something is so rotten to the core that it simply needs to be disposed of.

For Akane to become like Martin Luther King Jr and Rosa Parks, she needs to have other people who believe in the same things, so her first task is to find or cultivate such people. Which I contend is not as easy as some people seem to think.

I'm not contending that's easy. In fact, I'm contending that's very hard, maybe even impossible, as long as Sybil remains. How does Akane find and cultivate these people while Sybil carefully watches over her?

See, I don't believe things are all that different with democratic governments, because what I see in my field is that the rich and powerful in each country, whatever the political system is, have a huge grip on what happens in terms of policy.

Kacrice, I think you're so focused on specifics and details that you're not seeing the important simple truth that I'm pointing to.

You can't vote Sibyl out of power. You can vote democratic governments out of power.

George W. Bush was a widely criticized American President who a lot of people had serious issues with. Due to term limits, he's no longer in power. Now, is Barack Obama perfect? No, certainly not. In some cases, his policies are actually very similar to Bush's. But there are also some key differences. This is what democracy allows for.

But let's say George W. Bush was like Sybil - In control for life. No term limits. No voting out of office. No chance for a Barack Obama to follow him.

This is a major difference that I'm not sure you appreciate enough.

[karice67]

First, the Lina and her band not being dead/in jail is one thing I will clarify - I meant 'they would have been dead/in jail merely because of the music they were playing'. What happened to them after episode 12 is not actually relevant to the point I was trying to make.

---

But I am not going to address all of your reply, because I think a lot of it is based on a misunderstanding of my position, as encapsulated in what you've written here.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Kacrice, I think you're so focused on specifics and details that you're not seeing the important simple truth that I'm pointing to.

You can't vote Sibyl out of power. You can vote democratic governments out of power.

I am NOT advocating that Sibyl stay in control forever. Nor have I ever said that it can be done without removing those brains from power. What I AM saying is that getting rid of Sibyl now will probably result in the second worst outcome.

To put it another way, my position is that Akane (and whoever else she will need on board to make it happen) will need to do far more than you, and others who advocate taking down the system ASAP, appear to admit, before they can try to remove the brains from power.

In other words, I am saying that the details are important. Whether they do it peacefully or not.

-----

This is related to what I think Gen may have actually been trying to do with this series, which is what my reply to Kirarakim was about. That an authoritarian system such as Sibyl - whether it's reached by allowing a select small group of people decide policy, or by entrusting it to something that is apparently autonomous - is evil and should be avoided is nothing new. Writers have been warning about the dangers of such a system for well over a hundred years now. Perhaps it was one of the themes that Gen was focused on. But I don't think it was the only one.

For the past week, I've been wondering if another of those themes is associated with what has happened in many developing countries in the world since post-colonial norms started taking hold. Countries like Papua New Guinea, where people were suddenly given their sovereignty back, but without a working system for their society. Someone I know went to PNG recently, and came back with a rather bleak report of what it's like there. Too many people who were involved in 'rebuilding' their society were in it for their own benefit. As a result, the power vacuum left when Australia pulled out has actually hindered the Papua New Guineans from constructing a society that is fair, liberal and democratic.


To bring it back to this series, I wonder if a second theme in Psycho-Pass may be about how we, the audience, react to such systems. About how our gut reaction is to argue for toppling the system...often without seriously considering what will need to be done in the power vacuum that remains.

-----

And I am going to have to leave this discussion here myself, as I have said all that I wanted to say.

Whilst it was frustrating at times, it was also fun, and definitely quite stimulating, so thanks for the discussion, everyone.

[Kirarakim]

Originally Posted by Karice

To bring it back to this series, I wonder if a second theme in Psycho-Pass may be about how we, the audience, react to such systems. About how our gut reaction is to argue for toppling the system...often without seriously considering what will need to be done in the power vacuum that remains.

This is an interesting idea and could very well be a theme that Gen was trying to get across but then the issue is he only focuses on this in the final episode and not even the final episode but the final few minutes of the series.

Anyways I don't mean to imply there was nothing worthwhile about Psychopass but it just didn't come together well for me.

[Triple_R]

Ok, Kacrice, I thank you for the points and clarifications you brought up in your final post. I at least have a better idea of where you're coming from now.

I thank you, cyth, Reckoner, Kirarakim, and everybody else for a good discussion and debate. It certainly was thought-provoking.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Considering how many people constantly rail against Sibyl, I think Gen succeeded in his viewpoint that Sibyl is a bad idea.

I like to think that the closest equivalent to Sibyl is something like the Roman Empire. Here we have a society that have treated its non-Roman citizens poorly, run on slavery, etc... Yet it have lasted over five centuries, so one have to wonder why. Because its benefits outweighted its bad points. People have had running water, a police force that have made sure that citizens travelled safely within its borders (and therefore the commerce is secure) and the government have done what it could to ensure that food supply is always running. In other words, it have been not that bad.