Report sheaswee's Profile

>Is free will more important than the prosperity of society at large?

I will argue that materialistic wealth and social harmony can't be the sole metrics to judge prosperity, and a deterministic society simply can't be considered prosperous. A true utopia, putting aside the matter of its achievability, should have all humans cooperating for society's betterment by their own free will. Not only does Sibyl punish the more vulnerable people under the pretext of crime control, but it actively dictates everyone in their day-to-day choices. It's as far away from prosperity as it can be.

>Is an individual's free will more important than the prosperity of that individual?

Now this is a question I think everyone will have a different answer to. Some might feel distressed at their free will being taken away, but many would find it a trivial price to pay. Their view on prosperity might be different from mine, and that's totally acceptable. Even if I can question it on moral grounds, I simply cannot deny Sibyl System's incredible efficiency. It breaks socioeconomic hierarchies and gives everyone what they deserve. Within realistic possibilities, I can't fathom anything better suited to achieve "materialistic" prosperity than the Sibyl System.

lol, I was wondering if I should rewatch Malice@Doll, which I also have rated 1/10, but I'm not sure and seeing a recent dismissal of it doesn't exactly encourage me. I'm sure it's as awful as I remember it being. How do you feel it fits in with the rest of Konaka's cyberpunk works? Anything worthwhile in that respect? :S

>"All these people have lived up until now without ever even considering that something like this could happen." Genuinely, how tf does this even happen?

I don't think it would be as hard as you think. Anyone creating, sharing or consuming violent media would have (at least to some degree) a clouded Psycho-Pass, so information control would have been child's play once the scanners became omnipresent. And I expect people who are naturally violent would be isolated from a young age like Kagari was.

>Why/how the Sibyl System can't read his psycho pass, idk, or at least, I can't remember.

Psycho-Pass relies on your mind to deem criminal activities as criminal. If your mind doesn't recognize it as a crime, Sibyl System can't do anything about it. Let alone crime, Makishima so strongly believes that his actions are just, his Crime Coefficient dropped when he killed Akane's friend.

>Do you mean he'd be less exciting to watch if he were more rational? Is the starkness of his opposition to the system what makes him an interesting character for you? Like the very premise of a "Makishima" existing in a pristine world such as Psycho-Pass's...

Precisely. This is just me speculating, but the Sibyl System is universally perceived as a godsend to save Japan from the rampant violence overseas. Not just that, it's in many ways the ultimate form of governance where all forms of social hierarchy have been destroyed, and your life is purely determined on merit. If you have the aptitude for it, you can lead the best life possible, and if you are a threat, nothing and no one can save you. On the surface, it's a utopia. And yet, Makishima mocks this society and prefers to live in rampant violence over prosperity if it means being able to exercise free will. Mind you, Makishima would have become practically immortal if he joined the Sibyl System, but he turned that down. It's the sacrifice he makes and the harm he brings upon himself that makes him so badass and unforgettable.

>considering that the our characters are shocked by the idea of people ignoring blatant violence like this, considering that other citizens in other wards react to blatant violence in a way more familiar to us, I struggle to accept this scene.

One likely explanation is that the first incident woke up the people. All the violence that happened publicly is shown to have started the following day, after the incident went viral. For the first time in their lives, these people get acquainted with the idea of violence and the fact that their lives are in danger. Their actions thus are more in line with what we would expect.

>Makishima wouldn't just be convincing other sadistic psychos, he'd also be convincing rational people to his side.

I get you, but personally I prefer it this way. It's the perfect blend of entertainment and intellectualism, and I guess someone as famous for his sadism as Butch Gen would be more comfortable making something like this over something more dialogue-heavy.

>That's why he gives Kazuho Yoshii and Johan Liebert to me, only I'd consider Makishima better realised. (But these comparisons would take a long time to explain).

Liebert is an awful villain because his unfortunate upbringing gives him a warped worldview. He has nothing relevant to say because he wrongly assumes that everyone is like the Nazis. Monster is a terminally boring and pointless exercise in proving an obviously misguided villain wrong. Makishima is different. His beliefs are born of his own free will, and his statements are of utmost relevance to the society he inhabits. As far as Kazuho is concerned, I like him as an antagonist and kinda agree with the comparison. Talking about him and Texhnolyze would require a whole separate conversation though.

>"Sibyl society will ultimately be dismantled, whether it be naturally or through revolution." I don't quite think that Makishima demonstrates a claim as strong as this, but I think he demonstrates -- and lives as evidence for -- its imperfection.

I think the massive scale at which the Helmet Arc plays out proves that claim. A lot of people have been done wrong by the Sibyl, and they will take up arms against it when given the opportunity. Even inspectors like Kogami and Ginoza fell prey to their emotions. The very existence of criminally asymptomatic individuals like Makishima proves that mankind as a whole will never fully give up its free will, even if it means sacrificing prosperity.

>An illusion of control?

I meant the second option.

>Do you think that Sibyl leaves you as nothing more than a domesticated animal? Or is this Makishima speaking?

I meant those words from Makishima's point of view.

>I want Makishima himself to suggest an alternative to the Sibyl System -- arguments he has made against it. Not arguments we are making on his behalf.

I almost feel Makishima would be less convincing if he were more rational. I personally don't feel a need to hear him arguing in support of his beliefs. As long as his beliefs stand in opposition to widely accepted ideals and as long as he can effectively demonstrate the validity of his beliefs, I am going to be invested in his character.

Perhaps you are right about the Stress Level, and it's just honest-to-goodness apathy caused by the Sibyl System. But I still wouldn't find this premise to be extreme as you said in your previous comment. Crime has been practically eradicated, so what these people are witnessing is something they have never even heard of let alone seen beforehand. So I would say it's reasonable to believe that the general populace has been desensitized to crime. People like Akane who are still knowledgeable about crime (and therefore express any sort of proper reaction to it) are few and far between.

>this kind of behaviour from bystanders seems to be isolated to this particular ward

I wonder. This kind of incident hasn't really happened before for a long time, at least not this publicly. Given the proximity of our characters to latent criminals and their occasional encounters with crime proper, they expected the citizenry to react in a similarly responsible manner. Which as I explained before, is somewhat of an unreasonable expectation. Even reporting crime is something nobody is expected to do; these people are just that alien to the idea of crime.

>you're gonna have to give me your take as to how someone like Makishima is molded.

I don't think the how is really important here. But since you asked me to speculate, I would just say that Makishima finds pre-Sibyl society more fascinating. He reads a lot of literature that presumably predates Sibyl, so he likes to listen to all sorts of opinions, something that has been heavily stifled in the Sibyl society (anything that could raise Crime Coefficient gets cracked down upon). There's also a little bit of alienation Makishima feels from society, given his criminally asymptomatic nature. I guess you could say that he is unable to see the big picture and that his actions are self-centered, but to me they raise thought-provoking questions, and as he demonstrates, the Sibyl society will ultimately be dismantled, whether it be naturally or through revolution.

>Under Sibyl, people were still free to some extent, just not free enough for Makishima's standards, apparently. So, one thing's for sure, I wouldn't endorse Makishima's anarchy as the alternative.

Makishima would argue that freedom under Sibyl is merely an illusion of control. When your choices are made within the options that the Sibyl gives you, you are nothing better than a domesticated animal. If it determines you to have low aptitude for a certain job, it will simply not allow you to do that job; it refuses to take into account willpower. If it determines you to be a latent criminal, you are robbed of a good life without ever having done wrong; it refuses to take into account self-control. I don't think Psycho-Pass expects you to endorse Makishima'a anarchy, rather it expects you to understand the true nature of such unprecedented prosperity.

>"well, it's not like moral intuition can erode to this extent, right? Especially as a commonality as in Psycho-Pass." I just take issue with the extremity of the premise.

I wouldn't say the Sibyl System has conditioned people to become immoral. People just don't want to get involved in stuff that doesn't directly concern them, it's not even that uncommon in present-day society either. People can recognize something as being criminal (the Stress Level of the area did go up) and yet feign apathy. Of course, the Sibyl System is also partly to blame given how the Dominator has become the sole means of exercising justice, so people feel discouraged from taking action on their own.

>If he came in during an earlier stage of Sibyl's integration, where the possibility of severe consequences to selling off moral judgment loomed, where people are still being sold on the possibility of living their best lives and actively having to make the trade off now for themselves and future generations... then I'd find him a more compelling antagonist. He would have a stake in the debate, so to speak. Still though, the whole slicing innocent victims' throats thing would remain a let down lol. Doesn't do much for his credibility.

I would strongly disagree with this. The fact that Makishima exists at a time when Sibyl's benefits have been thoroughly demonstrated and yet chooses to advocate for its downfall is what makes him my all-time favourite antagonist. He believes from the bottom of his heart that even the whole sum of society's advancement isn't worth selling one's free will, not today, not ever. Even if it means engaging in rampant violence and plunging society into anarchy, free will is worth it. It's an incredibly powerful statement to make.

As for the Laughing Man, while I could empathise with his cause, he didn't really have anything profound to say. Nothing wrong with that, obviously, it's just that is what made SAC a lot less impactful for me. At its core, the Laughing Man incident is about a man (and his followers) who had grown fed up with the corruption of political leaders and other influential people. Certainly a powerful story, but not that contemplative.

> One last thing, I find the ending kinda a let down.

(SPOILERS) Kogami killing Makishima proves Makishima's point, that people can't be forever restrained through determinism, that when the need arises, people will exercise free will and rebel against the society that they themselves stood to massively gain by. It proves that the "domesticated" state that the Sibyl system has reduced people to can never become the natural state of humanity. How long is Psycho-Pass' society willing to let itself be subjugated for the sake of peace is what the show leaves us to ponder about.


Lastly, I don't think that the Sibyl system was introduced in some secretive sort of way. It must have been opposed initially, but seeing the unparalleled prosperity it offered in exchange for what many would consider a small price, the criticism would have slowly died down. People like Makishima who value free will above all else aren't that common, but that is what forces me to think, "Why would a man destroy everything for the sake of free will? Is it really more important than the prosperity of the society at large?"

I mean, I can't really point out any objective flaws in SAC, my issues are purely a 'me' problem. I agree that nearly every episode contributes in some way or the other to the larger scheme of things, it's just that I am not as invested in the cast and the plot as you or any other fan of the show might be. For me, its so-called spiritual successor Psycho-Pass works much better, feeling a lot more high-stakes, tightly-knit and just profound overall. Even the mini-arcs in the first half felt really intense while serving the same purpose as the standalone episodes in SAC.

The standalone episodes definitely help in worldbuilding, but I feel they put the main plot on the backburner for too long. Plus I recall only a couple of standalone episodes being memorable, majority of them were pretty average or unremarkable.

But I guess I won't be watching that compilation film. I feel like a lot of content is either entirely cut out or placed haphazardly. Judging the show based on such a poorly edited film would be unfair.

bird desertion.. shame on that bird..

Umm, just out of curiosity, you have kept your lists private for a pretty long time now, haven't you?

> humans' worthlessness and illogical systems act as justification to usher in his rule that would see them eaten and turned into soldiers.

I think that makes sense. Meruem doesn't hate humans, but given his encounter with Diego, he still views them as inefficient and illogical and thus believes they need to be replaced. I guess that is a strong motivation.

I guess I see Chimera Ant in a better light now, though I still can't say I'm a fan. The actual viewing experience was pretty horrible due to pacing and stuff. But I get what Togashi was going for, and there's merit in that. I can understand why people like it.

> "We must provide proper guidance."

See this is where I am a little confused. Why would he compare humans to livestock if he wishes to give them proper guidance? Why would he resent the current human systems if he just plans to eat them or make them their soldiers? That's like humans being bothered about the social hierarchy of chickens.

> I couldn't understand why Meruem's destain for human society has to be pre-programmed.

I am not saying it has to be preprogrammed. All I'd like is a strong reason for the hatred so that when Komugi comes in and that reason gets undermined, it would be thematically powerful. Viewing humans as food isn't a strong reason for hatred. Viewing society as inherently flawed and believing humans need to be replaced would be. Like I said above, it's not clear to me what exactly is his initial motivation or goal for world domination.

> Basically, I don't see why Meruem hating humans two episodes earlier is better.

His initial motivation is paramount. Why did he first decide to set out for world domination? It doesn't matter what reasons he later finds that make him want to rule the world even more. That's because even if he didn't find any more reasons, he would still seek to rule the world on the basis of his initial motivation. That initial motivation is what needs to be undermined for a change of heart.

I think the point of contention here is whether or not the unfair nature of human society motivated Meruem to conquer the world. And I would say it didn't. He would have sought to establish his rule either way. Before he met Komugi, all he thought of humans was that they were weak and his unparalleled strength gave him the absolute right to rule over the world. His hate for the unfair nature of society came quite sometime later.

Now if the unfair nature of society is what originally motivated him to conquer the world, then that would be better for me. He would start by thinking human nature is inherently flawed, and that their society deserves to be replaced by Chimera Ants' society. Then he would meet people like Komugi and his motive would shift to trying to make a better society for humans. That would make the story better for me.

> But it sounds like you have a problem with the idea of 'basic, pre-programmed chimera ants becoming more complicated as they interact with the world' itself rather than how it was executed.

Yeah, I don't like the concept of CA itself. Because they began with a preset personality, any change they undergo feels little more than a plot device. If, as I said before, they had a strong reason for being who they were and then that reason gets undermined causing them to change, that would have a lot more thematic power.

> What would count as a "strong reason" for you?

Anything that would make him think negatively of humans. Maybe even something along the lines of Johan Liebert's backstory. And then he would see people like Komugi and think humans aren't all that bad. That would make for a more compelling narrative, I feel.

> I'd argue that his initial perspective on power is undermined by the world around him -- namely Komugi.

See that's what I am trying to say. It's not truly his perspective, is it? It was given to him at birth. If instead he gained that perspective naturally on his own, that would make his story a lot more interesting.

>Do you prefer characters with backstory in general?

I think it's better to ask if I prefer the character's thoughts and actions to be a product of their personal motivations and objectives as opposed to being inherently made/brought up that way. And I would say it depends. Take Johan Liebert for instance. He was supposed to be this embodiment of mankind's evil, but because his upbringing was specifically contrived to make him like that, his actions and beliefs cannot be taken as a reflection of human nature and therefore become a vacuous plot device. On the flip side, you have characters like Yuki Nagato or Ryougi Shiki. They were also brought up to behave in a certain way, but they aren't really supposed to be some deep statement on human nature. They are only supposed to be relatable to a very targeted audience. In the case of the Royal Guards, because their loyalty wasn't earned by Meruem, it feels hollow. Yes, they do develop individuality, but they're still biologically encoded to have Meruem as their top priority. Similar logic to Meruem. Meruem was born as a monster and became more human. If instead of that, he had some strong reason to behave like a monster and then that reason was somehow undermined making him more human, that would be far more impactful and interesting.