| Squealor did some fucked up shit. He is a bad guy. there's no changing that. however, so are the humans. the whole point is that there is no good vs evil in this story cuz both sides have done horrible things. kinda like real life. you can empathize with squealor and his race, but that doesn't change what he did. the MC kinda represents this middle ground who has seen both sides, having seen the good and bad of both. by the end, the MC is trying to change society for the better. I think that one of the messages of the show is that there is no good and bad, and that we are all in some moral gray area. however, working together we can make the world a better place. |
 |
| I have always been baffled by both the "both sides bad" and/or Squeelor being singled out as some bad actor. If we understand, say, history in a broad sense, fighting your oppressor does often entail what some of you may call "evil". With how this series in particular goes about depicting the power relations, as far as we can tell, there isn't some "better" option of Squeelor to use in order to emancipate this oppressed race. I found it difficult to side with anyone but Squeelor from my viewing of this show. Further, if we understand good and evil to be perceived or experienced as subjective realities—in part motivated by our will to power—the humans are acting only in their interest by through their oppression and squandering of a race's will to power. The only manner in which Squeelor and his people can externalize their will to power and life is to somehow balance a power relationship or do away with humans entirely. I think people underestimate power relations in any sort of societal reconciliation. Pacificism and "civil" approaches to change are useful only to an established higher power. Notions of "social contracts" are predicated on the idea that violence is a more assured way of ushering changes where there are power imbalances and power concentrated within a minority. Unfortunately as well, societies operate on threats of violence and it is no surprise as to why some of the focal human kids get in trouble within their own societies. As for Squeelor acting out of hatred and this, somehow, concludes that he is in the wrong, I don't understand. Why does Squeelor want the humans exterminated? Because the humans exterminate his kind without deference? Squeelor is not given many or any reason to believe there can be any reconciliation. If we understand that the denial to one's will to power or life is itself harmful and, perhaps, bad, then Squeelor operating on the behalf of a people to actualize and allow themselves to pursue their own goals is done with a higher good in mind—I think it's telling how Squeelor has a scene where he explains their transition from a sort of feudalism to democracy. From this framework, allowing both the humans and Squeelor's people to actualize their wills to power would be better but, again, the show does not suggest any sort of reconciliation being possible where a "decent" peace/truce is possible. I'll finish with a quote from the Genealogy of Morals, "the beginning of the slaves’ revolt in morality occurs when ressentiment itself turns creative and gives birth to values..." |
| And I'm over here thinking that on September it's going to be the 10th anniversary when this Anime first aired. How time flies... |
Please learn about cel animation and its technical process. Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers. |
IAmSovereign said: fyrflys said: Squealor did some fucked up shit. He is a bad guy. there's no changing that. however, so are the humans. the whole point is that there is no good vs evil in this story cuz both sides have done horrible things. kinda like real life. you can empathize with squealor and his race, but that doesn't change what he did. the MC kinda represents this middle ground who has seen both sides, having seen the good and bad of both. by the end, the MC is trying to change society for the better. I think that one of the messages of the show is that there is no good and bad, and that we are all in some moral gray area. however, working together we can make the world a better place. To the ^above person And JT168 said: OP, though you have a detailed response, you definitely omitted some of the inherently evil and good acts on both sides which would complete the bigger picture as the others have said. There is no good or bad; those with might aren't always right but neither are those joined in an insurgency rooted in unethical grounds. Just like the law, what is legal isn't always ethical because humans and all thinking, living beings are complex; we all have our own opinions and perspectives that segregate us and form our own biases and our ego welcomes superiority complexes and other intangible traits such as an inherent will to dominate above all. tl;dr OP you missed the bigger picture; there is no right or wrong. Everything that happens is to gain an understanding of the drivers behind both factions and in turn garner empathy even pity on both sides. What bigger picture? My entire argument is from the bigger picture. The facts of the options Squeelor had before him which was highly realistic instead of Saki's bullshit "make the world a better place" which would probably not work and result in human-rat extinction but "oh well, at least she tried." Note that Saki's better society started with brutal torture of Squeelor for speaking the truth and the mass extermination of human rats. In contrast to Saki's "lets make the world a better place", Squeelor had a justified cause, genuine belief in reforms that imitated the ideals of 21st century democratic Japan and a realistic plan to reach freedom without any undue harshness on humans except stealing their main weapon for one single all-out war. This was the only option because this was the difficult nature of the cage that the cantus-wielders created and the human rats faced. It is so frustrating how callous people can be who empathize with any party other than squeelor. THERE IS NO "BOTH SIDES" HERE. The humans were slavers, who massacred human-rats on a whim. Who had deformed humans into human-rats *for no reason other than to allow them to be killed even after they started using inhibitors*. The humans are utterly the aggressors whereas the human-rats are acting in self-defense. There is no both sides. As my previous two comments show, and Squeelor himself says, "ONCE HOSTILITIES COMMENCED, WE HAD TO DO EVERYTHING THAT WE COULD TO WIN." One can clearly see the The war was justified on the basis of the one-sided crimes of the humans. The extermination of humans was justified on the basis of the fact that any war with cantus-wielders risked annihilation of the human rats if any cantus-wielder survived. The human-rats were highly intelligent, sentient beings whose individuals possessed emotions and capacity for pain. Yet they were treated worse than animals, whose entire populations were at the mercy of cantus-wielder whims. They were dehumanized and kept in the worst of conditions for a thousand years. And even after all that, the humans had no remorse. They did not empathized with the complaints of the human rats. The rebellion was justified. THERE IS NO FUCKING BOTH SIDES IN MANY REAL-WORLD SITUATIONS. Sometimes the nuance suggests that in fact, some people are wrong and need to be stopped. And only pussies refuse to take a stance against them. Or excuse them. Nazi Germany needed to be stopped. So did Stalin. So did slave-owners. And in this case as well, like in those, there are no fucking "both sides". One is objectively worse. The cantus-wielder side has no redeeming case to make. They are the victors and that is the only reason that they get to write the story as heroes. But otherwise, they are the godforsaken side of slavers, mutilators, torturers, and mass murdering genocidists by any measure. Since most of what I would of said as already been said by other people, I'm just gonna add some stuff. Yes Hitler, Stalin, and slavery needed to be stopped. But does that mean the entire German population, innocents and all, needed to die? All the innocent Soviets trapped under Stalin's rule? All the white Americans, good or bad? Imagine if during the Civil rights movement, instead of peaceful protest, the African Americans just attempted to whipe out the whites. That is Cleary wrong, making them just as bad as the slave owners. What squealor is doing is much more similar to the big bads you listed in your argument for him. His treatment of his own people and his cruelty toward his enemies makes him much more like Hitler or stalin. Obviously the peaceful protest path wasn't available to him either. But that being said, he took a path just as bad as the humans. Back to the part about innocent people, the biggest part I want to stress is that both sides have good and bad people. Some of the humans did horrible things, but there are plenty of innocent humans as well. Same can be said for the human rats. If you really want to make this into a good bad story, which it is not, the baddies are the leading people of each group who are causing such horrible treatment. My point is is that neither the humans nor the human rats are justified in what they're doing. Both are committing cruel acts against innocent people. There is no good v bad cuz both are bad. If this pisses you off, then good, cuz that's the point. You aren't supposed to like the way it works. That's just the way it is, and a lot of real wars are like that. The MC was trying to make change. She made some mistakes, and was forced to make some tough decisions that didn't really have a good outcome, but she wanted to create a better world for both races. This because she knew that there are both good and bad humans, good and bad human rats. Wether you think she did a good job is up to you, but she still took a path that, IMO, leads to a better, more peaceful future. I empathize with the human rats. What the humans did to them was fucked up. But I can't side with squealor, and what he did to both innocent humans, as well as his own people. If you can look past all the horrible things squealor did, while criticizing the humans, than I don't really know what to say to you, accept your missing the point of the show. |
|
fyrflys said: Since most of what I would of said as already been said by other people, I'm just gonna add some stuff. Yes Hitler, Stalin, and slavery needed to be stopped. But does that mean the entire German population, innocents and all, needed to die? All the innocent Soviets trapped under Stalin's rule? All the white Americans, good or bad? Imagine if during the Civil rights movement, instead of peaceful protest, the African Americans just attempted to whipe out the whites. That is Cleary wrong, making them just as bad as the slave owners. What squealor is doing is much more similar to the big bads you listed in your argument for him. His treatment of his own people and his cruelty toward his enemies makes him much more like Hitler or stalin. Obviously the peaceful protest path wasn't available to him either. But that being said, he took a path just as bad as the humans. Back to the part about innocent people, the biggest part I want to stress is that both sides have good and bad people. Some of the humans did horrible things, but there are plenty of innocent humans as well. Same can be said for the human rats. If you really want to make this into a good bad story, which it is not, the baddies are the leading people of each group who are causing such horrible treatment. My point is is that neither the humans nor the human rats are justified in what they're doing. Both are committing cruel acts against innocent people. There is no good v bad cuz both are bad. If this pisses you off, then good, cuz that's the point. You aren't supposed to like the way it works. That's just the way it is, and a lot of real wars are like that. The MC was trying to make change. She made some mistakes, and was forced to make some tough decisions that didn't really have a good outcome, but she wanted to create a better world for both races. This because she knew that there are both good and bad humans, good and bad human rats. Wether you think she did a good job is up to you, but she still took a path that, IMO, leads to a better, more peaceful future. I empathize with the human rats. What the humans did to them was fucked up. But I can't side with squealor, and what he did to both innocent humans, as well as his own people. If you can look past all the horrible things squealor did, while criticizing the humans, than I don't really know what to say to you, accept your missing the point of the show. Here is where a lot of the real-life comparisons and the show's become difficult. It's been a while since I've watched Shinsekai Yori but with how cantus-wielders, karma demons, and, I guess, magic work for the non-rat humans individually have more power than the rat-humans, any one survivor poses a threat to an entire species when the same equivalency does not quite exist in real life. And again, the power structures, relations, history, and options are different both in these real-life examples and the show's. Say, the Germans and French or any European people have had interconnected lives where the average Frenchman and German is no greater than the other. In Shinsekai Yori, we aren't given any suggestions that the two species coexist in any way apart from this master-slave relationship. However, I find it very odd how you can say that some amount of violence toward a class of people that perpetuates oppression is as bad the one not wanting to be oppressed. Somehow, the amount of lives irrevocably lost and damaged from the onset of chattel slavery is as bad as bringing it to an end? By what means do you measure good and bad? I'm assuming you disagree with all slave rebellions historically speaking. And you mention the Civil Rights movement as having peaceful protests but there were many non-peaceful protests. It's only after MLK's assassination and the violence protests that ensued did legislation occur and even then, the legislation that passes is a watered down demand from the many organizations that insisted on certain rights being passed. If you study history of social change a lot closer, you may realize how potential threats of violence (economic or physical) are what govern a lot of legislation. This also brings up my mention of power imbalances. There was no feasible way in which slaves (or First Nations) would and could wipe out the colonizers. Similarly, wiping out the German population is also as far-fetched. First Nations people in the US, due to how they did not fare well in the presence and oppression of the colonizers, in terms of projected demographic statistics, are likely to go extinct in a century or so while also still frequently being harassed and discriminated against in the present day due to their lack of power—most notably the lack of capital. The last episode of the series explicitly mention how "those with power ruled over that did not", to be brief, I'd just point to Nietzsche's understanding of master and slave morality and power systems. Morality is often predicated on who has power and where. Ignoring the attempted and failed parallels, I think it's better that Squealor is shown being cruel to his own people. Someone in such a position of power is, more often than not, just like so. The conditions in which Squealor or heads of nations/armies often find themselves in are conducive to such behavior. To suggest the absence of cruelty and the presence of extraordinary power can simultaneously exist is, I think, absolute idealism. When you say he takes a path just as bad as the humans, I suppose you're right in a sense. Both factions here are human-like and so there is no other option. Potentially, the rat-humans can just submit and be exterminated but that is anti-human-like and thus not an option posited. But to suggest the equivalency is "badness", again, would somehow require some sort of way you can quantify morality and, in real life, no one has really succeeded in being able to do so. Rousseau, notably, ends a paragraph with, "[Moral] Calculators, it is left for you to count, to measure, to compare." Suggestive of a sort of moral relativism in which there is no one answer but a multiplicity. Regarding the innocent people, yes, both sides have what we may call on an individual-level, good and bad qualities. This way of portraying a narrative is more grounded in reality and it's not anything new. Plato and people earlier write how people can be virtuous in any number of aspects but still be bad or deficient in some sense. To suggest any faction of people are absolutely and irrevocably evil would be suggestive of dehumanization and ignorance when realities are a lot more complex than any sort of absolute good vs evil narrative. Going back to the last episode of the show, there is a bit of a, maybe, subtle implication that, I think, Saki and Shun would have come to a different conclusion about the rat-humans after learning about how the history and how they were the same species at one point. I'd be tempted to parallel Plato's cave and how knowledge plays a role in moral sentiment. Saki and Shun, upon questioning Squealor in prison, simply does not understand Squealor's point of view and it was a bit frustrating how dense Saki and Shun appeared to be. These two characters, I think, represent the point of view of those lacking knowledge. If you somehow don't understand Squealor's point of view and how his answers are right in the first half of the last episode, you must have not been paying attention. "Why did you rebel against humanity?" "Because we are not slaves." "What do you mean? We have allowed self-governance!" "When our masters were in a good mood, yes. But if we upset you for any reason, no matter how minor, you would wipe out our entire colony." Saki then goes to mention how, like, legally, wiping out colonies is called for only in severe crimes, but in both the show and real-life, legalities can and often are applied selectively and in favor of those with real power. Squealor and this rebellion is a result of this power imbalance perpetuated by the humans, not the other way around, so to suggest self-defense and self-preservation is evil, you have to side with neither and be anti-life in general which is a real and valid take but I am not sure if you are some pacifist anti-natalist, I think you would have been more clear on why both sides are bad if you were so. Saki, prior to some semblance of understanding and prior to Squealor's punishment, did try to make things better but it seems quite clear she did not understand enough of about the entire situation and she seemingly lacked the power to single-handedly change everything wrong. At the very end of the last episode, we can maybe say at this point both Saki and Shun know better and potentially create a more peaceful future but we do not have a lot of info to say with certainty. The show, in some scenarios, call into question whether anyone is really innocent, so the death of humans in an ongoing conflict, to me, is not a cornerstone of this large-scale drama or war. I do not think we look past the horrible things Squealor does and we may not agree with the acts but we can certainly understand the rationale (or lack thereof). People who are not deluded with imaginary power, I think, are more likely to side with what appears to be the oppressed in the face of an oppressor. That would be a rather common narrative whether we look at Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, religion, political narratives, or what have you. I cannot separate my personal relationship with, say, colonialism and the themes depicted in Shinsekai Yori, I'm much closer to the rat-human in recent real life human history than I am to the colonizer at the top of their respective hierarchy. |
Discordja said: fyrflys said: Since most of what I would of said as already been said by other people, I'm just gonna add some stuff. Yes Hitler, Stalin, and slavery needed to be stopped. But does that mean the entire German population, innocents and all, needed to die? All the innocent Soviets trapped under Stalin's rule? All the white Americans, good or bad? Imagine if during the Civil rights movement, instead of peaceful protest, the African Americans just attempted to whipe out the whites. That is Cleary wrong, making them just as bad as the slave owners. What squealor is doing is much more similar to the big bads you listed in your argument for him. His treatment of his own people and his cruelty toward his enemies makes him much more like Hitler or stalin. Obviously the peaceful protest path wasn't available to him either. But that being said, he took a path just as bad as the humans. Back to the part about innocent people, the biggest part I want to stress is that both sides have good and bad people. Some of the humans did horrible things, but there are plenty of innocent humans as well. Same can be said for the human rats. If you really want to make this into a good bad story, which it is not, the baddies are the leading people of each group who are causing such horrible treatment. My point is is that neither the humans nor the human rats are justified in what they're doing. Both are committing cruel acts against innocent people. There is no good v bad cuz both are bad. If this pisses you off, then good, cuz that's the point. You aren't supposed to like the way it works. That's just the way it is, and a lot of real wars are like that. The MC was trying to make change. She made some mistakes, and was forced to make some tough decisions that didn't really have a good outcome, but she wanted to create a better world for both races. This because she knew that there are both good and bad humans, good and bad human rats. Wether you think she did a good job is up to you, but she still took a path that, IMO, leads to a better, more peaceful future. I empathize with the human rats. What the humans did to them was fucked up. But I can't side with squealor, and what he did to both innocent humans, as well as his own people. If you can look past all the horrible things squealor did, while criticizing the humans, than I don't really know what to say to you, accept your missing the point of the show. Here is where a lot of the real-life comparisons and the show's become difficult. It's been a while since I've watched Shinsekai Yori but with how cantus-wielders, karma demons, and, I guess, magic work for the non-rat humans individually have more power than the rat-humans, any one survivor poses a threat to an entire species when the same equivalency does not quite exist in real life. And again, the power structures, relations, history, and options are different both in these real-life examples and the show's. Say, the Germans and French or any European people have had interconnected lives where the average Frenchman and German is no greater than the other. In Shinsekai Yori, we aren't given any suggestions that the two species coexist in any way apart from this master-slave relationship. However, I find it very odd how you can say that some amount of violence toward a class of people that perpetuates oppression is as bad the one not wanting to be oppressed. Somehow, the amount of lives irrevocably lost and damaged from the onset of chattel slavery is as bad as bringing it to an end? By what means do you measure good and bad? I'm assuming you disagree with all slave rebellions historically speaking. And you mention the Civil Rights movement as having peaceful protests but there were many non-peaceful protests. It's only after MLK's assassination and the violence protests that ensued did legislation occur and even then, the legislation that passes is a watered down demand from the many organizations that insisted on certain rights being passed. If you study history of social change a lot closer, you may realize how potential threats of violence (economic or physical) are what govern a lot of legislation. This also brings up my mention of power imbalances. There was no feasible way in which slaves (or First Nations) would and could wipe out the colonizers. Similarly, wiping out the German population is also as far-fetched. First Nations people in the US, due to how they did not fare well in the presence and oppression of the colonizers, in terms of projected demographic statistics, are likely to go extinct in a century or so while also still frequently being harassed and discriminated against in the present day due to their lack of power—most notably the lack of capital. The last episode of the series explicitly mention how "those with power ruled over that did not", to be brief, I'd just point to Nietzsche's understanding of master and slave morality and power systems. Morality is often predicated on who has power and where. Ignoring the attempted and failed parallels, I think it's better that Squealor is shown being cruel to his own people. Someone in such a position of power is, more often than not, just like so. The conditions in which Squealor or heads of nations/armies often find themselves in are conducive to such behavior. To suggest the absence of cruelty and the presence of extraordinary power can simultaneously exist is, I think, absolute idealism. When you say he takes a path just as bad as the humans, I suppose you're right in a sense. Both factions here are human-like and so there is no other option. Potentially, the rat-humans can just submit and be exterminated but that is anti-human-like and thus not an option posited. But to suggest the equivalency is "badness", again, would somehow require some sort of way you can quantify morality and, in real life, no one has really succeeded in being able to do so. Rousseau, notably, ends a paragraph with, "[Moral] Calculators, it is left for you to count, to measure, to compare." Suggestive of a sort of moral relativism in which there is no one answer but a multiplicity. Regarding the innocent people, yes, both sides have what we may call on an individual-level, good and bad qualities. This way of portraying a narrative is more grounded in reality and it's not anything new. Plato and people earlier write how people can be virtuous in any number of aspects but still be bad or deficient in some sense. To suggest any faction of people are absolutely and irrevocably evil would be suggestive of dehumanization and ignorance when realities are a lot more complex than any sort of absolute good vs evil narrative. Going back to the last episode of the show, there is a bit of a, maybe, subtle implication that, I think, Saki and Shun would have come to a different conclusion about the rat-humans after learning about how the history and how they were the same species at one point. I'd be tempted to parallel Plato's cave and how knowledge plays a role in moral sentiment. Saki and Shun, upon questioning Squealor in prison, simply does not understand Squealor's point of view and it was a bit frustrating how dense Saki and Shun appeared to be. These two characters, I think, represent the point of view of those lacking knowledge. If you somehow don't understand Squealor's point of view and how his answers are right in the first half of the last episode, you must have not been paying attention. "Why did you rebel against humanity?" "Because we are not slaves." "What do you mean? We have allowed self-governance!" "When our masters were in a good mood, yes. But if we upset you for any reason, no matter how minor, you would wipe out our entire colony." Saki then goes to mention how, like, legally, wiping out colonies is called for only in severe crimes, but in both the show and real-life, legalities can and often are applied selectively and in favor of those with real power. Squealor and this rebellion is a result of this power imbalance perpetuated by the humans, not the other way around, so to suggest self-defense and self-preservation is evil, you have to side with neither and be anti-life in general which is a real and valid take but I am not sure if you are some pacifist anti-natalist, I think you would have been more clear on why both sides are bad if you were so. Saki, prior to some semblance of understanding and prior to Squealor's punishment, did try to make things better but it seems quite clear she did not understand enough of about the entire situation and she seemingly lacked the power to single-handedly change everything wrong. At the very end of the last episode, we can maybe say at this point both Saki and Shun know better and potentially create a more peaceful future but we do not have a lot of info to say with certainty. The show, in some scenarios, call into question whether anyone is really innocent, so the death of humans in an ongoing conflict, to me, is not a cornerstone of this large-scale drama or war. I do not think we look past the horrible things Squealor does and we may not agree with the acts but we can certainly understand the rationale (or lack thereof). People who are not deluded with imaginary power, I think, are more likely to side with what appears to be the oppressed in the face of an oppressor. That would be a rather common narrative whether we look at Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, religion, political narratives, or what have you. I cannot separate my personal relationship with, say, colonialism and the themes depicted in Shinsekai Yori, I'm much closer to the rat-human in recent real life human history than I am to the colonizer at the top of their respective hierarchy. I'm going to start by saying that I don't have as much knowledge on a lot of the things you talked about. I also agree with some of the things you said. This is just a response defending my original argument that Squealor can't be given a free pass for the horrible things he has done. The main reason I made historical references was because OP made those exact same references in favor of his argument. I simply wanted to show why his reasoning was flawed. Obviously the scenarios I described are unrealistic, but I was making a point about the morality of what Squealor was doing. As for the Civil Rights Movement, I know that everything wasn't peaceful, and there was a lot I didn't touch on. I'm not claiming that slave revolts are unjustified. I am not saying that violent protests against civil rights is unjustified. However, that doesn't just make it perfectly just to murder other people. Obviously this is a debatable topic, one in which your points on morality come into play. However, that violence, justified or not, is the same violence being committed by the oppressors, and as such you are lowering yourself to the same level as the oppressors. Whether this is acceptable for the cause is debatable. As for Squealors treatment of his own people, you essentially agreed to my point that what he did was wrong. Whether it was realistic or not does not change the fact that what he did is wrong. Would you not criticize a real leader for such actions? And while finding a perfectly just leader may be unrealistic, it does not mean we should not criticize those who do wrong. Keep in mind the humans harmed each other as well. Both did wrong. As for innocent people, I never was trying to say that some are completely good and some are completely bad. In fact, I like the moral gray areas of this show. However, does the entire human race deserve to die for the actions of a select portion of them? The same can be said for the rat humans. Not only did they not deserve the treatment they received in the first place, but punishing them for squealors actions, if they did not take part, is also unfair. Obviously it is unrealistic to save all innocent lives. However, my argument is that Squealor can't be justified for taking innocent lives non the less. I understand Squealor's perspective. I do not question his reasoning. I do, however, disagree with his methods. Even knowing the past of the rat humans, I don't believe Squalors cruelty is forgivable. Concerning your last three paragraphs. I agree with most of your points. Squealor had a reason to rebel. His species was being threatened. However, he STILL committed horrible acts. That is why I believe he cannot be considered the "hero" in the story. From the New World, IMO, is so good because of the moral grayness and the questions it creates. However, I wish to restate OPs original claim. "There is very little, if anything, unjustified in what Squeelor did. Squeelor was, unequivocally, the ONLY hero in this show. The small bit of emotional connection we have with Saki due to following her story does nothing to erase the fact that she was insignificant, and honestly, even if she chooses to try to reform the humans, her efforts will be utterly fruitless and short-lived and undone by the emergence of a single human who wants revenge on human-rats. I invite anyone to watch episode 25 and listen to his own words and come away with anything less than respect for the sincerity of this visionary leader and admirable human being." Squealor is not a hero. He may have a reason behind his actions, but those actions are still cruel. Claiming that he has the right to murder countless innocent people, among other horrible things, because of treatment toward him is simply wrong. He stooped to the same level as the humans, there is no denying that. Squealor does not get a free pass. The human's did some fucked up shit, but so did he. |
|
fyrflys said: As for Squealors treatment of his own people, you essentially agreed to my point that what he did was wrong. Whether it was realistic or not does not change the fact that what he did is wrong. Would you not criticize a real leader for such actions? And while finding a perfectly just leader may be unrealistic, it does not mean we should not criticize those who do wrong. Keep in mind the humans harmed each other as well. Both did wrong. As for innocent people, I never was trying to say that some are completely good and some are completely bad. In fact, I like the moral gray areas of this show. However, does the entire human race deserve to die for the actions of a select portion of them? The same can be said for the rat humans. Not only did they not deserve the treatment they received in the first place, but punishing them for squealors actions, if they did not take part, is also unfair. Obviously it is unrealistic to save all innocent lives. However, my argument is that Squealor can't be justified for taking innocent lives non the less. I understand Squealor's perspective. I do not question his reasoning. I do, however, disagree with his methods. Even knowing the past of the rat humans, I don't believe Squalors cruelty is forgivable. Concerning your last three paragraphs. I agree with most of your points. Squealor had a reason to rebel. His species was being threatened. However, he STILL committed horrible acts. That is why I believe he cannot be considered the "hero" in the story. From the New World, IMO, is so good because of the moral grayness and the questions it creates. However, I wish to restate OPs original claim. "There is very little, if anything, unjustified in what Squeelor did. Oh okay, yeah, what the OP stated is, uh, a bit hyperbolic or exaggerated. I think the disagreement between you and I are slight differences in nuance. Sure, justified or not, violence is violence, but I am not sure if there is any "lowering" of one's self to the same level as the opponent. I think you can make this argument on an individual level where we can say all things are relatively equal and I could be wrong but Squealor's rebellion hinges on the event that you find very despicable: kidnapping, killing, and taking (I think) Maria's and Mamoru's child. From the story, we're led to believe it's a necessary evil. If something is truly a necessary evil, while we (and I do) still consider it evil, it's arguably an evil not worth a lot of condemnation because it's the human answer. It's also, I'd say, human to condemn someone who participates in a necessary evil because most people are not put in that same scenario. A parallel may be how people would never consider cannibalism but in the few recorded cases of people being stranded, people do resort to it and in one case I've read, after being rescued, those that partook in that cannibalism were ostracized in their home towns. If we assume the sanctity of the human body, living or dead but also acknowledge how we are often biologically driven to survive, we can say both actors are bad. But concepts of right and wrong can only really flourish and develop outside of a rather immediate life-or-death scenario, so if most of us had to pick a side, I'd think we'd pick the option of survival. In that moment, what is otherwise "wrong" becomes "right" even if temporarily. To that extent, I'd say there can be forgiveness extended to either side. Given how we operate within this imperfect world with imperfect bodies, frankly, everyone is deserving of forgiveness and grace. So, like, I do agree with you, for sure, and there is a lot of moral grayness with no "perfect" hero. Even further, I would say, in some sense, all the factions in the story are justified because they can only act in their own interest and understanding of the world, so everyone gets a "free pass" in my opinion, I guess, and our difference in opinion may come down to our worldviews. Perhaps, namely, how violence maintains social structures ("innocents" are always entangled) and that no one can really be innocent because moral systems are built by a faction's relationship with power. It is primarily during extreme social unrest does this seem the most apparent when it is rather subtle elsewise. Much love to you, btw <3 |
Discordja said: fyrflys said: As for Squealors treatment of his own people, you essentially agreed to my point that what he did was wrong. Whether it was realistic or not does not change the fact that what he did is wrong. Would you not criticize a real leader for such actions? And while finding a perfectly just leader may be unrealistic, it does not mean we should not criticize those who do wrong. Keep in mind the humans harmed each other as well. Both did wrong. As for innocent people, I never was trying to say that some are completely good and some are completely bad. In fact, I like the moral gray areas of this show. However, does the entire human race deserve to die for the actions of a select portion of them? The same can be said for the rat humans. Not only did they not deserve the treatment they received in the first place, but punishing them for squealors actions, if they did not take part, is also unfair. Obviously it is unrealistic to save all innocent lives. However, my argument is that Squealor can't be justified for taking innocent lives non the less. I understand Squealor's perspective. I do not question his reasoning. I do, however, disagree with his methods. Even knowing the past of the rat humans, I don't believe Squalors cruelty is forgivable. Concerning your last three paragraphs. I agree with most of your points. Squealor had a reason to rebel. His species was being threatened. However, he STILL committed horrible acts. That is why I believe he cannot be considered the "hero" in the story. From the New World, IMO, is so good because of the moral grayness and the questions it creates. However, I wish to restate OPs original claim. "There is very little, if anything, unjustified in what Squeelor did. Oh okay, yeah, what the OP stated is, uh, a bit hyperbolic or exaggerated. I think the disagreement between you and I are slight differences in nuance. Sure, justified or not, violence is violence, but I am not sure if there is any "lowering" of one's self to the same level as the opponent. I think you can make this argument on an individual level where we can say all things are relatively equal and I could be wrong but Squealor's rebellion hinges on the event that you find very despicable: kidnapping, killing, and taking (I think) Maria's and Mamoru's child. From the story, we're led to believe it's a necessary evil. If something is truly a necessary evil, while we (and I do) still consider it evil, it's arguably an evil not worth a lot of condemnation because it's the human answer. It's also, I'd say, human to condemn someone who participates in a necessary evil because most people are not put in that same scenario. A parallel may be how people would never consider cannibalism but in the few recorded cases of people being stranded, people do resort to it and in one case I've read, after being rescued, those that partook in that cannibalism were ostracized in their home towns. If we assume the sanctity of the human body, living or dead but also acknowledge how we are often biologically driven to survive, we can say both actors are bad. But concepts of right and wrong can only really flourish and develop outside of a rather immediate life-or-death scenario, so if most of us had to pick a side, I'd think we'd pick the option of survival. In that moment, what is otherwise "wrong" becomes "right" even if temporarily. To that extent, I'd say there can be forgiveness extended to either side. Given how we operate within this imperfect world with imperfect bodies, frankly, everyone is deserving of forgiveness and grace. So, like, I do agree with you, for sure, and there is a lot of moral grayness with no "perfect" hero. Even further, I would say, in some sense, all the factions in the story are justified because they can only act in their own interest and understanding of the world, so everyone gets a "free pass" in my opinion, I guess, and our difference in opinion may come down to our worldviews. Perhaps, namely, how violence maintains social structures ("innocents" are always entangled) and that no one can really be innocent because moral systems are built by a faction's relationship with power. It is primarily during extreme social unrest does this seem the most apparent when it is rather subtle elsewise. Much love to you, btw <3 I agree with you on this. One thing I really like about this show is how debatable the morality of the actions of the characters are, and I don't think there is one objective answer to this question. I personally, however, can still not agree with Squealor's actions. This is not because he started a rebellion. It is obvious nothing would change without some sort of rebellion or war, and lives will be lost. However, the extreme cruelty he displays to those around him for his own sense of justice is what I can't stand with. Whether some of these actions are necessary evils is something to be debated, but he displays a level of cruelty and tyranny that rivals that of the human establishment. While I side with the rat humans overall, for their treatment is unjustified, I don't support Squealor's rule in particular. Of course, this is just my view, and if one can accept Squealor's actions, in the name of the overall goal, than they have every right to argue in Squealor's defense, as long as they acknowledge what he is doing is still morally wrong. The OP did not seem to understand this, deciding that Squealor was some sort of hero or saint simply because his species is the victim. As for forgiveness, while forgiveness, like most other things, is subjective, I feel that if one were to forgive Squealor, than they must subsequently forgive the human race as well. Not necessary the higher ups, who had no reason behind their suppression, but the general population, who, like the human rats, are trying to do their best in their current situation. At the end of the day, this is just my opinion. If I had to choose a side, I honestly don't know who to choose. I think the MC's path, while still flawed, is the best path to take, opting to reform society. Of course, this is a very idealistic choice, and one that is in most cases not available. But since it is presented in the show, I will choose it, since I can't support the actions of the human higher ups or Squealor's reign. I know I have some idealistic views, which is mainly why I condemn many of Squealor's actions. But I believe that if we as people, in real life, don't condemn such actions, no matter the justification, the world will never become a better place. <3 |
|
Kunasempai said: Ain't squeeler supposed to be our descendant? I'm sorry, but I watched this anime a long time ago and I don't remember it very well, though I recall the ending to be really good and harsh No, powerless people (in this case us since there is no people with power anyway in real life) is what monster rats is (Squealer's descendant) as powered people changed our genes. |
 |
IAmSovereign said: fyrflys said: I agree with you on this. One thing I really like about this show is how debatable the morality of the actions of the characters are, and I don't think there is one objective answer to this question. I personally, however, can still not agree with Squealor's actions. This is not because he started a rebellion. It is obvious nothing would change without some sort of rebellion or war, and lives will be lost. However, the extreme cruelty he displays to those around him for his own sense of justice is what I can't stand with. Whether some of these actions are necessary evils is something to be debated, but he displays a level of cruelty and tyranny that rivals that of the human establishment. While I side with the rat humans overall, for their treatment is unjustified, I don't support Squealor's rule in particular. Of course, this is just my view, and if one can accept Squealor's actions, in the name of the overall goal, than they have every right to argue in Squealor's defense, as long as they acknowledge what he is doing is still morally wrong. The OP did not seem to understand this, deciding that Squealor was some sort of hero or saint simply because his species is the victim. As for forgiveness, while forgiveness, like most other things, is subjective, I feel that if one were to forgive Squealor, than they must subsequently forgive the human race as well. Not necessary the higher ups, who had no reason behind their suppression, but the general population, who, like the human rats, are trying to do their best in their current situation. At the end of the day, this is just my opinion. If I had to choose a side, I honestly don't know who to choose. I think the MC's path, while still flawed, is the best path to take, opting to reform society. Of course, this is a very idealistic choice, and one that is in most cases not available. But since it is presented in the show, I will choose it, since I can't support the actions of the human higher ups or Squealor's reign. I know I have some idealistic views, which is mainly why I condemn many of Squealor's actions. But I believe that if we as people, in real life, don't condemn such actions, no matter the justification, the world will never become a better place. <3 What I don't understand is how you cannot see the game theory in this show makes it impossible for Squealor to be compared to real-life slavers, genocidists. In real-life, you just had to dismantle a genocidal regime and take over the population and institute reforms and voila, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan could indeed be salvaged. Good people could indeed be spared, and even future generations could be redeemed (although even in those cases, the technology limitations made it neccessary to inflict great destruction on those countries before they could be stopped). But in Shinsekai Yori, Squeelor was facing a completely different Game Theory. He had to somehow come up with a solution to an incredible power-imbalance in order for the human-rats to escape a thousand years of slavery. Just think back to the first episode: We know that a SINGLE cantus-wielding psychopath managed to commit massacres in Tokyo, Japan in the 21st century, and the whole city was helpless. Later, we know that entire nations committed their militaries to battle with SINGLE cantus wielders AND LOST (we see in earlier episodes that 21st century countries employed aerial bombardment and even nuclear weaponry to fight. While we dont see the outcomes of these battles, we do know from the ruins that they lost. In fact, the last arc of the anime takes place in a city in ruins where such a military battle took place.) We are told in the narration that the new order that emerged out of the devastation of the 21st century was rule by "emperors", SINGLE cantus-wielding INDIVIDUALS who enslaved populations of millions ALONE. We see in an episode that one such emperor had such sensitivity as to be able to identify which person stopped clapping in a crowd of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Upon seeing someone stopped clapping, he burned them alive. We see Shun (the memory-erased first-love of Saki) was an individual child trying his best to subdue his powers, but even despite his best efforts and all the motivation in the world, he couldn't help but subconsciously deform and warp the reality out of a whole valley and every living thing in it. Squealor always viewed Cantus as what differentiates the two species. Cantus is what makes Humans "gods" and human-rats "slaves". Squealor witnesses with his own eyes two confused and lost cantus-wielding CHILDREN (Saki and Satoru) wipe out a powerful human-rat army of thousands. We are shown during those episodes how thoughtfully he watches these events and how amazed he is. He knew as a first-hand witness that the strongest human-rat army could not hope to beat a single cantus wielder unless they managed to land a surprise blow. Thus, the human-rats could never last long in a battle to challenge the cantus-wielders. The power balance was so laughably one-sided that a SINGLE surviving cantus-wielder who survived the rebellion would be able to stroll through Japan and exterminate every single human-rat colony that existed, one by one. And in fact, that is what kept happening for a thousand years since 21st century Japan. But despite the impossibility of freedom, he deeply believes that humans and queerats are both intelligent and both human and both deserving of dignity. He deeply believes that the human-rats are not their slaves. He learned from the archives and the architectural ruins the history of the human-rats and knew that they were descendants of 21st century Japan. He wasn't just fighting for his tiny Robber Fly colony. He was fighting for all human-rats and all humans who had been oppressed for a thousand years to be able to live like the 21st century Japan again, which he viewed as the true heritage and identity of the human-rats. It wasn't just that Squealor was trying to ape 21st century Japan, Squealor was quite philosopically minded and actually reached those conclusions along with other human-rats in the "unions" based on reasoning and logic. Thus, he implemented reforms in the colonies, which is what got him political power in the first place. At the beginning, he didn't know how he would earn freedom from cantus-wielders. All he was doing was enthusiastically introducing the ideas of "rights", "democracy", "individual freedom", "concrete buildings" and all sorts of ideas from 21st century Japan. When Satoru and Saki ask him about what happened to the queens (one area of side-effects), he himself was visibly confused and apologetic for how it had to turn out. https://shinsekaiyori.fandom.com/wiki/Squealer#Quotes He didnt want it to turn out in this way and to think that a leader wouldn't face harsh challenges and interruptions to his idealism when he advocated for democracy to an absolute monarch queen, is naive. So in conclusion, 21st century Japan, with all its advanced weapons, LOST to single individual cantus-wielders. All of their humans were enslaved and subjected to violence for a thousand years and finally mutilated into rats so that when the violence BETWEEN cantus-wielders would end, human-rats would still be able to be killed, maimed and enslaved, as normal. Thus, the only possible path to survival and freedom was to get rid of all cantus-wielders. It just isn't possible to spare any cantus-wielders because of how imbalanced the power dynamics are. Can you see that? Lets illustrate. In the show, we see a historical flashback wherein teams of highly trained human assassins carry out a mission to kill a single emperor, on behalf of the enslaved humanity (in their own their words). We see these assassins carry out a surprise attack but still lose their lives and get wiped out to the last man. Only luck and trickery by the final assassin makes their mission a success, by a hair. Yet although those humans did manage to bring down ONE emperor, we also know for a fact that the oppression went on after this event. As normal. Because eventually, another cantus-wielder came along who also didn't view normal humans as dignified, thus ALSO became an oppressor and enslaver. And nothing changed. Nothing changes if you kill ONE cantus-wielder. Nothing changes if you kill ten. Because if a SINGLE surviving cantus-wielder wants, he can on his own, ALONE, become emperor over a million normal humans. Thus, this makes the extermination of cantus-wielders, down to the last man, woman and child JUSTIFIED. And utterly morally defensible. As they are all, weapons of mass destruction. The cantus-wielders themselves recognize that cantus-wielders are weapons of mass destruction and SAKI HERSELF, AT THE END OF THE SHOW, JOINS THE POLITICAL REGIME WHICH CARRIES OUT THE KILLING OF RISKY CANTUS-WIELDING CHILDREN. We do not see any reference to Saki trying to end that practice, despite Saki's personal relationship with children who were killed during the first half of the show. Saki realizes how dangerous it would be for fiends to emerge. Thus, it is already established that killing cantus-wielding children is morally justified if they can't GUARRANTEE that the child won't be violent. Squealor couldn't guarrantee a single thing about ANY cantus-wielder. As far as he was concerned, NONE OF THEM would experience death-feedback if they killed a human-rat and he was right. Thus, just like the cantus-wielders were entitled to kill cantus-wielders who weren't GUARRANTEED to be safe, so was he. In fact, he was more so. Sqealor wasn't taking any pleasure in the murders. He really was forced into it. He knew that he could not possibly negotiate with cantus-wielders because they didnt view them as having dignity enough to reason with them. Moreover, there were people in Exospecies Control Department who if they got suspicious, would instantly kill them for initiating reforms. Satoru himself stated that Squealor simply calling himself as having equal dignity as a human was enough to earn him the death penalty. So he couldn't negotiate with humans. He viewed extermination as a measure of last-resort. He knew that that massacres of humans was wrong and even worthy of an apology, as he said so in his impassioned speech to Saki, but his position was that it was EQUALLY wrong the massacres inflicted by the humans on the human-rats. As for using the human child, he himself stated, quoted verbatim from Episode 25, "I deserve to die, for wasting our one and only chance to change history." "[kidnapping Mamoru and Maria's child] was simply part of the strategy." "Once hostilities with humans started, we had to do everything we could do to win." We can easily see that without cantus, the human-rat side was powerless. His only strategy to bring about liberation was to somehow use cantus-wielders own power against them. Yes, the kidnapping of one child IS horrible, but it becomes is a lot more understandable given that the human-rats didn't start this sad history. It becomes a lot more understandable when WE SEE HUMAN-RAT CHILDREN ALSO BEING KILLED ON SCREEN IN THE SHOW. WHEN WE SEE CHILDREN OF 21st CENTURY JAPAN BEING KILLED ON-SCREEN IN THE SHOW. He wanted to end this sad history. Saki's course of action will just perpetuate it. I guarrantee that the ones who mutilated humans to keep it possible to kill and enslave them would not be too sorry to learn they did such a thing. They knew what they were doing. And their descendents will agree with them. And as I've demonstrated exhaustively in this reply, you only need ONE cantus-wielder to be a racist to enslave every human-rat in Japan. Cantus is too great a power for humans to have. It empowers single humans far too much. And real history shows that even the best reforms dont wipe out racism. How would you view it if racists of 21st century USA were able to use cantus to put all blacks back in their cages, with the good people unable to do a thing to stop them? In such a scenario, wiping out the cantus-wielders, through any means, would be justified. As they present an existential risk. And this is a war that THEY started. Thus, it is not hyperbolic to say that Squealor was completely morally justified in this war and his conduct therein. He does NOT deserve to be indicted as a war criminal. He deserves acquittal. He fought an impossible war for a just cause, he fought for his people and not his own ego, and faced the hard choices he was forced into making with logic and reason and without any excess cruelty than was completely justified. There can be no comparison with the choices Squealor was forced to make that are comparable to a universe without cantus-wielders. Because as soon as you put cantus into the hands of all citizens of Nazi Germany, and all of those Nazi citizens went on to create a long history of enslaving other races and waging destruction and oppression... then I'm sorry to say, it justifies the victims to seek to wipe out all holders of this power to protect themselves. This is the harsh game theory that this show so realistically depicts, a universe where humans have superpowers of this magnitude. In my view, the entire theme of the show is... that a world where humans had lopsided superpowers... would be a terrible world and that humans cannot be entrusted with such lopsided powers. Imma be honest, I only skimmed through this, so sorry if I missed something. 1. The only reason I brought up real life events (Nazi's and stuff) is because you did initially. So you essential devalued your own argument. "Nazi Germany needed to be stopped. So did Stalin. So did slave-owners." 2. What me and the other user were saying is that whether or not what Squealor did was acceptable considering the circumstances is debatable, but you can't argue that he didn't do bad things. Even if it was for the cause, even if he didn't want to, he still did it. You can't call someone a saint for murdering countless people and manipulating many others. Your argument is essentially that two wrongs make a right, that Squealor's wrong somehow righted the human's wrong. It didn't, you just end up with two wrongs, two sides doing bad things. If you think that what Squalor did was worth the cause, then fine, your opinion, but you still need to acknowledge that what he did was morally wrong. Your disregarding his immoral choices entirely in your argument, saying that he can't do wrong. Imagine this: Someone is holding a gun to your head, and tells you to shoot someone. Killing them saves your life, but sparing them costs yours. If you choose to kill them, it is fair to say your justified in your decision to save your life. But you stilled killed someone, which is morally wrong. You took someone else's life in favor of your own. In fact, many people, including some I know, would rather die than kill the person because it is morally wrong, and they either don't want to, or can't, kill them. Squealer chooses to shoot the bullet. Except his bullet is determining the fate of thousands. If you think Squealor is justified in his actions for freedom, than argue that all you want. But Squealor is still committing some horrible, immoral acts himself, and saying he can't be criticized for that is ignorant. |
|
| you can empathize with the rat if you want, no shame in it. but the story of shinsekai yori is not of black and white morals. in his context squeeler was right: his rat-people were dealt a shitty hand and he tried to turn the tables. in context of PK users squeeler was a villain and had to be put down. as simple as that the society of PK users held on very fragile balance of bullshit put together and its not easy to fix: you take 1 bullshit out of the equation and everything is going to shambles. its hard to manage a crowd of people with godlike powers each able to rip the world apart with a single thought |
| Am I a good person? No. But do I try to be better every single day? Also no |
More topics from this board
» Ugly KVScuzzyBear - Jun 8, 2023 |
9 |
by charlieman999
»»
Mar 28, 6:10 AM |
|
Poll: » Shinsekai yori Episode 25 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - Mar 22, 2013 |
1325 |
by Xeehad
»»
Mar 2, 8:13 AM |
|
Poll: » Shinsekai yori Episode 14 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 )Stark700 - Jan 4, 2013 |
169 |
by Xeehad
»»
Mar 1, 11:37 AM |
|
Poll: » Shinsekai yori Episode 5 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - Oct 26, 2012 |
516 |
by Xeehad
»»
Feb 26, 10:04 AM |
|
Poll: » Shinsekai yori Episode 4 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - Oct 19, 2012 |
363 |
by Xeehad
»»
Feb 26, 9:30 AM |