Not signed in (Sign In)
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnjones
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.121)
    For example, "We need to remove your appendix: abdominal surgery. Would you like us to do that while you're concious? Or would you prefer General Anasthetic, so that you remember nothing?"


    Well, honestly, what Sirkka did was closer to "During your check-up we decided that you needed your appendix out to prevent infection, so we went ahead and removed it. That's why your bill for the check-up will end up being so high."
    • CommentAuthorDee_Noir
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.122)
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    I live in a flat little village in South-East England. Please Warren make it mine so I can run an unofficial tour and make some pretty polly.
    The dole que is calling out my name.

    N.B. Slough, Crawley, Milton Keynes? Oh God, not Milton Keynes; I'd stop reading on principle.
  1.  (6340.123)
    anaethetising physical hurt is a very different thing from messing with a mind! the brain may be just another organ but consciousness is something else entirely. We own our experiences, not owned by them. And I don't believe those with the ability to do what srikka does should be inclined to do it. Simply, it is another violation.

    As for Srikka knowing what a victim wants by reading the mind, well come on. Thats another violation. Stay the fuck out of peoples heads. It's not <em>fair</em> to go delving. Either come out and offer the service as a gift or don't do it at all.

    This is why I love Freak Angels btw. Morality minefield
    •  
      CommentAuthordiello
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009 edited
     (6340.124)
    (you can just breeze over this. I know there is a heated debate going on right now)

    My final opinion for the week on the rape/mindrape thing with Sirkka:
    Not cool with what she did at the rape camp. Fine with what she did to the girl here and now (it beats having to out their powers trying to explain why she had a blank spot in her short-term memory bank. She didn't know she was raped, there's no physical OR mental evidence of it, so she's not losing any traumatic experience or anything. Why ruin her day?).


    My final word on the comic for the day:
    AMAZING (and more words: Warren, Paul and Ariana are the greatest people in the whole wide world!)

    And everyone, don't forget- every week, we're usually only seeing between 1 and 5 minutes of the FreakAngel day. Give it more time.



    My final word on the heated and angry posts here:
    Think about the CHICKENZ (and poopy torture chambers). Calm down or start a debate thread outside this one, please?
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.125)
    The attitude could also be called paternalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism says, "It is implied that the fatherly figure is wiser than and acts in the best interest of its protected figures."

    There's no word "maternalism".

    The fact that paternalism has been abusive sometimes isn't sufficient IMO to say that it's always (e.g. in Srikka's case) wrong.

    Noblesse oblige. :-)

    > You have to accept that people will live with things done to them

    That's your language telling me what I have to accept. You might like to read Ursula Le Guin's Bryn Mawr Commencement Address (I certainly liked it).
  2.  (6340.126)
    it's matriarchy, although I agree it does not have a direct parallel in the same way paternalism does to patriarchy. But Paternalism does at least imply a level of care that Luke with his ubermensch attitude is totally not providing :)

    However, this does not mean that a matriachal attitude (and it is one taken by srikka imo) is something fair, right, democratic.

    I've enjoyed Le Guins work (shame on me that it's her kids books earthsea quartet that I know the best) So I'll peruse that link tomorrow. It's getting to 'oh god' o'clock here.

    Now, I don't tell you what to accept with my language. I posit, pose and ask. If I was forcing you to accept my points by overt means then you'd have to agree with me. You haven't. Instead you've given me food for thought and something to read, you've challenged my opinion. For which I salute you!

    Anyway, it is my bedtime. I shall return to this discussion tomorrow.
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009 edited
     (6340.127)
    > it's her kids books earthsea quartet that I know the best

    As you enjoyed them, it might please you to read that are 7 book in the Earthsea canon now:

    * The first three (A Wizard of Earthsea, The Tombs of Atuan, and The Furthest Shore)
    * Two further novels (Tehanu and The Other Wind)
    * A collection of short stories (Tales from Earthsea)
    * A novella (Dragonfly)

    Beyond the original three, they're no longer quite the same 'kids books': Tehanu for example is a young child who's beaten, burned and left for dead. They would heal her, but they haven't the power; they adopt her. They, incidentally, the later works, they feature important female characters, whereas the original three novels essentially didn't.
    • CommentAuthorLil
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.128)
    I've just joined up moments ago, but I've been enjoying the lively discussions here for weeks.

    I suppose what's finally drawn me out is the idea posited that rape victims would be some sort of drain on the society, too broken and too traumatized to function, therefore the 'Angels had a right to tamper with the minds of the victims of the rape camp. For that argument, might I suggest this: rape is not something that just happens during an apocalypse. It's impossible to know the exact statistics, because rape often goes unreported, but in our modern, non-apocalyptic world, rape is so common it's certain we all know someone who has been a victim. In 2005 in the US, 191,670 victims of rape or sexual assault reported. In 2006 in the UK, 85,000 women were reportedly raped. Yet our society has yet to crumble.

    Who wouldn't want a rape wiped completely from their being? Well, who's to say? Just because one feels they'd want Sirkka's healing and can't imagine why anyone wouldn't, it doesn't mean there aren't people who'd choose differently.

    As KK said, people have a right to their experiences. No one should take those experiences away without permission. Sirkka believes she knows better than the victims who've experienced these traumas. She doesn't. Just because she can heal does not give her the right force her healing on the rape victims. If I have cancer, I have a right to the treatment I choose. A doctor may know how to cure me, but that doesn't mean he can strap me down and inflict his cure on me. And if I were raped, I'd be horrified at the idea that someone stole my experience without my permission.

    I believe Sirkka means well with what she does, but she's arrogant to assume she knows best. And bottom line is, the choice to heal the victims from the rape camp came from a place of guilt, and the choice to wipe Luke's victim was in part to protect the 'Angels. Her good intentions and desire to protect the 'Angels still doesn't make what she did the right thing.

    I'm astonished at the moral complexity presented in the last few episodes. I love that Sirkka's actions aren't accepted by some of the other characters. Fantastic writing.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.129)
    "Who wouldn't want a rape wiped completely from their being? Well, who's to say?"

    In the case of the rape camp survivor - she was offered the choice and chose to forget.
    •  
      CommentAuthormister hex
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.130)
    I'm astonished at the moral complexity presented in the last few episodes. I love that Sirkka's actions aren't accepted by some of the other characters. Fantastic writing.


    It is, isn't it? This is the reason Warren is my favorite writer working in comics. There are more questions than answers and he writes three-dimensional characters that one actually cares about. They're interesting, they're alive, they speak for themselves. Agree or disagree with them, one still cares about them and the larger world that he's created.

    One thing I'd like to point out, that was brought up in this week's episode (by Jack) - the FreakAngels are 23 years old. For those who haven't yet reached that blessed age, that's when you THINK you know everything but it begins to dawn on you that you DON'T. 'Moral complexity' starts to seep into everything and you end up questioning pretty much everything. It's a time of great idealism and great folly, where you do things you look back on later with either shame, regret or relief that you survived it. The FreakAngels destroyed the world when they were 17 and KNEW THEY KNEW EVERYTHING (Fuck You, Mom & Dad!) and have spent the last seven years doing whatever they've been doing. We don't know how long they've been operating in Whitechapel but they ended up there, they didn't start there. They've been trying to do the best they can with what they have (and what they have is impressive) but like Caz has said before, they're Succeeding Themselves To Death. They've stabilized what was obviously a very bad situation, made a few enemies in the process and managed to curb the death rate and the crime rate but horror is never far away.

    How old is Alice? She was a kid before the Big Splash, she remembers kid things like chips and the GPS in her dad's car. She's lived easily half her life in a world where food is not to be taken lightly or for granted. No phone, no light, no motor-cars, not a single luxury. Like Robinson Caruso*, it's primitive as can be.

    Also, the way Warren teases out information makes this comic more addictive that crack. And I'm sure we'll get a sense of what they were like as kids and that might change a few people's minds about Luke, for one thing. Warren is such a good writer, we may all have sympathy for the swine before long. Even the reaction to Sirkka's mind-fuckery is telling. This whole thing could have been an exploitation-fest in the hands of a lesser author (*coughBradMeltzercough*) but people have taken up on the ethical issues inherent in telepathy and are discussing them in a civil manner. Again, agree, disagree - at least you HAVE an opinion. About something that, at this point, isn't even lines on paper, it's pixels on a screen.

    * And yes, I know it's 'Crusoe' but that's not how the song goes.
    • CommentAuthorJudithC
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.131)
    Does anyone else wonder what has happened to religion?
    In lots of post-Apocolypse books I've read (one of the first and most famous being John Wyndham's 'The Chrysalids') religion plays a central role in restructuring of a society. Wouldn't have people, post these massive changes looked to religion for not just a reason for these events but also (on a more practical level) used the moral codes given to them through religion to decide on how to live a moral life? I'm not saying that people can only be moral through religion but that religion and religious structures are recognised as being very interested in this area and asked many questions about what a moral good is.
    There's evidence that after a crisis a lot people turn to some sort of faith based religion to work out how they should act, and try to figure out what to do next. Wouldn't this be the case in FA London?

    Does anyone else want to see this explored? I think it would give difficulties/richness to the current issues being explored.
    Oh, and btw, I don't think the memories of rape should have been erased - people are who they are because of experiences they have come through - to take that away is to take away what they have crafted themselves as.
  3.  (6340.132)
    In the case of the rape camp survivor - she was offered the choice and chose to forget.
    I definitely didn't read it that way. It seemed like Jack described Sirkka pretty much taking the initiative and doing what we saw her do with Luke's victim.
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.133)
    > As for Srikka knowing what a victim wants by reading the mind, well come on. Thats another violation. Stay the fuck out of peoples heads. It's not fair to go delving. Either come out and offer the service as a gift or don't do it at all.

    Not fair ... because we're not all able to? Should we, then, all restrict ourselves to doing only what anyone/everyone else can do?

    If people *could* read my mind: would it be fair of me to tell them that they shouldn't: that they should instead surpress their ability? Even if their reading my mind doesn't hurt me? Wouldn't that be like saying to somebody, "Stop looking at me!"? I mean, if they're able to look, if they can see, they're allowed to. You are allowed, even expected, to read people's emotions in their face ... it's only a very minor leap, then, to read their emotions in their brain; and if I am thinking things that I don't want people to know about, that's *my* problem, not theirs.

    Just my opinion. I mean, it's up to each person to control their own behaviour to enough to avoid doing harm. As long as someone isn't doing harm I don't see an ethical reason to limit their abilities or their actions (even if they're reading minds).
  4.  (6340.134)
    Fan:
    If people *could* read my mind: would it be fair of me to tell them that they shouldn't: that they should instead surpress their ability? Even if their reading my mind doesn't hurt me? Wouldn't that be like saying to somebody, "Stop looking at me!"? I mean, if they're able to look, if they can see, they're allowed to. You are allowed, even expected, to read people's emotions in their face ... it's only a very minor leap, then, to read their emotions in their brain; and if I am thinking things that I don't want people to know about, that's *my* problem, not theirs.
    To me, that seems to ignore the simple truth that there are secrets/thoughts/feelings/what-have-you that all of us want to keep private, which we have a right to, and a natural expectation that we can have these thoughts and feelings without worrying about someone picking up on it. The 'Angels can read minds, just like a person can use their eyes to see, but I think it's just as reasonable to expect people to not go peaking into a person's brain without permission as it is to expect people not go peaking into a person's windows without permission. Technically, it can be possible for a peeping tom to have not done much harm getting his jollies off sneaking a peak, but it's still a gross invasion of privacy that (most) people would really rather do without.

    Also, Judith:
    Oh, and btw, I don't think the memories of rape should have been erased - people are who they are because of experiences they have come through - to take that away is to take away what they have crafted themselves as.
    The pertinent fact here would be that the rape victim didn't choose that experience, becoming a victim of rape is clearly not "what they have crafted themselves as" but rather something forced on them. And it's undeniable that some experiences just plain break people, experiences without which people could have had a far better chance at being functional and healthy and happy human beings.
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.135)
    > Oh, and btw, I don't think the memories of rape should have been erased - people are who they are because of experiences they have come through - to take that away is to take away what they have crafted themselves as.

    Don't you find it unreasonably hard, to say that a person's suffering from trauma and after-effects is a state which the victim has "crafted themselves", from their experience? The trauma is *inflicted*: not self-created, not chosen, and they're better off without it.
    • CommentAuthorLil
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.136)
    All sorts of experiences come from outside a person's control. Loved ones die. Spouses cheat. Debilitating illnesses strike our bodies. Accidents maim us. Some people are broken by these experiences. Some aren't. But all experience, whether crafted from within or without, shapes a person, and no one has a right to remove those experiences without permission.

    Rape is a horrific ordeal. Most people would choose to be healed by Sirkka. But that still doesn't change the fact the SOME may not. And to those few, Sirkka's actions are a violation. It's not up to anyone but the person who lived the experience to decide if "they're better off without it." Some people don't want to be Eternal Sunshine'd.

    There are plenty of people who've been raped after drinking too much or having been slipped a drug. Let's assume for at least a few of the victims, there is no memory, no bodily trauma, no STDs, no pregnancy. Yet the rape still happened, and women who've gone through such rapes still suffer, knowing what was done to their bodies. Sirkka may have healed these women and removed their memories, but she didn't change the fact that they've been raped. If Luke's victim one day finds out what happened to her, will the fact that she has no memory or physical remnants of the event be much comfort to her?

    The horror of rape isn't just about what one remembers or the physical damage--it's the most personal violation of one's body, and just knowing one has been violated in such a way is traumatizing. Sirkka can't--despite her arrogance on the matter--make it so rape never happened.
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.137)
    > To me that seems to ignore the simple truth that there are secrets/thoughts/feelings/what-have-you that all of us want to keep private, which we have a right to, and a natural expectation that we can have these thoughts and feelings without worrying about someone picking up on it

    That's ordinary reality, yes ... and according to stories, for example John Wyndham's _Chrysalids_, or the archetypal villagers with torches and pitchforks, people might be scared of mind-readers, and angry with them ... "she's a witch: burn her!" "kill the giant!". But I don't think that's ethical (or 'fair'). It may not seem fair to you that someone else can see your thoughts ... but your telling them what to think and what not to think, what to see and what to avert their sight from, would be you trying to control *their* thoughts.

    I'm not sure how much of a "right to privacy" people have. I think my 'privacy' is mostly my right to control my own senses/experience: for example to shut my door, in order to control my own environment. It's much less to do with me controlling other people's experience, even including their experience of me. It's more to do with private property, control and ownership, than secrecy.
  5.  (6340.138)
    It may not seem fair to you that someone else can see your thoughts ... but your telling them what to think and what not to think, what to see and what to avert their sight from, would be you trying to control *their* thoughts.
    Bit of a leap there, no? It's nothing at all to do with controlling anyone's thoughts, and all to do with actions. It's about telling people not to look, and reasonably expecting them to respect privacy. If a girl wearing a skirt complains at me trying to get a gander up it, I'm not going to tell her that she's trying to unfairly control my experience of her. That's how it works. Just because you CAN peak, whether it's up a skirt or into a mind, doesn't mean you should have perfect freedom to. And anyway, of course you don't have perfect freedom to. Peeping toms get arrested for a reason. Society constantly tells people what to see and what to avert their sight from. And rightfully so, quite often.

    Feeling a bit drifty...
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.139)
    > There's evidence that after a crisis a lot people turn to some sort of faith based religion to work out how they should act, and try to figure out what to do next. Wouldn't this be the case in FA London?

    What *are* people doing in FA London? There are looters, bandits, and footpads (the mudlarks), and the dying. What have we seen of what other people are doing, in Whitechapel?

    * Some apparently-ordinary boyfriend/girlfriend action (e.g. Luke and his ex)
    * People in the food-market, selling bread etc. (having presumably made it elsewhere)
    * Several overalled people, helping in the water-distilling plant
    * Plenty of "leisure society" action (i.e. the harem)
    * There's a mother bringing up a child (remember, the child with the tummy-ache)
    * They have organized (quite extensively) for self-defence (against the mud-larks)

    So: that is what they *have* been acting on, and what they've figured out to do so far. Any idea what 'some sort of faith based religion' might add to that, in terms of further action and to-dos?

    I think we've been told (and seen) that the FAs are in charge: so, the people already *have* a (received) civil organization, which is satisfactory at least in being much than their previous situation, and which is now defining the society's agenda.
  6.  (6340.140)
    @JudithC - There's evidence that after a crisis a lot people turn to some sort of faith based religion to work out how they should act, and try to figure out what to do next. Wouldn't this be the case in FA London?

    I seem to recall there was a thread about religion a while ago where it was pointed out (I believe by Warren himself, although I could be wrong) that the modern UK is pretty much a secular, post-religious society. Even to the point where former Prime Minister Tony Blair's strong Christian faith was covered up because it was thought it would harm his election prospects (try to imagine that happening in the US).

    There are no doubt some religious people in Whitechapel, but they're probably a quiet minority.