Not signed in (Sign In)
    •  
      CommentAuthorrazrangel
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2009
     (6340.141)
    We haven't seen religion at all and I suspect a lot it has to do with the post-religious POV @Purple Wyrm notes. Also, keep in mind this is Warren Ellis' post-apocalyptic world. Warren makes no bones about finding religion somewhere between pointless and harmful. Not to say he wouldn't throw in a healthy, productive believer just to fuck with what idea but... I suspect that's not what he sees in the FA-styled future. (Unless Mark is out there somewhere styling himself as a 21st Century messiah. 'Cause...why not?)
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2009
     (6340.142)
    "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."

    I think you're right.

    I seem to have misread the bit starting: "Sirkka asked the question ..."
    •  
      CommentAuthordiello
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2009
     (6340.143)
    Remember, we've only seen a few hours of the FA lives throughout these comics. Each week is only a few moments long (shorter, if there are "meanwhile" panels). I don't think that's proper time to establish what religions, political views, beliefs and whatnot there are left.
  1.  (6340.144)
    'Not fair ... because we're not all able to? Should we, then, all restrict ourselves to doing only what anyone/everyone else can do?'


    Not fair, because it is a violation of someones psyche. Without consent.

    Of course we shouldn't restrict ourselves to doing only what everyone can do, but that is a false look at actions. America can project military force across the globe in a manner that few other nation-states can. That doesn't give them the right to play god and constantly exercise that ability. In some cases the exercising of that ability is downright immoral.

    do you see what I mean here?
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2009
     (6340.145)
    > do you see what I mean here?

    I don't understand what "violation of someones psyche" means.

    If someone (even America) wants to see what's on the surface of Mars, or what's in a person's head, I don't see it as my business to tell them that's immoral. People can take photographs of me from orbitting sattelites, for all I care: read-only intelligence-gathering is being intelligent, not being violently coercive.

    Intelligence-gathering may be frightening because intelligence *can* be misused: but *that* isn't enough to deduce that mere intelligence-gathering is immoral.

    Even New Girl doesn't mind people coming into her fookin head when they're doing it only to talk with her.
  2.  (6340.146)
    what srikka does is far from read only, isn't it?

    Transmitting messages is not the same as looking in peoples heads. It's not the Push, it is non intrusive. Only Karl objects to it, and largely because he doesn't want to hear about other FA's tawdry sexploits (lol)
    • CommentAuthorergogrrl
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2009 edited
     (6340.147)
    Hi all. Long time listener, first time caller (or something like that). Anyway, I have an argument regarding why Sirkka's actions were the best (or "least bad", as someone else put it) course of action to take. Forgive me if someone's put this argument forth already.

    Anyway, my argument--that Whitechapel's overall safety and order mandated erasing the rape experience--is best in the form of an episode of "Sarcastic Alternative Universe Theatre":

    "Hey Jane Doe, how's your day going?"

    "Not so good, actually. One of those purple-eyed guys put me under a mind control spell and raped me."

    "Golly, that's unfortunate. Do you think we should panic over the Freak Angels' previously unknown ability to turn us into robots and rise against them in a chaotic rebellion of blood, fear, and pointed sticks?"

    "Oh, certainly not. I'm sure that this guy is just a bad apple and not representative of the Freak Angel entire population of twelve. Just because the world has ended and we're completely dependent on these mysterious folks for our continued survival, that's no reason to worry that they might one day use their magical powers for evil instead of good and turn us into their own personal fuck puppets, thereby making the rape farms of yore seem like happy-fun time in comparison."

    "Hm, I suppose you're right."

    Fin

    I'm not saying this is a moral argument, just a practical one. Thoughts? Comments? Verbal abuse?

    *edited 2 seconds later to make the italicized comment actually, um...italicized.
  3.  (6340.148)
    hahahaha
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2009 edited
     (6340.149)
    I supposed they've considered (and decided against) telling people about their powers. They seem to be in charge, even without telling people. Very much in charge: they can introduce 100 new people in the land, without asking anyone else's permission.

    But not very visibly in charge: little ceremony, no palace guards, no parliament ... it *looks* like an anarchy, but organized. I'm wondering why they're in charge; I'm guessing it's because of:

    * Their military victory over whoever the previous tyrants were (a victory whose cause was presumably portrayed as being intelligence and luck etc. rather than magic; or maybe their oponents just all dropped dead of heart attacks, food poisoning, or a building collapsing, or just disappeared)

    * Their subsequent organizing of beneficial civil projects, like the drinking water, and the doctor

    * The fact that the group of them (all 12) are presumably better organized (not to mention vastly more powerful, if it ever comes to conflict) than any rival group.

    * Their successfully and continuingly protecting people from external agressors

    I think they're lucky to be living in such a well-organized anarchy or meritocracy. Perhaps it's only in a fictional world, however, that the non-FAs would have so little influence, so few contrary or ornery opinions; or maybe all the potential trouble-makers (even simply the self-important, self-interested, and suspicious people, the opinionated, critics and demagogs) were purged or, somehow, neutralized by the FAs.

    Or maybe, instead of anarchy, that's what a *feudal* society looks like: powerful warriors, and peasants.

    It seems that the non-FAs just don't matter much to, have little influence on, the story: except as bakers of bread, and people to be protected.
  4.  (6340.150)
    Forgive me, but I don't think you understand what feudal society looked like. Well organised anarchy and meritocracy mentioned in the same sentence. You confuse me (not difficult, to be honest.)
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2009 edited
     (6340.151)
    I meant that most of the time the society looks to me like an anarchist's utopia: but maybe that's not the right way to see it, and instead of being an anarchy it's more like feudal.

    > Well organised anarchy and meritocracy mentioned in the same sentence.

    Anarchy: no king or boss, no parliament and no throne.

    Meritocracy: people doing organized things (e.g. working in the water distillery) simply because that's a Good Idea.

    > Forgive me, but I don't think you understand what feudal society looked like.

    Some stereotypes of feudal society are ...

    a) The local baron and his armoured squires riding out and bullying his own serfs, taking the droits de seigneur

    b) The central king or duke calling on his vassals, to assemble an army

    ... but, instead, maybe the local lord was there to protect their little local people against agression from neighbours, as well as to administer any local justice: and, in this, the little people are happy to cooperate.

    I was sort of expecting people to bicker over who has power (leadership) and resources (e.g. labour), but maybe since the FAs are so visibly and successfully defending the perimeter, it's that that's enough incentive for everyone else to help and not oppose them.
  5.  (6340.152)
    You really don't get feudalism do you? The non wiki analysis of it as a societal structure?
    argh. Your definition of meritocracy is way off as is your definition of anarchy.

    Enough. Sodding merkins have twisted and turned terms till we have to define what we mean at every tur. Curse the fluidity of english.
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2009
     (6340.153)
    > You really don't get feudalism do you?

    I was taught some European history at school, and my Dad's a professor of Ancient History, but I'm not, and I am naive about politics. Now that you mention it, maybe a better comparison is to the so-called Dark Ages (of which I know next to nothing); or, to a post-invasion or a collapse-of-empire transitional time.
    •  
      CommentAuthorwarrenellis
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2009 edited
     (6340.154)
    THREAD IS ENDED.

    PEOPLE ARE APPROACHING THE EDGE OF PERSONAL ATTACKS (AGAIN).