Not signed in (Sign In)
    •  
      CommentAuthorrickiep00h
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2010
     (8397.121)
    @~lis - I don't consider them to be hypocrites, but I also don't think they're exactly wholesome people. Sirkka has done some questionable things in regard to both groups of people and individual cases (which I'd prefer not to go over here: the argument over Sirkka's ethics in wiping Luke's victim's mind went on long enough, and got pretty ugly), while KK has her own power trip moments as well as a short temper. They have their reasons, but the road to hell, good intentions, etc.

    And I can't say I really like them. The only FA's I could really say I actually like are probably post-OD Arkady, Caz, Connor, and Miki. They all seem genuinely concerned with other people, whereas the others only seem concerned with themselves. All the rest of them have faults that make them either disagreeable or flat-out sociopaths. And while I relate to them for that, I certainly don't like them. I like them as characters, but not as people, if that makes sense. And I realize at this point I'm basically repeating monk's post, so I'll leave it at that.

    As for specific "hypocrite" examples:

    Kait - has that wonderful pit, in the name of law and order and justice. We're still not exactly sure what goes on in there, but there's a fair bit of blood and evidence that Kait doesn't really stay within the realm of humane treatment of suspects. And we don't really know how much we can trust what she has said about that sort of thing, as she's clearly capable of doing whatever is, in her mind, necessary.

    Sirkka - mental surgery for victims (without their consent in at least one case, but again, not here to argue this point again) and building a defense army on sexual and emotional dominance, rather than Mark's pure mental rewiring.

    KK - I don't think here's really that much hypocrisy here. She just has bad ways of dealing with people, in my opinion. But I suppose I can see a case for it in her moments from flashbacks.

    Now, I don't necessarily agree that there's rampant hypocrisy going on, but I can certainly understand the case for it.
  1.  (8397.122)
    @rickiep00h

    “Or it's because she's more willing to whack a bloke with a chair than to listen to what he actually has to say.”

    Come on, man. They listened. They’ve BEEN listening. KK even fired a verbal shot off at him and he dismissed it, said he wasn't going to "come down" to it.

    “What's wrong with using one's vocabulary?”

    A lot, unfortunately. The fancier your language, the less people trust you and your message. It’s aggravating, I know. Our best minds shouldn’t HAVE to dumb the message down for the masses. Our politicians shouldn’t HAVE to talk slowly and repeat themselves three times for the voters to get it. But they do. A wise man lets people assume he is dumber than he is.

    A foolish man, like Luke, tries to impress everyone with secret knowledge that, if he only kept it to himself, he’d probably win the fight! Karl wouldn’t have known how to fix the weather if Luke had kept his mouth shut to Kirk!
    •  
      CommentAuthorrickiep00h
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2010
     (8397.123)
    Come on, man. They listened. They’ve BEEN listening.
    She obviously wasn't or she wouldn't have whacked him with a fucking chair. If she didn't want to listen to him she could have just as easily turned around and walked outside.

    And with that, I'm ending my defense of the obviously indefensible Luke and the condemnation of the obviously in-the-right KK.

    Can't wait til Friday.
    • CommentAuthorMandrakk
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2010
     (8397.124)
    @valeriawayverstone:I am not calling them hypocrites because they intervevened(or would have)in that particular situation,but because of their behaviour in general,especially in Sirkka's and Kait's case.But i won't repeat what's already been said,either way I shall always be on the losing side since I try to defend Luke,sad really...but still.
    @longtimelurker:Well using vocabulary without dumbing it down is NOT the sign of a foolish man(well it can be)but a sign of intelligence:if you always dumb things down,people won't make the effort to learn those things for themselves since it wouldn't be of use to them,and sadly that is what creates nowadays' mass ignorance and makes people so malleable,it starts with vocabulary but extends to all domains,really sad I think.
    •  
      CommentAuthor~lis
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2010
     (8397.125)
    thanks for the replies, guys. :} quite close to my thoughts on the matter.
    wish i had found Whitechapel earlier so i'd have seen the whole Sirkka-memory-erasure debate - must have been educational. :}

    @ mandrakk - you're right, complex vocabulary can be a sign of how intelligence... if it's used when explained to and undestood by the audience. right now it just shows that Luke loves to boast his power, be it verbal, freakangelish or whatever, which dubs him Knight of Egocentrism. i'd totally love it if he stays that way, too - he'd be the biggest test for the other freakangels' virtues, lol. also... i've always wondered what drives a selfcentered person forward so he may give some hints to it. :}
    •  
      CommentAuthormister hex
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2010
     (8397.126)
    i've always wondered what drives a selfcentered person forward


    Not to be cheeky but ... themselves?
  2.  (8397.127)
    Look, FA is the story of when these kids who transformed the world went from being people who just reacted to life as it happened to them to people who are in charge of their destiny. The age is perfect (23) because that is almost exactly the age most people fully transition into adulthood. Read the story carefully and it becomes clear that Luke's been going into people's heads on a regular basis for a long long time. The others tolerated it for the same reason they never made a proper home out of Whitechapel: they were stuck in a rut, busy dealing with external threats, and unwilling to put him on the spot long enough to address it, choosing mostly to ignore him as first KK, Kirk, Arkady, Jack and Sirkka (who knew better than anyone what he was really up to) all left him to his own devices. It's possible they all felt guilty after exiling Mark and were reluctant to do it again, and he exploited it.

    Luke is not a victim. He's one of the twelve most powerful people on the planet. Luke had plenty of second chances. He forced the issue. No one made him up the ante when the others were perfectly willing to leave him alone. He could have left Whitechapel on his own. He could have used his talents and skills to make his own family, as Sirkka has done, or explore the package like Arkady to make himself useful. Every society expects every citizen to pull their own weight. "But he's not a hypocrite!" his defenders say. I was willing to cut him a little slack before but don't make me throw up. Luke is the BIGGEST hypocrite. He brags about not killing Kirk right before he shoots down KK. He shoots at Jack's head during the escape. Would you people still defend him if Alice had been killed in the crossfire? Would you still defend him if Arkady had died for good?

    I'm sorry you think it's "sad" because you think you aren't allowed to defend him. Jack just lost the love of his life and is getting a swift kick in the balls as we speak. Kirk will be in bed for days, even with the package. I don't see anybody crying about them.
    •  
      CommentAuthorrickiep00h
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2010 edited
     (8397.128)
    Jack just lost the love of his life and is getting a swift kick in the balls as we speak. Kirk will be in bed for days, even with the package. I don't see anybody crying about them.
    Jack shot (with the intent to kill) somebody he's spent his entire life with, and willfully kept weaponry in his girlfriend's house despite her explicit rules not to; Kirk was about to shoot (with the intent to kill) an unconscious prisoner in restraints without a proper hearing, or at least discussion (which Kait was fully in favor of). I see no reason for crying for them. Plus this is Whitechapel. No crying in Whitechapel.

    Seriously, all of these people are fucked up in their own ways. To pretend that any of them are above reproach (excepting again Caz, Connor, and Miki) is irresponsible.

    Really, actually shutting up now.

    (edited for spelling stupidity)
    •  
      CommentAuthortaphead
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2010 edited
     (8397.129)
    I like them as characters, but not as people, if that makes sense.


    THIS. This should make sense to everyone.


    Would you people still defend him if Alice had been killed in the crossfire?


    That was not what happened, so not really the point.


    I don't see anybody crying about them.


    There's no crying in Whitechapel.

    I think it's getting pretty clear the FA are all pretty much flawed. Luke is a rapist, Mark is a megalomaniac, Jack is a murderer, Kirk and Karl don't exactly have all their nazis in th bunker, Arkady is insane, Sirkka is avoidant, Kait's a torturer, KK sleeps with boys from Lambeth Road... Miki and Caz are the only ones who haven't been knocked a few pegs down yet, but I'll be surprised if they don't have skeletons in their closets as well. High horses should be in short supply.

    But whatever happened to Connor? That'll be interesting.

    I've forgotten to mention this before, but Zapata's Balls, Paul. The art that went with Luke's Rant (In E Minor) was absolutely sublime. A wonderful way of showing our Humble Narrator is spending waaaaay too much time inside his own skull. Maybe the hole will air out the place a little.

    ETA: Or, you know, what @rickiep00h said before me much more concisely.
    •  
      CommentAuthor~lis
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2010
     (8397.130)
    Not to be cheeky but ... themselves?

    seems obvious, doesn't it? but... would you ever get any satisfaction if all you do is indulge the desire to indulge yourself? what's the point? or, if you become the best in your own eyes and that was your only goal (the ultimate egocentric), what happens next?
    a closed system without outer regulators always deforms at some point.

    @rickiep00h: Jack and Sirkka didn't accept each others' principles. people often break rules they don't agree with. Kirk was about to shoot Luke. he didn't. but he and Karl did drive a mind-spike into Mark's head, when the group had decided to exile him. note that he's not saying he didn't.

    Luke is not a victim.

    even if he has been some time ago, he's just a wanker now, lol. you've got a point.
  3.  (8397.131)
    Don't stop now Rickie, I think we have an audience.

    I'm not going to change anyone's mind about Luke. Nor would I want to. But I WILL CHALLENGE IT.

    "There's no crying in Whitechapel."

    THAT on a t-shirt, with an image of Alice carrying her shotgun. WORKS!
  4.  (8397.132)
    @taphead

    "KK sleeps with boys from Lambeth Road... "

    I thought that joke could never make me laugh again. I laughed again. Perfect timing!
    • CommentAuthorMandrakk
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2010
     (8397.133)
    @longtimelurker:Now that you do not like Luke I can perfectly well understand,but saying he is the biggest hypocrite is not true at all,He did not kill kirk and bragged about it,not because he did not want to kill him,because honestly I do not think he would have had any problem with doing that,but just to make a point and prove to Kirk that he is better than him and that he only lives because HE decided to spare his sorry life that's why Luke did it,not to show false righteousness or anything just to make that point to a guy who has treated him like trash for quite some time,a guy who shot him while he was schackled,THAT is why he did it,so you see no hypocrisy here,same goes for him shooting KK down:Luke just did because he hates air seach,he did not give a shit wether KK lived or not he just wanted to get rid of the Bikeopter nothing more nothing less.He does not pretend to serve the law to justify torture and mindreading,HE is not the one with sexcontrolled drones that would do anything for him,he is not the one erasing people's memory without their consent,he is not the one who tracked down Mark and tried to murder him all the while hiding it from the others,and I could go on and on,so yes he IS a dick but a hypocrite?Definatly not.As for him not being a victim I agree,I was merely saying he was reacting to the others being on him by becoming even worse,behaving like thay do with people like him is counterproductive and makes the said people even worse.Now about Alice,well I would not have seen any problem if he had killed her for two reasons:One she was out to"fooking kill him"and two because I can't stand the character.
  5.  (8397.134)
    "he did not give a shit whether KK lived or not."

    Rest my case. You're making it too easy.
    •  
      CommentAuthorrickiep00h
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2010 edited
     (8397.135)
    Don't stop now Rickie, I think we have an audience.

    I'm not going to change anyone's mind about Luke. Nor would I want to. But I WILL CHALLENGE IT.
    Agreed. I suppose I'll come back if you really want. :-)
    Jack and Sirkka didn't accept each others' principles. people often break rules they don't agree with.
    My point was that Jack knew what he was getting into. It's not like he's the blameless victim and Sirkka's just walking away from him, which is what seemed to be implied.
    Kirk was about to shoot Luke. he didn't.
    Again, intent to kill. Even without a shot being fired it's simple to prove he intended to... and that Jack willingly aided him by providing the weapon.

    The thing that made most of the past few weeks is the (relative) urgency in which everything happened. Luke found raping a girl, Mark showing up, Luke escaping, the storm, all of it happening quite quickly, and not allowing for a proper discussion. So I'll agree with the above: none of this underlying stuff has been addressed because of things getting in the way. But now that stuff does indeed need to be addressed, and Luke was--in his long-winded, self-righteous way--attempting to address them up until the point he got brained by a chair. Now that nobody is in immediate danger from anything but personal, local retribution/vengeance, maybe they'll start to address these things.

    Also, it's equally possible KK is continuing the zombie theme of Remove the Head - Destroy the Brain with the chair maneuver. Though Luke was a particularly verbose zombie...
    • CommentAuthorMandrakk
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2010
     (8397.136)
    @longtimelurker:my caase was never that Luke was completly blameless or innocent merely that most of the others are just as dangerous or twisted as he is but that they hide behind some stupid excuses,and I still say Luke got this extreme only because of how the others treat him,and I will say it once and for all:Kirk just got what he deserved.I also hope Luke will get a shot at Jack and Alice.
  6.  (8397.137)
    @Mandrakk

    "I also hope Luke will get a shot at Jack and Alice."

    And I hope they get a second shot at HIM. It's almost like a sports match! Place your bets!
    •  
      CommentAuthorrickiep00h
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2010
     (8397.138)
    "I also hope Luke will get a shot at Jack and Alice."

    And I hope they get a second shot at HIM. It's almost like a sports match! Place your bets!
    An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, and all that other pacifist crap. (Though it's exactly my point...)
    •  
      CommentAuthor~lis
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2010
     (8397.139)
    Mandrakk vs longtimelurker, Jack vs Luke, KK vs Sirkka, Connor vs Mark (hey, i can dream, right), it's time for another round of... DEATHMATCH! lol.

    My point was that Jack knew what he was getting into.

    yep, and didn't care enough for Sirkka not to cross the border (although he probably doesn't like hurting her). both Jack and Sirkka are impulsive and known to quarrel quite a lot. i don't think he did the wrong thing by leaving her, he did the wrong thing by waiting for so long to leave her. sex must be really awesome with her, heh.

    Again, intent to kill.

    ever had the urge to hit someone and then reconsidered? would it be ok if you got punished for your intention? :}
    • CommentAuthorMrMonk
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2010 edited
     (8397.140)
    I think I'll delete that post. I've had enough practice in point-missing.