Puella Magi Adfligo Systema
- Thread starter Firnagzen
- Start date
-
- Tags
- puella magi adfligo systema puella magi madoka magica be gay do crimes (gay) female protagonist bad decisions dating mami tomoe (tomoe mami) diabolical laughter friendship is the best ship handholding identity crises microwaving tea gets you put in the bad place names are important the body is the fursona of the soul this is not the baked goods thread we don't talk about rionna what could possibly go wrong? who in the world is azure sanfrancisco?
DB_Explorer
Purveyor of alternate realities.
- Location
- San Diego, California
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Thought
if we move Oriko out of her house
let Sayaka burn the place down.. I mean its a very shallow act in terms of actual justice but you know the eye for an eye might sell well.
if we move Oriko out of her house
let Sayaka burn the place down.. I mean its a very shallow act in terms of actual justice but you know the eye for an eye might sell well.
mCooperative
meanderingCephalopod
- Location
- Back in Mitakihara after like 1000 years.
Well, here's my long-ass post, as promised. Apologies in advanced. I keep having lots to say, and neither the typing speed nor time to get it all down quickly. Some of it reaches a few pages back in terms of topics. Some of it- well, only one bit, really- reaches a few years back for in-story quotes, heh. This is... once again, mostly my evaluation of recent topics of discussion and the general state of affairs. My analysis of what I think about it all; the thoughts recent posts have led me to. Lots of me chattering about how my personal experiences are affecting how I look at all this. It's not meant to put words in anyone's mouth, I apologize if it seems to do so, and please correct me so I can fix it if that's the case. That being said, here we go.
... this checks out with my innerparanoid time traveler Homura, definitely just referring to my inner hypothetical Homura there. Also- it's actually one of the things I was worried about- one of the things I noticed when @Kaizuki brought up the problems with the talk of Oriko changing/being able to change in my last vote proposal. (Again, thank you for that.) I've... had sensitive conversations with friends before, discussing people who've wronged them pretty severely- not necessarily in the same way as the killing of the Homura's Madoka or as the burning of the houses down- but... probably of the severity of the latter, at the very least the severity of the breaking of the arm thing. For far less good reasons- and yet still under the guise of benevolence. And other conversations talking about people who, unintentionally or not, have walked straight onto the mess of trauma left behind.
It's part of why I was like "oh shit part of my proposed vote is insensitive and really dumb of me, ah, fuck, gotta change that now" because it was exactly how some conversations have gone straight to hell and led to people, understandably, noping out of the conversation and also drastically misunderstanding each other's position. And I'd forgotten that. I'm trying to keep in mind, when I consider votes, what conversational landmines I've seen tripped before, about... well, the Oriko and Kirika to my friends' Homura and Sayaka.
In regards to this, my thoughts about the various points being made about conversational manipulation, and the nature of Sabrina's behaviour:
Firstly, I have the strong suspicion that we are not going to be able to come to a consensus as a thread about what constitutes "manipulation". As has been noted,
Is it manipulation to keep your feelings to yourself when you know that people would change their behaviour if you let them be known? Is it manipulation to share those feelings when you know how people will react? Is it manipulation to think over what you're going to say, so you can upset as few people as possible? Is it manipulation to blurt out everything you're thinking and be extremely honest because you know that your honesty will speak for itself?
We're running into all these questions, and more. We're also running into the issue that we are a group piloting Sabrina. What we think, she thinks, and, unfortunately for questions of motivation, we are very divided about some issues. For any question that would draw anything but a likely-completely unanimous vote (e.g. such things as the fact that meguca are for saving), we will probably never be able to vote to have Sabrina honestly decide and say she completely believes anything without reservation (note that Sabrina may hold such beliefs as a byproduct of Firn's interpretation of our thoughts and Sabrina's character, which is a different matter), and we will never be able to have a vote devoid of what some people are going to view as manipulation.
It's a question I've had to struggle with in real life lately, more than a few separate times, hence my small rant on, eh, Sunday afternoon, about the matter. People are complicated, the rules of social are complicated, they're unintuitive to me particularly (which is part of why I apologise so much, by the by, as I generally assume I've managed to offend somebody, or misinterpret something, and usually regret either), and they're made even more complicated the moment you need majority vote to represent a divided system with a single set of actions. And literally everything can be construed as manipulative, to varying degrees, depending on who you are speaking to and for what purpose.
The most I think we'd ever get, then, as a unified assessment of how we view Sabrina's actions, is probably that on the whole, Sabrina isn't trying (as in, doesn't have a general rule and goal to do so) to manipulate her friends, but her actions can definitely be viewed as manipulative, and she is aware of this fact, finds it really upsetting, and will continue both trying not to be manipulative, unintentionally taking actions that can be easily called manipulative, being upset by this fact, and will always have to apologize after the fact rather than actually discontinue those actions.
Simply because we as a thread are voting on her actions, and there's no way to simply declare "we're going to stop being manipulative" and then consistently enforce people to vote that way- because both as Sabrina in the context of her world, and as individual posters, we're going to disagree a lot with what constitutes being manipulative, what constitutes being acceptably manipulative, and we're going to have a shifting voting block that basically precludes any true consistency on controversial matters.
That being said, more thoughts as follows.
While I definitely agree that yeah, there's rather a big difference between "I'm manipulating you for your own interests" and Kyubey's "I'm manipulating you for something blatantly counter to your own interests and saying you should thank me for it because of the bigger picture", I'd like to note that, a) characterizing the former stance as "our" is I think perhaps too definitive a statement to make about Sabrina's and the thread's motivations as a whole, and (not directed at you particularly, just a thought your post has catalyzed) b) regardless of how we're defining manipulation, "I'm manipulating you for your own interests" can still be pretty not okay, and, if and when we come across like that, either in-story as Sabrina, or in the thread to one-another, we should all probably keep in mind and try to be understanding about the fact that there will be people who absolutely have strong objections about the very idea of "for your own good". At least partially because that implies the manipulating party is deciding for somebody else what their own good is.
This... was actually a point of some of those sensitive conversations I mentioned above. Depending on what one has experienced, "for your own good" can be as much of, if not more of, an issue than just "I am manipulating you to do something I want for my own benefit", not least of which because it can carry the implication that, as @matthew badger has been pointing out, we don't trust their judgement and think they should be 'handled' because we cannot trust them to react maturely or evaluate the situation sensibly.
From what I gather, I will say that I think the thread has some different opinions on that matter itself of how far we trust everyone around Sabrina to act sensibly- I suppose the most prominent two things lately being the recently-raised question about whether Sayaka has the right mindset to be given the opportunity to be Witchbombed, and then of course the various opinions on how Homura will react to us messing up this discussion in any way (ranging approximately from 'kill O&K immediately as a precautionary measure if we show any sympathy towards them' to 'listen to our arguments and be convinced by their rationality regardless of our tone or phrasing', naturally).
Since, as with any evaluation of Sabrina's opinion, our status as a group of posters being coalesced into an individual mostly precludes being able to definitively say we do or do not trust Homura, Sayaka, Mami, etc., to react maturely, sensibly, or rationally (and not even beginning the question of how to define those terms within the context of these characters, given their setting and their histories), I think the most we will be able to work with as a uniform summation of Sabrina's thoughts on the matter is that there are some things that she is concerned about her friends' reactions to, and she worries about these things and moderates her actions accordingly.
On an individual level, I'll note that more or less everyone does this, to greater or lesser degrees. When we worry we'll say something that upsets someone; when we're introduced to new people and try to make a good impression; when we try to avoid certain topics because we know they'll start an argument that nobody wants to get into but everyone would feel obliged to continue. Heck- when we're nervous about telling people things about ourselves. Er, by which I suppose I mean the specific example of coming out to friends and family about gender and sexuality and whatever; even if you're like 99.8% sure they'll be cool with it, there's that worry. The worry that they'll suddenly hate you or never speak to you again or kick you out or start shouting or do something, and it will be your fault because you told them and why couldn't you just leave it alone and stay quiet, and such.
And I've definitely heard it said that some people are offended by that fear itself- I've heard folks who take that fear personally, a sort of "How dare you assume I could act like that, do you think so little of me that you think I'm a bigot, is that why you didn't tell me, I'm insulted" thing. But that's not always it. I mean, given, when you hear someone react like that to someone mustering up the courage to beat back that fear, you don't really get the impression the fear of telling them was wrong, and of course sometimes you've got a specific reason to be... concerned about someone's reaction. But in a more general sense, I think it's sometimes also the fear that you're the one messing things up. That it's your own mistake that brings the house down on you, that you could have been more sensitive to them and their opinions. That bringing it up is the mistake you made, and that everyone would have been happier forever if you'd just let it be- because it's not information they ever needed to know, you could have worked around it, so deciding to take the risk of a bad reaction makes that bad reaction your own fault, if it happens.
It's not always thinking they, specifically, are the sorta folks who will explode at you; not always making the judgement call that they can't be trusted with the information. It's just that if you tread on a sensitive issue, it'll be your mistake, you being the problem. And none of us want to make mistakes on purpose; none of us want to be the problem. (But of course, equally, it's lying to hide such facts. Feels like it, anyway. Not being honest about who we are and what we feel. Working around it so we never have to say anything. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, yeah?)
Sounds a bit familiar, I think.
Of course obviously, to bring this all back around, we do have concrete reasons to be concerned about a lot of the things we're quiet on, even beyond infohazards like the Witchbomb and the Potentialbomb. And our reactions to those concerns and how we handle them dip back into the question of what qualifies as manipulation. Some points brought up- the fact that they're brought up at all indicates that something about how we're handling this all comes across, or can come across, pretty badly. Asa flood of examples: concerns about reactions and points of handling those reactions in blue, and concerns about manipulation, in green. Because this is a metric fuckton of examples, I'm putting them into a spoiler tag. I am not trying to put words in anyone's mouth about what they were trying to say with these quotes- they are examples that can be interpreted in the manner as highlighted, and possible interpretations are what I'm trying to make a point about here.
Note that several of the things I've highlighted as points that could be considered manipulation by mere virtue of being brought up as a part of reasoning, are points that occur simultaneously with specific attempts to avoid manipulation or point it out as a problem.
As I tend to sit on the paranoid side about how anyone at any given time will take any given information, I'll say I agree that concerns about how all this could be taken are quite valid, to a degree. Some of our calculated concerns about what we're saying, or not saying, about our thoughts, are very much making judgements about what we think everyone 'could handle' or 'would react badly to' and such. And while I have my own opinions about what parts of our behaviour qualify as manipulation, how our actions should be generally interpreted, and particularly whether this is something that Sabrina and the thread need to specifically be amending, as opposed to something that merely needs to be acknowledged about how her actions could come across- this doesn't actually change how we're coming across, by at least some measures of interpretation.
But the thing is, we're people. On this thread, we're all people. Coming all together, between us and Firn, I'd say we make Sabrina a pretty good example of people, too.
That means, as we make these arguments, and as Sabrina makes them in turn, that we're doing the people-things. Some of our concerns are the broad ones, I think, or are centered the same way- that we can hold off on dealing with a lot of these non-critical issues until such time as it becomes absolutely necessary because there's a lot going on and it'll be our fault if we break something unnecessarily. That we can avoid talking about parts of our opinions/feelings on Homura's, Sayaka's, etc.'s issues, because we never have to talk about them, and it would just upset things if we did. Some things, we're putting off until we're in a better position, either in terms of practical material considerations, or in terms of ability to argue our position. And some things, working out how to deal with now, because it's necessary or because there'll be no better time, and we're using what we know to find the most efficient way to do that, while each trying to steer toward our own acceptable level of manipulativeness or lack thereof.
Some of this can be called manipulative, yeah. But it's also that, as people- we fear and we evaluate the world based on those fears, based on what we've observed as patterns through previous experience, and memory, and information. This is how we navigate the world, and both as Sabrina, and as individual posters, we can't really just turn that off.
I'm... not really trying to make a point, exactly, about mwargh, manipulativeness, nooo, or ragh, manipulativeness, efficiency, or anything. Just... I dunno. A general contribution to the discussion of manipulativeness and Sabrina's actions, since it comes and goes with some frequency. And maybe a bit of working out what I'm suddenly remembering I mentioned having some issues thinking through, lately. Sorry 'bout that.
... also, before I move on, specifically with regard to the telling people versus hiding from them our 'true thoughts about them' and/or our evaluation of their biases and/or judgement:
But yeah. Back around to what we're concretely doing with all this thought about how/how not to social at people.
As it is, we seem to be in pursuit of some combination of a) not being manipulative, b) being as little manipulative as possible, c) respecting everyone's agency as much as possible while acknowledging the fact that we're going to be doing some things that are classed as manipulative because otherwise something is probably going to be on fire and we're going to regard it as an avoidable failure on our part, and d) flailing around and apologizing because everyone and their cousin has entirely different definitions of manipulative and we're handling very few of them well due to unavoidable issues with consistent behaviour.
All I can really offer without jumping straight into the possibly-inaccurate analytical deep end again is my thoughts formed from personal experience.
In the conversations I keep mentioning, about the Oriko and Kirika to my friends' Homura and Sayaka, and in some prior conversations about morality and personal views in general, we ran into a lot of pure communication issues. Some of these were issues of tone and definition, where the word or phrase choice by one person was interpreted entirely differently than it was meant. Some were issues of conversational philosophy, and its intersect with personal trauma; one person's tendency to pursue arguments with the genuine desire to make sure clear and accurate information has been presented and understood interacts extremely poorly with another person's need to step out of arguments for their own mental health due to past experiences with psychological conditioning and arguments as indicators of pending threat. Particularly when the latter cannot be explained properly to the former without running into the issue itself.
That part also intersects with what I mentioned above (in the spoiler a few paragraphs back) about everyone being allowed to feel their feelings; in this particular conversation, both parties felt that their ability to feel and express their feelings was being constrained by the other in some way (on one side, being constrained by feeling that, because expressing their feelings would likely set off a conversation landmine, and be horribly upsetting to the other party, they were thus not allowed to express those feelings at all; on the other side, being constrained by the knowledge that expressing their feelings or opinions may start a discussion/debate/argument that they would necessarily have to step out of for their health and thus be unfair to the other parties in the discussion), despite neither intending to do so. So, that was kind of a mess.
And then there was the talk of manipulation, the things that they found different levels of acceptable/unacceptable with regard to manipulation in an argument (or in general), and what they defined as such. We ran a little into some of the things we're debating here; I'll not reiterate them all, for long-slain brevity's sake, but it's all the same stuff I've talked around above, and all the stuff the thread's been hashing out for the last however many pages. Well. And the question that I'll just leave out here: When do you cross the line between avoiding a topic because it will upset someone, and they have told or implied to you to avoid it and you're being considerate, and avoiding a topic because you know it will upset someone, and you're trying to avoid upsetting them as an aim in and of itself for whatever reason; when the latter is considered more manipulative than the former, how does that affect your conduct?
But, in general and more applicably, what I got out of the experience was this:
In my opinion, if we want to be as good to our friends as we can, and as honest with our votes as possible, firstly, we need to talk with everyone. We need to determine what acceptable conduct is for each individual we really care about minimizing manipulativeness on; what they find manipulative versus what they don't. We need to ask these things in good faith, and apply these standards individually. (Within reason, obviously; if someone says they don't consider it manipulative to do a thing, but we do, or our other friends do, or we think it would be inappropriate in other ways, obviously we don't need to do it. This is setting a bound of behaviour, not a standard of what we can always try to get away with.)
We just... need to communicate, clearly, in good faith. We need to be sensitive to personal concerns. Be honest where possible; at the very least, inform people when we're concealing relevant information, and the nature of that information, even if we're solidly not willing to reveal it. If we are willing to reveal it, but aren't sure they really want to know (so, in regard to if we do feel like sharing our feelings and evaluation of the group's everything), even beyond infohazards themselves, it's like with the witch/lichbombs; when it's information that may harm them, or our relationship with them, or their ability to go about their business, it needs to be their choice whether they step into thewhy did I write birds nest in the first draft of this hornets nest that is that information. They can choose not to know.
Honestly, I'd say we're doing a pretty okay job of it, overall. Both navigating the multitudes of conversational landmines, and at least making the attempt of keeping down on the manipulativeness. I agree with @Omniatrix's points in that regard. And while I'm at it, I'll say that I also agree with @Skelm's assessment of how Sabrina's goals line up with Homura's:
We want a lot of the same things, and the things we want different, as Omniatrix notes in the same post I mention above, we explain. Or, we try. And we believe- Sabrina believes- I believe we believe, on average, which is to say I believe Sabrina believes- that what we want is not incompatible with the central goals of our friends.
Some last thoughts, I guess. I'd reckon some stuff Sabrina has said, from way back when, is still pretty relevant. Also, the surrounding Sabrina and Homura conversation as a whole is probably something to think about. Er. Possibly also the thread discussion at that time, although that, I haven't examined as closely, since, after all, times change. People change, the thread changes. Three years and two days later, some things change. And some things, apparently, stay the same. Emphasis, violet. As below:
Heh. April 5th, posted April 4th, called back from the distant past on April 6th. 2011, 2015, 2018. Howzabout that.
PMAS, Interloper, Pt. 36.
And here we are.
I think, in a way, despite our multitudes of concerns, about Homura, about everything, this bit still applies, more or less. I mean. Mmmmm, not sure I'm going to say this right because I've left writing this part until 3:38am and this whole conclusion should be considered even less trustworthy than the morass that is the rest of this post, but I'll give it a shot. We, the thread, Sabrina- we worry because we have a lot of the pieces of a lot of puzzles, and we can see them all together, from outside the frame. We worry, and we see the things that Homura can't or won't see. But we... we base all that on what she's done, and we trust what she's done. That is... we know, more or less, what would come to pass without Sabrina. We know what Homura would do; we trust her to be who she is, and to act upon the world that way. To reach something like success on her own. Just- not the success what we're aiming for, this time 'round.
It's a different sort of trust than trusting her to act exactly as we think would be best, or to exercise exactly the judgement we'd like, but it's- well, trust in her "strength, patient and just about as immovable as the mountains. Not indestructible. But the next best thing to it". It's what- actually, it's what brings this back around to what I said earlier? About what we fear in folks' reactions, when we're not just fearing concrete things? We trust her to be her. We trust Madoka to be Madoka. We trust Mami to be Mami. We trust Sayaka to be Sayaka. We trust Kyoko to be Kyoko. We trust Oriko and Kirika to be Oriko and Kirika- it's not that we trust them, so much as it's that we trust what we know of them to be true, and that bears out that we should trust their actions and motives as they are now. These are things we trust, that they will be who they are. So it's our mistake if we make a misstep. Not necessarily just because we're 'working around' everyone, or trying to move them around like pieces. But because we know them, and so it feels like, by extension, that should inform how we should move in the world- because they'll be who they'll be. Without us, they'd have gotten somewhere in the end. We're trying to do that somewhere one better, but if we make it one worse then it's on us. That's what I'm getting at, I guess. Not sure I quite said all that right. And maybe it's just me. Seems to reiterate a lot of points I apply in other contexts, that mean it could just be me, how I'm seeing things here. But, well, that's all I can ever know, I guess. How I'm seeing things.
On that note. Let us recall that for Homura, it's literally only been a week since this scene quoted above. That's little enough time, that she definitely remembers that we're struggling with this. That Sabrina is struggling with this. And on one hand, this means over the past week we've made rather more mistakes than are optimal, in avoiding distressing Homura, and we probably ought to explain the fact we've perceived the past week as three years, because I think it would help her to know that we do care and do mean all these things we say, but our sense of perspective is kinda hopelessly warped. On the other hand, though, this also means it's only been a week since Homura saw that we care enough about her feelings, and trying to do right by her, that it noticeably affects the state of our gem when we notice we're screwing it up. That's something, at least.
...
So. It'sthe middle of the night 5:45am and I've been working on this for an impressively awful amount of time. It's- holy fucking shit, 15 pages long, all told. About 7300 words. It's almost certainly got logical flaws like no tomorrow, just waiting to strike. Also, grammar and clarity issues I'm going to have to go back to and fix. Probably at least two-three points that I left hanging and never went back to properly address. But it's... my general, detailed thoughts on basically every bit of the discussion of Sabrina's potential manipulativeness, and our general handling of sensitive conversations, that I can come up with at the moment. So. Here it is.
(... @Firnagzen I know I asked and you specifically said that long posts were perfectly welcome, but I'm not sure this was what you meant. Tell me if I need to liberally spoiler tag this in chunks to make it more readable.)
Edit: Any if anyone knows a way to keep quotes inside spoiler tags from being abridged and not allowing themselves to be expanded, that would be really great.
... this checks out with my inner
It's part of why I was like "oh shit part of my proposed vote is insensitive and really dumb of me, ah, fuck, gotta change that now" because it was exactly how some conversations have gone straight to hell and led to people, understandably, noping out of the conversation and also drastically misunderstanding each other's position. And I'd forgotten that. I'm trying to keep in mind, when I consider votes, what conversational landmines I've seen tripped before, about... well, the Oriko and Kirika to my friends' Homura and Sayaka.
In regards to this, my thoughts about the various points being made about conversational manipulation, and the nature of Sabrina's behaviour:
Firstly, I have the strong suspicion that we are not going to be able to come to a consensus as a thread about what constitutes "manipulation". As has been noted,
(and also the rest of your post is really insightful I just have things to say about this specific bit, and don't worry about the word vomit, I feel that way when I post literally anything, like this whole post right here!)
Is it manipulation to keep your feelings to yourself when you know that people would change their behaviour if you let them be known? Is it manipulation to share those feelings when you know how people will react? Is it manipulation to think over what you're going to say, so you can upset as few people as possible? Is it manipulation to blurt out everything you're thinking and be extremely honest because you know that your honesty will speak for itself?
We're running into all these questions, and more. We're also running into the issue that we are a group piloting Sabrina. What we think, she thinks, and, unfortunately for questions of motivation, we are very divided about some issues. For any question that would draw anything but a likely-completely unanimous vote (e.g. such things as the fact that meguca are for saving), we will probably never be able to vote to have Sabrina honestly decide and say she completely believes anything without reservation (note that Sabrina may hold such beliefs as a byproduct of Firn's interpretation of our thoughts and Sabrina's character, which is a different matter), and we will never be able to have a vote devoid of what some people are going to view as manipulation.
It's a question I've had to struggle with in real life lately, more than a few separate times, hence my small rant on, eh, Sunday afternoon, about the matter. People are complicated, the rules of social are complicated, they're unintuitive to me particularly (which is part of why I apologise so much, by the by, as I generally assume I've managed to offend somebody, or misinterpret something, and usually regret either), and they're made even more complicated the moment you need majority vote to represent a divided system with a single set of actions. And literally everything can be construed as manipulative, to varying degrees, depending on who you are speaking to and for what purpose.
The most I think we'd ever get, then, as a unified assessment of how we view Sabrina's actions, is probably that on the whole, Sabrina isn't trying (as in, doesn't have a general rule and goal to do so) to manipulate her friends, but her actions can definitely be viewed as manipulative, and she is aware of this fact, finds it really upsetting, and will continue both trying not to be manipulative, unintentionally taking actions that can be easily called manipulative, being upset by this fact, and will always have to apologize after the fact rather than actually discontinue those actions.
Simply because we as a thread are voting on her actions, and there's no way to simply declare "we're going to stop being manipulative" and then consistently enforce people to vote that way- because both as Sabrina in the context of her world, and as individual posters, we're going to disagree a lot with what constitutes being manipulative, what constitutes being acceptably manipulative, and we're going to have a shifting voting block that basically precludes any true consistency on controversial matters.
That being said, more thoughts as follows.
While I definitely agree that yeah, there's rather a big difference between "I'm manipulating you for your own interests" and Kyubey's "I'm manipulating you for something blatantly counter to your own interests and saying you should thank me for it because of the bigger picture", I'd like to note that, a) characterizing the former stance as "our" is I think perhaps too definitive a statement to make about Sabrina's and the thread's motivations as a whole, and (not directed at you particularly, just a thought your post has catalyzed) b) regardless of how we're defining manipulation, "I'm manipulating you for your own interests" can still be pretty not okay, and, if and when we come across like that, either in-story as Sabrina, or in the thread to one-another, we should all probably keep in mind and try to be understanding about the fact that there will be people who absolutely have strong objections about the very idea of "for your own good". At least partially because that implies the manipulating party is deciding for somebody else what their own good is.
This... was actually a point of some of those sensitive conversations I mentioned above. Depending on what one has experienced, "for your own good" can be as much of, if not more of, an issue than just "I am manipulating you to do something I want for my own benefit", not least of which because it can carry the implication that, as @matthew badger has been pointing out, we don't trust their judgement and think they should be 'handled' because we cannot trust them to react maturely or evaluate the situation sensibly.
From what I gather, I will say that I think the thread has some different opinions on that matter itself of how far we trust everyone around Sabrina to act sensibly- I suppose the most prominent two things lately being the recently-raised question about whether Sayaka has the right mindset to be given the opportunity to be Witchbombed, and then of course the various opinions on how Homura will react to us messing up this discussion in any way (ranging approximately from 'kill O&K immediately as a precautionary measure if we show any sympathy towards them' to 'listen to our arguments and be convinced by their rationality regardless of our tone or phrasing', naturally).
Since, as with any evaluation of Sabrina's opinion, our status as a group of posters being coalesced into an individual mostly precludes being able to definitively say we do or do not trust Homura, Sayaka, Mami, etc., to react maturely, sensibly, or rationally (and not even beginning the question of how to define those terms within the context of these characters, given their setting and their histories), I think the most we will be able to work with as a uniform summation of Sabrina's thoughts on the matter is that there are some things that she is concerned about her friends' reactions to, and she worries about these things and moderates her actions accordingly.
On an individual level, I'll note that more or less everyone does this, to greater or lesser degrees. When we worry we'll say something that upsets someone; when we're introduced to new people and try to make a good impression; when we try to avoid certain topics because we know they'll start an argument that nobody wants to get into but everyone would feel obliged to continue. Heck- when we're nervous about telling people things about ourselves. Er, by which I suppose I mean the specific example of coming out to friends and family about gender and sexuality and whatever; even if you're like 99.8% sure they'll be cool with it, there's that worry. The worry that they'll suddenly hate you or never speak to you again or kick you out or start shouting or do something, and it will be your fault because you told them and why couldn't you just leave it alone and stay quiet, and such.
And I've definitely heard it said that some people are offended by that fear itself- I've heard folks who take that fear personally, a sort of "How dare you assume I could act like that, do you think so little of me that you think I'm a bigot, is that why you didn't tell me, I'm insulted" thing. But that's not always it. I mean, given, when you hear someone react like that to someone mustering up the courage to beat back that fear, you don't really get the impression the fear of telling them was wrong, and of course sometimes you've got a specific reason to be... concerned about someone's reaction. But in a more general sense, I think it's sometimes also the fear that you're the one messing things up. That it's your own mistake that brings the house down on you, that you could have been more sensitive to them and their opinions. That bringing it up is the mistake you made, and that everyone would have been happier forever if you'd just let it be- because it's not information they ever needed to know, you could have worked around it, so deciding to take the risk of a bad reaction makes that bad reaction your own fault, if it happens.
It's not always thinking they, specifically, are the sorta folks who will explode at you; not always making the judgement call that they can't be trusted with the information. It's just that if you tread on a sensitive issue, it'll be your mistake, you being the problem. And none of us want to make mistakes on purpose; none of us want to be the problem. (But of course, equally, it's lying to hide such facts. Feels like it, anyway. Not being honest about who we are and what we feel. Working around it so we never have to say anything. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, yeah?)
Sounds a bit familiar, I think.
Of course obviously, to bring this all back around, we do have concrete reasons to be concerned about a lot of the things we're quiet on, even beyond infohazards like the Witchbomb and the Potentialbomb. And our reactions to those concerns and how we handle them dip back into the question of what qualifies as manipulation. Some points brought up- the fact that they're brought up at all indicates that something about how we're handling this all comes across, or can come across, pretty badly. As
Note that several of the things I've highlighted as points that could be considered manipulation by mere virtue of being brought up as a part of reasoning, are points that occur simultaneously with specific attempts to avoid manipulation or point it out as a problem.
As I tend to sit on the paranoid side about how anyone at any given time will take any given information, I'll say I agree that concerns about how all this could be taken are quite valid, to a degree. Some of our calculated concerns about what we're saying, or not saying, about our thoughts, are very much making judgements about what we think everyone 'could handle' or 'would react badly to' and such. And while I have my own opinions about what parts of our behaviour qualify as manipulation, how our actions should be generally interpreted, and particularly whether this is something that Sabrina and the thread need to specifically be amending, as opposed to something that merely needs to be acknowledged about how her actions could come across- this doesn't actually change how we're coming across, by at least some measures of interpretation.
But the thing is, we're people. On this thread, we're all people. Coming all together, between us and Firn, I'd say we make Sabrina a pretty good example of people, too.
That means, as we make these arguments, and as Sabrina makes them in turn, that we're doing the people-things. Some of our concerns are the broad ones, I think, or are centered the same way- that we can hold off on dealing with a lot of these non-critical issues until such time as it becomes absolutely necessary because there's a lot going on and it'll be our fault if we break something unnecessarily. That we can avoid talking about parts of our opinions/feelings on Homura's, Sayaka's, etc.'s issues, because we never have to talk about them, and it would just upset things if we did. Some things, we're putting off until we're in a better position, either in terms of practical material considerations, or in terms of ability to argue our position. And some things, working out how to deal with now, because it's necessary or because there'll be no better time, and we're using what we know to find the most efficient way to do that, while each trying to steer toward our own acceptable level of manipulativeness or lack thereof.
Some of this can be called manipulative, yeah. But it's also that, as people- we fear and we evaluate the world based on those fears, based on what we've observed as patterns through previous experience, and memory, and information. This is how we navigate the world, and both as Sabrina, and as individual posters, we can't really just turn that off.
I'm... not really trying to make a point, exactly, about mwargh, manipulativeness, nooo, or ragh, manipulativeness, efficiency, or anything. Just... I dunno. A general contribution to the discussion of manipulativeness and Sabrina's actions, since it comes and goes with some frequency. And maybe a bit of working out what I'm suddenly remembering I mentioned having some issues thinking through, lately. Sorry 'bout that.
... also, before I move on, specifically with regard to the telling people versus hiding from them our 'true thoughts about them' and/or our evaluation of their biases and/or judgement:
I firmly hold the opinion that we, and people in general, are very much allowed to have private thoughts, about the world or about each other, that we are not required to share with anyone. Also, that we, and everyone else, are allowed to feel our feelings, whether or not those are necessarily charitable. As Firnagzen mentioned about Sayaka, she's a teenage girl, she's allowed to be petty. We, overall, are people, and we're allowed to feel our feelings.
It's part of why I'm a bit iffy on the lie detector, and why I have strong objections to the idea of pushing for enchantment-based-empathy sharing as a means of pursuing an argument. Because of how both ideas (true empathy, and the revelation of dishonesty) are strongly associated with honesty, with the corresponding train of thought that avoiding honesty is clearly a bad-people thing, I feel that even bringing them in as an option creates a lot more pressure to acquiesce than we intend, and thus more pressure to reveal private thoughts/feelings that have every right to stay private. This, correspondingly, puts some pressure on anyone within the sphere of influence where we have a policy of lie-detection or enchantment-empathyshare to avoid, deny, or otherwise stamp out any emotions or thoughts that they feel would be unacceptable to outside judgement. Which is neither healthy, nor okay, nor pursuant to being allowed to feel one's own feelings.
I am absolutely not saying this is what anyone has been meaning to imply we do. But because of aforementioned strongly held belief about both being entitled to private opinions, and being allowed to feel one's own feelings, as well as for the personal reasons that led to those beliefs, this is my explanation of why I have objections to certain proposed ideas. And why I will definitively make clear my opinion, that I do not believe Sabrina (and by extension the thread) having un-dialogue-stated thoughts about her friends and their issues qualifies as in and of itself dishonest. And if it can be interpreted as otherwise, then that is a level of dishonesty I am willing to live with.
... this was not actually meant to be a three and a half paragraph rant about the nature of being allowed to feel one's feelings. But it does I guess tie into the whole "hey look every topic peripherally related to the sensitive discussions I mentioned in my second paragraph" thing, so. There's that.
It's part of why I'm a bit iffy on the lie detector, and why I have strong objections to the idea of pushing for enchantment-based-empathy sharing as a means of pursuing an argument. Because of how both ideas (true empathy, and the revelation of dishonesty) are strongly associated with honesty, with the corresponding train of thought that avoiding honesty is clearly a bad-people thing, I feel that even bringing them in as an option creates a lot more pressure to acquiesce than we intend, and thus more pressure to reveal private thoughts/feelings that have every right to stay private. This, correspondingly, puts some pressure on anyone within the sphere of influence where we have a policy of lie-detection or enchantment-empathyshare to avoid, deny, or otherwise stamp out any emotions or thoughts that they feel would be unacceptable to outside judgement. Which is neither healthy, nor okay, nor pursuant to being allowed to feel one's own feelings.
I am absolutely not saying this is what anyone has been meaning to imply we do. But because of aforementioned strongly held belief about both being entitled to private opinions, and being allowed to feel one's own feelings, as well as for the personal reasons that led to those beliefs, this is my explanation of why I have objections to certain proposed ideas. And why I will definitively make clear my opinion, that I do not believe Sabrina (and by extension the thread) having un-dialogue-stated thoughts about her friends and their issues qualifies as in and of itself dishonest. And if it can be interpreted as otherwise, then that is a level of dishonesty I am willing to live with.
... this was not actually meant to be a three and a half paragraph rant about the nature of being allowed to feel one's feelings. But it does I guess tie into the whole "hey look every topic peripherally related to the sensitive discussions I mentioned in my second paragraph" thing, so. There's that.
But yeah. Back around to what we're concretely doing with all this thought about how/how not to social at people.
As it is, we seem to be in pursuit of some combination of a) not being manipulative, b) being as little manipulative as possible, c) respecting everyone's agency as much as possible while acknowledging the fact that we're going to be doing some things that are classed as manipulative because otherwise something is probably going to be on fire and we're going to regard it as an avoidable failure on our part, and d) flailing around and apologizing because everyone and their cousin has entirely different definitions of manipulative and we're handling very few of them well due to unavoidable issues with consistent behaviour.
All I can really offer without jumping straight into the possibly-inaccurate analytical deep end again is my thoughts formed from personal experience.
In the conversations I keep mentioning, about the Oriko and Kirika to my friends' Homura and Sayaka, and in some prior conversations about morality and personal views in general, we ran into a lot of pure communication issues. Some of these were issues of tone and definition, where the word or phrase choice by one person was interpreted entirely differently than it was meant. Some were issues of conversational philosophy, and its intersect with personal trauma; one person's tendency to pursue arguments with the genuine desire to make sure clear and accurate information has been presented and understood interacts extremely poorly with another person's need to step out of arguments for their own mental health due to past experiences with psychological conditioning and arguments as indicators of pending threat. Particularly when the latter cannot be explained properly to the former without running into the issue itself.
That part also intersects with what I mentioned above (in the spoiler a few paragraphs back) about everyone being allowed to feel their feelings; in this particular conversation, both parties felt that their ability to feel and express their feelings was being constrained by the other in some way (on one side, being constrained by feeling that, because expressing their feelings would likely set off a conversation landmine, and be horribly upsetting to the other party, they were thus not allowed to express those feelings at all; on the other side, being constrained by the knowledge that expressing their feelings or opinions may start a discussion/debate/argument that they would necessarily have to step out of for their health and thus be unfair to the other parties in the discussion), despite neither intending to do so. So, that was kind of a mess.
And then there was the talk of manipulation, the things that they found different levels of acceptable/unacceptable with regard to manipulation in an argument (or in general), and what they defined as such. We ran a little into some of the things we're debating here; I'll not reiterate them all, for long-slain brevity's sake, but it's all the same stuff I've talked around above, and all the stuff the thread's been hashing out for the last however many pages. Well. And the question that I'll just leave out here: When do you cross the line between avoiding a topic because it will upset someone, and they have told or implied to you to avoid it and you're being considerate, and avoiding a topic because you know it will upset someone, and you're trying to avoid upsetting them as an aim in and of itself for whatever reason; when the latter is considered more manipulative than the former, how does that affect your conduct?
But, in general and more applicably, what I got out of the experience was this:
In my opinion, if we want to be as good to our friends as we can, and as honest with our votes as possible, firstly, we need to talk with everyone. We need to determine what acceptable conduct is for each individual we really care about minimizing manipulativeness on; what they find manipulative versus what they don't. We need to ask these things in good faith, and apply these standards individually. (Within reason, obviously; if someone says they don't consider it manipulative to do a thing, but we do, or our other friends do, or we think it would be inappropriate in other ways, obviously we don't need to do it. This is setting a bound of behaviour, not a standard of what we can always try to get away with.)
We just... need to communicate, clearly, in good faith. We need to be sensitive to personal concerns. Be honest where possible; at the very least, inform people when we're concealing relevant information, and the nature of that information, even if we're solidly not willing to reveal it. If we are willing to reveal it, but aren't sure they really want to know (so, in regard to if we do feel like sharing our feelings and evaluation of the group's everything), even beyond infohazards themselves, it's like with the witch/lichbombs; when it's information that may harm them, or our relationship with them, or their ability to go about their business, it needs to be their choice whether they step into the
Honestly, I'd say we're doing a pretty okay job of it, overall. Both navigating the multitudes of conversational landmines, and at least making the attempt of keeping down on the manipulativeness. I agree with @Omniatrix's points in that regard. And while I'm at it, I'll say that I also agree with @Skelm's assessment of how Sabrina's goals line up with Homura's:
We want a lot of the same things, and the things we want different, as Omniatrix notes in the same post I mention above, we explain. Or, we try. And we believe- Sabrina believes- I believe we believe, on average, which is to say I believe Sabrina believes- that what we want is not incompatible with the central goals of our friends.
Some last thoughts, I guess. I'd reckon some stuff Sabrina has said, from way back when, is still pretty relevant. Also, the surrounding Sabrina and Homura conversation as a whole is probably something to think about. Er. Possibly also the thread discussion at that time, although that, I haven't examined as closely, since, after all, times change. People change, the thread changes. Three years and two days later, some things change. And some things, apparently, stay the same. Emphasis, violet. As below:
Heh. April 5th, posted April 4th, called back from the distant past on April 6th. 2011, 2015, 2018. Howzabout that.
PMAS, Interloper, Pt. 36.
And here we are.
I think, in a way, despite our multitudes of concerns, about Homura, about everything, this bit still applies, more or less. I mean. Mmmmm, not sure I'm going to say this right because I've left writing this part until 3:38am and this whole conclusion should be considered even less trustworthy than the morass that is the rest of this post, but I'll give it a shot. We, the thread, Sabrina- we worry because we have a lot of the pieces of a lot of puzzles, and we can see them all together, from outside the frame. We worry, and we see the things that Homura can't or won't see. But we... we base all that on what she's done, and we trust what she's done. That is... we know, more or less, what would come to pass without Sabrina. We know what Homura would do; we trust her to be who she is, and to act upon the world that way. To reach something like success on her own. Just- not the success what we're aiming for, this time 'round.
It's a different sort of trust than trusting her to act exactly as we think would be best, or to exercise exactly the judgement we'd like, but it's- well, trust in her "strength, patient and just about as immovable as the mountains. Not indestructible. But the next best thing to it". It's what- actually, it's what brings this back around to what I said earlier? About what we fear in folks' reactions, when we're not just fearing concrete things? We trust her to be her. We trust Madoka to be Madoka. We trust Mami to be Mami. We trust Sayaka to be Sayaka. We trust Kyoko to be Kyoko. We trust Oriko and Kirika to be Oriko and Kirika- it's not that we trust them, so much as it's that we trust what we know of them to be true, and that bears out that we should trust their actions and motives as they are now. These are things we trust, that they will be who they are. So it's our mistake if we make a misstep. Not necessarily just because we're 'working around' everyone, or trying to move them around like pieces. But because we know them, and so it feels like, by extension, that should inform how we should move in the world- because they'll be who they'll be. Without us, they'd have gotten somewhere in the end. We're trying to do that somewhere one better, but if we make it one worse then it's on us. That's what I'm getting at, I guess. Not sure I quite said all that right. And maybe it's just me. Seems to reiterate a lot of points I apply in other contexts, that mean it could just be me, how I'm seeing things here. But, well, that's all I can ever know, I guess. How I'm seeing things.
On that note. Let us recall that for Homura, it's literally only been a week since this scene quoted above. That's little enough time, that she definitely remembers that we're struggling with this. That Sabrina is struggling with this. And on one hand, this means over the past week we've made rather more mistakes than are optimal, in avoiding distressing Homura, and we probably ought to explain the fact we've perceived the past week as three years, because I think it would help her to know that we do care and do mean all these things we say, but our sense of perspective is kinda hopelessly warped. On the other hand, though, this also means it's only been a week since Homura saw that we care enough about her feelings, and trying to do right by her, that it noticeably affects the state of our gem when we notice we're screwing it up. That's something, at least.
...
So. It's
(... @Firnagzen I know I asked and you specifically said that long posts were perfectly welcome, but I'm not sure this was what you meant. Tell me if I need to liberally spoiler tag this in chunks to make it more readable.)
Edit: Any if anyone knows a way to keep quotes inside spoiler tags from being abridged and not allowing themselves to be expanded, that would be really great.
Last edited:
The Phoenixian
The Glacier Witch
- Location
- My own little world
Honestly, the impression I get from Sayaka in these updates is that she very much likes the idea of justice and righteousness but she's presently going off her gut feelings rather than the results of analysis and so still kinda struggling with what that actually looks like and requires in practice.
Which... yeah, she's young yet. She just needs time to learn how to deal with the actual workings of what she wants to embody.
- Location
- universe
These are all very good points.
I think that the thread should come together and work out, definitively, what parts of Sabrinas thought process are manipulation. Because sure, people have different interpretations of what manipulation is, but at the end of the day manipulation is something that can be clearly defined if enough people work on narrowing it down, as there's only one true meaning for it.
Then we need to come up with what parts of those manipulations we're okay with, collectively. Perhaps i'll be proven wrong after we properly hash this out, or maybe others will.
At the end of the day, we can all learn a thing or two from this.
The Narrator
Disembodied Voice
- Location
- Somewhere Offscreen
It's probably not a viable strategy because then Kyubey will be talking shit about us to everybody regarding impersonating him, but it would be fun to do.
I'm not sure if it would mindwipe the potentials, however. At the very least, I can't recall any instance of Kyubey mindwiping a potential. Of course, usually it wouldn't be a concern for him because he intends that they will eventually become magical girls anyway, and becoming aware of the supernatural will encourage them to do so. But there are also cases where potentials have seen or learned things that will almost certainly reduce their willingness to contract (seeing a magical girl ripped to shreds by a witch, the lichbomb, the witchbomb, the true nature of the Incubators, etc.), but he allows them to retain those memories. Which makes me wonder if he even can erase the memories of potentials.
I just rewatched that scene, and that does not appear to be the case. She sees her hand break out in colorful witch spots (because she's a witch), braces herself against the railing in expectation, and then instead of her collapsing the entire world catches fire. She does appear to stumble a bit, before that, but I think that's just the placebo effect and her subconscious being dramatic. It's not like Homura knows what being degemmed actually feels like.
It's also completely contradicted by Episode 6, where Sayaka shows no sign of anything being wrong and then goes limp in an instant like somebody pulled the plug.
Sayaka has been told this, by us and then by Oriko and then by us again just now. She doesn't accept it as an excuse. And I don't blame her. As far as the door thing goes, "I saved you from the life-threatening situation I deliberately created in the first place" is pretty weak tea.
Alternately, we let Sayaka's family move in. Talk about an upgrade!
We could also turn it into refugee housing.
- Location
- The Surface Of A Hostile Planet
I'm in agreement with the point that the bounds of acceptable social behaviour vary from person to person, and that very much does include what counts as "manipulation" to that person.
Sabrina is trying very hard to convince people to work with her, and she has foreknowledge of people that makes doing so significantly easier. Is it manipulative that we word our votes to be more coarse and swear more when we're talking to Kyouko, because we think she'd respond very poorly to us keeping up an "upper crust" persona around her constantly?
Or is it just normal human behaviour to try to communicate with people in a way that fits them as well as possible? We asked Homura for advice on how to talk to Kyouko, and she recommended being honest. Is it now manipulative to not lie to Kyouko, because we know she'd take it particularly badly?
While I think that the characters in PMAS will all have their own ideas of what they'd be fine with in a conversation with them and what crosses the line, I don't think Sabrina in particular can possibly be said to hold any position other than "she worries about both how people will take what she says and about being manipulative constantly, and which concern wins out is a case by case issue."
Because we, as a voter base, aren't going to have a unanimous agreement on what was too far and what wasn't.
Sabrina is trying very hard to convince people to work with her, and she has foreknowledge of people that makes doing so significantly easier. Is it manipulative that we word our votes to be more coarse and swear more when we're talking to Kyouko, because we think she'd respond very poorly to us keeping up an "upper crust" persona around her constantly?
Or is it just normal human behaviour to try to communicate with people in a way that fits them as well as possible? We asked Homura for advice on how to talk to Kyouko, and she recommended being honest. Is it now manipulative to not lie to Kyouko, because we know she'd take it particularly badly?
While I think that the characters in PMAS will all have their own ideas of what they'd be fine with in a conversation with them and what crosses the line, I don't think Sabrina in particular can possibly be said to hold any position other than "she worries about both how people will take what she says and about being manipulative constantly, and which concern wins out is a case by case issue."
Because we, as a voter base, aren't going to have a unanimous agreement on what was too far and what wasn't.
The Narrator
Disembodied Voice
- Location
- Somewhere Offscreen
Putting forth some ideas:
[X] Tracking:
-[X] The same ribbon method that Mami used to track Anri should also work to let Sayaka track Oriko and Kirika. If they leave the areas we designate or break the connection, she'd know immediately.
(I don't see a need for any wild ideas about animal sidekicks when we already know this works.)
[X] Where to move them:
-[X] Move back in with Kirika's parents? Would they accept their daughter's lesbian lover, even if she's rich?
-[X] Oriko's warehouse hideout?
-[X] What to do with Oriko's house?
--[X] Does Sayaka want to burn it down? Only seems fair.
--[X] Does Sayaka want to keep it? Only seems fair.
--[X] Use it for refugee housing?
--[X] Sell it to pay back all the people displaced by the apartment fire?
(It wasn't only the Miki family that lived in that building, after all.)
[X] Regardless of O&K, the issues of a justice system are still something we need to address:
-[X] Getting adults involved?
-[X] Is this something Sayaka would want to share with her parents?
--[X] Would she want Oriko to confess to them?
-[X] Legal scholars? Maybe the Shizukis know somebody?
-[X] We really do need a psychologist to try and rehabilitate people like Anri. We can't just imprison her for life, especially when meguca are effectively immortal. Have to try to cure her.
(We should not let this be forgotten. We desperately need a shrink.)
[X] Tracking:
-[X] The same ribbon method that Mami used to track Anri should also work to let Sayaka track Oriko and Kirika. If they leave the areas we designate or break the connection, she'd know immediately.
(I don't see a need for any wild ideas about animal sidekicks when we already know this works.)
[X] Where to move them:
-[X] Move back in with Kirika's parents? Would they accept their daughter's lesbian lover, even if she's rich?
-[X] Oriko's warehouse hideout?
-[X] What to do with Oriko's house?
--[X] Does Sayaka want to burn it down? Only seems fair.
--[X] Does Sayaka want to keep it? Only seems fair.
--[X] Use it for refugee housing?
--[X] Sell it to pay back all the people displaced by the apartment fire?
(It wasn't only the Miki family that lived in that building, after all.)
[X] Regardless of O&K, the issues of a justice system are still something we need to address:
-[X] Getting adults involved?
-[X] Is this something Sayaka would want to share with her parents?
--[X] Would she want Oriko to confess to them?
-[X] Legal scholars? Maybe the Shizukis know somebody?
-[X] We really do need a psychologist to try and rehabilitate people like Anri. We can't just imprison her for life, especially when meguca are effectively immortal. Have to try to cure her.
(We should not let this be forgotten. We desperately need a shrink.)
- Location
- Potato land
As an alternative to @mCooperative's exhaustive analysis of what is and isn't manipulation, it might be more useful to focus on how our friends would feel about our actions given all the information, and what the outcomes of those actions are. The questions we'd then ask ourselves, rather than "Are we being manipulative?" would be:
1. Right now, if we told them everything, would they resent us for what we're doing?
I think Homura would be very upset about us keeping the potentialbomb from her, for example. I don't think Sayaka would be very upset about the witchbomb being kept secret, though it might be a good idea to give her the same option Mami and Kazumi were given.
2. Eventually, after they learn everything and are in a better headspace, would they resent us for what we're doing right now?
Homura still upset about potentialbomb, but less so. Witchbomb not really a problem.
3. What is the outcome of us doing what we're doing?
I don't think I really need to reiterate the consequences of witchbombing Mami or potentialbombing Homura here.
For me personally, if an action clears all of these, I'm fine with it even if it might be manipulative. My disagreement with @matthew badger I think comes down to what we think the answer to 1 is, for example: I think telling Homura that we want Oriko rehabilitated and free eventually wouldn't upset her that much, while he thinks she'd feel very betrayed.
I guess there's an interesting case for potentialbombing Homura here. The witchbomb is honestly just an emotional gut punch - meguca can't really do anything about it, they need to hunt witches to stay alive, so the only thing it accomplishes is making them feel really bad about themselves. The potentialbomb, on the other hand, really changes Homura's perception of her own mission, and the decisions she makes. Even if said decision could be "Give up and stop looping".
1. Right now, if we told them everything, would they resent us for what we're doing?
I think Homura would be very upset about us keeping the potentialbomb from her, for example. I don't think Sayaka would be very upset about the witchbomb being kept secret, though it might be a good idea to give her the same option Mami and Kazumi were given.
2. Eventually, after they learn everything and are in a better headspace, would they resent us for what we're doing right now?
Homura still upset about potentialbomb, but less so. Witchbomb not really a problem.
3. What is the outcome of us doing what we're doing?
I don't think I really need to reiterate the consequences of witchbombing Mami or potentialbombing Homura here.
For me personally, if an action clears all of these, I'm fine with it even if it might be manipulative. My disagreement with @matthew badger I think comes down to what we think the answer to 1 is, for example: I think telling Homura that we want Oriko rehabilitated and free eventually wouldn't upset her that much, while he thinks she'd feel very betrayed.
I guess there's an interesting case for potentialbombing Homura here. The witchbomb is honestly just an emotional gut punch - meguca can't really do anything about it, they need to hunt witches to stay alive, so the only thing it accomplishes is making them feel really bad about themselves. The potentialbomb, on the other hand, really changes Homura's perception of her own mission, and the decisions she makes. Even if said decision could be "Give up and stop looping".
Last edited:
Onmur
Archangel of Nutella.
I'm pretty sure Firn touched on it, but Sayaka's a teenager. Teenagers are notorious for formulating ideas about how the world should work, then not applying those ideas to themselves.
Sayaka even called us on trying to manipulate her into agreeing with us before making the matter personal to her.
It's really not a logical reaction, doesn't even stem from the facts the teens are seemingly trying to address; when a teenager makes up ideologies about what justice, love, death, etc. are, how people should conduct themselves in such matters, how the world should be, what people should behave or look like, etc., etc., etc...
It's not really about any of those things; what the teens are actually trying to address is an internal, invading feeling about losing control of themselves, of everything, stemming from the fact their bodies are changing extremely fast, which brings them tons of complications, and they can't do anything about it.
Since they can't control their own physical bodies, they retreat into their thoughts where they can control the world.
Sayaka even called us on trying to manipulate her into agreeing with us before making the matter personal to her.
It's really not a logical reaction, doesn't even stem from the facts the teens are seemingly trying to address; when a teenager makes up ideologies about what justice, love, death, etc. are, how people should conduct themselves in such matters, how the world should be, what people should behave or look like, etc., etc., etc...
It's not really about any of those things; what the teens are actually trying to address is an internal, invading feeling about losing control of themselves, of everything, stemming from the fact their bodies are changing extremely fast, which brings them tons of complications, and they can't do anything about it.
Since they can't control their own physical bodies, they retreat into their thoughts where they can control the world.
[X] Tracking suggestions/ideas.
-[X] Mami: Ribbons.
-[X] Sayaka: Mitakihara Avian Surveillance System.
--[X] Could she hypnotize the local fauna into doing surveillance work? Not just on O&K, but for Mitakihara?
--[X] Powers: Dr. Dolittle + Hypnosys + Mind-editting?
--[X] Mami could help setting up an alarm system?
--[X] Consult with Satomi?
-[X] Asking Yuki to claim wherever we move O&K to, in addition to the place Homura picked?
-[X] Hiring someone with appropriate powers, like Taniguchi?
[X] Where to move O&K.
-[X] The Kures' place?
-[X] The warehouse Oriko had prepared?
-[X] Anyone (Homu) has a place in mind?
-[X] What to do with the Mikuni mansion? Propose having it sold, and using the money to repay the Mikis.
[X] Mention: Plan to involve adults.
-[X] Benefits include breaking down meguca isolation.
-[X] In the long term, you want shrinks.
-[X] For now, meguca parents:
--[X] What would Sayaka feel...
--[X] Telling the truth to her parents?
--[X] Having Oriko confess her crime to them?
[X] Thank Homura and Sayaka for hearing you out. (Hug Mami).
-[X] Promise we'll be extra careful for their sakes.
-[X] Offer to share information:
--[X] Oriko's foreseen death.
--[X] Oriko's fear of 'Feathers'; her demands of us.
--[Q] Tell them Kirika is totally our Best Buddy Forever.
[X] Ask Homura for a moment in private.
Raiseth
I Find Your Lack of Memes Disturbing
- Location
- Russia
Silly Onmur, arson is a much more effective and cost-efficient option. Not even talking about moral and lawful. If you don't believe me, ask Oriko.
[Q] Burn the whole thing down. Go to the nearest police station. Confess that you did it using "griefhax bullshit magic" and dump the whole problem on coobie.
Edit:
Forgot in the wake of Shitposting.
[X] Onmur
Last edited:
Raiseth
I Find Your Lack of Memes Disturbing
- Location
- Russia
I forgot to speak up when it was proposed, ( I thought it was a joke, lol ) but this needs to be done carefully, if at all. I can totally see Animal Rights suing us for this.
I guess it's better than just keeping secrets from Sayaka and Mami? At least, they know we do it and believe it's necessary.
Otherwise, yeah, still
[Х] Onmarble
Jonen C
F.M.D.G.
- Location
- Lincopense, Ostrogothia, Suecia
In re the spoiler about Teenagers.
She a mahou shoujo now.
She needs to realize she CAN take control of her body and beat the shit out of puberty and have all the elegance and grace she can muster in her mind. (Assuming she is able to rein in her neurosis and insecurities enough to muster any grace and elephants, but hey fake it till you make it.)
Little bearing on the subject at hand, but we could probably stand to emphasize she needs to be more careful about how she thinks the world should work because she has been given this arbitrarily long lever and it should probably not be used as an armrest.
Last edited:
Raiseth
I Find Your Lack of Memes Disturbing
- Location
- Russia
I just imagined the Talk between Sayaka and Sabrina
"When a Puella Magi reaches a certain age in her development, her body undergoes some changes-"
"I know everything about puberty, Sabrina! I have already had classes at school! Goddamit, stop it, please!"
"Which you can beat ten shits out of, because your body is totally controlled by you now. One of the perks of being Meguca."
"... Alright, I'll admit, I didn't know that."
"Also, don't let your Gem become dark, or you'll Witch out! Class dismissed, next lesson is tomorrow, ciao!"
"... wait, wha?"
*Suddenly Octavia*
Onmur
Archangel of Nutella.
On this topic, maybe it would be OK to just throw ideas but...
I don't want to recommend arson; while Sayaka might entertain the idea for a moment (I don't think she would actually go for it), arson is just counterproductive.
Selling the house and using the money to pay the Mikis would actually hit many points about justice, punishment, remuneration, etc...
Using the house would also seem a nice, productive solution, but the townpeople already looks badly on the place, so it's under some scrutinity... I think it's better we set up shop somewhere else.
... Really, selling the place shares the best of the benefits burning it down does?
Beating the shit out of puberty sounds awesome.
I think we still want a moment in private with Homu to see how she's doing. Maybe even get her to express her own feelings if we somehow manage that manouver.
The Narrator
Disembodied Voice
- Location
- Somewhere Offscreen
Suggesting burning it down is mostly just facetious. I'm not expecting Sayaka to actually go for it.
Raiseth
I Find Your Lack of Memes Disturbing
- Location
- Russia
Ah, that half-mythical aerobatics figure that I've only seen done successfully twice in my life.
Well, yolo. Let's do this shit.
- Location
- Potato land
Keep in mind that Sayaka's original objection to direct remuneration was that we didn't have any legitimate way of actually transferring the money to her family. And while she was angry back then, I think we should come up with a solution to that problem if we're going to propose this again.
Raiseth
I Find Your Lack of Memes Disturbing
- Location
- Russia
We have a hacker Meguca friend/employee/do-not-call-her-any-of-these-terms-or-she-will-punch-us-in-the-face if we don't manage to do it lawfully. Let's discuss it with them, at least.
What is Oriko's legal status, btw? Aside from being an orphan, of course. Does she have a guardian? Some uncle named "Count Olaf"?
The Narrator
Disembodied Voice
- Location
- Somewhere Offscreen
Would it really be that unusual for a wealthy person to donate money to people displaced by a disaster? We can create a shell company charity to distribute it if need be.
Raiseth
I Find Your Lack of Memes Disturbing
- Location
- Russia
Hmhmhm. What's the process of dealing with corrupt officials in Japan? In Russia, for example, it's sort of hit-or-miss and who you managed to piss off, in China, it's execution, generally, and confiscation of all property, illegally obtained and otherwise. Soooo, something in the middle then?
I'm asking, because Oriko's mansion may or may not be confiscated in the future, and she wasn't worrying about it because, "Eh, I'll be dead anyway, by then."
Yeah. Studying Law for a quest about Magical Girls.
I'm asking, because Oriko's mansion may or may not be confiscated in the future, and she wasn't worrying about it because, "Eh, I'll be dead anyway, by then."
Yeah. Studying Law for a quest about Magical Girls.
- Location
- Potato land
An amount sufficient to cover both material and moral damages? Yeah, it would be very unusual. Plus, it would create problems like Sayaka's parents wanting to personally thank Oriko, which Sayaka would never accept.
The main problem is not so much the legal side, but rather making the family accept the money without weaving an intricate web of lies. Just leaving it in a bag on their doorstep along with a "Sorry for burning down your apartment" not might not even be such a bad solution.
The Narrator
Disembodied Voice
- Location
- Somewhere Offscreen
If she donates to everyone in the building she burned down instead of just to Sayaka's family, then it would be a bit more impersonal and even if the apartment residents do choose someone to formally thank her, odds are slim that it would be them.
EDIT: It occurs to me that Sayaka might not like Oriko getting good press for it, so finding some way to keep it anonymous would be a good idea.
Last edited:
- Location
- Potato land
Could work. Donating to everyone affected is more just as well. I'd be in favor of this being part of our solution, assuming Oriko can actually afford it. Would also let the Mikis become less dependent on Shizuki generosity, which is something Sayaka has been feeling very uncomfortable about.
Raiseth
I Find Your Lack of Memes Disturbing
- Location
- Russia
If she can't, we can help her with that. I mean, the whole thing is about "restitution", "redemption", "responsibility" and other "re"-s, and if Oriko genuinely recognizes that Arson is Bad, then
We'll see.