#i'm just annoyed that the longer things go on the deeper people dig their heels in I guess

[gunsli-01]

On the same train of thought.

It's rather upsetting to see that there's still this impression that any of the prisoners' murders are indirect. I feel like it would be more accurate to say that many people wish they were indirect. There's an inherent unfairness in grouping people who intentionally killed with people who never intended to that is never explored when discussing this idea.

So, like people really think that Milgram would put a bunch of people who never intended to kill anyone in any way had no ill intent in the same prison together? Yet no one wants to talk about how the first Milgram novel covers this topic already.

Like the entire point of the novels was to display what complacency leads to. Even the people who directly murder individuals in that are doing so out of complacency in their situations. Gentle wishing to help his sister die like she wanted but being incapable of fulfilling her wish or being there in the way she needed before she attempted to take her own life.

Then the actual person he kills is legitimately a murderer. The other person to attempt to kill someone in the novel which it's never confirmed if she succeeded. Considering what certain characters in Yamanaka's works have survived high chance that he did. Like literally none of the cast in the first novel have confirmed deaths outside of the guard and even that is tentative at best.

Only did so in response to a wrong that she could no longer stop. After not going to check up on her friend who hadn't been responding to her texts. Like the murder she seemingly commits is literally done in response to her own inability to stop intervene sooner.

So, yeah- In the novel everyone shares the same crime of complacency and noninterference. They all had the opportunity to help but didn't that's a major theme in the first novel. Something everyone in the cast has in common. Yet, I'm meant to believe that in Milgram the web series things have been split into two neat little groups like that.

That someone would put a bunch of murderers in a panopticon with people who were just woefully inconsiderate of those around them and allow them to attack each other? Because definitely the people who murdered people before won't do so again now? They definitely won't act against these others who would be woefully unprepared for it because the worst they've done is be mean to someone else or make a choice regarding their own body.

That's a bad way to set up an experiment.

Like, that's wild what kind of set up is that? How does that make sense? Then there are conveniently outliers to that logic? It just comes off as some going these murderers are different, they're good trust me they didn't mean to do wrong an-

Like, it's fine for someone to personally believe that.

Yet, it's important to at least interrogate why one thinks that. Because at the end of the day it is a very othering belief to report as fact. It's bias in its purest form separating people into groups that make one look more favorable than the other. Is believing that their actions did not hold malice, that it wasn't their intent for that to happen just an easier way to convince oneself to forgive it?

It really comes off to me as someone going,

"Well, they're not like other prisoners."

Yet, the fact is they are because they're here. It really grates me that no one recognizes how belittling and dismissive of the characters this can come off as.

It's annoying.

Wild thing to say, so leaving it out of tags but-

There are a good few people who genuinely believe Mahiru's situation are these fucking songs. I don't know how to articulate how this is not a healthy response to anything (emotionally valid and cathartic yeah) and escalating the response to murder instead of property damage legit makes it worse.

It is so wild to me that I've seen a good deal of people go,

"Yeah, his cheating ass deserved to die."

With literally zero evidence he cheated in the media and literally none of the other prisoners' victims being accused or speculated of having cheated. It's just impressive that fans of the series are more willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to the prisoners. Characters we have been told have actively murdered someone in various ways. Yet, the idea of what constitutes as murder or being responsible for another person's death is made vague and turned into something that can be an inactive thing with zero ill intent or malice.

While the victims are highlighted repeatedly as possibly maybe being the issue. Like maybe they should have been nicer, more understanding, willing to listen, what did they do or not do. It's impressive that a lot of how I've personally seen victims discussed in real life is being mirrored by the audience.

Back to the idea of Mahiru's boyfriend cheating. To be completely honest I get why many people would like to believe that's the case. Honestly, it's at a point that I just gotta accept this is a personal interpretation. One that seems like those who believe it might get some cathartic payoff from viewing it that way. Something I can totally get to an extent.

Yet mixing it with how Kazui's situation was interpreted. I.E people highlighting marriage as sacred conveniently forgetting that marriage started off as a business transaction in this instance. All the while Shidou literally has his wife do all the child rearing, cooking, and even make up for his social failings,

Q.19 What was your partner like? Shidou: A strong person. I tend to be a bit careless in my personal life, so I was always relying on her.

But is praised as an honest caring man. Well...

It certainly shows a habit of favoring the traditional for a lot of people who like to consider themselves forward thinking and moving away from traditional values.

The guy with the literal nuclear family has been put on a pedestal as a trustworthy, reliable and good man. Despite the fact his actions led to the demise of that family. His selfishness killed not only the people he cared about but a bunch of people who should have never even been involved to his own admission.

Yet the people highlighted at failing at love/relationships are Kazui and Mahiru, while Shidou is viewed as a victim of circumstance. Kind of interesting when you really stop to think about it. It's about time people do what Kazui said in Cat.

Keep it simple and view these situations as victim and perpetrator. Instead, people are trying to reason how the perpetrators are victims too which is fine and can be true to an extent. However, when it comes at the expense of actual victims... Well, that's when good intentions and trying to see the best in others gets a bit dangerous.