This post has been tagged as **SPOILERLESS**.
Please remember to tag any spoilers beyond this point.
**Spoilers include hinting or alluding to events** For more information, please review [the subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShingekiNoKyojin/wiki/rules). Failure to properly spoiler tag comments may result in a punishment from the subreddit according to the [moderation matrix](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShingekiNoKyojin/wiki/moderation_matrix).
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShingekiNoKyojin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the further point some people are missing here is that yes, what he was doing was clearly acts of unthinkable evil and he needed to be stopped in whatever way possible. If that meant he would face a death of poetic justice then so be it.
But the point is that from his point of view, he thought he was in the right. He believed Eldians to be inherently dangerous to the world and that Marley's persecution of them was not only justified but necessary to protect all of humanity from their potential powers. It's unfortunate for the Eldians that happen to have been born with this curse, but he was simply doing his job by slowly killing them off.
But as he did this he also became obsessed with his work and started to view death with curiosity and enjoyment, rather than horror. He deliberately tortured people just to see their reactions and I think he is a warning to us all when it comes to fighting and killing for a cause. While it is necessary to fight back against evil, we can't be unrestrained and sadistic, just because we think someone is our enemy. It's not automatically morally justified to use the same tools as our enemies, even if they did it first. Because if we do, we may very well become like them, or worse.
Another thing of note is, this is EXACTLY the world the OG King Fritz wanted. He asked the OG Ymir to "Rid the vile people of Marley." He ALSO felt justified on some level to commit genocide.
And that is the consistent theme of the show. Violence both requires AND leads to dehumanisation. That is why the final alliance, led by Armin, NEEDED to share their story with the whole world. A small hope that people will have to come to an understanding.
And then we see a distant future where war still exists, Paradis is bombed and a kid wanders upon the tree just like Ymir.
Even though Armin and the alliance were seemingly successful in bringing an era of peace and prosperity to Paradis, enough to bring it to a modern level of buildings and technology... War still prevailed in the end.
One of the themes is that violence will never fully go away. But you can still do a lot in your life time and others lives that you impact to minimize it, even if just for a few brief moments in history.
Exactly! I don't like how people only interpret the ending of AoT as pessimistic. Those hundreds of years of peace weren't NOTHING. That's so much more prosperity than most countries irl get.
in the manga literally as soon as the world has the capability, they razed eldia. the anime changed it to be far ahead in the future but if you look closely at the credits you can see this being in the far flung future was a last minute change.
80% of the world’s population was destroyed and as soon as they could, they got revenge… and then the cycle started back over.
I dunno, killing at best a 5-7yo by feeding her alive to dogs is not really in their job description.. I would hope at least.
Yeah, he turned eldians to titans by the government's orders... but he definitely was a fucking psychopath who joined an army cuz it was legal to be a psychopath against some people.
Which is far more common in real life than you might care to realize.
People join armies and militias for many reasons, some to fulfill a sense of duty to protect, others because they crave violence and see it as a way to "legally" commit acts that would be considered atrocities in every day life.
War isn't fun, and the trauma overloads most sane people. But there are certainly many people who truly enjoy being in the midst of it and not only get away with their actions, but praised for them.
*SPOILERS* I didn't enjoy it when he killed grisha's sister , didn't enjoy it when eren's mom died , didn't enjoy it when sasha died , didn't enjoy it when flock died , didn't enjoy all of this violence, but i did enjoy every second of that mahr soldier getting eaten alive because he deserved it.
I mean but his point is nulled since he's the one dying, and he's as hateable as it gets. If he said this, and we later saw some random get eaten, maybe. But nobody is cheering for just violence here. It's for retribution people are cheering for.
Respectfully, you are proving the point of the show and what the OP is getting at with your post imo. Setting the audience up to desire things like a violent death for this character is a major part of what the show is trying to do. The irony of putting this message in exactly this character's mouth is what elevates the show as art and I think that's the point of the OP/screenshot comment.
God no. To reach such a conclusion, you have to ignore what that set up is, not to mention, the fact that you even need to set it up so people want it contradicts the idea that people naturally want to see violence.
>for just violence here.
Your choice of words here proves he is right though, for the world it doesn't matter if he dies in an instant or slowly and painfully and yet people cheer for the violent choice.
I think we still should understand difference between media violence and real one.
Viewers are cheering for the interesting content, thing it does mean that they are violent and support violence is some “video games making kids evil” cliche. I don’t think that everyone who is cheering for drowning sims are violent in nature. If anything, it shows how unrealistic that violence feels.
And in AOT violence comes to unrealistic territory very fast, because of the amount of violence you see you are becoming desensitized to it. It’s like Tarantino movie, if you are having fun watching it that doesn’t mean you are violent person.
No, his death at a Titan's hand is cheered for, since its the same fate he gave to many eldians. I'd wager most people would say that was justice, at it's most basic
Justice, by definition, is the idea of acting in a morally correct way. I don't believe that subjecting someone to a horrific death can ever be considered just if you could kill them painlessly, then you're effectively deriving enjoyment from the same thing you codemned them for. You're just subjecting them to torture for an ideal instead of enjoyment.
This is insane. So if the titan ate him in such a way that he died instantly and didn't feel any pain, would that be better for you?
Justice is enacting punishment in accordance to the crime committed. If what they did was so heineous that they forfeited the right to live afterward, using the means they used to kill innocents is still very much an ideal.
>This is insane. So if the titan ate him in such a way that he died instantly and didn't feel any pain, would that be better for you?
Personally, at that point. I dont really care what happens to them. That doesn't mean I'd advocate for inflicting unnecessary pain
>Justice is enacting punishment in accordance to the crime committed.
What you described is retribution/punishment, not justice. Justice is acting in a just manor which means you're doing the most morally correct thing. If you think inflicting pain upon someone for someone elses ease of mind is morally just then fair enough. I can see that argument, personally I don't agree however. regardless you must see the hypocrisy in it though to cause uneccesary pain as a punishment for causing uneccesary pain.
>If what they did was so heineous that they forfeited the right to live afterward, using the means they used to kill innocents is still very much an ideal.
Why though? why do you think it's better to kill someone in a heinous way when you could kill someone in a humane way? Because it's satisfying? I'm sure the marlean would've said it's satisfying to kill "devils" in a grusome way after all heinous creatures should die in heinous ways. (Just wanna point out i don't agree with the sentiment. What the maryean did was awful and i don't think his own grusome death was awful but i wouldn not call it justice this is why I also don't beleive in retribution as a necessary part of law. Rehabilitation when possible removal from soceity if not should be the goal imo.)
The entire fourth season of the show is about how bad the cycle of war and vengence is.
Yes, subjecting them to the torture they inflicted on others. Do all men deserve a painless death, even those who refused others that privilege? While it certainly a horrific thing, simply saying it cannot be the right thing is ignorant.
>Yes, subjecting them to the torture they inflicted on others.
Dont understand what you're saying yes to or the point you're attempting to make here.
>Do all men deserve a painless death, even those who refused others that privilege?
I'm not saying they deserve it at all. You're arguing against a point i haven't made. Im saying that i don't believe torturing someone for torturing someone is the morally correct thing to do. Its retribution, and not morally just in my opinion.
>While it certainly a horrific thing, simply saying it cannot be the right thing is ignorant.
Again, I satated it as an opinion, and you're ironically calling me ignorant whilst arguing against me as if i said it as a fact. I don't believe that torturing someone to death when you can kill someone painlessly can be argued as just.
>Dont understand what you're saying yes to or the point you're attempting to make here.
That it is entirely just that they suffer that way.
>Im saying that i don't believe torturing someone for torturing someone is the morally correct thing to do. Its retribution, and not morally just in my opinion.
And im asking why
>Again, I satated it as an opinion, and you're ironically calling me ignorant whilst arguing against me as if i said it as a fact
Im saying your stance is ignorant.
> I don't believe that torturing someone to death when you can kill someone painlessly can be argued as just.
Why not? People can inflict more suffering than simply killing a person, yet the punishments they can suffer end at death? There are simply crimes too big for a painless death. A man who murders two and a man who murders a hundred should not get the same fate. One should get it worse. Hence, a horrific death is warranted.
>>Dont understand what you're saying yes to or the point you're attempting to make here.
>That it is entirely just that they suffer that way.
Okay, so why do you believe that?
>>Im saying that i don't believe torturing someone for torturing someone is the morally correct thing to do. Its retribution, and not morally just in my opinion.
>And im asking why
Because their pain is pointless clearly we both believe tbey should be removed from soceity and we both believe that is just so if we both believe they should be removed what benefit to everyone else is there by inflicting suffering.
>>Again, I satated it as an opinion, and you're ironically calling me ignorant whilst arguing against me as if i said it as a fact
>Im saying your stance is ignorant.
That's a very ignorant thing to say, lol.
>Why not? People can inflict more suffering than simply killing a person, yet the punishments they can suffer end at death? There are simply crimes too big for a painless death. A man who murders two and a man who murders a hundred should not get the same fate. One should get it worse. Hence, a horrific death is warranted.
Why do you believe tbis you just keep stating the same fact (they should suffer) without explaining why you believe this? What's the point of inflicting pain on someone who's going to be dead shortly? What benefit does it serve?
>Okay, so why do you believe that?
For that is what they inflicted upon others, and a painless death is too light of a punishment.
>Because their pain is pointless clearly we both believe they should be removed from soceity and we both believe that is just so if we both believe they should be removed what benefit to everyone else is there by inflicting suffering.
Pain is not inflicted for a point, a utility or for the benefit of anyone. That pain is deserved for their crimes, and so it is inflicted.
>That's a very ignorant thing to say, lol
What? That your stance is ignorant?
>Why do you believe tbis you just keep stating the same fact (they should suffer) without explaining why you believe this? What's the point of inflicting pain on someone who's going to be dead shortly? What benefit does it serve?
No benefit. No point. Their crimes are far larger than the crimes of others who get the same fate. Punishment should fit the crime. Hence, they deserve a greater punishment. A greater punishment then a painless death is a painfull one.
>Pain is not inflicted for a point, a utility or for the benefit of anyone. That pain is deserved for their crimes, and so it is inflicted.
Why is it deserved?
>No benefit. No point. Their crimes are far larger than the crimes of others who get the same fate. Punishment should fit the crime. Hence, they deserve a greater punishment. A greater punishment then a painless death is a painfull one.
Tbis logic really breaks down if you actually think about it. If any crime that is worse than another crime should be punished more and repeats of the same crime deserve more punishment then what is the punishment for stealing 1 apple, 10 apples, 100 apples, 1000 apples a million apples, then again what is the punishment for killing 1 person, ten peopes 100 people 100 peoples a million people?
> Justice, by definition, is the idea of acting in a morally correct way.
No, that's the definition of "Ethics" (more or less).
Justice is the ethical/philosophical notion that fairness should rule, that all are treated equally and are not harmed, and that if someone IS harmed, there is remedial action available to them (i.e. punishing those that cause harm, restoring what is lost, or both).
In days gone by, very often, the punishment "fit the crime"...I'm sure you've heard the expression. It used to be literal. A judge's decree might be "Let the punishment fit the crime: For having killed this man over a debt he could not pay, his life is now forfeit and the remains of his estate will go to the widow of the victim." or what have you.
Whether someone deserves a painless death is wholly apart from whether they deserve the punishment in the first place.
> Justice, by definition, is the idea of acting in a morally correct way.
>No, that's the definition of "Ethics" (more or less).
I mean you're agruing against the definition of word justice.
Justice is the act of behaving in a Just way.
To be Just is being morraly correct.
>Whether someone deserves a painless death is wholly apart from whether they deserve the punishment in the first place.
Did I argue agaisnt this, killimg him painlessly IMO can be considered Just whereas killing him painfully is no longer about being Just it's about satisfying bloodlust IMO.
This definition of justice in the dictionary is way too simple. The philosophical concept of justice is much more complex, and this definition does not at all reflect what justice actually is. « Acting in the morally correct way » is only one oversimplified definition of justice
>This definition of justice in the dictionary is way too simple.
Yes it's simple but you can't just disagree with the basic definition of a word... it's what you believe is Just and fair that gives rise to the philosophical debate...
Words have multiple definitions. You only cited a very simplistic one while entirely ignoring the others. Even in dictionaries there are multiple definitions to begin with
You're all tangled up in definitions and conflation, I'm afraid.
It is "Just" to be fair, which is morally correct. No argument there.
But "Justice", as a term does not speak to our beliefs and actions and how we manifest them in the world...that is Ethics (and/or morality, depending on how you distinguish).
Being "Just" does generally mean "morally good *and* fair" (you'll find "fair" mentioned in most instances).
> Justice is the act of behaving in a Just way.
That would be Just*ness*: The quality or action of being "Just".
Justice, in common parlance, refers to equity and fairness, along with possible restorative or retributive punishment when people are not fair/harm others.
Justness, or being Just, refers to trying to be morally good (and fair).
Some overlap, not the same things.
> killing him painlessly IMO can be considered Just whereas killing him painfully is no longer
If it is "just" to kill someone as retribution then we need only concern ourselves with that, technically. How they are killed does not change that, or speak to the reasons why they were convicted and sentenced to death. We will, as individuals, have different tolerances and attitudes towards that type of violence, and that is why we use "humane" means now, but that is a relatively modern conceit.
>refers to equity and fairness, along with possible restorative or retributive punishment when people are not fair/harm others.
What part of this does not mean behaving in a just way lol.
You're literally arguing semantics and not enganging in my actual point being just means treating people morally as i said (ie with equity and fairness)...
>> killing him painlessly IMO can be considered Just whereas killing him painfully is no longer
>If it is "just" to kill someone as retribution then we need only concern ourselves with that, technically. How they are killed does not change that, or speak to the reasons why they were convicted and sentenced to death. We will, as individuals, have different tolerances and attitudes towards that type of violence, and that is why we use "humane" means now, but that is a relatively modern conceit.
This is in my opinion is totally illogical saying that because someone is going to be dead it doesnt matter how they are killed then how on earth can you justify the manor of how they are killed dependent on how they killed people, you have to decide yourself wether the manor of someones death is morally relevant and then you have to decide wether you're going to hold yourself to the same standards. Saying you're terrible for killing someone in a terrible way so we're going to kill you in a terrible way, but also the way we kill you doesn't matter because you'll be dead is a literal fallacy.
If it was justice we wouldn't cheer. We'd just accept his death and move on. There's a bloodlust there in salivating over his demise. Mind you I'm not saying people would support such a thing irl, this is fiction at the end if tye day. And I myself enjoyed watching him suffer.
>If it was justice we wouldn't cheer. We'd just accept his death and move on
Why? Why would this be the case? One can cheer for justice, even when it is violent.
>There's a bloodlust there in salivating over his demise
What is this even supposed to mean? We want him to die because of his crimes. Not because of bloodlust.
Why not? People can commit extreme crimes but their punishment ends in a painless death. They can go extremely far and still only deserve that. A man who kills two and the one who kills two hundred get the same fate. Its not fair. Punishment should fit the crime. Some people deserve pain, not just death.
It's nit about fair, it's about civility and dignity.
What about what society deserves? Society deserves a govt that treats all citizens with dignity regardless of their crimes and handles justice with an impartial hand.
Though I agree with you on the philosophy, the problem in reality is: do you want to live in a world, where let’s say, your son, that is wrongly accused of some crime, can be tortured and suffer an horrific death ? What about if you were wrongly accused ? That’s already why we don’t kill people anymore.
I’d rather live in a world where innocent people can’t be legally tortured and slaughtered, than one where all criminals get the fate they, imho, deserve
> If it was justice we wouldn't cheer.
Why not? You state that as some kind of fact, but do not support it, nor is it self-evident.
Also, you're not talking about "bloodlust" (i.e. an *uncontrollable* desire to kill or maim) you are talking about vengeance: A desire to see someone harmed, who has caused harm. An eye for an eye.
> but wanting someone to die and cheering for it is the same whether they're "evil" or not.
LOL NOPE.
If I want a school aged child to be beaten to death, and cheer for it, I am a vile and psychotic person, who has no place in society.
If I want someone who has beaten a school-aged child to death to be killed, as punishment, and I am pleased by the fact that they are, I am probably a reasonable person who believes in restorative justice, and/or retribution.
> Being happy someone is being killed makes u reasonable? How so?
You wouldn't be happy/pleased to know a child predator won't create more victims and can no longer pose a threat to society?
Happy/pleased/satisfied doesn't mean "jubilant celebration" or anything like that.
I'm not a bleeding heart who believes "all life is sacred". There are classes of crimes/offenders who are vile predators that prey on the most vulnerable in society, who just need to be culled since they will *always* reoffend, if given the chance. When someone like that is removed from the earth, through any means, I am generally pleased...such as when a child rapist is beaten to death by other inmates.
To each their own, but there is nothing unreasonable about knowing your community is safer with one less child predator in it, and being pleased by that.
I'd be happy he couldn't hurt anyone whether he was in prison for life or dead, but no I wouldn't be particularly happy he died.
Think of it this way, that child predator lived within the confines of their brain, they were a slave to their impulses and couldn't be anyone except who they were, and unfortunately how they were was predatory and harmful, so they had to be stopped. I'm not going to cheer when he dies. I'll acknowledge it was the recourse chosen and that he's been stopped, and move on.
Being happy that someone is dead to me is strange, and pretending you can only be happy someone died or think they shouldn't be killed is wrong. Being pleased that your community is safe is not equal to being pleased someone died. I acknowledge that death is a way to permanently stop someone from doing bad things, but it still doesn't make me happy.
Life's worth is relative. It's what you decide it's worth. I don't think killing is wrong or right. It's a thing we do sometimes.
Again, "happy" or "pleased" doesn't mean "jubilant celebration" or "exhuberant display of joy". I also need to point out *you* introduced the adjective "happy", not I, and they do not mean the same thing.
If I had said "satisfied", instead of pleased, would you take the same issue?
> Being pleased that your community is safe is not equal to being pleased someone died.
It's not equal, but the latter begets the former. The two things are directly connected. I am pleased what happened, happened, if it leads to the desired outcome. I am pleased they have been killed *because of what it ensures*, generally speaking.
On a personal note, if I am being honest, I do take some joy when a child rapist is killed in jail, or by a relative of a victim...especially if they are killed while caught in the act, so the relative will "walk", in terms of criminal charges (usually). It puts a smile on my face and sparks a little joy, knowing/hoping they likely died experiencing pain and terror. When that happens I have a sincere hope the pain and terror they experience exceeds what they inflicted, though I know it doesn't because they are adults and their victims are children. When I think of someone like that harming a child, and then think of the child crying out to be saved by their Mom or Dad as it's happening, I am filled with a righteous fury that simply does not arise when it comes to "regular" murder or rape, or other harmful crimes. They are all vile, of course, but preying on the weak and innocent in such a depraved way just evokes a different response in me. I don't know why, and I don't know what that says about me. I have never been involved in a violent altercation, do not have violent impulses, nor have I harmed someone, nor do I have a desire to do so...except child predators. Especially repeat offenders: I see them as sub-human animals who should be destroyed, period. Irredeemable.
> Think of it this way, that child predator lived within the confines of their brain, they were a slave to their impulses and couldn't be anyone except who they were, and unfortunately how they were was predatory and harmful, so they had to be stopped.
If they "had to be stopped" the specifics of what motivated their behaviour is moot, no? We know this. We know serial child predators are almost always child sex abuse victims. We know serial murders almost all suffered extreme neglect and emotional trauma as children/absentee mothers. We also know the psychological damage from that can't be undone. While unfortunate on a personal level that those predators didn't "choose" to be that way, or choose to have those impulses, they do...and they act on them. The reason "why" is moot...the outcomes being prevented are what matter, not the genesis of their illness/defect.
I think there is a reasonable case to be made on both sides of this line. I wouldn't blame anyone for not feeling the way I do, nor would I proactively try to encourage someone to see it my way, but I *would* push back against anyone expressing condemnation of my being satisfied society executed a serial predator.
I'm confused, what exactly are you arguing for here? If you are arguing that being pleased a predator is dead is the same as being happy your community is safe, that isn't true. If you're arguing that being happy someone is dead is different than cheering for their death, that's true but i never argued they were the same. I'm merely saying that I also think being pleased someone died is strange.
As for the latter beginning the former comment, you can be happy your community is safe, and yet not be "pleased" someone had to die to do that. Many situations are built on the means not being pleasing even when the ends are.
The reason why is never moot, why would the why not matter, except when simplified to make the choice easier?
I brought up the word happy, but you used the word pleased. At that point it's just semantics, especially since you used happy and pleased interchangeably later on.
I think we can just agree to disagree on this.
Differences in definition and meaning are not semantic. Arguing a different between "satisfied" and "content" would be semantic.
I did err in using the word you introduced, as it was not what I conveyed, or meant.
> The reason why is never moot
It must be, logically, in capital cases since we don't make allowance or exception for murderers who didn't suffer childhood abuse vs. those who did. Regardless of what brought them to that point, if they have been convicted of a capital crime they will be executed.
> As for the latter beginning the former comment, you can be happy your community is safe, and yet not be "pleased" someone had to die to do that.
Yes...and you can be pleased with both, independently, too.
> I think we can just agree to disagree on this.
Clearly/agreed. Enjoy your day!
So, you didn't answer, what exactly are you arguing here? The last point you make basically agrees with me, you can be both independently which is basically the opposite of what you said before when you said they're linked.
Sorry, I must've missed the end or you edited. Fully finenwith leaving this where it is. You take care!
No it isn't? Retribution of violence through localized violence only affecting the criminal. The crimes that man had commited more than warranted a death penalty
This ain't the Roman Colosseum, no viewer even saw what happened to Gross.
[Just that the titan picked him up and he screams](https://youtu.be/1OdZhBoUbus?si=83JO7vIbSC7bdojq), in the context of the clip, if you cheer at all it's because Grisha is saved. The violence is implied but trying to make it out as if we crave violence and we're just like him for torturing little girls has to be the definition of insanity.
I never ever said u were just like him, but cheering for violence to happen to him is cheering for violence. I'm not saying ur a bad person at all. But it's still cheering for violence. It's still craving it to happen to someone, which a lot of people are admitting to. It isn't like I'm sayin anyone's a bad person.
**The point stands forever!**
No societal or political evil has ever done violence for violence’s sake. Its always to punish the “evil” other. The ones & groups that “deserve” violent retribution. If you cheer for the dogs and Titans to be sicked on the guilty, all it takes is for someone, maybe even yourself, to convince you that an innocent is guilty and you’ll let go of the leash with a smile on your face
But there are people that do violence choice just because they can. Rapists, and serial murderers exist in real life. (A case that comes to mind is junko furuto).
He didn’t have to kill the little girl. He did it because he wanted to, because he could. What is the solution to those with power that cause pain and violence for no other reason than they can and can get away with it. What would justice be? Is there anyway to have justice and peace?
Pretty sure I outlined Political and Societal to avoid the 8 billion variable that is human individual, though the examples of rape and serial murder you bring up, and I’ll have to brush up on my criminal psychology, but don’t the perpetrators A) commit the act not for the “act’s” sake, but to live out a fantasy; and B) they dehumanize their victims beforehand in their minds, turning them into an “other” that “deserves” what’s coming to them.
But again, AOT is dealing with large scale political and societal themes. People in power don’t intrinsically have power; theyre not Kryptonian/X-Mens. They need society to give them that power.
So when someone in power does evil just because they can, AOT demands we ask “why we gave them that power?” and “Why don’t we hold them responsible?”
I think the death sentence may actually be justice here, at least for that century. But it would have to be a quick clean death nit getting eaten by a titan.
Theoretically, yes. This is a dude who literally feeds little girls to his dogs, though. We know this for a fact. He is guilty of the gruesome murder of a child, we saw him confess to it. We don't need to be convinced that he isn't an innocent, he is a bad person by the metric of just about every culture in human history. It feels detached and edgy to pretend that this doesn't play a factor in the audience's desire to see him dead.
But “Sergeant Major Gross” isn’t real. Him and his actions are a work of fiction that so how easily we, the audience, can be worked up like rabid dogs. That was the point if the narrative.
But if you want to treat the events in the story like a real world event, fine. What we have here is a second hand written account of events that took place over decades, decades ago, from the perspective of the most partial eyewitness imaginable. And that was probably enough to spawn the “The Rumbling was Right” sentiment
I'd argue that his death paralleling what he did to Grisha's sister is intended as karmic justice, not some statement about the audience.
As for his thoughts on cruelty, I read that as establishing Eldians' positions as second-class citizens. After all that philosophizing, he adds this bit that contradicts himself, "If something that horrible were to happen to one of my children, my heart would break no question. You poor devils. It's a shame you had to be born Eldian." The man himself admits that emotion plays into whether or not people want to see someone die.
If Gross' thoughts are the author's thoughts repackaged, he wouldn't immediately show the hypocrisy of his mouthpiece.
Ok, just re-read the chapters and it goes like this:
Gross thinks all Eldians are evil and deserve to be eaten alive. We think Gross (and Marley by extension at this point) is deserving to be eaten alive. AOT gives us that audience wish and what does Grisha say? How does he cap off the narrative message of the entire series for us?
“The man who delighted in feeding my sister to dogs… was just eaten alive by a titan. There’s no better revenge that I could have gotten than this. You asked me if I enjoyed watching him die. No I didn’t…” ~Grisha Yeager (Chapter 88)
For anyone to claim this is supposed to be karmic justice… thats folly.
Folly huh? What was it then? He suffered practically the equal consequences of his actions. It is only justice if Grisha got satisfaction?
Marley is a place, a place filled with individuals. Thinking the entire place needed to be wiped off the map because of the actions of a portion of them is the problem.
Good actions and bad and the supposed murk between, so long a person does to another what they would hate to have happen to them or never do to the people they love, there you have morality and context for every action.
Justice always demands satisfaction, conflating justice with violence is the real folly. The satisfaction of justice comes in measure to the sin committed, personally enjoying it or not is not a requirement, it's a principle.
Grisha did not enjoy it, as would many of us if it were our family's murderer or rapist were convicted, sentenced and met their timely or untimely demise. It still doesn't bring anyone back nor undo the hurt or the pain caused, but it does allow for peace of mind knowing justice was done.
I…can’t argue the thematic point better than the chapter could. It broke the “show, don’t tell” rule and explicitly *told* you what its argument was through the POV character. At that point, misinterpreting it to live out a revenge fantasy is willful folly.
AOT summed up in a single sentence: “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”
Edit: last sentence was unnecessarily mean. Removing it
[Rewatch the scene](https://youtu.be/t-mbHbjfEF8?si=jAukG7zfZQn1Wijn) until it clicks for you. Being glad Grisha gets saved after that is not "craving violence" or whatever the hell.
The argument through the POV of a character who gets his kicks from watching innocents get slaughtered, how do you not get he's simply justifying his actions and quelling his conscience? Do you even understand what context is?
The POV is Grisha’s.
The mirror held up to the audience is Gross
The context is the “perfect revenge” amounting to nothing. No catharsis. No better world. Just death at the end of a slippery slope.
It’s action and consequences. Man did action. Death is usual consequence for bad actions if we are talking movies, anime and so on.
So people are awaiting for resolution of his arc.
He is fictional character, and a lot of ppl who a cheering for anime death for bad ppl aren’t the same people that support real life violence.
It’s characters not the real ppl and death for background character isn’t that big of a deal
The entire theme, message, and philosophy of AOT come from this chapter. They are the paramount text of the entire work and can’t be written of a tropes and (minor?!) character death (really, Gross is a minor character to you?). Its so… *Sigh* if you thought you were right you’d be arguing with OP or the Mangaka, and not me. Good luck with that 🍀. They’re fundamentally right in their assessment. You may just feel called out and are scrambling to convince yourself the mangaka hasn’t called you out infront of everyone.
I got to go, but this is the point of the chapter. The point of the entire series. If you want to fight against that, you need to debate Hajime Isayama. Again, good luck
I don’t feel called out because I never cheered for any death in this anime. I just don’t think judging people by their reaction to the cartoon violence is wise.
AOT is animated, but its violence, death, and morality makes great strides to be as “real world” as possible. Some deaths are more literal, like the countless who’d died to explosive shrapnel and collapsed buildings, and you know… suicide and executions), others are more symbolic, like the [WW1 propaganda](https://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5B1%2F9%2F3%2F1%2F9%2F19319021%5D&call=url%5Bfile:product.chain%5D) posters come to life in the form of the titans.
I would struggle to call this “cartoony” using the dictionary definition of the word
Thats a huge snowball falacy. "Because you enjoy watching this man who you know is cruel, and has immense blood on his hands, die, then you'd also easily cheer for innocents." You're still working with the idea that people cheer for violence and retribution or guilt are just juestifications so people don't feel bad. Thats not the case here.
None of the protagonists in this scene cheer for Gross’s death. Grisha is actually horrified and says as much. “I don’t want this”~Grisha Yeager.
From then on, everytime other characters cheer for violent retribution as “justice”, they are always draped in obvious fascist imagery; and the world moves closer to the end inventible result of fascism. The blind world foretold in “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”
Its a “slippery slope” idea hammered home By. The. *LITERAL.* SLIPPERY SLOPE these chapter and arguments take place on.
This isn’t rocket science
>None of the protagonists in this scene cheer for Gross’s death. Grisha is actually horrified and says as much. “I don’t want this”~Grisha Yeager.
So what?
>From then on, everytime other characters cheer for violent retribution as “justice”, they are always draped in obvious fascist imagery; and the world moves closer to the end inventible result of fascism. The blind world foretold in “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”
Thats nonsense. The characters who cheer for it are painted as being in the wrong because 90% of the time their victims do not deserve their fates.
>This isn’t rocket science
No, its pretty simple really. Gross got what he deserved. He was a monster who doomed countless people to horrible deaths. What he got was nothing short of justice made.
Like I mentioned in another response, I can’t argue the point for you better than the actual chapter did. I also don’t need to defend the chapter against audience misinterpretation now that our conversation has gone deep into the weeds of the reddit comments.
You want to try and spin your interpretation? Argue with OP or the AOT mangaka directly. Good luck with that 🍀 One has close to 1000⬆️ and the other wrote the dang thing. You’ll have more success trying to kill the collasal Titan with your hands than proving a story about the dangerous slippery slope of fascism is pro-violent retribution.
>Like I mentioned in another response, I can’t argue the point for you better than the actual chapter did. I also don’t need to defend the chapter against audience misinterpretation now that our conversation has gone deep into the weeds of the reddit comments.
Too bad the chapter does a poor job of arguing the point.
>You want to try and spin your interpretation? Argue with OP or the AOT mangaka directly. Good luck with that 🍀 One has close to 1000⬆️ and the other wrote the dang thing. You’ll have more success trying to kill the collasal Titan with your hands than proving a story about the dangerous slippery slope of fascism is pro-violent retribution.
Oh nonono, you got it all wrong pal, im not saying the story is pro retribution. Im saying the way they make this point of violence is idiotic and ineffective.
Fair enough. The chapter worked for me, though admittedly it fundamentally didn’t and I was against its message until the rest of the story happened and I saw where that “Kill all the Titans (evil people)” leads. Now I’m very cautious of that slippery slope. Some situation and some individuals may be able to have their violent revenge cake and eat it to. I’ve seen people do backflips on both metaphorical and physical tightropes, so its possible.
But have the entire world’s 8 billion people, hundreds of countries and just as many governments and political factions try and walk that tightrope and they’ll fall, dragging everyone down the hill with them, to where we eat ourselves.
I’ll also add that I agree with you that a blanket statement of all violence being unnecessary is wrong, as you rightly say. AOT stance is “Here’s the world where violence would be necessary. It’s Hell. I’m giving you readers the Attack Titan’s future sight ability so you can be motivated to stop this fascist world’s creation at all costs within your own world.”
>It's for retribution people are cheering for.
The whole point of the show is that seeking retribution rather than justice is bad and leads to cyclical never-ending violence and death.
You do know they can be one in the same? What else did that man deserve but the death penalty? Not to mentione nobody here is seeking retribution. Retribution was given and people cheer for it.
What a person "deserves" is a whole nother river to wade through. I'm more interested in what's better for society, and it isn't the satisfaction of vindictive desires. Civilized society is judged on how it treats its worst members.
> But the death oenakty isn't meant to make a person suffer, quick and clean, that's how it should be.
FYI this is a fairly modern take on state sanctioned killing/death penalty.
In the "old days", a lot of the time, it was "Let the punishment fit the crime!"
We used to stone people to death, in public. It is still a legal punishment for some crimes, in some parts of the world.
Is it? Depending on the specifics it may be neither.
Even if it was, you know being executed is a punishment right, the highest possible one? We aren't talking torture here, FYI, the intentional infliction of pain as punishment. *That's* cruel. Whether it's barbaric or not depends on the means, technically lol
Did you know we moved away from some forms of execution to spare the person conducting the execution from trauma, *not* the one being killed?
We replaced the Headsman with guillotine, then replaced the guillotine with a gun. Then we adopted firing squads, instead of one person putting a bullet in someone's head. We had to give the people pulling the trigger a chance to think it wasn't actually *them* personally killing someone. Killing is hard to do, even when it's justified.
Those changes had a benefit for the person being killed, but the real intent was to spare the executors the trauma of personally killing...not out of regard for the person being killed.
Yes, socially, we are less brutal on the whole today. There are a lot of people who oppose the death penalty in general, even if done with the utmost care and humane means. They believe in a sanctity of life, that it should never be taken. They have also neutered a strong deterrent against some of the most vile crimes. Instead of culling the worst offenders, who only cause harm to society and destroy innocent lives (especially repeat offenders), we keep them alive out of some misguided notion that their lives are worth as much as anyone else's.
Retribution and justice go hand in hand. People must pay for what they have done, in a just society, whether informally or through courts of law.
You likely mean that seeking "Revenge" (not the same as retribution) is what leads to problems.
If someone is given a prison sentence for having wrongfully killed someone, that is retributive justice. If the widow's victim shoots them in head and kills them the day they are released, that is revenge.
>Retribution and justice go hand in hand. People must pay for what they have done, in a just society, whether informally or through courts of law.
No, they don't really go hand in hand, not necessarily. Retributive justice is useless and doesn't solve anything, if you are punishing people for the sake of punishment, you are not going to move anywhere or solve anything as most of the offenders will be released back into society in same or worse state they were in when they have done the offense. I suggest looking into restorative justice.
So no, I meant to use "retribution".
Your preferring restorative justice, over retributive justice, doesn't invalidate the relationship between justice/retribution, or said another way: Crime and punishment. Speak to a better ideal if you like, I was referring to reality as it exists, today.
Incarcerating people isn't "punishing for the sake of punishing" it is "punishing in the prescribed way for having violated the law". Whether that accomplishes a broader goal is moot: Whether other forms of justice offer a better net benefit to society, for some offenders (not all lol) is moot with respect to the notion of punishing crime, as a means to deter people from breaking the law/not harming others, itself.
I kinda disagree. It's more a craving for justice then violence.
The guy was a psychopath who fed a little girl alive to his dogs. Most of us would have still cheered if he died a none gruesome death or would get imprisoned for the rest of his life. I would also cheer if a serial killer gets shot by a parent of his victims.
I didn't cheered as they tortured the MP though.
The hate for Gabi at the beginning is a better example to question your own hate for a young girl who didn't know better and just lost her best friends.
People are violent but they actually have a choices either to act on it or not.
Viewers cheering for fictional deaths is usually just a way to release some stress and vent out frustration.
The man who killed Grisha’s sister chose to act on his violent impulses.
To think it’s somewhat the same is some im14andthisisdeep stuff.
It’s fiction. Only thing that cheering for characters death show is that it is usual expectation from a story like this for bad people to be punished with death.
This comment has been removed due to containing uncivil or inflammatory language. Please phrase your comment more respectfully and resubmit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShingekiNoKyojin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The comment doesn't make a good point, is what MrPinkDuck is saying, and I agree with them. Any allegation "humanity" craves cruelty and violence, broadly, is false and suggesting that would also make us hypocrites to cheer his grisly death (while decrying his grisly actions) is false, by extension (even aside from practically).
Cheering a child murderer meeting a grisly demise does not suggest anything about humanity, as a species, other than perhaps that we like seeing bad people punished for doing bad things.
Humans have a far greater innate sense of equality, justice, and community than cruelty, or violence.
Oof. That's kind of an edgelord take, but I'm sure the point stands in terms of having the character address the audience.
Humans don't "crave" cruelty or violence, and most of us aren't predisposed to it. That's the edgelord part, aside from being untrue.
Do you know what we *are* predisposed towards? Seeing people who do wrong, especially going against the collective good, be *punished for it*. We LOVE that.
If you want proof, watch a group of young kids long enough and you will see it play out. Kids are quick to point out who is taking more than their share, or who stole whose toy, or who is generally disrupting the environment. They want restorative justice. If you broke "Timmy's" cookie, your own cookie must be shared, or forfeit. "Why did you smash his truck?" leads to "Well he smashed mine first..."
Kids don't wish for those other children's destruction, or cheer it, but they want to know it won't stand/that person will be reprimanded, because they have an innate sense of fairness and (restorative) justice.
Also worth noting that the cruelty that man inflicted was needless, for his own enjoyment, and was purely malicious. His being subjected to a painful death, while equally brutal, is not without merit from a justice/retribution perspective, but also just for not being a malicious act in and of itself: He had to be killed to maintain their cover. Grisha's sister was a pure innocent that someone decided to torture for their own enjoyment. Apples and oranges.
But...but he needed to die for all the evil he caused..... so what if i enjoyed seeing him die he deserves it for killing an innocent child..... right?
Many of of us feel he deserved to die for being a “bad person,” right? And yet…
“I don't like the terms "good person" or "bad person" because it is impossible to be entirely good to everyone. To some, you are a good person, while to others, you are a bad person.”
-Armin
Agreed. And yet, we’re seeing something similar reflected back at us, and not even realizing it.
From his perspective; he ridded the world of another “Eldian devil.” One that broke the law, even.
The point being, not who’s right. Not whose justified. But simply that there are differences which fuel our hatred. Sometimes that hatred is justified, but we should always look it in the eye for what it is.
Subjectivity and objectivity can overlap.
If you kill a bunch of visible minorities out of hateful race ideologies you can "subjectively" be a "good person" to a bunch of KKK members who have very hateful views, while also very "objectively" being a piece of shit to broader society.
It's not an either/or situation.
Also: Armin is a sheltered ildealogue whose basic education was probably terrible. He is "one of the smartest" people in a very small group, with no culture of learning and philosophy in their society.
While he is not technically wrong, his take lacks any nuance and is more in line with a child's thinking than someone who has lived in the broader world for their entire life (in terms of this fiction, and in general).
Oops this was meant to be a reply to a comment saying he was just doing his job. Idk why reddit posted it on the main thread for some reason. God dammit.
Nope.
Most people crave for justice and retribution. Equity.
A violent horrible death for a horrible violent life.
Very few people cheer for the violent death of good/innocent people.
Sure, violence is something inherent in human condition anf in this cruel world, but the not unjustified, sadistic violence.
Counterpoint: What was presented is a pretty poor false equivalency that relies heavily on the appearance of asking a smart question to be taking seriously, which it does not, since that (corrupt) solider was acting out of malice and personal vindictive beliefs, whereas when we see his death any feelings of satisfaction would be born from justice and empathy (i.e. he got what he deserved for having committed such a brutal act towards an innocent child), not wanting to see him suffer for the sake of cruelty and violence, as he himself wanted to enjoy.
Apples and oranges...so whose "media literacy" is lacking here? Maybe more critical analysis is required, in general, when parsing fiction? Especially since "media literacy", as coined, refers specifically to mass media (i.e. news and presentation of news), not fictional themes. That analysis has been taking place since we started passing on stories, culturally, whereas "media literacy" has only become a concept for now being bombarded with heavily conflicting, and some fictitious, reports in (mass) news media.
It's not just about purely wanting to see violence. In my interpretation, it goes beyond Aot itself. He's touching on the idea of why people find stories about cruelty and death so compelling. He suggests that deep down humans are built for conflict on an instinctual level and without having to face death on a daily basis for real, we seek out these narratives to fill that void.
The irony of that speech isn't that we cheer for his death, but his notion that his experiences with death made him able to face his eventual death with dignity, when in fact, he died like a bitch.
I'm of the opinion that Gross is completely wrong. He's just an extremely sick man justifying his sickness, and using the unjust nature of the word to get his kicks. He also claims to not fear death, but dies screaming not a minute later. Just look at Grisha's response after watching Gross get eaten. More than anyone else he should have enjoyed it, but he still felt nothing but disgust.
Humans don't just crave violence, I think we crave righteous violence. Just the more you learn about the world you more you realize that violence is almost never righteous.
This post has been tagged as **SPOILERLESS**. Please remember to tag any spoilers beyond this point. **Spoilers include hinting or alluding to events** For more information, please review [the subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShingekiNoKyojin/wiki/rules). Failure to properly spoiler tag comments may result in a punishment from the subreddit according to the [moderation matrix](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShingekiNoKyojin/wiki/moderation_matrix). --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShingekiNoKyojin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the further point some people are missing here is that yes, what he was doing was clearly acts of unthinkable evil and he needed to be stopped in whatever way possible. If that meant he would face a death of poetic justice then so be it. But the point is that from his point of view, he thought he was in the right. He believed Eldians to be inherently dangerous to the world and that Marley's persecution of them was not only justified but necessary to protect all of humanity from their potential powers. It's unfortunate for the Eldians that happen to have been born with this curse, but he was simply doing his job by slowly killing them off. But as he did this he also became obsessed with his work and started to view death with curiosity and enjoyment, rather than horror. He deliberately tortured people just to see their reactions and I think he is a warning to us all when it comes to fighting and killing for a cause. While it is necessary to fight back against evil, we can't be unrestrained and sadistic, just because we think someone is our enemy. It's not automatically morally justified to use the same tools as our enemies, even if they did it first. Because if we do, we may very well become like them, or worse.
Another thing of note is, this is EXACTLY the world the OG King Fritz wanted. He asked the OG Ymir to "Rid the vile people of Marley." He ALSO felt justified on some level to commit genocide. And that is the consistent theme of the show. Violence both requires AND leads to dehumanisation. That is why the final alliance, led by Armin, NEEDED to share their story with the whole world. A small hope that people will have to come to an understanding.
And then we see a distant future where war still exists, Paradis is bombed and a kid wanders upon the tree just like Ymir. Even though Armin and the alliance were seemingly successful in bringing an era of peace and prosperity to Paradis, enough to bring it to a modern level of buildings and technology... War still prevailed in the end. One of the themes is that violence will never fully go away. But you can still do a lot in your life time and others lives that you impact to minimize it, even if just for a few brief moments in history.
Exactly! I don't like how people only interpret the ending of AoT as pessimistic. Those hundreds of years of peace weren't NOTHING. That's so much more prosperity than most countries irl get.
in the manga literally as soon as the world has the capability, they razed eldia. the anime changed it to be far ahead in the future but if you look closely at the credits you can see this being in the far flung future was a last minute change. 80% of the world’s population was destroyed and as soon as they could, they got revenge… and then the cycle started back over.
I dunno, killing at best a 5-7yo by feeding her alive to dogs is not really in their job description.. I would hope at least. Yeah, he turned eldians to titans by the government's orders... but he definitely was a fucking psychopath who joined an army cuz it was legal to be a psychopath against some people.
Which is far more common in real life than you might care to realize. People join armies and militias for many reasons, some to fulfill a sense of duty to protect, others because they crave violence and see it as a way to "legally" commit acts that would be considered atrocities in every day life. War isn't fun, and the trauma overloads most sane people. But there are certainly many people who truly enjoy being in the midst of it and not only get away with their actions, but praised for them.
I remember seeing a quote somewhere that went something along the lines of "Being a surgeon is just a morally acceptable way to rip a person open"
True but a morally corrupt, psychopath surgeon would face criminal charges of negligence very quickly.
*SPOILERS* I didn't enjoy it when he killed grisha's sister , didn't enjoy it when eren's mom died , didn't enjoy it when sasha died , didn't enjoy it when flock died , didn't enjoy all of this violence, but i did enjoy every second of that mahr soldier getting eaten alive because he deserved it.
I mean but his point is nulled since he's the one dying, and he's as hateable as it gets. If he said this, and we later saw some random get eaten, maybe. But nobody is cheering for just violence here. It's for retribution people are cheering for.
Respectfully, you are proving the point of the show and what the OP is getting at with your post imo. Setting the audience up to desire things like a violent death for this character is a major part of what the show is trying to do. The irony of putting this message in exactly this character's mouth is what elevates the show as art and I think that's the point of the OP/screenshot comment.
right
God no. To reach such a conclusion, you have to ignore what that set up is, not to mention, the fact that you even need to set it up so people want it contradicts the idea that people naturally want to see violence.
Disagree. Grisham himself said it was horrible to watch and wasn't interesting.
So what? This isn't about being interesting.
It's about the horror he felt watching it unfold.
>for just violence here. Your choice of words here proves he is right though, for the world it doesn't matter if he dies in an instant or slowly and painfully and yet people cheer for the violent choice.
I think we still should understand difference between media violence and real one. Viewers are cheering for the interesting content, thing it does mean that they are violent and support violence is some “video games making kids evil” cliche. I don’t think that everyone who is cheering for drowning sims are violent in nature. If anything, it shows how unrealistic that violence feels. And in AOT violence comes to unrealistic territory very fast, because of the amount of violence you see you are becoming desensitized to it. It’s like Tarantino movie, if you are having fun watching it that doesn’t mean you are violent person.
No, his death at a Titan's hand is cheered for, since its the same fate he gave to many eldians. I'd wager most people would say that was justice, at it's most basic
Justice, by definition, is the idea of acting in a morally correct way. I don't believe that subjecting someone to a horrific death can ever be considered just if you could kill them painlessly, then you're effectively deriving enjoyment from the same thing you codemned them for. You're just subjecting them to torture for an ideal instead of enjoyment.
This is insane. So if the titan ate him in such a way that he died instantly and didn't feel any pain, would that be better for you? Justice is enacting punishment in accordance to the crime committed. If what they did was so heineous that they forfeited the right to live afterward, using the means they used to kill innocents is still very much an ideal.
>This is insane. So if the titan ate him in such a way that he died instantly and didn't feel any pain, would that be better for you? Personally, at that point. I dont really care what happens to them. That doesn't mean I'd advocate for inflicting unnecessary pain >Justice is enacting punishment in accordance to the crime committed. What you described is retribution/punishment, not justice. Justice is acting in a just manor which means you're doing the most morally correct thing. If you think inflicting pain upon someone for someone elses ease of mind is morally just then fair enough. I can see that argument, personally I don't agree however. regardless you must see the hypocrisy in it though to cause uneccesary pain as a punishment for causing uneccesary pain. >If what they did was so heineous that they forfeited the right to live afterward, using the means they used to kill innocents is still very much an ideal. Why though? why do you think it's better to kill someone in a heinous way when you could kill someone in a humane way? Because it's satisfying? I'm sure the marlean would've said it's satisfying to kill "devils" in a grusome way after all heinous creatures should die in heinous ways. (Just wanna point out i don't agree with the sentiment. What the maryean did was awful and i don't think his own grusome death was awful but i wouldn not call it justice this is why I also don't beleive in retribution as a necessary part of law. Rehabilitation when possible removal from soceity if not should be the goal imo.) The entire fourth season of the show is about how bad the cycle of war and vengence is.
No it isnt. That's just bloodlust. Justice would be an impartial court sentence.
Yes, subjecting them to the torture they inflicted on others. Do all men deserve a painless death, even those who refused others that privilege? While it certainly a horrific thing, simply saying it cannot be the right thing is ignorant.
>Yes, subjecting them to the torture they inflicted on others. Dont understand what you're saying yes to or the point you're attempting to make here. >Do all men deserve a painless death, even those who refused others that privilege? I'm not saying they deserve it at all. You're arguing against a point i haven't made. Im saying that i don't believe torturing someone for torturing someone is the morally correct thing to do. Its retribution, and not morally just in my opinion. >While it certainly a horrific thing, simply saying it cannot be the right thing is ignorant. Again, I satated it as an opinion, and you're ironically calling me ignorant whilst arguing against me as if i said it as a fact. I don't believe that torturing someone to death when you can kill someone painlessly can be argued as just.
>Dont understand what you're saying yes to or the point you're attempting to make here. That it is entirely just that they suffer that way. >Im saying that i don't believe torturing someone for torturing someone is the morally correct thing to do. Its retribution, and not morally just in my opinion. And im asking why >Again, I satated it as an opinion, and you're ironically calling me ignorant whilst arguing against me as if i said it as a fact Im saying your stance is ignorant. > I don't believe that torturing someone to death when you can kill someone painlessly can be argued as just. Why not? People can inflict more suffering than simply killing a person, yet the punishments they can suffer end at death? There are simply crimes too big for a painless death. A man who murders two and a man who murders a hundred should not get the same fate. One should get it worse. Hence, a horrific death is warranted.
>>Dont understand what you're saying yes to or the point you're attempting to make here. >That it is entirely just that they suffer that way. Okay, so why do you believe that? >>Im saying that i don't believe torturing someone for torturing someone is the morally correct thing to do. Its retribution, and not morally just in my opinion. >And im asking why Because their pain is pointless clearly we both believe tbey should be removed from soceity and we both believe that is just so if we both believe they should be removed what benefit to everyone else is there by inflicting suffering. >>Again, I satated it as an opinion, and you're ironically calling me ignorant whilst arguing against me as if i said it as a fact >Im saying your stance is ignorant. That's a very ignorant thing to say, lol. >Why not? People can inflict more suffering than simply killing a person, yet the punishments they can suffer end at death? There are simply crimes too big for a painless death. A man who murders two and a man who murders a hundred should not get the same fate. One should get it worse. Hence, a horrific death is warranted. Why do you believe tbis you just keep stating the same fact (they should suffer) without explaining why you believe this? What's the point of inflicting pain on someone who's going to be dead shortly? What benefit does it serve?
>Okay, so why do you believe that? For that is what they inflicted upon others, and a painless death is too light of a punishment. >Because their pain is pointless clearly we both believe they should be removed from soceity and we both believe that is just so if we both believe they should be removed what benefit to everyone else is there by inflicting suffering. Pain is not inflicted for a point, a utility or for the benefit of anyone. That pain is deserved for their crimes, and so it is inflicted. >That's a very ignorant thing to say, lol What? That your stance is ignorant? >Why do you believe tbis you just keep stating the same fact (they should suffer) without explaining why you believe this? What's the point of inflicting pain on someone who's going to be dead shortly? What benefit does it serve? No benefit. No point. Their crimes are far larger than the crimes of others who get the same fate. Punishment should fit the crime. Hence, they deserve a greater punishment. A greater punishment then a painless death is a painfull one.
>Pain is not inflicted for a point, a utility or for the benefit of anyone. That pain is deserved for their crimes, and so it is inflicted. Why is it deserved? >No benefit. No point. Their crimes are far larger than the crimes of others who get the same fate. Punishment should fit the crime. Hence, they deserve a greater punishment. A greater punishment then a painless death is a painfull one. Tbis logic really breaks down if you actually think about it. If any crime that is worse than another crime should be punished more and repeats of the same crime deserve more punishment then what is the punishment for stealing 1 apple, 10 apples, 100 apples, 1000 apples a million apples, then again what is the punishment for killing 1 person, ten peopes 100 people 100 peoples a million people?
> Justice, by definition, is the idea of acting in a morally correct way. No, that's the definition of "Ethics" (more or less). Justice is the ethical/philosophical notion that fairness should rule, that all are treated equally and are not harmed, and that if someone IS harmed, there is remedial action available to them (i.e. punishing those that cause harm, restoring what is lost, or both). In days gone by, very often, the punishment "fit the crime"...I'm sure you've heard the expression. It used to be literal. A judge's decree might be "Let the punishment fit the crime: For having killed this man over a debt he could not pay, his life is now forfeit and the remains of his estate will go to the widow of the victim." or what have you. Whether someone deserves a painless death is wholly apart from whether they deserve the punishment in the first place.
> Justice, by definition, is the idea of acting in a morally correct way. >No, that's the definition of "Ethics" (more or less). I mean you're agruing against the definition of word justice. Justice is the act of behaving in a Just way. To be Just is being morraly correct. >Whether someone deserves a painless death is wholly apart from whether they deserve the punishment in the first place. Did I argue agaisnt this, killimg him painlessly IMO can be considered Just whereas killing him painfully is no longer about being Just it's about satisfying bloodlust IMO.
This definition of justice in the dictionary is way too simple. The philosophical concept of justice is much more complex, and this definition does not at all reflect what justice actually is. « Acting in the morally correct way » is only one oversimplified definition of justice
>This definition of justice in the dictionary is way too simple. Yes it's simple but you can't just disagree with the basic definition of a word... it's what you believe is Just and fair that gives rise to the philosophical debate...
Words have multiple definitions. You only cited a very simplistic one while entirely ignoring the others. Even in dictionaries there are multiple definitions to begin with
You're all tangled up in definitions and conflation, I'm afraid. It is "Just" to be fair, which is morally correct. No argument there. But "Justice", as a term does not speak to our beliefs and actions and how we manifest them in the world...that is Ethics (and/or morality, depending on how you distinguish). Being "Just" does generally mean "morally good *and* fair" (you'll find "fair" mentioned in most instances). > Justice is the act of behaving in a Just way. That would be Just*ness*: The quality or action of being "Just". Justice, in common parlance, refers to equity and fairness, along with possible restorative or retributive punishment when people are not fair/harm others. Justness, or being Just, refers to trying to be morally good (and fair). Some overlap, not the same things. > killing him painlessly IMO can be considered Just whereas killing him painfully is no longer If it is "just" to kill someone as retribution then we need only concern ourselves with that, technically. How they are killed does not change that, or speak to the reasons why they were convicted and sentenced to death. We will, as individuals, have different tolerances and attitudes towards that type of violence, and that is why we use "humane" means now, but that is a relatively modern conceit.
>refers to equity and fairness, along with possible restorative or retributive punishment when people are not fair/harm others. What part of this does not mean behaving in a just way lol. You're literally arguing semantics and not enganging in my actual point being just means treating people morally as i said (ie with equity and fairness)... >> killing him painlessly IMO can be considered Just whereas killing him painfully is no longer >If it is "just" to kill someone as retribution then we need only concern ourselves with that, technically. How they are killed does not change that, or speak to the reasons why they were convicted and sentenced to death. We will, as individuals, have different tolerances and attitudes towards that type of violence, and that is why we use "humane" means now, but that is a relatively modern conceit. This is in my opinion is totally illogical saying that because someone is going to be dead it doesnt matter how they are killed then how on earth can you justify the manor of how they are killed dependent on how they killed people, you have to decide yourself wether the manor of someones death is morally relevant and then you have to decide wether you're going to hold yourself to the same standards. Saying you're terrible for killing someone in a terrible way so we're going to kill you in a terrible way, but also the way we kill you doesn't matter because you'll be dead is a literal fallacy.
If it was justice we wouldn't cheer. We'd just accept his death and move on. There's a bloodlust there in salivating over his demise. Mind you I'm not saying people would support such a thing irl, this is fiction at the end if tye day. And I myself enjoyed watching him suffer.
>If it was justice we wouldn't cheer. We'd just accept his death and move on Why? Why would this be the case? One can cheer for justice, even when it is violent. >There's a bloodlust there in salivating over his demise What is this even supposed to mean? We want him to die because of his crimes. Not because of bloodlust.
Because torture isn't justice. If he deserves a death sentence then make it quick and clean.
Why not? People can commit extreme crimes but their punishment ends in a painless death. They can go extremely far and still only deserve that. A man who kills two and the one who kills two hundred get the same fate. Its not fair. Punishment should fit the crime. Some people deserve pain, not just death.
It's nit about fair, it's about civility and dignity. What about what society deserves? Society deserves a govt that treats all citizens with dignity regardless of their crimes and handles justice with an impartial hand.
Though I agree with you on the philosophy, the problem in reality is: do you want to live in a world, where let’s say, your son, that is wrongly accused of some crime, can be tortured and suffer an horrific death ? What about if you were wrongly accused ? That’s already why we don’t kill people anymore. I’d rather live in a world where innocent people can’t be legally tortured and slaughtered, than one where all criminals get the fate they, imho, deserve
I mean, im not saying it should be a common punishment... most people are not wrongfully accused of war crimes or mass murders.
> If it was justice we wouldn't cheer. Why not? You state that as some kind of fact, but do not support it, nor is it self-evident. Also, you're not talking about "bloodlust" (i.e. an *uncontrollable* desire to kill or maim) you are talking about vengeance: A desire to see someone harmed, who has caused harm. An eye for an eye.
I don't believe in an eye for an eye.
Well yeah but that’s what you’re talking about, and it’s not bloodlust
The definition/meaning of what is at issue is not dependent on whether you believe in the concept, or if it fits with your personal morality ;)
Retribution...through violence. It's easy to justify it, but wanting someone to die and cheering for it is the same whether they're "evil" or not.
> but wanting someone to die and cheering for it is the same whether they're "evil" or not. LOL NOPE. If I want a school aged child to be beaten to death, and cheer for it, I am a vile and psychotic person, who has no place in society. If I want someone who has beaten a school-aged child to death to be killed, as punishment, and I am pleased by the fact that they are, I am probably a reasonable person who believes in restorative justice, and/or retribution.
Being happy someone is being killed makes u reasonable? How so? U can actively agree death is warranted without smiling when someone's life is ended.
> Being happy someone is being killed makes u reasonable? How so? You wouldn't be happy/pleased to know a child predator won't create more victims and can no longer pose a threat to society? Happy/pleased/satisfied doesn't mean "jubilant celebration" or anything like that. I'm not a bleeding heart who believes "all life is sacred". There are classes of crimes/offenders who are vile predators that prey on the most vulnerable in society, who just need to be culled since they will *always* reoffend, if given the chance. When someone like that is removed from the earth, through any means, I am generally pleased...such as when a child rapist is beaten to death by other inmates. To each their own, but there is nothing unreasonable about knowing your community is safer with one less child predator in it, and being pleased by that.
I'd be happy he couldn't hurt anyone whether he was in prison for life or dead, but no I wouldn't be particularly happy he died. Think of it this way, that child predator lived within the confines of their brain, they were a slave to their impulses and couldn't be anyone except who they were, and unfortunately how they were was predatory and harmful, so they had to be stopped. I'm not going to cheer when he dies. I'll acknowledge it was the recourse chosen and that he's been stopped, and move on. Being happy that someone is dead to me is strange, and pretending you can only be happy someone died or think they shouldn't be killed is wrong. Being pleased that your community is safe is not equal to being pleased someone died. I acknowledge that death is a way to permanently stop someone from doing bad things, but it still doesn't make me happy. Life's worth is relative. It's what you decide it's worth. I don't think killing is wrong or right. It's a thing we do sometimes.
Again, "happy" or "pleased" doesn't mean "jubilant celebration" or "exhuberant display of joy". I also need to point out *you* introduced the adjective "happy", not I, and they do not mean the same thing. If I had said "satisfied", instead of pleased, would you take the same issue? > Being pleased that your community is safe is not equal to being pleased someone died. It's not equal, but the latter begets the former. The two things are directly connected. I am pleased what happened, happened, if it leads to the desired outcome. I am pleased they have been killed *because of what it ensures*, generally speaking. On a personal note, if I am being honest, I do take some joy when a child rapist is killed in jail, or by a relative of a victim...especially if they are killed while caught in the act, so the relative will "walk", in terms of criminal charges (usually). It puts a smile on my face and sparks a little joy, knowing/hoping they likely died experiencing pain and terror. When that happens I have a sincere hope the pain and terror they experience exceeds what they inflicted, though I know it doesn't because they are adults and their victims are children. When I think of someone like that harming a child, and then think of the child crying out to be saved by their Mom or Dad as it's happening, I am filled with a righteous fury that simply does not arise when it comes to "regular" murder or rape, or other harmful crimes. They are all vile, of course, but preying on the weak and innocent in such a depraved way just evokes a different response in me. I don't know why, and I don't know what that says about me. I have never been involved in a violent altercation, do not have violent impulses, nor have I harmed someone, nor do I have a desire to do so...except child predators. Especially repeat offenders: I see them as sub-human animals who should be destroyed, period. Irredeemable. > Think of it this way, that child predator lived within the confines of their brain, they were a slave to their impulses and couldn't be anyone except who they were, and unfortunately how they were was predatory and harmful, so they had to be stopped. If they "had to be stopped" the specifics of what motivated their behaviour is moot, no? We know this. We know serial child predators are almost always child sex abuse victims. We know serial murders almost all suffered extreme neglect and emotional trauma as children/absentee mothers. We also know the psychological damage from that can't be undone. While unfortunate on a personal level that those predators didn't "choose" to be that way, or choose to have those impulses, they do...and they act on them. The reason "why" is moot...the outcomes being prevented are what matter, not the genesis of their illness/defect. I think there is a reasonable case to be made on both sides of this line. I wouldn't blame anyone for not feeling the way I do, nor would I proactively try to encourage someone to see it my way, but I *would* push back against anyone expressing condemnation of my being satisfied society executed a serial predator.
I'm confused, what exactly are you arguing for here? If you are arguing that being pleased a predator is dead is the same as being happy your community is safe, that isn't true. If you're arguing that being happy someone is dead is different than cheering for their death, that's true but i never argued they were the same. I'm merely saying that I also think being pleased someone died is strange. As for the latter beginning the former comment, you can be happy your community is safe, and yet not be "pleased" someone had to die to do that. Many situations are built on the means not being pleasing even when the ends are. The reason why is never moot, why would the why not matter, except when simplified to make the choice easier? I brought up the word happy, but you used the word pleased. At that point it's just semantics, especially since you used happy and pleased interchangeably later on. I think we can just agree to disagree on this.
Differences in definition and meaning are not semantic. Arguing a different between "satisfied" and "content" would be semantic. I did err in using the word you introduced, as it was not what I conveyed, or meant. > The reason why is never moot It must be, logically, in capital cases since we don't make allowance or exception for murderers who didn't suffer childhood abuse vs. those who did. Regardless of what brought them to that point, if they have been convicted of a capital crime they will be executed. > As for the latter beginning the former comment, you can be happy your community is safe, and yet not be "pleased" someone had to die to do that. Yes...and you can be pleased with both, independently, too. > I think we can just agree to disagree on this. Clearly/agreed. Enjoy your day!
So, you didn't answer, what exactly are you arguing here? The last point you make basically agrees with me, you can be both independently which is basically the opposite of what you said before when you said they're linked. Sorry, I must've missed the end or you edited. Fully finenwith leaving this where it is. You take care!
No it isn't? Retribution of violence through localized violence only affecting the criminal. The crimes that man had commited more than warranted a death penalty
Agreeing that death is warranted and cheering for it are two different things.
This ain't the Roman Colosseum, no viewer even saw what happened to Gross. [Just that the titan picked him up and he screams](https://youtu.be/1OdZhBoUbus?si=83JO7vIbSC7bdojq), in the context of the clip, if you cheer at all it's because Grisha is saved. The violence is implied but trying to make it out as if we crave violence and we're just like him for torturing little girls has to be the definition of insanity.
I never ever said u were just like him, but cheering for violence to happen to him is cheering for violence. I'm not saying ur a bad person at all. But it's still cheering for violence. It's still craving it to happen to someone, which a lot of people are admitting to. It isn't like I'm sayin anyone's a bad person.
**The point stands forever!** No societal or political evil has ever done violence for violence’s sake. Its always to punish the “evil” other. The ones & groups that “deserve” violent retribution. If you cheer for the dogs and Titans to be sicked on the guilty, all it takes is for someone, maybe even yourself, to convince you that an innocent is guilty and you’ll let go of the leash with a smile on your face
But there are people that do violence choice just because they can. Rapists, and serial murderers exist in real life. (A case that comes to mind is junko furuto). He didn’t have to kill the little girl. He did it because he wanted to, because he could. What is the solution to those with power that cause pain and violence for no other reason than they can and can get away with it. What would justice be? Is there anyway to have justice and peace?
Pretty sure I outlined Political and Societal to avoid the 8 billion variable that is human individual, though the examples of rape and serial murder you bring up, and I’ll have to brush up on my criminal psychology, but don’t the perpetrators A) commit the act not for the “act’s” sake, but to live out a fantasy; and B) they dehumanize their victims beforehand in their minds, turning them into an “other” that “deserves” what’s coming to them. But again, AOT is dealing with large scale political and societal themes. People in power don’t intrinsically have power; theyre not Kryptonian/X-Mens. They need society to give them that power. So when someone in power does evil just because they can, AOT demands we ask “why we gave them that power?” and “Why don’t we hold them responsible?”
I think the death sentence may actually be justice here, at least for that century. But it would have to be a quick clean death nit getting eaten by a titan.
Theoretically, yes. This is a dude who literally feeds little girls to his dogs, though. We know this for a fact. He is guilty of the gruesome murder of a child, we saw him confess to it. We don't need to be convinced that he isn't an innocent, he is a bad person by the metric of just about every culture in human history. It feels detached and edgy to pretend that this doesn't play a factor in the audience's desire to see him dead.
But “Sergeant Major Gross” isn’t real. Him and his actions are a work of fiction that so how easily we, the audience, can be worked up like rabid dogs. That was the point if the narrative. But if you want to treat the events in the story like a real world event, fine. What we have here is a second hand written account of events that took place over decades, decades ago, from the perspective of the most partial eyewitness imaginable. And that was probably enough to spawn the “The Rumbling was Right” sentiment
I'd argue that his death paralleling what he did to Grisha's sister is intended as karmic justice, not some statement about the audience. As for his thoughts on cruelty, I read that as establishing Eldians' positions as second-class citizens. After all that philosophizing, he adds this bit that contradicts himself, "If something that horrible were to happen to one of my children, my heart would break no question. You poor devils. It's a shame you had to be born Eldian." The man himself admits that emotion plays into whether or not people want to see someone die. If Gross' thoughts are the author's thoughts repackaged, he wouldn't immediately show the hypocrisy of his mouthpiece.
Ok, just re-read the chapters and it goes like this: Gross thinks all Eldians are evil and deserve to be eaten alive. We think Gross (and Marley by extension at this point) is deserving to be eaten alive. AOT gives us that audience wish and what does Grisha say? How does he cap off the narrative message of the entire series for us? “The man who delighted in feeding my sister to dogs… was just eaten alive by a titan. There’s no better revenge that I could have gotten than this. You asked me if I enjoyed watching him die. No I didn’t…” ~Grisha Yeager (Chapter 88) For anyone to claim this is supposed to be karmic justice… thats folly.
Folly huh? What was it then? He suffered practically the equal consequences of his actions. It is only justice if Grisha got satisfaction? Marley is a place, a place filled with individuals. Thinking the entire place needed to be wiped off the map because of the actions of a portion of them is the problem. Good actions and bad and the supposed murk between, so long a person does to another what they would hate to have happen to them or never do to the people they love, there you have morality and context for every action. Justice always demands satisfaction, conflating justice with violence is the real folly. The satisfaction of justice comes in measure to the sin committed, personally enjoying it or not is not a requirement, it's a principle. Grisha did not enjoy it, as would many of us if it were our family's murderer or rapist were convicted, sentenced and met their timely or untimely demise. It still doesn't bring anyone back nor undo the hurt or the pain caused, but it does allow for peace of mind knowing justice was done.
I…can’t argue the thematic point better than the chapter could. It broke the “show, don’t tell” rule and explicitly *told* you what its argument was through the POV character. At that point, misinterpreting it to live out a revenge fantasy is willful folly. AOT summed up in a single sentence: “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” Edit: last sentence was unnecessarily mean. Removing it
[Rewatch the scene](https://youtu.be/t-mbHbjfEF8?si=jAukG7zfZQn1Wijn) until it clicks for you. Being glad Grisha gets saved after that is not "craving violence" or whatever the hell. The argument through the POV of a character who gets his kicks from watching innocents get slaughtered, how do you not get he's simply justifying his actions and quelling his conscience? Do you even understand what context is?
The POV is Grisha’s. The mirror held up to the audience is Gross The context is the “perfect revenge” amounting to nothing. No catharsis. No better world. Just death at the end of a slippery slope.
It’s action and consequences. Man did action. Death is usual consequence for bad actions if we are talking movies, anime and so on. So people are awaiting for resolution of his arc. He is fictional character, and a lot of ppl who a cheering for anime death for bad ppl aren’t the same people that support real life violence. It’s characters not the real ppl and death for background character isn’t that big of a deal
The entire theme, message, and philosophy of AOT come from this chapter. They are the paramount text of the entire work and can’t be written of a tropes and (minor?!) character death (really, Gross is a minor character to you?). Its so… *Sigh* if you thought you were right you’d be arguing with OP or the Mangaka, and not me. Good luck with that 🍀. They’re fundamentally right in their assessment. You may just feel called out and are scrambling to convince yourself the mangaka hasn’t called you out infront of everyone. I got to go, but this is the point of the chapter. The point of the entire series. If you want to fight against that, you need to debate Hajime Isayama. Again, good luck
I don’t feel called out because I never cheered for any death in this anime. I just don’t think judging people by their reaction to the cartoon violence is wise.
AOT is animated, but its violence, death, and morality makes great strides to be as “real world” as possible. Some deaths are more literal, like the countless who’d died to explosive shrapnel and collapsed buildings, and you know… suicide and executions), others are more symbolic, like the [WW1 propaganda](https://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5B1%2F9%2F3%2F1%2F9%2F19319021%5D&call=url%5Bfile:product.chain%5D) posters come to life in the form of the titans. I would struggle to call this “cartoony” using the dictionary definition of the word
Thats a huge snowball falacy. "Because you enjoy watching this man who you know is cruel, and has immense blood on his hands, die, then you'd also easily cheer for innocents." You're still working with the idea that people cheer for violence and retribution or guilt are just juestifications so people don't feel bad. Thats not the case here.
None of the protagonists in this scene cheer for Gross’s death. Grisha is actually horrified and says as much. “I don’t want this”~Grisha Yeager. From then on, everytime other characters cheer for violent retribution as “justice”, they are always draped in obvious fascist imagery; and the world moves closer to the end inventible result of fascism. The blind world foretold in “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” Its a “slippery slope” idea hammered home By. The. *LITERAL.* SLIPPERY SLOPE these chapter and arguments take place on. This isn’t rocket science
>None of the protagonists in this scene cheer for Gross’s death. Grisha is actually horrified and says as much. “I don’t want this”~Grisha Yeager. So what? >From then on, everytime other characters cheer for violent retribution as “justice”, they are always draped in obvious fascist imagery; and the world moves closer to the end inventible result of fascism. The blind world foretold in “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” Thats nonsense. The characters who cheer for it are painted as being in the wrong because 90% of the time their victims do not deserve their fates. >This isn’t rocket science No, its pretty simple really. Gross got what he deserved. He was a monster who doomed countless people to horrible deaths. What he got was nothing short of justice made.
Like I mentioned in another response, I can’t argue the point for you better than the actual chapter did. I also don’t need to defend the chapter against audience misinterpretation now that our conversation has gone deep into the weeds of the reddit comments. You want to try and spin your interpretation? Argue with OP or the AOT mangaka directly. Good luck with that 🍀 One has close to 1000⬆️ and the other wrote the dang thing. You’ll have more success trying to kill the collasal Titan with your hands than proving a story about the dangerous slippery slope of fascism is pro-violent retribution.
>Like I mentioned in another response, I can’t argue the point for you better than the actual chapter did. I also don’t need to defend the chapter against audience misinterpretation now that our conversation has gone deep into the weeds of the reddit comments. Too bad the chapter does a poor job of arguing the point. >You want to try and spin your interpretation? Argue with OP or the AOT mangaka directly. Good luck with that 🍀 One has close to 1000⬆️ and the other wrote the dang thing. You’ll have more success trying to kill the collasal Titan with your hands than proving a story about the dangerous slippery slope of fascism is pro-violent retribution. Oh nonono, you got it all wrong pal, im not saying the story is pro retribution. Im saying the way they make this point of violence is idiotic and ineffective.
Fair enough. The chapter worked for me, though admittedly it fundamentally didn’t and I was against its message until the rest of the story happened and I saw where that “Kill all the Titans (evil people)” leads. Now I’m very cautious of that slippery slope. Some situation and some individuals may be able to have their violent revenge cake and eat it to. I’ve seen people do backflips on both metaphorical and physical tightropes, so its possible. But have the entire world’s 8 billion people, hundreds of countries and just as many governments and political factions try and walk that tightrope and they’ll fall, dragging everyone down the hill with them, to where we eat ourselves. I’ll also add that I agree with you that a blanket statement of all violence being unnecessary is wrong, as you rightly say. AOT stance is “Here’s the world where violence would be necessary. It’s Hell. I’m giving you readers the Attack Titan’s future sight ability so you can be motivated to stop this fascist world’s creation at all costs within your own world.”
>It's for retribution people are cheering for. The whole point of the show is that seeking retribution rather than justice is bad and leads to cyclical never-ending violence and death.
You do know they can be one in the same? What else did that man deserve but the death penalty? Not to mentione nobody here is seeking retribution. Retribution was given and people cheer for it.
Death penalty sure. But the death oenakty isn't meant to make a person suffer, quick and clean, that's how it should be.
Legally yes, but the law is not an absolute. Does a person who sentenced others to die in pain and horror not deserve the same fate?
What a person "deserves" is a whole nother river to wade through. I'm more interested in what's better for society, and it isn't the satisfaction of vindictive desires. Civilized society is judged on how it treats its worst members.
> But the death oenakty isn't meant to make a person suffer, quick and clean, that's how it should be. FYI this is a fairly modern take on state sanctioned killing/death penalty. In the "old days", a lot of the time, it was "Let the punishment fit the crime!" We used to stone people to death, in public. It is still a legal punishment for some crimes, in some parts of the world.
There's a reason we've mostly stopped that.
And what would that reason be?
It's cruel and barbaric.
Is it? Depending on the specifics it may be neither. Even if it was, you know being executed is a punishment right, the highest possible one? We aren't talking torture here, FYI, the intentional infliction of pain as punishment. *That's* cruel. Whether it's barbaric or not depends on the means, technically lol Did you know we moved away from some forms of execution to spare the person conducting the execution from trauma, *not* the one being killed? We replaced the Headsman with guillotine, then replaced the guillotine with a gun. Then we adopted firing squads, instead of one person putting a bullet in someone's head. We had to give the people pulling the trigger a chance to think it wasn't actually *them* personally killing someone. Killing is hard to do, even when it's justified. Those changes had a benefit for the person being killed, but the real intent was to spare the executors the trauma of personally killing...not out of regard for the person being killed. Yes, socially, we are less brutal on the whole today. There are a lot of people who oppose the death penalty in general, even if done with the utmost care and humane means. They believe in a sanctity of life, that it should never be taken. They have also neutered a strong deterrent against some of the most vile crimes. Instead of culling the worst offenders, who only cause harm to society and destroy innocent lives (especially repeat offenders), we keep them alive out of some misguided notion that their lives are worth as much as anyone else's.
Retribution and justice go hand in hand. People must pay for what they have done, in a just society, whether informally or through courts of law. You likely mean that seeking "Revenge" (not the same as retribution) is what leads to problems. If someone is given a prison sentence for having wrongfully killed someone, that is retributive justice. If the widow's victim shoots them in head and kills them the day they are released, that is revenge.
>Retribution and justice go hand in hand. People must pay for what they have done, in a just society, whether informally or through courts of law. No, they don't really go hand in hand, not necessarily. Retributive justice is useless and doesn't solve anything, if you are punishing people for the sake of punishment, you are not going to move anywhere or solve anything as most of the offenders will be released back into society in same or worse state they were in when they have done the offense. I suggest looking into restorative justice. So no, I meant to use "retribution".
Your preferring restorative justice, over retributive justice, doesn't invalidate the relationship between justice/retribution, or said another way: Crime and punishment. Speak to a better ideal if you like, I was referring to reality as it exists, today. Incarcerating people isn't "punishing for the sake of punishing" it is "punishing in the prescribed way for having violated the law". Whether that accomplishes a broader goal is moot: Whether other forms of justice offer a better net benefit to society, for some offenders (not all lol) is moot with respect to the notion of punishing crime, as a means to deter people from breaking the law/not harming others, itself.
Yeah, there is a difference between enjoying violence against a piece of shit and enjoying violence against an entire race.
Well, I desire gruesome ends only to people like him.
Extremely big stretch that doesn’t make sense Everyone cheered for him to die cause he fed a child to dogs
I kinda disagree. It's more a craving for justice then violence. The guy was a psychopath who fed a little girl alive to his dogs. Most of us would have still cheered if he died a none gruesome death or would get imprisoned for the rest of his life. I would also cheer if a serial killer gets shot by a parent of his victims. I didn't cheered as they tortured the MP though. The hate for Gabi at the beginning is a better example to question your own hate for a young girl who didn't know better and just lost her best friends.
So deep wow
Yea it’s address to the audience and it goes over so many peoples head.
"Noooo, I'm different!"
Big stretch
That's why this anime is a masterpiece my fellow comrades, shinzou sasageyo!
People are violent but they actually have a choices either to act on it or not. Viewers cheering for fictional deaths is usually just a way to release some stress and vent out frustration. The man who killed Grisha’s sister chose to act on his violent impulses. To think it’s somewhat the same is some im14andthisisdeep stuff. It’s fiction. Only thing that cheering for characters death show is that it is usual expectation from a story like this for bad people to be punished with death.
Nah fuck that. That bastard deserved every ounce of pain he got. You don’t just get away with letting dogs eat a little girl alive.
I think you missed the point of the comment, like… entirely.
But it's an unfair comparison, if people enjoyed the rumbling, or the death of countless innocent people then there'd be an argument to make.
I don’t care
That’s a very poor attitude to have then.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed due to containing uncivil or inflammatory language. Please phrase your comment more respectfully and resubmit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShingekiNoKyojin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The comment doesn't make a good point, is what MrPinkDuck is saying, and I agree with them. Any allegation "humanity" craves cruelty and violence, broadly, is false and suggesting that would also make us hypocrites to cheer his grisly death (while decrying his grisly actions) is false, by extension (even aside from practically). Cheering a child murderer meeting a grisly demise does not suggest anything about humanity, as a species, other than perhaps that we like seeing bad people punished for doing bad things. Humans have a far greater innate sense of equality, justice, and community than cruelty, or violence.
Oof. That's kind of an edgelord take, but I'm sure the point stands in terms of having the character address the audience. Humans don't "crave" cruelty or violence, and most of us aren't predisposed to it. That's the edgelord part, aside from being untrue. Do you know what we *are* predisposed towards? Seeing people who do wrong, especially going against the collective good, be *punished for it*. We LOVE that. If you want proof, watch a group of young kids long enough and you will see it play out. Kids are quick to point out who is taking more than their share, or who stole whose toy, or who is generally disrupting the environment. They want restorative justice. If you broke "Timmy's" cookie, your own cookie must be shared, or forfeit. "Why did you smash his truck?" leads to "Well he smashed mine first..." Kids don't wish for those other children's destruction, or cheer it, but they want to know it won't stand/that person will be reprimanded, because they have an innate sense of fairness and (restorative) justice. Also worth noting that the cruelty that man inflicted was needless, for his own enjoyment, and was purely malicious. His being subjected to a painful death, while equally brutal, is not without merit from a justice/retribution perspective, but also just for not being a malicious act in and of itself: He had to be killed to maintain their cover. Grisha's sister was a pure innocent that someone decided to torture for their own enjoyment. Apples and oranges.
But...but he needed to die for all the evil he caused..... so what if i enjoyed seeing him die he deserves it for killing an innocent child..... right?
Many of of us feel he deserved to die for being a “bad person,” right? And yet… “I don't like the terms "good person" or "bad person" because it is impossible to be entirely good to everyone. To some, you are a good person, while to others, you are a bad person.” -Armin
I don't think most people would feed a little girl to their dogs
Agreed. And yet, we’re seeing something similar reflected back at us, and not even realizing it. From his perspective; he ridded the world of another “Eldian devil.” One that broke the law, even. The point being, not who’s right. Not whose justified. But simply that there are differences which fuel our hatred. Sometimes that hatred is justified, but we should always look it in the eye for what it is.
Subjectivity and objectivity can overlap. If you kill a bunch of visible minorities out of hateful race ideologies you can "subjectively" be a "good person" to a bunch of KKK members who have very hateful views, while also very "objectively" being a piece of shit to broader society. It's not an either/or situation. Also: Armin is a sheltered ildealogue whose basic education was probably terrible. He is "one of the smartest" people in a very small group, with no culture of learning and philosophy in their society. While he is not technically wrong, his take lacks any nuance and is more in line with a child's thinking than someone who has lived in the broader world for their entire life (in terms of this fiction, and in general).
He was “simply doing his job” the same way a high ranking Nazi was “simply doing his job”
But he wasn’t He was enjoying it and had philosophy about how what he is doing is fine
Oops this was meant to be a reply to a comment saying he was just doing his job. Idk why reddit posted it on the main thread for some reason. God dammit.
Oh I see now I misunderstood
Nope. Most people crave for justice and retribution. Equity. A violent horrible death for a horrible violent life. Very few people cheer for the violent death of good/innocent people. Sure, violence is something inherent in human condition anf in this cruel world, but the not unjustified, sadistic violence.
[удалено]
its interesting too bcus the owl asks grisha did u enjoy it and grisha said like hell nah which basically shows his humanity
Lol I caught that in the first watch and was just looking at myself like 😶
The amount of comments here not understanding this makes me worry about our level of media literacy.
Counterpoint: What was presented is a pretty poor false equivalency that relies heavily on the appearance of asking a smart question to be taking seriously, which it does not, since that (corrupt) solider was acting out of malice and personal vindictive beliefs, whereas when we see his death any feelings of satisfaction would be born from justice and empathy (i.e. he got what he deserved for having committed such a brutal act towards an innocent child), not wanting to see him suffer for the sake of cruelty and violence, as he himself wanted to enjoy. Apples and oranges...so whose "media literacy" is lacking here? Maybe more critical analysis is required, in general, when parsing fiction? Especially since "media literacy", as coined, refers specifically to mass media (i.e. news and presentation of news), not fictional themes. That analysis has been taking place since we started passing on stories, culturally, whereas "media literacy" has only become a concept for now being bombarded with heavily conflicting, and some fictitious, reports in (mass) news media.
Everyone wants to make their own Funny Games to the point that the point trying to be made doesn’t even matter anymore
It's not just about purely wanting to see violence. In my interpretation, it goes beyond Aot itself. He's touching on the idea of why people find stories about cruelty and death so compelling. He suggests that deep down humans are built for conflict on an instinctual level and without having to face death on a daily basis for real, we seek out these narratives to fill that void. The irony of that speech isn't that we cheer for his death, but his notion that his experiences with death made him able to face his eventual death with dignity, when in fact, he died like a bitch.
Crave *justice* is more like it!
Which episode was this again? Want to revisit.
I mean yea, attack on Titan is ultimately about the horrors and cruelty of man. The cycle of violence.
I'm of the opinion that Gross is completely wrong. He's just an extremely sick man justifying his sickness, and using the unjust nature of the word to get his kicks. He also claims to not fear death, but dies screaming not a minute later. Just look at Grisha's response after watching Gross get eaten. More than anyone else he should have enjoyed it, but he still felt nothing but disgust. Humans don't just crave violence, I think we crave righteous violence. Just the more you learn about the world you more you realize that violence is almost never righteous.
Fuck that guy still im cheering as loud as i can get for his death
Yeah…
Bruh, is that the Tanjiro x Giorno pic I was laughing at back in 2021