I mean, if your mom got kidnapped, and there's an angry god that wants to kill you, your friends, and some other third girl you know, I doubt you'd just sit down like "but... getting people killed is bad. D:"
It's kind of amusing to me that you don't see the parallels between both of these responses, and react to essentially the same impression of dragging people into problems caused by a threat that is outside your control at immense risk to them in a completely different way depending on the character.
no she tried to kill them by crashing the car
she doesnt think its justified, shes just not going to let that stop her, she will hunt ghosts and if someone gets caught up in that and dies, then sucks to be them but the ghost needed to be got
These are entirely different situations. One is trying to save the people she cares about, the other is a spiteful monster who lingered around as a ghost.
You may want to re-read/watch the F tunnel arc. She's specifically trying to get other people tortured out of a warped sense of fairness. This isn't a "I'll be fine if I make someone else suffer in my place" thing, it's a "KNOWING THAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING LIKE ME IS THE GREATEST FEELING EVER" thing. Only the people further in the tunnel are trying to swap with anyone; she's just trying to get people tortured.
She tried to kill them by crashing the car and was only subdued with relative ease because she's small potatoes compared to the ghosts Yayoi usually targets. Her entire introduction was about her gruesome death, and how glad she was that someone else suffered with her, and is about to suffer with her. It's right there on Chapter 17, page 34.
You're trying to compare apples to oranges here, since one is trying to get people tortured deliberately, while the other is indifferent to the suffering of evil ghosts, and trying her best to minimize collateral damage.
I agree the situations are different - the point I'm making is Yayoi's justification is so broad and poorly reasoned that any consequences - including her just getting 5 people killed (no, "they were totes bad people" doesn't justify it retroactively; it's a decision Yayoi makes without knowing what the consequences will be or even trying to find out) - are fine in her eyes, because she feels sufficient "conviction." It's lazy and stupid retroactive justification. Remember, it's not the demise of ghosts that Yayoi is justifying here.
I don't know that there's really much evidence for THAT specific mindset in the text, more like "I've suffered unfairly, so you suffering is the only way to make it fair". She says specifically that it's relief on the page you mention. It's closer to crab in a bucket mentality then "watching my fellow crab suffer brings me great joy" mentality. However, you're right:
I didn't remember the attempted car crash. It was a very brief interaction that kind of came out of left field. You can see it on pages 6-10 of chapter 20, and it just looks like jealousy because of unfair suffering (i.e. "you got saved but I didn't, so I'm throwing a tantrum"), not some sadistic joy from the suffering of others. I think it is safer to say she deserves what's happened to her than I originally thought (though I would like to see some acknowledgement of how much she's protected Eiko at this point), but to be honest I can't tell what exactly what the author wants people to think of her given the last time we've seen her was a strangely long torture sequence with gratuitous shots of her thighs, but I'm sure whatever it is will be retroactively justified either way. That's what this manga does.
Her justification here is about indifference after getting those 5 living people killed before even fully scouting the area. Those priests were not evil ghosts. Be honest about what it is she's justifying in that conversation.
She's not "Justifying" anything. Read the chapter again. She's explicitly saying she's left morality at the door, and if anyone has a problem with it, they can haunt her after death. Also, what do you think that expression of hers was on Ch. 51, P. 24-25? Constipation? She obviously hates what happened. Surely you don't need every little thing spelled out for you.
If we're talking about her knowledge justifying her actions or not, there's no precedent for "Jewish demon army"; it's literally a first for her, and the very idea that literal demonic entities lurk with their unholy slaves was, as of yet, not even on the table. This situation is so far beyond even her wildest experiences that there's no way she could possibly have foreseen a haunting like that.
You're reading too much into this. The entire point of these things is that they're lingering masses of malice and hatred: Their only motivations are survival, and sadism. If you try to paint their reactions as some rational response to whatever situation they're in, you've misunderstood the point of this story. She wants others to suffer like her. That's the entire thing. She lured people in so they'd be tortured, and she's mad that they're not going to be tortured anymore. Her own salvation never came up, and it wasn't a factor.
Mate, if you think "leaving morality at the door" doesn't justify anything to the person saying it, you don't understand what the word 'morality' means. You're reading remorse into a frown and completely oblivious to the fact Yayoi just threatened to kill anyone who disagrees with her (did you think she meant to haunt her after they died of old age?)
I was talking about the priests, not this non sequitur. The fact it's a Jewish demon army has less than nothing to do with what I said - not to mention that a possessed spirit army is very much within their wheelhouse.
So I'm the one reading too much into this even though you're the one reading sadistic joy into something to fit your poetic justice idea. And (explicitly unstated) remorse from Yayoi frowning once. I know why you want that to be what the text is, and I'd think it was a pretty compelling narrative if that's what the dialogue indicated... but it's just not in those pages, and facial scrunching is not enough to put it there. Maybe that's the framing the author will go for, but it'll be retroactive either way... as usual.
You're really off the rails here. The priest spirit isn't lingering out of sadism or survival, for one thing. And many of these spirits are shown to have human intelligence - they are characters in this story, not all mindless enemies fueled by sadism so you can enjoy their agony remorselessly. Some of them you can, sure - but to say that about all of them means you haven't really been paying attention. And, as I'll remind you - at least 30 of them are described as 'almost evil' by the absolute authority that is the narrator... meaning those 30 can't be balls of pure malice by definition; there's nothing 'almost' about what you're imagining here.
it doesn't. She isn't. She's literally saying the people can haunt her if they have a problem. I don't suggest that people try getting revenge on me for helping children, and she's not suggesting they get revenge for any "good" she does. You seem to have a consistent problem understanding people's emotions and motivations, which is weird for me to say, considering I'm probably the only autistic one in this conversation.
That's not what she said. That's not even close to what she said. What's your first language? I might be able to translate the chapters into that one for you.
I was talking about the Jewish demon army. If you want to blame her for killing five jerks who screwed themselves in spite of the fact that she didn't know at the time, then you can't then turn around and blame her for unleashing the most dangerous, unprecedented abomination to date. Either knowledge factors into her culpability, or it doesn't. Unless you're about to tell me it would have been bad for her to get the priests killed if she knew they were jerks in the first place. Which is fine by me, but then I don't know what we're arguing about here.
Yes. I'm going by the things she literally says, and the general behaviors of the ghosts we've seen all throughout the manga. They're monomaniacal abominations who can't be reasoned with; they are unreasonable. So when one of them says "I want to eat your nutsack", and he tries to drag you into a room, I can only conclude he wants to bite your nutsack off for its own sake.
Yeah, the one time we got a spirit turning from "evil" to some other kind of spirit, (The waterfall amalgam), she literally describes her state as feral, overcome with anger and hatred. Until they got rid of the fetish that was keeping her in that state, there was no negotiating with her. The majority of ghosts of import we see behaving even a little bit are ones who are specifically bound to them, and liable to take damage in their place as substitutes.
What's your point? You consider regular ghosts to be the exact same creatures as the evil spirits we're talking about? Because I don't see what bringing in some separate class of being is adding to this conversation. By that standard, there are hundreds, thousands even, of just normal ghosts that are too harmless and inconsequential to even mention.
FTFY
