Wakusei Closet - Vol. 3 Ch. 20 - While En Route
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Aggregator gang
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
- Messages
- 476
Aimi sure isn't into the 'prepper' mindset. If she was, she could have -- at the very least -- told or written her parents she was visiting friends or some-such, and packed provisions and cash. Good thing Oka-chan went along.
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2018
- Messages
- 179
@criver In IRL Japan? Not really. Japan is so safe, they literally send 9 year olds to navigate by themselves to school - in Tokyo, by the subway system.
I guess that is a bit of cultural clash where we in the US are not really comfortable with that and I guess that is your norm too. But I want to point out there was a time we were just as comfortable. Even up the 90's. Currently there's even a movement trying to revive it with 1 state successfully making it into law so far (a law in Utah where a parent would not be charge with neglect if they allow a kid to go about on their own).
And honestly, the fear is overstated. Crime was actually higher in the 1950's when we were culturally okay with it, yet we are much willing to call the police even when a kid is alone in the front yard these days (though exceptions exist in some neighborhoods, ironically it tends to be in the neighborhoods where crimes stats says it is the most dangerous for kids to roam around without supervision).
----
But societal discussions aside, narratively, the "dreamland" aliens the turned the Flare's friend into a Eldritch portal of insectoids in her **eyes and mouth**, killed Flare's parents, "ate" Flare's sister, currently leaving her in a state of unfathomable pain as she begs to be killed. Meanwhile, they also turned Tamura into a tree of flesh, killed his parents, and smashed Yuyama's head like a watermelon.
Even mapping the most cynical view where "people at night" would attack kids on the very first night, I don't see how they are more scary then something that borrow into your body, take over our body, and proceed to painfully turn you inside out starting from your eyes. And right now their only weapons on the Earth side is a semi-sharp rock and 2 knives. Even the Stranger Things kids at least have Eleven and her physic powers.
I guess that is a bit of cultural clash where we in the US are not really comfortable with that and I guess that is your norm too. But I want to point out there was a time we were just as comfortable. Even up the 90's. Currently there's even a movement trying to revive it with 1 state successfully making it into law so far (a law in Utah where a parent would not be charge with neglect if they allow a kid to go about on their own).
And honestly, the fear is overstated. Crime was actually higher in the 1950's when we were culturally okay with it, yet we are much willing to call the police even when a kid is alone in the front yard these days (though exceptions exist in some neighborhoods, ironically it tends to be in the neighborhoods where crimes stats says it is the most dangerous for kids to roam around without supervision).
----
But societal discussions aside, narratively, the "dreamland" aliens the turned the Flare's friend into a Eldritch portal of insectoids in her **eyes and mouth**, killed Flare's parents, "ate" Flare's sister, currently leaving her in a state of unfathomable pain as she begs to be killed. Meanwhile, they also turned Tamura into a tree of flesh, killed his parents, and smashed Yuyama's head like a watermelon.
Even mapping the most cynical view where "people at night" would attack kids on the very first night, I don't see how they are more scary then something that borrow into your body, take over our body, and proceed to painfully turn you inside out starting from your eyes. And right now their only weapons on the Earth side is a semi-sharp rock and 2 knives. Even the Stranger Things kids at least have Eleven and her physic powers.
@RhoninFire You're talking from a US perspective, so I can't comment on that part, except for the fact that even if people are "comfortable" with something, it doesn't change the objective risks associated with it. Not to mention that you're comparing sending kids to school in broad daylight to kids spending the night outdoors in a park.
As far as the aliens go - they are parasites, and I don't believe that the "unfathomable pain" part was emphasized anywhere. Whereas some humans will torture others intentionally and in more creative and painful ways that you dare to imagine.
As far as the aliens go - they are parasites, and I don't believe that the "unfathomable pain" part was emphasized anywhere. Whereas some humans will torture others intentionally and in more creative and painful ways that you dare to imagine.
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2018
- Messages
- 179
@criver
You right if everyone is comfortable, it doesn't change the risk. But part of the point is to say the apprehension to the idea of kids being without supervision is more societal norms rather than a rational risk assessment. Thus 1950's America or modern day Japan could see a fiction depiction or real instance or a kid being alone (daytime or nightime) and not find an issue. But today would call the cops or in this manga, feel squickat a fictional depiction. Now you did mentioned you might actually be American. But my point still stands if you're from a society where the norm would call the police at the sight of a 9 year old outside.
Societal norms aside, part of my argument is the IRL chances are stupidly low. The fear of the stranger abducting a kid is low. But on top of that of the abductions that do happen, 90% of abductions are done between relatives. Of those that remains missing children. The last comprehensive government study found only 115 US children were kidnap by strangers in a year. Keep in mind we are ~70 million are who are under 18 years old in the US. Then keep in mind more that the general rule is Japan's crime rate is much lower. In short, the objective risks associated is low. Nighttime does raises the chance of risk, but our fears towards strangers are vastly overstated.
Did you read chapter 8 or chapter 10 What does this looks like to you?
That's looks pretty painful to me. She is literally begging her to be killed.
While I cannot disagree the how far humanity can torture another , but if we're going to pull in IRL instances, then we have to consider the IRL realities. Namely, the type of kidnappings that could lead to torture that is arguably worse than Flare's friend head being shoved giant spiders legs through her eyes, mouth, and ears even more extremely rare. We're going down to a subset of a subset of a subset. And applying this fear to one night.
Finally, there's the narrative aspect again. This is a Lovecraftian-like Eldritch Abomination story. A fantasy story of facing creatures beyond our comprehension that seen to violate the bodies of the character and seemingly the world. It would b a massive narrative dissonance for story to suddenly change to some white van kidnapping the girls on the first night they ever sneak out. And if we're pulling in IRL realities, then it's worrying about the chance of a subset of a subset of a subset type of event versus facing fictionally "real" aliens that seeks to enter their bodies and have a body count of 6 people.
You right if everyone is comfortable, it doesn't change the risk. But part of the point is to say the apprehension to the idea of kids being without supervision is more societal norms rather than a rational risk assessment. Thus 1950's America or modern day Japan could see a fiction depiction or real instance or a kid being alone (daytime or nightime) and not find an issue. But today would call the cops or in this manga, feel squickat a fictional depiction. Now you did mentioned you might actually be American. But my point still stands if you're from a society where the norm would call the police at the sight of a 9 year old outside.
Societal norms aside, part of my argument is the IRL chances are stupidly low. The fear of the stranger abducting a kid is low. But on top of that of the abductions that do happen, 90% of abductions are done between relatives. Of those that remains missing children. The last comprehensive government study found only 115 US children were kidnap by strangers in a year. Keep in mind we are ~70 million are who are under 18 years old in the US. Then keep in mind more that the general rule is Japan's crime rate is much lower. In short, the objective risks associated is low. Nighttime does raises the chance of risk, but our fears towards strangers are vastly overstated.
Did you read chapter 8 or chapter 10 What does this looks like to you?
That's looks pretty painful to me. She is literally begging her to be killed.
While I cannot disagree the how far humanity can torture another , but if we're going to pull in IRL instances, then we have to consider the IRL realities. Namely, the type of kidnappings that could lead to torture that is arguably worse than Flare's friend head being shoved giant spiders legs through her eyes, mouth, and ears even more extremely rare. We're going down to a subset of a subset of a subset. And applying this fear to one night.
Finally, there's the narrative aspect again. This is a Lovecraftian-like Eldritch Abomination story. A fantasy story of facing creatures beyond our comprehension that seen to violate the bodies of the character and seemingly the world. It would b a massive narrative dissonance for story to suddenly change to some white van kidnapping the girls on the first night they ever sneak out. And if we're pulling in IRL realities, then it's worrying about the chance of a subset of a subset of a subset type of event versus facing fictionally "real" aliens that seeks to enter their bodies and have a body count of 6 people.
@RhoninFire Once again - I am not worried about somebody calling the cops, even if that would be the correct reaction to kids sleeping over at a park.
The study you linked seems to account for only 115 children because of how they choose to define "stereotypical kidnappings" and that it's from 1999. In contrast, a cursory search yields results such as:
I will go on a tangent here, since drawing unsubstantiated conclusions from statistical data is a pretty common occurrence which I find disturbing, so feel free to ignore this part:
Moving on:
Then again, you seem to be stuck on my statement:
My point was that I was disturbed by the lack of risk consideration of those kids sleeping at a park.
The study you linked seems to account for only 115 children because of how they choose to define "stereotypical kidnappings" and that it's from 1999. In contrast, a cursory search yields results such as:
I will go on a tangent here, since drawing unsubstantiated conclusions from statistical data is a pretty common occurrence which I find disturbing, so feel free to ignore this part:
There's another point you try to argue based on the statistics you cited - that a small absolute percentage of kidnappings implies safety. But that fails to account for the measures that parents take to make sure their child does not go missing - like not letting their child sleep over at random locations. If all parents allowed their children to sleep at random places that statistic would skyrocket. Making kidnappings easy would clearly result in more kidnappings. Which leads me to another point - the % depends on several risk factors, so for a specific child the probability depends on those factors, and not on the population average. Thus if those risk factors occur in a child's life, then the % of that specific child getting kidnapped will be high. That is to say, one is a fine measure and a good predictor (risk factors leading to kidnappings), whereas the other is a coarse measure and a poor predictor (population average). The latter is a predictor for a baseline regarding how many kids will be kidnapped next year, and not whether a specific kid will get kidnapped.
Here's a an over-exaggerated and bad analogy:
It's like arguing that the probability of you dying at your workplace playing Russian roulette is low, because the absolute percentage of injured people for your job is low.
More formally, you swapped the implication direction - the probability of a specific kid getting kidnapped is not a function of the population average, it's a function of the risk factors leading to kidnapping. Clearly if it's physically impossible for a kidnapper to reach the child, then the probability is zero, regardless of the population average.
You can't argue that a kid is safe not doing X, by basing your conclusion on a statistic where the majority does X.
Here's a an over-exaggerated and bad analogy:
It's like arguing that the probability of you dying at your workplace playing Russian roulette is low, because the absolute percentage of injured people for your job is low.
More formally, you swapped the implication direction - the probability of a specific kid getting kidnapped is not a function of the population average, it's a function of the risk factors leading to kidnapping. Clearly if it's physically impossible for a kidnapper to reach the child, then the probability is zero, regardless of the population average.
You can't argue that a kid is safe not doing X, by basing your conclusion on a statistic where the majority does X.
Moving on:
A person saying "kill me" doesn't always imply pain. In fact there are no visible pain indicators in that panel. I interpret this as her wanting to be killed because she realizes what has happened and the implications of it, rather than being in insufferable pain.
I really consider her flesh morphing into that or at the very least the aliens providing some case of painkiller effect so that the host would not die from a heart attack, especially since there are no indicators present to imply insufferable pain.
Then again, you seem to be stuck on my statement:
Could you make a story where you present torture beyond human imagination? Sure, it's a story, so you can have even impossible stuff in it. The only reason I mentioned more dangerous, is because I don't consider these aliens as dangerous as humans - especially considering our MC's experience with those (she's gotten away from those just fine on multiple occasions).
My point was that I was disturbed by the lack of risk consideration of those kids sleeping at a park.
I agree with that - which is precisely why the story could have been them taking a bus to whatever location, or walking there without it requiring a whole day etc. I also get why it was done - so they could have the intimate discussions about the death of their friends - I just don't think it should have happened at a random park, especially considering the irl risks.
Similar threads
