[heckraiser]

What a horrific nonsensical rant that clearly misses the point of the story.

Save yourself the eyesores, don’t click.

The Omelas narrative challenges the psychological maxim that someone must suffer for the common gain.

It is a short story, and like all short stories accentuates a tiny detail into a worldview.

In what way does Ursula roll in her grave?

Gaza, or #metoo, or thriving race hate, or the pedopolitics (here come scathing karma killers.)

To be silent in the face of a tyranny of evil is to be complicit.

Rest easy Ursula, you have been heard.

[happytoexplain]

> horrific nonsensical rant

> don't click

> scathing karma killers

I enjoyed it, but even if I didn't, you haven't given a clue about where such vitriol is coming from. I'm assuming you don't like it in relation to the work it's referencing? To the point that you find it offensive (VERY offensive, apparently)?

[heckraiser]

As a fan of Ursula K. Le Guin, the central theme is one sorely missed.

This has been a controversial critique in terms of karma (up and down so many times it has leveled out.)

It’s a bit crass, though my reply was regarding the relevance in today’s world (dirty secrets we don’t confront) more than the author’s shake up.

Le Guin’s social commentary is still pressing in our day.

[mcphage]

> To be silent in the face of a tyranny of evil is to be complicit.

Isn't that what this criticism is all about? In the original story, you either accept the suffering—be complicit—or you walk away. But that's still being silent in the face of a tyranny of evil. It's just saying "well okay, I won't benefit, but I'm not going to make those people who are benefitting feel bad".

[smlavine]

I've never heard of the story this one is apparently based on, and I thought it was kinda neat to read.

[aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA]

Dare I even ask what "pedopolitics" is?

[rcoveson]

I'm really confused. Did we read the same thing? This is just a "sequel" to the original Omelas that, if anything, suffers from the fact that it doesn't really add anything new.

It's harsher on the city's arrangement. It seeks out and destroys whatever moral ambiguity might have been present in the original. To me it read like, "I read the Omelas short story and I just want to be clear that the correct interpretation is that Omelas is bad, see, look how bad."

I don't see how it misses the point of the original. It just kind of shouts in agreement with the original in an unnecessary way.

> In what way does Ursula roll in her grave?

Who said she was rolling in her grave? I searched the linked page for any mention of "roll" or "grave" or "Ursula" and found nothing.

[heckraiser]

How many times does the author slit a kids throat?

Yeah, we must have read different stories.

[rcoveson]

In the original the kid was subjected to brutal, unending torture. Is your complaint just that this one is unnecessarily graphic?

[robocat]

The child isn't tortured in the original story. You misremember. The child is neglected, ignored and maltreated but the abuse is acts of ommision not commision.

The story doesn't say where the child is from, but it does say the child remembers its mother and how to speak.

The story ends saying that the ones who leave are going somewhere, we know not where nor why (it lightly implies the ones leave because the child is abused, but it could just as easily be they left because they learnt something).

[rcoveson]

Solitary confinement is commonly accepted to be a form of torture, and that usually involves rudimentary sanitation and nourishment. A confined, solitary, starving child living in its own excrement is being tortured, and I defy anybody to argue otherwise.

Also, confinement is not an "act of omission" any more than punching somebody in the face and then leaving them alone forever after is an act of omission.

[robocat]

I think torture means the intent to harm, usually implying pain by force.

The story shows no proactive intent to try and hurt the child for the sake of hurting it.

Yes, obviously neglect and abuse will harm a child, and that is clearly mentioned in the story.

> Solitary confinement is commonly accepted to be a form of torture

Rubbish. Solitary confinement is used in quarantine, mental health and penal settings without being "commonly" accepted as being torture. The purpose isn't to cause harm, although that may be the outcome. Unfortunately many people seem to think that solitary in prison is acceptable, and too many people wouldn't call it abuse. Do people commonly call it torture? I'm sure most of us would call it torture if we had experienced it (I've only been locked up once - not solitary but threatened with it).

Of course if you intend harm, then solitary confinement can be a form of torture.

As Humpty so wisely said, you can make words mean whatever you wish. But using a definition at odds with your audience does hinder communication.

[MSFT_Edging]

I think if someone was to read the original story and have a smug takeaway, like that of the trolley problem being solved by killing the single person, they might get upset at confronting the alternative of "why were those people placed on the tracks?".

I think this new story is important, because as a society we do often rest on the idea that a certain level of suffering cannot be avoided. This idea allows one to rest, no longer worrying about what could be done for those suffering, because after all, it can't be avoided anyway.

This new story confronts the comfortable idea that nothing can be done, it says out loud, "what if leaving isn't the only alternative to forgetting?".

This harshly confronts comfort, and makes people upset. Similar to how highly "politeness" is held in modern politics, such that you could have a rude man like Trump and a polite man with his same views, and those who despise Trump would then approve of the man with identical opinions but a quieter mouth.