Chapter 45-3: Distorted Truths

**LiamKerrington** · May 8th, 2014, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Osiris

Clarification isn't necessary. The facts are the facts, whether or not you and I agree on them is irrelevant. Answering the question is relevant... so answer the questions.

Which one?

**Osiris** · May 8th, 2014, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by LiamKerrington

Which one?

http://www.zombiepodcast.com/forum/s...ll=1#post76459

**LiamKerrington** · May 8th, 2014, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Osiris

How far is too far?

Really depends on the situation. But as a last ressort I would say: sacrificing morale and ethics, at least the basic concepts of those, although I would kick in way earlier.

In WA-verse the characters we "like" or at least sympathize with have suffered so much, I would like to see them going on, learning from shit and starting to evolve in a positive way instead of spiraling downwards more and more. Considering how scarce zombies and other survivors have come, I really wonder why to fight on instead of getting away and trying to rebuild something. And if it comes to other humans: stick together, at least start sticking together; and if this does not work: leave each other instead of treating individual personal goals like revenge or avenging beloved as primary objectives. That is stupid and puts people at risk, which we have seen a couple of times during the WA show.

Originally Posted by Osiris

What is are acceptable losses when you're out to avenge someone you loved?

The moment you are on the path to avenge someone you loved, you already lost too much. And any more losses are not acceptable.

Originally Posted by Osiris

The reason I brought up Scratch is simple enough, Riley is falling down the same rabbit hole of madness. Whether she's redeemable, or righteous is a matter of perspective, and shouldn't come into play when making the decision. At what point did the lines disappear?

I don't understand the question. What lines?

**Osiris** · May 8th, 2014, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by LiamKerrington

I don't understand the question. What lines?

The lines of distinction between psychopathic behaviour, and justified acts to avenge a fallen loved one. There's a point we're fast approaching when one of two things is going to happen, Scratch kills Pegs to avenge her brother or Scratch is killed to avenge Angel. All you have to do is search "Shoot that bitch in the face," and you'll see no end of listeners begging for Scratch's blood to be spilled. This is the point I'm trying to drive towards. It's all insanity.

Does it truly depend on the situation or is it a matter of whose side you're on? I'm not on Riley's side, so I see her actions as being nothing more than blood-lust. I think she's lost her mind, been driven over the edge by Lizzy, and Angel. She's no different than Scratch, similarly driven over the edge by Latch, and her past. Scratch is sympathetic because she's damaged. She lost her only family, the only one who mattered, the only one who made a difference in her life, probably the only person she has ever loved. That was taken away from her by some bitch on the other side. The only thing that made her life mean something. That is what makes her a sympathetic character, and Jenna has done an amazing job bringing that to life.

Do I think she was justified in cutting off Burt's finger? I think it was payback for that day on the street when the first met. Justified? Like you say, it depends on the situation. She's searching for the bitch who murdered her brother. Sure. Justified. Angel? She ended his suffering. I would say it was 80% anger 20% compassion (maybe 90/10). Angel wouldn't have survived either way. Is Riley justified in her own vendetta? What did she lose? Two people who were strangers from the start. Sure, they got close, but were they family? No. Justified? I just don't see her situation as warranting it. She (to bring it back to an earlier point) should have just let it go, tucked her tail, and moved on.

**LiamKerrington** · May 8th, 2014, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Osiris

The lines of distinction between psychopathic behaviour, and justified acts to avenge a fallen loved one. There's a point we're fast approaching when one of two things is going to happen, Scratch kills Pegs to avenge her brother or Scratch is killed to avenge Angel. All you have to do is search "Shoot that bitch in the face," and you'll see no end of listeners begging for Scratch's blood to be spilled. This is the point I'm trying to drive towards. It's all insanity.

Does it truly depend on the situation or is it a matter of whose side you're on? I'm not on Riley's side, so I see her actions as being nothing more than blood-lust. I think she's lost her mind, been driven over the edge by Lizzy, and Angel. She's no different than Scratch, similarly driven over the edge by Latch, and her past. Scratch is sympathetic because she's damaged. She lost her only family, the only one who mattered, the only one who made a difference in her life, probably the only person she has ever loved. That was taken away from her by some bitch on the other side. The only thing that made her life mean something. That is what makes her a sympathetic character, and Jenna has done an amazing job bringing that to life.

Do I think she was justified in cutting off Burt's finger? I think it was payback for that day on the street when the first met. Justified? Like you say, it depends on the situation. She's searching for the bitch who murdered her brother. Sure. Justified. Angel? She ended his suffering. I would say it was 80% anger 20% compassion (maybe 90/10). Angel wouldn't have survived either way. Is Riley justified in her own vendetta? What did she lose? Two people who were strangers from the start. Sure, they got close, but were they family? No. Justified? I just don't see her situation as warranting it. She (to bring it back to an earlier point) should have just let it go, tucked her tail, and moved on.

If I were in the situation of Scratch, I would see justification in "my" deeds as well. I am not certain, though, I want to call it "justified", what she did. But this is - as you keep stressing - a matter of perspective, and I think I have to keep my personal morale and ethics in that regard away. Nevertheless I whole-heartedly understand Scratch - understand in terms of seeing the emotional, maybe psychological, and social logic and consequences of her actions and reactions. They make sense.

(If it comes to "situations" I would like to keep them as objective and neutral as possible, which cannot be achieved 100%; I understand that. Regardless I try to put as much effort as possible into ignoring my personal involvement and opinion as far away as possible, until I have made up my mind based on what I consider to be facts. No earlier than that I wish to release my opinions as well. Luckily I am not willing to stick with my opinions forever, and I am willing to change them depending on new facts and changes.)

About Riley I agree with you, because I am kind of confused about her. She has changed over the time, and she was not present for quite some time on the show. I don't grab the full understanding of her relation with any other character, although I admit that she was "kind of close" with Angel. Her relation with Lizzy I pitty, because I think this is only a misunderstanding between Riley and Riley herself - she feels guilty that she did not prevent Lizzy from being expelled from the Tower, and she never ever had the chance to get this clear between her and Lizzy. Before the expulsion they were not that close except for being in charge of different tasks in the Tower and thus kind of a hierarchical elite or something, and when they reunited at the Colony Lizzy decided to move to Dunbar while Riley moved on to catch Scratch - for whatever purpose. Ok, purpose of avenging Angel's death or supporting Burt's lust for revenge or both. I don't care - any of Riley's motives is senseless in a world gone mad where survival should be top priority instead of individual goals; but she chose the latter - you may call it blood-lust.

The differences and parallels between Scratch and Riley I have not depicted yet until I have read your statement. And I don't see any reason to question this one.

Best wishes!
Liam

**Litmaster** · May 8th, 2014, 09:28 AM

Okay Osiris, I re-listened to that first meeting between Burt and Scratch. You are correct: Burt does escalate the situation by being more aggressive and threatening then he probably needs to in that situation. Scratch does the very same thing. She is every bit as aggressive and threatening as Burt.

So I agree with you that Burt escalated the situation a bit more than necessary because of his ultra macho behavior. I do not agree that this necessarily makes him at fault for all of the further aggressions directed towards the Tower folk by the Mallers.

So help me out, will you? I may have lost your central argument somewhere in the long string of posts... what is your main point? Are you arguing that the Tower folk are every bit as "evil" as the Mallers, the only difference being the perspective of the story? Is that it?

**Osiris** · May 8th, 2014, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Litmaster

Okay Osiris, I re-listened to that first meeting between Burt and Scratch. You are correct: Burt does escalate the situation by being more aggressive and threatening then he probably needs to in that situation. Scratch does the very same thing. She is every bit as aggressive and threatening as Burt.

So I agree with you that Burt escalated the situation a bit more than necessary because of his ultra macho behavior. I do not agree that this necessarily makes him at fault for all of the further aggressions directed towards the Tower folk by the Mallers.

So help me out, will you? I may have lost your central argument somewhere in the long string of posts... what is your main point? Are you arguing that the Tower folk are every bit as "evil" as the Mallers, the only difference being the perspective of the story? Is that it?

Simply a matter of perspective. Why is it so important? Because of the moment when Burt laughs. That's always stuck in my craw. He's figuring they've got these two total strangers outmatched. He's setting a clear line in the sand right there: I'm out for me and mine, and my attitude is based on how superior I believe myself, and my fire-power to be in any given situation. You've got to admit, that's a shitty way to start a relationship, and very telling about his character. Opportunistic, lazy moral compass. Two strangers... in the distance... non-threatening posture... Burt takes it as an opportunity to assert his dominance. And yet, he's beloved because we follow him, and learn his story. His approach from the start is dickish.

Be it use of a popular meme, but the sentiment holds true:

"Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always."

**LiamKerrington** · May 8th, 2014, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Osiris

Simply a matter of perspective. Why is it so important? Because of the moment when Burt laughs. That's always stuck in my craw. He's figuring they've got these two total strangers outmatched. He's setting a clear line in the sand right there: I'm out for me and mine, and my attitude is based on how superior I believe myself, and my fire-power to be in any given situation. You've got to admit, that's a shitty way to start a relationship, and very telling about his character. Opportunistic, lazy moral compass. Two strangers... in the distance... non-threatening posture... Burt takes it as an opportunity to assert his dominance. And yet, he's beloved because we follow him, and learn his story. His approach from the start is dickish.

Be it use of a popular meme, but the sentiment holds true:

"Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always."

Haven't seen it that way. But I feel like I want to agree.