Can Town (The Official Homestuck Thread)
- Thread starter Master Crash
- Start date
Maybe, but as I said, if the clock rules "you take a gamble, you take what comes with it, no buts" (which is totally the kind of absolute ruling a game mechanic would enforce), it doesn't matter how stupid she is and how much of her head is composed of metaphorical excrement.
Well if it wasn't, then that would be kind of smelly. Although I guess it would explain why others are so reluctant to hang out with her (beside her being a huge 8itch).
I guess it could be possible? Troll anatomy is weird.
I guess it could be possible? Troll anatomy is weird.
Dr. Javelin
Nathan Latsk
Vriska has always been a complicated character with lots of conflicting motivations, I really don't get where you're coming from.SiFi said:
I think I'm having a deja vu.
Gabumon said:Javelin said:
Ugh, shameful. I would have never thought YOU would turn out a deserter.
I'm not serious.
Gambling means accepting the possibility of loss. [...]Javelin said:
But it wasn't a gamble because she didn't think there was even a possibility that she'd lose. Vriska's all about stealing luck, so she expected the coin flip to go her way, and either way, she expected Terezi not being able to go through with stopping her. She thought it was a sure thing that she'd be flying away in a couple seconds. Agreeing to the coin toss and even turning her back was mostly just trolling, or a mix of trolling and humouring Terezi for old time's sakes, and not one moment did Vriska think she'd die for it.
Like, if I'm going to cross the street and there's a car slowly coming my way a couple dozen meters up the road, but it's slowing down because it's got a red light (and I have the green light), and it's bright day so they clearly see me stepping off the curb, am I gambling by crossing the street? No. If the car suddenly decides to stop breaking and instead speed up like a drag-racer to run the red light and makes a point of running me over in the process, does the fact that I crossed the street fully expecting to make it to the other side make me accepting of my death? Hell no.
Yeah, I was reading along, worrying that it is going to be a retcon thing, but then Roxy brought up the Denizens, and I'm like, hell yeah, my theory's not dead yet.Claus said:
Also, noooo, we still don't know for sure about the Mayor. ;.;
Dr. Javelin
Nathan Latsk
So after reading through the comic again I think I've decided that Act 6 wasn't terrible, it was just terrible from a serial standpoint.
When we woke up every day, checked Homestuck, and nothing super dramatic had happened, we just decided it was a bad Act. But after viewing the whole thing as an archive, it's not nearly as bad. It doesn't have nearly as much action or drama as other Acts, sure, but that's mostly because all our main characters have been put on a bus for a while while new ones are added and developed. Heck, Act 6 is half Intermissions about the main cast anyways.
I think the story needed to relax a bit after Cascade anyways.
When we woke up every day, checked Homestuck, and nothing super dramatic had happened, we just decided it was a bad Act. But after viewing the whole thing as an archive, it's not nearly as bad. It doesn't have nearly as much action or drama as other Acts, sure, but that's mostly because all our main characters have been put on a bus for a while while new ones are added and developed. Heck, Act 6 is half Intermissions about the main cast anyways.
I think the story needed to relax a bit after
It's weird how trolls can troll people. Humans can't human people.
It's also weird how Damara has an "East Beforan" accent. It basically means "they have an equivalent to one of your nations (Japan) on this planet, but instead of a nation it's an entire hemisphere".
It's also weird how Damara has an "East Beforan" accent. It basically means "they have an equivalent to one of your nations (Japan) on this planet, but instead of a nation it's an entire hemisphere".
Walkazo said:
It was absolutely a gamble. There was a coin toss involved, with clear terms, clear outcomes, and clear everything, and she accepted that. Even if her chance of winning was 99.99999999..., even if she thought the gamble was an insignificant diversion, it undeniably was a gamble.
Your example with the car does not accurately relate to this situation either. For it to work, there would have to be someone who approaches you before your crossing of the street and explicitely makes you aware of the possibility that the car is going to speed up. NOW you know the stakes and they're present in your mind, like in Vriska's case.
You'll probably cross the road regardless because you think this is stupid, but now that you know the stakes, are aware of the possibility of your death by car, and you act in spite of it because you think your death is unlikely enough to make your decision reasonable, your crossing of the road becomes a gamble.
If you lose that gamble and get run over, it's your own fault, because you knew what was at stake and chose to act regardless.
But she thought winning was 100%, so as far as she was concerned, it wasn't a gamble. And what she thought is what matters in the ruling of Heroic or Just and all that jazz.
The car thing is applicable because I thought there's no chance the car driver would decide out of the blue to murder me, just as Vriska thought there was no chance Terezi would murder her. We thought wrong, and it turned out there was a chance we could die, but as far as we were concerned, we weren't gambling.
Either way, I'd be the driver's fault for killing me, not my fault. Not legally, not in any way. If I J-walked, or decided to see if I could beat a speeding car to an uncontrolled intersection, or some other stupid-ass thing where there's a very real chance of things going sideways, then that's a gamble I'm taking and then it's my fault if I lose. But the situation I described was not me gambling my life - not in any reasonable sense. If it is, then just going outside would be a gamble since there's cars and lunatics with knives and wild animals and thunderclouds outside and they could all kill me, even if there's a 99.99999999 chance that they won't. Just living is a gamble if you wanna get really broad.
Yeah, I had been warned about how sucky it would become after Cascade, but I didn't mind Act 6 at all - because I was reading through it archivally, so things that dragged in real time just flew past. Plus I liked all the new characters, so I didn't mind getting to know them. Same reason why I didn't mind Hivebent: I wanted to know more about the trolls and didn't mind not hearing about the humans for a bit in order to do that; but again, it only lasted a week or two for me, rather than months and months of live updates without any word from the humans, which would have been harder to swallow. Which, I imagine, is why Hussie knew to structure Act 6 the way he did, in relatively smaller chunks - but writing and drawing comics takes time, so even then, it still stretched out longer than most serial readers would like. Either way, how the story stands up archivally matters more than serially anyway: the updates happen once, but the comic has to endure long after the serial experience is done.
The car thing is applicable because I thought there's no chance the car driver would decide out of the blue to murder me, just as Vriska thought there was no chance Terezi would murder her. We thought wrong, and it turned out there was a chance we could die, but as far as we were concerned, we weren't gambling.
Either way, I'd be the driver's fault for killing me, not my fault. Not legally, not in any way. If I J-walked, or decided to see if I could beat a speeding car to an uncontrolled intersection, or some other stupid-ass thing where there's a very real chance of things going sideways, then that's a gamble I'm taking and then it's my fault if I lose. But the situation I described was not me gambling my life - not in any reasonable sense. If it is, then just going outside would be a gamble since there's cars and lunatics with knives and wild animals and thunderclouds outside and they could all kill me, even if there's a 99.99999999 chance that they won't. Just living is a gamble if you wanna get really broad.
I've thought about that too (the first part; I just ignored the fake Japanese stuff in the comic as being silly nonsense), since it reminded me of how languages often have differences in how words can be used and whatnot, which I've always found very interesting. Human's not a verb, but we can man/person stuff, man up, or unman people - although in all cases, the "to man" verb is still nothing like "to troll".SiFi said:
Javelin said:
Yeah, I had been warned about how sucky it would become after Cascade, but I didn't mind Act 6 at all - because I was reading through it archivally, so things that dragged in real time just flew past. Plus I liked all the new characters, so I didn't mind getting to know them. Same reason why I didn't mind Hivebent: I wanted to know more about the trolls and didn't mind not hearing about the humans for a bit in order to do that; but again, it only lasted a week or two for me, rather than months and months of live updates without any word from the humans, which would have been harder to swallow. Which, I imagine, is why Hussie knew to structure Act 6 the way he did, in relatively smaller chunks - but writing and drawing comics takes time, so even then, it still stretched out longer than most serial readers would like. Either way, how the story stands up archivally matters more than serially anyway: the updates happen once, but the comic has to endure long after the serial experience is done.
Oh hey this thread exists.
So yeah I've just started reading this.
I suppose it switches characters every now and then, I'm at the first switch.
So yeah I've just started reading this.
I suppose it switches characters every now and then, I'm at the first switch.
Dr. Javelin
Nathan Latsk
I would advise you to not read any more of this thread until you're done with the comic.
Our posts probably look like incomprehensible gibberish at this point but it's possible that a spoiler might slip through and you don't want to get spoiled on this story. Trust me.
Our posts probably look like incomprehensible gibberish at this point but it's possible that a spoiler might slip through and you don't want to get spoiled on this story. Trust me.
okay.
Walkazo said:
You're ignoring the most essential part, the part where the stakes are laid out. That's where the situation, be it mundane or not, becomes a gamble. If you go out of the house, it is not a gamble. If you are told that going out of the house today may result in your death, it becomes a gamble. Crosssing the street is not a gamble. If you are told you may get run over, it becomes a gamble. If you stand to someone with your back turned, it is not a gamble. If you do it towards someone who has explicitely declared they may kill you, and they have the means AND motive to do so, it is absolutely a gamble.
If you apply what Vriska's entire shtick is to this situation, there's not even any room left to argue. Vriska's power is the manipulation of luck. In essence, that means the manipulation of odds in ones favor. This is only useful in situations where odds are present and thus luck is relevant. If you willingly enter such a situation, a situation with outcomes that relies on luck, then that is, by definition, a gamble.
What this means is: For Vriska's powers to even be applicable to the situation that lead to her death, it would have to be a gamble. It's a situation that she herself entered willingly by accepting Terezi's terms, so if its outcome was dependent on luck, it would, by definition, be a gamble. If it wasn't, her powers would not have been able to affect this situation at all.
The fact that her powers DID apply proves that what I just said is true. Luck was a deciding factor in this event, which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that this was, in fact, a gamble.
A gamble with the odds stacked in Vriska's favor, but a gamble regardless.
For that reason I claim that the clock coming to that conclusion, that in spite of her arrogance she accepted this as a gamble and took said gamble willingly and thus can be expected to be aware of the possible outcome, and thus the clock ruling against her, is a reasonable assertion on my part.
Fuuuuuuck post conflict. Whatever, I'm not editing this:
Upon re-reading the passage about Vriska and Terezi, Doc Scratch does characterize as them gambling:
So I guess it was a gamble. According to Doc Scratch, anyway. My mistake. But I still think Vriska did think she had 100% survival chances there, so in her mind, it wasn't really a gamble - although (like I already said) in reality, it was. And I still think that it's unreasonable to say dying because a car suddenly sped up and ran a red light and hit you is your fault: that's stretching the gambling definition too thinly to hold substance anymore, imo.
And that's the last thing I'm gonna say on the matter.
Also, related to an earlier discussion, I found this in the same batch of pages:
Upon re-reading the passage about Vriska and Terezi, Doc Scratch does characterize as them gambling:
So I guess it was a gamble. According to Doc Scratch, anyway. My mistake. But I still think Vriska did think she had 100% survival chances there, so in her mind, it wasn't really a gamble - although (like I already said) in reality, it was. And I still think that it's unreasonable to say dying because a car suddenly sped up and ran a red light and hit you is your fault: that's stretching the gambling definition too thinly to hold substance anymore, imo.
And that's the last thing I'm gonna say on the matter.
Also, related to an earlier discussion, I found this in the same batch of pages:
Implying that Seers in general can see Doomed timelines, and not just mind or blood related stuff, although they at least specialize in stuff related to their aspects.
So, taken together with what Terezi said to John about changing things but not dooming the timeline, and how she was going to force him to take action (because of her choice-consequence bias stuff), makes me think (even more than I did before) that she can see that it's not a doomed timeline that they're in, and that she will say as much at some point to stop him and Roxy's "well, it's doomed anyway, let's just despair and disappear" plan.
Walkazo said:
Let me clarify, because that's not what I intended to convey.
When I said "It's your own fault", what I meant is that you can be held accountable for taking the gamble, and thus a solid case can be made about you accepting (or at least tolerating) the outcome when it came down to it.
The question of guilt in a moral sense is an entirely different can and would have to be determined in a philosophical debate that really isn't related to the question at hand. Though if I had to make a statement about that, I would completely agree with you in that the majority of guilt falls into the hands of the nutty driver.
There's still a big difference between dying by chance and accepting, or even tolerating a death you didn't think was possible. If I decided to run across a busy highway and died, well, there was a pretty good chance of that happening and I accepted that when I ran - but I still won't be happy about it. And no way would I say "ok, fair enough" if some yahoo ran a red light and killed me, and why should I accept that unforeseeable event happening to me out of the blue?
Plus there's the simple fact that no one wants to die, and really, I doubt most of us would be cool with dying under any odds, even if we put ourselves in that position - you'd still hope that you'll be part of the 99%, 50% or 1% survivalship.
Plus there's the simple fact that no one wants to die, and really, I doubt most of us would be cool with dying under any odds, even if we put ourselves in that position - you'd still hope that you'll be part of the 99%, 50% or 1% survivalship.
Of course, but that is pretty much equivalent to the "complain to the casino employee afterwards" example I gave. You may object to the outcome after you lost against the odds.
But the moment it really counted, you accepted the possibility. Otherwise you would not have agreed to the gamble.
But the moment it really counted, you accepted the possibility. Otherwise you would not have agreed to the gamble.
Dr. Javelin
Nathan Latsk
"accepting" i think means something different to you than it does to us
like sure, you are accepting the possibility of something happening as a future that may or may not exist. i really don't think that means you either 1. somehow want it to happen or 2. are okay with that something happening
choosing to gamble doesn't mean you're alright with the negative outcome (although that can be the case). it just means that you are willing to risk a negative outcome for the possibility of a good outcome
...
this whole discussion is suddenly so meta i can't really figure out how to put my words together in ways that make sense. therefore i shall resort to BASIC STATEMENTS such as
taking a gamble does not necessarily mean you agree with all possible outcomes
like sure, you are accepting the possibility of something happening as a future that may or may not exist. i really don't think that means you either 1. somehow want it to happen or 2. are okay with that something happening
choosing to gamble doesn't mean you're alright with the negative outcome (although that can be the case). it just means that you are willing to risk a negative outcome for the possibility of a good outcome
...
this whole discussion is suddenly so meta i can't really figure out how to put my words together in ways that make sense. therefore i shall resort to BASIC STATEMENTS such as
taking a gamble does not necessarily mean you agree with all possible outcomes
My inability to use words correctly aside (should have probably used the word "tolerate" instead of "accept"), this is still in line with what I am saying.
You're willing to take the risk. That means you are going to tolerate the shitty outcomes. You don't have to like them, you don't have to welcome them, but you agreed to live with them should you lose.
You're willing to take the risk. That means you are going to tolerate the shitty outcomes. You don't have to like them, you don't have to welcome them, but you agreed to live with them should you lose.
Dr. Javelin
Nathan Latsk
not necessarily. taking a risk may not be a choice
take two-face/harvey dent for an example. when he gets in the car with the mafia guy (forget his name) and does the coin flip, he's not really choosing to accept the coin flip. he doesn't have a choice in the matter. it's a risk, but taking it doesn't mean he is okay with the bad outcome
in this scenario, vriska is gambling that terezi won't backstab her. could she have made a different choice? i suppose she could have just incapacit8ed terezi first and then flown off or something, but she chose to taunt her not out of "wanting to die" at some level but because she figured the potential benefits (feeling super smug) outweighed the potential costs (getting stabbed)
i think it's open to interpretation though and any attempt to say that she definitely didn't want to die or did is silly. pretty much all of vriska's character is open to interpretation
take two-face/harvey dent for an example. when he gets in the car with the mafia guy (forget his name) and does the coin flip, he's not really choosing to accept the coin flip. he doesn't have a choice in the matter. it's a risk, but taking it doesn't mean he is okay with the bad outcome
in this scenario, vriska is gambling that terezi won't backstab her. could she have made a different choice? i suppose she could have just incapacit8ed terezi first and then flown off or something, but she chose to taunt her not out of "wanting to die" at some level but because she figured the potential benefits (feeling super smug) outweighed the potential costs (getting stabbed)
i think it's open to interpretation though and any attempt to say that she definitely didn't want to die or did is silly. pretty much all of vriska's character is open to interpretation
Javelin said:
She did have a choice. Vriska is a god tier and thus a good deal more powerful that Terezi. Terezi didn't really have anything to hold Vriska there, the thing that anchored Vriska was her own stubbornness, which she herself is responsible for. She didn't "want to die", she took the risk of it happening, however unlikely it may have been. That CAN (note: "CAN", not "have to") be interpreted as heroic, because gambling your own life for a good cause is pretty virtuous.
This means my theory that this death may have counted as heroic still holds up perfectly fine.