Grrl Power #1365 – Like mother like golem
The slow bleed is a actually a surprisingly effective move against Sciona. That is, assuming you can keep her from using any magic or activating any contingencies. Which is usually a pretty big ask. She has more proactive defenses against the overwhelming trauma style attacks, things that will activate automatically, but they necessarily lack discrimination or finesse. She prefers to deal with DoT attacks like bleeds or curses with a more considered approach, since those types of afflictions can potentially to be trickier to deal with, and by their very nature, give you time to explore option.
But simply bleeding out isn’t going to kill her. At worst it’d make her need to find a new body, and that’s assuming she couldn’t revive the one she was forced to abandon.
Scion was intended to be a guard dog/assassin/heavy hitter, and be able to engage in some creative problem solving, but was never intended to be sapient. That makes for a different set of pre-loaded libraries that what you’d install in your sapient robot buddy project. Empathy is not something that a crate lifting, obedient knee-breaker really needs. It is pretty important if you’re going to take your new artificial life-form in for show and tell. In fact, I would argue it’s one of the very first libraries you’d want to install, once you get the dictionary set up.
And for the record, Sciona understands empathy, but mostly as an impediment to checking things off her to-do list.
The vote incentive is finally done!
The update to the TWC image is pretty minor, but the Patreon version has the bonus comic as well as nude versions. I will strive to make the next one more timely.
Double res version will be posted over at Patreon. Feel free to contribute as much as you like.
I’m sure one of Deus’ presentations will help develop that empathy.
Deus is very good at many things, but unless he made revolutionary breakthroughs in psychology that approach tends to fail abysmally IRL. As a rule, all it ever does to a low-empathy person is one of two things:
If seemingly getting along with the program is good for you in a practical sense, you shall be prodded to fake it in appropriate circumstances, but the inner workings of your mind shall not be changed one bit.
If you don’t have a good reason to get along, you shall get angered and rebellious at those trying to mess with your mind.
All that pressure to conform to woke ideology such as sensitivity training did to me was to get me more pissed off to DEI and its sponsors, as well as increase my eagerness to say and do un-PC things.
Uh I was just referencing this moment where Deus apparently made a presentation so emotionally powerful it was able to influence Vale his bodyguard of unknown origin.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-1052-dateus-interruptus/
It made her cry which seems really impressive since I don’t even know if she’s organic.
I know, I know. I was just telling how it (does not) work with RL sociopaths according to a ton of evidence and lived experience. For all we know, Vale might not be that kind of being unlike Scion(a), despite her alienness. Or maybe it hit just the right spot for her and Deus, being who and what he is, knew how to get at it.
Sapient beings, including low-empathy ones, are complex by definition. In all likelihood, it is an issue of how your mind is wired or developed, not what kind of being you are. On the other hand, familiarity likely plays a big role, since the apparent evolutionary justification of empathy is to increase in-group coesion and care for the young.
so anyway, ignoring the whole battle going on in comments to your post. I liked going back and reading past that reference to Deus being giddy about opening his secret panels to supply gear to maxima.
You get mad at being told not to be a dick to people because of their race or gender?
Apparently. That seems less low empathy and just plain antipathy
I love folks just out there, who just show their whole ass in attempting to look cool or interesting, haha
I’d imagine it depends on how it’s portrayed. “Don’t be a dick” probably isn’t going to be upsetting to most people, but “Check your fucking privilege, colonizer” is a different story. I’ve never had to go through any sort of sensitivity training though, so I have no idea how it’s generally handled (nor how it was handled in OP’s case).
Well, it depends. To send something like that phrase my way is generally going to earn you the most vicious insults I can think of, or even a punch in the face, if I can afford it. As a rule, being a selfish and independent person, I answer poorly at attempted indoctrination. I get super pissed off at being pressured not to do things I like or do things I dislike for rules and values I could not care less about.
Un-woke things I am OK with and can think of atm include but are not limited to: telling and listening to un-PC jokes; using slurs to retaliate at people that anger me; so-called microaggressions and not giving a damn to the rules of the thought police; calling historical losers losers and not giving a damn for their supposed plight; so-called cultural appropriation (one of the dumbest ideas ever conceived); being hostile to migrants I regard as unwelcome, troublesome, and burdensome; objectifying people (that happen to be women just because I am straight) for my own pleasure in appropriate circumstances; not making exceptions to my general misantrophy because your kind were historical losers, or you happen to have a vagina, or you wish to bang your own gender or have different genitals, or any other typical excuse.
Circumstances for appropriate objectification in my eyes typically involve being fictional or giving consensus. It makes no difference if no emotional bond exists and consensus is based on a transactional deal. I could not care less if external circumstances such as having to pay the bills make the choice less than ideal. Anyone that has to work for a living faces similar constraints all the time.
As a rule, strangers and acquaintances register as walking, talking objects to me to begin with, so the idea of not treating them as such feels outlandish and unreasonable to me. Ofc, certain constraints based on common sense, civility, pragmatism, enlightened self-interest, and other rules and ideals of mine apply. A few special people do warrant a substantial extra degree of care, respect, and friendship from me, but they are the rare exception and I demand to be the sole judge of if and when it applies.
Last but not least, a couple special cases work as negative exceptions in my case. One minority registers as very ugly in my eyes. The extreme, non-conforming fringe of another registers as quite repulsive to me.
Therefore, I opportunistically and knowingly support circumstances and policies that keep such people out of my notice if at all possible. Typically this means minimization of their prominence in society, representation in fiction I like, and so on. Being a selfish and lòw-empathy person, I regard my own comfort orders of magnitude more important than their welfare. Apart from this, if my personal standards are respected, live and let live.
Hm, yet you know that you are just a walking pile of atoms, of no particular importance, just like the rest of us, right?
So it stands to reason that, whatever rule you decide to apply in your interactions with other people, you accept that other people can apply the same rules in their interractions with you, for the same level of justification (ex: just because it pleases them to do so), right?
Does it mean that you find it acceptable that people would demean you and consider you worthless based solely on their preferences, just like you seem to be doing yourself toward (the majority of) other people in general?
>Hm, yet you know that you are just a walking pile of atoms, of no particular importance, just like the rest of us, right?
Of course. My nerdish wish-fulfillment power fantasies are just that, pleasant fantasies.
>So it stands to reason that, whatever rule you decide to apply in your interactions with other people, you accept that other people can apply the same rules in their interractions with you, for the same level of justification (ex: just because it pleases them to do so), right?
It stands to reason.
>Does it mean that you find it acceptable that people would demean you and consider you worthless based solely on their preferences, just like you seem to be doing yourself toward (the majority of) other people in general?
If it happens, it happens. So what? Been there, done that. Life is a jungle.
The few special people I have a friendship bond with (being aro, that more or less sums up all my intimate bonds) are more than enough for my relatively mild companionship needs. Even so, they are a most welcome plus, not a constant need. Being a lone wolf, I need little validation from other people. I demonstrably do not break down or get bent out of shape because of negative social feedback, all the way to serious bullying.
“Life is a jungle.”
=> That’s the thing, though: it does not have to be, and to some extent it’s a choice that you are making, and for which you can be held responsible.
Sure, it’s reasonnable to pay proportionate retribution (causing harm or other kind of “wrongdoing”) onto people who have wronged us for no good enough justification; but what you advocating for is to allow oneself to do it preventively and unilateraly on everyone else, even if a given person has not yet displayed the kind of antisocial behavior which would usually be needed in order to justify doing that to them.
Someone having possible caused you unjustified harm in the past is justification only for enforcing retribution against that specific person, it’s not proper justification to preemptively paying the same retribution – and, in doing so, “being an asshole” – to people who have done nothing of the sort to you yet.
You did not answer my question, by the way. You just said “If it happens, it happens”. So, again, given what you’ve said up until now, do you find it acceptable that people would demean you and consider you worthless based solely on their preferences, just like you seem to be doing yourself toward (the majority of) other people in general?
I thought my acceptance was already implied in my previous statement, but if you need a more explicit one, sure, I deem it acceptable.
Either in the sense I am fine with the same standard I use being applied to me, or because I cannot control how people think and feel about me, so I accept their preferences and their consequences as a fact of life, as the case may be.
I may be a high-empathy person, what Irioth is describing registers to me as not really a human being. I find myself debating internally whether such a person should even be considered a person, be accepted at all as any part of any human society… and I might be leaning towards no. Not quite sure though.
Well stated. People getting irritated at other people’s opinions and preferences is nonsensical. The opinion others have of you is completely irrelevant, since in the vast majority of cases that other person is irrelevant to you anyway.
I see. That’s pretty strange to me. I assume that you have not yet been put in a threatening enough situation by people who follow the same “might is right” mentality. Or that you fail to internalize the fact that lots of people don’t think that way / think differently than you, so you think you’re allowed to behave like that toward everyone, because you assume (incorrectly, if I had to make that clear) that everyone behave tlike that, maybe?
“I cannot control how people think and feel about me, so I accept their preferences”
=> As for the “life is a jungle” of your previous post, that is also incorrect to some extent. While its impossible to control it 100%, you can still have an impact on what at least some people think of you, notably via your behavior toward them or toward others, and the level of justification (of absence thereof) for the behavior.
And even if it does not come naturally to you to “not be an asshole” (by “being an asshole”, I mean “allowing yourself to cause some level of undeserved / uncalled for “harm” or displaying antisocial behavior in general”), Hadrian’s post just below explains well why it’s still useful to put in some effort. Nobody is the strongest forever, so it makes sense to try to edge against bad circumstances by being a good cooperator / a good social entity. In fact, even the “strongest” person is still vulnerable every day (e.g. when they sleep), and as such, rely to some extent on the cooperation or on the non-agression of other people. As such it seems pretty moronic to antagonize other people without good reasons, just for the fun of it, or out of intellectual lazyness.
Now, of course, this does not mean that things lie DEI can’t be obnoxious / can’t be badly implemented, or by people with self-interest or who are otherwise hypocritical. But using those examples to justify keeping being an asshole is dishonest, and anyway, being an asshole usually means causing more unjustified harm than an obnoxious DEI session would, so the scales still favor the latter over the former.
It seems to me that both this latest quote of yours and the “life is a jungle” are examples of excuses that you tell yourself to justify keeping behaving like an asshole.
Okay, so 100% you’re just a dick who wants to hurt people and you get upset when people tell you not to do that. Got it, you’re a terrible person and no one should take you seriously whatsoever. Those diatribes are just you Sephiroth-posting.
No, it’s how and why they are told not to do something
Being told not to do something simply because it made someone cry is a monkey-arse reason and shouldn’t be acceptable to anyone (kinda like what you are doing)
This person gets it. A cookie to you.
No jerking off because it makes Jesus cry
Worse things have been done to Jesus, he has other issues to worry about more than whether people are jerking it or not.
Uh, that very much depends on what you’re told not to do/say: “YOU must not do X with your own body (jack off/get a tattoo/eat a specific food/have non-straight or unmarried sex, for example) that doesn’t affect me because it’s a sin according to the interpretation of MY sect/branch of MY religion” is indeed “a monkey-arse reason.”
On the other tentacle, “don’t make rape jokes in public, particularly not in front of people who may be rape victims or have victims among their loved ones” is obvious common sense: tap-dancing on people’s trauma button just to be an asshole/edgelord is antisocial behaviour, and may well result in some (deserved) cosmetic surgery with a cinderblock. Same goes with sexist/racist/homophobic jokes, language or insults, particularly if they’re unprovoked. Gratuitously offending or upsetting people within earshot just because you can is an asshole move, as well as a stupid one: even if nobody decides to rearrange your face, few people will be willing to associate with you or help you, and you will likely lose opportunities because hiring or doing business with an obvious asshole and liability is just plain not a good idea.
And stuff like “don’t drink and drive” is an obvious good idea even for a sociopath who doesn’t care about the people they may end up killing or maiming, unless they’re too low-functionning to even understand that wrecking their car/losing their licence/getting jailed/bring crippled/dying are inconveniences that are best avoided if possible.
Exactly, even from some BS “dark triad sociopath” viewpoint, it just makes good self-interest sense not to pointlessly antagonize others, because no matter how much of a “lone wolf”* a person is, they will eventually have to rely on the cooperation of others.
*a phrase that -when used unironically- never fails to deeply amuse me. A lone wolf is one of nature’s weakest, sickest, and most likely to die soon specimens.
Did say it was how and why, not just a blanket ‘stop doing that’
Well, as it concerns this kind of issues, I care nothing for PC rules, but I apply my own.
As it concerns insults, I use them with people that have annoyed or angered me. In such a case I shall use the ones I can think of and deem most effective. The offending person is beyond the pale and deserves whatever seems convenient for me. If slurs or other un-PC stuff apply, I shall definitely use them. Otherwise, gratuitously insulting people is stupid, buys me unnecessary trouble, and violates my civility rules.
As it concerns jokes, I tell or listen to them if I deem them funny and my audience can enjoy them, w/o a care if they are un-PC or not. I do appreciate black humor and ribaldry a lot. To judge if they are going to like it, I rely on my previous knowledge of the audience as well other available clues to decide if it is welcome or not. In lack of explicit clues to the contrary, I assume the people I meet are not special cases like wokes, prudes, non-noticeable minorities, or PTSD victims. If I get a clue to the contrary and the audience is not going to enjoy the humor, then there is not much of a point in going through.
As it concerns language, I apply un-woke boundaries of civility and my own politeness standards in normal circumstances. I hold facts as much more important than feelings. If it makes sense to discuss such things, I am outspoken about my ideas and I call a spade a spade. If it costs me nothing, politeness, friendliness, and kindness can only come to my advantage.
As it concerns issues such as trauma and rape, I have reason to assume I am highly resilient to those experiences. Provided no lasting damage occurs, I shrug them off like temporary inconveniences. I am unable and unwilling to treat sex as sacred or a special case. So, any sexual violation registers to me as an inconvenience or the non-sexual violation equivalent, whatever seems fitting.
I naturally tend to apply my own standards to the rest of humanity. I am aware exceptions exist and when I face them, I treat them like bearers of mental issues. In the end, that’s what PTSD is. Even so, I cannot but think less of those who are unable or unwilling to meet my standards. This especially concerns those who seem to wallow in their victim status or blame others for the consequences of their weakness or poor choices. I have much more respect for those who get into trouble by no fault of theirs and strive to overcome bad circumstances.
If other people are OK with my behavior, all good. If they are not, too bad. The risk of occasionally alienating others and losing opportunities or even getting in a fight seems a good price for being free to live the way I want. I accept the consequences of my actions and I hold others to the same standard. All the same, I strive to do what is necessary to avoid life-changing losses.
DUI is a non-existent problem for me. First, I do not do that kind of stupid and self-destructive behavior. Second, I am close to a teetotaler b/c I do not fancy the taste of alcohol. Much the same, I am not interested in using drugs. The only potentially addictive stuff I like includes sex, games, porn, and nerd stuff. Those I eagerly indulge in when I get the fancy and the opportunity. Feminists, prudes, bible-thumpers, and other scolds can pry them from my dead, cold fingers.
I pride myself into being a good friend, company, date, and lover, and I prize freedom like few other things. So respecting others’ clear wishes is a matter of course. At the same time, the consequences of other people’s choices are theirs alone to bear, I am not a mind reader and I do not care to be, and I seize opportunities when I get them. I am an independent aro, so FWB is the closest bond I can grant. In my book, sex and pleasure, short of (self-)destructive behavior, are always good things.
I am entirely at ease with sexual stuff occurring with no emotional bond beyond the fancy of the moment and/or through a transactional deal. I do not care if circumstances such as having to pay the bills make choices less than ideal; any of us that have to work for a living face similar constraint. Being polite, respectful, and friendly to people that do their job and do it well is just common sense, be them waiters or sex workers.
Well now I’m curious as to what those groups are that you are particularly irritated by. I’m wondering how much it lines up with my own prejudices.
Personally, don’t feel it matters (which is why they kept it vague), everyone has a group that they would be quite happy to never have any interaction with ever (but not to the point they would, necessarily, want them dead, just… somewhere else), but, if they have to, can at least be moderately polite (while keeping the time to the minimum required)
If it doesn’t matter, then why the secrecy?
Because people will get offended, even if they themselves are not part of that group
Or pry into why that group: “what have they done to you?”
Personal reasons tend to be, well, personal, whether it’s justified or not
This! Its not the subject, it’s how it’s usually handled (often with an iron glove). I am a number of DEI items myself, but the sensitivity “training” often hits buttons I never knew I had. Whoever is doing these usually has about as good a grasp of Semantics as Sciona does about Empathy.
I am a bit concerned on wondering how many “proud boys” were created from standard, normie “Joe Six-packs” by Sensitivity training as it stands now… :/
Not surprising if you have even a vague recollection of their posting history.
Cool story, bro.
If he was able to efficiently induce permanent empathy in people, to the point that it changes how they act, his rise to power would have probably involved fewer dead warlords. That said, his intelligence is enough is that if he focuses on an individual, like his bodyguard, then he could probably come up with some likely angles of approach.
On a side note – did anyone posit the theory that it was Deus who gave Dabbler’s equine friend their superpowers?
I hadn’t thought of that yet, but it would make all kinds of sense, considering that Deus is the one who discovered the Superion Field, he knows how to empower people, and he was aware of the existence of extraterrestrials and supernaturals long before the cat got out of the bag for the general public.
It would make the tented hands a nice piece of foreshadowing and misdirection by Dave.
I can’t really read that last note, can anyone translate for me please?
I also cant read it I dont think.
My best guess though, is “Core architecture set must learn” with letters missing due to her trying to write while probably on the edge of passing out.
Which if that is what it says, I guess she’s saying that he/they? can attempt to “learn” empathy, but doesn’t have it by default.
And it sounds like… he doesn’t want to learn
Hael, 90% of the hairless monkeys have to learn it as well (most don’t)
That’s not exactly something that can be learned, it’s more an instinct. The most he could learn is how to fake it, which is probably all he wants anyway.
CORE
ARCITECTR
SET
MUST
LERN
…I think
Core architecture set. Must learn.
Basically she means the core architecture of his personality matrix is already set and he will have to LEARN empathy.
“The core architecture has set already, so no changes to it are possible. You must learn it yourself if you really want it.”
I can’t read the first one. “linke”?
I was reading it as an attempt to write listen, but it might just be chicken scratches.
Empathy is a tricky skill to learn and one even harder to program… Especially if you need to open your ‘brain’ up to have someone else preform the needed modifications to allow it to work.
Otherwise it’s writing down a list of things your supposed to remember with allies who are supposed to remind you when your messing up.
Humans, and other social species, have dedicated neural networks for empathy, the ‘mirror neuron system’, which continually models the projected internal states of those around you, and kind of “reflects” them internally, so that you to some extent feel, not what other people feel, but at least what you’d feel in their position, so that you can anticipate how they’ll react to your own actions.
It’s a fairly complex system, and would be difficult to implement if you lacked it, and especially if your own internal architecture wasn’t similar to that of the people around you to begin with.
Sociopaths essentially learn it by rote.
It all boils down to a set of behaviors, either banned or recommended.
But if you encounter a corner case you’re in trouble (or in this case, anyone with squishy parts and no miraculous regeneration is).
>Sociopaths essentially learn it by rote. It all boils down to a set of behaviors, either banned or recommended.
Very true, together with the acting/social skills to fake caring in appropriate circumstances.
Now, what I believe Scion is looking for, in addition to that kind of skills, is *cognitive* empathy, that is the ability to understand (not feel) others’ mental states. That is indeed quite useful to all. Many sociopaths have it innately or can learn it to some degree. Scion, being an artificial being that started as a killer bot and developed sapience on his own, may well lack that part too. But he may be able to learn it as Sciona suggests.
Which, POO, is what makes a sociopath different from a psychopath: the ability to blend in even if they don’t fit
I think you might have those two terms (sociopath and psychopath) reversed. Many people reverse them because of the words – psycho makes one think ‘erratic’ while socio makes one think ‘social’
Psychopath:
Conscience – Lacks conscience or sense of morality
Manipulation – More likely to use behavioral manipulation/acted-out charm – More cold/calculated.
Empathy – Can mimic empathy but lack actual emotional connection
Relationships – Can form superficial relationships for personal gain.
Social Conformity – Mimics social norms to blend into society – can blend into society by rote pretending
Origin – Genetics + environmental factors
Impulsivity – Not as impulsive – more likely to plan more meticulously
Sociopath:
Conscience – May have weak conscience but it is selective and does not prevent harmful behavior.
Manipulation – More likely to use aggression or threats to manipulate – More impulsive/erratic
Empathy – May experience empathy but it is severely limited
Relationships – Difficult to form relationships because of volatility
Social Conformity – Disregards social norms, difficulty fitting into society
Origin – Primarily environmental factors + upbringing
Impulsivity – more likely to have low impulse control
I’m seriously sure that people are having the terms backwards.
Psychoapath is by rote (Dexter – People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well.)
Sociopath is volatile and impulsive (clockwork orange – What we were after now was the old surprise visit. That was a real kick, and good for laughs and lashings of the old ultra-violence.)
it’s a very difficult skillset when you have what pretty much boils down to ‘synaesthetic empathy’
Presumably it would be a fairly common solved problem set with an freeware crowd-sourced patch available in a universe with this many sapient races, if only out of mutual self interest. Solve that skynet problem for the next race over before it grows into your problem with a quick data transfer.
In Lois McMaster Bujold’s “Vorkosikan” series, the major character Miles Vorkosigan has a “clone brother” Mark, created and raised with the intent of his assassinating and replacing his “brother”. Those who raised Mark didn’t *want* him to have any empathy, and he is portrayed as raised to be a high-functioning sociopath. Eventually he finds a few people he cares about, but has to simulate empathy by conscious reasoning about his actions “she looks tense — I may be acting in a way that alarms/pressures her. I should back off.”.
Yes, that is exactly how it feels and it works. That author had a good understanding of the situation. Ofc, lifelong, frequent practice can gradually refine that conscious reasoning and the related acting and social skills to put it into practice to make them rote in most cases, as it happens for skills you practice all the time.
So remember how waaaay back when Sydney got warned about being very slowly stabbed as it would go through her oobtek protection? Do you think that might come into play against Scion and he’ll slowly poke through her bullet-resistent vest with his tentacles?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Sydney’s vest were unable to protect against his tentacles at full force. It’s really good body armor, but it’s far from impenetrable, particularly for fights between supers. I think it was implied Sciona got through with her knife (or was it a syringe?) in the time loop, for example, although it may have just been Sydney thinking she’d got through that activated it (note she was also convinced she was dead after getting hit with a piece of shrapnel).
If Scion’s tentacles aren’t strong enough to just punch right through, however, a slower penetration may indeed do the trick. Although if he’s in a position to do that, he could probably just go around her armor, as it’s not like it forms an airtight seal or anything close to it (Mr Bubble handles that for her).
> I think it was implied Sciona got through with her knife (or was it a syringe?) in the time loop,
Nope. Sciona was able to knife Sydney in the time loop because she had grabbed her hands and kept her from handling the orbs. Cfr. #500-501.
… which is why the vest would have come into play. The vest doesn’t matter if Mr Bubble and up and running. Sydney would be perfectly safe flying around buck naked with her bubble up. I mean, she’d be extremely embarrassed, and it would probably cause her some serious PR issues (as well as potentially having disciplinary and/or legal consequences, depending on situation), but she wouldn’t be physically harmed by anything outside of the bubble.
I don’t remember who the person on the left of panel six is, or when they got here.
It’s a memory/flash back to his crew of thugs taking down the criminals and/or “making an example of them”.
Said crew member hated the criminals and wanted them dead, but even by her extreme standards Scion’s actions stood out and weren’t acceptable. Scion clearly had no clue it was doing anything “wrong”.
Big picture Scion wants to fit and a total lack of empathy will prevent that.
To get himself started on the empathy thing, he could try the Amos approach, choose a figure as a model example. Constantly perform an internal check, would my example approve/disapprove of my planned set of actions? What would they do?
Iron Giant!
a random mutated jellyfish!
If you ask my opinion and lived experience, (emotional/compassionate) empathy is a terribly overestimated and not so useful trait on an individual level.
High-functioning sociopaths and more so those on the spectrum like yours truly can live fine w/o it. You just need pragmatism, self-awareness, self-control, and enlightened selfishness or an equivalent personal code to keep yourself in check and mindful of the consequences and the big picture. You also need some basic civility and decent acting and social skills to fake it and avoid scaring the normies.
Now, cognitive empathy is damn useful but that, too, you can learn or innately have separate from the other type. You can also learn to feel and show conditional love and care for those you want or need to cherish and care about, like normies would do for pets or prized possessions or NPC in a game.
This is even more true if you are in a calling that occasionally or regularly requires you to do bad things to people w/o messing yourself or losing your cool.
There are many things I wish I’d have, but (emotional/compassionate) empathy never was one of them, just like I don’t regret being resilient to fear, anxiety, trauma, or despair.
Sounds like a lack of imagination on your part tbh, but go off
Admittedly I am far from the most creative person under the sun. I could not create decent art or creative writing to save my life. But I fail to see how imagination relates to this issue. As far as I can tell, empathy and creativity are different abilities. Apples and oranges.
> If you ask my opinion
I don’t think anyone did
Well, empathy seemed the topic at hand, so I thought some experience about living w/o it might be interesting, anedoctal and unconventional as it might be.
This here, folks, is what we call a “pizza cutter”: All edge, no point.
Based on this and previous posts, it seems plausible to me that Irioth is in fact a high-functioning sociopath. Meaning that this isn’t at all an attempt to be edgy–it’s just honestly how they think. And they like being able to talk about it anonymously, especially when stuff occurs in the story that is annoying to their mindset (like a clearly very intelligent being seeing value (though also disadvantage) in and seeking a trait that they do not possess and have considered bad.).
So to me it reads more like either as sour grapes or just not knowing what they are missing. Though there is a chance they are making an accurate value assessment of their situation, as there are a small minority of jobs where emotional/compassionate empathy is a disadvantage.
Either way I find it interesting (though somewhat morbidly) to read.
You are spot on, except for an all-important distinction. I gladly acknowledge the importance of *cognitive* empathy and I am thankful for having it. Hence, I approve that Scion seeks to get it if he lacks it. Being able to tell what people think and feel is rather useful to everyone, including fictional supervillains and people in my line of work.
It is the compulsion to share other people’s negative feelings reflexively and being driven to feel unreasoning compassion regardless of circumstances that I do not regret to lack in the slightest. If and when I decide to show care or mercy to anyone, I want it to happen according to my own rules, not because of a piece of instinct beyond my control. Nothing more, nothing less.
According to my experience, you can effectively learn to fake that kind of feeling with social skills and professionalism on the job as well as in everyday life.
Honestly, from my perspective not having this instinct feels as great and convenient as basically lacking other kinds of negative and inconvenient feelings such as excessive emotionality, irrational fear, anxiety, despair, or vulnerability to trauma. So I am thankful to nature and destiny for giving me a personality that lacks all of them.
If there is something about this topic that displeases me, it is other people often not being mindful of the all-important difference between the various types of empathy, which are like day and night to me.
I cannot think of a good reason why having the other kind of empathy would be beneficial for someone like Scion(a) from their perspective. If it is a matter of avoiding gratuitous bloodshed and unnecessarily alienating people, being able to understand their feelings and pragmatism should usually be more than enough. Feeling bad for your prey does not seem good for a solitary predator.
Example of a Sociopath – Alex Burgess (A Clockwork Orange), Ferris Bueller (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off), Aldo Raine (Inglorious Basterds), Sherlock Holmes/James Moriarty (high functioning sociopaths), Jayne Cobb (Serenity), Annie Wilkes (Misery), Bart Curlish (Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency)
Example of a Psychopath – Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs), Patrick Bateman (American Psycho), Dexter Morgan (Dexter), Anton Chigurh (No Country for Old Men), Rick Prime (Rick and Morty), Gus Fring (Breaking Bad)
Example of writers wanting the person to be both depending on the day/hour/scene – Joker (Batman), Norman Bates (Psycho), Wednesday Adams (Wednesday) – mainly because of writer confusion about the difference between the two terms
Just curious, is this a piece of slang I was unaware of? You learn something new every day.
Just curious, but do you work in such a calling that “requires you to do bad things to people w/o messing yourself or losing your cool?” Not asking for specifics.
Yes. It happens once in a while, and society sanctions it and acknowledges it is for the greater good, but yes.
I guess Scion can compensate for lack of empathy with an Empath power. If it makes him feel what the target feels, it’s nearly the same thing, just useless when considering hypothetical scenarios.
As far as I can tell, empathy is something that not just Sciona, but the Alari at large lack. As a species/culture, they seem to have mastered the trick of managing high-functioning sociopathy well enough to build and run a successful interstellar civilization. My best guess is it happened b/c they were so powerful on an individual level from the beginning that they did not need to cooperate as closely as puny humans to win the evolution/civilization game. Hence, they never had a need to develop empathy. I guess demons are a similar case.
Its the Terran Empire FFS.
True, although one could argue that the TE could polish their M.O. by cutting down a bit on the excessive infighting.
Pretty much. These are DnD Drow writ large. Once you start down the road of species-wide blood magery, anyone with empathy would be weeded out of the gene pool as inconvenient, likely becoming slaves &/or “blood donors”…
Panel 6, speech bubble 2: “Necessali”?
This page makes me wonder what cultural touchstones the golem was exposed to that it regards Sciona as a parental figure. Or am I mixing up the page title with in-universe dialogue…
The golem’s own description of their relationship describes her as a ‘malevolent demiurge’ (previous comic). He does use the term ‘parenting’ in the comic before that, but that whole statement’s tone is sarcastic, so he probably doesn’t feel that way. ‘Mother’ hasn’t come up in his dialog.
#1362 – literally tne first thing Jr says to Sciona is “hello mother”
She is Asian
She also says “Stlictly” just before that
Who is that in the sixth panel?
Another Golem, or did Sciona get up and change her outfit really quick??
A couple pages back there was a collection of multicultural crooks, one spoke with that accent. It’s not spelled the way it’s actually pronounced, but we don’t have an R/L letter.
By “a couple pages,” I mean 1265-getting-to-know-you, which it turns out, was quite some time ago.
very important, must lern sex
deus gud, all hal deus
If jr’s core architecture is sex, was he designed by Dabbler? The preponderance of tentacles implies yes.
Not really. In Sciona’s original design (in #507-520), tentacles were just the golem’s arms. The piece of him that survived the battle and escaped (in #528) was basically a severed tentacle wrapped around a crystal-like piece of the core. Therefore, when Scion evolved back into a humanoid being, he took the form of a tentacle mass. Dabbler had no role in how he turned out. She did not even take part in the battle.
(Not sure if you’re joking) Preeety sure that is a t, not an x, based on the verticality of one of the lines/similarity to the other “t”s. That said, that is an interesting mental image!
I really like the fact that this extremely intelligent entity understands that empathy is something worth having.
Not just from a “morality” perspective, either. Remember that Sun Tzu urged readers to “know yourself and your opponent.” Empathy is how you know your opponent, how they think and feel. Empathy is something that many predatory species (such as humans) evolved to help understand how their prey thinks and feels. And how many prey species understand how predators think and feel.
It’s really interesting just how much morality is rooted in pragmatism and logic.
Typo alert: final speech bubble has Scion saying “does seems to be,” when it should be “does seem to be.”
I’m reminded of Page 570, when Deus noted that Sciona found no value in trust or loyalty.
I’m sure Dues, along with just about everyone, might have things they would betray others for, but thats why Dues explains it as “value” in trust and loyalty. You place a value upon the trust and loyalty you build with people and only betray it if the perceived value of the betrayal outweighs what you put in trust and loyalty. Its not just about trust and loyalty with the people you betray either, but others who rely on your trust and loyalty will also observe the value you put in it by how readily you betray it and to what degree.
Power comes in many forms and empathy to understand the feelings and responses of others beyond those they would conduct on pure logic is important. Scion has extorted some powerful criminal gangs and it might perceive they would logically measure themselves as outmatched and unlikely to seek assistance from authorities due to risks those authorities would turn on them. But the lack of empathy means it can’t comprehend their response at an emotional level and predict they would be willing to take risks and even bigger impacts to their criminal enterprises out of insult and indignity at Scion’s extortion and control.
Puns make me numb, but math makes me number.
Possible typo in panel 6.
“stlictly necessary”. Not sure about their accent or whatever tho
Its her accent
Is Scion(a Jr.) the same character who was in that Hong Kong mafia strip a while back? I’d look it up but I’ve got no good way of doing so besides rereading the archives.
Yes, that’s where he acquired the disciple (or fashion victim) in panel 6
It was only not quite a year ago! Sorry to deprive you of an archive binge.
You actually did, you made a character more detestable (and unbeatable) than SmugD
*Potentially* unbeatable. Scion can fulfil that potential only if and when he manages to get his core fixed and regain the ability to copy and keep an extensive, maybe functionally close to unlimited, set of superpowers, magic spells, supernatural abilities, and skills. Sciona apparently gave him enough clues for a plan to do that, but he still needs to implement it.
I wonder just how many power-copying slots Sciona built in the original design, although I guess it was a large number. She expected him to stay her elite guard dog/assassin/heavy hitter under her control, so it would make sense if she splurged.
I also wonder he has the potential to upgrade on that limit by further evolution if he is fixed.
And to fulfil his potential, he still needs to sample blood from appropriate ‘donors’. Ofc, the more he gets powerful in battle and skilled in tracking and research, the simpler it gets, although he still needs to find and corner the right beings.
But if he can do that, yes, he seems to have the potential to become as nigh-omnipotent and unbeatable as Amazo was in DCAU.
The caveat Max expressed back in the first battle with the golem, that he would need an appropriate power source to imitate her power even if he samples her blood, is a false reassurance if you ask me. In all likelihood and in the right circumstances, the Thaumion and Superion fields are functionally unlimited and inexhaustible, at least from our perspective. He would be able to tap them as well as she does.
I love OP characters and stories, so I do not share your antipathy for this character. Personally I am excited to see this subplot unfold and the main cast potentially facing their first seemingly unbeatable opponent (since true confrontation with Deus still seems a long way off).
Admittably, Vehemence at his overcharged best came somewhat close, but he failed miserably since he forgot to use his powers to make himself immune to mental manipulation and bodily needs. Classic rookie mistake in superpowered conflicts. A veteran gamer and nerd expert of source material like yours truly would have not done it.
Judging by the power slot graphic on https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-1363-luckily-im-still-under-warranty/ Scion should have 10 slots, but only has three functional ones currently, with another three corrupted slots.
If it proves unable to purchase an empathy card to slot in it could do what sociopaths are obliged to do and develop a rigid code of behavior.
Unrelated to the story
I just figgured out why hobbits would have a second breakfast.
They are farmers, They usually got up around 5am have some eggs bread and oatmeal, then work 4-5 gruling hours and they are small so they would he working %25 more than a human so they have another meal around 10 then lunch around 1 then a nice 2 hour nap during the heat of the day go back to work till around 7, have dinner.
Small bodies mean you need more food to get as much done as a human.
Mostly unrelated to your comment:
I was listening to a podcast that mentioned that “Jersey Shore” got several regional spinoffs/versions, including an upcoming “Canada Shore”. During the course of the episode, one of the people had trouble saying it and what came out sounded similar to “Shire Shore”, which made me realize how great it would be to have a sitcom set in the Shire with a batch of hobbitlings having drama over 2nd breakfast and getting some sun on the banks of the Brandywine river.
Someone needs to make that an actual series :)