MovieChat Forums > Black Mirror (2011) Discussion > Am I missing the point of White Bear?

Am I missing the point of White Bear?

posted 10 years ago by xigne540
176 replies | jump to latest

I'm mixed about the episode and it bothered me to the point I felt sorry for Victoria. I realize she is a criminal and needs to be punished but what's the point of punishment if she can't remember it and there is no rehabilitation? Also, the calendar seemed to indicate that this would last for a month and then they move on to the next "attraction". This episode could have been a two parter to explain more of the back story and the point of the punishment on the prisoner. Or, maybe this is more about how society views punishment and this form of punishment satisfies their anger. If anything I think they should have just executed her because eventually they will screw her up more so than how she started.

I just felt kind of cheated. White Bear didn't give me enough information to sort out my feelings about Victoria or understand the real point of the punishment park. It all seemed unnecessary. I realize that I could say the same about other episodes leaving out important details but the other episodes were more entertainment for me. I guess White Bear hit a nerve.

[–] pstolen 10 years ago

I think asking those questions is some of the point.

I would think that her body would eventually expire from the strain, even if she didn't remember, so perhaps it's a form of execution. Perhaps it's a nasty form of catharsis for the public, torturing a "bad person" over and over again.

If it's not for her rehabilitation, then perhaps it's more like the Roman games where they'd let lions eat criminals for entertainment.

[–] daddie0 10 years ago

It took me a minute (at the "reveal") to realize: the punishment fit the crime. It's sort of a VERY elaborate "eye for an eye" idea.

Her punishment is suited just to her. In other words, a simple death sentence would be too easy. It's all there if you listen:

-She constantly screams "Why are you all just watching?!?!! Help me!!!"
-Her crime: She video taped and did nothing while the girl was brutally killed.

-She screams,"Why are they like that?!?!!! They all just stand there!!"
-Her defensive claim: She was in a trace induced by her boyfriend/lover.

Ultimately, they looked at the crime from the victim's perspective, and force her to relive it over and over. The only question is are they trying to build empathy in her? I say no. The "highlight of the show" was to condemn her and force her to do it again tomorrow.

Pretty brilliant really.

[–] funnyguyla 10 years ago

But how is this effective punishment if she not only doesn't remember the crime she committed but doesn't know who she is? Once they even revealed to her what she did, I got no sense she had any recollection of it, and continued to feel bad for her. Even criminals on death row have to be mentally sound and know why they are being executed. This just seems cruel and pointless.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] youweechube 10 years ago

I think the point is that nobody's really concerned about her learning or being eventually rehabilitated. Brooker was using the episode to comment on the way the media, and society, have reacted to some recent murder cases - the Soham murders and the Baby P case in particular.

In 2002, two schoolgirls in the town of Soham were killed by a school caretaker called Ian Huntley, who it later transpired had a history of violence, particularly against women. Initially his defence rested on an alibi provided by his girlfriend, Maxine Carr. She was herself jailed for perverting the course of justice. Carr became - in the eyes of many - just as guilty as Huntley, although in fairness she seemed to be quite under the spell of him, and just as appalled as anyone else would be when the truth came out. After her release from prison, the line taken in the popular media was that she had not suffered enough. Eventually she got a new identity and her anonymity enforced by law, in order to prevent revenge attacks. Now, you may argue that she was a naive soul who was taken in by a psychopath, and was another victim of him. You could say she was wilfully blind to what was going on. You might think that she wasn't punished enough. You can argue that given the ages of the victims, perhaps society needed more than one guilty party. YMMV.

Peter Connolly, or 'Baby P' as he became known, was a kid brought up in abject depravity by his neglectful mother and her sorry excuse of a partner, a sadistic thug. Between them, they subjected the kid to appalling abuse, from which he died. In the aftermath, lots of people got blamed, from the 'parents' to social workers, to their bosses and onward. Public and media anger was not just directed at those who injured him, but at those who could/should have intervened. The parents were jailed, several officials lost their jobs. Some of them argued that they had impossible workloads, regulations and constraints to work around, and that careers were wrecked over this one case. Others said that in such cases, you can't afford any slip-ups. Any failure of duty of care has to be punished, regardless of how good your track record up to that point is. YMMV again.

The point being, in both cases, people indicted (but crucially not the actual killers) became folk devils. In the eyes of the media, no punishment, no suffering, could be bad enough for them. This accomplished nothing, much of the vitriol came from people who had no connection to the case save for following it on the news. From the point of view of a dispassionate observer it seemed that punishment - of anyone - had become more important than justice.

"So, whatever you're thinking, you're wrong."

you`re so spot on that you saved me the time of writing a very similar lengthy response !

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rinec 10 years ago

Some might say that ostentatious mourning of a stranger is a bit sick anyway

I find this phenomenon quite bizarre and slightly sinister. It's as if people are competing to be the most upset about someone in the public eye that they never knew. Yet those same people might not show any grief whatsoever towards someone in their street with whom they actually interacted when they die. To me it appears to be another spin on celebrity worship, which itself is an anachronistic attempt to appear close to dominant pack members.

[–] buchowski 8 years ago

Her punishment isn't what is relevant. She is an attraction for people to visit and for The public to feel that justice has been served.

[–] cherokee_apps 10 years ago

Maybe after the month, before the next victim is brought on, they don't wipe her memory. So she remembers the last day of it all and they get to profit from her torment for the entire month.

[–] skane110-1 10 years ago

It makes sense that Victoria doesn't remember her crime because she believes that she is innocent and does not deserve what is happening to her. The little girl who was killed by Victoria's boyfriend was an actual innocent person who did not deserve what happened to her. If Victoria remembered then, it wouldn't be the same thing. She would just be a horrible person who was being punished and she would know exactly why the entire time, and that's no rehabilitation or proper punishment. She wouldn't even bother wondering why the people with the cameras/phones aren't helping her because, she'll know exactly why they aren't helping her. She needs to be like the little girl. Scared, alone, confused, and even angry that this is happening to her and that no one is helping. Not only that but, there's a person who can help but, all they're doing is filming it. It also makes sense to make her believe that people are acting that way because of a "signal" that brings out people's natural desires to do bad things, either actively trying to kill someone like the "hunters" or just standing around filming it. It's their belief that Victoria is a bad person who may have been under the spell of her boyfriend but, she was clearly already a bad person who just needed an opportunity to act badly.

[–] harhodes 8 years ago

Spot on, skane110.

[–] bgrubb 10 years ago

Also the trance thing cannot be written off as we have Stockholm syndrome a real condition that explains that age old questionf of why people can't get out of abusive relationships.

[–] realitycomments 9 years ago

I can't believe in Stockholm Syndrome. People can get out of abusive relationships. Sorry, I don't understand that stuff. I don't understand how someone can be so weak willed or so easily manipulated.

[–] Rinec 9 years ago

Because they've been subjected to years of abuse and manipulation on the part of the abuser and so are too terrified to stand up to them. Appeasement then becomes their only way to avoid more abuse.

Maybe abusive people specifically pick weak-willed partners, knowing full well that they can manipulate/dominate them.

[–] blankk23 9 years ago

This, exactly. An abuser tries it with everyone. People who have the good fortune of being stronger don't fall for it and they don't become a victim. People who are not so lucky (whether through nature or nurture) don't avoid the trap and end up stuck in the cycle.

[–] Rinec 9 years ago

Which is why everyone should be taught to stand up for themselves. Many people who are gentle natured, kind or sensitive don't seem to be able to repel bullies, and subsequently become their victims. You need to have the ability to hit back against people who are sh!ts, as unfortunately, there are plenty of them about.

[–] Meldove 8 years ago

Which is why everyone should be taught to stand up for themselves. Many people who are gentle natured, kind or sensitive don't seem to be able to repel bullies, and subsequently become their victims. You need to have the ability to hit back against people who are sh!ts, as unfortunately, there are plenty of them about.

I don't agree with this, a person can be kind and good natured and still have the ability to stand-up for themselves and others. As a matter of fact it is often the kind and good natured teens that are willing to taking a stand against bullies, not just go "with the flow" because that's what everyone else is doing. My daughter had dealt with standing up against bullying in her school and she what I would consider "kind and good natured", however she continually takes a stand. You can teach children morals and also how to be strong individuals.

[–] Rinec 8 years ago

You disagree that those who don't stand up for themselves should be taught how to?

And where did I say that all decent people were unable to stand up for themselves?!

[–] atclubsilencio 9 years ago

I would educate yourself about it, then. That's a very ignorant way of thinking. Unless you've ever been through it before, you obviously can't understand it, but that doesn't mean it isn't something that happens. Or that they are all 'weak willed', there's more to it. Usually the survivors of such situations tend to be stronger and smarter than you would think.

[–] thomasam32 9 years ago

Yup, definitely time to educate yourself. It's great you've never experienced it (I haven't either, most people haven't) but Stockholm Syndrome has been proven to exist. There's a reason people stay in these relationships despite people who care about them telling them what seems obvious to most.

[–] Bigsax 9 years ago

"I can't believe in Stockholm Syndrome."

Nobody gives a sh!t what you can or can't believe.

Millennial = Homo Sapiens born 1990 or after; Losers who think they know everything but don't

[–] monkeycat 9 years ago

Recollection doesn't matter. She has to endure the terrified experience day after day, because that's what the child felt as she filmed her murder. You were supposed to be concerned for her until the writers let you know what she actually did. The whys and wherefores don't matter, it's a story and doesn't have to be realistic, just like its forebears: Hitchcock and Tales of the Unexpected.

Due to the high cost of this type of punishment, I would have preferred to have seen people paying admittance during the reveal at the end. Those parking rates (£12/day) weren't high enough to cover the damage, let alone the staffing and props costs.

[–] realitycomments 9 years ago

They make her remember it every time at the end of her "scene".

Her punishment isn't for her sake, it's for the satisfaction of the society that she experiences over and over again her thoughtless crime.

Frankly, I liked the idea. Meanwhile it doesn't cost tax payers money because it's a show and a "park" where I presume people pay to be on.

Think of the fun people could have with a John Wayne Gacy. The people who go to be on the show as spectators would all wear clown suits.

Rule number three: Enjoy yourself.

I'd like to see a few more scenarios using White Bear.

[–] lujlp 9 years ago

But how is this effective punishment if she not only doesn't remember the crime she committed but doesn't know who she is?

Punishment? Not so much, seems to me its more of a deterrent, a "look what hell you life will become if you commit a horrible crime"

[–] mean_what_you_say 9 years ago

It's not an effective punishment. You're right. It's cruel and pointless. That's the point. The guy who writes these episodes, Charlie Brooker, isn't trying to imply this is effective at all. He writes cautionary tales. He's depicting a hellish, alternate future dystopia, born from the overlap between punishment and entertainment. It's an extrapolation of the communal pleasure our society may feel in witnessing the comeuppance of one who 'deserves' it. Think of those Americans who celebrated when they heard Osama bin Laden had been killed, for instance. Now imagine what would have happened to him in a reality where that kind of 'celebrating' was encouraged, prolonged and more importantly capitalized upon to unite a community.

[–] drudd-5 8 years ago

This is not punishment. Its is a drawn out public execution. And the point of any public execution is to send a message to the citizens, that this is the fate that awaits you if you commit a crime of this nature. Its a deterrent as much as it is entertainment. We live in a world where this still exists. Iran comes to mind.

[–] sfwmson 8 years ago

it's really effective towards the end at the reveal...I think she does remember it by the end and then she is shown it's going to happen over and over, presumably for the month.

What got me was the theme park part of it with happy ticket holders actually being the crowd. Chilled me to my marrow.

[–] arizonabay6-671-900060 10 years ago

You are missing the point to an extent - it is supposed to be utterly grotesque, if you wipe someones memory they are essentially innocent, because you have wiped the person. That, and the fact it was torture as entertainment to satisfy urges that are not all that all that far removed from the crime itself, bubbling under the surface of people who would read salacious right wing trash like the Sun. It also takes a swipe at reality TV, her walk of shame back to the house mirroring the reception that hated Big Brother contestants often get on their exit for petty bs, highlighting the relish people take in cruelty and humiliation.

"To err is human...so...errrr..." - Gary King

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] arizonabay6-671-900060 10 years ago

Its disturbing to me how many people Ive heard say it was a good idea. I always think that kind folk devil hysteria is sublimation, a way of projecting people's anger and disatisfaction in their own lives at a kind of effigy, rather than a genuine reaction to the crime itself however terrible that may be.

"To err is human...so...errrr..." - Gary King

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jim-1439 9 years ago

The punishment is suited to the sickos who come to the park and who enact the scene. You would fit right in.

[–] Burnem888 8 years ago

I like that interpretation

One, two, three four, five, six. Six. Perfect number.

[–] MultiSanity 8 years ago

I didn't didn't even think of it like this?I was too disturbed by everything else, but this is excellent analysis that would be used to justify her torture and argue of it not being excessive punishment, but in line with her own heinous actions.

[–] Simulacrum7 10 years ago

I found this episode fascinating because through the first part I kept thinking "boring," but when the reveal happens it really hits. I saw the whole thing as a modern take on the punishments of old, when the condemned would be pelted with refuse as they were taken to a public torture and execution. So, yes, I have some sympathy for Victoria because the punishment is just as barbaric as the crime. The more things change the more they remain the same.

[–] buchowski 8 years ago

Exactly, her punishment is more about satisfying the lublic. Her crime would have shocked and outraged the nation and the public wanted justice.

[–] eukodol 10 years ago

I think the message was that at some point, it stopped being about punishment and became mostly about entertainment. Take a look at the news and all the people out rioting and looting over a case they know nothing about. Justice has become a theme park.

[–] jprahn01 10 years ago

It's "To Catch a Predator" on steroids.

[–] sordid-phrases 10 years ago

Two things, with regard to some points raised by previous posters.
Firstly, it's not a punishment park, it's labeled a justice park, and in the strict sense, this is as close to justice as could be achieved given the nature of the crime.
So then, secondly, the reason for the erasure of the memory is to give her a complete lack of context and understanding for why she's having this cruelty leveled at her - and this is meant to take the place of the innocence of the child. Without understanding why she is being ignored or pursued or hurt, she is just like the little girl, who had no frame of reference or context for the horrible cruelty that was enacted upon her.
And, I guess there's a third, in that the reason for the repeated treatments is because without the relatively quick dismemberment or death like was enacted on the little girl, they were agin trying to approach perfect justice, this time in a future that apparently does this in place of state sponsored killing.
Or something.

[–] arizonabay6-671-900060 10 years ago

The name 'Justice Park' is meant to be ironic. In thematic context it may as well have a bunch of question marks after it.

"To err is human...so...errrr..." - Gary King

[–] Ringworm7 9 years ago

But it seems she never really forgets, totally. They show her remembering snippets, images, throughout. When inside the White Bear facility, she stares fixedly at the symbols, she's no longer freaking out. Like in a trance.

Whatever that device does to wipe her memory and shock her, perhaps it only lasts so many hours. She looked like she was remembering it during the exposition for the audience, because she just looked horrified, but didn't plead for help or ask who she was like she had been. Maybe that's the point? She starts out innocent and confused, is driven crazy with fear for hours and hours, and then gets a big wake up call to remember at least some of what she did. Every.Damn.Day.

I kind of like that concept, but I strongly dislike the idea of anyone getting enjoyment from it, that was totally slimy. Bleagggh.

[–] tgovostis 10 years ago

I wonder...there is a possibility that there is an aspect of rehab in this. She wasn't told the reasons for her punishment until she resorted to violence herself. Possibility that she can redeem herself by eschewing violence altogether? Just wondering.

[–] Runie 10 years ago

nope - no rehab at all.

its punishment to the better end- until her mind breaks down and she cant continue any more.

[–] cyberwoff 10 years ago

I cannot believe people feel sympathy for a child killer/torturer. How weak is this, no wonder Rotherham happened. There is NO rehabitation for a woman that watches and films ther murder of a young girl. NONE. And no sympathy.

[–] cyberwoff 10 years ago

I think the episode would have been better it they had made the man, the actual killer go thru this "justice". I wonder why they chose just the woman.

[–] GreenExit23 10 years ago

It's because it's normally the men who instigate the horrific acts and the women partners go along with it because they don't want to disappoint the man. I think choosing the woman just amplifies how barbaric the 'Justice Park' is (i.e. nothing to do with justice, or rehabilitation - everything to do with satisfying the bloodlust of the knuckle-dragging scum in attendance).

It would still be barbaric if they'd have chosen the man, but women are usually a lot more amenable to rehabilitation, so it makes the whole thing even more sick.

[–] limperatrice 10 years ago

Focusing on the woman (or more importantly, the person who recorded the act but didn't stop it) allowed for a parallel to be drawn with the audience who bought tickets to watch, record, but not intervene as often happens in real life.

[–] Doodletard 10 years ago

Because the man hanged himself in prison before the trial. They mention it when they are explaining who she is and what she did.

[–] Korios 10 years ago

Yes, he actually dared to deprive the modern Colosseum audience of their blood. So, someone else had to pay for him. Even if his woman had just provided him with an alibi, without being in any other way involved with their crime, the bloodthirsty vultures would still want her suffer.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] Runie 10 years ago

And then you have an episode that doesn't make sense.

Her punishment was to be scared out of her mind whilst everyone watched. Mirroring what she did to the girl.

The male criminal of the piece that killed him self would have had a different punishment.

[–] Meldove 8 years ago

I cannot believe people feel sympathy for a child killer/torturer. There is NO rehabitation for a woman that watches and films ther murder of a young girl. NONE. And no sympathy.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, as a parent I can't imagine a woman so inhumane to be able stand there and film the killing of an innocent child. When I found out that is what she had done I was horrified and had no sympathy for her, in my mind she was as guilty as the animal that killed the little girl, because she stood by and did nothing. There may have moment he was distracted and she could have saved the little girl (I know this isn't what it was about, I'm just saying) and she stood by and did nothing, instead let a child die a horrific death and filmed it.

That being said, it's very depraved form of justice, however sadly I could see our society slowly degrading to that point (I hope not though). Definitely, not something I want to see anytime in my lifetime.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stevorino0 10 years ago

I think also we grow to learn that this is a not a normal society -- it's a dystopian one in which the audience themselves is wholesomely depraved (as in more so than now, of course). Taking the kids and family to partake in a sick carnival of repetitive torture for amusement is entirely sadistic, regardless of how calm their demeanor is while partaking. The thought of us slipping into that casual level of depravity is itself what I found to be horrifying the most.

"Who are you and how did you get in here?" "I'm a locksmith...and I'm a locksmith."

[–] twilliams76 10 years ago

Thank you, stevorino. I read this entire thread and the entire focus seems to be Victoria and her crime AS IF the entire episode is about her alone.

No ... it is also about us depraved viewers who would PAY to see this happen to someone else -- human. Victoria may have been a criminal but the future has become about US (the "regular folk") who've become depraved enough to shell out money to watch another human being get psychologically tortured time and time again.

It depicts us as not caring about rehabilitation or anything like it ... we'd rather be sadistically entertained. ENTERTAIN us!!! Sick.

Troubling ... and I didn't care for the episode much until this "revealed" itself and I became fascinated by it. I could EASILY see us do this.

[–] Pequod88 10 years ago

Abuse of prisoners as entertainment reflects the depraved nature of the society. Public executions used to be entertainment for any who wished to gather in the public square. Like the best elements of the series, the larger issues beyond the drama are what make Black Mirror worthwhile. The Amusement Park for the desensitized and depraved is what chills. Law abiding citizens are devalued along with the criminals. Check out the gift shop as you leave, and be sure to post your snaps on Facebook. Keep an eye on your pay-per-view options, as you never know what's coming. Death matches instead of death row? No, thanks. I'll keep my humanity and decency. Good episode.

[–] realitycomments 9 years ago

lol. Good point. It was a family show and a family park.

But what a great impression to make on a young mind that would even consider any such heinous crime in their future.

Weren't town hangings a whole town event, where even children were allowed to gather?

Scary when you think that it wasn't all that long ago, in comparison for how long modern man's been wandering around on earth.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

what's the point of punishment if she can't remember it

She doesn't need to remember ,because they eventually tell her everything. That's when she realizes she deserved it. Also a great deterrent for other criminals.

This episode did cheat somewhat, considering Victoria was so evil but all of a sudden became so innocent just because her memory was erased. Not very likely.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] submachine 10 years ago

Think of it like this - have you ever done something when mind-blowing intoxicated that you had no memory of the morning after, then when reminded, hideously regretted it?

Not applicable to child-torture, this is an evil person, not a misguided drunk.

Frankly, anyone who watched this episode without a growing sense of bitter, despairing recognition, IMO missed the point spectacularly.

I was uneasy about her lack of recognition, but again, this episode cheated. Anyone who participated in child abduction, torture, and murder, would not become a gentle person simply because they don't remember what they did. She would be ruthless, vicious, manipulative, not weepy and weak.

We are our actions, not our memories. As a hypothetical punishments it's absolutely valid, though not quite depicted as such.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] twilliams76 10 years ago

I know what you are saying but I assumed that the woman was high on drugs (or something) when she participated in the filming as she appears to be shocked to learn of what she did ... but that is NOT supposed to free her from this inhumane action. She should be horrified and appalled.

I think what you seem to miss is the point the episode is making OTHER than with Victoria. You say she becomes sympathetic ... not really but does she actually deserve to have EVERYDAY people like you and me do this to her day and night ... and us sick voyeurs get a pass?

I think half of the audience seems to miss the point when the Mirror is reflected back towards the consuming audience. We are rapid and depraved as well ... we don't care if this woman is rehabilitated because we want to see her suffer and be punished (so that we are entertained)!!

Uh ... that is truly despicable but we seem to give ourselves a pass. This episode isn't only saying Victoria is a faulty individual but we ALL are. It says it ALL how people don't find the voyeuristic behavior appalling at all. We are also a wretched bunch.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

This episode isn't only saying Victoria is a faulty individual but we ALL are. It says it ALL how people don't find the voyeuristic behavior appalling at all.

Incorrect, that is just your slant. Mine is that what Victoria did is so heinous, no punishment is too harsh, and there is nothing abnormal about the appreciation of justice served. ,

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] twilliams76 10 years ago

You missed the point of White Bear. Interesting as that is the very subject of this thread.

You cannot even step back for a moment and see that the film is also being sharply critical of a rabid consumer who isn't interested in rehabilitation of criminals? It is about entertainment at the cost of what? Our very own humanity as we too have become cruel/depraved in our own way.

If you refuse to see this (and say it is simply my "slant"), you've missed the point of the show. Yes ... it rightly criticizes Victoria but it is also reflecting the mirror (in the show's title) back towards the audience as EACH show in Black Mirror has done. Why would this episode be the only one that doesn't critique society?

[–] submachine 10 years ago

You cannot even step back for a moment and see that the film is also being sharply critical of a rabid consumer who isn't interested in rehabilitation of criminals?

If that's the case, it would have worked better if it was televised, like Stephen Kings "The Running Man."

This was a punishment-facility that just happened to be open to the public. And as such, the primary intent was justice, not entertainment.

That you consider justice can ever be "depraved" explains your biased interpretation. What we saw is different from society today, doesn't make it worse.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Posh_babe 10 years ago

If she can't remember the crime then it's not a true punishment or justice.

This is a theme park to make money and also to fit the public's thirst/quest for justice...but really revenge and entertainment rolled into one. Even bringing young children is sick...given that she killed a child or at least watched one being killed. Society is not protecting it's children and is teaching them revenge and violence rather than proper punishment and rehabilitation.

Whatever happened to the Christian "turn the other cheek" and "forgive and forget"? No, I'm not saying criminals should not be punished but this is purely torturing someone for pleasure and using her crime as an excuse.

Are the public no better than the criminal really? Voyeurisim.

_______________________________________
I'm not posh, I just like VB's clothes.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

If she can't remember the crime then it's not a true punishment or justice.

She doesn't need to remember because they eventually tell her everything. That's when she realizes she deserved it, and that's justice served. Also a great deterrent for other criminals.

This is a theme park to make money

Incorrect. It is a punishment facility open to the public. It is not an attraction at Disneyland.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Posh_babe 10 years ago

@submachine

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

She didn't know what was going on until the end and only for a few minutes.

Then her memory was wiped again.

Every single criminal knows what they are put in prison for.
_______________________________________
I'm not posh, I just like VB's clothes.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

She didn't know what was going on until the end and only for a few minutes.

In the story as depicted they purposely made the character sympathetic by turning someone evil into someone acted innocent. In other words they cheated, for the twist ending.

In real life, you'd see the evil in the person, whether they remember or not, thus you'd agree the punishment is deserved.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] twilliams76 10 years ago

The twist is there to horrify us, submachine.

"Look what we normal folk can also be capable of doing!" The point of punishment is no longer rehabilitation or simple incarceration.

If you don't get that the "park" (which it is clearly named on the show -- a park is typically a pleasant place one goes to enjoy him/herself) is a way for a sick rabid voyeur to get his/her jollies at the expense of another ... well, there is no point in carrying on a conversation with you.

You clearly aren't getting the point of the show. It isn't: "Victoria really did do something bad!" (which she did) but that human beings are becoming depraved voyeurs who relish suffering of others.

Everyone who pays admission KNOWS her mind has been wiped clean ... yet they want to terrorize her and believe in punishment as entertainment instead of attempting to rehabilitate another simply locking them away for punishment.

That this has been turned into a THEME PARK ATTRACTION is supposed to be shocking and/or appalling to most human beings. I see you'd gladly pay admission to this park ... and you are exactly who this episode SKEWERS.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

The point of punishment is no longer rehabilitation or simple incarceration.

The point of punishment is....punishment. And deterrence. If you don't get that, there is no point in carrying on a conversation with you.

Is the child-killer punished? Yes. That is justice. There is nothing "depraved" about justice, you're just emotional because the actress played such a sympathetic character.

you'd gladly pay admission to this park

Not really, but I do support punishment for child-killers, unlike you.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] jprahn01 10 years ago

Every episode of Black Mirror is a different take on near-future dystopia. If you can watch White Bear and say, "that's a great idea," then you're either somehow missing the point, or -- and this to me is what makes the episode the most disturbing of all -- that supposed near-future is a hell of a lot closer than we think.

Like I said in another thread, it's To Catch a Predator on steroids.

When Crime and Punishment intersect with Entertainment, we are Lost.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

If you can watch White Bear and say, "that's a great idea,"

Executing child-killers is a "great idea".

Psychologically terrorizing child-killers is an interesting idea, which makes the episode so entertaining.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

Executing child-killers is a "great idea".

Why? What would gain from their death?

Psychologically terrorizing child-killers is an interesting idea

Why? What do you gain from a person's superficial mental anguish?

[–] submachine 10 years ago

Justice.



http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

How do you consider it justice?

[–] submachine 10 years ago

The administering of deserved punishment.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

But that's not REAL justice, because it's not fair.

Fairness is key here. If someone burns your house down, they must either buy you a new house or you must burn their house down. An eye for an eye.

The idea at hand is that beating up the arsonist, i.e. 'deserved punishment' is justice, but to me it seems like nothing more than psychotic amusement that benefits no one but the mentally insane.

It's only 'deserved' based upon nothing but your anger, not a logical premise, and punishment in itself is meaningless unless the punished learns a lesson. Otherwise it is, again, just masturbation fodder for the morally handicapped.

Your trolling me seems to indicate that you're one of those people and that your confirmation bias won't allow you to see fault in your own ideas.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

punishment in itself is meaningless unless the punished learns a lesson.

 What an ignorant statement, now it's clear why you're so confused.

Even if you're just trolling, they eventually tell her everything. That's when the child-killer realizes she deserved her punishment, and that's justice served. Also a great deterrent for other criminals.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

What an ignorant statement, now it's clear why you're so confused.

I'm not confused. I say that punishment is meaningless unless the punished learns from it.

Otherwise, it's just sick entertainment.

Even if you're just trolling,

How am I trolling? I explain everything whereas you respond with vague statement, meek asides and laughing emoticons.

they eventually tell her everything.

Yes, which is perfect. She can then live the rest of her life in grief and actually gain something from the (somewhat sick) punishment.

But no! They make her go through the same anguish AGAIN even though there is nothing to gain from it but sick amusement for the onlookers.

That's when the child-killer realizes she deserved her punishment, and that's justice served.

Conceivably, she would realize she got what she deserved right after.

But it quickly becomes null and void when she finds out their intent is to have her go through the same ordeal again - making them the greater evil.

Which is quite the achievement, I must admit, when compared to a child killer.

Also a great deterrent for other criminals.

Criminals are more often than not, not capable of rationalizing the feasibility of a crime. This is why the death penalty is a very poor deterrent.

In my opinion, you're on the smarter side of the criminal world. The only thing stopping you from murdering a child (or whatever is your crime du jour) is the understanding of consequence - something most psychopaths lack.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

They make her go through the same anguish AGAIN even though there is nothing to gain from it

Punishment is the point, the gain, the whole concept you're incapable of understanding. And you claim to understand eye-for-an-eye? 

the death penalty is a very poor deterrent.

 More ignorance, the death penalty is not just a viable deterrent but the acceptable punishment for certain crimes: eye-for-an-eye.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

Punishment is the point, the gain, the whole concept you're incapable of understanding.

I understand it, I simply disagree that it is just.

Punishment must be more than skin deep - it must cause you to feel remorse.

Otherwise, you're hurting someone with the same vitriol you condemn them for feeling.

And you claim to understand eye-for-an-eye?

It couldn't be more straightforward. And eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, an X for an X.

That is the best we can hope for, in lack of actual fairness where nothing can be broken, stolen, killed, etc.

More ignorance, the death penalty is not just a viable deterrent

Not according to 88% of criminologists.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/study-88-criminologists-do-not-believe-death-penalty-effective-deterrent

but the acceptable punishment for certain crimes: eye-for-an-eye.

Acceptable does not mean moral.

The difference between you and me is that you can enjoy the idea of murder.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

you're hurting someone with the same vitriol you condemn them for feeling.

Hurting a child-killer is the same as murdering an innocent child? 

eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, an X for an X.

A life for a life. Thanks for proving my point 

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

Hurting a child-killer is the same as murdering an innocent child?

In a sense, yes. The most important sense, I believe.

If you can enjoy the torment of another, then what makes you different than a child killer?

A life for a life. Thanks for proving my point

But a life for a life isn't what was demonstrated on that show.

Killing her would have been far more fair, just and humane.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

If you can enjoy the torment of another, then what makes you different than a child killer?

Now you can't distinguished between a guilty child-murderer and an innocent child.

Killing her would have been far more fair, just and humane.

If that were true then she could just kill herself. Each point you make, systematically shut down. That's what I do.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

Now you can't distinguished between a guilty child-murderer and an innocent child.

Between an innocent child? I made no comparison between the child and anything else.

The comparison I am making is between the child killer and the one who enjoys the torment of the child killer, A.K.A you.

If that were true then she could just kill herself.

You totally missed that one! Haha!

BEFORE she could learn the truth she is handcuffed to that chair and is unable to move.

She then has her memory erased meaning she cannot remember the desire to kill herself once she is unshackled and has the ability to do so.

This is done to preserve the show, and is the sickest part of it all.

You also missed her agony-stricken request to be killed just before her memory is erased.

Did you even watch the episode? LMFAO.

Each point you make, systematically shut down. That's what I do.

Oh, the sad irony in those words echoes strong.

You clearly have us confused - which is an absolute tragedy, IMHO.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

The comparison I am making is between the child killer and the one who enjoys the torment of the child killer,

The child-killer is guilty, the child was innocent, your comparison is now dismissed.

She then has her memory erased meaning she cannot remember the desire to kill herself

Doesn't sound so bad when you put it that way, thanks for proving my point! 

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

The child-killer is guilty, the child was innocent, your comparison is now dismissed.

You mean ignored.

I'll write it again.

There are three categories:

1.) The child. Innocent.
2.) The child killer. Guilty.
3.) The child killer killer. Guilty.

You fit into category #3.

I fit into category #4, i.e. the person who must kill you but not take any pleasure from it.

Doesn't sound so bad when you put it that way,

So, you're cool with being tormented each day and then forgetting it ever happened?

Alright. Just remember you consented.

thanks for proving my point!

Do you say that regardless (or rather in spite) of whether I proved your point or not?

LMFAO.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

1.) The child. Innocent.
2.) The child killer. Guilty.
3.) The child killer killer.

The child killer killer? Justice, for those of us who can distinguish between the value of an innocent life, and the value of guilty murderer. 

you're cool with being tormented each day and then forgetting it ever happened?

Tormented, killed, no punishment is too harsh for a guilty child-killer. And you've already admitted that killing them is justice, so your whole argument is that killing them is nicer than tormenting them! 

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

The child killer killer? Justice.

Man, you really need to take some English comprehension classes.

The child killer killed = Justice (maybe).

The child killer killer = Sick psychopath.

for those of us who can distinguish between the value of an innocent life, and the value of guilty murderer.

I know you're missing my point intentionally, but I will try again.

There is just as much of a difference between the innocent child and the child killer as there is between the innocent child and the killer of the child killer.

Tormented, killed, no punishment is too harsh for a guilty child-killer.

I see. What about a child serial killer? How about a child genocidal maniac who killed 1,000 children?

No difference in their punishment whatsoever?

What about someone who hit a child? Same thing? Scratched? Yelled at?

That's not a slippery slope, it's a chasm of no return.

But the bigger question here is - are you a hypocrite? If you killed a child or caused the death of a child, would you still agree that no punishment is too horrible for you?

I seriously doubt it.

And you've already admitted that killing them is justice, so your whole argument is that killing them is nicer than tormenting them!

No, my whole argument is that gaining pleasure from the suffering of others makes you just as bad as them, no matter what.

Killing can still be looked upon as humane when compared to the alternative shown in this episode.

Which is to say, there is NO doubt that anyone participating in the torture of that woman is as bad as she is and should thus be tortured just as much (according to your logic).

[–] submachine 10 years ago

I said bump my threads, troll, that means the ones I started. Now back to your nonsense:

child killer killer = Sick

That you think killing a child-killer is sick is why I'm happy to disagree with you 

I If you killed a child or caused the death of a child, would you still agree that no punishment is too horrible for you?

Killing a child-killer, or tormenting a guilty child-killer like in the show, is deserved punishment. Justice.

No, my whole argument is that gaining pleasure from the suffering of others makes you just as bad as them

Then you're stupid. For two reasons, the first is that justice is in fact pleasurable, the second is that even if it were not, equating someone who enjoys watching a child-killer suffer, with someone who kills a child. That goes a little beyond stupid into psychotic.

Or, just a troll. 

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

I said bump my threads, troll, that means the ones I started.

Done.

Now let's correct your drivel:

That you think killing a child-killer is sick is why I'm happy to disagree with you

What I was trying to say is that murder is right or wrong based on the reasoning behind it.

If you're killing someone so that they can't hurt anyone else, it's not necessarily wrong.

However, if you're torturing someone you're just as sick as the person you're torturing if not more, meaning you should also be killed.

Killing a child-killer, or tormenting a guilty child-killer like in the show, is deserved punishment. Justice.

Killing a child killer is justice.

Tormenting a child killer is horrifying overkill that is a worse crime than the child killer committed.

Then you're stupid.

I disagree.

For two reasons,

Ahh, finally an argument!

the first is that justice is in fact pleasurable,

Of course, but torture is NOT justice. It's overkill, it's abhorrent. We've already gone over this.

If you think that torturing someone is justified you're a psychopath - no other way to it.

the second is that even if it were not, equating someone who enjoys watching a child-killer suffer, with someone who kills a child. That goes a little beyond stupid into psychotic.

Lol, why?

Again, I am left without any explanation or any meaningful rebuttal.

Or, just a troll.

And then I'm called a troll. LMFAO.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

What I was trying to say

Always trying, never succeeding, like this:

murder is right or wrong .

 Murder is always wrong, that's what the term itself means! 

Punishing a murderer? Now that's called justice

Tormenting a child killer is

Punishment. And what did you just learn about punishing a murderer, troll?



http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

Punishing a murderer? Now that's called justice

WHY? What's the difference?

You kill someone for personal reasons = personal justice. You kill that person because you hate them enough for whatever reasons.

You kill someone for non-personal reasons = justice. You kill that person because you hate them enough for killing someone else.

The conclusion that escapes you is that they're both acts of murder for a similar purpose.
In the mind of a killer, they're always justified.

You yourself have said that murderers should be tortured in hell for all eternity. That's a fate far worse than their victims got.

So, what makes you any better than them?

You kill 50 murderers who only killed one person in self-defence - does that not make you the worse person? You're the murderer in this case.

It's like you have a tier system in your mind where murderers are below human, a view very much akin to that of Hitler, and it allows you to do with them as you please and call it justice.

Don't you see that that's precisely what murderers do? They see people as nothing and kill them for just those reasons.

Again, I don't see the difference. Explain it further.

Punishment. And what did you just learn about punishing a murderer, troll?

That it makes you just as bad as the murderer unless you only enjoy the idea of punishment and not the act of it.

But I just learned that, I couldn't be a troll. A troll is someone who knows the truth but intentionally distorts it.

Do you see that you are, in fact, the troll now?

[–] submachine 10 years ago

What's the difference?

Are you really that ignorant?

Killing an innocent is murder.

Killing (or otherwise punishing) a murderer is justice.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

Are you really that ignorant?

You're repeating the same argument over and over verbatim without explanation and yet you have the audacity to call ME ignorant?

Killing an innocent is murder.

Can you define it any more superficially?

What is murder? Is it defined by justification?

If so, then I agree that killing a child is murder under 99% of circumstances.

Do we agree so far? Good.

Killing (or otherwise punishing) a murderer is justice.

Again, your definition leaves a lot to be desired for a serious debate.

What is 'justice'? Not an example but a definition.

Is it about payback? Is it also about justification?

The point of the episode (as I see it) is that it's all about justification.

You murder someone? You die.

You take someone's eye out? They take out yours.

But what you're saying, and this is the main part of my argument, is that it's not an eye-for-an-eye but a life-for-an-eye, i.e. anything-for-an-eye.

You think that if someone is guilty of a crime (any crime), they deserve punishment, any punishment, even if it's cruel and unusual.

THAT, to me, makes you WORSE than the criminal you're punishing.

If you parse out my rebuttal and reply only to what is convenient to you, ignoring my entire argument again, I will not respond to you, as that will prove that you're either trolling me or are unable to come to terms with the fact that you cannot comprehend the (to me nonexistent) complexity of this matter.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

You think that if someone is guilty of a crime (any crime), they deserve punishment, any punishment, even if it's cruel and unusual.

Incorrect, I neither think nor said that. Murder is not "any crime". In civilized society, the value of human life is paramount. Should one decide to take an innocent life, the only proper response is forfeiting their rights, and their life. The worst crime must be met by the harshest punishment, the most capital punishment. Should a lesser punishment be chosen, ie prison, tormenting as depicted in the show, medical experimentation, forced conscription, etc, these are all justified by the fact that they are indeed a far lesser penalty for the murderer than what they deserve: death. Justice is what binds society through law, whether its on public display or behind closed doors, it makes not the slightest difference how the sentence is carried out. The murder and the murderer are to be condemned, the swift distribution of justice is to be celebrated.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

Incorrect, I neither think nor said that.

Actually, you did. Did you think I couldn't go back and find it?

You said:
"Tormented, killed, no punishment is too harsh for a guilty child-killer."

Saying "no punishment is too harsh" is akin to a non-sequitor because the clear implication is that you do not believe the punishment should fit the crime.

If you did, there wouldn't be a category for which any punishment is still considered justice and not brutal overkill.

Murder is not "any crime".

So what? It's a crime; the punishment of which should fit the crime.

In civilized society, the value of human life is paramount.

No, the value of human morality is paramount. Otherwise, there is nothing to distinguish us from the gladiators of the past.

If you take that away, life becomes meaningless, which is most certainly seems to be for you.

Should one decide to take an innocent life, the only proper response is forfeiting their rights, and their life.

The question you keep avoiding is WHY?

Why is that the proper response? Can you articulate it?

The worst crime must be met by the harshest punishment, the most capital punishment.

Logically, yes. But in such case, the maximum punishment must be less heinous than the maximum crime.

What if someone kills 10 babies? Are you going kill him 10 times? Preposterous!

The only option would be to torture him for your own amusement. The torture does not bring back those babies. It only satisfied your psychotic rage and/or arbitrary and emotional need for compensation which you have dubbed "justice."

Should a lesser punishment be chosen, ie prison, tormenting as depicted in the show, medical experimentation, forced conscription, etc, these are all justified by the fact that they are indeed a far lesser penalty for the murderer than what they deserve: death.

Who are you to say those punishments are not worse than death?

In the episode, that CHOICE is clearly taken from her. She is not ALLOWED to ask for death.

That, to me, seems like far, far worse punishment than death is.

There are far too numerous examples where death is preferable. Torture being the prime one.

Justice is what binds society through law

Your definition of 'justice' is an eye for an eye.

Law can (only) exist without that type of punishment.

Look at all the biblical and dark-age societies that implemented such thinking - they crumbled under their all evil.

whether its on public display or behind closed doors, it makes not the slightest difference how the sentence is carried out.

When you say "it makes no difference" you're implying that it has the same consequence.

How is that possible? If people don't see punishment, they're not affected by it, not deterred by it, do not gain anything from it.

The only way that it wouldn't make a difference is if you could get off the very idea that someone is being tortured because it would comfort you.

That is extremely, extremely sick.

The murder and the murderer are to be condemned,

Certainly. But only because otherwise the same occurrence could happen again.

If people could be brought back from the dead, there would be no need for it.

the swift distribution of justice is to be celebrated.

Celebrated? Why?

You're just describing an emotion, not logically explaining why something is positive or negative, even from a subjective standpoint.

Why must it be swift?

It's like you're parroting the tag-line from a political speech.

Again, I appreciate this endeavour to explain yourself, and I hope that you now acknowledge that I am not a troll, but you lack a great deal in the way of explanation.

I have no idea how you can hold such strong beliefs without truly understanding them, let alone how you think you can come out on top of a debate with such weak, almost nonexistent reasoning.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

they crumbled under their all evil.

If they were evil, then their justice was not implemented correctly, n the most basic terms, again: Should one decide to take an innocent life, the only proper response is forfeiting their rights, and their life.

Why is that the proper response?

Again? Pay attention,because I already explained this to you. In civilized society, the value of human life is paramount. That you don't understand that is why you remain confused, perpetually so it would seem.

She is not ALLOWED to ask for death.

One doesn't need permission to request something, your logic is ridiculously flawed. The fact that she didn't kill herself, or ask to be killed, just proves my point even further that she chooses not to die.

If people don't see punishment, they're not affected by it, not deterred by it, do not gain anything from it.

Then they should see it, however capital punishment isn't seen by most people and it is still the just penalty for murderers.

Celebrated? Why?

Would you rather celebrate injustice?  I'm waiting for a single rational thought from your side, this is too easy.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

If they were evil, then their justice was not implemented correctly,

Yes, exactly. It was implemented like this:

Should one decide to take an innocent life, the only proper response is forfeiting their rights, and their life.

Why? Why is that proper? No explanation yet again.

Again? Pay attention,because I already explained this to you.

I don't think you understand what an explanation is. It's where you EXPLAIN.

You just keep saying the same thing over and over again. I could sit here saying that 1+1=3 all day and it would amount to just as much as your babbling.

In civilized society, the value of human life is paramount.

How so?

I already expressed that I disagree with this notion and yet you keep writing it again.

How is that not trolling?

That you don't understand that is why you remain confused, perpetually so it would seem.

Perpetually, yes. Since it is YOUR contention that you refuse to explain.

I could use the same logic here.

I could say that murder is not wrong and call you out for "not understanding" and "remaining confused."

The reason I don't understand is because you won't explain, at best, and because it is utter nonsense at worse (and most likely).

One doesn't need permission to request something, your logic is ridiculously flawed.

That sentence is ridiculously flawed.

By taking away her ability to request death, you've committed to torturing her and we've already agreed that torture is worse than death.

The fact that she didn't kill herself, or ask to be killed,

Are you retarded? How many times must I say this?

She was not ALLOWED to kill herself. She DID ask to be killed and was refused.

That is torture and it is WORSE than death.

Jesus Christ, man. You didn't watch the episode and you're not reading what I write.

just proves my point even further that she chooses not to die.

She chooses TO die. She is then ignored.

Why am I even saying this? Watch the episode again and stop embarrassing yourself.

Then they should see it,

Why? What would they gain from it? Explain.

however capital punishment isn't seen by most people and it is still the
just
penalty for murderers.

Again, how is it 'just'? Explain.

Would you rather celebrate injustice?

No, I wouldn't. That's precisely why I'm against the punishment you speak of.

How is it 'justice'? Explain explain explain.

I'm waiting for a single rational thought from your end,

I'm waiting for a single logical explanation of any one of your contentions.

this is too easy.

Everything is easy when you're cheating :)

[–] submachine 10 years ago

how is it 'just'? Explain.

Again? Should one decide to take an innocent life, the only proper response is forfeiting their rights, and their life; they no longer deserve to live in a civilized society.

Why?

Again? In civilized society, the value of human life is paramount. "If you believe that society owes to its members the ultimate protection from murder, then capital punishment remains most solemn form of retribution against the killer of innocent people....Those who favor capital punishment do so mostly because they wish to legislate the gravity that attaches to the government's responsibility to preserve human life — by being willing to execute those who take innocent lives."

She DID ask to be killed and was refused.

It would be better, ie a better show and a better concept, if once the guilty requests death, to grant their wish and start over with a new guilty murderer.

What would they gain from it?

Witnessing justice is in itself something to be gained.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

Again?

Is this in an alternate universe?

NO, FOR THE FIRST TIME.

Should one decide to take an innocent life, the only proper response is forfeiting their rights, and their life; they no longer deserve to live in a civilized society.

Okay, I am now convinced you do not know what the word explain means.

Here, let me give you an example:

I say "Murder is wrong".

Explanation - "Murder is wrong because it hurts someone and that objectively deems it immoral."

Not Explanation - "Murder is wrong and the only response to it is punishment."

Do you see how the first example EXPLAINED something where as the second example just said the same thing over again WITHOUT explaining?

I can see you're not very bright, but I can't go on talking to you if you can't grasp this very simple concept, okay?

Again?

Yes. This might shock you, but as many times as you've made a contention you must also make an explanation, otherwise said contention is meaningless.

In civilized society, the value of human life is paramount.

OMG, AGAIN?!

And in the end, it's just over and over and over again..

"If you believe that society owes to its members the ultimate protection from murder, then capital punishment remains most solemn form of retribution against the killer of innocent people....Those who favor capital punishment do so mostly because they wish to legislate the gravity that attaches to the government's responsibility to preserve human life — by being willing to execute those who take innocent lives."

Why are you quoting someone else's writing? Or why are you presenting your own ideas in a quote?

If only it was as tepid as the rest of your thought process..

If you believe that society owes to its members the ultimate protection from murder,

I don't believe that society owes anything to its members. I believe that the members of society choose which things are forbidden and acts accordingly to weed them out.

In the way of 'protection from murder' there isn't much. Murder rates are as high as they have ever been and as high as they will ever be, I might add.

then capital punishment remains most solemn form of retribution against the killer of innocent people

WHY?! Why is capital punishment the sole form of punishment?

Because 88% of criminologists believe it is NOT a deterrent? Is that why?

I like how you use the word 'retribution'. Clearly, you derive some sort of sick joy from vengence.

This isn't moral, humane and it certainly is not justice.

Disagree? Explain why it is humane. Why can't you just lock people up? Why must they be killed? Who does it entertain?

Those who favor capital punishment do so mostly because they wish to legislate the gravity that attaches to the government's responsibility to preserve human life — by being willing to execute those who take innocent lives

Except it doesn't grant gravity to the government's ability to preserve human life, as it is NOT a deterrent.

As such, it is merely sick vengeance which appeals to the fractured psyche of the lowest common denominator, a.k.a the bible belt.

It is just as moral as you have the ability to explain why it is.

It would be better, ie a better show and a better concept, if once the guilty requests death, to grant their wish

It would be better for the victim, AKA the murderer.

But it certainly wouldn't be a very profound and impactful way of describing what mass immorality looks like in society, now would it?

Of course, that message is entirely lost on you.

and start over with a new guilty murderer.

I was gonna agree with you but.. nah. It's still worse than death. It's still torture.

If you're going to scare the hell out of someone BEFORE you kill them, there should at least be some reward at the end.

Not to mention the "murderer" in the episode was merely an accomplice. Under no law would she be put to death.

Witnessing justice is in itself something to be gained.

Wholeheartedly.

But I think you're starting to see that what we saw, what those sick people in the episode saw.. was the opposite of justice.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

Why are you quoting someone else's writing?

Because you have incredibly low reading comprehension.

I don't believe that society owes anything to its members.

Of course you don't, that would mean you actually understand what society is.

Why is capital punishment the sole form of punishment?

Eye for an eye, life for a life. It doesn't matter that you don't understand that fundamental concept, it matters those in power do.

It would be better for the victim, AKA the murderer.

You're thinking whats best for murderers.

William H Buckley and I am thinking about what's best for society.

And that's why you can't possibly win even a single point.



http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

Because you have incredibly low reading comprehension.

How do you figure?

If you can't come up with something on your own, it means you have very low writing comprehension/ability.

My ability to read/comprehend has nothing to do with it.

Of course you don't, that would mean you actually understand what society is.

What is society? Please tell me.

I would love to know.

Eye for an eye, life for a life. It doesn't matter that you don't understand that fundamental concept, it matters those in power do.

Well, it's not just me. It's me and 88% of criminologists.

Just like the people in power - if you can't explain why something is right, it most likely is wrong.

Think of God. Can you explain why God exists? No? Then there is no God.

Is that simple enough for you?

You're thinking whats best for murderers.

No, I'm thinking of what's FAIR.

Again, you seem to have trouble grasping balance between things.

William H Buckley and I am thinking about what's best for society.

And yet, again, you can't explain it, meaning it is likely what is NOT best for society.

Do you see how this goes? Even if you (an idiot) happens to be 100% correct, it makes no difference because we will never truly know until someone as smart as me has come to understand it - as I can articulate and explain it, proving its veracity.

Since I am not convinced, your idea remains nothing.

And that's why you can't possibly win even a single point.

You're right.

The points where your response was "You can't possibly understand" I get twice the points for.

So technically, I've beaten the game :)

[–] submachine 10 years ago

What is society?

 Go read a book.

I'm thinking of what's FAIR.

Doesn't know what society is, thinks he can understand the concept of fairness! 

it is likely what is NOT best for society.

Another unqualified opinion. ^

I've beaten the game

You haven't even beaten high-school. I'll finish this mismatch now, go back to school, read some books about society, morality, ethics, then get back to me.



http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

Go read a book.

"Go read a book"? Which book? Why? Have you read it? No? Then why are you telling me to read it?

If you can't explain such a simple concept to me, then you obviously don't understand it.

Doesn't know what society is

I know the textbook definition of society. That's not the one you were using.

Seems like you don't even know what your definition of society is.

thinks he can understand the concept of fairness!

Not knowing the (subjective) definition of a generalized concept such as society is a lack of knowledge.

Not being able to grasp the concept of fairness is a lack in intelligence, critical thinking and logic.

Seems like you lack ALL of these qualities.

Another unqualified opinion. ^

Ditto.

You haven't even beaten high-school.

If you consider high-school a challenge, I have bad news for you :)

I'll finish this mismatch now

This was never a match, nor a mismatch.

From the beginning, I knew this would be the equivalent of trying to explain geometrical algorithms to an ape.

go back to school, read some books about society, morality, ethics, then get back to me.

All those are subjective concepts. Reading a book about them would only show you another person's opinion on them.

You might as well have told me to read up on the subject of 'goodness', emotional pain and religion. LMFAO.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

What is society? Please tell me.

I know the textbook definition of society.

And that, people, is how you catch a troll.



http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

Here, let me fill in the blanks for you.

What is society? Please tell me (your definition).

And that, people, is how you catch a troll.

Absolutely.

Trolls love red herrings.



[–] danzig138-668-939218 10 years ago

The difference between you and me is that you can enjoy the idea of murder.

Just to be clear, you do know you're arguing with a known troll, right?

-----
WORDS MEAN THINGS! Also, before you come to bitch about a plot hole, rewatch the show/movie.

[–] Track607 10 years ago

Well, yeah. Obviously.

I just.. thought I could.. make a difference? I don't know.

It pisses me off when someone has the intelligence to come up with a response but chooses to act defensive instead.

[–] Korios 10 years ago

I couldn't stand this A - hole anymore, I just ignored him.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] Korios 10 years ago

Wow, is he that infamous? I wasted enough energy on him already..

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] dunyadoom 10 years ago

Track607 you were on track, but the problem is you were arguing with a machine.
Anyways, you got the point, it was about justification, not justice. Entertainment, rather than punishment. The episode lays a hard criticism on society and how they treat offenders.

Reading the thread on this topic I recalled what Terrence McKenna said: "We will amuse and entertain ourselves to extinction."

[–] Track607 10 years ago

but the problem is you were arguing with a machine.

I don't think you mean that literally.

Entertainment, rather than punishment.

*nods*

[–] dunyadoom 10 years ago

Hehe, nope, not literally, of course. It was just a play on words.
The intent is similar as in White Christmas, right? When the guy in the end makes a minute of the prisoners time seem to him like a thousand years. It is just senseless torture.

[–] Track607 10 years ago

I haven't seen White Christmas.

Can you explain?

[–] tealo1 10 years ago

You really are sick, a true narcissit...

[–] submachine 10 years ago

Learn to quote you moron, so we know what comment you're replying to.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] twilliams76 10 years ago

Don't put words into my mouth. I never once said Victoria should not be punished for her crime. She should be incarcerated and put into prison where they can try to rehabilitate her. She can remain in prison her entire life for all I care. She should be treated as a prisoner is treated in a civilized society. She's proven she isn't civil and deserving of living out in open society ... but the warped form of "justice" this show presents is supposed to be appallingly horrific.

Again ... I see you don't think it is very horrific but deserved. I wonder why this is the ONE episode that doesn't ask us (the audience) to look into a mirror and be mortified. We are apathetic voters in one, cannot let go and depend on a false reality in another, completely distrustful of others in another as we rely on technology, perverted voyeurs in the first episode and rabid consumers who care not an ounce for the depravity of fame or superstardom in another. But this one ... this one is simply all about Victoria and nothing whatsoever about us. It doesn't go along with the point of Black Mirror IF that was the case ... it is about something other than her, us. (just like all the others)

I never really felt sorry for Victoria even when I first watched White Bear (so I am not being emotional about her). I assumed they were playing a reality game (like that movie Series 7: The Contenders) show she'd unknowingly signed up for ... but was wrong. The twist isn't all that shocking because she is clearly a target for some reason. What is shocking is how the final moments of the episode play out ... it becomes all about the public buying their way into Victoria's NON-rehabilitation for our amusement in a theme park. That the PARK (not a "facility") isn't about justice but entertainment is what is supposed to frighten us. 'Park' was intentionally used to convey fun/entertainment for US. It is all there ... the writers of this show are uber-intelligent.

Again ... those it skewers won't understand because they'll deny it. Sorry.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

the warped form of "justice" this show presents is supposed to be appallingly horrific.

The actress is what makes it horrific, acting innocent and terrified, the exact opposite of a malevolent child killer. That, plus the over-enthusiastic crowds, it's done for exaggerated effect.

That the PARK (not a "facility") isn't about justice but entertainment

Punishment is justice. Deterrence is justice.

the writers of this show are uber-intelligent.

I'm not sure someone who uses the term "uber" is qualified to judge intelligence, but....the writers cheated. I can cheat too, by saying if you put Jeffrey Dahmer or OJ Simpson or Osama Bin Laden in that situation, it wouldn't "frighten" anyone.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Track607 10 years ago

The actress is what makes it horrific, acting innocent and terrified, the exact opposite of a malevolent child killer.

The pain they inflicted on her was fear, which almost everyone reacts to in the same way, just like physical pain.

Malevolence is momentary feeling. What causes it is psychopathy which is not something affected or observed through fear.

That, plus the over-enthusiastic crowds, it's done for exaggerated effect.

Exaggerated effect would make it satire, proving the opposite of what was shown.

The show is quite sincere in its portrayal of the bystanders as dormant psychopaths in a possible future, enjoying the idea of causing someone meaningless pain.

Punishment is justice. Deterrence is justice.

Neither of those are true justice, rather cheap imitations.

The only true justice would be to have the child rise from the dead and the 'protaganist' jailed to prevent further crime.

I'm not sure someone who uses the term "uber" is qualified to judge intelligence, but....the writers cheated.

I personally don't think that someone who judges another man's cognitive abilities based upon one word is clear-minded and unbiased enough to be taken seriously, but then I wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.

I can cheat too, by saying if you put Jeffrey Dahmer or OJ Simpson or Osama Bin Laden in that situation, it wouldn't "frighten" anyone.

Well, it would frighten anyone who isn't a psychopath.

A healthy person would not gain anything out of seeing fear and physical pain inflicted on someone.

The only pain that I would want to inflict on Jeffrey Dahmer would be remorse, grief and regret, all of which would be impossible if his memory were wiped clean. Though, of course, it's unlikely that would have been capable of such feelings (being a psychopath).

[–] dbeierl 8 years ago

I know this is long delayed, but I completely disagree that this episode holds no mirror up to us. "We" are the nominally righteous people who participate with glee, who are literally instructed to enjoy ourselves as we assist in repetitively terrorizing and beating up the young woman.

[–] Korios 10 years ago

Not really, but I do support punishment for child-killers, unlike you.

You reached new ridiculous lows now, you are either trolling or have severe reading comprehension problems; in any case I am not wasting any more energy on you, you are not worth it.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] hilario-dxf 10 years ago

In real life, you'd see the evil in the person, whether they remember or not, thus you'd agree the punishment is deserved.

This is a pretty laughable statement. Are you a criminal psychologist to formulate this opinion about 'you'd see the evil in the person, whether they remember or not'.

The OP summed this up quite well. I loved every episode but this one. The idea at first of criticizing people recording everything they see on cell phones, or illustrating a dystopian society where people of all ages can 'enjoy' this, or any one you can come up with from the episode is good, but the execution is very flawed. As a first time viewer, you don't know what's happening, and you feel sympathetic for her until the twist is revealed. Yeah she's a monster but it's hard not to think that the torture is pretty pointless in the end.

You are punishing someone who has had her memory erased, essentially converting her has an innocent, to be punished for a full day for a crime she didn't remember to commit. Yeah it's revealed to her at the end for a few minutes and then they force her to watch the murder she filmed, but to have her memory erased completely again and obviously completely forgetting about what happened to her the day before. You see, for me I believe that if a criminal deserves a punishment he/she HAS to remember everything they did so they can learn/suffer/ or die for what they did, not punishing a person who remembers jack****.

I'd be fine with any other punishment for her, as long as she remembers what she did. But then the whole episode would be pointless, I know that, but it's hard not to see that the episode is pretty badly designed.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

Are you a criminal psychologist to formulate this opinion about 'you'd see the evil in the person, whether they remember or not'.

Like I said before, people are defined by their actions, not their memories.

it's hard not to see that the episode is pretty badly designed.

You have a point, erasing only her short-term memory would be a better solution.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Track607 10 years ago

Like I said before, people are defined by their actions, not their memories.

No, people are defined by their personas, their personalities, "who they are", if you will, which are a somewhat solid basis on which to predict future actions.

Once you cause the brain to lapse into fear you tread into delta-wave territory and the person you're trying to punish is all but gone.

[–] mchzanes2 10 years ago

Interesting thread. Feelings about this episode seem clearly divided along two lines. For submachine and some others, the woman is evil incarnate because she allowed a child to be tortured and then murdered. No punishment is too harsh. For Mr. Williams, myself, and others, she deserves punishment, yes, but the type on display here--turning "justice" into something that one can pay to participate in, call it a theme park or a hall-of-justice..for us, this is a perversion of justice and it has taken things way too far, and most certainly points out that the definition of "civilized people" has certainly changed in this particular horrific vision of the future.

Well kudos for Brooker writing it exactly the way he did, because it is like that famous brain teaser where some see an old lady and others a young one. Good writing, good art should stir folks up, make them passionate about something.

Here's what stirred me, when reading through this thread. submachine says that the writer(s) "cheated" by making her character sympathetic. As submachine put it, anyone who allows a child to be tortured and murdered is evil and would never act so innocent, even with their brain wiped clean. I would ask submachine how you've come to know this? Know this with absolute certainty? In your eyes, there is no possible scenario where a woman could be involved in something like this, and she could be anything less than evil incarnate? What if a man does literally slip drugs, day in and day out, to a woman, without her knowing, in her food, etc..no woman has ever lost her autonomous will in this fashion? What if a man seduces a woman into trusting him, then slowly, over time, he shifts into someone who does one bad thing, then weeks later, another--then days, then it's all the time..Funny me..I am able to imagine all kinds of ways that a woman could be less than evil incarnate, and end up doing something this heinous. So I take issue with you as to this woman's "nature" being evil, because as you say "anyone that would allow this, ipso facto HAS to be evil." It's a non-sensical argument.

When you say the writers "cheated" it really reeks of "they didn't write White Bear in the way that proves MY assertions about the show." So according to you, if they had made her act evil, while she is being hunted during the main portion of the show--this would have been the "correct" behavior of any and every woman under these particular circumstances, having done those particular heinous things before having her brain wiped over and over..okay then, I do get where you are coming from.

But what if Brooker actually did write it this way, on purpose? Made her sympathetic on purpose? What if Brooker's "intention" is rendered, on screen, 100% in accordance with his own vision? If Brooker made her sympathetic on purpose, then maybe he had a different "intention" than you are imagining he had. Is that possible? Maybe he envisioned a darker more complicated world than you are "getting" from viewing White Bear. And so, having this different vision, he might differ with you, about this "cheating" thing, is what I am trying to get at. Let's not forget who wrote it, either.

What was it Jesus said about sins and stones? Whatever it was, perhaps the majority's sentiment here is that he was having an off day when he made that statement. Or maybe wasn't imagining someone as utterly un-redeemable as the woman in White Bear.

I am glad that for some people, matters of right and wrong and good and evil are like the binary digits that run our computers. For me and others, it can be a little more complicated than that. Obviously the woman deserves punishment, but just maybe Brooker chose this particular type of punishment to reflect on where our society may be headed, and just maybe Brooker made her sympathetic because he wanted us to feel what she was going through, so we would get that complicated feeling later, of "OMG, I was caring about her, then she turns out to have let a child be tortured and murdered!?!" Whether or not that was his intention, it was certainly how I ended up feeling. Very unsettled..but for me, that is the crux of the episode, and what makes it great--challenging us--getting us to hold up that mirror and look into it, and see what we see.

[–] latour-4 10 years ago

Very excellent response. This is aimed at mchzanes2 as the thread is very confused in its layout for me.

[–] twilliams76 10 years ago

Thank you, Posh. Exactly.

Children are there! White Bear is the name of the "Justice Park" they pay an admission fee to enter and (minimally) participate. They get to video tape their encounter on their phones to go home and re-watch!

It is basically a depraved, futuristic theme park. It is warped!

And hence ... a story on Black Mirror. NONE of these stories are overly uplifting stories about humanity as we become more and more addicted/obsessed with the wired/digital world.

[–] Korios 10 years ago

Come on man, seriously? You reach a personal conclusion that the episode is about justice, not entertainment and then, with that in mind, you put words in twilliams's mouth that he supposedly claims that.. "justice can be depraved" when in fact his quote was this one?

Our very own humanity as we too have become cruel/depraved in our own way.

Do you often reach arbitrary conclusions of the type "The point is about Z, not about X" and then, when the person you discuss talks only about X(entertainment) you, having replaced X with Z(justice) on your own, you claim the other person's points about X are actually about Z?

That's one of the most fallacious train of thoughts I have ever come across.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] trippycheez 10 years ago

Yes, this is right -- the episode is about the audience. Victoria is accused of observing someone else's pain without stepping in to stop it. Now look at the horrible glee people take in watching her agony. They have built a whole theme park around letting people watch while she is psychologically tortured as a form of entertainment. They aren't so different from her.

The whole theme park show is a metaphor for the actual world. Signals from phones and TVs turn the vast majority of people into "onlookers." Violent forces are allowed to gain power, and no one tries to stop them. They (we) can see everything but remain passive.

This was m favorite Black Mirror episode. So many twists and turns and different layers to it.

[–] Korios 10 years ago

No, it was not "just his slant", it was the creator's intention. Do you actually mean that you would join the witch-hunt against her if you had the chance? What if she had instead given an alibi to her husband, out of fear or some sort of Stockholm Syndrome, and the law "evolved" further so that she was still eligible for the same punishment? Would you still condone this sadistic circus?

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] submachine 10 years ago

Learn to quote you moron, so we know what comment you're replying to.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] Zoggles 9 years ago

Spot on. Exactly what I took from the episode. Somewhat frightening how many people are putting the sole focus on Victoria and her 'fitting' punishment without looking at what the show reflects back.

Yes she deserves to be punished, but there are many forms of punishment which could be just as cruel to her as retribution for her crime. What most here seem to overlook is that it is not so much about her punishment but rather the satisfaction and entertainment provided to the spectating and participating audience.

The replies and general concensus here is possibly more frightening a reality than the one that the episode itself portrays.

[–] skane110-1 10 years ago

I was glad to find this thread here because I just finished watching "white bear" and wanted to know what others thought of it. I think, like many, at first I wasn't bothered by what the spectators were doing and thought that it was a fitting punishment for Victoria but, at the same time, I thought it was sick and twisted. I don't think the people who created the episode wanted people to watch it and completely agree with it. They wanted people to be sickened and disturbed by it. The media does do a great job of painting people as being horrible monsters and that causes them to be become famous figures who everyone hates and we would all love for those people to have the same thing happen to them that they did to others. Especially if someone killed another person in some horrible way and then they get the death penalty and are able to be killed humanely and with a special last meal request. We have all thought at some point that it's not fair but, we also live in countries that forbid "cruel and unusual" punishments. Those rules don't just exist for the benefit of the criminals but, also, for our benefit. If you went to jail, how would you want to be treated? And if we treat criminals the same way that they treated their victims then, what does that make us? At the end of the day, we would be no better than they are. So, xigne540, you didn't miss the point of "white bear", in fact, I think you definitely got the point.