I guess it's worth mentioning that this whole post is a massive spoiler for SSY. I'm tempted to add spoiler tags but where would I even start or end...
Just uhh... don't read it if you haven't experienced it and are sensitive to spoilers for it?
(also I can't remember what SSY stood for. I know what it is and someone streamed it like a year ago ago, but how do people remember these things?)

I like how you spoilered the image and didn't mention the name of the series and then blatantly talked about the whole ending in open text. Very "fuck you" vibes.

Anyway, Shin Sekai Yori is not a good show at all, but I think you're picking at the wrong things. The point of the backstory is to establish that their powers are so ridiculously dangerous that their idyllic country lifestyle shouldn't even be possible. The stance on the extreme interference of the adults in their lives is supposed to be justified and the show's stance is that individuals should trust that the system is there for a reason even if they feel like it's oppressing them.

They can and will still kill the rats. They use the dogs as assassins, the rats are just workers. They outright reject Squealer's claim that they're human and write it off as a sad thing that happened in the past and then shouganai. The whole uprising was caused by people questioning the system and the ones who come out on top are the ones who went with the flow. The messaging there seems pretty clear, just because it isn't the usual message on the topic doesn't make it contradictory.

>>122725
Actually image was spoilered by mod action and I wasn't sure how to treat the OP text, but I think it's good now. (People do need to reload to see the mod edit though if they already had the page loaded)
I'm too tired to actually have a discussion right now, but I hope people have a good thread!

>>122724
>how do people remember these things
Either by having screenshots with the show name in them or googleing a character name.

You should have just used a non-spoiler image from the show saying you hate the ending and here's why:, then gave the rest of the post in a reply. At that point people know the thread will have spoilers in it and can act accordingly. Or even just mentioning the name of the show in the first line would probably be sufficient to let people know to stop.

It is genuinely baffling how some people whose taste I generally respect have recommended this show to me in the past. The best I can say is that it tried to do some stuff.

>>122725
the problem comes this from this small tacked-on segment it has explicitly stating the system is undesirable and should be changed for the better
it doesn't have the balls to actually say " it's all justified, git gud faggot" and endorse servitude to its dystopia or face the fact that everything is still the same and will continue to be so, it's a copout from someone who wrote themselves into a corner and only manages to have a happy ending by not acknowledging the reality of things
after this it ends with a quote about how the power of imagination can change anything and lmao, no, it tries to wave everything away and force a different message at the last minute

I enjoyed it. The bleak atmosphere and surreal imagery were enough to get me through if nothing else.
>have a happy ending by not acknowledging the reality of things
Hardly a genuine happy ending, more an ironic "happily ever after" to hammer in the fact that cantus users are perpetually fucked. Saki knows the status quo is an unshakable mess, but still decides to do what little she can to make life bearable.
Like a terminally ill patient making the most of it.

>>122723
>randos suddenly getting powers led to humanity's near extinction simply because they felt like it
And it's not that humanity has been driven to extinction but that a supernatural force has driven evolution in humans and the resultant change has causes humans to force evolve humans who couldn't use cantus.

>The entire backstory is built on first-wave rando retardation on top of a thousand years of emperor retardation on top of scientist retardation all to deal with the absolutely irredeemable walking nukes that are cantus users.
It's a pessimistic view but it's one of the answers to the question, "What if Superman was evil?" It's perfectly reasonable to think that if some disaffected teen got cantus power they'd go on some murderous power trip. Then once, the more psychopathic cantus users realized the extent of their power they'd institute some caste system with them ruling over masses of slaves.
The scientists plot is a little more far fetched but it's still reasonable to think there would be a group of people that wanted to restrict the influence of cantus society and did so by leveraging scientific insights to curtail the excesses of a spiritual awakening.

>blatantly sinister actions of their superiors in a way that almost seems to say "hey, maybe surveillance states are bad"
I think the key insight you're missing is that cantus users are not mere humans. They are supernatural entities who with a mere thought can inflict an unthinkable amount of harm to the world around them. They are closer to gods than to humans and must be held to a higher standard, even if by force. This kinda goes back to the idea that in the face of unequivocal and great evil, any action is justified. Similar to an argument that the ends justifies the means. Importantly cantus users are not gods but still mortal and fallible.

>>122741
>explicitly stating the system is undesirable and should be changed for the better
The conclusion Saki reaches is only after she discovers that queerrats are humans. This is the crucial bit of information to understand the moral framework the story operates under. Cantus users are held to a higher standard, they have immense power and go through rigorous and deadly training to ensure they are of such a morally upright character to wield their powers. Despite all this training and moralizing they do, there is an original sin their society has committed and continues to perpetrate; the enslavement of and disregard for the humanity of queerrats. This one evil ultimately makes all the other small evils the society justifies (killing children, censoring knowledge, ect..), unjustifiable. Despite all the effort society has put into controlling cantus users, they still wantonly kill other humans as their whim suites and refuse the recognize the humanity of queerrats.
After Saki accepts that queerrats are humans she begins to atone for societies sins by saving Squeller from a figurative and literal Hell. This is not some large revolutionary act like Squealer did or one may expect from a story about overcoming a totalitarianism or any other "great evil" but it is a small act of defiance that demonstrates one person's ability to change the current society. More importantly, from a moral perspective, Saki has recognized the humanity in Squealer (by extension all queerrats) thus beginning the process of reconciliation.
Shinsekai Yori's story is closer to an allegory about the dangers of societal inequality and treating others as non-human than about totalitarianism.

I can't really say much more than "you don't get it". Naratively it's not perfect and likely loses a lot in what I guess could be the adaptation of the novels, but it maintains themes that resonate with me about individuality and social harmony.

>>122741
Characters having moderate political viewpoints isn't a copout. They do think it's all justified and will use force to maintain the status quo, but they're not ignorant of the issues the revolutionaries raised. They want to improve the systems their society operates within, but they refuse the idea of creating disharmony in the name of reformism so it's mostly just talk. Thinking about how to prevent revolts while still maintaining power is a realistic response to an uprising and accepting that kids need to be murdered doesn't mean soon-to-be-parents will want to keep doing it.

You have to remember that cantus is a crude metaphor for the advancing offensive capabilities of modern technology. When you can't defend against a weapon, the only option is to make sure it's never deployed. Nobody like submitting to a security scan every time they want to get on a plane and we'd all prefer a world where we didn't have to, but we accept this infringement as necessary because no one has had a better idea on how to keep planes safe. You don't argue that the government has too much control over nuclear weapons. If a kid has an automatic rifle and starts waving it around, you have to treat them like a real and present danger because something that used to be relatively harmless can now kill dozens of people with ease.

>>122747
I disagree. Squealer's claim was rejected and the queerrats are more closely monitored than they were before. The fact that they were originally created from humans does not make them human. Revolution didn't occur because of inequality but because of mismanagement. They disregarded queerrat politics and thus failed to stop the dangerous consolidation of their vassals until they became strong enough to make a play for control. It's a warning against complacency towards the lower classes.

>>122756
> It's a warning against complacency towards the lower classes.
It would be if not for a large part of Saki's journey throughout the story being one of discovering that queerrats are genetically modified humans and coming to terms with that fact. The motivating reason for killing Squealer isn't her recognizing that cantus users were partially at fault for mismanaging the querrats but it was Satoru telling her about his discoveries of the queerrat genome and her own research into the scientific classifications of queerrats. Ultimately discovering that queerrats are a species of humans, genetically modified to the point that cantus users no longer see them as fellow "humans".

Saki still didn't have any kids by 26 what is she even doing??

>>122758
>a large part of Saki's journey throughout the story being one of discovering that queerrats are genetically modified humans and coming to terms with that fact
This only comes up after everything else is finished and they immediately follow up the revelation with "nah, I can't see them as human lol." She kills Squealer because she knew him personally and wanted to show him mercy, not because she thought he was right. It was a question of moral rule vs. rule through fear.

>>122760
But why does she kill him only after finding out definitively that queerrats are modified humans? If it was only because she was personally close to Squealer his death could have happened at a much earlier date or even during the trail. Notable it's Satoru's voice that says the rhetorical question about how they don't see queerrats as human. Saki's answer to Satoru's question is killing Squealer, she sees him as human. Why position the scene otherwise? The alternative you're proposing, is that Saki answers the question about seeing queerrats as human by mercy killing her non-human friend. It's an odd response to the question.

>>122759
I thought I read somewhere that the mother's mean age at first birth in Japan was 29 but I could not find it again, however the mother's mean age at first birth for Australia is 28.7 for reference.

>>122762
Ohh and the Australian statistic was from 2014, so it's 10 years old.

>>122761
I'm fairly certain that was her first opportunity to do it. She's not in charge of the sentencing and the others wanted him to suffer. She had to wait until everybody was busy elsewhere and make it look like an accident. The point is that patiently going along with things gives you opportunities to make small changes that steer society towards something better.

And he's not her friend, just someone she knows well enough to have developed some level of sympathy for.

>>122765
>I'm fairly certain that was her first opportunity to do it.
Even if that is true, it is true by the construct of the author. The author could have chosen any number of ways to have Saki kill Squealer. The mere fact that the author chose to tell the story in this specific way reveals authorial intent behind the meaning of Saki's actions. The key here is why does Saki kill Squealer after discovering queerrats are part human? Why did the author not have Saki kill Squealer then discover queerrats are part human? Why does the author have Saki discover queerrats are human? Why does the author have Saki kill Squealer at all?
The last question can be answered by your explanation of sympathy but the other questions are answered by mere coincidence and the author felt like it. Which could be true but seems unlikely given the importance the end of a story has in laying out the "meaning".

Further reinforcing this view is the way in which the scenes played out in the show. Satoru asks Saki a rhetorical quesiton about seeing queerrats as human. Saki of course gives no verbal answer but the following scene is Saki killing Squealer. This can quite easily be seen as Saki "answering" Satoru. Again this didn't have to be the next scene or even be included in the adaptation but including it and including it in the way it was included goes to show how the director thought what the authors intent was, and of course what the director's intent is with the show and it's meaning.

>The point is that patiently going along with things gives you opportunities to make small changes that steer society towards something better.
I have no disagreement with that, but with the moral reasoning leading to a need for change being strictly a miscalculation about managing the lower classes and not about recognizing genetically modified, sentient humans as humans.