Enemy turf

[prog]

Just watched three more Losts at dougo's. I have some problems with elements introduced during season two. I find one particular character deeply unlikable, not in a boo-hiss way but in a STFU way. And tonight I actually managed to find an episode politically repugnant.

The show's done a good job staying apolitical, a small feat in the face of the Gulf Wars being a minor plot element. But I think it crossed a line in an episode that hinged on the assumption that confessions extracted under torture are reliable and true. I watched the episode with my teeth clenched, waiting for any of the characters to speak up and question this assumption, or for some other event that would cast doubt on it. It never came.

I don't know it for a fact, but I fear that a light was shone on the writers' political views, which would be ones I find disgusting and contemptible. Probably I am reading too much into it and it's just particularly ugly TV trope that I've only started noticing more often lately, like everybody tends to lie and you can kick a prone man in the face 20 times and he might get a few bruises but that's it, both of which this show also espouses.

I like a lot of Lost still and I will probably go back to watch more, but this is two strikes against it. At this point, if it loses me, I will write it off not just as having choppy quality but because it is has the taint.

Comments

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I had forgotten that Jack was in favor of torturing Sawyer. (Although even Sawyer was in favor of torturing Sawyer at that point.)

I'm still doubting that the show's producers (or anyone in Hollywood) thinks that torture is ever a good idea. The "torture doesn't work" meme has only really become prominent in the last few months, and I suspect if the episode had been written today it might have included something about that. It would be interesting to ask them though.

Sidebar: I'm pretty uncomfortable with the pragmatic argument against torture anyway. Even if torture worked perfectly every time, I would be against torture because it's either cruel and unusual punishment (if it's done to a convicted criminal) or it violates habeas corpus and due process (if it's done to a suspect). Even in the cliche hypothetical situation where a guy knows where a nuclear bomb is hidden that would go off in an hour and kill millions and he'll tell if you torture him, I think torture is still unjustified.

[prog.livejournal.com]

The pragmatic argument is useful because it has a better chance of reaching people who think torture is just dandy so long as it's to bad guys, and as far as I can tell we've got about half a countryful of those right now.

The meme has burrowed deep within me, yes. If I had watched the same episode last year, it might not have bothered me as much, or at least bothered me in the way it was supposed to bother me, instead of making my anti-Bushie flags snap up.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

But even there, you can rebut that argument (in the context of Guantanamo) because they have not been proven (in a court of law) to be bad guys yet.

[prog.livejournal.com]

"They're unlawful combatants. The laws as we know them do not apply."

[dougo.livejournal.com]

The Supreme Court has already contradicted that.

Excuse me?

[prog.livejournal.com]

"I don't think you understand. These are bad guys who want to murder your children."

[dougo.livejournal.com]

This is a tangent upon a tangent, but it's reminding me of the debate about whether you're born gay or it's a lifestyle choice. The distinction only matters for those who think the latter should be illegal (or unequal), and the real argument is that it should be legal (and equal) whether it's a choice or not.