[heckraiser]

What a horrific nonsensical rant that clearly misses the point of the story.

Save yourself the eyesores, don’t click.

The Omelas narrative challenges the psychological maxim that someone must suffer for the common gain.

It is a short story, and like all short stories accentuates a tiny detail into a worldview.

In what way does Ursula roll in her grave?

Gaza, or #metoo, or thriving race hate, or the pedopolitics (here come scathing karma killers.)

To be silent in the face of a tyranny of evil is to be complicit.

Rest easy Ursula, you have been heard.

[happytoexplain]

> horrific nonsensical rant

> don't click

> scathing karma killers

I enjoyed it, but even if I didn't, you haven't given a clue about where such vitriol is coming from. I'm assuming you don't like it in relation to the work it's referencing? To the point that you find it offensive (VERY offensive, apparently)?

[heckraiser]

As a fan of Ursula K. Le Guin, the central theme is one sorely missed.

This has been a controversial critique in terms of karma (up and down so many times it has leveled out.)

It’s a bit crass, though my reply was regarding the relevance in today’s world (dirty secrets we don’t confront) more than the author’s shake up.

Le Guin’s social commentary is still pressing in our day.

[mcphage]

> To be silent in the face of a tyranny of evil is to be complicit.

Isn't that what this criticism is all about? In the original story, you either accept the suffering—be complicit—or you walk away. But that's still being silent in the face of a tyranny of evil. It's just saying "well okay, I won't benefit, but I'm not going to make those people who are benefitting feel bad".

[smlavine]

I've never heard of the story this one is apparently based on, and I thought it was kinda neat to read.

[aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA]

Dare I even ask what "pedopolitics" is?

[rcoveson]

I'm really confused. Did we read the same thing? This is just a "sequel" to the original Omelas that, if anything, suffers from the fact that it doesn't really add anything new.

It's harsher on the city's arrangement. It seeks out and destroys whatever moral ambiguity might have been present in the original. To me it read like, "I read the Omelas short story and I just want to be clear that the correct interpretation is that Omelas is bad, see, look how bad."

I don't see how it misses the point of the original. It just kind of shouts in agreement with the original in an unnecessary way.

> In what way does Ursula roll in her grave?

Who said she was rolling in her grave? I searched the linked page for any mention of "roll" or "grave" or "Ursula" and found nothing.

[heckraiser]

How many times does the author slit a kids throat?

Yeah, we must have read different stories.

[MSFT_Edging]

I think if someone was to read the original story and have a smug takeaway, like that of the trolley problem being solved by killing the single person, they might get upset at confronting the alternative of "why were those people placed on the tracks?".

I think this new story is important, because as a society we do often rest on the idea that a certain level of suffering cannot be avoided. This idea allows one to rest, no longer worrying about what could be done for those suffering, because after all, it can't be avoided anyway.

This new story confronts the comfortable idea that nothing can be done, it says out loud, "what if leaving isn't the only alternative to forgetting?".

This harshly confronts comfort, and makes people upset. Similar to how highly "politeness" is held in modern politics, such that you could have a rude man like Trump and a polite man with his same views, and those who despise Trump would then approve of the man with identical opinions but a quieter mouth.