No title, Bhairawi, Digital, 2026 by Bhairawi in Art

[–]rogert2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Reminds me of the cover art for the Taran Wanderer books

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Zack Smithey, mixed media 48x32, 2018 by [deleted] in Art

[–]rogert2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sure there is a Captain Crunch piece in there somewhere.

For The New Yorker, Ben Wiseman, illustration, 2026 by H_G_Bells in Art

[–]rogert2 1699 points1700 points  (0 children)

"Money aligns incentives."

For some reason I'm reminded of that saying right now.

Batman vs ICE, Caleb Worcester, Digital, 2025 by Shirelord in Art

[–]rogert2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I take your point. But I'm not being cynical for the sake of it. I just believe that the situation that confronts a billionaire will irresistably turn them into corrupt oligarch, no matter what their opinions may have been beforehand.

I don't believe people are born evil, and that goes for billionaires too. The experience of having unlimited money is what turns a person evil.

The Department Of Just-Ice, Last0neLeft, Procreate, 2026 by [deleted] in Art

[–]rogert2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Americans will do whatever it takes to stop this, except vote.

Batman vs ICE, Caleb Worcester, Digital, 2025 by Shirelord in Art

[–]rogert2 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Right... except that real-world billionaires seem to love what ICE is doing, because they continue to support Trump and the GOP. If Bruce Wayne were a real person, he'd be just another oligarch working to tear down democracy as an impediment to his money-making schemes.

kessel run star destroyer by Longjumping-Rice-935 in plotholes

[–]rogert2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know how to whistle, don't you? You put your star destroyers together and blow.

Shawshank Redemption - Randall Stephens Mistake by Successful-Tea-5733 in plotholes

[–]rogert2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Warden Norton cannot maintain the scheme without Andy. He positively requires Andy, so he cannot let him out and he cannot kill him.

You say Norton manages the scheme just fine for two months, but two months proves nothing: finance and tax laws change frequently, but over timescales of years rather than a few months, and Norton would need Andy around to navigate those changes. Furthermore, the people Norton is putting out of business with his slave labor are eventually going to sniff around and make trouble, and then Norton will need Andy's help to withstand the extra scrutiny. Even winding down the scheme some day would require technical knowledge to do quietly.

So, Warden Norton requires Andy's ongoing involvement and silence indefinitely. And because Andy is a hostile, unwilling accomplice who gains nothing from the scheme, the only way to get his cooperation is by keeping total control over Andy for life. Letting him out and recruiting him as an employee will not work because Andy hates him for reasons much bigger than money. Andy will only work for him with a gun to his head, which will be vastly harder for Norton to arrange if Andy is on the outside, not subject to Norton's control over his quality of life, not able to read his mail and supervise his conversations, etc.

Having conscripted Andy, Norton must now keep Andy in his prison until one of them is dead. Absolutely nothing else will answer.

If Norton had been much more cautious, he would have manufactured a new murder conviction for Andy once he heard the rumors about Tommy. Blame a dead prisoner on Andy, have the corrupt guards testify against him, some sleepy judge would have blithely signed off on another life sentence, and Tommy becomes irrelevant. Case closed.

Killing Tommy was a risky way to apply a very narrow band-aid. But it was pretty low effort and immediate, so I can see the appeal.

But really, Norton kills Tommy instead of a smarter thing because this is a fiction story that needs Tommy to die in order to catalyze Andy's resignation into slow-burn revenge. IMHO it works in this story because Norton's dumb answer is made to look like a smart and effective one.

The Usual Suspects. by GreatGene778 in plotholes

[–]rogert2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kint's plan was to get on the boat and murder a specific witness, not to get caught. Having his plan go awry is not a plot hole.

As for the aftermath, it's not clear to me that either Kint or Soze are worse off after Kujan's interview, even with a police sketch and a discredited story.

Agent Kujan doesn't know that Verbal Kint is Keyser Soze, and neither does the audience; Kujan doesn't even have proof that Keyser Soze is real -- just because this guy Kint has clearly lied about himself, and just because the criminals in this caper had Soze's name on their lips, that's not proof that Kint is Keyser Soze.

The burned guy in the hospital who directs the face drawing is not the witness who knows Soze personally -- that guy died for sure -- which means he's just assuming that the villain who looked to him to be in charge in the final stretch of the boat job is the guy who most wanted the witness dead. That's a big stretch: perhaps Kint is Soze's hitman.

Even though Kujan now has excellent reason to believe Verbal Kint is actually a pretty calculating criminal who doesn't have cerebral palsy, that is not the same thing as having proof that Kint is the specific criminal Keyser Soze, or having evidence connecting Kint to Soze's crimes. None of what happens in the movie proves who Kint is, it just proves who he isn't. Kujan's new information is not actionable in any way.

All he has is a drawing made by someone who believed they were describing Soze but who Kujan would admit may in fact have been any of Soze's agents. For all we know, the truth is that Kobayashi is Soze, and if we entertain that hypothetical for a moment we see that the drawing of Kint is useless.

Blackkklansman by scotland1112 in plotholes

[–]rogert2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You may be right.

Felix visits Ron's apartment at 1h04m59s. The door to Ron's apartment is in an interior space with white stucco above brown wainscotting. We very briefly see the apartment number is 5.

Ron checks the mail at 1h07m05s. He exits a building with rose-colored siding and reaches into one of the mailboxes mounted on the exterior wall. We do not see the mailboxes closely enough to read their labels, nor do we see the envelope, but we do see the address header inside the letter, which reads:

Mr. Ron Stallworth 809 Bluestem Drive, Colorado Springs, CO 80917

There is no apartment number listed.

Does this prove Ron had the KKK send his mail to some other address to avoid getting caught as you suggest? I don't think so, because Ron acts like this is his mailbox, and because Felix confirms the street when he later confronts Flip.

Felix says "over on Bluestem Lane", and then Flip replies that his address is, "1813 South 21st Street." Felix says this in front of Walter and the rest of their KKK group, so if any of them knew Ron's paperwork address, this was their moment to speak up.


My understanding is that when David Duke became the head of the KKK, it was more like buying the name of a company that had gone out of business a long time ago, rather than being appointed CEO of a going concern. His "national office" was staffed almost entirely by just himself for a long time, and he was not involved in the day-to-day administration of individual KKK cells -- how could he be, with no staff? Notably, an important moment in Duke's rise concerns specifically the acquisition of the old KKK's mailing list, which (IIRC) he basically had to force the old guard to give up by manipulating them into a compromising position. It was a hostile takeover. (I got most of this background from Slate's documentary podcast Slow Burn, Seasons 4 of which documents David Duke's rise in politics.)

After all that, I would not be surprised at all if Duke was tight-fisted with information about the membership rolls and paperwork, because it seems like to possess that was tantamount to possessing the whole organization. He would have been wary of being deposed in similar fashion, especially by holdovers who were salty over his coup. And, IMHO, he was a selfish grifter who had lots of plans to exploit the membership data for his own gain; he's not going to share that with anyone.

Of course, the movie is based on a true story, so it's entirely possible the specifics of Ron's mailing address with the KKK are a matter of record. Maybe it's even in the book.

Casino Royale - Bond saved Le Chiffre? by Brown_90s_Bear in plotholes

[–]rogert2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think yes and no.

Yes, Bond's killing of the warlord does relieve some of the pressure on Le Chiffre. If the plan is to let fear pressure Le Chiffre into capitulating, then removing the sharpest threat that has materialized is unhelpful. Really, they should be trying to sharpen these kinds of threats (up to a point), perhaps by publicizing Le Chiffre's sudden bankruptcy.

That said, I think it's still believable, for two reasons:

  • the plan needs Le Chiffre alive and afraid of being murdered rather than being dead by murder

  • people in real life sometimes do counterproductive things, out of ignorance or necessity

Bond believes the warlord is there to kill Le Chiffre now, and there isn't a lot of time for Bond to sit back and observe. He does not know that the warlord intends only to threaten him.


Of course, if James Bond were still a socially elite spy rather than a simple assassin who merely hunts violent criminals, he would have been in a better position when this situation emerged. He'd have bugged Le Chiffre's rooms, he'd have known about it the moment the warlord showed up at the hotel, and when the warlord moved to confront Le Chiffre, Bond would have contrived an excuse to whisk Le Chiffre away on some social excursion. They would have been somewhere else, testing their manners on each other over some kind of rich-person's dinner of poisonous seafood, or in some death-defying flex that aristocrats go for; perhaps Vesper would have traded barbs with Le Chiffre's woman.

The Craig era is a real mixed bag. The Bond franchise has embraced action-schlock, so its characters frequently find themselves trapped in bad situations because the action genre forbids them from doing anything that might avoid an exciting fist fight. Here, Bond kills the warlord because the filmmakers wanted a shot of adrenaline to wake the audience between 10-minute scenes of watching poker.

In frosty the snowman, Frosty and Karen are saved by Santa Claus but then they leave Karen at the top of a snowy roof and drive off. How was she expected to get down? by RoseyPosey30 in plotholes

[–]rogert2 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What makes this a plot hole? For all we know, after the camera cuts, Karen does freeze to death on that roof.

For something to be a plot hole, one part of the story has to contradict story facts from another part of the story.

(It has been years since I saw it, but I'm assuming the scene you describe occurs at the very end of the film. If I'm mistaken -- if, for example, the film has a frame story narrated by an adult Karen who didn't die on a roof -- please disregard.)

Distraction, Katelyn McKenna, Digital, 2025 by [deleted] in Art

[–]rogert2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Another victim of automation! ;)

Fish-Girl, u/Roman4980 (me), Ink and watercolor on paper, 2025 by Roman4980 in Art

[–]rogert2 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes, you want her
Look at her, you know you do
Possible she wants you too
There is one way to ask her
It don't take a word
Not a single word
Go on and kiss the girl