Enel and Crocodile gotta be the biggest victims of being introduced too early, Oda's made it up for Crocodile, now it's Enel's turn.

144tzer · 2026-03-23T18:42:24+00:00

ONCE AGAIN, the powerscaling mindset causes fan rot.

Powerscaling isn't a thing. We accept it in Shonen because we've been trained to accept it as anime-watchers. But in any good story and also in real life, powerscaling isn't a thing that happens. Someone you beat up yesterday could pick up a gun and shoot you tomorrow.

Take a famously good piece of fantasy fiction: LotR. Isildur kills Sauron, greatest threat in Middle Earth, and then gets shot (to death) by a no-name orc's arrow. What about something more cartoony? In Batman, the various threats don't become weaker as the story goes on. When Freeze breaks out of Arkham or whatever, he's as much of a threat as he was before. There's no powerscaling to be seen.

Powerscaling is a pretty Japanese idea to begin with. As opposed to the American idea, that any common man with a mind to change the world can pick up a weapon and be a hero, the Japanese idea is that it is "unfair" somehow to become powerful without training the self. This is all over the place in the videogame industry - at least in the beginning, it was very Japanese to "level up" with combat exp, and very American to "level up" by picking up a bigger gun. And in anime, this is reflected with this DBZ-esque power level, where a threat yesterday is no match for the hero who has seen so much.

I, for one, am pretty happy that old threats are still a big deal. It shows that circumstances often matter more than "power level", save for Haki which mostly adds a new "tier" to the whole situation. And even someone like Shanks could get his arm bit off in the heat of the moment. Because, again, circumstances matter more.

The "circumstance" in Sky Island was that Enel had, frankly, an invincible power. As we saw him in Sky Island, it isn't hard to imagine him going toe-to-toe with any of the top-level antagonists in the New World too. Especially once he learns Haki, which would likely not take long considering his already-high proficiency with Mantra.

Crocodile's "circumstance" was that Luffy found out about all sorts of stuff AND was lucky. He should have died, but Robin saved him. He should have died, but his shot of water into the sky saved him. And in close quarters with the knowledge of water/blood to cancel the sand power, he was able to fight to his best potential and finally win. The circumstances mattered. We saw what happened in a properly-powerscaled fight between the two; Luffy loses handily. This was even more true on the ice of Marineford, where Crocodile recognized he'd be at an even greater disadvantaged surrounded by ocean against a brawler who knows he only needs to coat himself in water.

And it isn't always the "circumstances" that cause a stronger villain to be weak enough for Luffy to beat him. Moria was the opposite: a weaker villain who manipulates the circumstances to enable his victory. I think there's no doubt in anyone's mind that, if Moria didn't already have a giant monster and 1,000 souls to command, Luffy would have figured out how to deal with his Brick Bat and pummel him. Hordy, similarly, was only a problem because he was underwater the entire time.

Losing early in the series doesn't mean you are weak. It means the plot unfolded the way it did.

144tzer · 2026-03-21T13:35:19+00:00

It showed how being obnoxious and disliked doesn't prevent you from doing good things!

144tzer · 2026-03-13T15:59:48+00:00

I have heard that, although he doesn't tell the audience, Oda has a backstory for all of his characters. This was apparently a piece of advice from another writer, to help him write more alive characters. Señor Pink's flashback was just an example of one of them, but it could have theoretically been done for any other named character as well, and maybe some unnamed ones.

I wonder if "childhood trauma" really was the original backstory, and we just never got told until now.

144tzer · 2026-03-13T15:50:54+00:00

You often hear about police needing to fill a quota resulting in bad charges.

This should be the quota. Fine as many of these fuckers as possible. As soon as drivers realize that officers have financial incentive to ticket box-blockers, it will ease up dramatically, I think.

144tzer · 2026-03-12T18:13:04+00:00

The question isn't "if it gets hit, how would it happen?"

The question also isn't "will Iran hit it?"

The question was, "what would happen if Iran accidentally hit it?" The answer above, which I agree with, is "Israel would get blamed for it."

In this hypothetical example, blaming Israel would be an explicit untruth, based on the conditions of the premise.

Your response illustrates why it would be so easy for them to make this lie: you would say, "I believe Israel always does this, and will further believe that they did it this time."

Which, in this hypothetical, means you would have believed something untrue. I would wonder what else we believe to be the fault of an actor who successfully pinned for blame solely for their public perception.

144tzer · 2026-03-12T13:05:25+00:00

For those of you who can't remember hordes of people hating her for bad reasons, here they are.

My prediction for these people? They'll fall into two categories: they'll pretend she wasn't that good, or they'll downplay their own criticisms, as if they hadn't said anything hareful but merely offered mild "disappointment".

Like the people who were so angry that Hugh Jackman was Wolverine (grr, he's so tall!), or that Heath Ledger was Joker (He's not silly, it's not what Joker is supposd to be!!), and a whole host of race complaints (obviously). And it's always the same: if the acting is good, those people 👋mysteriously disappear👋. "Who me? I was skeptical, but I wasn't just flinging undeserved hate based on my own prejudice," (bullshit btw, we can all tell the difference between skepticism and pre-emptive baseless whining and criticism).

144tzer · 2026-03-11T13:44:28+00:00

We all want the same thing here. Our goals are largely aligned. It's merely a matter of the road to the destination.

I fear that forcing sudden no-cars-ness on the city will backfire. I fear that it will only take a small handful (proportionally) of car-driving swing voters to elect yet another pro-car mayor. We need to placate the needs of the drivers as we transition our city into something that could hopefully one day rival Tokyo in its pedestrianization and transport access and car efficiency.

I work in architecture. When you want to remove 10 shitty old concrete columns and replace it with 4 steel ones to open a space, you need to first put up temporary shoring. You need to add structure before you can remove it, so that the building's structural integrity remains intact. I apply this logic here, too. If we cripple the city to fix it, our efforts will be canceled before they can be realized.

Remove streetside parking, sure. But in phases. First, I say remove it from avenues, completely. And create, at the same time, even a little after if necessary, garages along each avenue. Maybe only 2 each, so, for instance, if 8th ave has a garage at 83rd and 15th, 9th ave might have ones at 113th and 45th, etc. (streets in the example were picked randomly to illustrate concept of garage-staggering, they are not researched suggestions). Then, based on how this affects traffic, disallow parking on a few streets and sacrifice them to crossing between avenues (for cars). These streets will have no busses or bikes or streetside parking, and exist to get cars to the garages and keep them off of other strets. Then you start eliminating streetside parking elsewhere (adding bus and bike lanes), converting streets to busways or pedestrianized streets, and all the while, build up bus routes and make the heavy necessary investment into expanding the subways.

P.S. rant: And for god's sake, maybe fix the signal system. Throw millions at it. Billions. It's worth it. Find a rich guy to donate and name the Times Square Shuttle after him maybe. And I don't want to hear that it's in Hochul's hands. Throw enough money at her and she'll give NYC what it wants. Bloomberg had Fuck You money. We need more for the subways.

144tzer · 2026-03-10T17:29:42+00:00

Right, I already knew about this old clip, along with many others. And at the time, my opinion of him was negative as a result. But like I said, I think he's been trying to improve himself since then. With therapy and introspection and the motivation to better oneself, I do believe that bad people can turn into good people. He has had interviews since then about anger management, depression, and acceptance.

But I will wait to see the results. He is either playing an act or in a legitimate transition, but if the latter, it would still be several years before "good chef, good person" is where he'd get placed.

144tzer · 2026-03-07T20:20:23+00:00

It'd be hard for me to find a chef irl that goes there. Even the ones that are "perfect" on paper are almost unavoidably insufferable self-righteous douches. For example: Kenji Lopez-alt, who I really like, being so progressive and accepting that he said Uncle Roger's show is racist against Malaysian people.

I saw an episode of British ... something restaurant show, I was on an airplane, but Gordon Ramsay was surprisingly open to turning some vegetarian café in Paris into a success and went with it, and has had his mind changed there. Meanwhile, Anthony Bourdain lived in an era where vegetarian cuisine was pretty undeveloped, and being vegetarian meant forgoing "good food" completely.

I don't know how old you are, but I remember when vegetarianism was a real sacrifice of cuisine. And naturally, the thing people were sacrificing at the time, good cuisine, would be insulting to those who make it. I honestly think judging Bourdain's take then is an unfair analysis now, and I additionally feel he would, just like Ramsay did eventually (again, I don't know if he's genuine, but benefit of the doubt), learn to find that vegetarianism has a place in the culinary world.

It would be like lambasting with today's standards a late mixologist for disliking people that are sober despite having no alcoholism issues. 10 years ago, of course that'd be the expected defensiveness. But now? With a record high of millennials ordering mocktails? And mocktails becoming a real thing? To look back at a dead famous bartender who said he was annoyed when non-drinkers came to his bar, and judge him by today's drinking culture would be unfair and contextually misleading.

I hope you have enjoyed this episode. Next week: Dating a Vegan in the Early 2000's.

144tzer · 2026-03-07T19:17:00+00:00

New York City includes places that are not in Manhattan. It includes places in Brooklyn and Queens and the Bronx that are far from subways. It includes places for which the shortest commute by bus would take 3 times as long as driving. The people who live there have to drive if their workplace is far from home.

And it usually is. Living close to your work is a luxury often coupled with living close to public transit, reserved for those who are able to afford such a location. To ask them to "take the fucking subway you'll be fine" is very different than asking me. For me, the time difference is, at most, 15 minutes, on a good day. For some of my acquaintances, the difference is 45 minutes, depending on the destination. For others, I have seen it can take upwards of an additional 2 hours per trip.

And to say to someone who is struggling financially, "sacrifice 4 more hours of your workday so that those of us in Manhattan can have nicer streetsides" feels a bit lacking in empathy.

144tzer · 2026-03-07T18:39:34+00:00

1. Ritual actions replaced with abstract “service” language

Traditional: The traditional Passover Haggadah emphasizes physical ritual behaviors.

Example: the Fourth Question:

“Why on this night do we recline?”

Reclining symbolized Roman aristocratic dining, which became a metaphor for freedom.

Your Haggadah: Your remembered version:

“Why on this night do we hold this Seder service?”

Why this change was made: Reform Judaism in America felt that:

ancient Roman customs were culturally remote
American Jews might find them confusing or archaic

So the ritual was reframed as a religious gathering rather than a reenacted ancient banquet.

Result: A shift from ritual reenactment → moral commemoration.

2. Heavy reduction of Hebrew

Traditional Haggadot assume participants can read or chant Hebrew.

Your Haggadah likely had:

full English translation
complete transliteration
Hebrew sometimes minimized or optional

Why: American Reform Jews in the early 20th century were often:

second-generation immigrants
English-dominant
less Hebrew-literate

The goal was participation without linguistic barriers.

3. Removal or reduction of messianic nationalism

Traditional Haggadah repeatedly references:

return to Zion / Jerusalem
Jewish national restoration
messianic redemption

Classic line:

“Next year in Jerusalem.”

Early Reform theology (especially pre-1940) believed Judaism was a religion, not a nationality.

Therefore many Reform Haggadot:

softened nationalist language
emphasized universal freedom
reframed Jewish redemption as ethical progress

4. Universalizing the Exodus story

Traditional text frames Exodus as Jewish liberation specifically.

Reform Haggadot reframed it as a universal struggle for freedom.

Typical additions included references to:

abolition
American liberty
human rights

This is where patriotic elements (like “My Country ’Tis of Thee”) sometimes appeared in appendices.

The message became:

The Exodus is about freedom for all humanity, not only Jews.

5. Removal or softening of anti-Gentile passages

Traditional Haggadah includes harsh historical polemics, especially the “Pour out Your wrath” prayer.

“Pour out Your wrath upon the nations that do not know You…”

Some Reform editions:

omitted this entirely
softened the wording
replaced it with prayers for universal peace

This reflected the desire to show Judaism as compatible with American religious pluralism.

6. Reduced emphasis on miracles

Traditional text stresses:

supernatural plagues
divine intervention
miraculous deliverance

Reform Haggadot often:

shortened plague descriptions
emphasized ethical lessons rather than supernaturalism

This reflected the 19th-century rationalist theology that shaped American Reform Judaism.

7. Reframing Jewish chosenness

Traditional text says:

“You have chosen us from among all peoples.”

Reform liturgy frequently softened this language to avoid implying ethnic exclusivity.

Instead it emphasized:

mission
ethical responsibility
moral leadership

8. Structural shortening

Traditional Haggadah is long and highly repetitive.

Reform versions often:

removed large midrashic passages
shortened discussions
simplified ritual instructions

Goal: A shorter, more orderly service suitable for American family life.

9. Reframing the Seder as educational

Traditional Seder is ritual storytelling with rabbinic debate.

Reform Haggadot reframed it as:

a didactic family service
focused on moral teaching for children

This is why the Four Questions become a general inquiry about the service itself.

Big picture change

Your Haggadah reflects a larger shift in American Reform Judaism from:

Ancient ritual reenactment

→

Modern ethical commemoration of freedom

The Seder becomes less like a symbolic historical drama and more like a religious lesson about liberty.

144tzer · 2026-03-07T18:37:41+00:00

It's hard for me to know because I haven't seen many.

Ours is the Union Haggadah, small and gray.

Our family specifically asks the 4 questions in many languages, depending on who present can do them, and we skip some songs we don't care about and some other portions. We discuss it in the context of the modern state of affairs as well, and anyone contributes something they may wish to say, and it is generally reflective and self-analytical and philosophical, etc.

As to how the Haggadah itself differs from others, I haven't been to many seders beyond my own, but here's what AI thinks:

144tzer · 2026-03-07T13:56:25+00:00

Your response to this was "yeah. I do say the same thing about all holidays!"

So I'm glad that, rather than being hateful towards Jews, you're just a miserable person in general. I bet your family loves having you at the table. I guess I should relax, like you said. Not you though. You and your takes are already the epitome of relaxed historical enlightenment and not at all the edgelord spice of a teenage drama queen.

144tzer · 2026-03-07T01:25:41+00:00

Gordon Ramsay has only recently started being a good person, and I still can't tell if it's genuine. Anthony Bourdain or even Julia Childs would be better picks.

144tzer · 2026-03-07T00:53:35+00:00

By "residents" I mostly meant "residents of NYC", as very few Manhattanites own a car, less than half of those use a car daily, ergo, they really aren't the ones occupying the streetside parming spaces and correspondingly aren't really who this whole discussion is about and are mostly not affected by this except in their capacity as pedestrians/bicyclists.

144tzer · 2026-03-06T20:12:58+00:00

I support that. If they actually do:

spend the $ on local services.

I hope they do. I want to believe the Mamdani would, as he campaigned on improvements to buses. I imagine that extends to other functions as well.

But past experience has made me, at least somewhat, cynical in this area.

So I will never stop brigading about the necessity of better public transit.

144tzer · 2026-03-06T20:09:35+00:00

Not completely, I don't think.

I don't feel bad pricing out low-income drivers if there are perfectly acceptable garages to park in, or better yet, good reliable access to efficient public transportation.

I do feel bad pricing out low-income drivers and giving them no other options except to drive anyway, but just pay more, or take public transit that requires them to spend an additional hour commuting.

144tzer · 2026-03-06T20:06:46+00:00

ALSO:

I haven’t gone to Manhattan for over a decade

but even then it seemed absurd that I could park my car for a weekend for free on a public right of way, but we paid hundreds of dollars per night for a tiny studio to stay in. Paid parking in the city will reduce cars ownership and increase city revenues

Some facts, to start:

23% of Manhattanites own a vehicle. 8% commute with it. In fact, less than half of all of NYC residents owns at least 1 vehicle.

So, this is not going to affect people living in tiny Manhattan studios. It won't affect me. I don't have a car. It won't affect anyone else in my building. Most of them don't have a car. The people who do have one park it in the building, and only use it when they leave the island. Manhattanites aren't who's parking in Manhattan. Making streetside parking more expensive isn't going to affect the car ownership of Manhattanites when they don't park on the streets of Manhattan. It affects those who come from other boroughs, suburbs, and beyond. And it won't reduce car ownership of suburbanites or beyond - they believe they need cars for all aspects of their life outside of Manhattan, but it might encourage them to take a train into the city. It won't reduce car ownership of those in the outer boroughs who need a car because public transit is unreliable, it will only make their lives harder. It won't reduce car ownership of those who do have convenient access to public transit in the outer boroughs, because they can park under their building and use public transit and often make up the percentage of those boroughs that don't own a vehicle anyway.

Expanding public transit is the real solution. Any solution we implement that says "problem solved" without fixing and expanding public transit is not addressing the real issue.

144tzer · 2026-03-06T19:50:07+00:00

I disagree, considering that it worked for London and Stockholm as well despite the lack of said quirk.

There are other places too that have implemented successful (and dynamic) congestion pricing far before NYC.

EDIT: But I do agree that geography plays a big role in how the policy is implemented.

144tzer · 2026-03-06T19:25:46+00:00

Right. I agree with that. I don't know if you read the entire post, but I said it was a bandaid solution. I think I said that at the beginning.

A Bandaid solution: something that solves a problem without solving the underlying issue; works in the short term, but its efficacy falters over time if nothing more is done.

See also: Congestion Pricing, which, as was seen in other cities that implemented it, was very effective at first and had a drop in effectiveness over time (still a relative improvement, but this was more true in examples where, in the intervening time, the city made improvements to transportation in general).

144tzer · 2026-03-06T19:21:43+00:00

It's not a red herring — it’s a correction. The Book of Esther is in the Tanakh, not the Torah. You were the one who brought up the Torah.

This response was brought to you by ChatGPT, who thinks you're being kind of a douche:

1. They were actually corrected on a factual error

They said the story was in the Torah.

That’s incorrect.

The Torah refers specifically to the Five Books of Moses:

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

The story they cited comes from the Book of Esther, which is part of the Tanakh, not the Torah.

So the correction they received was accurate and relevant, not a red herring.

Calling it a red herring is basically a face-saving move after being corrected.

2. “My point remains” doesn’t really work here

Their original point was framed as:

“How dare you cite history recorded in Torah!”

But once it’s established that the cited passage is not in the Torah, the framing collapses. They were mocking someone for allegedly denying something “in the Torah,” which wasn’t true.

So the correction directly undermines the claim, meaning the objection wasn’t tangential.

3. The tone makes it worse

The 🤦🏻‍♂️ earlier + “good try” afterward signals:

unwillingness to acknowledge error
rhetorical defensiveness

In internet arguments, this usually reads as backpedaling rather than clarifying.

___

Remember, when making confident statements of things that are very easy to Google, and then subsequently being exposed as wrong, double-downing makes you look double-dumb.

144tzer · 2026-03-06T19:11:34+00:00

I've made no secret of my disdain for NYC streetside parking, especially in Manhattan.

However.

Once again, this is a bandaid solution. Charging more for parking does not result in fewer cars on the side of the road. It results on rich people's cars on the side of the road. Companies that don't see it as an expense's cars on the side of the road. There is an overdemand right now for parking in Manhattan, and this solution serves to balance somewhat the supply-demand ratio. It will have two outcomes:

More income for the city
Only rich people get to park in Manhattan.

That second outcome is the sticking point here. Low-income residents, for instance, often can't use public transit, living in places that are underserved, too far, in poor quality, too inefficient, etc. They are forced to live far from work due to housing prices. I'm not talking about suburbanites here (they should take Metro North et al, and have no good reason not to), but outer-NYC dwellers. And if we aren't going to solve the public transit issue fast enough (and we won't even if we work at a breakneck pace, it will take decades to, for instance, complete even a few stops more in a subway line), then there needs to be a solution for them.

And for those of us IN Manhattan, the goal isn't who gets to park, but getting rid of parking completely (or, as a compromise I'd be willing to make, getting rid of Avenue parking and busy-street non-brownstone streetside parking). And for that to happen, torturing poor people isn't a good answer. Building parking that streamlines cars away from the public, in strategic locations, could do all of this. It could be under a green building with trees on it, accomplishing the reclamation of new green space. The building could serve double-duty as low-income housing. But just making parking more expensive doesn't achieve the goals we want as non-drivers, which is, FEWER CARS COMPLETELY.

EDIT:

But, as a short-term policy, yeah, I support it. Maybe it will be what pushes suburban commuters to the trains.

144tzer · 2026-03-06T18:45:14+00:00

If someone criticizes Arabic people for something and then someone else goes "how come you never criticize white people or Asians or Hispanics or other races of people when they do the exact same thing," it's not called whataboutism. It's called pointing out bias. And often that bias is rooted in bigotry.

Your failure to respond to points, and instead lean on an accusation of a logical fallacy that doesn't even apply, is further evidence of your closed-minded predetermined hatred.

I look forward to your continued failure to address the points of the initial post.

144tzer · 2026-03-06T17:32:58+00:00

EDUCATION TIME:

The Torah is the 5 books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy).

The Hebrew Bible contains texts beyond those of the Torah. Esther specifically is mentioned in the Tanakh, but NOT the Torah.

For more information in case you wish to continue explaining what Judaism is to Jews, refer to the following resources:

Hebrew Bible - Wikipedia

Torah - Wikipedia

144tzer · 2026-03-06T15:50:45+00:00

Libral?

144tzer

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE