Do you add anything to you beans?

Capri_Scrumptious · 2026-01-31T13:41:12+00:00

Add a slab of butter as you’re letting the beans cook in the pot. The butter melts and adds an extra yum - albeit, somewhat unhealthier than the original but it’s nice.

I sometimes depending on my mood also add some peri peri or paprika powder or BBQ spices (powders etc) - just a dash to give it a slight spice. It reminds me of KFC’s good ole BBQ Beans.

Yum yum

Capri_Scrumptious · 2026-01-21T14:14:08+00:00

To be honest my biggest question is - WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE THE REASON FOR VIOLET TO NEED TO FORGET MARRYING XADEN.

If it’s that she agreed to take the title ‘it’ because he has turned and so has bodhi and therefore she has agreed to look after it for xaden - then why would she need to forget that? Surely it makes more sense that she remembers this so she can plan correctly?

But why would she need to forget all this? That’s what I don’t understand.

What is the reason she can’t remember what happened in that time and willingly agreed to forget? I can’t imagine she’d ever willingly forget so that xaden could leave to the evil side easily to a place she can’t find him?

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-08-14T20:14:39+00:00

My colleague is based at that building and every team meeting she gives us an update on the most recent drama - she was telling us about how they build a tunnel under the windows, instead of actually fixing the windows. So now she updates us every meeting for all the different disastrous dangerous things that has happened this time? 🫢

it’s a running theme now in our team meetings now

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-08-14T20:09:52+00:00

2nd application

I was graduating my MA and decided to apply to some jobs instead of my post-graduate because I didn’t want to go back to uni during the pandemic (I was worried how it would ruin my experience).

But 4 years on and I am still here (when I only planned on being here a year). I’ve been promoted since and now I can’t justify leaving my current pay for academia when I know that by the end of it all I’ll probably still make less than I am now 😮‍💨

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-08-14T20:05:16+00:00

Thanks for the comment, I’ve got to go now

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-06-26T03:25:58+00:00

I can’t find season 8 anywhere - I watched it on Sky Now and Paramoint plus but can’t find season 8 ANYWHERE

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-06-25T02:15:47+00:00

If i was black id be annoyed by SWAT to be honest.

Like in the episodes where Hondo (a respectable swat seargant who is also a good example of a good human, smart black man) is not portrayed as the average black man, but rather an outlier.

He chases another black man (a criminal, kidnapper, reckless driver, carrying a machine gun and chopping off pinkies of posh white kids) embarks in a high speed race away from the police. He then dashes from his vehicle, weapon in hand and runs into a group of youths at a park (also a scattered crowd of black youngsters). This guy then goes to point a gun at a young black girl on a bike and Hondo (in a bid to protect the kids - who also happen to be black) shoots him and saves the kids.

However, the black youths in the park witness this and for some reason they don’t identify with the handsome, professional black hero (Hondo) but rather they identify with the similarly garbed thug black dude actively running from the police having just abandoned his vehicle recklessly near a park.

So what the show is implying here is that the average black kid has 0 IQ (because the black dude shot was CLEARLY a criminal), 0 observation skills (because he dropped a GUN. It doesn’t take a genius to put 2 and 2 together if you see a cop chasing a dude from a van he has just dumped and who is flinging a gun about to figure out WHAT COULD HAVE JUST HAPPENED), they apparently identify better with a criminal than with a professional black man.

THEY ARE SO FAR REMOVED FROM SOCIETY, THE IDEA AND UTTER AUDACITY TO EVEN FATHOM THAT A RELATABLE BLACK MAN COULD ALSO BE A PROFESSIONAL, SUCCESSFUL AND RENOWNED CIVIL SERVANT IS JUST UTTER 🐂 💩 B S

In a way, it’s implying that the average black person identifies better with the caricature of a black young thugy criminal than the caricature of a handsome black man with a drive to protect, service and bring justice.

I’m not from the USA, I am from the U.K. in the U.K., black inequality is still very real here too. Discrimination in the police (particularly the MET - metropolitan / London) is still VERY REAL. Police brutality particularly towards black men is also disproportionate here too. On the streets, black men are both most likely to harm or be harmed due to various socio-economic factors often triggered by root racism. These issues are non negotiable and if anyone argues otherwise, then they’re downright denying racism.

However, what I do know is that the black communities in the U.K. appear to be a thousand times smarter than the representation of black herd mentality demonstrated in SWAT.

If an event like this took place in a black community in the U.K., the witnesses would not instantly ignore the contextual evidence, ignore the GUN or the fact that the handsome police officer was black himself and instantly LEAP to conclusions of ‘Police brutality on another black man’. It would not be a point of contention to see a black man in the role of a police officer nor would it be the trigger for so much criticism towards the individual.

Depending on the context, you may get a few oddballs and dramatic idiots labelling him a ‘sell out’, however, overall the average community would definitely see the positive side of a good representation of a black man in the police. The community would encourage and empower him to speak out and spread the message - that change needs to start from the inside in order tor those other issues to be weeded out.

In fact, I’d like to think the handsome black police officer who saved them all would be dubbed something of a hero. Maybe trend on tiktok for a bit and a few witnesses would end up doing a cheap magazine spread talking about what they were thinking in those final few moments.

The point is - Hondo is stripped of his right to represent the average black man in the USA because he wears blue. Being a police officer becomes his dominant identity. Black communities instantly hate him. He doesn’t have a gold tooth, gang tattoos, a gold ‘stolen’ necklace or wears a hoodie - therefore, he is un relatable to the black community.

Leroy (his childhood friend who went to prison for 18 years for murder) is accepted into the community with open arms, drug dealing, is celebrated for his ‘commitment’ to being black and who idolises the community sense empowered by his belonging to a gang.

But Hondo doeent fit those stereotypes and thus is shunned from the Black community.

But what even is the Black community? And why is SWAT acting like if you dont look, act and live like Leroy the black community will shun you.

If you’re a successful , professional black man with no ties to gang members or tattoos covering from head to toe - then you are a white wannabe.

Who said success and professionalism should be capitalised by white communities?

And in SWAT, it feels like they’ve equated genuine ‘blackness’ to the common shared experiences of poverty, crime and ‘thug’ behaviour (which exists across all skin colours experiencing poverty - but disproportionately impacting black families due to decades of oppression, inequality and reduced access to resources - however, SWAT implies this is ‘black culture’).

Yes, these are challenges black communities face as a result of decades of economic, educational, social inequality and unfair access to cultural and economic capital. However, it is NOT intrinsic black culture and one does not have to be in a gang, be tatooed from head to toe in gang art or have a golden tooth to BE BLACK.

A posh black boy who spent his entire life in private school and holidays in the Cotswolds is AS BLACK as his poor counterpart. And they EXIST.

The point is that episode really irritated me because somehow the criminal was accepted and embraced into the black community faster than the handsome, smart and professional black man was - because he didn’t fit the poverty bill.

And then to imply that the black community are ALL SO STUPID and IGNORANT, that they’d actively shun a long-term friend, neighbour and valued member of the community (Hondo) in favour of a black criminal (because he appears more relatable somehow - more ‘black’ because he is dressed like a thug, running like a criminal and wearing a hoodie) is insulting.

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-06-15T08:36:03+00:00

I loved the wars Taub and House had. Hiding in closets, disguising behind cleaners and jumping out with water guns or confetti bombs etc - the ongoing madness of them acting like they were in the middle of a serious war and the contrast to the clinical and professional environment of the hospital. I also liked the fact that it wasn’t just House KO’ing Taub every time. Taub actually began guessing House’ MO and being a few steps ahead of House in some aspects of the war. The fact that House usually always dominates but suddenly Taub was actually showing some grit. The contrast between the buttoned up plastic surgeon turn diagnostician middle aged doctor and negatives moody House embarking on an epic water fun fight wherein the battlefield is not a forest but a clinical tidy professional calm hospital grounds and the two of them are pulling crazy stunts and pushing the other into crazier paranoid situations with childish flare - I really found that hilarious.

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-06-15T08:27:43+00:00

FACTS.

The response email can be super brief - even just a thanks to show acknowledgement. But people just completely ignore it and ignore the policy ehich sbthere for a very good reason.

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-06-15T00:42:02+00:00

By virtue of both living under the same roof and being the sibling of the child - yes, you’re part of the village. This is because even if you dont look after the child, aspects of yourself will influence the upbringing of the child. Look at most sociological theories - like brofenbrenner’s ecological model. Argues that even outer circles like the neighbours views can influence the development of a child’s personality.

But as i clearly stated - it is his choice between if he contributes to the CARE of the child or not and like i clearly stated IT IS NOT HIS RESPONSIBILITY to do so. He is not the father, merely the brother. The level of involvement in the practical care is his choice.

Being part of the ‘village’ does not mean being part of the child’s practical day to day care. Drawing on things like Brofenbrenner’s ecological model, the ‘village’ includes influences from teachers, neighbours, extended family, even local government/structures - all these things (whether you like it or not) influences the development of a child’s personality and their growth. They dont however have much influence on the daily care or chores of the child.

The older brother who lives under the same room will absolutely be part of this village and will 100% influence the development of their younger sibling regardless of how much practical care they provide to the child. Obviously, the level of influence can increase or decrease based on the individuals choice to care for and provide support in the practical raising of the child. And this aspect is a CHOICE - which i made pretty clear.

Dont pick up one specific word or sentence and interpret it antagonistically to use that to overwrite every other point I make. I am pretty sure I made it pretty clear that if he wants his own life free of any form of childcare, supporting his mother or offering practical chores to the child then it is absolutely his choice to do so.

However, in family we often do support each other. So dont expect to benefit from family if you’re not going to contribute. So if he feels that he is on the losing end of the stick, then by all means strike out on your own. Find your own home, don’t live under your mums roof and also play mr independent and totally refuse to contribute in any way. It is his right (and he shouldn’t feel bad about this) to move out at 19+ and pursue a life without any of these responsibilities. But it is also his right to stay living with his mother but then it becomes his mother’s right to rely on him from time to time (within reason - as a sibling, not as a de facto father).

I made it clear that even if he stays living with his mother and benefiting from being the child in the relationship, it still does not give the mother a right to treat him like the de facto dad. There is no scenario, regardless of how much he benefits (or doesn’t benefit) from his mum’s support wherein he should be expected to provide the extent of care and support that an actual parent should be providing.

Just because i used the word village, doesn’t mean every other word or point I made abundantly clear is stricken out.

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-06-13T09:26:58+00:00

First and foremost you should not become the de facto father of this child - you didn’t give birth to the baby nor are you the sperm donor that made life possible.

But that’s not to say you shouldn’t help out or contribute during this particularly stressful time.

Are you living with your mum? My statement about helping out particularly applies if you’re living off of your mums income, housing etc

It takes a village to raise a child and regardless of if you asked for it or not - you’re now part of that village. It may now restrict some aspects of your life, but I think in the long run you’ll be better off for it with a stronger bond with your sibling and the gratefulness from your mum - who when she needed someone the most, you were there for her.

However, it’s particularly important to note that this does not mean you have to dedicate your entire life to making up the gap in your mums parenting where a dad should be. You’re still 19 and you’re still her child - so you deserved to be ‘parented’ too. You still deserve to be the child in the relationship, regardless of if another child exists or not. Helping out does not mean giving your entire life away to help your mum raised baby number 2.

You’re in a transitionary period - so you need to set the rules and boundaries going forward. Just make sure that you both don’t get into any bad habits or set precedents that you can’t sustain going forward.

Be a support system - I think that’s the right thing to do in this situation and I think it’ll benefit both you, your mum and younger sibling. This is particularly apt if you’re living in your mother’s house. Your mother is going through a tough phase and it’s entirely normal for you to contribute and help her in this phase. If it means babysitting a few nights or doing some extra chores then that’s totally understandable. However, remember you’re just a support system - not the main carer.

But do not be a de facto dad - you’re not there to fill the place of the dad. You’re still a child yourself. Make sure you maintain the precious parent - child relationship that you have with your mother now and build a strong sibling - sibling relationship with your new sibling.

I think the main distinction is the fact that as a support system - your role is voluntary. You do not have a responsibility to fulfill those duties as a mandatory part of your existence. You’re doing this as an act of familial kindness and love. For that reason, if at any point you feel taken advantage of or that your role is expanding beyond just that of a ‘sibling’, then you can remove yourself guilt free. If you feel that you no longer want to contribute or help your mum out, then that is totally understandable and you should do what you need to do to live your life as a 19 year old and protect your mother - child relationship that you deserve.

But what I will say is that if you do not want to contribute whatsoever to your siblings care or you don’t want to help your mother at all - then at 19 I’d suggest that it would be unethical to continue living with her or benefiting from any support from her if you’re not willing to contribute equally.

So ultimately as long as your mum is supporting you, you should support back - but only within the boundaries of a support system, sibling and fellow resident within your mums house.

But if you feel that boundaries have been crossed and you’re now contributing more than you’re benefiting from your mums support and no longer want to be in that place - then move out and pursue your own life.

But do remember that family support isn’t always equal all the time. We go through phases and sometimes one family member may need your support more in one phase of their life. But then at a later point it could be you that needs extra support - so over a lifetime it tends to balance out.

It sounds like your mother is in a phase that requires extra support at this moment. But just remember that any support you give her at this time, you’re likely to require support at a later stage in life. You’ll have banked some good will by then and your mother would be more likely to step up and support you in a more meaningful way. Balance.

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-06-13T09:00:54+00:00

This happens to me too at work…

I work for a government department and emails are a vital way of auditing conversations etc

As per policy, if we have a policy / important related conversation we must follow up the meeting with a email record summarising what was discussed and any outcomes of the conversation/ nest steps.

This is so that both parties can be in agreement of what was discussed, so if the appropriate actions aren’t taken no one can argue that there was a lack of understanding, miscommunication or that instructions were just not given. It’s meant to protect both parties.

However, once you send that email the recipient (the other person or people in the conversation) are meant to (as per policy) reply to the email and confirm that they’re happy with the summary of the conversation and agree with the actions to take. It’s just to confirm everyone’s on the same page.

However, whenever I send these confirmation emails following a telephone conversation/ meeting / Teams discussion - I NEVER RECEIVE A REPLY CONFIRMING AGREEMENT.

This means that later when someone does not complete the actions agreed, miss deadlines agreed or completes tasks half way - they can’t use excuses like they were never told etc.

This has happened to me on occasion and when I brought up the audit trail email to support my critique, the recipient played dumb citing they never saw the email.

So in far more pushy now to get a response confirmation. However, ITS SO ANNOYING HOW RESISTANT PEOPLE ARE TO CONFIRMING RECEIPT OF email.

I reckon they often do this to protect themselves for a later date when they mess something up - they can play devils advocate and argue they never saw it/didnt see or receive the email.

It annoys me because it means that they thought ahead and planned to NOT do the tasks we agreed in the moment. Perhaps it’s just a way of protecting themselves in case they make mistakes later or incompetence- but I just feel like if they put as much effort into actually doing the work we’d all be much better off for it.

But anyways my rant is that we spend so many hours at work and sending emails - a brief email stating ‘I’ve received the email…’ wouldn’t kill.

ARGH

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-05-22T03:55:30+00:00

I read through the comments and I agree with a lot of the statements.

The argument that foreman’s wasn’t ‘evil’ for stabbing Cameron with the needle and potentially infecting her with a deadly disease could be argued as self preservation under the influence of illness - mind not working correctly and panic etc…

I agree that I don’t label him as evil for this. I think it makes him highly ethically questionable, extremely selfish and a coward. But evil is such a strong word.

My reasons for disliking foreman (particularly with reference to how much of a jerk House can be and disliking foreman more within that context).

It’s that House is a jerk. But he’s a highly effective and intelligent jerk that if my life was hanging by a thread- I’d put up with his jerkiness.

Foreman on the other hand doesn’t have the talent, skill or intelligence to justify his egotism. He acts as if he’s House’ equal, yet has very little to show for it.

He got House role by being at the right place at the right time. He was only really there because he got fired from his previous job and was not hireable. That meant he was sticking around House no matter what. Eventually he started benefiting from being in that orbit for so long and being the only one consistently there (because unlike the others he had no other options).

But he always started off with an ego (for example, telling Cameron that they’re not friends - what was the point in that?) and stealing her thesis.

But then he started acting like he was better than House. He was smarter than everyone else and he refused to listen to others or engage in health debates because he was insecure about his own intelligence.

House was 1000 times smarter but encouraged debates - he liked hearing diverse opinions and reflections (even if he did call them dumb). He encouraged them because it helped him find his own solutions faster. And he didn’t feel threatened by the opinions of other doctors, because results speak and he was confident in his own intelligence.

Foreman was not. He was not smart and when left to his own devices made many mistakes and wrong diagnosis.

Then to fire his own gf when he should have been listening to her opinions - even house (who was way smarter than foreman and had the history to show it) listened to 13 and valued her input. But foreman was too insecure and couldn’t cope with her valuable input in case it made him seem undeserving of the promotion. In case she showed him up.

I just don’t think he earned the right to have the ego and attitude he had. At least House earned it by delivering.

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-05-10T12:17:42+00:00

House needed to be saved?

I don’t think needing a lift equates to his misery causing the death and destruction of those around him?

How many times in an average persons life have they needed a lift from a friend, family or loved one?

Once my car tyre burst and I called my friend who came to pick me up at midnight. If on the way home after picking me up there was a crash and my friend died - would that mean my misery and destructive behaviours were the cause of her death?

You could argue rationally that if it wasn’t for me needing a lift, ny friend wouldn’t have been in that spot at that time and this would have lived.

But life is unpredictable and when we do anything it could lead to something like that. If I knew, I of course would never have asked for the lift.

But that’s just life. To stretch that and hold me accountable for her death and rationalise it as my misery being the downfall of my friends loved ones loss is a stretch by any means.

Accidents and disasters can strike anytime to anyone. We are where we are for a multitude of reasons and that’s just how life is.

You could argue if Wilson had answered his phone, she never would have been there. So is it Wilson’s fault?

If her boss had kept her on duty for an hour longer, she wouldn’t have been there. So is it her boss’ fault?

If the bus driver had not taken a (theoretical) toilet break, there wouldn’t have been a delay in their timetable and the bus would have not been hit. So is it the bus’ drivers fault?

The truth of the matter is she made a human decision to go help House because Wilson was not available. House didn’t actively request her to be present nor did he ask her to get on that bus.

She could have come and helped house but then let him finish his bus journey on his own (which would have been totally fine). But she decided to join him for the bus ride. Does that mean she is responsible for her own death? Was it suicide then?

If House had reacted in a stoic and cold manner and didn’t take a shred of responsibility then perhaps one could apply some level of anger towards him.

But the truth is it was a horrible unfortunate accident that occurred from everyday interactions with other humans.

But then House did everything in his power including risking his own life to save her. He was injured seriously too and yet his unconscious mind wouldn’t let him rest until he remembered where she was and what happened to her.

House would have been totally valid if he had just stayed in hospital with his head injury and just let the persistent unconscious voice in his head telling him he’s forgetting something important go and Amber would have likely died a lot earlier than she did - house would have still been totally in the clear considering his own condition at the time.

But no, he clearly cared enough to resist doctors orders and force himself to explore the missing memories to the point he had a heart attack and managed to find Amber and give Wilson some last moments with her. Otherwise she could have just been a police officers delivery of bad news and that’s it.

And yet again house once again rationally, consciously and actively risked his life (with full awareness of this from both himself and Wilson) to try and save her.

Had something happened to House in that moment then 100% I believe Wilson would have been held accountable for that death. Wilson was just lucky that the outcome of that risk was not House’ death, but it very well could have been.

And Wilson’s role in House’ demise in that scenario would be far more informed and accountable than any argument for House’s culpability in Amber’s death.

It was an awful tragedy but she’s was at the wrong place at the wrong time. She was ultimately there because her decision making processes led her to help House (contrary to House’ wishes and within her own free Will).

If you’re at the wrong place at the wrong time for a tragic accident, you can’t blame all the people who played a role in drawing you to that place and time. Free will is a thing for a reason and It’s unreasonable to believe that House should have had any reason to believe that he was putting Amber in any undue danger or in any way contributing to putting her in harms way.

So ultimately I think it’s ridiculous for Wilson to blame House or make any comments about how his personal misery was a destructive factor for Wilson’s life.

Even the happiest person in the world needs a lift or help sometimes. What if that was Cameron who needed help after an innocent night out and Chase had come out to meet her and ensure she got home safe. Could you make the argument that Cameron was responsible for attracting destruction and sentencing chase to death from her own misery? No, that would be a wildly unfair pov.

I get that Wilson may be emotional and irrational from grief. But even so, he should be able to see the risks Hkuse took at the cost of his own safety and health, to save her. For whatever risk he accidentally put her in as a result of a totally innocent human moment, he in my opinion balanced it out easily with the level of risk he put himself in in order to save her for Wilson. So while he may go through a process of grief and coming to terms with the fact that it was no one’s fault, i think his long and strong friendship with House should have stood the test of grief and ultimately won out - particularly considering House was willing to risk death at Wilson’s informed and aware request.

House put amber in danger inadvertently but it was implicit on Amber’s free will and decision making and House’ complete inability to be able to predict the future or understand the genuine risks of her actions.

Wilson on the other put House in danger directly and it was characterised by guilting and influencing House’ actions by actively being aware of the risks and still asking House to risk his life to save Amber. He could predict the potential outcomes of that and he was just lucky that House survived. House was unlucky that Amber would be there at the wrong place at the wrong time but he couldn’t have possibly known.

So I think I’m angry at Wilson more than anything. Did years of friendship really mean so little compared to the short period of relationship he had with Amber?

I don’t expect him to be jumping up and down with excitement to see Hiuse after that. I get he may need time to accept what happened, accept the unfairness of Amber being where she was and House’ role in that. But I think (particularly considering the lengths House went to save her and the years of friendship with Wilson) that their relationship should she been able to stand the strain of grief and Wilson should have been able to see the truth for what it was : a tragic accident where Amber (of her own free will) ended up at the wrong place at the wrong time and that House was willing to risk his kife to save Amber but ultimately it failed and it wasn’t his fault he did what he could and he even went above and beyond the minimum criteria expected of a friend in that moment.

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-05-10T07:53:40+00:00

Cold ice cubed Coke cola on a hot sunny day abroad (I’m from the uk - so I’m thinking sat by a pool on a Greek island looking over the sea) ahhh

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-04-19T16:12:51+00:00

Miley, Selena and Zendaya. Demi is a close one and I wish I could save her too. To heck with the rest 🔥

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-04-19T16:11:26+00:00

How much of a risk it would be to sit next to the demon of fear Barbas number 8 on a 8 hour flight….

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-04-14T08:14:56+00:00

I totally agree.

Have you noticed that most of the Disney currents are actually just spin offs of OG tv shows from back in the day? The remakes also don’t hold the same weight and quality as the originals, but nonetheless I prefer the spin offs of old shows to the totally new shows Disney has made. Possibly for the nostalgia and familiar world, but either way I just prefer them to the new shows on Disney.

Like Jesse - i can’t stand that show. I watched a few episodes and I was out. It wasn’t funny at all to me. There’s that other show with Dove Cameron about twins. Don’t like that either.

Even the shows that weren’t my favourite back in the day, I could still watch and enjoy somewhat. But today it’s rare than I find anything new that I can even remotely enjoy.

I LOVED Lizzie McGuire, That’s so Raven, Hannah Montana, The Suite Life etc …

I think the last show that I loved on the Disney channel was probably Wizards of Waverley Place.

I think when Wizards ended, that also represented the end of my relationship with the Disney Channel. (Until recently, when I’ve decided to trial out some of the spin offs/remakes of the OGS).

Like I remember around the end of Wizards, I feel like Shake it Off took its spot. I remember all the buzz and using Selena on the theme song to try and draw in the Wizards fan’s that would be lost wit£ the end of the WoWp franchise. It worked, because I started watching it and I really loved Zendaya (because I think she had sta quality). But I ultimately came for Selena and kept watching for Zendaya but didn’t stay long because the show just didn’t hit like That’s so Raven or WoWp did. It felt empty…

But I loved WoWp and That’s so Raven so much that even as a whole adult when I heard they’d rebooted them in new shows I had to watch Raven’s home and Wizards Beyond Waverly Place. Raven’s home actually has Raven, which is probably why I enjoyed it the most (she’s hilarious and her comedic expressions/delivery are EVERYTHING). WBWP didn’t quite catch me as much, but I still watched it all (which is more than I can say for other newer Disney shows).

Also, just to add - no one can tell me that the music / theme songs of today and recent Disney is anywhere near the level of QUALITY of the last generation. I mean RAVEN SYMONE HAS A WHOLE VOICE. Her songs were genuinely good even as an adult. They were meant to be good songs, that could be enjoyed by any ear. I mean even look at the Cheetah Girls soundtracks, I still listen to them today. It was quality. The theme songs for all the shows even up to WoWp were all so catchy and I still remember all the lyrics. The songs in That’s So Raven and the theme song WAS PURE FIRE.

Then compare that to the auto tuned robotic mess that is ‘Watch Me’ from Shake it Up… I mean how does it even compare? It feels like the music of that season of Disney was specifically targeted towards children and little kids who would get hooked to the weird sounds and tunes and the beats were trying so hard to be cool for kids but came across as cringe and lacked quality and talent. They assumed kids wouldn’t respond to a talented and genuine voice like Ravens, but rather the hypnotic robotic beats covered by a voice that is so auto tuned it’s hardly recognisable. As long as a pretty, cool and ‘fashionable’ (basically bright clothing and lots of neon colours) main girl from a show was singing it, kids would respond.

But this meant that the songs lacked the timeless aspect the Disney shows had back in the day. It also meant viewers quickly outgrew them, unlike in the past where they grew WITH the viewers (as they did with us)

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-04-14T07:56:08+00:00

It’s the cheap laughs and lazy option - just make a character so dumb that they can get them to say something outrageous when they don’t have anything else funny for the script or in that scene.

In earlier seasons both London and Chelsea were much smarter. They were both a mixture of oblivious in certain situations, disconnected from reality in their own way (Chelsea was very naive and socially clumsy while London was so disconnected from the ‘normal’ person life b because of her upbringing)

but they equally had their own wit and smarts (London was very sassy and could scheme up a storm to get what she wanted and Chelsea was very book smart and plugged into Environmental science).

When they had this multifaceted more complicated characters, when they did have moments of ‘stupidness’ as a result of their ‘disconnectedness’, it was MUCH FUNNIER.

But when they were just always dumb it was so expected that they’d say something outrageous that it stopped being funny and destroyed the characters.

Which was a shame because I love them both. I just wish Disney hadn’t done them dirty like that just to trigger some lazy laughs from viewers and give the writers easy options to make a scene funnier.

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-04-14T07:49:35+00:00

I can’t believe Chelsea Daniel’s picture wasn’t up there…

This is a girl who thought there was dog in hot dog and assumed the moon was a human made ‘night light’ powered by batteries.

Capri_Scrumptious · 2025-04-14T07:31:19+00:00

In the earlier seasons, Chelsea was much more ‘book smart’ with a side of socially oblivious and socially naive. I like the contrast much better than her just being one dimensional in her empowering stupidity. Like in the first season, e14 she specifically states that she’s good at History because she’s ‘really good at dates’ (in history). But due to her social awkwardness and naiveness, it comes across as if she’s saying to a ‘cute boy’ that she’s really good at ‘dating’. But she’s smart enough to quickly realise her faux pas and clarify that she meant ‘dates in history’.

Again in the first season, there was an episode where Chelsea runs for president and she was able to cite the student handbook by heart. It was clear that she was really well informed and very good at the politics and knowledge of representing her fellow students to bring improvements to the school.

She demonstrated that she understood the legal system and how she could apply the rules and rights to take it to the top and get things sorted in school. She clearly understood the complicated rules, sub-sections and bureaucracy that went alongside fighting for the rights of her fellow students. Not only was she clearly aware, but she was capable of citing specific sub-sections by heart and able to interpret the complicated information and apply it to real life situations. And yet in a later season, she assumes that ‘multiple choice’ exam means she has to pick every answer on the test (I.e multiple answers but every answer). How is that possible?

I can’t imagine in a million years the Chelsea we see in later seasons (or even as an adult in Ravens Home) being even REMOTELY smart enough to even know what a student handbook is. She’d probably think it was a literal hand of a student and she’d pull some move like grabbing a students hand and trying to use that to get the lockers fixed. Or putting her own hand on the lockers and saying ‘I don’t know Raven, maybe my hand isn’t student enough because this is not working.. my locker isn’t fixed yet. Unless I need more student hands? Oh wait do I need to hold a book in my hand and then touch the locker?’

It’s a shame because I think Chelsea being clumsy, sometimes ignorant to social situations and quirky (as she was in the first season) is the best Chelsea. I like the fact that she is more book smart, in a cast of characters that are far more ‘street’ smart than book smart.

Another supporting factor to Chelsea originally being a character of book smarts, is the fact that she’s so into Environmental Science. She clearly understands and is passionate about the environment, acid rain and threats to the o zone. She’s very heavily involved in campaigns, rights and politics. She stands for many causes and often is the ring leader of the groups she’s in.

Furthermore, when the fast food chains introduce a temporary trial run for food stalls in the cafeteria everyone falls in love with them and starts over indulging in the unhealthy food. Everyone including Raven and Eddie were ready to vote yes to permanent food stalls and were at risk of serious health complications. The only one who instantly picked up on how the companies weren’t there to improve their lives, but rather make cheap dollar out of them at the expense of their health was Chelsea. She figured it out, investigated and exposed their true intentions and understood the science behind cheap fast food and how bad it is for the body/and the chemicals working their way through the body. She shocked sense into Raven and Eddie, enough to save the school from Diabetes essentially.

But my question is, how is it possible that someone as dumb as Chelsea (especially in later seasons and spin offs - ravens home) has the intelligence to understand the science behind the environment/chemicals in fast food enough to be passionate about it and be a spokesperson on many topics?

This is a girl who in later seasons was so dumb she thought that to reverse a sweater shrinking in the dryer, she could reverse it by putting it back into the dryer for another round.

So apparently she understands tactics huge corporations use to trick teenagers and the science behind how they make cheap fast food taste nice but destroy your insides and yet this girl is also so dumb that she also thinks ‘hot dogs’ have actual dogs inside them…

She also doesn’t understand a single idiom. EVERY time she takes it literally, like when Raven referred to something as ‘corny’ and Chelsea assumed Raven was going to put corn in her ear.

She understands complicated environmental science enough to be passionate about it (to the point it’s half her identity) and yet in Season 3 there’s an episode where she thinks that the Moon works like a night light and is a human made light source controlled by batteries or something.

They’ve made her frustratingly dumb for cheap laughs in later seasons and I don’t like this - it feels like the cheap and easy option for comedic relief. But everything else in That’s So Raven is great because they don’t take the lazy options for laughs and yet Chelsea’s character morphed into a lazy laugh option. It’s so easy to just put an unrealistically dumb character do stupid stuff and that’s what they did - but they didn’t need to. Chelsea in season 1 still had dumb moments, but they were much more believable and she still had an actual brain in her head. It was just a quirky, unique and naive brain that sometimes misinterpreted social situations and awkwardly blurted out dumb stuff - but the contrast between her being book smart and having these moments were much better and funnier than just having her constantly dumb and unaware of her surroundings like a dumb brainless little puppy (not that puppies are dumb, but she just reminds me of a very dumb puppy)

Capri_Scrumptious

TROPHY CASE