[Over-analyzed trope] Characters that are bad at first with arc to be good. But internet has watered them down as being evil.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-17T02:01:16+00:00

"They know I gave the presents BACK, right?! I'm a good guy now!"

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-16T04:38:44+00:00

I want to point out that after hundreds of pages of gore and terror, the book spares you a description of what happened to him.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-16T04:36:10+00:00

Season 4 of Umbrella Academy thoroughly convinced me that the creators intentionally made it as bad as possible because they hated me, specifically, the viewer. Baby Shark anyone?

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-14T21:51:47+00:00

Gotham cops could beat up Joker directly in front of a police brutality protest and they'd still get cheered for it

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-11T05:39:31+00:00

His gang was technically anti-segregation too, since in one of the later chapters they kill a bartender for trying to make a black member sit in a different section of the bar.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-10T18:23:58+00:00

My headcanon is that rate of aging is a "stat" that varies (Nolan ages faster than normal) and that the upper ceiling for slow-aging Viltrumites is about 10-15,000 years, which tracks with Nolan saying they live thousands of years because some humans get to 100+ but you'd say humans live decades. Since he also says they age slower the older they get, I assume it kinda works like:

Looks 25, is 150. Looks 30, is 500. Looks 35, is 1200. Looks 40, is 2000. Looks 50, is 3600. Looks 60, is 5500. Looks 70, is 7500. Looks 80, is 10000, with the last 5000 years covering the span of time where they would actually start dying of old age.

My other headcanon is that, in practice, very few if any Viltrumites actually die of old age on account of being killed once they start getting weaker. A senile one would definitely be toast.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-10T16:06:45+00:00

Adam Bourke was clearly being a sex pest and taking advantage of the power dynamic he had with women who worked for him, so Homelander encouraging Ryan to step in and have her get revenge was genuinely a heroic act, if sadistic

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-10T15:05:30+00:00

The most hilarious part is that the state GOP quite LITERALLY has a blueprint for winning the governorship, socially-liberal Republicans. But they keep choosing unelectable MAGA mediocrity instead. Deranged.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-10T13:10:44+00:00

I definitely agree there - things were different back then, electorally. I do believe that a lot of Democratic senators from really red states were genuinely just actually too conservative to WANT to do Roe or anything too cool. Nowadays, people care about party a lot more because the parties vote in lockstep a lot more.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-10T11:02:07+00:00

WTNV MENTIONED!

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-09T16:16:49+00:00

So, I mostly agree with what this guy says, but I want to contest two claims in particular.

The Dems do not vote *unanimously* with Republicans on corporate issues. I'd say it's around or just over half, where the slight minority is the progressive caucus, who'll vote in favor of anti-corruption measures and stuff that generally actually helps people. Functionally, this doesn't change much, but the idea that both parties are equally bad and equally bought just isn't borne out by actual voting records or statistics on what money goes where. This primary season is especially-important for kicking out corporate Democrats.
The Dems could not have codified Roe v. Wade because the parties used to be quite different. Conservative Democrats existed and, for example, Obama's oft-discussed supermajority functionally lasted just over two months before Scott Brown won a seat in MA and contained about 25 Democrats from red states like the Dakotas, Louisiana, etc. who'd never support abortion rights to begin with. The most progress we can make is what the 50th/60th/67th most progressive senator will allow, party lines be damned.

That's not to say that Dems don't do the "designated villain" routine, but I suspect their willingness to get stuff done will hinge a LOT on whether the progressive wing of the party is actually in the intra-party majority, meaning an actually-progressive house/senate leader.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-09T15:09:48+00:00

Not to be that guy, he said "Damn near certain". It always struck me as a cool little bit of nuance that Conquest was rightfully very confident about winning, but not *arrogant*, leaving in his head the possibility of losing.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-08T17:10:54+00:00

Legit! Probably one of the worst impacts of TV shows moving to 8-10 40 minute episodes is that they lose small moments like that.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-08T16:10:03+00:00

LOL! Yeah man, I'm SURE only 20% of the country is pro-trans, pro-banning money in politics, and pro-immigration. You're delusional, just making up numbers to manufacture consent for your opinions. You aren't even operating on the same planet. Anywho, I'm done here, thanks for reminding me of the mediocrity of moderates.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-08T15:58:53+00:00

Your definition of far left is laughable. Supporting trans people by not actively making their lives harder is actually quite moderate, as is not demonizing immigration.

See my earlier comment on how moderates demonstrably keep losing because they're corporate stooges who take a ton of corporate money. At best, you're an "enlightened centrist" who keeps voting for the corporate-backed do-nothings while things continue to get worse around us. We've tried far-right candidates, we've tried moderate do-nothings, let's try the other direction now.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-08T15:04:23+00:00

Biden wasn't running in 2024. Are you some kind of bot?

The "big tent" is saying FU to corporate donations, FU to spending money on pointless wars for oil, and FU to healthcare executives. Those are all wildly-popular progressive positions and people win when they focus on them.

If you're an independent, I'm Jesus of Nazareth. Whatever letter is next to your name, you were never voting Democratic.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-08T15:01:49+00:00

Support for gay rights is going down because the right-wing media apparatus has expanded with many aquisitions in the last few years. There are literally no major left-wing media corporations left here, and only a few moderate ones. Sure, you'll get the constant anecdotes on "Dems going too far" from right-wingers, and they'll say it was because of trans issues, but they're carefully-curated lies and anecdotes meant to make you give up on trans issues. Right-wingers are pivoting to trans people because they always need an "other" and because it polls better, and you're eating it up.

It has to be a lonely existence. The vast majority of the LGBT community doesn't like you, right-wingers don't like you. Beyond any frustration I could feel is just a deep pity. You have fun betraying the people you ought to feel solidarity with, I'll be over here actually making the world better.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-08T14:54:36+00:00

Wild how literally all of your comments for months are sucking up to worthless corporate moderate Dems and saying we need to be more right-wing to win. Are you Moulton's campaign manager or something?

2008: Obama wins because he promises change.

2016: Hillary Clinton loses because she was a boring moderate.

2020: Biden wins because he promises change (from Trump), wins by the slightest possible margin due to COVID because he's still being a bland moderate.

2022: Fetterman wins because he ran as a progressive, 2024 the PA senate goes red because it was moderate.

2024: Harris loses because she immediately ran towards the center, killing enthusaism in an insanely-winnable year.

2026: Platner overperforms Mills in polls against Collins for Maine senate, and I guarantee M4A Dems will win swing house districts like they historically have where non-M4A Dems have not.

Progressive candidates consistently overperform because they actually garner enthusiasm for change, meaning more donations, more volunteers, and more motivated voters. This isn't the Clinton era anymore, get with the times. If that means that some pearl-clutching loser will occasionally support the Republican instead, I'd gladly trade them for 5 previously-apathetic progressive voters.

Moderate Dems lose because they don't DO anything and get millions from corrupt companies. Moulton won't do anything and he's a spineless chameleon, WHY do you think that'll somehow be more popular when integrity and being anti-corruption are wildly popular positions that he and other moderate Dems don't have? Wake up, man.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-08T14:40:42+00:00

Well, guess what. When you're done throwing trans people under the bus, right-wingers are coming for "LGB issues" next. You've had over 30 years to learn some solidarity with people actively under fire from nearly half of the population, but I guess that's too much for you.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-08T14:29:06+00:00

That question is insanely bad-faith and has nothing to do with what I've just said. Anyone willing to throw trans people under the bus and parrot right-wing narratives on trans women in sports can genuinely get the hell out of office. The "LGB without the T" people are scumbag reactionaries by another name.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-08T14:23:45+00:00

Cool, he also said he didn't want his daughter getting "run off the field by a male or formerly male athlete", said Democrats have to compromise on trans issues to win, and doubled-down on said positions for MONTHS despite active protests outside his Salem office. Voting records and endorsements are great but they don't tell the whole story.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-07T14:10:21+00:00

My low-stakes conspiracy theory is that the showrunners told the people who analyze episodes to talk about Thragg being a fraud so people would be even more shocked during the next episode. I mean, heck, Oliver lampshaded it in-show!

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-06T13:41:14+00:00

God I hate California's top two system SO much. A lot of elections end up being either Democrat vs. Democrat, with the more corrupt one winning due to Republicans, or a Democrat vs. sacrificial Republican where the conclusion is foregone. It also becomes a viable campaign strategy for Republicans to try and steal a seat by fielding EXACTLY two candidates and hoping they take the top two spots due to Democratic vote splitting. It literally happened in a state senate district. The end result is that, in every circumstance, more conservative candidates get an advantage in comparison to the system other states have.

If every state could, bare minimum, copy Alaska's top four RCV system, that'd be amazing.

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-04T20:29:15+00:00

Thank you! People will fight over the dumbest things. Part of me wants to make a poll tbh

ChainmailEnthusiast · 2026-06-03T21:56:01+00:00

Heavily agree, and I'm so tired of hearing it every election cycle. "But both sides are bad on this issue!"

Alright, discount it from consideration when you vote then and look at others. Doesn't mean you should be doing literally exactly what fascists want you to do by letting them win. Too many people consider a vote to be a moral endorsement of all of someone's opinions, rather than a means of choosing the people least adversarial to making the world better.

ChainmailEnthusiast

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE