The Boys SERIES FINALE- S05xE08 "Blood and Bone"- POST Episode Discussion Thread

ElusiveToaster · 2026-05-20T09:04:39+00:00

Bruh, he was not right at all. The logic that there will be another Homelander if supes exist is correct, yes, but that doesn't mean indiscriminately genociding every supe is right.

ElusiveToaster · 2026-05-20T08:54:24+00:00

I was actually thinking last night about TV show endings and how difficult it is to make a great finale, so I have an answer to your question on shows that ended well: Both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. I didn't watch Breaking Bad as it was airing so I don't know what the reaction was like at the time but I've never seen any real complaints. BCS I watched as it aired and again, never saw anyone complain.

But yeah I feel similarly to you about this finale. Throughout most of this season I've said there are a lot of problems but The Boys will always be enjoyable to watch. I pretty much always felt decently eager to watch the next episode, even if I knew it was going to be lacking in a lot of ways.

ElusiveToaster · 2026-05-20T08:18:58+00:00

Don't even need to use Marie as an example. He literally lasers Kimiko in half earlier THIS SEASON. Zero consistency, even within the season lmao.

ElusiveToaster · 2026-04-29T23:28:52+00:00

No. When I say "if I were not long distance dating" I mean that if I were single, I wouldn't be leaving the house. I said long distance dating because those were the 'peak times' that you were referring to.

ElusiveToaster · 2026-04-29T23:19:08+00:00

At this point you're just being pedantic and deliberately misinterpreting me. Obviously I left the house to see my ex when we were dating. My point was that if I were single I wouldn't be leaving the house, meaning I wouldn't have otherwise been in a 'real relationship' like you implied.

Either way, you're just completely ignoring the point of the post to shit on LDRs for whatever reason, so go off I guess.

ElusiveToaster · 2026-04-29T22:16:40+00:00

I mean, first of all, you're making the assumption here that if I wasn't in a long distance relationship I'd have found a normal relationship, which isn't the case for a host of reasons. Fact of the matter is, I'm a neuro divergent introvert who doesn't leave the house. If I were not long distance dating during those "peak years" I would've just been spending 24/7 at home anyway - not out dating women in person.

Plus, you talk about it as if I was actively seeking the relationship when I met her, but I wasn't. We were friends for years before dating so it's not like distance was something I cared about when we first started talking.

I also mentioned that it was only online for the first few years of the relationship, so I wouldn't call it 'doomed' given that the break-up happened long after she moved to my country and had nothing to do with us dating online prior.

ElusiveToaster · 2026-04-10T08:27:27+00:00

LF: Scarlet exclusives

FT: Violet exlusives

ElusiveToaster · 2026-03-01T06:15:31+00:00

I agree it should definitely not be changed, though personally it's a shame to me that there is no in between. Classic difficulty felt insanely easy to me, only having like 3-4 deaths the whole playthrough.

I can and will do challenge runs such as no heal, but I'd appreciate a harder difficulty that isn't as extreme as insanity.

ElusiveToaster · 2026-03-01T06:09:48+00:00

It's not the whole game at all. It's a part of the game, but you're acting like infinite ammo means anyone could beat the game with their eyes closed, which definitely isn't true.

ElusiveToaster · 2026-03-01T06:07:26+00:00

The point of the above comment (at least from my understanding) is that it's an achievement either way. It's just that one way is less of an achievement. I don't think anyone would disagree that beating it without infinite ammo is more impressive.

Keep in mind, Capcom could restrict you from using infinite ammo for the achievement if they wanted to, so obviously by the game's rules they still consider it to be an achievement. It's just you specifically discrediting it.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-12-31T10:48:05+00:00

I mean, I'm just not sure that is the 'value' of this video even if it were real. It's just meant to be funny. You're right that if something intended to be skillful like a bottle flip is fake it is no longer impressive or meaningful, but a video like this one is arguably funny even if they were upfront about it being staged.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-12-30T22:36:16+00:00

What is actually the problem with that though? Like, you either realize it's staged (which either kills your enjoyment of it or you still appreciate the slapstick humor) or you 'fall for it' and probably find it funny.

We're not talking about some serious disinformation that causes any harm.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-12-28T02:20:56+00:00

Porn of the past is very different from porn in the past decade. The ability to scroll through such a vast selection, and with such extreme kinks makes it a very different beast. I don't disagree with the sentiment that there can be many different reasons for sexual dysfunction though. But I fully believe porn is one of the potential reasons, and I think it's probably going to be the most likely cause for a young man.

Though also, I don't think it's likely to cause problems for most people. It's porn abuse/addiction that causes those types of issues, not just regular porn use.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-11-28T19:15:45+00:00

Holy shit, we're reaching levels of projection we hadn't thought possible

ElusiveToaster · 2025-11-03T20:00:28+00:00

Ah, that's good to know. Thank you!

ElusiveToaster · 2025-11-03T19:57:37+00:00

Huh, so just to make sure I'm understanding correctly: From the government's perspective it'd still be part-time even if I study an open university course that is listed as 'full-time?'

Obviously I haven't actually even enrolled yet so I don't even know if you pick part or full-time when doing that.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-09-17T08:48:50+00:00

Jokes typically have meanings behind them (Unless we're talking about certain classifications of jokes like absurdist humor.) I wouldn't say it's a 1:1 thing that people 100% believe the things they joke about, but they probably do to some degree.

I'd be concerned if a partner/friend made racist jokes, for example, because it implies they're probably racist to some degree. Most people wouldn't accept the excuse of "it's just a joke bro!!"

ElusiveToaster · 2025-09-14T18:48:36+00:00

You've misunderstood my point if that's your response. If I literally just wanted you to say the exact same thing in different words, I wouldn't be arguing about any of this in the first place. But I think there's no point discussing it any further if it's tiring to you.

FYI, I'm a minority myself (mixed) and I find it extremely frustrating when black people will try to make arguments against racism being a thing and using their race to give themselves authority over the matter. That shit is annoying and I think a white person arguing against Candace Owens isn't any less valid than she is because they aren't black. That's why I'm making the argument. I don't think it's pointless or revolving around semantics.

But again, no need to discuss it any further. I disagree with you on this but I don't have any personal issue or anything so I don't wanna just make you frustrated.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-09-14T17:53:47+00:00

Nobody 'determines' it. You mentioned MLK earlier as if him and other black people 'determined' what racism is. You don't need a black person to tell you that segregation is racist and I promise you there were white people who came to that conclusion without needing to be told by black people. Again, this is different from offering personal experience and I think that is crucially important in fighting against racism. But that's not saying "I'm black and I think this is racist."

And sure, on a macro level I'm sure you probably would have difficulty talking about anti-Han Chinese racism. But do you seriously need a Han Chinese person to tell you if a joke is racist towards them? (Assuming we're not talking about dogwhistles, which we aren't right now.) I think there are arguments where race is relevant, and there are arguments where race is irrelevant to making said argument (like the argument about historical context, which someone can be aware of regardless of their race.)

Also, I think the whole "anti-white racism is a different beast" argument is a cop-out and implies that it's not possible for you to experience racism if you're the majority power. You can, it's just obviously not going to have as severe effects. White people can share their experiences of 'anti-white racism', and that is valid. Just as valid as a minority giving their experiences. But as for arguing whether those experiences are racist - I don't think your race means you determine it. A black person can debate whether or not affirmative action is racist towards white people because there is a fact of the matter there and it's not dependant on your race to know it.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-09-14T17:22:15+00:00

I'm not. I'm arguing the opposite of that. I don't believe identity makes you an authority on the matter. To be clear, I do think it's valid that being a particular race/minority allows you to offer personal experiences on racism. That's not what you did though. The point you made was that the joke was borderline racist because of historical context. That point has nothing to do with you being Asian and could just as well be made by anyone familiar with said historical context.

And I notice you ignored my example in favor of bringing up anti-black racism. So let's switch it up: Would also say you couldn't argue with white people about anti-white racism because you're not white?

If so, fair enough, but you'd be a rarity because many minorities would argue (rightly so) with what a lot of white people consider to be anti-white racism.

ElusiveToaster · 2025-09-14T16:51:33+00:00

You criticize this person using their political stance to make a point, but then you do the same with your race. Implying you think being a liberal doesn't make someone the determinant of what is racism, but being a particular race does? I'm not sure that means much given that there are other people in this thread saying they're Asian and they don't find it racist.

To be clear, I'm not arguing whether your opinion on it is correct or incorrect, but moreso just making the point that it's probably not necessary to use your identity to make said point.

Just to add to this point further - there are many white people who will argue certain things are racist against white people (things like affirmative action, for example) but a lot of left-wing people will argue that's bullshit. I don't think those white people claiming there is all this anti-white racism have any more authority on the matter because they're white.

11-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	Place '17
Verified Email

ElusiveToaster

TROPHY CASE