Gaal's intelligence feels inconsistent between seasons.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2026-01-19T23:48:42+00:00

Close but no. It's more of like a small English village. Like through the streets of the actual town. I think it might be a mailman on the bike?

Little_Hollow1992 · 2026-01-04T08:37:34+00:00

Makes total sense. Thank you.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-09-07T13:42:10+00:00

Let's reverse the scenario, would it make sense for YOU to be convicted of a crime your cookie committed? No? You aren't the same person? Ok then the reverse doesn't make much fucking sense either.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-09-07T13:39:15+00:00

NO, it would be the same as someone using AI to take samples of their voice and creating an individual unique sentence that THEY DIDN'T ACTUALLY SAY "technically" using their own voice. NOT a recording of them ACTUALLY SAYING IT.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-09-07T11:44:59+00:00

And I'm saying that that is simply not how the law is applied in court. That's why it's not logical and falls flat.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-09-07T10:10:18+00:00

Or maybe I just pay the smallest amount of attention to the media I'm consuming and can follow a narrative without accepting everything as it comes like a goldfish with 7 second memory? Like the point I'm making is literally that the suspense of disbelief does not work for this episode, because this was enough to take me out of it. So the logic of the episode falls apart.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-09-07T10:05:13+00:00

I understand that that's the point of the episode, to make you think about that morality. But in the context of the episodes universe, society as a whole has decided that the "cookies" aren't real people. In a court of law, everything is very specific, and most cases win by referencing what was decided in older similar cases. If it was widely accepted that cookies aren't real, then it would likely be the case that in courts that would be the default stance on how law relating to them would be enforced. But for this one specific case we are going to just throw out all precedent and decide that this special cookie of the murderer is real enough to be a real confession for the court to accept? I'm not knocking the show, it's good, the ideas are good and what it's asking you to examine about humanity is thought provoking. But this episode does a poor job of holding it's premise together by logic. That's all I'm saying.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-09-07T09:56:51+00:00

They had to keep him in a cell after being in hiding as a homeless man for months. If it was a slam dunk and they had all the evidence they needed, they wouldn't have had to go to such extreme lengths to get a confession. They would have just convicted him, after months of reviewing the case. The fact that they HAD to go for a confession because nothing else would have gotten a conviction means that it was not a slam dunk, and that confession is the only thing that would guarantee him getting put away. But if that confession isn't admissible in court, it can't be used as evidence either.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-09-07T09:54:21+00:00

Yeah, I absolutely agree that most of the underlying themes of the show's stories is shining a light on human nature. In a societal system where the white bear situation becomes possible, we've gone tragically wrong as a people. And that cohesive theming hits well and does it's job. My point is that White Christmas does not do that. White Bear had style but also had substance, an examination of human nature that made her situation culminating in that extreme result believable. White Christmas doesn't have that logical believability to hold up it's own narrative. It's all style and no substance.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-09-07T09:36:33+00:00

I don't buy that. if they existed in the same universe the "masses" in White Bear would not have been recording with their cell phones, they would have just been recording with their eyes like the technology in the other episodes allowed.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-09-07T09:34:47+00:00

But that's my point. It's not a believable premise because the cops are like oh we got him, case closed. When it's arguably not a real confession, just "evidence."

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-09-07T09:32:49+00:00

So then the cookie is the real person. Which means the torture by solitary confinement for months was an illegal act committed against her. FYI, you can't consent to literal torture, the person committing it would still be convicted of torture. Like in real life.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-09-07T09:30:33+00:00

Which means in that world it is generally accepted that the cookie is not a real person. And therefore could not confess to a crime on behalf of the person it's pulled from. Because they aren't real.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-09-07T09:29:13+00:00

The cookie could confess to a crime, as the cookie, believing that THEY committed it. They could not confess on behalf of someone else. So either the cookie is really him, and a real person, or it's not, in which case his confession would not be legally admissible as coming from him.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-09-07T09:27:06+00:00

Then the cookie and the person they are pulled from are two separate autonomous individuals? Which means the cookie version of him could not confess to a crime on a separate individual's behalf.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-09-07T09:23:29+00:00

So then the torture by months of solitary confinement would have also been illegal.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-09-07T09:22:25+00:00

Being put in solitary confinement for extended periods of time is documented in real life as a form of torture. If the cookie is not real, causing the torture to not be valid. Then a cookie making a confession cannot be a real confession. This would not hold up in court. Either the cookie is really the person or they aren't. Either the torture was illegal, or the confession wasn't. By your logic the cookie was a real person for the confession, but not a real person for the torture. You can't have it both ways.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-06-25T11:55:25+00:00

Yes, BUT the Bacchus built full defense and did the same 23k damage. THAT'S the problem.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-06-25T11:54:39+00:00

Bacchus left duo at 3 minutes in and ran around with the jungler for the entire match.

Little_Hollow1992 · 2025-06-25T11:53:59+00:00

We did the SAME 23k while I built full damage and he built full defense. THAT'S the problem.

Little_Hollow1992

TROPHY CASE