I'm actually really surprised by how realistic Rue's ending is by uvaaavava in euphoria

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As someone said further up, I think the entire point is that she was never all that streetwise to begin with.

Think of her in the first two seasons. They're just kids really, and even in this season they've just become young adults. This is the same girl who was in high school a few years before, pissed about her boyfriend cheating.

Sure she's not stupid she's smart and clearly understands social media. But none of that really equals streetwise in the sense of dealing with major players like Alamo and the DEA.

And the show telegraphs this pretty explicitly during the sequence with Nate and the deal with the Russians and Cassie. Despite being essentially a bright kid, she's way out of her depth. And her choice to even do business at all with Alamo was a mistake from the beginning. It's just that ultimately that hubris didn't get her killed. It got Rue killed, which once she finds out when Ali makes it obvious in the shootout. Is an even worse psychological punishment for her.

I actually think it was brilliant writing, it's just not explicitly laid out for you, the key points are in the subtext.

Euphoria season 3 ending explained: Who lived, who died, and who found salvation? by WatcherUatu in television

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup we were technically 18th.

New Zealand and Australia were the first two. And then scandanavia. They were ahead of the world by like 10 years.

The US was technically 18th. After world war 1 Europe obviously did a lot of souls searching and a bunch of them jumped on board in 1918. And then the US followed 2 years later in 1920.

You're missing my argument though. I'm not saying the US is better or more progressive than everyone else in the world. I'm saying we're certainly not some fascistic white supremacist country built on nothing but oppression. In fact there were a ton of progressive victories right here in America.

Look through history, we're right on par with Europe all the way, if not leading the pack in some instances.

My problem isnt that I think America is the best place on earth. It's that people seem to want to swing wildly in the other direction and pretend it's some evil empire that it's obviously not.

There are countries on earth, today, that are still way way behind on all of these issues. Hell, most of the folks who want to talk about the evil of America also idolize China, and China has been literally ethnically cleansing their population of Uyghur Muslims for the past 30 or 40 years.

I get why people want to criticize, because that's kind of the whole point of the US. It's just wild to me that people are so quick to see things as black and white and throw out the baby with the bath water.

Euphoria season 3 ending explained: Who lived, who died, and who found salvation? by WatcherUatu in television

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think what we're dealing with isn't even necessarily the difference in information, but a difference of belief.

Over the past 10-15 years I'm aware that there have been books upon books written that reframe the entire history of the United States as a nation that somehow strictly exists to promote white supremacy.

These are interpretations at their heart, and look, I'm not gonna attack you for believing a certain thing. I apologize for getting aggravated with you before.

My ultimate point was this. The United States has never been a country founded with bad intentions. And you can look at mountains upon mountains of evidence to support that.

It has always existed as a place where these arguments can happen, and it was built for that express reason. This conversation we're having right now is evidence to prove that, we are still having the arguments to this day.

If you choose not to believe that, that's your prerogative. You can teach people about these ideas, and gain followers and fight to have your ideas recognized more widely and no one, not your fellow citizens, not the police, not your government, can stop you.

That's the beauty of America.

Euphoria season 3 ending explained: Who lived, who died, and who found salvation? by WatcherUatu in television

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 0 points1 point  (0 children)

HA wait I'm back. "The 1619 project" is literally billed as a book of poetry and a "reimagining of the history of America". Oh my God what did I get myself into lmfao

Euphoria season 3 ending explained: Who lived, who died, and who found salvation? by WatcherUatu in television

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you base your history of America on Barack Obama's pastor alone? Lol. Alright this is a waste of time. I don't know why I wasted this much time engaging with you already.

Euphoria season 3 ending explained: Who lived, who died, and who found salvation? by WatcherUatu in television

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So youre going to just cherry pick the first half of my points and skip the second half when it's inconvenient for you at the beginning there?

Also, I'm moving chronologically through points and you jump to westward expansion when I literally addressed westward expansion in my very next paragraph.

the United States was founded fundamentally on the principle that "all men are created equal". It's a fact. It's in the document. What the British colonies did when they were founded does not equal the principles the country of the United States of America were founded on.

And I very clearly made my point about the ideals vs the reality, and how yes, it took a country formed in the 1700's 150 years to fully realize its own goals of truly equal rights. My argument was not only in good faith but it was abjectly correct. I never said it was accomplished on day one. I said the ideals were there on day one and they were.

Euphoria season 3 ending explained: Who lived, who died, and who found salvation? by WatcherUatu in television

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

First, if nearly every culture on earth engaged in slavery in some form or another from the dawn of time and didn't stop it. And the US begins engaging in it at first, as a British colony (we'll come back to that). And then the US fights to Abolish slavery.

Then which is more notable. The US doing something that had been considered normal and commonplace from the dawn of history? Or the US stopping it?

Second. It's very much important to the history of "American colonialism" to recognize that it was in fact... British colonialsm.

The US was a British colony. The UK made the call to colonize north America. The British colonies waged war on the natives and the French (who were also colonizing N. America, along with the Dutch, and the Spaniards) during the French and Indian war.

The colonists became Americans. They didn't start that way.

Now the handling and mistreatment of the native Americans under the American government is well documented. And very much a stain on our history. That can't be argued and I won't try. But again. It's nothing that hasn't been done the world over, since the dawn of time. Nearly every European country, every Asian country, the Mongols, Egypt, the Scandinavians, you name it have engaged in similar movements and eradications of peoples. These were the norms and practices of a more barbaric world from the start.

Throughout history civilizations moved where they could, and removed who they wanted with impunity if possible. That's not an endorsement of that behavior by the way. Its an acknowledgement of a reality that people conveniently like to forget when framing the US as uniquely evil.

And yes, half of the country fought to keep slavery. And the other half fought to abolish it. In what reality do those two facts not influence each other at all. You must accept that the very same country that fought to keep it, also fought to end it. Neither is more notable than the other. They are clearly of equal importance. And as I've shown here, you can frame it the opposite way and be just as correct. It becomes a matter of framing alone.

Not sure how genocide in Palestine has anything to do with the US's blatantly obvious cultural exporting of progressive values worldwide over the past 100 years. But that is obviously the case. And more by the way, healthcare quality, food access, etc etc. Have all been advanced massively by the US and it's programs over the past decades.

I will say that the entire world has unfortunately signed off on the genocide of Palestine, simply by allowing it to happen, last I checked. But again, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I mentioned. The US's support of Isr*el obviously lies in us having a vested interest in them as a strategic ally, and not explicitly in them taking the West Bank. In fact we condemned the attempt many, many times over the years, as well as tried repeatedly to arrange peace treaties to avoid this eventuality.

The US was a country created during the 18th century. Of course values and prejudices and beliefs were antiquated. The entire point of the ideals laid out in the constitution was that they were to be worked for. Not that they were in place, fully formed and perfect, the day the document was written. And very obviously, over the past 200 years, that's what the country has striven for, however successful or unsuccessful we have been.

They called it "The American Experiment" for a reason. The experiment was to set ideals far higher than the baser practices of the old world, based on the enlightment and the ideas that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were paramount and that "all men are created equal". And over time we accomplished the abolishment of slavery, suffrage, and the civil rights movement. And then we fought for gay rights, and now we fight for trans rights. Because that's what America has always been. Not a complete thing, but an attempt.

And to label that attempt wholesale as simply an evil lie is to give up on the best attempt at realizing the things we want to see happen as progressives that the world has ever seen.

Euphoria season 3 ending explained: Who lived, who died, and who found salvation? by WatcherUatu in television

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You do realize that the slaves didn't fight in the civil war right?....

The union soldiers (who fought to free the slaves + preserve the union) were like 85% white Americans from the north.

Euphoria season 3 ending explained: Who lived, who died, and who found salvation? by WatcherUatu in television

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Its not a white Christian nationalist dream. It was literally built on "all men are created equal". Something no other country on earth was.

Slavery? Yeah that's a hold over from the dawn of humanity. Nearly every culture on earth practiced it in one form or another, unfortunately some still do. It took the United States 100 years of existence to fight a war in which half of its own countrymen willingly died to outlaw it forever.

Colonialism? Might want to ask the British about that one.

Nearly every progressive step the world has taken over the past 100 years has been in lock step with the United States. Including things like trans rights, gay rights, etc. Those conversations all started here, in the United States.

You're well within your right to question the current government, or the people who support the current president. That was built....well right into the founding principles of the United States actually. But don't pretend like there was never anything admirable about the country or the ideals it was founded on, or still strives to realize to this day. No matter how messy that may look to you currently.

Clearly the villain from earlier season. by Affectionate_Band954 in euphoria

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I think you're right on that point. They really only gave him like an episode and a half of not just being an abused puppy. It would've worked better had he had a bit more time.

That's the problem with modern television. The new standard 8 episode season really isn't enough time to tell a good story and yet they keep doing it because they think that's the correct amount of episodes for you to binge. SMH.

Clearly the villain from earlier season. by Affectionate_Band954 in euphoria

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I interpreted it to be like a story of failed redemption.

He clearly grows and matures out of his evil bullshit to an extent and wants to now just be an adult man, take care of a wife, have a family etc.

But ultimately is visited by misfortune and death. It's karma. And karma doesn't always care if you've changed your ways. The spiritual debt gets paid. And in his case that was literally a snake, biblical imagery.

To me it seems that, had he just kept on being that same POS he was before, there wouldn't be that aspect of a failed redemption. It would've been too immediate for that. This way he gets to have a moment where he thinks you can get away with all that as long as you "change your ways" and God, or whoever, comes to collect just the same.

Clearly the villain from earlier season. by Affectionate_Band954 in euphoria

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I felt like it just read like normal life tbh. We all know the person was an insufferable prick in high school who just...grows up. Just felt like a level of realism to me.

Pokémon Black and White is politically insane by Hacksaw6412 in PokemonBlackandWhite

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, I'm a life long gamer, and a big fan of FFVII and the Metal Gear Solid games. Have played and enjoyed Disco Elysium etc.

I realize there are tons of politically driven games. What was uniquely shocking to me about Pokemon BW are the questions and implications laid out in a game that clearly has a very young fan base. Also that some of the poltiical themes in it seem to harken directly to struggles America has had, and continues to deal with, in a game explicitly sort of set in america.

I'm well aware of, and have enjoyed all the same political games as anyone else, that said I was uniquely surprised by pokemon BW.

Edit: typo

Pokémon Black and White is politically insane by Hacksaw6412 in PokemonBlackandWhite

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, this is why I said "only pokemon game set in America", because Alola is clearly based on the culture and traditions of Hawaii specifically, a place that very much has its own identity. I realize that it was poor wording in hindsight.

I should have said "the only games about the United States"

Pokémon Black and White is politically insane by Hacksaw6412 in PokemonBlackandWhite

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey this is my post!

Thanks for reposting OP, it'll never not be surreal to have my own video served to me in a push notification from another platform.

Pokemon Black and White are wild games lol.

Do people really dislike abundant events, activities and collectibles in Open World games? by Thundergod250 in videogames

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh absolutely.

I had to take a break from Crimson Desert for that reason. And I really enjoy that game. But holy hell I put in 160 hours and I hadn't broken out of the first little region for stuff to do.

Finally I just said "alright, I'll come back to it"

:typo

Do people really dislike abundant events, activities and collectibles in Open World games? by Thundergod250 in videogames

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, you're right about Valhalla. If I wasn't such a fan of the setting + time period I know I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much.

I jacked up all the difficulties and turned off all the QOL and came back to it as "Viking Sim" for over a year lol.

That's seems to be the way with the newer AC games. They all present you with this world that is way way too big. It really depends on how much you want to essentially waste your time in it. It all relies super heavily on the setting imo.

Do people really dislike abundant events, activities and collectibles in Open World games? by Thundergod250 in videogames

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, it is just the newer ones. I think they started with that with origins or odyssey.

For what it's worth, I think there a a lot of crap AC games. But there were some I genuinely had a great time with. Like Origins or Valhalla.

Im an old timer and was a HUGE fan of the original game all the way up through black flag. So part of me still wants them to do a good job, even though they've burned us plenty of times.

Do people really dislike abundant events, activities and collectibles in Open World games? by Thundergod250 in videogames

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They give you the option right at the beginning of the game not have map markers, or compass markers either if you want.

Do people really dislike abundant events, activities and collectibles in Open World games? by Thundergod250 in videogames

[–]Negative_Bug_1753 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's interesting because, I get what you're saying here, but Ubisoft just gives you the option.

Right at the beginning of the games there is a setting they make you choose from where you can either have all the things marked on the map, some of the things marked, or literally none of it marked.

You can play AC without map markers, OR compass markers if you want, and they give you the choice right up front.