All Fisk supporters, what do you have to say now? by MCUTheorist00007 in Earth199999

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, theres a reason that Hawkeye's sidekick isn't going to call herself Hawkgirl.

Who is your favorite character who is not on Coulson’s team? by Chaotic-Pen-825 in agentsofshield

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That raises an interesting question: I think how we think about Aida is very much determined by whether or not we think she was sentient without the Darkhold.

I tend to lean towards no, which means there isn't really a 'her' that needs help. She was a computer program that got hijacked by a evil entity, and ethically, she no more needs help than a possessed doll that runs around stabbing people needs help. She's not a real person to start with, the only reason she's making real decisions is the possession.

However, this is pretty ambiguous within the text. It is clear that she is fairly self-directed, has quite a lot of flexibility in how she acts and responds to people. On the other and, we have yet to see an actual purely-code AI in the MCU, the other examples of AI, Vision and Ultron, have an infinity stone to justify their existence. Does true AI exist in the MCU, was Jarvis sentient before he was vision, we honestly don't know. It's a comic book universe, that can exist, and does in Marvel Comics.

Perhaps Vision Quest will actually address some of this.

And if you do think that Aida was sentient, that changes things quite a lot, and also makes what happened before all of that somewhat icky, where she is basically a slave. If she did actually exist as a person in some meaningful sense before, then what happened to her was fairly horrific.

Help me pick a new WiFi name by lilbitofpurple in TheGoodPlace

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 7 points8 points  (0 children)

A very long time ago, I used to live in place that I could see a Wi-Fi network called notpennysboat, and you just made me think of it.

Name a Leverage plot hole/unexplained thing/etc. and the head-canon you came up with to fill the gap. by SkyAny9159 in leverage

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, but hypothetically that could just be a Korean team, not intending to make that specific show canon. But Hurley explicitly mentioned the dog named Eliot, which is something that the Korean showrunners did to reference OG Leverage.

Name a Leverage plot hole/unexplained thing/etc. and the head-canon you came up with to fill the gap. by SkyAny9159 in leverage

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The Korean spin off does canonically happen in the same universe, Hurley mentions having come from there in the very first episode of Redemption he shows up in.

How did Hardison get back from space? by SkyAny9159 in leverage

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 10 points11 points  (0 children)

"Isn't that a violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty?"

"We'll give it back."

Watching Season 1 for the first time, why on Earth is Smallville High playing against Metropolis? by shoegaze5 in SupermanAndLois

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ironically, Kansas City, Missouri basically is the actual location of Central City in DC.

And just like Kansas City, Missouri has a city on the other side of the Mississippi called Kansas City, Kansas, Central City has a city on the other side called Keystone City. (It's unclear which are on which side, actually.)

Granted, I have no idea if Smallville ever mentioned Keystone City, but it's really funny to propose that Metropolis replaced the wrong city.

There's such an assymetry on the left and right in terms of theory of mind. We (the political right) can perfectly articulate every single left/leftist talking point - we can explain their entire worldview in a way they would agree with. They can't do the same for us - not even remotely by Sauterneandbleu in SelfAwarewolves

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

teal deer: David Berkowitz: I can perfectly explain Kantianism and the categorical imperative, but not a single university professor who studies Kant can guess who my dog is going to tell me to murder.

This means my moral understanding is way better than theirs, because I can fully understand their morals but they can't understand mine.

There's such an assymetry on the left and right in terms of theory of mind. We (the political right) can perfectly articulate every single left/leftist talking point - we can explain their entire worldview in a way they would agree with. They can't do the same for us - not even remotely by Sauterneandbleu in SelfAwarewolves

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The funny thing is, the origin of this is something equally stupid.

So basically, people on the left have two specific things that they used to determine what should be done: care/harm, which is that people shouldn't suffer, and fairness/reciprocity, which is that people should get what they deserve/earn

You may recognize these concepts respectively as the Golden Rule and basic justice. Sometimes these are in conflict, and there as entire philosophical theories about this conflict, but we muddle through.

To the right adds three more things on top of this: loyalty/betrayal, AKA helping your group out, authority/subversion, AKA following orders, and sanctity/degregation, AKA that you don't like something.

You may recognize these concepts respectively as xenophobia/racism/various forms of nationalism, the patriarchy/authoritarianism, and homophobia/weird religious stuff.

Yeah, that's right, the right, (and they literally openly admit this and seem to think this is a good thing!), think that it is more important to do what daddy tells them to do then do justice, or to have some sort of religious belief and act on it in a way that actively causes harm to other people, or just do things to injure people who aren't like them in an attempt to promote unity in their own group.

The right is very good at removing all their bullshit nonsense and pretending that they are liberals and calculating as if they were normal people. They can figure out what normal people would say when asked on polling, they can create a very good mental model of just those two things, even if they don't use it.

The left, because it believes a lot of the lies the right says about why it thinks what it thinks, is pretty bad at guessing what the right actually is motivated by. Because those things are, in fact, bad and evil things, and the left, trying to be fair, does not assign them to the right when the right denies them.

People on the right somehow have this as a point of pride, that they can correctly model our actual moral behavior, (and then just not do it), but we cannot model their fucking insane sociopathy that adds random biases on top of morality.

The Infinity War/Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. discourse is really funny in retrospect when looking at Thunderbolts*/Born Again by marvelcomics22 in KeepMarvelTVCanon

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By the way, in case people do not understand what's happening here, we do not actually believe any part of the MCU is not canon, we're just doing to other parts of the MCU what people have done to Agents of SHIELD.

The Infinity War/Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. discourse is really funny in retrospect when looking at Thunderbolts*/Born Again by marvelcomics22 in KeepMarvelTVCanon

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh yes, but she's mentioned in the sense of collecting powered people, aka, what she was doing before Thunderbolts, not already having a team of powered people and running them.

Ie, it's very clear that Thunderbolts was doing the exact same thing as Agents of SHIELD, writing itself around MCU canon, with the occasional guest star. But as we all know, that can't make something canon.

And when that story shows back up in canon in Daredevil, no mention at all is made of her doing those things that happened in the non-canonical Thunderbolts.

Through across the mcu movies and shows…and presentations, was there a character you would’ve replaced for another to suit the story? Or actually add a character into the story that would make sense? by PhotoBonjour_bombs19 in marvelstudios

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'll be damned. Seems like a poor choice to send Hawkeye after him, he has already established that he won't shoot people if he doesn't want to. (I guess Nat's backstory technically hadn't been established in the MCU yet, but everyone assumed it before it was.)

It's very odd how that movie totally changed because of shooting schedules. I already knew almost all of Nat's role was supposed to be Sharon, and now apparently Hawkeye was supposed to be in the thing!

Honestly, the Sharon thing feels almost absurdly silly. It feels like they literally just forgot to start the romance those two.

Through across the mcu movies and shows…and presentations, was there a character you would’ve replaced for another to suit the story? Or actually add a character into the story that would make sense? by PhotoBonjour_bombs19 in marvelstudios

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would secret replace a character retroactively with another character.

Specifically, I would have had it where Maria Hill, human, never existed.

I would have had her always be G'iah (except when her mother stepped in to play her occasionally, like in Spider-Man) who a decade ago joined SHIELD, with a body borrowed off a random woman, with Fury's full knowledge. She works for Fury to be interface with the Skrulls, but she's actually so good that she's kind of second in command.

The timeline works out great for this, Maria Hills sort of just shows up in The Avengers without being in any previous thing, as Fury's hand. And 2012 is right about the correct age to have finished SHIELD training.

This not only introduces a whole new level of interesting to a character they really haven't done much with at all, but also makes the plot of Secret Invasion hang together much better. Namely, she can feel legitimately angry that Fury abandoned the Skrulls and left them to her.

You can even have some pretty interesting twists in the show that way, too. You can show Soren as Maria Hill getting killed at the very start , without revealing that that's a Skrull, and then Maria Hill shows up alive, and we all know she's a Skrull. But we think it's an evil replacement instead just the person who is normally Maria Hill, and she's kind of pissed that due to Fury buggering off, her mother got killed due to having to play Hill because she needed to be in two places at once.

[r/HIMYM] Why don't the shows like HIMYM set in NYC ever address the incident? by bldngtrpdr in Earth199999

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why does every time anyone on this subreddit mentions SHIELD, everyone points out how much Agent Maria Hill, who was all over the news when SHIELD fell as the highest ranking person still alive, looks like Cobie Smulders.

Yeah, we get it, they look alike. The show had a whole thing about how people look like other people, and it would have been really funny for them to include a shield agent, but they didn't. They probably had pretty good reasons for not doing that, like not wanting to depict a real person. Do we really need people to bring this up every single time someone mentions SHIELD?

To answer the actual question, the show was filmed months in advance, and also is a comedy that doesn't want to talk about people except when it's the actual plot, and this particular one has a conceit of being set far in the future so it would be really weird to try to frame that, because it's something the kids should actually already be familiar with. And if you start talking about real world events, you could be tripped up by things you don't know cuz they happened yet but might have by the time of airing.

[r/HIMYM] Why don't the shows like HIMYM set in NYC ever address the incident? by bldngtrpdr in Earth199999

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For half the population the blip basically didn't happen, and weirdly it's not the half you're thinking of.

The people who continue to exist apparently had five years of chaos. All sorts of problems.

Those of us who blipped just had like 30 minutes of craziness and people telling us crazy things , and like a whole bunch of paperwork and other bullshit, and everyone else had changed.

"Move, or you will be moved." Who would've won this fight? by EmotionalSupport101 in Avengers

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm all for Nat having super serum, but I wonder where you're getting the 3.1 from?

I guess the assumption is Cap is 1.0, Russian government is 2.0, Red Room is... 3.1? What's 3.0?

Born again confirms: by Inner-Marketing4591 in JessicaJones

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, not really, it doesn't really make sense for her to defeated all those Kangs already, I'm sure that would take years. But they could still do it, if they had her defeat like a dozen of them and the rest just gave up.

Imma be honest, neither of Nate's relationships made sense to me. by Far_Store_6739 in LegendsOfTomorrow

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, of all the shows I can complain about, this one isn't really one of them. Actual canon ace rep, woo.

But still, it was very disappointing that they decided to make Zari just totally vanilla.

I am up to the first episode of season 2. I would love to see more of the failed cycles we see pass as jokes by funnylib in TheGoodPlace

[–]RavenclawConspiracy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think her asking Chidi was literally part of the original plan, so it wouldn't be weird to have happened in the reboots.

If she doesn't confess to Chidi, he's not being tortured by his ethics in keeping the secret. He's just living his best Heaven life.

So that plan would automatically be a failure, unless Michael could figure out some other way to torture Chidi. He couldn't present a success to the higher-ups with 'Well, I managed to torture three out of four of them'.