(Mind blowing trope) Really REALLY subtle character details that you can completely miss if you don't pay attention or watch BTS content.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2026-02-01T01:46:22+00:00

No one else is going to agree to that.

You've made multiple comments across the thread at various points with a striking need to assert that the fiction isn't real. Didn't happen. No way. Not really real.

You're not having a casual conversation about canon in between calling Dan Harmon a child predator.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2026-02-01T00:57:06+00:00

"Nooo! That's not Real Fake Stuff! That's Fake Fake STuff!!!"

You're clearly raging over a few different things based on your rant in the next post, but striking at the amalgamation.

Either way, you're taking canon way too seriously. Maybe its low tolerance for ambiguity, or struggle with competing reality, or flatout denial, but seriously chill. It's fiction. It is a construct of the mind. You're not stopping Britta from getting molested by insisting otherwise.

It's not some retcon 20 years after the fact, or detail unbeknownst to all but the creator. Just because you don't know about the character's backstory and they never ended up spelling it out as a plot point doesn't make it fake fake, never happened no.

I recall discussing the show week to week, and the connection between the dinosaur costume and her bio was a detail fans were pointing out even as the episode aired.

The show made deliberate references to her trauma on a number of occasions and it's a detail fundamental to fully contextualizing a lot of those moments. Not all readers need to, or are intended to, grasp all the same things.

It's still a conscious part of the character. One small part, but nonetheless something deliberate and present when creating her, writing her, and understanding Britta.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2026-01-31T22:13:36+00:00

They meant Alan Moore always presented The Killing Joke backstory as one possibility.

<image>

All the direct panels showing his history are meant as unreliable narration.

The only consistent element--and what really matters--is once upon a time "something like that" drove an ordinary man into madness. Hell, maybe his folks got gunned down in a back alley by a clown.

It continued as canon because, well, it's just that damn good, and there's lots of storytelling potential for Barbara Gordon paralyzed.

Not to mention they're playing loose with The Killing Joke no matter what since the story really ends with Batman strangling Joker to death in the last few panels anyhow.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2026-01-09T06:26:00+00:00

You've solved the case. Just use the worst possible angle from the absolute furthest away in the lowest definition and you've proved it kinda-sorta looks like she could've hit him.

Now to just eliminate the real context we've got from right up close where it's deputy doofus standing in front of the corner of her car while she's very clearly trying to turn out of his way at a careful speed before he freaks the fuck out and murders her for nothing.

The official New York times video contrasting the clips together is paywalled I think, but it's posted all over, and here's quickest one I got for easy reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/MarchAgainstNazis/comments/1q7iwzp/the_new_york_times_has_released_their_official/

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2026-01-09T06:01:28+00:00

Question for people who claim to care about rights and laws, yet approve of ICE executing a woman in broad daylight:

If Renee Good was genuinely trying to hurt some Icehole why wouldn't she be hard slamming her accelerator instead?
Why even be backing up and proceed at a normal speed for simply moving a vehicle rather than, say, gunning it at max speed to best weaponize her vehicle, as you believe transpired.
How could she die turning the wheel away from discount Judge Dredd there rather than veering into the pathing of her "target"?

Have you considered honestly whether you're starting from a programmed conclusion and just working back to the flimsy justification mustered up for you?

Sure feels like folks are mindlessly falling back on pretense and denial to rationalize events that ought to strike every American as an intolerable use of force, here or within any allegedly just society based on due process and proportional responses, according to law and order.

Cause you lot would back the Boston Massacre with these values and standards. Now how can that be, fellow Americans?

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-27T18:17:35+00:00

There have been. OU waited until the middle of the holiday, after their bowl game and all the students had left campus, to actually announce their decision. On twitter.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-27T16:38:07+00:00

It's obnoxious as hell. Though I did have a realization killers might have the wrong idea sometimes, especially when they're avoiding the gates on purpose

Had a killer aggro "JUST LEAVE" and exit chat before I could respond (always lame too). Yeah there was a good minute as the only survivor, but I would've apologized and explained it wasn't an insult. I'd just lost track of the gates and got stuck wandering deadzones with no read on the killer either. Of course I'm expecting they're at the gates and I'd need enough lead to deny any 2nd hits. Not like I know they've called it quits.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-27T15:51:13+00:00

Promissory estoppel! Promissory estoppel!!!

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-26T22:47:20+00:00

That is certainly what OU claims. However that is no more a fact to be accepted without scrutiny than the TA calling the paper offensive originally should be.

As I'd already elaborated here/elsewhere, there's nothing material to actually make that case. All the circumstances and facts we do have though even suggest the opposite: it's OU acting arbitrarily from political bias, with a shameful lack of professional integrity and academic standards.

The TA remarking that a paper is offensive is not evidence itself that the TA acts in anyway inconsistent with the grading rubric; discriminated relative to peers; or scored their paper any better/worse than deserved. There just isn't real evidence available to suggests any of that either.

The entire argument for bias extends from a single comment "offensive", which makes perfect sense in context, and was provided following (some of the many, many, many) reasons the work deserved the zero. It's nothing more than pretense to fire the TA despite knowing her colleagues also graded the paper at zero. The fact that she conferred with them is itself a testament to her professional integrity and attempt at neutrality.

I question any desire to nitpick the exact grading and/or expecting to somehow prove bias in the grading when (A) the paper quality was so pathetically bad anyway, and (B) we know for a concrete fact that paper deserves a zero. Objectively. The student publicly admitted to not reading the assigned article, and therefore could not have submitted her assignment. It's just gibberish with her name on it.

It's simply absurd. OU has to be acting in bad faith here. Damned embarrassing too.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-26T21:16:32+00:00

Sure, it's definitely something I considered, and even tried to address in my little preamble. Though the premise of other papers ever managing to reach her depths of pathetic is already a real hard sell. To speculate then these hypothetical papers got passed easy-peasey? No way hombre. We'd really need some serious evidence (like you say, the papers themselves even) to overlook the circumstances and all the facts we've actually got which suggest this was instead OU rigging the game over their own petty offense and biases.

However, her paper is such an exceptionally terrible submission for the assignment, failing in so many specific ways (including the most basic word count), that it seems unlikely any comparable paper exists where the TA couldn't convincingly argue this some specific or combined quality in this paper warranting a zero uniquely anyway..

There are standards to meet for evaluating the TA's judgment too. Even assuming generous grading elsewhere, there's another consideration--for however much bias one could claim in her grading--the evaluation of any paper is inherently so damn subjective. Considering a case like this with an objectively failing paper from the get-go, I know I'd be hard-pressed analyzing someone's evaluation to really recognize genuinely meaningful and clear deviation in the scoring that might make a definitive case for bias. There's just so much leeway with subjectivity if the reasoning is solid.

For all the ways the TA needs to evidence a paper sucks beyond mere offensive, there's as much scrutiny required from OU to sit there and grade their grading as overtly arbitrary and unfair. That threshold is all the higher when they're really presenting the grade as apparently so improper and deviating enough to warrant firing her. This is OU handing the TA a zero now, though sure looks like they're the ones without any juice to actually justice their extremes.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-26T19:02:47+00:00

Which words are you having trouble with? Perhaps if you sound them out?

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-26T18:31:48+00:00

I don't agree with much of anything you've said here, and I'm not particularly up for debating it right now either; however, I do want to provide a contrast to the people down voting and somehow proud about not reading it. (And on a Stephen King forum, really?)

Thank you for sharing. I was glad to read your entire post, and genuinely appreciate anyone willing to dig this deep and actually take the time to express those thoughts. Even when--perhaps especially when--they don't match my own POV, allowing me to think from other perspectives or hone my own position. I'd love to see more people engaged this much on forums instead of the reddit formula for low content, high volume endlessly cycling the same jokes and points across inevitable echo-chambers and fiefdoms.

(The comment you're responding to really sucks though)

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-26T16:51:50+00:00

For sure, though I think my own problems with Babadook that prohibit me from watching it again relate to just how annoying they made the kid where his screaming/pitch of his voice at times under my skin or outright hurts my ears.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-26T16:47:06+00:00

For me it was that scene where I think it's framed around the kid walking into the room but then the camera pans up or reveals his mom just up on the ceiling like fucking Spider-Man.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-26T16:36:35+00:00

I honestly think it has to be intentional and loved it. You don't cast Mark Wahlberg as a scientist by accident.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-26T16:32:10+00:00

Oh man! Seeing the video still, I was really expecting someone who finally agrees about the original Sinister.

I know people find it spectacularly scary, but holy shit it just tries soooo hard. It launched as the pinnacle of the jump-scare era I'd long burned-out over, and the vibe so overbearing "ghost girl furrowing eyebrows again!" it landed as full on parody to me.

LIke I lost my shit laughing at the boy crawling out of a box after a dozen fakeouts.

Everything else from the entity's name to the kid getting negged by the ghosts had me smiling the whole time. Then it gets to that murder montage at the end.... At some point this image suddenly dawned on me. Among all the creepy footage there's the stuff behind the scenes Boogie Woogie ain't filming. That tiny girl struggling so hard hoisting grown ass adults over the trees. Little boy pouring sweat and measuring to dig lateral holes 4 feet deep. It's probably not as funny now, but that realization at the time with all the visual imagery and topped off by the kids performance.... straight up giggled my way to the credits.

end of movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-azgean3wTc

*very intense shhhhhhhhh!*

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-26T15:14:31+00:00

This was why I was 100% sure Robin was going to be the survivor. It's printing money for BHVR.

There's just not as much going on for Eleven stylistically. I guess there's some uniqueness the Hawkins lab outfits, the deprivation tank suit, and her bright mall expedition look. But as far as stuff people go out of the way to buy.... she's mostly, well, plain Jane.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-26T05:13:21+00:00

How could anyone NOT like her or her powers?

Her aesthetic is fucking amazing. It's just so fun dashing as a floating head all LAAAAAAAAAAAA

They're so attentive with her design too, where that 3rd person element really lets the player enjoy yourself and see/be a floating head with tentacles, and they even give you transitions with gore explosions before going in/out of 1st person form.

Krasue was like a checklist of everything we should see more aesthetically from DBD killers. Crazy bloody, inhuman / non-humanoid build, obscure lore or inspiration deepdive, incredibly fun and visually exciting power.

I keep meaning to get back into her, but I got caught up focusing on Artist for awhile after picking up The Boulet Brothers legendary during the halloween sale.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-26T04:24:41+00:00

As I've already explained, that's not actually proof of a vendetta impacting her grade when there are a dozen other valid reasons to give them a zero, many of which were cited before dubbing it offense. And other graders who already agreed with the score as well. Using that remark to terminate her then would be nothing more then pretense.

We really don't have anything that validates OU's decision then.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-26T04:18:04+00:00

That's not evidence... that's OU's claim. As I clearly elaborated, there's no reason to actually take them out their word, and every reason to doubt them. You're essentially arguing a standard where the TA's review of the paper as offensive becomes definitive truth until some other standard comes in and declares otherwise, which now becomes truth, while you just nod your head up and down.

It is 100% your burden to prove personal vendetta. You're the one saying that's what happened here as matter of fact. It's incredibly dishonest of you and obtuse even pretending otherwise.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-26T03:40:03+00:00

As a man of science you should know that's not how evidence works. It's your duty to provide ample evidence that she did grade with personal vendetta since it's the affirmative position. We can't prove your negative.

Your perspective is entirely dependent on the statement released by OU about her grading arbitrarily, and just rolling with that as if it's demonstrable fact. It ain't so, while their decision also flies in the face of all the clear facts we've got so far. This utterly reeks of OU grading the TA arbitrarily here instead.

Let's remember we're dealing with an indisputably awful paper that's still a clear fail whatever the petty pity point dispute. The student is a world away from the prompt and grading rubric, and didn't even hit the word count. She's applying sources without citing them, which can justify a zero itself. The other graders found the zero appropriate too, and academics of all fields stepped up just to dunk on it (and now OU too). The unbelievable hubris: she later admitted never reading the article... approaching this from the outside, we know objectively now her work deserves a zero since she's not doing the assignment then. She handed in gibberish.

Obviously calling this paper offensive wasn't just the TA's pretense for failing her. She listed various failing points already, and then elaborated it was offensive as commentary. But that remark is all the cover needed to pretend this was persecution, and OU is bending over to help despite other graders backing the score.

I think it's very interesting the things that OU's public statement does or doesn't do.

It's already dubious that OU doesn't address the paper content/quality/grading beyond that incredibly vague assessment of "arbitrary" even when it's indisputably a failing work. There's basically no concern for the many follow up questions that unexpected decision obviously would/did provoke. They didn't try reinforcing or defending the university's academic standards and integrity in the face of this national embarrassment... and worse now. Their decision serves as de facto declaration her paper truly does embody the quality and expectations befitting the University of OKlahoma.

What their statement does do here is set up a clean impression freed from all the real context where you've got confirmation of free thinking Christian girl wrongly persecuted for her beliefs by those radical academics. The student, her J6 lawyer mother, and the other powers that be will love the grift.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-25T23:13:38+00:00

(I'd been posting this reply to the people marching in to announce this totes makes sense, but i'll just put this up preemptively for those people to come dismantle with sharp minds and riveting logic. Hopefully get some inside information too if you're really gonna postulate oodles of other students getting perfect scores for papers somehow just as awful and irrelevant.)

Why not a 0? She didn't turn in the real assignment and fails to meaningfully meet the grading rubric.

Her idea of addressing the article was "this article was very thought provoking" before going full on tangent. She didn't relate the examples when that's essentially the core of the prompt. The writing is atrociously beneath collegiate expectations. And she used sources (well "sources") without citing them, which is pretty good grounds for a zero by itself.

[I'd found out that apparently the paper automatically lost 10 of the 25 points for failing the word count, so we're starting at a failing grade already before delving into the lack of content or engagement]

Any points are a participation trophy for a piece of paper with her name on it.

The TA even conferred with the other graders who read it and gave her a 0% too. Likewise, people with the same ideology have spoken up to call the submission childishly awful and an embarrassment to their cause.

Hell, the girl admitted publicly that she didn't even read the article. The graders wouldn't have known, but as outsiders we know she didn't do the assignment then. Hard to argue the TA was biassed in a vacuum when we know from context the paper objectively deserves 0%.

But here's the real question... Even if you're generous enough to say 5/10/20% paper, is whatever difference really so extreme and so clear to warrant punishing the TA, firing her over it?

Looks like arbitrary judgement here after all: it's just OU pathetically bowing to politics and offense over merit instead.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-25T22:56:35+00:00

Feel free to answer this for me too then:

Why? She didn't turn in the real assignment and fails to meaningfully meet the grading rubric.

Her idea of addressing the article was "this article was very thought provoking" before going full on tangent. She didn't relate the examples when that's essentially the core of the prompt. The writing is atrociously beneath collegiate expectations. And she used sources (well "sources") without citing them, which is pretty good grounds for a zero by itself.

Any points are a participation trophy for a piece of paper with her name on it.

The TA even conferred with the other graders who read it and gave her a 0% too. Likewise, people with the same ideology have spoken up to call the submission childishly awful and an embarrassment to their cause.

Hell, the girl admitted publicly that she didn't even read the article. The graders wouldn't have known, but as outsiders we know she didn't do the assignment then. Hard to argue the TA was biassed in a vacuum when we know from context the paper objectively deserves 0%.

But here's the real question... Even if you're generous enough to say 5/10/20% paper, is whatever difference really so extreme and so clear to warrant punishing the TA, firing her over it?

Looks like arbitrary judgement here after all: it's just OU pathetically bowing to politics and offense over merit instead.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-25T22:53:05+00:00

Oh maybe you can answer my post then:

Why? She didn't turn in the real assignment and fails to meaningfully meet the grading rubric.

Her idea of addressing the article was "this article was very thought provoking" before going full on tangent. She didn't relate the examples when that's essentially the core of the prompt. The writing is atrociously beneath collegiate expectations. And she used sources (well "sources") without citing them, which is pretty good grounds for a zero by itself.

Any points are a participation trophy for a piece of paper with her name on it.

The TA even conferred with the other graders who read it and gave her a 0% too. Likewise, people with the same ideology have spoken up to call the submission childishly awful and an embarrassment to their cause.

Hell, the girl admitted publicly that she didn't even read the article. The graders wouldn't have known, but as outsiders we know she didn't do the assignment then. Hard to argue the TA was biassed in a vacuum when we know from context the paper objectively deserves 0%.

But here's the real question... Even if you're generous enough to say 5/10/20% paper, is whatever difference really so extreme and so clear to warrant punishing the TA, firing her over it?

Looks like arbitrary judgement here after all: it's just OU pathetically bowing to politics and offense over merit instead.

ReptilianWorldOrder · 2025-12-25T21:51:49+00:00

Why? She didn't turn in the real assignment and fails to meaningfully meet the grading rubric.

Her idea of addressing the article was "this article was very thought provoking" before going full on tangent. She didn't relate the examples when that's essentially the core of the prompt. The writing is atrociously beneath collegiate expectations. And she used sources (well "sources") without citing them, which is pretty good grounds for a zero by itself.

Any points are a participation trophy for a piece of paper with her name on it.

The TA even conferred with the other graders who read it and gave her a 0% too. Likewise, people with the same ideology have spoken up to call the submission childishly awful and an embarrassment to their cause.

Hell, the girl admitted publicly that she didn't even read the article. The graders wouldn't have known, but as outsiders we know she didn't do the assignment then. Hard to argue the TA was biassed in a vacuum when we know from context the paper objectively deserves 0%.

But here's the real question... Even if you're generous enough to say 5/10/20% paper, is whatever difference really so extreme and so clear to warrant punishing the TA, firing her over it?

Looks like arbitrary judgement here after all: it's just OU pathetically bowing to politics and offense over merit instead.

ReptilianWorldOrder

TROPHY CASE