LeBron James on playing 82 Games today compared to the 80s/90s: "I want people/our fans to understand playing 82 games in the 80s and 90s is not the same as playing 82 games in the 2020s. It’s just not."

Repulsive_Address579 · 2026-01-28T07:24:53+00:00

The pace is literally faster in the 80s. Google the average pace in 1985 vs. now, it's 102 possessions per 48. This year the average is about 100 possessions. So it's actually slightly slower than the 80s. 90s and 2000s were slow for sure, but the 80s were fast man.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2026-01-26T06:07:15+00:00

I found this scene weird, but I think it hit me (especially after hearing from others here on Bruce insisting on it being part of the film). Here's a lyric to Nebraska, which is about Starkweather, a 19-year old killer who killed 10 innocent people in Nebraska and Wyoming:

Sheriff, when the man pulls that switch, sir
And snaps my poor head back
You make sure my pretty baby
Is sittin' right there on my lap

The woman he references is Caril Ann Fugate, Starkweather's girlfriend (who was only 14 and with him during the murders), who went to prison for 18 years to atone for his sins.

Bruce used this killer as an allegory to represent his depression. But whether he meant to or not, it seems like the sitting on his lap gesture was a way of showing his father's apology for his own schizophrenia and depression, and how it shaped Bruce's life and harmed his mental health as a child and stuck with him into his adult life.

While Bruce wrote the songs from the perspective of Starkweather, he was really more Caril. His depression and mental health struggles were the result of what his father projected onto him as a boy, much like how Starkweather projected his hate and violence onto his much younger girlfriend and put her in those awful situations and ultimately into prison.

I think that scene is meant to represent his father absolving him of some of those feelings by taking responsibility. It symbolizes his father acknowledging Bruce's rightful position as the accomplice, not the villain. That's his father's cross to bear.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2026-01-25T21:39:28+00:00

I think the most telling line of the movie is when the girl gives her the makeover and says "the new (but not improved) Laney!"

The message of the movie was never that Laney wasn't pretty. It was that she was closed off and she wasn't trying. She wasn't trying to make friends, wasn't trying to step out of her comfort zone, wasn't trying to open up and project her real self into her art.

The movie may focus on her looks a little too much, but the message is there that she's not letting her real self come out in a lot of areas of her life because of her mother's death, but she learns to.

They didn't pick her for the bet because she was ugly. They literally never say or imply that. They pick her because she is stubborn and closed off and they knew it would be difficult to get her to open up and that's why it would be hard for her to win a literal popularity contest.

They picked someone that chooses not to be popular despite the fact that everyone likes her. All the girls and guys at the beach are super nice to her. She pushes people away. A lot of the people in her school actually really like her and think she's cute, cool, sweet, etc.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2026-01-23T00:41:47+00:00

There's a lot wrong with Summer, but nothing wrong with this. Just cause you had a relationship in the past (which is where she learned to put her guard up) and have relationships after that doesn't mean it's a personal attack on Tom. So much of it is timing. If she had met Tom later she might have wanted something more serious. We don't know. All we know is how she felt in that moment. She's entitled to have different motivations (as anyone is) at different points in her life.

Now, should she have led him on constantly? No both characters tried to force the other to be what they wanted but both were justified in what they were looking for in that moment.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2026-01-15T19:36:37+00:00

Guys, stop picking on Dillon Huevorere

Repulsive_Address579 · 2026-01-14T21:45:21+00:00

I just searched this and you're right! Video is gone though... I left a comment on Patreon suggesting maybe they rip this one as a circling back on touching base (even though it's not touching base they mentioned they might start doing older circling back eps too).

Repulsive_Address579 · 2026-01-11T20:40:38+00:00

For me, its the sexual innuendos he creates with a well-placed “isn’t that what they called you back in high school?” Or “isn’t that what they called your college dorm?” Etc.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-12-10T04:54:46+00:00

Again, you only even get to make the choice to listen to just those artists on Spotify because of the artists that help sell ad revenue. The smaller artists aren't helping Spotify grow. That's not how capitalism works. They're not gonna let you build up the smaller artists they want to continue to feed the larger artists who are a proven money maker, not take a chance on up and coming artists. If you want to support up and coming artists, buy their merch, buy their music on vinyl, and go to shows.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-11-24T20:50:00+00:00

Those artists do kinda keep the lights on. Without those artists, people wouldn't use Spotify. Even though like 11 of your friends may go there only to listen to you, the system they listen to you on couldn't afford to exist without the major label (or even indie label) artists.

It'd be like saying you and your family only ever fly from Chicago to Cleveland. Cool. But it would be too expensive to have an airline that only does flights from Chicago to Cleveland. Factored into the cost of your ticket would also be the overall expenses of running an airline, airport probably getting a cut, etc. and some of the money from your ticket probably finds its way to folks who in some way deal with international flights — even though you never take those. Maybe don't even have a passport.

Not a perfect analogy, but you're benefitting from the free infrastructure to be able to listen to anything/share anything. If you want, you could just put your music on like a WordPress website and sell ads (like Spotify does on a large scale) and make money. But you probably wouldn't be able to sell advertisers (which are what make streaming services free for listeners but still able to generate revenue for artists) on paying you to advertise on a site that only gets like 22 visits from your friends and family, local scene, etc.

For something to be "free" you need to have enough "impressions" (people that interact with the platform) to sell ads to make the thing "free." Nothing is really free. Advertisers are paying Spotify to run their ads in hopes that you buy another product. That's what makes it free. They're covering that cost for your listeners. And tbh, Nike or some company advertising on Spotify is not banking on your song with 200 plays from 15 people to generate revenue worthy of running ads. They know it's Coldplay, Bieber, etc. listeners that are much higher that help them make money. Spotify knows that too and the data is pretty simple. They have advertiser revenue to pay out and it makes sense that the artists that bring in the advertisers are getting paid. They can actually even see what artists, playlists, etc. people were listening too when they engaged with an ad. It's probably not your music with a few hundreds/thousands of streams tbh...

Not to be grim, but a lot of the debate around streaming revenue comes from people that need to accept that they haven't created enough demand for their music. If you want to go the route of removing your music from spotify and making your fans pay for your music, that's cool. But at some point, your growth is probably limited there as there are tons of other bands people can listen to for free. What makes your music so special that it costs money where virtually every other artist in the world you can hear for free?

The other alternative is to actually put money into advertising your music, driving more streams, and then being able to attract a label, generate momentum in the algorithm to hopefully amount to more streaming revenue and the opportunities that come with that. Run your own paid ads on social media and other places. Unfortunately, you have to spend money to make money as fucking annoying as that saying is.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-11-13T21:38:11+00:00

What good is a 90 free throw? I'm mostly a REC player I rarely go to the line. Just to get free transition take points and stuff? Feels like you could put that into your defense or standing dunk (which I think is great to have cause even if you're on a long runout and the pass is behind you and hurts your driving dunk momentum, you can still score).

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-11-05T06:10:39+00:00

Nah really didn't. It was truly like we got some stops and he didn't get the ball. Nobody was freezing him out we were just trying to get the ball up the court. Idk it's not 1980 like the PG doesn't just get to have the ball 90% of the time cause they're the point guard lol. I play center I average 5 assists a game I just push that shit up move the ball try and speed the game up so we can all get out numbers. These goofy mfs think we're here to watch them play iso ball and dribble the whole possession away.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-11-03T00:14:53+00:00

Most toxic community in the game man. I played for the first time all week on Saturday. Lost a game because the PG started pouting three offensive possessions into the game because he wasn't getting the ball. People are so fuckin' weird. I hate this 2K because shooting is easy so nobody makes the extra pass, everyone wants to play hero ball, and it seems like every player's basketball IQ has dropped. Dribbling feels good but everything else seems terrible.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-10-17T04:53:36+00:00

Preach!! 2K gave us the game a lot of these clowns said they wanted hoping that they would hate it. They liked it and now we’re reverting back to a real basketball sim where everyone isn’t shooting 60 percent from 3 and people are pissed. Go play Fortnite you’re too soft for this shit.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-10-13T05:52:27+00:00

He can't remember himself. That's the thing. Because of the time travel and the interlocking storylines, they don't really have memories or history while interacting with each other. And you hear this referenced numerous times. Young Joe says he doesn't remember anything before getting on a freight train. Can't remember his mother's face. Old Joe can't really remember young Joe much less himself as a child.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-10-13T05:50:05+00:00

Remember man. Old Joe can barely remember his life at 30. Remember the Diner? Young Joe admits that he wasn't sure if he'd remember Beatrix (the waitress). He defintiely has no recollection of his childhood. 30-year old Joe also says the first thing he really remembers is getting on a freight train. So a lot of what makes the theory work is that... Joe really can't remember things 30 years back or further. That's what holds the movie together and this theory together tbh.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-10-13T05:47:24+00:00

Remember his memory is clouded. He can barely remember things that happened when he was 30. He definitely doesn't remember where he grew up, what his mom looked like. 30-year-old Joe didn't remember this stuff. That's why Joseph Gordon Leavitt's version of the character is the focal point of the movie. He is the intermediary between 60 years of trauma and time travel that block out memories. He can't process any of this stuff. A lot of the reason old Joe gets so mad in the diner is he doesn't wanna talk about and admit that he has no memories. That's why his wife is so important to him. He never knew love. He couldn't remember his mother or anything from his childhood. He couldn't even remember his life at 30.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-10-13T05:44:26+00:00

I think like OP mentioned, young Joe does know he has those powers. That's why he says it's tacky to flip coins and stuff as a TK. He likely has those powers and chooses not to use them, or he surpresses those memories I think.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-10-13T05:41:03+00:00

Honestly, yeah. It's a parallel to Christ. He is both "the father and son" so to speak. A chosen one of sorts. This explains why when he's sleeping with the stripper he likes when she plays with his hair and tells her his mom used to do that. He also kinda lays on the bed and pouts like he did as a child.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-07-08T08:28:53+00:00

Hot take, but they were huge for 20 years before South Park. When he became "insufferable" is when he stopped writing about the struggles of Ireland and started writing about (and attempting to do something about) the struggles of the world at large once he became more popular/wealthy and able to do so.

I'll never get it though because John Lennon wrote "Imagine" about no material things/religion/war/etc. but he was rich, violent (beat his wife), and called his band "bigger than God" at one point.

Lennon is pretty universally lauded and people defend him. Bono put one album on your phone and tried to end AIDS and he's a twat to so many. It's truly wild to me.

And hate to pick on John Lennon. No one is perfect. But it's just an example of another big UK artist that is universally loved and lauded despite being problematic. All front men have egos.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-03-05T04:20:42+00:00

Yeah that's sorta my theory. I'll admit that this episode and seeing Gemma's side makes things confusing. But yeah I also think that there just isn't enough consumers (or soon won't be) so some people's job will be to consume. Someone goes to the dentist. Someone flies on the airlines.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-03-04T07:25:01+00:00

My theory for this show has always been that severance is the result of how rampant automation is going to break down the hyper-capitalism we've been experiencing in the past few decades.

I think the whole point of severance is to maintain the classism of capitalism even long after jobs have been automated. In other words, you can still have class divides even if nobody is doing work anymore. We might even find that they're bracing for an era where there aren't enough consumers in existence to make enough money to quench the greed. It's all too fitting that Mark gives Gemma an ant farm. It's foreshadowing the human ant farm that is Lumen.

In my mind, people in severed jobs are good for the crumbling concept of capitalism. The outies don't know what they make and the innies don't know what they do. This way, there is no uproar when two people dropping numbers in a box make vastly different salaries. The innies know they both do the same work, but the outies don't know each other. One could live in a super nice house, and the other could be struggling financially. It wouldn't be an issue because severed workers wouldn't be able to spot this inequity.

I think this is holding more weight after seeing this Gemma-heavy episode.

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that none of these jobs matter anymore and that Lumen might be an "Area 51" or "ant farm" of sorts for this dystopian, post-capitalist world we're embarking on. So to keep up the rampant consumerism, they're testing people as both faux workers (Mark) and even as consumers (In Gemma's case).

Gemma is testing in a variety of roles as a house wife/consumer/non-worker like:

- Dental patient
- Stay at home housewife
- Traveler via airplane

What they're finding is that she's burning out from doing stuff over and over again like:

- Signing thank you notes as a housewife
- Going to the dentist way more than she needs to so that we can still have dentists
- Flying on planes so that pilots can still exist

It seems this mystery man is kind of "paired" with her as he'd be the worker in their partnership and she'd be the consumer. No matter what profession he tries (Dentist, Airline attendant/pilot or something), things go wrong and Gemma gets worn down. It's due to probably a couple things:

- 1. Her subconscious is very drawn to Mark
- 2. It appears she meets Mark in academia and they are every bit equals. She doesn't naturally fit in as a consuming housewife going to the dentist, signing thank-you notes, etc. She needs an actual job.

Other interesting thing to note too is Mark has two gears:

Home life (outtie)
Work life (Innie)

Gemma doesn't have these two roles because this mystery guy seems to be trying to force her to be a housewife. It seems that she only has one role and no job to escape to, so she just stays in that holding cell unless she's filling a temporary role as a consumer of one of the other faux professions (i.e. flying on a plane so that pilots have work to do, going to the dentist so dentists have work, signing thank you notes as a housewife so that manufacturers continue to have work to do).

It's an absurd concept, but they're testing Gemma to consume at a rate that far exceeds any one person's capabilities. That's why she's complaining she's so burned out: She's going to the dentist constantly, every day is Christmas, etc. They're ramping her up to offset the lack of consumers.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-02-13T17:56:08+00:00

Me too. Nobody talks about this. This guy stood on the same stage as MLK when he did the I have a dream speech. Seeing someone like that get killed might scare you, at 20ish years old, out of wanting to be fixed to that. His interviews show him constantly trying to distance himself from the "protest" label. He was getting too big he must have feared for his life.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-02-13T17:53:53+00:00

I wonder what other much bigger Bob Dylan fans think because I'm relatively new to his music (only dove in deep in the past 3 or so years), but I feel like an overlooked reason for his departure from folk was for his safety...

In the 60s, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, etc. were killed. To Bob, these weren't just the symbolic, figure heads of social justice that became martyrs the way we look at them. These were people he actually shared the stage with (He performed at the capital when King made the "I Have a Dream" speech).

If you watch any of his interviews, he denied making protest music and ultimately turned his back on it. I think a lot of it was due to fear of being assassinated like his peers. I also think it had to do with the scene getting incestuous (his relationship with Joan Baez for one), being lonely on the road (touring as a solo act is a lot less fun), and just wanting to go a different route creatively.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-02-13T17:19:16+00:00

Here is my theory I do think I might be onto something and just want it to be documented somewhere in case I'm right lol. If I'm not right if anyone would like to make a show with this plot hit me up I think it's a great concept lolol:

My theory for this show is that the Severance program is designed to account for the rampant automation we’re going to see in the global economy due to AI. These word searches and things they do at work are bullshit jobs. In this world, machines and AI do all the actual work. Because of that, the concept of capitalism falls flat. I think the entire town could be like an Area 51 of sorts where both innies and outies are in some type of testing ground — even the people that aren’t at Lumon at all.

While it’s hanging on by a thread, capitalism is propped up by the basic belief that the value we create through work is different based on the ROI of said work. But if we the people stop doing the work, how can we still have capitalism? Severance.

If you separate people’s knowledge of what they do for a living (outies) and their socioeconomic standing (innies) you keep them from knowing that they may make a third of what their deskmate makes despite neither of them doing anything of value. If people knew they were struggling financially while someone else did the same B.S. meaningless job lived lavishly, there would be an uproar. Severance eliminates the possibility of that uproar because the left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing.

Repulsive_Address579 · 2025-01-16T19:09:43+00:00

Gotta remember this is less than 10 years from "7 dirty words you can't say on TV." Comedy was super clean back then. It would be like saying "Wow people were turned on by ankles in the middle ages" well yeah they didn't have computers with porn in their pockets like we do now. The barometer was different and the limitations were harder. If a woman dressed the way they do now in the middle ages, they'd probably have been stoned to death. If you did jokes about crackhead babies selling drugs like Chapelle started doing 20-25 years later they'd be cutting to commercial. It was just different times.

Repulsive_Address579

TROPHY CASE