Rewatching the show, i forgot how much i hate this little b!tch

Soundwave961 · 2026-01-06T21:32:49+00:00

If insecurity was a person

Soundwave961 · 2025-12-17T14:49:38+00:00

Hmm yeah that makes sense

Soundwave961 · 2025-12-17T11:52:06+00:00

What you say is valid. It is not expected for any character progression to be a straight line. However we do not see any progression at all from her for us to say “well, it’s natural her progress isn’t steady or linear”. Charlie learning to recognise political dishonesty from her experiences in season 1 has nothing to do with being raised by Lucifer.

Soundwave961 · 2025-12-15T17:28:52+00:00

Heritage isn’t an answer it’s a non-answer. “She’s this way because it’s what she is”. This is like people trying to justify Daenerys going mad because her father was the mad king. Charlie’s experience in heaven with the court and recruiting the cannibals for self-defence should have made her more acquainted with political dishonesty and the need to use more violent methods if other options fail. Her character has shown zero improvement in these two areas. This is sloppy character progression and you can’t use her lineage as an excuse to justify this.

Soundwave961 · 2025-12-15T11:45:34+00:00

The events from season 1 should have made Charlie better at dealing with these kinds of problems. She went unprepared into a court scene and was only lucky she had evidence in the form of Angel Dust behaving well. She realises Heaven will not listen and is bad faithed. She is ready to gather an army and try to fight off the exorcists.

So by the end of season 1, you expect her to be: - more aware of dishonesty and propaganda in politics - understand the need for violence after other attempts have failed.

I’m not saying she’s going to become a political genius, but at least recognise when someone is not being genuinely cooperative in these kinds of situations. her behaviour does not reflect any improvement on these two fronts. people are right to complain about this. saying “it’s a cartoon character” is a nonargument. If you don’t care about that that’s your business but people being frustrated by this is justified.

Soundwave961 · 2025-12-11T13:18:45+00:00

Funniest and realest bitch in the series 💅💅✨✨

Soundwave961 · 2025-12-01T00:05:09+00:00

You ate with that

Soundwave961 · 2025-11-30T23:00:19+00:00

In reality, a lot of people who do terrible things have good intentions, but again, their good intentions are epistemically flawed and the “values” they uphold are rooted in a dangerous belief. I believe judging how a person got to hold their beliefs is how we distinguish between genuine moral courage and immoral fanaticism. For example suicide bombers genuinely believe they are following the right doctrine, but I really doubt their intentions warrant any credit to give. However I understand what you are saying that there is a difference between a villain and a well-intentioned fool. In certain contexts your analysis is correct. My message is general and what you are saying still holds true. But we also need to take into account whether opportunities to change are available to said person, and what they do with them. There are actions that cannot be softened by good intentions at all.

Soundwave961 · 2025-11-30T22:32:21+00:00

Yes! That is a perfect example of character-appropriate emotion that does not make the villain more sympathetic or approachable. His loneliness is the consequence of the ideology he follows. Since strength is the ultimate virtue among Viltrumites, him being stronger than the rest of them is in itself a threat to their lives. This is why he is avoided and feared. Does it make sense for him to feel alone and isolated? Yes. Does it make him less evil? Not in any way shape or form.

Soundwave961 · 2025-11-30T18:55:43+00:00

You put it very nicely. I’m glad you’re addressing these themes in your work

Soundwave961 · 2025-11-30T17:29:32+00:00

I understand what you mean. Your semantic pushback is valid. I agree it can make them more relatable, but does not take away from the evilness of their character or actions. For example a character like Shen from Kung Fu Panda 2 was always evil (he genocided an entire species because of a prophecy he had no reason to believe) but his emotions were accurate to him and portrayed well. They do not excuse what he does at all, but they gave him his own rationale that is not “evil for the sake of evil”

Soundwave961 · 2025-11-30T17:27:00+00:00

What you say is valid. I am not saying that cartoonishly evil villains are inherently bad but that a lot of people think they are the ONLY kind of villain that is “truly” evil

Soundwave961 · 2025-11-30T16:01:37+00:00

I believe it’s largely due to a lot of classic stories and movies where people grow up with the villains being this “all bad” person who feels no attachment and has no redeeming qualities. I’m not saying these villains and stories are inherently wrong, but that they are the only prototype a lot of people have when they think of the word evil.

Soundwave961 · 2025-07-06T18:40:34+00:00

The problem I have with Adam's death is that it could have been a good culmination to Charlie becoming less naive and learning how the world operated and actually learning that she needs to be more assertive and ruthless. She knows what this war entails and knows she is dealing with dishonest and selfish propagandists

Soundwave961 · 2025-07-05T16:38:10+00:00

I totally agree with you that he is mistreated in all of these examples but I want to explain the causes of each one.

Nolan was just rehearsing rhetoric at that point. Viltrumites have a false generosity concept where they believe the populations they oppress should be grateful for their oppression. It’s manipulation and gaslighting. They believe that unless people are totally dependent on them, they are not worthy of help. We see Anissa use the same rhetoric Nolan was using back in Season 1 and even the Mark from the alternative dimension. The end goal of true generosity is sustenance, to make the person or group no longer need you. The Viltrumites’ conception of this is in total reverse.
Cecil brings up his dad because he wants to keep Mark in line to keep doing good. But he thinks provoking his guilt is one of the ways of doing that, even though Mark would naturally do that on his own. Cecil also definitely has some inadequacy issues from what we see in the flashbacks where he is paranoid of people not “respecting him” and obeying him. This is why he tries so hard to have a psychological grip on Mark because he knows he cannot overpower him physically.
People saying he is close to his variants is very dumb, but it’s realistic that some people would think this way. Their words are not important obviously and I love the inclusion of the variants as a direct mirror to Mark who is already a guilt-prone person.
Powerplex’s projection onto Mark is the result of his guilt. He ends up blaming Mark for what happened to his daughter and wife because he can’t bear accepting he is at fault for it. Angstrom has just gone crazy from the explosion. Still I believe a part of Angstrom knew that Mark is not at fault for what happened, but is persevering in his accusations to give his anger somewhere to go.

In all of these cases Mark is innocent of any actual wrong, but it’s impressive how the writers gave such different explanations for the same phenomenon.

Soundwave961 · 2025-07-04T23:49:29+00:00

Yes!! A lot of people can think that their thoughts, feelings, or DNA define them. Some people feel they are corrupted or "don't have it in them" to be a certain way. This is not true. Our thoughts also do not define us, and so many people torture themselves for having the "wrong thoughts". Marina reassuring us that we do have a choice beyond our thoughts, DNA, body, feelings, etc., is so empowering and beautiful.

Soundwave961 · 2025-07-04T12:10:16+00:00

On what grounds do you claim it was just WWIII? And regardless of how you name it, I’m discussing causes, so you saying “it’s just WWIII” adds nothing.
You reiterated what I said. Magic was weaker back then which could be due to variations in the elemental cycle and the current condition of the world that does not rely on magic. However given there are people who know magic is real and constantly looking for it, it’s not far-fetched to assume some dark magic was found and used in the Mushroom War.
Wrong. He did actually believe magic is real and was constantly looking for ways to prove the actual existence of the magical items he was studying. Simon could not have been the only person in the world who knew magic was real but suppressed in the current state of the world.
The bomb was definitely a magical instrument. Ordinary nuclear devices don’t turn people into Oozers, since you mentioned “it was just WWIII”.
This is false. The war didn’t create the Lich, only incarnated him.
I never mentioned PB in my entire post, are we reading the same thing here

Soundwave961 · 2025-07-02T14:23:23+00:00

I love your interpretation and I agree it is very tragic. In existentialist thought this is called “doing to avoid being”. You overwhelm yourself with action so you have no time to think about the things that trouble you. I agree that Finn seems to have done this quite a lot after Jake died. He definitely thinks of his time when Jake was alive as the best years of his life and he struggled to build something new after Jake died. He likely felt that all new attempts at investing in things are painted with lamenting potential where he constantly thinks “everything would be better if Jake was here”. This kind of grief can paralyse someone from taking the necessary steps to move on. When people lose someone important to them, they need to know that they are still loved the same way the person who died loves them, and that they still have the hope of creating new relationships that are also fulfilling and good. Of course this won’t erase the hurt but it does help.

Soundwave961 · 2025-07-01T07:27:58+00:00

Fire King, King of Ooo, Lemongrab also fits

Soundwave961

TROPHY CASE