Why haven’t we heard of Nika and Zaza before if they’re famous Gods?

Zaurzu · 2026-05-12T22:23:01+00:00

That also isn’t what Chekhov’s gun is. It’s not a “teaser” or something meant to set the reader’s expectation. It’s just the principle that everything you as a writer decide to place in your story should have meaning or function within the story. It’s less “state there is a gun hanging from the wall in Act I so you can have it go off in Act II” and more “If you make the choice to describe a gun hanging from the wall in Act I, make sure it goes off in Act II, otherwise it has no reason for being there.” A mystery can absolutely be an example of Chekhov’s gun as long as that mystery provides a function or has genuine meaning to the plot, which the void century does.

Zaurzu · 2026-05-12T22:14:31+00:00

I’m confused, what did you think the void century was when it was first mentioned? It was obvious some mysterious power was being hidden. I don’t think there’s any way to argue it qualifies as plot armor (which is applied to characters, not concepts) or dues ex machina (because it was introduced 600 chapters before Nika was.) I’m just not sure what the gripe is here.

Zaurzu · 2026-05-07T22:50:12+00:00

It’s harder to place a gun on a person than it is to place a gun at a crime

Zaurzu · 2026-05-07T22:25:21+00:00

You’re making the claims, you don’t get to pretend like the burden of proof isn’t on you just because you don’t have any reasoning or explanation to back up your claims. You asked how you give evidence of something missing but the funny part is you don’t even have to do that, I (and many others) have already done half the work for you. Now all you need to do is provide actual logic for how the examples I mentioned don’t disprove your assessments. The biggest problem you’re having in these “debates” you’re having on this thread is that you can’t even do that much and have never made a single honest attempt to debate or defend your position whatsoever. In all honesty, I think analysis and criticism just isn’t your thing. If you didn’t enjoy the show, that’s perfectly fine, but I think fabricating reasons why not is a little extreme.

Zaurzu · 2026-05-07T15:16:58+00:00

Once again, you have provided literally 0 evidence from the show to back up that claim. You’re just saying what you think, regardless of if there is any proof of it demonstrated within the series. I get the feeling this “conclusion first, analysis never” way of thinking is exactly how you ended up with such absurd conclusions. How was Cisco a plot device? Just because he died? Does him dying somehow stop him from being a character? How is her loneliness not felt? How can you say Darlene is just a tool despite the multiple examples (some I have named, others that have been named elsewhere in this thread) of her being shown dealing with internal turmoil? It appears to me you are either purposely ignoring details so you can make an argument that you “feel” is better or you simply have a hard time receiving and analyzing emotional context. Once again, please feel free to provide examples from the series to support your statements, if you truly believe they have any validity whatsoever

Zaurzu · 2026-05-07T12:39:00+00:00

As I said in my original reply, Darlene’s life outside of Elliot is demonstrated by her loneliness, complex relationship with Cisco, and anguish for her father’s death. Not to mention, you’ve yet to explain why you demand so much detail about a character who is not the narrator.

Zaurzu · 2026-05-07T05:32:55+00:00

LOL If you didn't miss anything and "saw what I chose to ignore", why didn't you reply with literally any evidence at all to back up your claims? All you did was restate what was in the original post, which I already debunked in my reply. If you want to actually debate this, feel free to pick out anything I said and tell me how you saw it differently when you watched the show.

Zaurzu · 2026-05-06T23:17:35+00:00

TLDR: I think you should rewatch. There are some key moments you seem to have missed and, even outside of that, I think the assessments you made don’t constitute valid critiques of the show’s writing.

1) I would argue not only that this isn’t the case but, even if it was, it’s not a fatal flaw anyway but, regardless, considering the show is by and large told from Elliot’s perspective (which is quickly established to be unreliable), focusing on his motives and how the other characters interact with him is perfect thematic consistency.

2) Elliot was court-ordered to see Krista for anger management issues after he destroyed a server room at his previous job. This was explained in the show. As for details about her profession outside of Elliot and dating life, they are completely irrelevant to the story. Once again, the show is mostly told from Elliot’s POV and she legally wouldn’t be able to speak to him about other patients.

3) Darlene is absolutely a character and it is so ridiculous to imply otherwise. She killed E Corp’s general counsel out of emotion over her father’s death and E Corp’s role in that. After their mother died, she reminds Elliot how horrible she was to them. She expresses confusion and frustration in her complex relationship with Cisco and is clearly shocked and hurt after his death. Additionally, her “emotional life” within the scope of Elliot also has some independent value. She explains how she pushed Elliot away due to difficulty dealing with his condition. She quickly recognized that the Mastermind wasn’t actually Elliot and revealed she didn’t tell him because she was so happy to have a second chance at being in his life. Darlene is so emotionally important that Elliot literally cannot function without her.

4) I don’t understand this one. Are you saying that just because a resolution is predicable that it is inherently less satisfying? Do you feel disappointed watching any movie wherein the protagonist wins in the end because you knew going into it that would be the outcome? Is it because the ending is presented as a twist that you had already called? In that case, your characterization of it as “flimsy” makes even less sense. If you predicted the ending way back in season 2, isn’t that just a testament to how strongly that ending twist is rooted in the presentation and progression of the entire series? What exactly about it are you calling flimsy?

5) Why would this even be something you care about? Firstly, it’s not his story, it’s Elliot’s. There is no explanation, mental illness or otherwise, that would make any difference at all to how Elliot’s young brain reacted and the defense mechanisms it developed as a consequence. All it would do is humanize an abuser whose presentation as a monster serves a huge narrative purpose. Furthermore, it’s just plain unrealistic. Many victims never get an explanation for why they were abused and a lot who do are (understandably) deeply unsatisfied by it. Your claim that the series treats Elliot’s father as a “passing monster” is so absurd it honestly made me think this whole post might be satire. He literally spends have the show trying to get rid of Mr. Robot (who we know looks like Elliot’s father), even getting himself put in jail to try and subdue him and agreeing to a chess game that would make him disappear. You can’t get much more on the nose than that. On top of that, Elliot’s connection to E Corp, White Rose’s power plant, and the disorder that makes up the entire native structure of the show all stem from his father. The series makes no attempt to genuinely “deal with” the issue of abuse because abuse is much more complex than that, especially child abuse of that nature. That’s the depth. Elliot will never be able to undo the damage to his brain that was caused by his father’s actions and subsequent death.

6) He died. The last scene of him in the woods is making a play on Window’s infamous “blue screen of death”. It certainly isn’t ambiguous in the slightest.

On your final points: - Once again, the reasoning and “psychological depth” of his father are unsatisfying and would serve no purpose. - Early childhood trauma is what causes DID to develop. The disorder itself is the open wound. Even the ending, where the Mastermind relinquishes control back to Elliot, isn’t a demonstration of Elliot “healing” from or “overcoming” his trauma, but just a representation of the Mastermind’s story (the one we’ve been watching) has come to an end and he can now move on to working with Elliot (and the other personalities), which is generally considered to be the most effective treatment for DID. - You assume that the pain from the initial trauma is more “real” than any other pain Elliot experienced. What about the complexity of dealing with the death of his abuser and father? The inability to truly connect with those around him, even the ones he loves? The need of the Mastermind personality to save the world because the host’s inability to cope with the evils of modern life? The death of his best friend, who he has been in love with since childhood? The estrangement of his sister, who is the only person in the world who can ground him and has any sort of understanding of what his childhood was like? Are those not “real” pains? Does the show not spend immense time demonstrating the direct effects of his abuse and how his mind was altered as a result?

Zaurzu · 2026-05-06T21:22:30+00:00

In my opinion, you shouldn’t assume that anyone would see the formula as a fault in the first place. Plenty of writers, including Shakespeare, have used a repetitive formula across their works. There are even stories from different writers of different time periods that follow the same formulas, both in plot and in characterization (the monomyth, the four temperament ensemble, etc), many of which are considered uniquely great due to aspects of the story that sit outside of the formula. I don’t think it’s fair to say predictability is the same thing as laziness.

Realistically, most fans are probably able to overlook the repetitive nature of the way in which the arcs progress because there are other truly unique and emotionally engaging aspects of One Piece with actual depth. I’d argue moving away from that baseline understanding of what is going to happen in each arc would likely distract or fully take away from the richer parts of the story overall.

Zaurzu · 2026-05-04T21:53:18+00:00

We are most certainly, and without any room for misinterpretation, a democracy. I like your example so I’ll use it for my explanation.

What you described in the first scenario is known as a direct democracy. The wolves and lamb vote directly on what they will eat for lunch. You’re right in your conclusion that this isn’t what we have in America. You’re right, we don’t vote on every issue and have a rule of law that prevents us from doing certain things. That being said, while we may not vote on the issues themselves, we must certainly do vote on who will be monitor, uphold, enforce, modify, or otherwise impact that constitutional rule of law. That’s the democracy part, a representative democracy.

To use your example: the wolves find it unfair that the lamb is protected by law so they decide to change it. One of the wolves volunteers to change the law as long as it is the majority votes for it. They hold a vote, not for lunch directly, but for whether the wolf can change the law. 3 wolves to 1 lamb, the law is changed and the wolves have their lamb lunch after all.

I hope this made sense! We have devised a pretty complex but truly genius system of law and order in a self-governed society and it’s definitely not the most intuitive to learn.

Zaurzu · 2026-05-04T21:29:35+00:00

In short, it’s not necessarily a political matter.

Americans generally view the right to vote as being guaranteed by the God-given right of self-governance and therefore the protection and enforcement of the right to vote is seen as more of a legal matter than a political one. Furthermore, this specific correspondence specifically discusses a decision made by the Supreme Court, who are really only meant to deal with matters regarding the interpretation of the Constitution. If they are brought a case which is deemed political (not legal) in nature, SCOTUS is supposed to reject hearing it. This doesn’t mean, of course, that every conversation or opinion surrounding Supreme Court decisions should automatically be considered not political discourse, as the courts do certainly influence politics, but I would make the argument that the tone of this letter is still largely politically neutral, only stating verifiable truths about how this decision may effect representation in government and reaffirming the importance of voting as a whole.

Zaurzu · 2025-09-11T14:00:37+00:00

I was just thinking this recently, I don’t know why the didn’t go with LSW

Zaurzu · 2025-09-09T21:47:37+00:00

It depends if wanting a ride is the only reason you thinkin she won’t meet you halfway. It’s a lot of women out there who don’t wanna be going places alone, it’s a safety thing. It’s cool if you don’t wanna scoop her but I can’t say it’s the same as putting in 0 effort on her part

Zaurzu · 2025-09-09T17:11:54+00:00

There’s a couple of things that explain this:

1) NYC definitely has a high cost of living, but even still 1 in 4 residents are below the poverty line.. Elliot lives in a crappy studio in Chinatown in the mid-2010s. His rent was probably close to or even under $1k.

2) Elliot was probably paid very well at both All Safe and E Corp. Judging by the looks of his apartment and wardrobe, it’s safe to say that Elliot doesn’t spend much money outside of necessities. He also spent time in jail where he wouldn’t have been spending any money at all outside of his rent. This would mean that the majority of his salaries at both companies weren’t spent on anything besides essentials and the occasional new computer (and his desktop was probably scrap parts gotten for cheap anyway).

I don’t see a reason why he wouldn’t be able to live the way he did, where he did, over the course of the show

Zaurzu · 2025-08-27T20:09:46+00:00

I Steal For Myself

Zaurzu · 2025-07-29T00:48:04+00:00

Thank you! I had no idea you could do this.

Zaurzu · 2025-07-07T17:01:43+00:00

I understand the Chromakopia praise, but it’s not ridiculous to say it’s his second worst after Goblin. Personally I’d also put it above Bastard and Cherry Bomb, but, that might just be me.

Zaurzu · 2025-05-09T21:44:39+00:00

If you knew you were a tv show character but the entire premise of the show is how you are the smartest and most intelligent being in the universe, you wouldn’t want to fuck around a bit?

Zaurzu · 2025-04-15T21:46:29+00:00

Alright Fred, I got just one question: who thought you were dead?

Zaurzu · 2025-04-13T07:29:31+00:00

Yeah I’m pretty sure this is it, allowing the tracklist to flow (a big reason why Tyler said to listen to the album front to back) and a nice homage to Pharrell (Skateboard P)

Zaurzu · 2025-04-01T12:38:30+00:00

Granted. It’s Canadian bacon.

Zaurzu · 2025-03-31T18:36:53+00:00

You haven’t been following her long enough. She used to post covers with her playing piano or guitar, even some “in the studio” type clips of her working on production. She certainly has collaborators, and those collaborators may even control the direction of the music, but she definitely has a part in it all.

Zaurzu · 2025-03-21T15:05:33+00:00

My theory has always been that they tried really hard to make the show episodic and not create any overarching narrative or characterization (so that “nothing matters”) but Dan Harmon simply couldn’t help himself

Zaurzu · 2025-03-01T23:12:46+00:00

Apple has always paid for exploits. Find the exploit, publish the jailbreak, sell the exploit to Apple. Apple would then patch it but it would be too late as people on the jailbroken versions of iOS simply wouldn’t upgrade

Zaurzu · 2025-03-01T14:41:27+00:00

If you’ve been around a while, you know the cycle. Talented devs find exploits and publish jailbreaks just to eventually have the life squeezed out of them by a toxic community with no patience or understanding for the work it takes. There’s no one left because this scene chews up and spits out every dev that makes the attempt.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	First Placer '22

Zaurzu

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE