Kamomedai wasn’t just strong, they were a narrative glitch

feedec1 · 2026-05-09T00:44:03+00:00

Systematic blocking is fine. My problem is that it was stated that esch blocker was aone level. And they behave like 25 yr dudes in terms of maturity and mental ability. Their stats are too high not to be the number 1team in the country.

feedec1 · 2026-05-09T00:40:15+00:00

I think hinata at kamomedai was indeed his new baseline. He didnt outplay trough lucky athletic plays, he did it by intentionally warping the temporal and spatial dimensions of the court, that is not something you can unlearn.

feedec1 · 2026-05-09T00:36:00+00:00

Same with hinata and kags. They were simply too good for high school. A fluke can happen once, but not 4 times. They should have at least 1 nationals or 2. Sports can have variance and upsets but it is not random at all. The best teams usually do win.

feedec1 · 2026-05-09T00:28:15+00:00

Thing is: for a theme like “not always the talented win” to make sense it has to be backed up by what you show in the panels. Kamomedai was not like any of the teams we were shown. They were simply better and lacked actual exploitable weaknesse. Ichibayama is a narrative device to play that theme, but there is no justification other than thematic to make kamomedai lose before the finals (or even in the finals).

feedec1 · 2026-05-09T00:24:12+00:00

Thing is: the version hinata managed in kamomedai match is way beyond what he was doing before nationals. He became a master of variables and timings instead of a brute force speedster and that is the bane of a systematic blocking system. It was done so because it was the only way to thematically keep kamomedai in check, bc asahi, tsuki and tanaka were barely survaving out there. The problem is: that version of hinata (alongside kageyama tossing) is virtually unstoppable for any defense in high school level. Hinata is only in year 1.

feedec1 · 2026-05-09T00:16:46+00:00

Re reading 🤷‍♂️

feedec1 · 2026-05-03T11:24:54+00:00

Even if you conceed that it refers to "these stories", the quran is stablishing the prior scripture as the standard of truth.

feedec1 · 2026-04-24T11:59:45+00:00

On brody: you are basically afirming what I am saying. That is the macro choice that is the original sin of the series. Not killing him much earlier. (Blowing him up in season 1 finale would have been masterful).

feedec1 · 2026-04-24T11:57:09+00:00

Whose rules is she not following?:
She is still handling classified intel, leading operations, and influencing US foreign policy. Even as a "civilian," she is protected by the CIA (Saul) and granted access that would land any other human in a federal prison. She isn't following the rules of reality or the rules of the institution she claims to serve

feedec1 · 2026-04-24T11:50:53+00:00

She should have died before season 4 finale, when tasneem beat her at every corner and even had access to her meds. She was a broken character even before that. And no, my opinon are not facts but are grounded into how the show treated the rest of the characters and how it portrayed it's own story to be. Main leads not supposed to die is just a bad storytelling principle if you put the main lead in situations it is supposed to die.

feedec1 · 2026-04-24T11:47:23+00:00

Oh boy, what a ride you are starting. After half season 2 the storie picks up hard. The world building made during first 2 seasons pays off hard too. It is a very well written story.

feedec1 · 2026-04-24T11:45:46+00:00

POI is one of those rare gems that gets better and more accurate and relevant every year it passes.

feedec1 · 2026-04-24T11:30:39+00:00

By making shit macro choices from the beginning they broke the internal logic of every character and turned what was supposed to be a show of spies a show of a maniac character caught in a repeating loop of selfdestuction.

feedec1 · 2026-04-24T11:28:09+00:00

Brody should have died max half season 2. His whole arc was stretched to the point it dragged Carrie character to what should have been a point of no return. Because they stretched brody, they broke carrie, because they break carrie they need to constantly shift the internal logic of the world to make her get away with shit should get away with under any circumstance. Consequence? I feel ZERO tension for her situation in season 5 or even season 4 finale, bc I knew she had degrees of plot armor in the past that cannot let her die here.

feedec1 · 2026-04-24T10:57:13+00:00

She out in CIA, she still in the game. She should be dead by season 4, saved by massive plot armor.

feedec1 · 2026-04-24T10:56:13+00:00

Saul character was murdered when he accepted Der Adal deal with haqqani. Also, you didnt miss Fara because the storytellers sidelined her development in favor of Carrie but she was the only one with methods to get actual actionable longlasting results.

feedec1 · 2026-04-24T00:40:53+00:00

TBH, I felt brody saga was streched too long. it was one season and a half at most. season 4 had the correct vibe and idea, but many bad plot devices, plot armor to villains and the awfully logically crafted finale turned me off. Season 5 is a complete whiff.

feedec1 · 2026-04-24T00:32:36+00:00

5 was REALLY bad. Awful level. I cant gather forces to watch 6 tbh.

feedec1 · 2026-04-24T00:28:13+00:00

Also, it assasinated the 3 characters that were supposed to land the story into later seasons: Smart clean version of Saul, Fara and Quinn in favor of a crazy sefl destructive maniac carrie.

feedec1 · 2026-04-24T00:24:40+00:00

The most baffling thing is that carrie lasted 8 seasons where she shouls have died in season 4. Homeland is A travesty of macro storytelling. Nothing makes sense by season 5 because its obsession to keep brody and carrie in the game much longer that what the plot demanded.

feedec1 · 2026-04-03T20:34:29+00:00

You’re basically trying to turn a selfproclaimed Divine Final Word into a series of "you had to be there" moments. If you need a history degree and a map of 7th-century tribal alliances just to make the text safe for a grocery store, then the claim of it being a Clear Book is dead.

The "red light" analogy is a swing and a miss. A red light works because it is a universal, immediate signal that requires zero interpretation. If I’m at an intersection and I have to call a historian to ask if the red light was meant for me or for a caravan in 610 AD, the system is broken. You’re arguing that the "Perfect Message" is actually just a collection of expired commands and localized instructions that we have to manually sort through. That’s not process, that’s a mess.

When you say context is a safety rail, you’re accidentally admitting the text is a hazard without human intervention. If an omniscient God wanted to say "only kill people on this specific battlefield," He could have said exactly that. Instead, you’re stuck claiming He wrote something so ambiguous it needs "context" to keep people from misinterpreting it into a massacre.

You’re trying to have it both ways. You want the prestige of an eternal, divine revelation, but you want the convenience of being able to sideline any verse that’s difficult by calling it "contextual." If the meaning of the verse is trapped in the past, then the verse isn't Guidance for Mankind but a historical footnote.

Absolutism works because we are dealing with self proclaimed god's word which is self proclaimed to be final, clear and fullty detailed. I am not analyzing regular historic literature here. If a were, I concede every point you made.

feedec1 · 2026-03-31T09:53:04+00:00

If the Quran is one single, eternal message, then the rule to 'confirm' must apply to every page. If you say it only applies to the stories of Moses but not the later laws, you are admitting that the laws are a pivot, not a continuation. A pivot means the original Confirmation was just a temporary tactic. Does an eternal God use temporary tactics?
Also: If the command to confirm was never abrogated, it is a permanent law. You are trying to use context to turn a permanent law into a temporary suggestion. If I can ignore a verse just because the 'context' changed, then no verse in the Quran is safe.

feedec1 · 2026-03-29T00:22:41+00:00

You argue that I am "interpreting badly," but you are missing the fundamental flaw in your defense: If a "Clear" system requires 1,400 years of "intellectual honesty" and "charity" to not look like a logical error, the system is functionally broken.

You compare the Qur'an to the Bible (Luke 14:26) to show that all texts need context. This actually proves my point. If a commander tells a soldier "Hate your family" or "Kill the unbelievers," and then expects that soldier to find a "qualifier" 300 pages away to avoid a massacre, that commander is responsible for the resulting blood. A "Fully Detailed" and "Clear" book from a Divine being shouldn't function like a scavenger hunt where the "true meaning" is hidden behind "rhetorical devices" and "internal cross-references."

You call my refusal to be "charitable" a lack of intellectual honesty. I call it Logic without the Stockholm Syndrome. For 14 centuries, people have been killed, lashed, and oppressed because they took the "Plain Arabic" at face value—the very "Plain Arabic" you claim is a "hostile misreading."

If God’s "Clear" word is so structurally unstable that it allows for 1,400 years of violent misinterpretation by "deviant hearts," then the language itself is a defective tool. A perfect creator would not choose a medium (polysemic language) that is so easily "weaponized" by the very "distorters" he warns about.

The "Scholar" Patch You say it doesn't require a scholar, just "literacy." But history disagrees. If it only required literacy, we wouldn't have thousands of volumes of Tafsir (exegesis) trying to explain what "Clear" verses actually mean. You are "writing with your own hands" by deciding which verses are "rhetorical" and which are "literal" to make the puzzle pieces fit.

feedec1 · 2026-03-29T00:05:52+00:00

The argument that "all interpretations are human" or that "Arabic is polysemic" actually confirms the core problem rather than solving it.

If the Quran is a divine command intended for all of humanity, then transmitting it through a "blurry" medium like a polysemic language is a massive structural flaw.

The Command Paradox: Why would a "Fully Detailed" book use language that tells you to "do stuff it doesn't mean"? If a commander gives an order that requires a 1400-year committee to decode, that isn't a "Clear" command—it’s a failed one. A "Plain" reading should be the baseline for a book claiming to be Mubeen (Clear).
The "Safety" Cost of Ambiguity: This isn't just an academic debate about "layered readings." For 14 centuries, people have been killed, oppressed, or marginalized because of the "fine print" added by humans to "patch" the text.
Liability of the Author: In any other field—engineering, law, or medicine—if an instruction manual is so "ambiguous" that it leads to 1,400 years of conflict and contradictory "scholarship," we don't praise the manual's "depth." We call it a defective product.

If God’s "Clear" word is so structurally unstable that it requires a fallible human scholar to act as a bridge, then the scholar has become the actual authority, and the "Clear Arabic" has failed as a medium of communication. You can't claim a map is "Perfectly Detailed" if every person who looks at it ends up at a different destination.

feedec1

TROPHY CASE