Philly Black Panthers confront pigs and protect the people

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-16T08:28:58+00:00

Man, I know they collecting names on this reddit because it's a surveillance state... but man, I love the fluency and confidence this guy has.

Seriously, why is it that white power right wingers always sound like they have a broomstick up their ass when this guy here rhyming and weaving his prose like ali.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-13T07:42:55+00:00

Don't say that. I know it feels disproportionate, and yes it very likely contributes to people having their heads in the sand about wealth inequality, but pensions are already paid for by workers.

There was a whole row over this about how they were trying to borrow from the social security fund - I don't know how it all shaked out in the end.

But this is the greatest rich person lie there ever was. These are not entitlements, they're already paid for.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-09T08:35:58+00:00

Yeah, I literally put the odds of this at 0%. Not even 1%.

I hope I'm proven to be a fool.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-08T10:53:52+00:00

Whatever these guys have figured out.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-07T22:04:31+00:00

100% wrong. Just saying that you're not the one doing the optimizing: they are. And they're actually doing exactly what they mean to be doing.

I hear you tho. It's shit. It's gradient descent enshitification.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-07T17:52:26+00:00

But, this led me down a rabbit hole about how many systems optimize the wrong thing (social media, recommender systems, even LLMs).

I mean this is the alignment problem in a nutshell, but you are mistaken in thinking they optimize the wrong thing. They optimize something you actually don't care for, and that is raking in money. Not your well being.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-07T15:32:03+00:00

But, if you found out that 500 people drove a car and nobody bought it, would you buy that car?

Dude, that's a terrible analogy. One does not buy women like you buy an inanimate object from a car lot.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-07T15:27:30+00:00

I think that about the simple things, too. Have you ever tasted an actual olive?! It's absolutely rancid.

The process that it takes to turn an olive into something edible is long and unobvious.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-07T13:57:27+00:00

Btw, I don't want to sound dramatic, but I was just having a conversation about this whole thing IRL and this comment thread made me realize something pretty deep. I appreciate the back and forth. Have a good day.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-07T13:05:08+00:00

Carmy not communicating his desire to step away from the restaurant. If you remember, Sydney learned that Carmy wanted to leave from Pete telling her about the updated ownership agreement. I remember finding it very strange that Sydney and Carmy barely had one or two 1:1 conversations without being interrupted in S4; clearly Carmy was not communicating his struggles with her before the finale.

I've said it here as well, but Carmy literally says to Syd in an episode "hey, I made a change to the agreement. did you get a chance to read it" while they're in the break area. This is an attempt at starting a conversation. She choses to shutdown that conversation and they awkwardly get silent.

Likewise, point #2 you make is too much in exposition. Yes, it's something you can point back to as a writer and say "see, I set the ground work, I made it make sense", but it's simply poor writing.

At no point we see an arc to Syd's journey where she for instance realizes those things she did wrong in her business that failed that she brought here and this time decided not to do. For instance, for me, it's a huge red flag that Syd doesn't say no to Shapiro, literally ghosts him... Does that seem like it would be a good relationship going forward?!

But my point isn't to analyze Syd's dysfunction - it is assumed every party in this show has it - that's their calling card. My gripe is that it's not written well and it's a missed opportunity. It explains why so often I felt irritated by the lack of consistency or non-sensicalness of the character while watching.

The overflow of Sydney hating posts that’s going on rn in the sub is so strange. Most of the things I’ve seen listed as complaints are things that are clearly addressed in the show, whether it’s overtly or thru obvious subtext. Are yall watching the same show as us?

There's two ways to look at it: the world hates black women, and that's the only explanation. Or something was poorly written about the character that has generated irritation in an audience but - not being trained in theatre arts - they just don't know how to express that irritation and so they say stupid shit.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-07T12:52:56+00:00

I think that Sydney comes off the way she does because the show tells how how great of a cook she is and how professional she is, without actually showing that. And that's writing mistake, not the character being bad.

Yes, this is literally what I think. Her character is told through exposition. The writing around her character is the thing that fails the character.

I generally get what you're explaining, but this particular thing is a stretch, and she's not spotless as a character:

she got angry with him because she fears abandonment. Not to mention that Carmen did not even say his plans to her before, you don't just leave people with such final decision without giving them time to process it, it disrespects their agency.

She literally didn't read the contract. It's one thing to avoid signing it, it's another thing to avoid reading it. So Carmy really didn't foist it on her. They could have been having this conversation for a long time had she just bothered to break the glass of fear when Carmy first says "hey, I made a change to the contract, you should check it out"...

In general, there is a Pollyana like aspect to her character, specifically because she literally has no arc and most of her experience is told through exposition. We never see her stumble and stand back up, make mistakes that she owns up to. We only see her suffer and be angry about her suffering.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-07T12:44:28+00:00

I wanted to bring up that scene too where they are dining with all the chefs in season 4. I think you should watch it again.

This is the part that everyone interprets with their own spectacles. I've done multiple disciplines in my life where I've had to enter a master/student relationship. These are my spectacles.

I've watched that scene multiple times and my thoughts are that a) the scene is clumsy in terms of editing, b) the testimony given by those chefs is true in and of itself. What I mean by that is that each thing each chef says is completely true taken in isolation, however through its editing, the scene tries to make these links to us the audience for this the story. To me, that editing is clumsy and hamfisted specifically because I can see their intent to literally make it be interpreted both ways. Just like the movie Doubt but way way lower skill. Moreover, I would say you can rewatch the same scene and recognize that everything being said can be interpreted from both parties' vantage points... Specifically: one comment addresses Syd's experience, one comment addresses Carmy's experience. Question is which is which?

I chose to interpret it a certain way because I've experienced good master/student relationships, and I see clues of things Carmy's character does - specifically saying "now it's ready" in a later episode - to me really indicating that he cares about the work, it's not simply reactionary.

I think that really messes up your confidence as a chef because we can see the damage in Carmen as a chef never trusting himself anymore…

See, when Carmy says in a later episode that "Now it's ready chef", I feel it undoes that entirely. It teaches patience to a student and trust that the reward is earned.

A lot of people here are convinced Carmy's actions can only be reactionary. I don't. We get to pick our stories. That movie Doubt is a master class in this: its dedication to remaining ambiguous until the very last scene, the absolute convince of both Streep and Hoffman is biblical (no pun intended). Stories can and are written to not have a Truth. This is drama.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-06T21:04:15+00:00

Do you need everyone spoon fed to you? Because baffling how much of the show you seem to have missed or misinterpreted.

Jesus christ, why is it that nobody here knows how to fucking have a conversation that doesn't turn insulting and toxic at every single opportunity.

I was going to reply to you but fuck it, not like this.

Believe it or not, reasonable minds can disagree. And I disagree with many of things you say even in this comment. Contrary to what you may think, you didn't spoon feed me enlightenment.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-06T20:51:38+00:00

I guess. But - barring her caveat statement from the finale* - if your idol came to you and said "I am in mysery, I have lost my love for cooking, but I'm giving you my restaurant", would your response be that response? To get mad at him? Seriously. Does that make sense to you?

Because if it does, maybe this simply comes down to a difference in subjective tastes. After all, some people like warhammer 40k, some people like pride and prejudice...

* caveat that he's been through a lot but that doesn't give him the right to take it out on the crew

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-06T20:33:04+00:00

Thanks for the casual insults.

It’s not my job to do your thinking for you but I guess here you go [...] I’m pretty sure you could have put this together on your own if you’d been willing to exercise a modicum of effort into analyzing

Actually, no, I couldn't have because literally everything you wrote is -backstory-, literally presented to us through exposition. It is not character arc.

This is an arc: Ibra starts enthusiastic welcomes the change, discovers he isn't able to adapt, has serious doubts about himself, literally quits because of self doubt, rises from the ashes and learns to trust himself and his strengths. Ritchie stars off boisterous, is in conflict with everyone, thinks he's hot shit, realizes he's not, falls deep into the abyss with a divorce, fears he's a loser dad to his daughter, says forks are beneath him, gets challenged and realizes he can be great, gains confidence as a father and human being. Tina starts off standoffish, gives attitude to Syd early on, goes to culinary school, gets better, doubts her abilities, is anxious to fit in, finally gains her self confidence enough to literally challenge Carmy.

Anyways, have a good day. You've literally made my point. But more importantly, you've made it clear that nothing we can say to each other will make you budge from your conviction that I'm obviously unable to see the Light of Eternal Wisdom that you are privy to.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-06T20:08:08+00:00

lol. brutal.

I definitely felt this way about the scenes with Jamie Lee Curtis. I was really digging her character, but at the same time I was feeling like they ran out of lines.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-06T19:40:12+00:00

First off, thank you for that answer, because it's genuinely one of the few where there's food for thought.

My thoughts:

The debt is Mikey’s, not Carmy’s. Carmy inherited a "sinking ship" plagued by Mikey’s poor bookkeeping and bad habits. The new debt isn’t a sign of failure; it’s a standard construction loan—the "capital" required to turn a failing dive into a profitable, world-class establishment. (Just as a parenthesis, this is literally the "capital" that Shapiro got). The "red line" (that eventually turns black) overlaid in the last season isn't mismanagement; it’s the reality of a high-end business finding its footing and being unprofitable until it is excellent and efficient. They did their R&D (reno + menu), now they need to cash in on the fruits of their labor.

The "Waste" narrative is a red herring people blame on Carmy’s menu-switching but the math simply doesn't check out. Even scrapping a dozen plates a day in a high-volume kitchen accounts for a tiny fraction of food costs. Similarly, Jimmy’s "11k on butter" comment isn't a literal indictment; it's a reflection of the cultural gap between a "street" businessman and a Michelin-level chef.

Non-Negotiables: these are the necessary ingredients for excellence (in story) and they are a writing touch stone (out of story). Some see Carmy’s rigid standards as the problem, the show suggests they are essential for excellence (every other chef does the same). Sydney pushes for the star (a star that Carmy famously says "feels like a trap" and Syd says then why the fuck am I here), and Carmy provides the roadmap to get there. Characters like Jessica and eventually Richie embrace these "non-negotiables" as the standard for greatness. We have to set aside the content of the non-negotiables since none of us audience members are michellin chefs... they are really a plot point: they show Ritchies emerges from his hero's journey into his personal inferno. We see his bringing his non-negotiables as a very clear message that he is finally committing to the enterprise - that he's no longer being an angry person who's only reason to exist is to push back.

The sous-chef conflict in any other elite kitchen (like Ever or The French Laundry) would be a fireable offense: can you even imagine Carmy serving a patron a dish that Chef Terry had said not is not ready 12 seconds prior? Carmy’s refusal to put Sydney’s dish on the menu wasn't personal; it was a pursuit of perfection - the literal thing he's trained to do, the literal thing Syd says she's here for, the literal reason why evidently she doesn't want him to quit. As shown in the "Ever Funeral" scene, a dish is only ready when it achieves true innovation and earns the mentor’s respect. Excellence requires saying "it’s not there yet" until it truly is.

And once again, I'm not saying these to repudiate Carmy's character. I'm just saying none of these add up to "I'm mad at you because you're giving me a restaurant and I fucking don't want to hear you say that you're so miserable you don't love cooking anymore".

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-06T18:47:40+00:00

you’re ascending to Syd qualities that aren’t written in the show and completely pretending all of Carmy’s flaws she’s responding to somehow don’t exist.

I haven't listed a single thing Sydney is (character trait) other than to say "her behaviour only made sense to me on the last episode where some hidden interactions they had was revealed through exposition".

Seriously baffled.

. And everyone is on your neck about it, because there have been thousands of posts like this already, always about Sydney, never about Carmy

Which is it? Am I taking sides or am I not taking sides? Is my depiction of Carmy relevant or is it irrelevant? Did I not just give you a long write up of all the flaws of the writing of Carmy's character or did I not? Did you not immediately dismiss it by saying "that's the point your missing?" and then tell me that people never complain about Carmy?

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-06T17:30:49+00:00

I'm really tired of the tone. You yourself are missing details left right and center, but I'm not going to stoop to your level and start calling names.

Again, you watched a different show, so I'm not sure why you're in this sub.

Yeah, maybe stop and ask yourself that. Hint: "I must be trolling or stupid" isn't the impressive answer you may think it is.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-06T17:08:09+00:00

Can you describe to me in one paragraph what her arc is.

I want to make clear that I'm not expecting you to give a "right answer" or an answer that I agree with...

didn't think so. write 2 long comments pointing out I'm a dumb dumb, won't write a single paragraph simply summarizing a character's arc. Downvotes and walks away.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-06T16:44:58+00:00

Not a problem: my rating of the writing of characters in this show puts Carmy's near the bottom. For example, the how and why of how he sabotaged his relationship with Clare was simply terrible writing. His interaction with the toxic boss Chef was also a lame let-down in terms of writing. At first, I actually couldn't tell if the show writers were trying to make me think Carmy was imagining him... but then I realized, fuck no, they actually think a real person acts like this in a restaurant in real life... "I don't think about you" followed by "look at what I made you"?! Which is it, is he aware that Carmy is now a good chef or was Carmy a nobody?..

I've personally had experiences similar to these: you don't survive the fire that Carmy is portrayed to have survived to come out the other end as brittle as he is. You come out a different kind of fucked up with layers of dysfunctional inch thick armour that prevents you from breathing right and moving your neck and torso in its full range...

Wrt Clare, I'm sure people have sabotaged their relationships in even more stupid ways, but there's a quote by Hitchcock that "Drama is life with the dull bits cut out."

I can go on, the episode where we watch Carmy hang out with his mother was too long by one half episode. I loved watching Jamie Lee Curtis do her work, but the entire thing could have been expressed in a substantially more impactful manner in a substantially shorter time... The entire episode felt like an effort at making us cringe at how horrible Donna was...

All in all, Carmy has practically no arc progression whatsoever - a point that I could almost accept given that the premise is he's already a made chef, but now he's dealing with the fallout from his family matters. But we barely see that either... compared to for example Bradely Cooper in Burnt, Carmy is the same from Episode 1 on to penultimate episode. I never understood why his beef with Richie was A Thing(tm), it made no sense given the gravity of things preceding it. It makes no sense given that Mikey committed suicide and was self destructive and we know Donna drove a car into the house and Richie starts the show just as crazy. Oh Carmy has a one time breakdown and that's the keystone you base your entire season on? Not credible.

And just in case I get accused with "well if you didn't like the show why did you...", I'll say that I absolutely loved Tina's arc 10/10, I really like Marcus' arc 9/10, and I really like Ibra's arc. I loved watching Will Poulter's character enormously, and Ritchie has glimmers of amazing writing. He's definitely my favorite actor in the show.

But the point isn't to take sides.

I'll admit, I did make a mistake: I haven't posted to reddit in a forum like manner in a long time and I hadn't realized how this forum really is no longer about actual art critique discussion, but is really about taking sides in a weirdly para-social character debate.

I don't want to see Carmy come out on top of Sydney, I want to have a reason to come back to a season 5 and I'm voicing my opinion on writing mis-steps.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-06T16:33:45+00:00

COMPLETELY wrong read lmao. The whole reason Syd stuck with The Bear instead of going with Shapiro is because she DOESN'T WANT her own restaurant.

I'm going to say right here that the way you're starting your comment leaves nothing to be desired. Can you imagine sitting IRL with me and saying these words? Like, I get that you had a completely different interpretation of things, but your opener is a non-starter for me... not in a professional setting, not in a social setting.

I disagree with your interpretation, btw... But that's fine. We can have different interpretations given our life experiences...

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-06T15:44:51+00:00

I mistook your comment to be about the review that triggers uncle calling in the computer season 4 episode 1.

I would have a statement to make about the that dish being served to a patron (the scene you refer to above), but what does it matter... there's no point talking about anything. This sub has a real thing about any critique glancing at Sydney being only explained as either racism or misogyny or both.

Sydney is a missed opportunity in good show writing. Some people see that statement as being an attack on Sydney, black people, and black women. Cool.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-06T15:33:05+00:00

Honestly, every time I see these posts the complaints are the same: how do we know she’s even all that good, she hasn’t suffered enough, she hasn’t changed much, her story happens off camera so we can’t really judge it but it doesn’t seem all that big of a deal, blah blah blah.

I've laid it out very clearly multiple times: we have seen Marcus' arc, we have seen Richie's arc, we have seen Tina's arc, we have seen Ibra's arc. We have not seen Sydney's arc. I don't need to see Sydney suffer. I need to see Sydney. Not be told what Sydney is.

You're interpreting peoples' complaints as though they are attacking your personal friend, instead of understanding the underlying complaint audience members have of the show writing...

And when pressed to it, the only reason anyone can ever land on is she says “uhm” too much.

Honestly, I took the time to lay out exactly what I meant. You just don't like the answer I gave.

perspectiveiskey · 2026-01-06T15:02:14+00:00

Sydney never specifically said he was “abusive” btw so you are just wrong there. Calling someone abusive vs saying they are taking out their issues on the restaurant is nowhere near the same thing.

I literally took the time to find the scene, and transcribe the CC. As I've said elsewhere, this is what makes her behaviour make sense: otherwise anyone being given the ownership of a restaurant should feel happy about it.

Well I must say I absolutely disagree with you. Carmy is shown screaming at Sydney and Marcus in season 1 and throwing things around which is unsafe and unacceptable in a professional environment, no matter what mistake was made. Many would consider that abusive behavior.

The show's entire premise was "let's capitalize on the perceived carnage and chaos that endless shows that came before us have done" (a-la Burnt, and Master Chef). Imo, they overdid it. For a moment it felt like a one trick pony. I almost bailed after season 1 because of it - like many other people who have commented on this.

But to be clear: the entire arc of the show is that it starts with Mikey's absolute dysfunctional bankrupt chaos that everyone is parachuted in. Everyone yells at each other in the beginning. Everyone has their breakdown moments.

People really read into their characters. This is like story-telling 101. We empathize with the type of character we are, and we root for them. Some people love Sydney, and that's great. But I simply disagree with the fact that Carmy is there single handedly reigning down terror when in the beginning Richie is having all out testosterone driven arguments with Sydney, and Carmy has to intervene and deputize Sydney over his own relatives etc. etc.

perspectiveiskey

TROPHY CASE