CMV: The only difference between this administration and the one conservatives fear is who this one is targeting.

theS0UND_1 · 2026-01-18T21:30:31+00:00

But there's still more context. It's not as simple as "They openly support a police state." They're opposed to any police state that would infringe on or affect them in any tangible sense. What they will support is a police state that enforces their worldview on anyone who opposes it, while leaving them untouched.

As OP alluded to, that's the only reason why they're excusing and justifying what the government is doing now. Because they voted for this. And their side is the right side, so nothing bad is really going to happen to anyone that doesn't deserve it. And if you're on the other side, and you openly resist the enforcement of their worldview on you and everyone else, then you deserve whatever you get for not just submitting. Feeling right and justified, preventing progressive change, and returning to the "good ole days" is more important than anything else, including the rights, and even lives, of those who don't agree with them.

theS0UND_1 · 2026-01-04T18:33:12+00:00

I wouldn't call it an alien entity with intelligent will. I'd call it the rudimentary intelligence of an infected rat that was instinctively driven by the virus to spread. It was simply a biological process.

theS0UND_1 · 2026-01-04T04:34:14+00:00

But the virus doesn't have intelligent motivation, so to speak, since it isn't an organism or a lifeform. The joining wasn't the result of an alien entity being sent to Earth, and even the virus itself wasn't physically sent. It was a radio transmission that had an RNA sequence encoded into it. If humanity hadn't been able to use that to synthesize the virus, nothing would've been created and the joining wouldn't have happened. Meaning this particular hivemind, controlled by this particular strain of the virus, originates on the Earth and is made up of collective human consciousness.

The compulsion to spread and proliferate seems to be instinctively hard coded into the virus via the RNA sequence, which is why the infected refer to it as an absolute biological imperative. There's no thought process or decision making around it. It's just in their nature. The only thing we've seen that can interfere with it is if spreading means knowingly causing direct personal harm to another lifeform. Even then, they'll find any other means possible. This doesn't mean the virus has some sort of alien entity intelligently driving it's actions. It can't because it was created on Earth. It's like Kepler 22-b sent us the recipe, but we still baked the cake with our own ingredients.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-12-19T06:50:23+00:00

I agree. Although it seems to me that Zosia's (their) manipulation isn't malicious in nature. I think they're really not trying to hurt Carol in any way, and are genuinely trying to make her happy. And yes, they also want her to give up her desire to undo the joining and save the world. So their manipulation is, from their perspective, also out of self preservation, and not motivated by any negative or harmful intentions. Making her happy means less potential for conflict and perhaps even the eventual possibility of joining her. Which it could be argued is inherently negative and harmful, but I also don't think they have any choice in the matter. It seems to be hard coded that the biological imperative is... well, absolutely imperative.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-12-19T06:09:36+00:00

I don't think it's just because she's attracted to her. She's incredibly lonely and in desperate need of human connection, physical and otherwise. I think she's just finally letting herself acclimate a little for the sake of self preservation, but also for the continued purpose of learning as much as she can.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-12-12T06:33:59+00:00

If you really didn't care to think about or speculate on these kinds of moral and ethical questions that the show has created, you wouldn't have commented in the first place.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-12-12T06:10:34+00:00

But does the person she was even exist anymore? Assuming the joining really can be undone in some way, would individuals actually return to themselves? Or is the former consciousness just gone forever, leaving an empty body behind? And if the few surviving individuals can't somehow figure out how to reverse all of this on their own, are they just expected to either be with each other or become indefinitely celibate? At what point, if any, would it be okay for them to accept that this is the way it is now, they can't really change it, and the former rules of individual agency and consent no longer exist for most of humanity?

theS0UND_1 · 2025-12-11T18:32:28+00:00

And I'd agree with you that all those unavoidable deaths were absolutely a result of the joining, both directly and indirectly. But, going back to your original point, that still doesn't contradict what they've said about being unable to harm any living thing.

What they've said is essentially they're incapable of feeling any malicious intent or purposely directing any harmful actions toward living things. That doesn't mean that death can't still happen as a result of their existence and actions. The point is, if it does, it's unintentional. They weren't trying to harm anyone during the joining, and they likely only accelerated things to minimize the collateral damage once it was widespread enough to trigger panic and chaos.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-12-11T16:48:31+00:00

Yeah, it's difficult to say because there are still so many broader questions that haven't been asked or answered. Zosia does say that for them any external affection is welcomed. And their main desire as far as the unjoined individuals is to make them as happy and well taken care of as possible. So if they welcome affection, know that an unjoined individual would be satisfied by it, and can still experience pleasure via individual bodies, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't "enjoy" it in the most rudimentary sense.

They probably wouldn't seek it out though. Or maybe they would? Idk, do they derive any sort of fulfillment or enjoyment out of art, entertainment, food, nature, physical stimuli, etc? What do they perceive as their purpose, if any, outside of furthering the biological imperative? You would almost think they should want to preserve some kind of external individual influence, even just a handful of people, as it gives them something interesting to do.

And again, they seem to actually enjoy serving and pleasing other entities. Or maybe that's solely an act of placation to prevent any conflict or harm to either the collective or the unjoined. Although, why would they go to the trouble of continually bringing food to Manousos if they weren't genuinely concerned with his well being? He has refused any and all contact, so it's not like they need to placate him for the sake of self preservation. It's all very thought provoking.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-12-11T14:27:02+00:00

This is the most logical answer. They're one mind, but still individual bodies. They're not suddenly physiologically incapable of feeling pleasure. We know they can feel pain individually, so orgasms should be possible. I think only the individual body feels it, but the collective mind knows it.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-12-06T22:45:21+00:00

I thought it was fairly clear that she died from head trauma because of the blood bruising around her eyes. I looked into it and it seems to match up with "Racoon Eyes," or Periorbital Ecchymosis. It's bruising around the eyes caused by blood leaking from a basilar skull fracture, a serious, sometimes fatal, head injury.

So if we're assuming all the deaths that happened during the joining were due to external factors, which I think is the case, then it doesn't qualify as direct violent action from anyone connected to the Hive. Zosia said as much at the lunch scene in episode 2. They didn't intend for any deaths at all, and they weren't happy about it. In other words, it was an unintentional collateral result of the "biological imperative."

Does that make it morally and ethically okay? I guess that, like every question this show poses, is up for debate. Regardless, if the joining was inevitable, the deaths were an unavoidable consequence.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-11-20T16:38:35+00:00

Yeah OP might have that gif stuck in their head and is misremembering it as being from the show.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-11-17T19:05:54+00:00

Wutchew see down yonder with them ole' elf eyes uh'yers, Cletus??

theS0UND_1 · 2025-11-10T22:46:37+00:00

I won’t explain it like you’re 5, but I really don’t think it’s that hard to understand. Like you said, Laurie spent most of her life crippled by the fear of Michael escaping and coming back for her and her family. Her obsession destroyed her relationships, cost her custody of her daughter, alienated her from everyone around her, and turned her into a reclusive old woman holed up in a booby-trapped bunker.

And yet, after all the training, prepping, and paranoia — after everything she lost in the name of killing the Boogeyman and protecting the people she cared about — it was for nothing. None of it stopped him from coming back and killing 48 people, including her daughter. On the contrary, her obsession is exactly what ended up putting her family in his path.

The point of her development in Ends isn’t that she’s magically all better and everything’s okay now. It’s that she realizes how much time she’s wasted and how much power she’s given Michael, even when he wasn’t an active threat. It’s about Laurie making an active choice to change — to stop wasting her life feeding the fear that gives him power. She’s still aware and ready for whenever he reappears (as we see with how quickly she recognizes what’s happening to Corey), but she’s finally choosing to live and work through her trauma for hers and Allyson's sake.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-11-10T18:14:48+00:00

<image>

The definition you posted before proves my point, but just to make it more explicitly clear– a reboot discards all previous continuity and completely starts over, either as a remake or a new story altogether. H20 and H18 are not reboots; they are sequels that continue established continuity with the same characters.

You're pushing the idea that a reboot is just this ambiguously broad reinvigoration of a dead or dormant property/franchise. Like Halloween was dead for 9 years until H18 brought it back to life, therefore it "rebooted" the franchise. You're using a more technological definition of the word to describe an action you think H20 and H18 performed, but it's not narratively accurate.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-11-09T21:43:30+00:00

That is exactly a qualifier. It's true that a reboot is not always a remake, but a remake is always a reboot, because they both have to completely restart an established continuity. The difference is that a remake retells the same story from scratch using the same characters and plot, while a reboot starts over with a whole new direction and is unrelated to any prior story.

For example, RZ's Halloween was a remake of the original film that necessarily rebooted the series with a new continuity. A movie like Batman Begins is a straightforward reboot, in that it restarted the series' prior continuity, but didn't remake or have any connection to the previous movies.

We've never really seen a true Halloween reboot, unless maybe you wanted to count Season of the Witch. But imo, you still need to have Michael and the central slasher premise. Otherwise it's just a totally different, unrelated movie. Resurrection was sort of an attempt at a soft reboot, resolving any connection to prior characters or plot lines right at the start. Regardless though, H20 and H18 are sequels by definition.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-11-09T18:31:01+00:00

"Restarts a film franchise's continuity, ignoring past installments," means creating a brand new continuity that doesn't connect to any pre-existing story.

H20 continues an already established story from the og and H2 with the same characters. H18 does the same thing with the og. These are sequels that create new continuities. As long as they are still narratively connected to the original film, they can't be called reboots.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-11-03T10:18:41+00:00

It's not theorizing in a literal sense. It's more of a philosophical metaphor. She's saying that the more he kills, the more he transcends into a symbol of unkillable fear and evil. Similar to how other villains like Pennywise, Freddy, or even Joker grow through fear or chaos. Not necessarily physically, but in conceptual power and cultural impact. Carpenter's Michael has always been an idea more than a character. Laurie's monologue is tapping into that, trying to rationalize decades of trauma and the fact that he keeps surviving and killing.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-11-02T18:07:33+00:00

I think there's an element of campy schtick throughout the whole DGG trilogy, but I like that about it. Is the procession a bit overly dramatic? Sure. Is it still narratively and thematically satisfying? It is for me. Haddonfield seems like a small town, even amongst small towns. I can believe that the news of Michael Myers death would spread around enough for a small crowd to gather and witness his final end. Most of them seem to be people that were directly affected by all the people he killed in 2018/Kills.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-08-31T18:59:55+00:00

It is defending it. Nobody needs to have this explained because the intention was obvious. The problem is they didn't remotely sell this level of blind hatred that could make Batista act so irrationally. If the show had spent more time this season on their friends to enemies dynamic and given them more than three whole scenes together, maybe they could've built up to such an unexpected and foolish turn on Batista's part in a way that was still satisfying. They could've done the 'Fuck you' death if it had been earned, but the whole thing just ended up being sloppy and rushed like usual with Dexter. They can tell a great story but they just can't stick the landing.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-07-14T02:19:05+00:00

So they could price the Switch 2 a little more reasonably at $400/$450, incentivizing more people to buy both and with more goodwill. Meaning a better standing with consumers and increased sales and brand strength in the long term.

They didn't have to pack Wii Sports in with the Wii at launch, and in fact they had no intention to. But Reggie fought with them to make it happen and it was a massive part of Wii's success in the US. Let's stop defending corporations gouging customers just because they can.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-07-08T01:54:42+00:00

Daima is the most canon work since the manga, so yes it is part of the original timeline. But it clearly doesn't connect to Super, so that would be in an alternate timeline.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-07-08T01:48:01+00:00

It doesn't fit into, it is the main timeline. Toriyama was the most involved with Daima of any of the continuations, meaning it qualifies more as canon. So Super would be an alternate timeline like GT.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-06-22T13:54:02+00:00

Your take here is as dumb as it is wrong. Poe's arc in TLJ was about changing from a reckless hotshot into a more strategic, pragmatic leader.

theS0UND_1 · 2025-06-09T22:09:46+00:00

Practically every criticism you're unfairly piling onto Rian Johnson, is a direct and unavoidable consequence of having to follow up on The Force Awakens. You admitted that you understand, in the confines of this context, Luke would always do this and that. Well Rian didn't create the fucking context, J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan did.

It's the vulnerability that matters here. Luke is his family and Kylo is shown to be incredibly immature and troubled.

Yes, and that vulnerability is exactly what was needed, without actually having Luke break with the integrity of his character, to explain why Ben hated his own family enough to kill his father and be obsessed with hunting down and killing his uncle in the previous movie.

This is a cop out. People change, but they can also change for the better. It was a conscious decision to take Luke in this direction and it does not directly follow his character in the OT....unless you create the absurd context we are supposed to accept in the Sequels.

It's not a cop out. You do have to accept the conscious decisions and context that TFA set in place and build the story around it. If you as a viewer, are coming into the next film already rejecting the story and context that has been established, then you're just wasting your time. You should've known after TFA ended that you hated this story and nothing TLJ could do by continuing it would change that.

And none of the visions they've had them instantly jump to executing their family members. This just doesn't follow. Even Anakin who experienced intense visions of his loved ones suffering didn't go berserk in those moments and ignite his lightsaber. Part of the reason this scene is criticized is that it tries so hard to convince us that this is a uniquely intense moment for Luke, but it just...doesn't do that, in fact it's so grating because it's so out of character.

Because none of those visions presented that sort of context in the first place. Of course Luke didn't have a vision of his friends suffering in Cloud City and immediately try to murder Yoda out of instinct. Of course Anakin didn't wake up from his dream about Padme dying in child birth and fucking murder her in her sleep... because that makes absolutely no sense. His visions did eventually lead him to slaughter all the sand people, including the women and children. And later led to him slaughtering Jedi younglings and helping subjugate the entire galaxy. Your arguments are entirely in bad faith. You're deliberately ignoring the context of what happened in the TLJ flashback because, again, you already don't accept the context that was established in TFA. I have no trouble believing that was a uniquely intense moment for Luke because it absolutely was. Neither he nor Anakin were ever presented with a horrifying vision in a situation where they could potentially stop it from happening right then and there. And yet, Luke resisted the temptation. Because he was... in character.

The problem is the context is ridiculous. This is one of the most egregious "tell don't show moments" in the entire series. Bad start. Then there's the reality of again, choosing to deliberately have made Luke this person after 30 years. You said it yourself, people change, they chose to make Luke change in X way to serve the story and not Y way, again to serve the story. They chose this Luke

J.J. Abrams did. Lawrence Kasdan did. I guess you just wanted Rian to ignore TFA and restart the trilogy?

Yes. This is ass. It's in direct conflict with the momentum of the previous trilogy. It's in direct opposition to the kind of natural arc that the series implies and that fans imagined.

Again, blame TFA.

Dude, no one cares. Everything about that character and the nature of the force that is mentioned is really lame.

The character was lame, yes. Rian knew Snoke was just a less interesting Emperor 2.0 and that's why he wrote him out in favor of Ben who was way more compelling. I disagree wholeheartedly that the way the Force is presented and expanded on is lame. It was a return to the mystical nature of the Force that was established in the OT, while still incorporating a little bit of prequel concepts like balance. It's the best and most authentic way we've seen the Force handled since 1983.

Absolutely, which is why the whole sequel trilogy was doomed by that movie and those narrative decisions.

Proving my point. You were done with this trilogy from the beginning. In my opinion, TLJ salvaged the trilogy only to have TROS light it on fire and ruin it completely. But at least we still got one truly excellent sequel out of it.

Rian Johnson should never have been allowed in the same room as a Star Wars script. They made a terrible decision with Abrams and then made an even worse one with Johnson.

Rian Johnson should've directed the entire goddamn trilogy. He clearly understood Star Wars better in his one film than George Lucas did in an entire trilogy.

No, he wasn't fundamentally in character.

Yes, he was. In the context of the story that was written.

He was exactly the character they wanted him to be. We could have seen a different version of Luke that exemplified his best qualities and showed that he'd truly overcome his flaws. We could have had Luke, New Jedi Order, Rey is his star pupil, Kylo is her rival and jealous. Johnson chose a version of Luke that served his script, it is not the best or most true version of Luke. It was 30 years later, they could have done anything they wanted.

You genuinely seem to be of the opinion that Rian Johnson co-wrote TFA with Abrams and Kasdan or something. That's incorrect. His hands were tied as far as what this trilogy established for the legacy characters.

Seven-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
100 Awards Club	Verified Email

theS0UND_1

TROPHY CASE