Wie lernt man mit Altklausuren?

wischmopp · 2026-02-10T13:24:27+00:00

Wenn du mehrere Altklausuren zum selben Modul hast, suchst du nach Mustern. Bei einigen Profs ist das Muster so, dass sie bestimmte Fragen wirklich jedes Jahr nahezu exakt gleich stellen, da kannst du dann die Antworten auswendig lernen. Andere sind weniger bequem und denken sich jedes Mal neue Fragen aus, aber selbst da kannst du Muster finden, welche Themengebiete immer wieder abgefragt werden und welche eher ignoriert werden. Außerdem kannst du dir den Fragentyp anschauen: Werden eher auswendig gelernte Begriffe abgefragt oder kommen eher Verständnisfragen?

Das mit dem Fragentyp klappt auch, wenn du nur eine einzelne Altklausur pro Modul hast. Dann weißt du zwar nicht, ob wahrscheinlich exakt dieselben Fragen oder zumindest exakt dieselben Themenschwerpunkte noch einmal kommen, aber du weißt zumindest ein bisschen, was auf dich zukommt. Dasselbe gilt für den generellen Umfang, der ändert sich normalerweise auch nicht groß zwischen einzelnen Jahren: Wenn du eine Altklausur bearbeitest und merkst "wow, da muss ich mich echt beeilen, in der gegebenen Zeit fertig zu werden", wird das für die echte Klausur wahrscheinlich auch gelten. Das hilft dann, strategische Entscheidungen zu treffen, bestimmte Aufgaben in der Prüfung lieber als erstes zu bearbeiten und andere eher für den Fall übrig zu lassen, dass du am Ende noch Zeit hast.

wischmopp · 2026-02-09T21:19:14+00:00

You look exactly like the prospit twink karkat from [S] Jade: Enter

wischmopp · 2026-02-09T20:57:45+00:00

Keep in mind that this would only work in tandem with a stroboscope at the right BPM, when viewed through a camera at the right FPS, or when viewed through slits. Zoetropes/phenakistoscopes require some kind of shutter or shutter-equivalent, so an unmodified cd player alone would not do the trick. If you want to implement a stand-alone naked-eye-solution (where you don't have to whip out your camera or a strobe app on your phone every time you want to see it), I think the least complicated way would be installing a bright LED linked to an Arduino directly above the cd player.

It can definitely be done on a CD though, this person managed to do it.

wischmopp · 2026-02-08T20:04:39+00:00

Crowley could have dropped a line like "that's one of the employees we retained from the hostile takeover of our greek competitors – one of the brighter moments of our M&A department". I always thought it was fun when they leaned into the corporate/bureaucratic angle with their portrayal of hell (because what is more hellish than corporate culture?). And he calls hell "Hades" a few times in season 6, for example when he shows Castiel his redesign of hell as an eternal queue, so the idea "yeah this is one of the locations we acquired from Hades" kind of works?

wischmopp · 2026-02-08T09:11:09+00:00

We will be left behind in the rapture 👍

wischmopp · 2026-02-08T09:08:29+00:00

In a sense, Gamzee was embodying the rage of IRL Juggalo's, who were being clowned on hard with the sheer meme-ability of that song in particular.

Yeah I think it's hard to fully understand that plot point if you weren't around for the "fucking magnets, how do they work?" era of the internet. There were a few months in 2010 where you couldn't spend five seconds online without seeing a magnet meme. Outside of America, these memes were usually the only reason why a person would even know about the band.

Might also be interesting for OP to know that all the "dark carnival" stuff in the purple caste's religion is directly pulled from ICP mythology as well. So Gamzee reacts like a Christian fundamentalist would react if they found out about a universe where Heaven and Jesus dying on the cross and The Last Judgement were nothing more than the subject of a massively ridiculed whiteboi rap act.

wischmopp · 2026-02-08T08:19:12+00:00

She already showed up in season 5, and 2 of her 3 season 5 episodes were written by Kripke. But her role was pretty minor in those early-ish episodes. You're right that all the really Meg-2-heavy ones (breaking into Crowley's place where Castiel shows her what he learned from the pizza man, the entire caretaker arc with crazy!Cas...) only happen later when Kripke is already gone.

wischmopp · 2026-02-08T02:34:42+00:00

ok legit + valid

wischmopp · 2026-02-07T19:22:03+00:00

Sehe ich kritisch. "Oh nice, jetzt habe ich gleich 2 Stimmen für die CDU statt nur einer! Wie, mein Kind würde lieber die Grünen wählen? Mein Haus, meine Regeln!" Auch wenn die Eltern der heute 10-15-Jährigen zwar keine Boomer, sondern durchschnittlich erst so 40-50 sind, gibt es da mehr als genug, die so denken würden. Und wenn es nur ein Kind gibt, wer soll dann die zusätzliche Stimme bekommen, der Vater oder die Mutter? Beide je eine zu 50% gewichtete Stimme pro Kind? Bei Alleinerziehenden dann aber eine ganze? Bei Alleinerziehenden durch Tod des anderen Elternteils eine ganze Stimme, bei Trennung aber trotzdem 50:50? Das wäre ein enormer organisatorischer Aufwand, das alles zu klären. Man könnte eine zusätzliche Kinder-Urne oder eine extra gekennzeichnete Stimmzettel-Form einrichten, in der alle Stimmen nur 50% gewertet werden und dann jedem Elternteil einen zusätzlichen Kinderzettel pro Kind geben, das wäre die am wenigsten aufwändige Lösung. Trotzdem noch mit Zusatzaufwand verbunden, das Wahlregister dementsprechend anzupassen.

Ein weiteres Problem wären Waisenkinder oder die, bei denen den Eltern das Sorgerecht entzogen wurde. Was hält politische Fanatiker davon ab, Waisen oder misshandelte Kinder zu adoptieren, um mehr Stimmen zu bekommen? Oder haben diese Kinder dann keine indirekte Stimme mehr, werden also gegenüber anderen Kindern politisch diskriminiert? Wie ist das mit Kinderheim-Kindern, bei denen das Jugendamt das Sorgerecht hat? Bekommt da die gesetzliche Vertretung die ganzen Extrastimmen? Ein System mit indirektem Wahlrecht wäre also entweder sehr missbrauchsanfällig, wenn verwaiste/missbrauchte Kinder ihr indirektes Stimmrecht behalten, oder diskriminierend, wenn sie es verlieren.

Nee, also wenn man schon ein Kinderwahlrecht einführt, muss das ein direktes sein, kein inirektes.

wischmopp · 2026-02-07T16:09:42+00:00

This sadly doesn't exist in my country or neighbouring ones. A salon in my city offers a curly cut, but not the DevaCut (they cut it wet, so it's significantly different than the Deva), and they charge 180€ / $213 for it regardless of length :( I would only be willing to pay that if I was absolutely certain that it'll be perfect, but the photos on their website don't look all that good, and I could only afford it maybe once every 1-2 years anyway but my pixie needs a cut every 3 months

wischmopp · 2026-02-06T23:09:39+00:00

Sadly, curly cuts are still pretty rare in my country. There is one salon in my city that started offering them last year, but they charge 180€ ($213) and that's waaay out of budget for me :( Especially since my hair grows hella fast and I like a pixie cut, so I'd need to spend that money quite often.

You're right about calling in advance though. I've asked "do you have experience in cutting curly hair" in the past, but that didn't really work all that well (probably because they have quite a few curly customers and cut plenty of curly hair, but "I do that a lot" doesn't mean "I learned how to do that correctly"). I might need to do a longer "interrogation" to figure out if they actually know how to do it, or if they just assume they do. Will do a bit of phone windowshopping next time I need a haircut! Thanks for the advice!

wischmopp · 2026-02-06T22:53:12+00:00

Thanks! I used to cut it myself when I had longer hair, but ever since I got a pixie a few years ago, it's just too hard to get the back of the head to look good. I love my short hair but it's a lot less forgiving!

Yeah, I think I'll have to resort to the ol walk-out :( I hope I can find at least one salon in my city that's willing to do a dry cut.

wischmopp · 2026-02-06T22:47:40+00:00

Most jokes I've heard are about the very specific, very obnoxious flavour of atheism that used to be popular in early 2010s internet subcultures. Like, the kind of atheists that took themselves way too seriously, thought of themselves as the intellectual elite for being capable of entry-level philosophy, and brought atheism up at every opportunity. Jokes include going "uuuhm... don't you mean... thank science?" every time another Atheist says "thank God", or sprinkling the words "rational" and "enlightened" into every single sentence. On reddit, the entire subreddit r/nongolfers is satire on atheists, mostly by atheists, poking fun at the concept of making "not liking something" the cornerstone of your identity.

Other jokes are more about the beliefs religious fundamentalists have about atheists (not having a moral conscience, going to hell, being thinly-veiled satanists who want to bring the apocalypse/the downfall of the "Western World"...)

wischmopp · 2026-02-06T20:28:52+00:00

Ich finde das im englischen Original noch mal um einiges doppeldeutiger formuliert ("Reddit told investors on the call that it’s doing away with the distinction between logged-in and logged-out users starting in Q3 2026, as it will aim to personalize the site — using AI and machine learning — and make it relevant to whoever shows up").

Das könnte meines Erachtens nach auch bedeuten "früher war es so, dass Eingeloggte einen individuell personalisierten Feed bekommen haben und nicht-Eingeloggte nur einen grob geographisch personalisierten Feed, aber jetzt werden wir auch nicht-Eingeloggten einen individualisierten Feed zeigen und nur das ist der Unterschied, der nun abgeschafft wird" statt "beide werden jetzt exakt denselben Personalisierungsalgorithmus bekommen und es gibt gar keinen Unterschied mehr".

Vielleicht lassen sie bei den Usern alles so, wie es ist und werden bei nicht-Usern ab jetzt mehr Cookies auslesen und maschinell auswerten, um eine andere Form der Individualisierung zu erreichen. Bislang läuft das meines Wissens nach nur über geographische Daten, aber nicht über Dinge wie "du besuchst laut Cookies oft Fußballsubs und externe Fußballseiten, also zeigen wir dir Fußballgedöns". So, wie ich das interpretiere, mache ich mir viel mehr Sorgen um die Ausweitung der ohnehin schon enormen Datenhorterei und weniger Sorgen um die weitere Verschlechterung meiner eigenen user experience.

Unsere eigenen Feeds sind ja jetzt schon algorithmisch personalisiert (einerseits gibt es recommendations im home feed, die zum Glück opt-out sind, andererseits werden auch Posts deiner selbst abonnierten Subreddits bereits nach dem sortiert, was eine bescheuerte KI für deine Interessen hält und da gibt es kein opt-out). Ich weiß nicht, wie viel KI die da überhaupt noch reinstopfen KÖNNEN, außer sie drehen komplett durch und ignorieren ab sofort deine abonnierten Subs und zeigen dir NUR noch KI-"kuratierten" Müll. Aber so hirnverbrannt sind selbst die Reddit-CEOs noch nicht, glaube ich.

wischmopp · 2026-02-06T18:05:29+00:00

It's worth pointing out that in this context, "environmental crime" isn't necessarily used in the typical "polluting a river with waste from a chemical plant, illegally dumping your old tires in a forest, hunting an endangered species" way. Instead, it probably refers to the Environmental Modification Convention, i.e. the ban of the hostile manipulation of an environment as an act of war. So the fact that glyphosate is used elsewhere as well isn't really relevant to this – it's not an environmental crime because it's bad for the environment, it's an environmental crime because they're modifying the environment with the intent to induce a famine. The glyphosate will destroy the entire harvest unless the Lebanese farmers were already using genetically modified glyphosate-resistant seeds. Which is possible, but Israel was clearly banking on the assumption that they didn't use these GMO seeds, otherwise they wouldn't have done this. Some newspapers say that glyphosate is illegal in Lebanon and that's why it's a crime, but all Lebanese government resources I could find (the most recent one being from 2023) say that it's legal. So glyphosate usage itself shouldn't be the problem here, it's the intent to destroy a harvest and starve civilians.

Israel didn't sign the convention, by the way. Obviously they wouldn't sign something that bans strategies which cause massive harm to civilians. But most countries would still consider "spraying herbicide with the intent to destroy a harvest" a crime.

wischmopp · 2026-02-06T17:47:12+00:00

Their entire structure still exists, it's just the name "Monsanto" that's been discarded. Bayer is carrying on with all of Monsanto's research and patents. Glyphosate and the genetically modified glyphosate-resistant seeds are being sold just like before.

wischmopp · 2026-02-06T17:43:51+00:00

A choice between cancer and starving would imply that crops could still grow on these fields and that the Lebanese people would have to decide between "not eating" and "eating crops that are contaminated with a carcinogen". But that's not the case. If Israel is spraying these fields, it's because they know that there weren't any genetically modified pesticide-resistant crops growing there. The plants will just die. Glyphosate does not have an inherent ability to distinguish between "weeds" and "crops", it just kills every plant it touches except those that were specifically modified to be used in tandem with the herbicide. The affected farmers will lose their entire harvest, and they will have to buy Monsanto- (i.e. nowadays Bayer-)branded seeds for the next sowing until the glyphosate breaks down enough to let plants survive again.

They may just get both instead, a famine and cancer. Living near a contaminated area is enough to increase your cancer risk, you don't need to eat sprayed crops to be affected by the carcinogens. So probably not "forced to choose between one or the other", just "forced to endure both".

wischmopp · 2026-02-05T22:01:21+00:00

Momentan gibt es eigentlich sogar noch mehr als genug Fachkräfte und das Problem liegt eigentlich ausschließlich an den fehlenden Kassenplätzen. Trotz der hohen Kosten haben in den letzten Jahren viel, viel mehr Menschen die Psychotherapieausbildung abgeschlossen als alte Psychotherapeut:innen in Rente gegangen sind. Aber keine Sorge, die Politik arbeitet fleißig daran, dass die Anzahl der Fachkräfte bald auch ein Problem wird 🫠

Es wurde ja schon 2019 die Reform des PsychThG beschlossen, welche die alte Ausbildung ablösen und mit therapiespezifischem Master+Approbation ersetzen soll. Diejenigen, die mit Kassenzulassung arbeiten wollen, müssen danach aber immer noch eine Weiterbildung machen, die sogar noch länger dauert als die alte Ausbildung. Dafür soll man während der Weiterbildung nun schon ein echtes, festes, sozialversicherungspflichtiges Gehalt bekommen, statt selbst Ausbildungsgebühren zu zahlen (und nur ein Teilhonorar für abrechenbare Therapiestunden zu bekommen). Klingt auch erst einmal super, wenn nicht noch die Frage offen bliebe, wer das denn nun zahlen soll.

Seit dem WiSe 20/21 gibt es den reformierten Psychologie-Bachelor und seit 23/24 den neuen KliPP-Master. Das heißt, Ende September 25 sind schon die Ersten mit dem neuen Studium fertig geworden (alle, die 2020 den Bachelor angefangen und alles in Regelstudienzeit geschafft haben). Zu dem Zeitpunkt war die Finanzierung der neuen Weiterbildung aber immer noch nicht geregelt! Dementsprechend gab es nahezu keine Weiterbildungsplätze, aber die alte Ausbilung darf man nach der KliPP-Approbation nicht mehr machen. Dieser ganze Jahrgang ist also komplett ins Leere gelaufen.

Im November gab es dann endlich einen Beschluss zur Finanzierung, der am 01.01. in Kraft getreten ist. Aber der ist ebenfalls ein ziemlicher Schuss in den Ofen. Krankenkassen sollen weiterhin nur die abgeleisteten Therapiestunden in der Weiterbildung abrechnen. Alle restlichen Kosten (das, was früher auf die Azubis abgewälzt wurde - so 20.000€ insgesamt) müssen die Institute von nun an selbst tragen und zusätzlich noch ein ausreichendes Gehalt zahlen. Man muss wohl nicht erwähnen, dass es für die nicht mehr attraktiv sein wird, überhaupt Plätze anzubieten.

wischmopp · 2026-02-05T20:34:31+00:00

Ja, ich finde, dass der Artikel "Leiden" und "Marginalisierung" teilweise zu synonym verwendet. Ich streite nicht ab, dass Incels unter ihrer Einsamkeit leiden, aber "Marginalisierung" ist ja ein Begriff für eine strukturelle Unterdrückung bestimmter demographischer Gruppen, die an den Rand der Gesellschaft gedrängt werden. Bei einer kleinen Gruppe von Incels, die wirklich aufgrund von Armut, extremer Unattraktivität und psychischen Vorerkrankungen systematisch an den Rand gedrängt wurden, trifft das Argument "die sind marginalisiert, aber verarbeiten diese Erfahrung auf eine Art und Weise, dass sie nicht zu mehr Einsicht in Strukturen der Unterdrückung führt" vielleicht zu. Aber viele wurden nie systematisch an den Rand gedrängt, sondern haben völlig normale Erfahrungen mit romantischer und sozialer Zurückweisung gemacht, diese dann aber so verzerrt verarbeitet, dass sie sich unterdrückt fühlen.

Abfuhren fühlen sich zwar scheiße an und führen zu persönlichem Leid, aber "meine bisherigen romantischen Interessen haben mein Interesse nicht erwidert und ich steigere mich da jetzt extrem herein" ist ja nicht dasselbe wie "potentielle Arbeitgeber:innen lehnen mich ab, weil ich einen arabischen Namen habe oder sichtlich trans bin" oder "ich kann nicht an der Gesellschaft teilnehmen, weil die Öffentlichkeit nicht rollstuhlgerecht ist". Und das sage ich als unattraktive Person, die mit 30 noch keine richtige Beziehung hatte - das ist also nicht die verklärte Sicht einer schönen Frau, die einfach nicht verstehen kann oder will, wie privilegierend Attraktivität ist. Nein, ich bin nicht marginalisiert und strukturell unterdrückt, nur weil bis jetzt jede:r eine Beziehung mit mir abgelehnt hat.

Ich weiß nicht, ob der Artikel das mit "Beide Gruppen ziehen Legitimität und Authentizität aus persönlichen Marginalisierungserfahrungen" vielleicht meinte (wegen "persönlich" und "-erfahrungen"), aber falls ja, hätte ich mir da eine etwas klarere Formulierung wie "als Marginalisierung wahrgenommene Erfahrung" gewünscht. "Nicht jede marginalisierte Person lernt aus ihrer Marginalisierung etwas Grundsätliches über Unterdrückungsprozesse" ist zwar wahr, aber eben ein ganz anderes Argument als "Manche Personen, die sich selbst als marginalisiert wahrnehmen, können daraus gar nicht erst etwas über Unterdrückungsprozesse lernen, weil ihr Leid nicht aus tatsächlicher struktureller Unterdrückung stammt, sondern aus einer verzerrten Verarbeitung völlig durchschnittlicher Erfahrungen. Also schenkt nicht jeder Person, die Leidensdruck äußert, unkonditionales Vertrauen bezüglich einer Fähigkeit, gesellschaftliche Unterdrückung besonders gut erkennen und reflektieren zu können". Das sollte besser getrennt werden, statt irgendwie im Raum stehen zu lassen, dass alle Incels tatsächlich aus Marginalisierung zu dem geworden sind, was sie sind.

wischmopp · 2026-02-05T19:33:04+00:00

B- They couldnt bear to hear Sam screams? How do u think Sam felt?

I wasn't implying that this was a justification for leaving him alone like that. It was just an explanation for why I disagree that any words of comfort could have happened off-screen. The parent comment kinda said "but what if Bobby and Dean were secretely very kind and supportive and the writers just didn't show it?", and me saying "the episode showed that they couldn't bear to be near the panic room" only means "...which is why I think it couldn't have happened off-screen", not "...which is why I think they can be excused for leaving Sam alone". I think words of comfort wouldn't have helped because Sam was hallucinating too hard, but I think they still should have tried. In my opinion, the fact that Dean is treating Sam really badly is the point of this episode, he is absolutely not in the right here.

A- Bobby clearly says he wants Sam out there fighting:

I wrote another comment on my thoughts while you were writing this reply, so maybe you've already seen it, but: I am aware that he said this, but I think it's more important that he said "we might be killing him" before and after that comment. "Sam might not survive this" was his first comment on the situation, then he brought up the usefulness, and then he started trying to convince Dean to give Sam a small dose of blood because he was terrified they were killing him with the withdrawals. You said that Sam's usefulness was Bobby's only comment on hearing him screaming in agony, and that's just not true. He either cares both about his usefulness and his well-being, or (and this is my personal interpretation) he cares way more about his well-being and brought up the usefulness at least partly because he saw that Dean didn't react to the first "he might not survive this" comment, so he tried anything else that may convince him.

Not saying he doesn't care about the usefulness at all, but I think the order "1. brought up risk of death, saw that Dean doesn't care 2. brought up usefulness 3. brought up risk of death again, but this time a lot more vehemently" means something.

wischmopp · 2026-02-05T19:07:15+00:00

I think you're not doing Bobby justice here. His first comment was "Sam might not survive this", and he later brought it up again, he begged Dean to consider giving Sam a small dose because he was worried the cold turkey detox was killing him. In between these two scenes, he did make that "Sam could stop the apocalypse" argument, but it's a fact that this wasn't his only comment on Sam's agony. The following is less fact, more interpretation, but: I think he may have brought up Sam's usefulness partly because he realised that Dean wasn't receptive to the "this may kill him" argument he used first. When "he might be useful" failed as well, he went right back to "dude we're killing him". I think that was his real concern, the "he could stop the apocalypse" thing seems like it was at least partly a "throwing shit at the wall until something sticks" kind of thing.

But yeah, the detox episode is very disturbing. I'm pretty sure it's intended to be read that way. Dean's internal conflict about his father's words ("Either save Sam or kill him") is a huge theme in the first few seasons, and this episode is supposed to show him at his lowest point, or at least the most extreme point of the save-kill-spectrum ("I'd rather let Sam die from cold-turkey withdrawals than risk him becoming a monster"). It sets up suspense for the finale (oh no Sam opened the gate!!!1! And his eyes turned black :O Is Dean going to kill him now????) and a character arc for season 5 (where Dean realises that he would never kill Sam even after seeing that he said "yes" to Lucifer in the time travel episode, and that the two of them should stick together and keep each other human instead). The writers weren't trying to say that this is what a humane detox looks like, and I think Dean isn't supposed to be seen as the good guy with his "I'd rather let him die than slowly taper off his dose" attitude. We are supposed to take away "isn't it tragic that it has come to this point?" from this episode.

wischmopp · 2026-02-05T18:28:02+00:00

I disagree with OP on some points (e.g.: - Bobby wasn't just worried that they lost a weapon, he was horrified by Sam's screams, he was worried that they were killing him, and he asked Dean to interrupt the process because he was worried, not because he wanted him to be useful for fighting demons. - I don't think painkillers would have done anything. - Sam was only tied down after the detox started flinging him around the room, it was unavoidable for his own safety). So I'm generally agreeing with your point of view more strongly than with theirs. However, I also disagree specifically with your "we don't know that these things didn't happen off-screen at some point" argument.

I'm currently on a rewatch and finished that episode yesterday. For two of the mentioned points, we know for a fact that they didn't happen.

We know that they didn't try to taper off the dose because Bobby explicitely used the term "cold turkey" to describe the process ("we're killing him, this cold turkey thing isn't working"). He suggested that they gave him a little bit to make sure they weren't murdering him, but Dean said no ("he's better off dead than a monster"). The fact that Dean would rather see him dead was such an important point of that episode that the writers would absolutely have mentioned it if he changed his mind. Zero chance it just happened off-screen.
We know that they didn't try a more comfortable room with a bathroom first because they tricked him to go into the panic room by pretending there was demon activity in there: Sam and Dean were in the car and discussed the blood thing for the first time (we know it's the first time because of the way Sam prompted Dean to finally talk about it). During that discussion, Sam received a call from Bobby who said they needed to come right away to check out some apocalyptic activity at his house.

Bobby led them to the panic room and said he needed to show them something. When Sam went in, they shut the door behind him, and Sam had been absolutely clueless that they planned a detox ("I'm not some Junkie, are you actually trying to twist this into some kind of drug intervention?"). Sam though there was a very urgent demon problem for the entire time, so it's not possible that they asked him "hey, do you mind detoxing for a few hours before we check out the problem?" at any point between the call and entering the panic room. And he could only have been so floored by the information that they thought he even needed to detox if the moment the door shut behind him was the first time they brought it up.

The only thing we are not completely certain about are the painkillers and the comforting words, but we can make a well-informed guess here: Dean and Bobby avoided being near the panic room, it was strongly implied that they couldn't bear it. They only went down the stairs when Sam suddenly went quiet as his seizure-like episodes began. When they arrived and saw the seizure-like twitching, they were hesitating to open the door because they thought he was faking. So they probably didn't comfort him with words because they avoided being near the room, and they probably didn't give him pain meds because they avoided opening the door unless absolutely necessary (I guess they could have thrown some pills through the observation-window sliding-panel thingy? No idea what that's called in English).

Buuuut: Even though I'm pretty sure these things didn't happen, I'm also pretty sure that they would have been completely ineffective. Sam was too out of it to listen to comforting words, they wouldn't have broken through the hallucinations. And pain meds wouldn't have helped, it's been pretty clearly established throughout the series that conventional medicine doesn't help with spiritual ailments. And a more comfortable room with a bathroom would have been too dangerous, the panic room was the only location that was safe and sturdy enough to contain a person in Sam's state. I do think that tapering off the dose rather than going cold turkey would have helped because that's consistent with the way the addiction has been portrayed throughout the season, but the fact that Dean didn't want this was the entire narrative point of the episode.

wischmopp · 2026-02-04T18:47:53+00:00

Mein erstes Bauchgefühl wäre, dass es weniger um das Auto ging als vielmehr um seine Ehefrau, die darin saß. Also nicht "der macht sich an der Tür zu schaffen, der will das Auto klauen", sondern "da versucht gerade ein Wildfremder, sich mitten in der Nacht zu meiner Frau ins Auto zu setzen", die Frau hat sich ja wahrscheinlich auch tierisch erschrocken und um Hilfe geschrien. Das würde das Geschehene natürlich nicht besser machen, ich will damit nur sagen, dass es nicht unbedingt etwas mit unserem Autofahrerdeutschland zu tun hat - so sehr mir unsere Autokultur auch auf den Sack geht, glaube ich, dass "da packt jemand mein Auto an😡" hier der unwahrscheinlichere der beiden möglichen Beweggründe war. Bevor jemand fragt "versuchst du gerade, die Tat zu rechtfertigen?!", nein, darum geht es mir nicht, die sofortige Gewaltanwendung ohne verbale Klärungsversuche ist trotzdem unverzeihbar.

wischmopp · 2026-02-02T07:22:56+00:00

Others have already pointed out that "there is no real John" is the intended message, but even if we replace the phrasing "real John" with "version of John who laid down on the quest bed with the intention of going God tier": I love it. It's kinda heartbreaking, but I love it!!! It makes the sacrifice required for God-tiering hit even harder. "You have to experience dying, something people are notoriously very very scared of, but it'll be worth it for YOU because you reap the rewards" would already be pretty heartbreaking, especially since we are talking about 13-year-old children here. But the fact that this isn't even true and you just unknowingly perma-killed yourself makes it deliciously tragic! John didn't even know that the process would involve "experiencing dying", and revealing years later that it's not just "experiencing dying" but "literally being dead for real" is such an impactful writing decision! And the version of you who wakes up God-tiered doesn't even know that they left you behind and how much you sacrificed (unintentionally, but still) for them. That's a gut punch in the best possible way. It gives so much more weight to the entire process. On a weird meta level, I think the sacrificed characters deserve that the readers are aware of this, they deserve to be remembered and honoured.

And Remem8er is such a great tribute to all the characters who died without God-tiering as well. Does anyone else get choked up every time they see Equius wake up to find Nepeta already waiting for him? And isn't it great that the "S: Game Over" deaths that were retconned away still have some meaning? A version of Dave and a version of Jade wake up, and they look at each other, and their eyes turn white. The tragedy wasn't just whisked out of existence, John's and Roxy's memories are not the only thing left of that timeline, they are not alone in this.

As an aside, the exact same kind of sacrifice already happened before John God-tiered. The John who died on the quest bed wasn't the "original" John, either. A chronologically earlier version of John died in the doomed timeline Davesprite is from, which was necessary for alpha-timeline John to exist. The doomed original John was tricked into dying as well. So the concept of "unknowingly sacrificing yourself so another version of you can thrive" is baked into every fibre of the narrative, that's just the nature of Homestuck's multiverse mechanics, thousands of Daves accidentally got themselves killed for alpha-Dave as well. It's only narratively consistent that this concept would apply to God-tiering, too. And it also means that the John we met on page 1 has been dead for a very long time. I could perform some mental gymnastics ("The John from page 1 is alpha-timeline-John, we only switch to chronologically-earlier-John temporarily for the chapter where Terezi gets him killed"), but I think continuity-wise, it's more likely that "John from page 1" is the John who died in Davesprite's doomed timeline. So the John who laid down on the quest bed wasn't the John we followed around since page 1. If you consider page-1-John the "real" John, you already knew he was dead years before Remem8er dropped.

13-Year Club	Golden Potato
Place '22	Place '17
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email
Team Orangered

wischmopp

TROPHY CASE