Stepos Venzny

Think about the end of the movie. Our protagonist is being crucified. A whole field of people up on crosses with him. And this happens on this scale regularly. There’s a tradition of sparing one and only one person out of these groups by request so as to pacify the citizens by giving them an illusion of power. And the citizens, rather than even trying to save one life, prioritize laughing over and over at a speech impediment.

But against all odds, our protagonist is chosen through that process to be spared. But he isn’t, because Rome cares so little about any of this that they make absolutely zero effort to verify who they’re sparing. Not that the guy they let down deserved to be crucified, either.

And a rebel group shows up to maybe save these people from, and I can’t stress this enough, being crucified. And instead they too die pointlessly. By their own hands. On purpose. And the movie ends on a jaunty musical number about how terrible everything is and frankly maybe it’s better to die than to be a part of this world.

When I look at the scene you’re talking about in the context of the rest of the movie, it looks less like “Rome is good actually” and more like “why are these the freedom fighters we have?” Whether being conquered by the empire also comes with perks isn’t the point and it’s meant to be frustrating that they chose this ineffectual argument.

I’m angry enough that people made me get a smart phone, I’m not gonna actually use it like one. All off.

Fresh air has kicked my ass harder than any virus ever has. Allergies have straight up bruised my ribs from the force of my own coughing.

Make sure fresh air agrees with you before you make any rash decisions about how much to get.

I am colorblind, so no.

Magenta

Cyan

Yellow

Cyan

Red and blue are tied in this image but in darker shades the answer is always red.

An adult dressing like an adult feels completely appropriate to me.

It’s not unusual to say something less controversial than what you wish you could say, so it tracks that someone who wants to say “I’m a boy” would say “I’m a girl who isn’t girly” in a time where the truth is presented as less of an option than it is today. It’s not that trans guys and tomboys are the same thing, it’s that the same label can be either true or a euphemism when applied to different people.

What gets me about the original post is it looks like it’s saying I as an unambiguously masculine man could wear a dress and be called ma’am by a stranger and when I respond “I get why you’d say that but I’m actually a man wearing a dress” then there’s an expectation the stranger might respond “don’t be ridiculous, that’s not a real thing. You’re obviously a trans woman.” I just don’t see this kind of scenario playing out.

It is possible to crossdress/be gender non-conforming without being trans

I’ve never heard anyone suggest otherwise. Who are you having this argument with?

Is this a show about medieval fantasy time travel and I’m just not getting it?

The three main perspectives it follows take place at different points in and over different amounts of time but each one is internally completely linear and then they all end the season at the same point as each other. Basically, the less you’re making an effort to follow the plot the easier it is to follow because keeping track of the interconnectedness distracts you from the straightforward character stories.

This isn’t me trying to convince you to go back, to be clear, I’m just hoping this will give you some closure.

There are a bunch of adorable space critters that you’ll think are that when you’re watching the movie, and they certainly were marketed and merchandised like crazy, but they’re actually there due to the unwanted presence of adorable Earth critters during filming. They couldn’t shoot the scenes without including these birds that lived where they were shooting so the solution they came up with was CGI-ing weird faces on them and including some close-ups to make them look deliberate.

I’m comfortably above average but comfortably below genius, not entirely sure whether that fits your personal definition of high so it felt worth clarifying.

In school, it meant that learning was something I could do with no actual effort. Without studying and without doing homework aside from what I did at my desk to pass the time before class started, I had as strong a grasp on the subject as the students who did and comfortable grades. Then when I started college, that passivity suddenly didn’t work anymore and I had no idea how to cope with it. I never actually learned how to learn, formally speaking.

Emotionally speaking, that whole thing was awful. It sucked when it was easy because I was so bored, it sucked when it was hard because I was so frustrated. I actually failed out of high school due to low attendance at the very end, then tested into the local college without a diploma because I still knew the material even with the problematic attendance, then got suspended from college due to now-for-the-opposite-reason low attendance and never went back. There was also unrelated shit going on, to be clear, but this that I’m describing was not a small part of my overall psychological state.

As an adult, it doesn’t mean much of anything. While it’s a bit easier for me to learn things than it is for the average person, the ease with which I learn things doesn’t matter anymore because it’s largely happening without other people’s direct involvement or on any kind of schedule. On the occasion there needs to be an actual work training lesson I attend, it’s something that only happens for a day and enduring a single day of tedious education is so very achievable compared to it being my entire life.

The biggest impact these days is that it makes me hate Aaron Sorkin.