#hyper incompetence to hyper competence

[jonsnowunemploymentera]

Melisandre and Howland Reed two sides of one discount Merlin coin. One side (Mel) is quite OP in terms of magical ability, is driven by a very desperate need to find and guide King Arthur in these perilous and dark times, but is rather incompetent at her job because she identifies the wrong dude as the king and when she meets the real one, is in too deep to change course. The other side (Howland) isn’t all that powerful as far as we know, but he actually knows who the king is and he actually knows where the king is and he could actually get to him quite easily….except he doesn’t. He instead chooses to help some other kid live his best surrogate King Arthur life while real King Arthur flounders and fucking dies. Really, both of them should be considered fail witch of all time since they do absolutely nothing to help poor Arthur Jon on his hero’s quest. And that’s why Bloodraven is the best because he knows who the king is, doesn’t give too much of a fuck just yet because he’s too busy helping his little brother, and yet he still finds time to terrorize and give cryptic but helpful advise while in the form of Arthur’s pet bird. Truly the wizard of all ages.

[zeravmeta]

detective has to be the job that has the greatest discrepancy of coolness between real life and media depictions like what do you mean they're a type of cop literally every visual novel I've read tells me that it's a superpower

[dalishthunder]

I wish people who write self inserts would stop writing them as incompetent... Bls...

[katiefratie]

#I think it’s this internal want from usha to be useful in any context#maybe it’s a fear of being left behind by the current world as an older person#and by becoming g13 she is not only useful but she is a necessity to the world of NSBU#also the technology is not as advanced in NSBU as they are in the real world so it’s almost more digestible to someone w no digital literacy#in this world she’s not being left behind she’s actually pushing technology forward with the lunar powered car#maybe i’m just projecting lmao#ALSO IM COMING BACK BECAUSE I HAVE MORE#I feel like hackers in action movies are always underestimated despite having a skill set no one else in the movie has#and being an older woman in a society that doesn’t take care of or even acknowledge older women#her skills are entirely underestimated by everyone#this woman is out here drawing spreadsheets by HAND#that so fucking hard#she and g13 are both people who are traditionally looked down upon but have value#in the world of NSBU g13’s skills are more easily proved to be valuable#so in this world usha can prove her value in a tangible way

via ( https://sensualandspicyhermit.tumblr.com/ )

Okay I understand everyone else. But what exactly did Usha and G13 have in common that the VHS connected them???

[socialistexan]

After watching nearly the entirety of Doctor Who in the past two and a half months, I've noticed some archetypes for companions:

Hyper-competent, and extremely intelligent young woman who the Doctor treats as a daughter

Disaster bisexual who the Doctor treats as a daughter

Companion romantic interest who the Doctor treats like crap, including calling them the wrong name and talking down to them

Someone the Doctor considers "primitive" and incompetent, though they are far more competent than they appear despite being prone to violence

Fag Hag

[adachimoe]

Atlus, please tell me the lore behind Adachi's mp3 player

Even just looking at Adachi, he doesn't exactly have the image of someone who gives a shit lol.

And this is intentional. Soejima talks about this aspect of Adachi's design in the P4 Design Works. Adachi is said to be an elite officer, one of the best of the best, and Soejima thought an elite might be smart, but lacking in other areas. For this reason, Soejima designed him with that crooked tie and messy bedhead.

That's certainly a common thing in fiction - someone who's good at one thing, but a complete space case in something unrelated. Though he comes off as incompetent in-game, to the extent that him showing competency in December surprises Dojima lol. And even when you get into the real dumb plot stuff that I write 10k words about, it took him like 4 months to figure out that "people can come out of the TV". Ma-Maybe his record was better at his old station.

Even in what Atlus has mentioned about the setting for P4 that doesn't get discussed in-game, Adachi's red tie is something Dojima gave him, and only because Dojima got tired of seeing him wear the old shabby tie he wore before and gave him one of his spare neckties.

If Dojima had never just given him a different tie to wear, I imagine Adachi would still be wearing his old shitty tie until it completely fell apart... Is Adachi pathetic enough to try and like... tape a tie together? Probably.

Him not caring too much about appearance and being a messy guy seems to extend to other aspects of his life. Even in his character profiles for P4 and P4AU, both say he's terrible at cleaning his room and the P4 one also says he sucks at filing paperwork lol.

This continues in his P4AU narration. The investigating detective pulls out 3 pieces of "evidence": A TV which ends up being used to get Adachi into the plot, a model gun which fits with his hobby being doing gun maintenance at home, and some kind of random off brand iPod-esque thing.

The actual music player itself is unimportant. Instead, it's used for a little characterization moment where Adachi confirms that it is indeed something that's his (he even remembers how he got it!), but he didn't particularly care about it and just left it wherever.

All things considered, I get the mental image of Adachi being the kind of guy who uses that meme 13-in-1 ~for men~ product, and his room is just a mountain of cup noodles and piles of random bullshit. Maybe there are more iPods and model guns to be unearthed from underneath his other stuff.

All of this is only talking about the more physical and material aspects of him, but I think you can extend this to who he is as a person and his mentality as well. Granted, some guys in real life end up being useless slobs as adults because they're used to their mom/sister/family/etc babying them, but uhhhhhhh from what Adachi says about his past, we can instantly rule that out with him.

(Edit: As a comment pointed out, upon re-reading this this does sound weird. When I wrote this, I was thinking more about doormat pushover moms. I don't see Adachi's mom doing domestic stuff as her babying him as a child because it strikes me as the Default Gender Role thing where the dad makes the money but the mom takes care of the household. And from how Adachi talks about it, you get the impression she wasn't hyper attentive towards him, as if she did like the bare minimum lol. Adachi's attitude towards the whole thing also strikes me as different than the dudes who grow up as spoiled little kings in their households.)

It seems pretty sensible to correlate his physical state and the way he uses it to express a lack of care for himself to something going on in his brain. Adult burnout, depression, lack of self-esteem & self-worth, all of the above.

I like the random anecdote about the music player, especially since it's him. A bingo game at a New Year's party............... A bingo game at a New Year's party???????????? Adachi, you went to a New Year's party? Hoooly shit dude I don't even do that.

Since he was in jail during New Years 2012 and only arrived in Inaba during spring 2011, for him to have won it during New Year's implies this is from before the events of Persona 4. E.g. it's not something Dojima dragged him to. I assume it was some work-related New Year's party when he was still stationed in Iwatodai. Keeping up appearances for the higher-ups? Did he just want free food? A bit lonely and wanted company and absolutely not gonna say that outloud? (All of the above?)

In both his P4 dialogue and his P4AU inner thoughts, he tends to look down on others. He's annoyed by the old woman at Junes (...though his voiced line on rank 6 expresses he liked her doting on him), he calls the protagonist a dumbass (...but only after admitting he misses him, Dojima, and Nanako), he doesn't think he'll ever get married (even tho I'm available).

And yet, as little blurbs like this go to show, we know he still participates. ♪(´▽｀)

Did he even use the iPod thing before chucking it? What did he put on it? Idols or something? Answer me, Atlus.

[dontfuckingestablishcanonicalbac]

early characterisation of rick is so funny with how incompetent and scrappy he is like obviously it's just that the writers kept ramping up the stakes to the point where we are now with rick being unbeatable, hyper-competent and near-omnipotent in any situation but honestly his s1 characterisation doesn't even feel out of place in the context of his crybaby backstory like if u just imagine the extreme emotional crisis he must be going through after pitching up to the home of his alternate-universe grown-up not-dead daughter to keep on the good side of the alternate versions of himself whom he's been slaughtering for decades in an effort to kill his nemesis and he uses this too as a last-ditch effort find said nemesis (which he FAILS, AGAIN) and has to witness firsthand how profoundly unfulfilled, unhappy and unwilling to change those two things his daughter would have been had she survived to adulthood. and also imagine the sheer number of drugs he must be on to cope with all of that. his s1 incompetence is 100% in-character.

[melrosing]

about what you wrote. i hate tywin/littlefinger/joffrey. tywin is one of my least favorite characters because not only he is evil but also he is dishonest. but even tywin has goodness in him. he seems to be really in love with his wife. cersei has nothing good in her for me. there are evil and incompetent male characters george wrote, but there are also evil and competent male characters he wrote. the thing is cersei is the only female villain in the series (i can think of). and george wrote her as both sociopathic and incompetent. and that's my issue. it seems like in george's mind evil woman are inherently evil and can't be admirable and smart. maybe my assumptions are wrong.

if you think Tywin Lannister has more goodness in him than Cersei i don't even know what to tell you lmao. for one thing, love is not redemptive, and it does not equate to goodness. for another, we have no real idea what Tywin's relationship w Joanna was really like, but in any case, why would we give it more weight than Cersei's love for Joffrey?? you can twist yourself into a pretzel arguing one was more pure or honest than the other but you wouldn't have any real evidence with which to make your case.

and yes, Cersei is the major female villain in the series, but I don't agree that she's the only one. Melisandre surely qualifies in some sense, and she's been given a POV as of the last book. she's done horrible shit but you come to understand her reasoning, and she's written empathetically. there's also the Green Grace, who is certainly smart and I'm pretty sure about to be unmasked as ADWD's true villain. and there's Asha, who not many people would consider a villain, but she doesn't exactly begin ACOK on the side of the Starks. and that still leaves out interesting characters like Lysa and Barbrey, whether they meet your standards or no.

there are certainly more male villains - not exactly surprising given this is set in a hyper-patriarchal society and they're going to be the ones with more power to act as such. but to say there no other female villains, or that they're all incompetent, is not true to the books.

and on this:

it seems like in george's mind evil woman are inherently evil and can't be admirable and smart.

this argument just feels all over the place to me lol. based on Cersei alone, who is one (1) of our female villains, you think that GRRM is only capable of writing inherently evil women - even though it's plain from Cersei's story that she's very much a case of combined nature and nurture. and then how many of the male villains are admirable like?? for all that Theon is sympathetic, is he admirable? is Littlefinger? are Roose/Tywin/Ramsay etc etc? I find it so frustrating that female characters are expected to be everything at once where male characters can be literally whatever and ppl will call them complex. who cares if Cersei is 'admirable' or not lol she's a villain why is that any of your priorities

[broodingheroine]

I think joshua gillepsie and the guy from tmagp5 should kiss

hyper competence meets incompetence

[critique-masochist]

My wife was reading my work and she told me to my face that my characters have “big loser energy” and after I incorrectly presumed she was flirting, she went ahead and edited my work and added a whole bunch to demonstrate her point and now I can't unsee it.

She pointed out that hyper competence is the norm in books, and that it's “bad optics” to make a supposedly likeable main character belittle their love interest + it will play into a reader's assumptions and confirm incompetence. I think my reason for doing this is two-fold. First, I'm mentally disabled and thus used to doing stupid things and being called out for it, so I unintentionally have written that experience into my story. Second, I wanted William to be kind of dumb but I like the way my wife wrote them WAY better. (personal opinion obviously)

I think she tried to go the “bleeding heart” route, painting William as stupid not because it is a fact but because they are too invested in trying to help others. She didn't fall into tropes of making them feel feminine and motherly, instead portraying them as stubborn and, well, kind of dumb.

It's so strange. Her changes make the chemistry they are going to have later on so much more convincing because they see each other as equals, more or less.

It's kind of brilliant, in my opinion. I'll have to dwell on this a bit because I KNOW I've been writing characters like this for a while.

[samueldays]

Another one for the cauldron, @giantpetrel:

Like several previous journalists, this muddies the waters by saying

Gay experienced more scrutiny after plagiarism allegations.

when it should say that she committed plagiarism. Repeatedly. Blatantly. Incompetently. I'm a little curious how many of these journalists are in on the lie about "allegations", and how many genuinely believe this because all their own echo chamber sources are repeating the same line. Either way, journalism delenda est.

Even setting the plagiarism aside for a moment, there still was no excellence on display here. Gay did not have novel fields of study, nor original ideas, nor particularly competent execution of the boring subjects.

See for example Gay's paper: The Effect of Black Congressional Representation on Political Participation. It could be an example of the replication crisis and p-hacking: "look I got p<0.001 results" on results that flipped signs from case to case, probably because she was running multivariate models and estimates-built-on-estimates on top of a sample size of ten.

This person is not very smart. This person has been handed the tools of smarter people and used them to generate a flurry of numbers.

Gay’s experience is not unlike that of other prominent Black women leaders; there’s a disturbing trend where Black women are promoted and elevated into leadership positions and despite how qualified they are, they experience hyper-scrutiny once they take on the position.

That is a reality inversion. There's a disturbing trend where black women are promoted and elevated into leadership positions despite how unqualified they are and a lack of scrutiny. When a little bit of scrutiny then happens to Captain Plagiarism, who plagiarised so much she was plagiarising several times per paper, the journo whines about "hyper-scrutiny".

The inspection and interrogation that leaders face is even more severe for Black women leaders, especially those who are the “firsts.” This was evidenced during the confirmation hearings of the first Black female U.S. Supreme Court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

That's an interesting choice of example, because Jackson is such an overpromoted, underqualified, affirmative action hire, on the bloody Supreme Court, she cannot tell de facto from de jure.

The journalist goes on like this with Hannah-Jones of the 1619 Propaganda before closing with a delusional complaint about all the black excellence supposedly being suppressed.

No amount of wealth, achievements, accolades, or notoriety will offer safety and protection in an anti-black world.

Apart from the fact that your examples are bad, journo scum, there's the fact that your examples are in fact very safe and protected and well off and hyper-privileged by a pro-black world despite their misdeeds.

Gay is getting a million bucks a year and staying at Harvard in a different position, Jackson is still on the Supreme Court, Hannah-Jones got tenure. The journalist acts offended that they got pushback and that they aren't even better off.

Journalism delenda est.

[art-tea-chill]

WARNING, THIS HAS MASSIVE SPOILERS FOR BROTHERSHIP

Okay so I recently made an analysis for the Extension Corps + Zokket and I’d thought I share it here…

.

.

So remember the logs back on the Gulchrock Great Lighthouse Island? Where Zokket had this to say about the Corps?

Well, an analysis I have about this is that I think its less of “The Extension Corps being genuinely incompetent” and more of a “Zokket simply thinks their incompetent”

Like, think about it. For all the silliness the Extension Corps has, they are shown to be competent. They recognized the bond between Mario and Luigi + they were originally going to use the plan they used on Bowser Jr on Luigi, which likely would’ve been successful if Luigi wasn’t intentionally getting kidnapped by them.

They also noticed the bond between Bowser and Bowser Jr, which both only made the armies stop fighting since they had Junior as a credible hostage, but it also allowed Zokket to use the Glohmatic Quad Ray on Bowser since he trailed their fortress just to get Junior back.

So in short, despite their silliness, they do have a lick of competency.

However, considering how machine like Zokket’s personality is and how the Extension Corps’s personalities are ironically the opposite of Zokket’s. The point I’m making is that:

What if Zokket thinks the Extension Corps are Incompetent because they don’t have his hyper competentancy?

Think about it, Zokket has a very mechanical but hyper competent way of pulling off his plans, while the Extension Corps sometimes fall behind because their full of personality and ironically don’t have the mechanical personality Zokket has.

The Corps, also unlike Zokket, have a bond with each other. So Zokket could also think that their bond is slowing them down and how it’s making the Corps weaker considering how he lives by the “Loneliness is Sublime” mantra he has.

Just some rambles I had

[autisticjoshrusso]

the way that the first minute of the episode already had me thinking so many thoughts, particularly in the way the very first exchange between maddie and josh is worded. i'll put the exact quotes here so you don't have to go back and check them to know what i mean.

Josh: Maddie, why don't I take this one?

Maddie: Why would I have you do that?

and there is SUCH a tension in the way she says this, and honestly i get why. there IS a sort of presumptuousness in the way he hears what the call is about and immediately wants to jump in rather than let her handle it. it's coming from a place of concern and wanting to protect her from doing something that could potentially worsen her mental health, but for someone like maddie who is used to having to be hyper-competent and put her feelings aside to help others, she's of course going to interpret this as a lack of faith in her ability to do her job.

the thing that kills me here is that there was no other way for him to phrase it that would have had a better result. if had tried to be less presumptuous and went the route of asking if she needed help rather than jumping in to offer it (ie: do you need/want me to take this one?), it would require her to actually say yes, i need help, rather than being able to simply not protest the help that is already incoming. she would have to consider whether or not she is struggling enough to impose on him, how it could be perceived by others as a failure or incompetency, etc. rather than just assessing her own needs and reacting accordingly.

idk how much sense this makes but it's definitely got me thinking a lot about just the concept of offering help vs asking if someone needs help in general, and how both have their pros and cons and will be reacted to differently by different people.

[tri-punisher]

hey your super skilled and hyper competent male character was infantilised by the fanbase because he cries a lot. yeah he was given the nickname "crybaby" by his childhood friend and the fanbase decided that that was the one trait they were going to superimpose and exaggerate until he became near unrecognisable from his source. yeah, he was an expert assassin that disavowed his humanity to pledge himself to a death cult of alien worshippers who was introduced as a murderous, unrelenting powerhouse, but because he cries a lot people think he's stupid and incompetent. yeah they think he's just a sad victim when the agency involved in his story is crucial to his heel face. yeah they're making himbo jokes and shit about him. yeah, it's sad.

[mymanyfandomramblings]

I was just thinking about Steven Universe, and I was joking about how in Beach City the dads are all mostly used for comedy (except for Greg bc he's a major character, but even he's occasionally used for jokes), meanwhile the mothers could kill a man, when I realised about how well Steven Universe, even with the background characters, deconstruct the 'bumbling dad/hypercompetent mother' tropes.

It's pretty common in TV shows to have absolutely terrible dad characters, who can range from mildly incompetent to straight-up abusive, and it's extremely unusual to see a show where the father is the more competent parent than the mother. Steven Universe, however, shakes up the normal dynamic. At first Greg is everything you'd expect from your bumbling sitcom dad: he looks like a bit of a slob, he's a hoarder, he's far less attractive than Rose, the Gems don't think very highly of him, and he works a rather unimpressive career, having failed to achieve his dreams. But Greg goes on to prove himself not only as a competent parent to Steven, but probably the most competent of any of Steven's parental figures (and we all know if Rose had been able to live, she would hardly have been a wonderful parent either). This is not, however, to say that Greg is perfect--far from it, he has plenty of faults, but no more so than any other character. The point is: Greg may have the outward trappings of a bumbling dad, but subverts the trope instead, by being a responsible, caring and genuinely good parent.

The show also deconstructs the 'bumbling dad's' sister trope--the badass mama bear who is incredibly competent at running their family, and is involved with their children's lives. The mothers we see around Beach City--Barb Miller, Priyanka Maheswaran and Vidalia (as well as the Crystal Gems, who are Steven's maternal figures) all pretty much fit this trope, although certain of them fulfil certain parts of the description better than others. However, the show does display that none of them are perfect parents. Barb would clearly die and/or kill for Sadie and would love to be a part of her daughter's life, but there's multiple episodes dedicated to showing how stifled Sadie feels by her mother's enthusiasm and desire to be involved in her life. Dr. Maheswaran is incredibly competent but is also hyper-controlling of Connie, leading to a breakdown in their relationship. Vidalia is clearly a cool mum who supports all her children's ambitions--which would be great, if one of her children wasn't Onion, who would probably benefit more from discipline, rather than just affirmation of his behaviour--which ranges from minor crime to full-scale mayhem. And this isn't even starting on discussing the Gems and their failures when it comes to their parenting.

I just think it's really intriguing how Steven Universe plays with and subverts the classic tropes when it comes to parents and the roles and expectations of each parent. It's another example of why the show is so good at deconstructing classic character archetypes and tropes.

[thecoolerliauditore]

lrb insane post incoming.

Alot of the "jimmy is genuinely incompetent and the taking away of his agency is necessary to keep him safe" reminds me of the discussion surrounding this obscure-ish character from the second season of the telltale walking dead games. This is Sarah. Say hi Sarah.

Sarah is a 15 year old girl with a very protective father. She acts as a direct point of comparison for the main character Clementine in the season -- them both being young girls in the apocalypse, but where Clem has been taught how to survive, Sarah is left helpless due to her father's insistence any exposure to the horrors of the apocalypse would leave Sara "unable to function".

It becomes clear throughout your interactions with Sarah that she too is frustrated with her lack of survival skills, and at one point asks Clem to teach her how to shoot a gun (something her father forbade her from). She's naive, but intelligent enough to know that the other survivors see her as a liability, and wants to pull her weight, but she's never given the chance to prove her own worth because the other survivors have already decided for her that she's incapable.

A lot of players, including myself, became incredibly endeared to Sarah. I personally really wanted to build her and Clem's friendship, especially since a lot of the other characters that season consisted of grown ass adults who, in my eyes, put a ridiculous amount of responsibility on the 12 year old. The multiple opportunities throughout the season to encourage Sarah's independence fed this desire very well.

Another character, Jane, gets introduced mid-season who absolutely Hates Sarah and continuously instructs Clem to give up on trying to keep Sarah alive. It's revealed later that Clem and Sarah's dynamic reminded Jane of herself and her dead sister's. Jane, who is hyper-competent, tells Clem she loved her sister dearly and misses her but her sister wasn't cut out for the apocalypse and she eventually left her to die, unable to bear the burden of taking care of her anymore.

At the time, this revelation of Jane's backstory only cemented to me that everyone was wrong about Sarah and their mindset towards survival as a whole. Jane is traumatized, clearly deeply affected by her sister's death and is now projecting those feelings on to a fucking 12 year old kid and her slightly older friend. That and the actual circumstances of Jane's sister's death being left unclear (FYI I'm not a "Jane killed her sister" believer but I do think it's interesting she frames the story as if her sister's death was her direct responsibility) made me want to see Sarah succeed all the more. To prove Jane wrong, to prove her father wrong, to prove all the other survivors wrong.

But this is TT Walking Dead so Sarah dies regardless of your actions. One death gives you the opportunity to leave her behind like Jane urged you to or slap her to motivate her, which I actually really love. The other, unavoidable death has Sarah just straight up fall into a horde of zombies and die and there's nothing you can do about it. Fuck all that character development and time you spent on her, she's gone.

And this is more of a symptom of TT Walking Dead's bad writing as a whole especially in season 2 and not necessarily unique to Sarah -- but what is unique to Sarah is the amount of people who took her inevitable death as proving Jane and her father Right.

Which is ridiculous to me -- half the cast of season 2 dies without fanfare. Luke, who serves as one of the leaders of the group, can die via just falling into a lake. Sarah's father dies Before she does regardless of your choices.

It's a great example of confirmation bias. A literal rooftop collapsing and sending Sarah falling into a horde of zombies is seen as a consequence of her lack of ability, but when the "competent" survivors die off it's because the apocalypse is "like that" and deaths are "random".

By now this would seem like fandom being fandom especially when due to the genre so many in the audience subscribe to that doomsday prepper, might is right, hyper-competent mindset. (<-- I have more thoughts regarding this and how this also impacts a lot of people's views on Jane, especially when it comes to applauding her for wanting Sarah to die but admonishing her for her "stupidity" when she gets pregnant. But misogyny is another discussion entirely)

But then, in an interview, it's revealed that this was very much how Sarah was Supposed to be taken.

^ full interview here.

Note that the yellow text is the guy from IGN, but I find these lines specifically very telling and the fact that the devs don't challenge these statements even more so.

By now I think I've made a lot of you forget this post started as being about Jimmy Solidarity, so I'll take this opportunity to point out what might be obvious -- the parallels in attitudes here, not only from a fandom perspective but also from a character (and creator!) perspective. Both examples even have people often using the setting as an excuse for Sarah and Jimmy's treatment, stating that there is no patience to be had for them in an apocalypse in Sarah's case or a death game in Jimmy's case.

You could make the argument here about age being a factor but to that I'd like to point out Sarah's comparison to Clem is often used against her -- Clem is 12, younger than Sarah and more competent. Why can't she be more like Clem? Directly using age to shame Sarah, Despite her being only 15. Using Jimmy's age instead would simply be moving the scale, the mindset of "you are older, you should know better" stays the same.

I will also use this as an opportunity to point out another thing that is probably already in the back of your minds -- Sarah being neurodivergent.

Many people -- and I'm talking regular everyday people, not people who usually dabble in autism headcanons -- read Sarah's character as being autistic or otherwise neurodivergent (the other popular ones I've seen are PTSD and extreme anxiety). Here's a reddit thread from five years ago as an example (note how OP and everyone else speaks: "I don't want to offend anyone, but...", these are not people who are typically actively looking for these themes, which I think speaks to how blatant it is)

Disregarding the discourse over whether Sarah acts as Good representation (<-- I don't think she does but I also don't think anything in season 2 is very good at all), her exhibiting traits that the general public widely view as akin to being neurodivergent and those words spoken by the IGN interviewer about her not being "normal" and sentiments like his paints a very grim picture of where people's dislike of Sarah and justifying of her treatment actually originates from.

And I just think it's. Interesting in a fandom as autistic as it is how many times I've seen people echo that sentiment. Note that I don't think Jimmy is autistic-coded the way Sarah is but I do think, for reasons I have previously pointed out, that they are comparable. Of course Scott had to keep Jimmy on a leash, he would've gotten himself killed otherwise or "ceased to function", as Sarah's father puts it.

And while I do think it is true enough to say that neither Sarah or Jimmy were truly given a chance to prove themselves, their incompetency being seen as a personal failing is also something I urge people to question more. Incompetency and being a liability to your peers is in no way a Good thing, I want to clarify, but neither Jimmy or Sarah wanted to be someone else's responsibility in the first place.

A slight aside to the main point of this, but I do must also mention: please check if you're drinking the doomsday prepper, power fantasy kool aid. Many of you have a very propaganda-y view of survival.

I'm not autistic as far as any medical certificates are concerned, however I do write very long essays on Minecraft Youtubers so I feel okay enough saying I probably have a little bit of neurodivergence in me. I have, for my entire life, been confused about the "hesitant to shoot a loved one turned zombie" trope because I think I just lack that specific brand of empathy. It's a zombie dude idgaf if it looks like my mum I'm shooting?? Can we do a show of hands on whether this non-neurotypical trait is Good or Bad in the context of a zombie apocalypse. The footnote is, regardless, "it is not a strength or weakness because zombies aren't real,".

Anyway yeah I don't like Telltale Walking Dead Season 2