I actually really liked how they saved Jason for last when Michael was trying to reunite everyone, because like you initially thought it seems like he'd be the easiest to manipulate, but the reality is that Jason operates on a completely different wavelength than the others. Michael had to just be more straightforward and honest and they ended up having a more vulnerable/real conversation.
Interesting that you bring up the diet thing in relation to Tahani's adjustments. The actress, Jameela Jamil, actually had a severe eating disorder in her past (the anorexic side), and has since become a very outspoken advocate for healthier relationships with food.
i feel like now is an okay time to say this given the point of the show we have gotten to an all the points you keep bringing up in the episodes but i really view this whole show as an exploration of prison abolition and restorative justice. they get better when they find community and connection and are given space to learn and be the best versions of themselves without the constraints of capitalism and punitive punishments. when money and having a job and everything we need to SURVIVE are a given and we're just allowed to exist as a basic human right that's when the real work begins. the whole system but especially the bad place to me is the violence of the prison industrial system. tahani makes the case that even those with privilege are still caged in by the systems we have created. ie, the way that patriarchy and hetero-normative society does hurt men and straight people even if they aren't oppressed it's still harmful. chidi i think represents too much adherence on what has come before as a blueprint of how to go forward and how we won't get anywhere if we only look to the past to determine your future action when it comes to the "establishment" and colonial governments. eleanor and jason obviously represent the other side of the class system and especially for eleanor trauma responses that formed her world view and she never had the support or resources to be better. jason is not a bad person but our society is not built to accommodate someone like him who does not conform and doesn't fit in a traditional education system etc. michael is the whistleblower, the revolutionary who suddenly questions the system he's been completely devoted to, and to your point i think that anything he does to destroy or remake that system is justified, and everything about the bad place the bureaucracy, the judge to me all feels very intentional to reflect the completely arbitrary nature of the aforementioned colonial establishment we see in major western countries
very much appreciate the tw it turns out. just wanted to mention for anyone watching this who is fat (or plus sized, or big, or however you prefer to refer to yourself) being fat is not a moral failing. you have done nothing wrong, you are not wrong and if you can’t or hell, just don’t want to loose weight nobody is allowed to make you feel bad about that. it is your body and your decision. being fat is not inherently bad. if you decide you want to loose weight please please try and do it healthily (for both your body and your mind.) unfortunately, loosing weight is not going to fix the damage that society dehumanising us for our entire lives has done to your mental health. so be kind to yourself, if for nothing else then out of spite.
I think there's a large crossover between fatphobia and ableism. I'm autistic, and for many autistic people both food and exercise can be incredibly difficult to manage due to sensory issues. Mobility issues and stomach troubles add to that. In a world where people didn't criticise eachothers bodies and accepted that we all look different and bodies are just bodies, I would feel much less shame around my struggles with mobility and eating.
@@Scarygothgirl hey other autistic person! this is very similar to my experience, i think i would love lifting weights if sweat wasn’t included in the process lmao
I don't know if this is what you're trying to reference, but in the Buffy Killed By Death episode, Willow definitely had a "FROGS!!!!FROGS!!!!!" moment. I haven't watched BCS tho so idk if frogs have turned up there at all lol
The problem with ignoring intentions and just labeling actions universally good or bad, is thatyou can use thatbto make any bad action seem good, and vice versa. For example, donating to charity is good, most people would agree. But, now that we've established that donating to charity is good, it allows you to donate to a charity that supports homophobia, transphobia, or ablism, and still call it a "good" action.
I definitely agree with the principle of your argument, but not your example. Because most people aren’t saying “donating to charities is good,” they’re saying “donating to *good* charities is good.” The argument isn’t that doing bad versions of good-seeming actions is something you can defend as good. That’s not the argument. The argument is whether or not the motivations of actions matters in regards to their moral weight. Like, for instance, if a person donates a million dollars to cancer research because they’re trying to flaunt their wealth to people, does the selfish and dickish motivation make it an immoral action, or is the net-positive result what actually dictates the moral value? Does it matter why someone does a good thing if the result is still that good thing? And in the inverse, does doing a bad thing for a selfless and good reason have any effect on how you morally view that action? The argument isn’t about blanket statements of certain actions being good, but whether motivations can effect an action’s moral measurement.
Jif is the original pronunciation, hard-G is more common now. And because language isnt prescriptive, both are correct. In my experience, the hard G people almost always insist that soft G is *wrong*, but the soft-G people live and let live.
That's been my experience as well. The "hard G" folks will list all the reasons that the "soft G" is wrong (and there are solid counter-arguments for every one of them), while I have been of the opinion that in the end it doesn't matter. If I know what you meant then that's more than enough for me. I remember the joke "choosy developers choose GIF" which doesn't work as a joke anymore with the "hard G".
The arguments you come up with in this episode make me think of the Mr Beast conundrum. Mr Beast makes videos where he is doing big philanthropic works such as building 100 wells in Africa or curing the blindness of 1,000 people with cataract surgery. People argue that these videos are exploitative and are only done for exploitative reasons. That may be true. But I would say the net positive results outweigh any arguments about his motivation to do these works. There's still 1,000 people who can see who have not been able to see for a long time, and there are 100 villages who now have clean water who did not previously. Also, the fact that the money from the videos are what finances the philanthropic Enterprise. I doubt any of the people who now have fresh water would rather give it back than be seen on a CZcams video.
Well with Mr Beast a lot of his videos also have bad effects on society that people tend to ignore because of the positives. To the point where I wonder if they’re still a net gain. (Eg his videos on “helping” kids in Africa only make their lives worse by encouraging people to give money to largely missionary groups that create wells in Africa instead of giving more money to the people that actually live there, so they can create structures that don’t break down within a few months and get paid to get out of poverty themselves). There’s a massive issue where because people like Mr Beast are ultimately only doing these things to look good to others they never actually research the pros and cons of what they do. As such they can often worsen or barely help a situation. (Another example was Mr Beasts save the trees thing. A great concept, but he so poorly researched it that about 1/3 of the trees he planted will die unnecessarily and there will be no benefits to nature from his efforts. Obviously more trees is good, but he could have had a far greater impact on helping the earth if he’d just done more research, and actually listened to people that criticised him (instead he and his followers have a tendency to wave off any criticism if the person doing it doesn’t also have millions to give away)).
Hey Tyler, I just wanted to say that I’ve been loving your reactions to one of my all time favorite shows. I love the discussions you have with us while you’re watching, it really encapsulates what this show is all about - making us think about the big questions. Keep up the awesome work! ❤
I don't think Michael's actions in interfering are morally poor except if they damage the test to such a degree that the results are invalid. But the test isn't very good to begin with. I think Earth is the most appropriate place for this test but they have no idea what they're testing. They want to establish if the system in the afterlife is unfairly harsh on humans but one cannot test for that without making some testable assumptions about *why* the system is wrong. The idea this episode seems to me to be getting at is that morality is a skill we work at but one we work at necessarily with an intimate local community and if that community is bad, we will be bad too. So the afterlife is unfair because it is assuming a communal output is an individual, innate state. But the test isn't well set up for that until Michael interferes because the idea wasn't established as the point of the test early enough. The original test just seems to be 'Can humans be better on Earth when given a second chance?' but without the variations Michael introduces, that can't be answered. It is, of course, fine to change tack when research isn't working but for immortal and somewhat all-knowing beings, they have extremely poor research procedures :p.
The theme of swinging yo the opposite extreme before snapping back to old habits reminds me of the movie "Spirited". A comedic sequel to A Christmas Carol. They mention that Scrooged died 2 months after his reformation and raised the question as to whether he actually would have stayed good otherwise or reverted, because most people could be good for just a few months.
Buffy, I believe you are well past the episode (I think it was season 1) where Willow said, "Don't warn the tadpoles!" and admitted to Giles that she has frog fear. So yes, frogs sort of turned up in Buffy, at least in conversation!
I think it's important to acknowledge that the show takes an extremely positive view on morals and the ability to become a better person. None of our main characters are too terrible to begin with, and they all agree to try and improve themselves fairly quickly. Even the demon. But I think the show does try to remind us from time to time that they all improved under pretty ideal conditions, and a fairly isolated environment.
Not SO much. I upload to early access as soon as a video is ready and then release 2 a week on CZcams from there. I rotate shows so Buffy, TGP, and Better Call Saul will come one after the other and then continually repeat with Saul arranged on Sunday (which can mess with the order a bit), then with any variety content I do sometimes that breaks up that pattern as I'll fit it between episodes of shows into the 2 videos a week format. So kind of but not really. There's a set pattern if not a set day. Hope that helps 😄
@@TylerAlexander it does help, thank you!! And for the record, I love your reactions (have seen them many times over haha) but I don't comment as much because I'm too scared of accidentally spoiling something XD so I'm just lurking here. But you're very smart and well spoken! Keep it up!! ❤️
8:47 Yeah, my instinct has always been to call it gif with a hard g, and I still flinch a little when I hear it pronounced “jif,” but the person who created them said they intended for it to be pronounced with the j sound.
Ah nah, someone validly asked for a trigger warning about something I hadn't considered so I re-uploaded 😅 no need to lament copyright on this occasion 😂
As an Australian I can say Michael has the least offensive Australian accent here. Simone has the worst. Hers sounds more like an awkward mash between South Africa and New Zealand.
I wonder if you would be interested in trying some anime? Like Death Note or Attack on Titan, you may find some interesting things to analyze and discuss.
I actually really liked how they saved Jason for last when Michael was trying to reunite everyone, because like you initially thought it seems like he'd be the easiest to manipulate, but the reality is that Jason operates on a completely different wavelength than the others. Michael had to just be more straightforward and honest and they ended up having a more vulnerable/real conversation.
Interesting that you bring up the diet thing in relation to Tahani's adjustments. The actress, Jameela Jamil, actually had a severe eating disorder in her past (the anorexic side), and has since become a very outspoken advocate for healthier relationships with food.
Not for nothing, but this episode also has the best sign gag in the run of the show. The muffin stand is called "We Crumb from a Land Down Under".
Every time someone gets to this episode I feel obligated to say, Chidi's delivery of "I want to start crying" makes me cry laughing EVERY. TIME.
Frog guy's response to the joke reminds me of when my favourite podcasters say "Wow i didn't know that! And I still don't!" 😅
i feel like now is an okay time to say this given the point of the show we have gotten to an all the points you keep bringing up in the episodes but i really view this whole show as an exploration of prison abolition and restorative justice. they get better when they find community and connection and are given space to learn and be the best versions of themselves without the constraints of capitalism and punitive punishments. when money and having a job and everything we need to SURVIVE are a given and we're just allowed to exist as a basic human right that's when the real work begins.
the whole system but especially the bad place to me is the violence of the prison industrial system. tahani makes the case that even those with privilege are still caged in by the systems we have created. ie, the way that patriarchy and hetero-normative society does hurt men and straight people even if they aren't oppressed it's still harmful. chidi i think represents too much adherence on what has come before as a blueprint of how to go forward and how we won't get anywhere if we only look to the past to determine your future action when it comes to the "establishment" and colonial governments.
eleanor and jason obviously represent the other side of the class system and especially for eleanor trauma responses that formed her world view and she never had the support or resources to be better. jason is not a bad person but our society is not built to accommodate someone like him who does not conform and doesn't fit in a traditional education system etc. michael is the whistleblower, the revolutionary who suddenly questions the system he's been completely devoted to, and to your point i think that anything he does to destroy or remake that system is justified, and everything about the bad place the bureaucracy, the judge to me all feels very intentional to reflect the completely arbitrary nature of the aforementioned colonial establishment we see in major western countries
very much appreciate the tw it turns out. just wanted to mention for anyone watching this who is fat (or plus sized, or big, or however you prefer to refer to yourself) being fat is not a moral failing. you have done nothing wrong, you are not wrong and if you can’t or hell, just don’t want to loose weight nobody is allowed to make you feel bad about that. it is your body and your decision. being fat is not inherently bad. if you decide you want to loose weight please please try and do it healthily (for both your body and your mind.) unfortunately, loosing weight is not going to fix the damage that society dehumanising us for our entire lives has done to your mental health. so be kind to yourself, if for nothing else then out of spite.
I fully endorse and agree with this ❤️ I apologise to anyone who suffered due to watching the cut without the trigger warning.
I think there's a large crossover between fatphobia and ableism. I'm autistic, and for many autistic people both food and exercise can be incredibly difficult to manage due to sensory issues. Mobility issues and stomach troubles add to that. In a world where people didn't criticise eachothers bodies and accepted that we all look different and bodies are just bodies, I would feel much less shame around my struggles with mobility and eating.
@@Scarygothgirl hey other autistic person! this is very similar to my experience, i think i would love lifting weights if sweat wasn’t included in the process lmao
11:16 Vicky’s rolling over in her cocoon right now.
I don't know if this is what you're trying to reference, but in the Buffy Killed By Death episode, Willow definitely had a "FROGS!!!!FROGS!!!!!" moment. I haven't watched BCS tho so idk if frogs have turned up there at all lol
The problem with ignoring intentions and just labeling actions universally good or bad, is thatyou can use thatbto make any bad action seem good, and vice versa. For example, donating to charity is good, most people would agree. But, now that we've established that donating to charity is good, it allows you to donate to a charity that supports homophobia, transphobia, or ablism, and still call it a "good" action.
Because context matters, which the show alludes to/addresses multiple times.
I definitely agree with the principle of your argument, but not your example.
Because most people aren’t saying “donating to charities is good,” they’re saying “donating to *good* charities is good.” The argument isn’t that doing bad versions of good-seeming actions is something you can defend as good. That’s not the argument. The argument is whether or not the motivations of actions matters in regards to their moral weight.
Like, for instance, if a person donates a million dollars to cancer research because they’re trying to flaunt their wealth to people, does the selfish and dickish motivation make it an immoral action, or is the net-positive result what actually dictates the moral value? Does it matter why someone does a good thing if the result is still that good thing? And in the inverse, does doing a bad thing for a selfless and good reason have any effect on how you morally view that action?
The argument isn’t about blanket statements of certain actions being good, but whether motivations can effect an action’s moral measurement.
Did you watch the Sandman? Simone plays Dream's sister, Death.
I noticed just now that she drew the judge's burrito. lol
Jif is the original pronunciation, hard-G is more common now. And because language isnt prescriptive, both are correct. In my experience, the hard G people almost always insist that soft G is *wrong*, but the soft-G people live and let live.
People who are wrong about things like that tend to not argue about it; that's the only way they can continue being wrong.
@@jdb101585 Jason Mendoza, everybody!
That's been my experience as well. The "hard G" folks will list all the reasons that the "soft G" is wrong (and there are solid counter-arguments for every one of them), while I have been of the opinion that in the end it doesn't matter. If I know what you meant then that's more than enough for me. I remember the joke "choosy developers choose GIF" which doesn't work as a joke anymore with the "hard G".
Enjoyed your reaction/commentary. Looking forward to this 2nd half of TGP journey.
I love Simone too!
Ahh so many things to say but I'm just going to shut up, keep watching it's so worth it
The arguments you come up with in this episode make me think of the Mr Beast conundrum. Mr Beast makes videos where he is doing big philanthropic works such as building 100 wells in Africa or curing the blindness of 1,000 people with cataract surgery. People argue that these videos are exploitative and are only done for exploitative reasons. That may be true. But I would say the net positive results outweigh any arguments about his motivation to do these works. There's still 1,000 people who can see who have not been able to see for a long time, and there are 100 villages who now have clean water who did not previously. Also, the fact that the money from the videos are what finances the philanthropic Enterprise. I doubt any of the people who now have fresh water would rather give it back than be seen on a CZcams video.
Well with Mr Beast a lot of his videos also have bad effects on society that people tend to ignore because of the positives. To the point where I wonder if they’re still a net gain. (Eg his videos on “helping” kids in Africa only make their lives worse by encouraging people to give money to largely missionary groups that create wells in Africa instead of giving more money to the people that actually live there, so they can create structures that don’t break down within a few months and get paid to get out of poverty themselves). There’s a massive issue where because people like Mr Beast are ultimately only doing these things to look good to others they never actually research the pros and cons of what they do. As such they can often worsen or barely help a situation. (Another example was Mr Beasts save the trees thing. A great concept, but he so poorly researched it that about 1/3 of the trees he planted will die unnecessarily and there will be no benefits to nature from his efforts. Obviously more trees is good, but he could have had a far greater impact on helping the earth if he’d just done more research, and actually listened to people that criticised him (instead he and his followers have a tendency to wave off any criticism if the person doing it doesn’t also have millions to give away)).
Hey Tyler, I just wanted to say that I’ve been loving your reactions to one of my all time favorite shows. I love the discussions you have with us while you’re watching, it really encapsulates what this show is all about - making us think about the big questions. Keep up the awesome work! ❤
I don't think Michael's actions in interfering are morally poor except if they damage the test to such a degree that the results are invalid. But the test isn't very good to begin with. I think Earth is the most appropriate place for this test but they have no idea what they're testing. They want to establish if the system in the afterlife is unfairly harsh on humans but one cannot test for that without making some testable assumptions about *why* the system is wrong.
The idea this episode seems to me to be getting at is that morality is a skill we work at but one we work at necessarily with an intimate local community and if that community is bad, we will be bad too. So the afterlife is unfair because it is assuming a communal output is an individual, innate state. But the test isn't well set up for that until Michael interferes because the idea wasn't established as the point of the test early enough. The original test just seems to be 'Can humans be better on Earth when given a second chance?' but without the variations Michael introduces, that can't be answered.
It is, of course, fine to change tack when research isn't working but for immortal and somewhat all-knowing beings, they have extremely poor research procedures :p.
The theme of swinging yo the opposite extreme before snapping back to old habits reminds me of the movie "Spirited". A comedic sequel to A Christmas Carol. They mention that Scrooged died 2 months after his reformation and raised the question as to whether he actually would have stayed good otherwise or reverted, because most people could be good for just a few months.
Buffy, I believe you are well past the episode (I think it was season 1) where Willow said, "Don't warn the tadpoles!" and admitted to Giles that she has frog fear. So yes, frogs sort of turned up in Buffy, at least in conversation!
I think it's important to acknowledge that the show takes an extremely positive view on morals and the ability to become a better person. None of our main characters are too terrible to begin with, and they all agree to try and improve themselves fairly quickly. Even the demon. But I think the show does try to remind us from time to time that they all improved under pretty ideal conditions, and a fairly isolated environment.
It's nature and nurture. Nature is what you are but nurture molds what you can become
I'm about to watch it, but also I've been meaning to ask. Do you have a fixed schedule for your TGP reactions to go public?
Not SO much. I upload to early access as soon as a video is ready and then release 2 a week on CZcams from there. I rotate shows so Buffy, TGP, and Better Call Saul will come one after the other and then continually repeat with Saul arranged on Sunday (which can mess with the order a bit), then with any variety content I do sometimes that breaks up that pattern as I'll fit it between episodes of shows into the 2 videos a week format. So kind of but not really. There's a set pattern if not a set day. Hope that helps 😄
@@TylerAlexander it does help, thank you!! And for the record, I love your reactions (have seen them many times over haha) but I don't comment as much because I'm too scared of accidentally spoiling something XD so I'm just lurking here. But you're very smart and well spoken! Keep it up!! ❤️
They had to do a new timeline because they spent hundreds of years in "the good place" if I'm remembering things correctly. 😊
8:47 Yeah, my instinct has always been to call it gif with a hard g, and I still flinch a little when I hear it pronounced “jif,” but the person who created them said they intended for it to be pronounced with the j sound.
Yeah, well, the original creator is wrong. It's an acronym and G stands for "graphic", which is a hard G sound.
@@jdb101585 Oh then yeah, hard g is the logical answer.
@@jdb101585 How do you pronounce "laser", "scuba", or even within specific image formats themselves, "JPEG"?
@@JNDReacts Either way is fine. It's true that the soft G was the original pronunciation, I'm old enough to remember those days.
i could have sworn i saw this up before i went to bed, did yt nuke the og for some reason?
Ah nah, someone validly asked for a trigger warning about something I hadn't considered so I re-uploaded 😅 no need to lament copyright on this occasion 😂
@@TylerAlexander ahh, fair and appreciated. how unfortunate that youtube’s copyright system is so horrible that it was my immediate thought
As an Australian I can say Michael has the least offensive Australian accent here. Simone has the worst. Hers sounds more like an awkward mash between South Africa and New Zealand.
🐸🐸🐸🐸🐀🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸❤️
I wonder if you would be interested in trying some anime? Like Death Note or Attack on Titan, you may find some interesting things to analyze and discuss.