ALOT of mentally disabled people think that they are speaking clearly when they aren't actually. Just because what she said made sense backwards doesn't mean she wasn't mentally damaged.
edited 17th May '16 9:13:41 PM by honeyishrunkmyself
It's speculates a conclusion based off of reasoning based on information assumed rather than given. It's conjecture.
Even more telling, it's based off of the idea of how the characters would react if this were real life rather than a narrative, which also hurts how logical it can be: "I would go nuts if X happened to me" -> "Lapis went nuts because I would've gone nuts" is a noticeable logical leap.
edited 17th May '16 9:17:02 PM by KnownUnknown
Most narrative is based on real life. And there's nothing wrong with conjecture if it makes a lot of sense from evidence.
edited 17th May '16 9:19:28 PM by honeyishrunkmyself
That narrative is as a general form based on real life, and thus a given narrative must adhere to a given real life conclusion, is also a logical leap.
And there's no problem with it being conjecture and speculation, as long as it's acknowledged as being speculation.
edited 17th May '16 9:20:19 PM by KnownUnknown
this interview with Rebecca Sugar.
In which she states there's no "iconic villain" character, which rules out Jasper and even YD as villains. Antagonists? Yes. Evil? No. And that opens them ip to redemption.
![]()
![]()
Again, people have gone crazy in situations like that. And it could have. But saying it did for Lapis is speculation, because the plot gives us no reason to say it did.
As I said before, it's assuming that the situation must have made her go crazy, and then trying to use that assumption to prove that it made her go crazy. It's just going around in a circle.
edited 17th May '16 9:23:36 PM by KnownUnknown
Oh my god, please stop. This conversation has gone on long enough.
Here's the full quote from the interview:
"But we won't necessarily see that many iconic villains on Steven Universe, says Sugar — the Gems aren't dealing with a particular person, but something "bigger than that." There's not "really a singular enemy." Instead, the conflict will be within the group, and it'll be about Steven figuring out what's right."
Somebody else dissect that, I'm too tired for this.
edited 17th May '16 9:23:43 PM by AdricDePsycho
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?![]()
![]()
That was before any villains were even introduced into the show. The reason she said Steven's dealing with problems within the group, is because that's literally all he was dealing with at the time. They didn't even introduce villains into the show until 2 years later.
There's also no mention of "no evil characters" in that article.
edited 17th May '16 9:25:27 PM by xanderiskander
Hmm...
Well, that's definitely true. Even with YD in the mix, the biggest challenge to the Gems has always been how they deal with things among themselves. Every time the series sets something up as "us vs them," it throws a wrench into it.
edited 17th May '16 9:32:39 PM by KnownUnknown
![]()
The crewiverse had the enter story of season one planned out from the start, so no.
![]()
![]()
![]()
From an story telling prospective, it would be really fucking dumb if the crewiverse had an character do something evil with no good justification for why she did it. Amusing that the crewiverse are good story tellers, i am amusing they went by the logic that being stuck like in an And I Must Scream situation like that drives you insane.
edited 17th May '16 9:27:03 PM by honeyishrunkmyself
Lapis Lazuli got to communicate for the first time in Steven's hands.
Rules of the Internet 45. Rule 45 is a lie. Check out my art if you notice.I think she was vaguely referring to how the problems with Homeworld are Inherent in the System. You tell me, if all of the diamonds were magically erased from the face of Homeworld, would all the classism, imperialism, and anti-fusion bigotry go away?
The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.I can buy nobody being "evil" (at least, not evil like The Lich), at least so far.
They did a surprisingly good job of giving Peridot a colonialist mindset that didn't acknowledge the things she was doing as wrong or the people she was doing it to as meaningful, so she simply saw herself as a decent person just doing her job and the Gems as a bunch of nutjobs who wouldn't let her do it. Lapis was a Broken Bird lashing out a planet she despises and a group she thinks made her suffer for millenia, and was so desperate to get home that she would do anything.
I think Jasper seems more "evil" than either of them because of portrayal rather than actions - it's because she's the most two dimensional antagonist the series has had so far. In the two parter, there's little to her but being smug and abrasive and violent. But we also know that the writers have wanted to show extra layers to her, so that could very well not be the case - one day, it may be like if we judged Peridot solely by her first appearance.
YD is the first antagonist besides Jasper to really feel like a "villain," which may be why she's been so behind the scenes. And even she is motivated by spite, so while I don't expect her to get a sympathetic backstory she could very well get an understandable one.
edited 17th May '16 9:38:07 PM by KnownUnknown

What Lapis did wasn't okay, and I wouldn't go so far as to say she was "temporarily insane" or anything but it's very easy to understand her desperation. Most people would probably act rashly and lash out after such an experience. Not "temporary insanity" but "fit of passion," "emotional outburst." . She's a wildcard, a firecracker.
Loves feel-good animation a whole lot.