Honestly I find it disturbing that I’m being forced into voting for the first repeat candidate by virtue of him being the closest thing to a sane candidate.
Seriously. A repeat. Already. Not ya know- the rubbery everyone was asking for…
You’re being most unfair. Her Highness is many things, but no one would call her insane. And it is literally impossible for someone as exceptional as Mr. Slowcake to have any mental maladies at all.
You’re being most unfair. Her Highness is many things, but no one would call her insane. And it is literally impossible for someone as exceptional as Mr. Slowcake to have any mental maladies at all.[/quote]
I believe sanity is being used here as a determinate for sensibility and rational, Auclair. As in, voting for the Contrarian is the only sane option. Considering he’s the candidate with the least amount of blood on his hands (and yes, Mr Slowcake cannot do such acts in a literal sense, but considering he serves to embody a group, I hold their responsibility in his place) and he holds the position with the most legality (puppets and monarchy serving democratic office is legally tenuous at best), it makes sense why the Contrarian would be seen as the safer option. A vote for the Contrarian is a vote for common human decency!
edited by Sir Joseph Marlen on 6/23/2018
[quote=Sir Joseph Marlen]A vote for the Contrarian is a vote for common human decency!
edited by Sir Joseph Marlen on 6/23/2018[/quote]
Is human decency so common?
My vote goes to the Contrarian by virtue of being the only genuine candidate. Slowcake is an obvious power play by the Devils and likely designed to, ah, "abstract" as many people as possible, while the Princess saw Feducci’s success and decided she would outdo his narcissism and turn London into a monument to her excesses. The Contrarian thinks he can do good, and he understands subtlety. I vote for him, not because he is human, but because he thinks of them and intends to do well by them.
And our Constabulary needs all the help it can get.
[quote=Cooper][quote=Sir Joseph Marlen]A vote for the Contrarian is a vote for common human decency!
edited by Sir Joseph Marlen on 6/23/2018[/quote]
Is human decency so common?
I vote for him, not because he is human, but because he thinks of them and intends to do well by them.[/quote]
I believe we have a misunderstanding between us. I meant human decency in terms of humane treatment, as in, fair and kind behavior. Though, considering the other candidates’ less than human nature, I can see how this could be interpreted as a blow to the non-human folk of the Neath. Rest assured, if I am to call any person a monster, it is not for the make of their origins, but the cruelty in their hearts. I back the Contrarian not for his species, but his values.
Oh. Carry on then.
Speaking for myself, I think it’s a good idea only to use "sanity" and related terms when referring to actual mental health or illness, rather than poor judgement, disorganisation, ignorance, or (especially) immorality or cruelty. Basically, sanity is a medical issue, not a moral one, and the two shouldn’t be conflated.
Maybe I’m just weird but I’m glad we don’t have a rubbery candidate.
To me, Rubberies are kind of like a box of kittens. They’re cute and a little sad, but I’ve yet to meet one (except for maybe the Nacreous Outcast) where I think "this is a distinct character" and not "here’s another interchangeable rubbery." I’d much rather have a returning mayoral hopeful than one of a cohort of largely indistinguishable Octodads.
edited by Hark DeGaul on 6/23/2018
I’ve yet to look too deeply into the Jovial Contrarian’s campaign, although I find it extremely funny that he just sort of swapped to the other side of the table on something so major. And it makes sense, too.
But I do know one thing: I don’t think the other candidates have anything on this action description.
The Jovial Contrarian, the STRONGEST enigma by rite of battle!
Maybe I’m just weird but I’m glad we don’t have a rubbery candidate.
To me, Rubberies are kind of like a box of kittens. They’re cute and a little sad, but I’ve yet to meet one (except for maybe the Nacreous Outcast) where I think "this is a distinct character" and not "here’s another interchangeable rubbery." I’d much rather have a returning mayoral hopeful than one of a cohort of largely indistinguishable Octodads.
edited by Hark DeGaul on 6/23/2018[/quote]
Oh, they can have plenty of individuality. There’s the Outcast, the the Tentacled Entrepreneur, and also Jeremy from the previous election.
It just seems weird to me that a Rubbery would be a candidate when they are subject to such discrimination and distrust and can’t even vote. Under current conditions it wouldn’t be believable. The Campaigner wanted to give them more rights, she campaigned in their neighborhoods, her campaign manager was Jeremy, and she came in third, with the result that nothing changed. If you want the Rubberies to have more say in London, backing Mr. Slowcake seems to be the option to take this year, based on current information.
.
edited by Anne Auclair on 6/23/2018
While normally I would agree on issues like these, in this case using "insane" - much like "mad" - is a firmly rooted idiom in the English language ("That’s insane!" usually doesn’t refer to an occurrence being medically diagnosed with a mental illness) and conversely, "sane" is well-understood in context if it means the opposite. Of course you’re free to restrict your use of those words in whichever way you prefer, but I would certainly find it extremely odd if this were to become some sort of sensitive topic.
Also my understanding is that calling the Contrarian "the only sane candidate" is meant to be taken as "the only candidate for which it wouldn’t be insane to vote", i.e. "insane" is being applied to voting for the two other "evil" candidates and not to those actual candidates themselves and their immorality or cruelty. For instance, if some neo-nazi white supremacist (of very questionable beliefs, but otherwise medically sound mind) ran for a leadership position, you could say it would be insane for a black or jewish person to vote for them, and accordingly the opposing candidate would be "the only sane choice". (Not to suggest the current candidates (or voters) are like this - this is only an abstract example to illustrate a point, and not some hidden allegory or comparison.)
Perhaps this is all highly off-topic, but then again this is the Contrarian’s thread…
Is that enough individuality, though? Jeremy was basically played for laughs. We still don’t know almost anything about his character. The Enterpreneur… doesn’t know table manners and can provide you with some Favours. I confess I don’t even recall who the Outcast is, more than likely due to my own poor memory than his merit or lack thereof, so I can’t comment on that. But the main point is - rubberies are different enough that communication is stifled; as such, it’s hard to convey their feelings to us, and in my mind that basically makes almost the entirety of the rubbery population blend into one. You see a rubbery, they blubber about, more than half the time they look sad or melancholic, otherwise they’re shuffling about trying to indicate something (a trade of amber, a coverup in the conflict card with the Constables, a business opportunity during parties, etc.) with little discernible emotion.
The one and only exception I can think of is my Perpetually Festive Rubber Friend. That story actually made it work - I cared for the rubbery as an actual character. Getting him as a companion most certainly helped in making me remember him, too.
edited by Dudebro Pyro on 6/24/2018
Wait a minute. He woke up in his bath? Was he bathing the evening before, and just thinking so hard that he knocked himself unconscious?
Wait a minute. He woke up in his bath? Was he bathing the evening before, and just thinking so hard that he knocked himself unconscious?[/quote]
Maybe he sleeps in his bathtub?
Wait a minute. He woke up in his bath? Was he bathing the evening before, and just thinking so hard that he knocked himself unconscious?[/quote]
Perhaps the "waking up" was proverbial, but that would be nowhere near as interesting of a mental image. Perhaps he simply dozed off the day before? Baths can be comfortable things after all. Or perhaps the bath was the proverbial one? Is "in my bath" a metaphor for some state of mind? Like out of your gourd, or on your high horse, or… something?
These are probably unimportant questions, but I’ve always been partial to unimportant questions.
I’ve half suspected that the Contrarian waking up newly furious, conservative, and bourgeois in his bath might be an intentional Colonel Blimb reference:
We’re told he’s known for his prodigious bathing. Most likely he just took a nap during a particularly epic soak. Or, you know, invented the whole story.
I shan’t upset the thread any more with my thinking out loud - feel free to PM me if you’d like to discuss it further - but rest assured that I’m well aware of how commonplace an idiom it is, which is why I thought it worth bringing up. It’s the sort of thing you hardly think about until it’s pointed out to you, you know?
As much as I’ll probably vote for him with him being the closest thing to the only sane man amongst them… Why did we get a repeat instead of a rubbery this year?
edited by TeslaWalker on 6/24/2018
Can’t speak for the writers, but people asked for the Contrarian again, myself included. He did very well in 1894 and deserved another shot.
But why would there be a Rubbery candidate when the Rubberies can’t even vote and candidates who favor Rubbery Rights (the Campaigner, Slowcake) don’t get big support for doing so? You yourself want the Rubberies to be more prominent in London, but you’re inclined to vote for the Contrarian, who says nothing about their condition, as opposed to Mr. Slowcake, who has the support of radical Rubbery Suffragists.
The fact that rubberies cannot speak is a major deterrent.