I think that she can modulate it, so it wouldn't have to break glass every time she uses it. As far as it just annoying his brainwashed goons, I'm pretty sure it's because of their enhanced abilities—it played as an "oh shit that's all it does to them?" moment.

It might have been the idea when they wrote it, and then they couldn't afford it and just left the explanation as was.

Ah, ok. I don't remember them saying the French but I gotcha. Okay, hmm… there's an interesting set of choices here. So instead of rat, they're using rongeur—rongeur in French is rodent (or i guess sometimes 'gnawer'), but also in English it's a tool for wrenching/gouging out bone (like a 'gnawer'). Instead of…

This season has 26 episodes.

Do you mean the German?

Right, I think they're saying the previous captivity is affecting her in the current situation. I'm not sure if I agree with the exact method by which they're saying that's the case, but that's what seems to be their point there.

They were referring to her captivity in the flashbacks / before the events of the show.

lol you're really not as rational, precise, and clear as you think you are.

Sometimes but there is contrary evidence, under which multiple interpretations are possible.

You can claim I imply it and that can be a valid claim or not. The evidence for whether it is valid is not my intent, it is the words I said. So we can disagree about whether I implied something without it being a question of my intent. But sure, I can see a reading of it (one willfully ignoring how pronouns can be…

um the example was a hypothetical of something I could say.

No, I said there are other implications, which there is still room for despite your claimed trump card.

I did. You don't understand that because you are having trouble understanding a particular piece of how communication works, so I'm explaining by way of example how it works, and how I didn't misrepresent what you said.

Besides which I said a decision to do so is not a lack of agency, which is true whether or not you have a rape experience to disclose. That's called a hypothetical. However, I realize using general second person with someone who is unfamiliar with how communication works could be confusing. I did not mean to imply you…

If I say "apparently that guy's an asshole," you would not be misrepresenting what I communicated in any way by saying "You think that guy's an asshole." It's clear I think that, even though I said "apparently"— stating that it appears that way to me is a clear indicator that it's what I believe. Sure, maybe I'm…

what was superficial about it? i gave a lot of reasons why i don't think it's superficial or similar to many stories at all about it which you really just ignored.

yep, well done. i disagree, nor do I think you can point to anything I said that would imply you were raped. My use of the phrase "your rape" is very clearly in context the use of a general second person. HOLY SHIT THATS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN?? BOTH PARTIES CAN MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT SOMETHING SOMEONE SAID?? HOW WILL THE WORLD…

& So a woman being raped in a story where a man is not also raped is a trope because it doesn't explicitly acknowledge that males are raped?

and i never denied anything seemed to you to be a way. you say something is apparently the case, which means it seems to you to be the case, which means you think it's the case. i'm not "rewriting" to "[you] believe" to understand from a phrase where you say "apparently _____" that you believe "_____"

you can imply something without meaning to dude. and a decision not to disclose your rape experience is not a lack of agency.