This is true, it does paint Pearl’s devotion in a new light. I mean, I still see her as having a somewhat different relationship with Rose than the apparent typical Pearl relationship, but it still stems from a position of subservience. It also puts a slightly unsettling spin on her obsessive devotion to Steven.

I’ve come to the conclusion that he puts quotes around words like that so he can later claim that he meant something completely different or was misinformed, or otherwise not have to take responsibility for the statement. Just another method to spread doubt and confusion.

She’d been Rose for thousands of years. She’d roamed the Earth, done everything. Just the knowledge that she’d go on as Steven may have been all the excitement she needed. I’m certainly not saying it’s entirely rational, especially from a human perspective.

I don’t think it necessarily follows that she expected to be able to experience what Steven experienced. Just that she wanted the next big new thing, regardless of her previous existence.

That theory hinges on accepting that becoming Steven wasn’t itself a selfish exercise. That’s kind of the cornerstone of my entire viewpoint, so I can’t just dismiss it. In “Greg The Babysitter” we see her utter fascination with human children and how they grow into adults, her joy at the constant change. That really…

Nearly everything we previously knew about Rose was told to Steven by people who idolized her. Pearl, who loved her utterly and seems to have been literally unable to tell the full truth. Garnet, who never knew the truth but found open acceptance from her. Amethyst, who barely had any more context than Steven. And…

I would definitely agree, at least in the sense that Steven is definitely NOT Rose. He has genuine love for everyone. He is exactly what Rose wanted: something new that she could never be, ever changing.

It could be read that way, yes... but it’s fairly apparent she chose to give birth to Steven, knowing she would stop existing as herself, from the get go. Who, exactly, was she sacrificing for then? Not for Steven, since it wasn’t needful for him to exist. She wanted Steven to exist, even at the cost of herself. And I…

Rose clearly had affection, fondness, and respect. But love? It’s hard to see that from her for any length of time. There’s a lot of very particular language used by her in her rare appearances that suggest that novelty (and the freedom to pursue it) is her only real joy.

It never occurred to me before this occasion that it might be, but when it happened in this episode, it seemed to obviously involuntary, beyond her control. It was a bit terrifying.

It’s long been my personal contention that Rose was a fundamentally selfish individual, endlessly fascinated by the new, the novel. Embracing and encouraging things outside the established order was just a way to experience vicariously. She obsessed over humans because they’re constantly changing from the moment…

There’s actually an answer to this (which I admit you may be perfectly familiar with). And it’s simply that you’re not supposed to eat raw cookie dough that you can actually bake, because of the eggs I think. The “cookie dough” in ice cream can never be cookies. It lacks certain key elements that make it safely edible.

A little bit is the choice of caps, but... I mean yeah, they look it because they are.

Which is very true to the character, given his background and relationship with his own father.

It was definitely a trend in the early part of that span. And though there weren’t really all THAT many, they were heavily promoted and stood out as odd/remarkable/unusual/awkward every time it happened. Definitely something to be noticed and remarked on.

Or IRC.

The real difference isn’t between this state or that state. It’s between urban and rural. CA and NY have unusually large urban populations and seem to be disproportionate, but they’re more than balanced out by multiple, but sparsely populated states. Though the differences in views are more complex than simply urban…

That is true, but the more broadly a law is written, the more broadly it can (and will) be interpreted.

This SOUNDS perfectly reasonable, until someone starts redefining “knowingly”. First it’s the literal, provable “knew about it”. Then it shifts to the speculative “might have known about it”. Then it becomes “should have known about it”. Then it’s “could have known about it”.

You may have missed the part where he’s literally asking around trying to get more prisons open for this purpose. :/