??? Does Char actually believe this?

>>15140219
It's almost like Char is a delusional moron

>>15140246
>be calm cool and collected 99% of the time
>someone mentions a Zabi in a positive light or pollutes the earth near him
>flies into a cold sociopathic rage and murders an entire ship crew or has to drop an asteroid onto a populated city

That boy just ain't right

File: 1404661568258.png (505KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 640x480px

The more I reflect on Char, the more I realize he's just the Count of Monte Cristo done retardedly.

>>15140327
He's the count of Monte Cristo if the count was a sociopathic idiot

>>15140327
Char has nowhere near the sophistication and forethought as the Count. The Count is Batman-tier in how stretched-out and devious his plans are in their laying and execution.

Char's go-to revenge plan is to look for a reasonable opportunity and to largely act on it whether or not it will have greater ramifications later.

>>15140370
>look for a reasonable opportunity and to largely act on it whether or not it will have greater ramifications later.

Which, it could be argued, makes him a lot more human.

>>15140254
The absolute madman.
>>15140384
I'd rather be cool.

>>15140219
So much that he never even actually said it.

>>15140219
He never betrayed anyone
he was using the Zabi family for his own revenge.
a real betrayal would be if Char joined the EFF and played double agent.

>>15140370
An rpg to the face doesn't really scream subtly in the slightest. Let it be said though that Char is certainly not without bombast.

File: fn6qwv0h0azx.jpg (40KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 480x480px

I think he repeats the phrase somewhere in Origin too

>>15140219
>it's a char betrays everyone episode

>>15140219
I mean, I thought it was supposed to be sarcasm

File: troubled eagle.jpg (59KB, 457x695px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 457x695px

>>15140327
>he's just the Count of Monte Cristo done retardedly.
Don't let any /lit/ see your post.

File: what.png (72KB, 495x398px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 495x398px

>>15140219
>Does Char actually believe this?

Char is a sociopath so he probably does.

Has anyone in this thread actually bothered to watch this episode or the series as a whole?

>>15140219
You can't betray someone if you were never actually loyal to them in the first place.

Fuck, you guys are retarded, stick to bayformers.

>>15143256
To be fair, /lit/ doesn't know what it's talking about either.

>>15143346

That's debatable though. If you trust a person and you are then set up by that person, you will see it as being betrayed. I mean thats the point right? The person betrays your trust. It doesn't matter if the other guy planned to be loyal or not. It's still betrayal of ones person's trust.

Char would be retarded if he said that stuff in the OP.

>hurr durr garma I never really cared about you or zeon I just made you think that so I could use you and zeon retards to enact my revenge.

Yeah that is betrayal.

>>15143256
I read the Count of Monte Cristo when I was ten and I don't remember much of it. What's the problem with the comparison other that it is a gross overgeneralization and that the two stories are completely different in their intent?

>>15140219
delusional bastard
he was betrayed by that sloot lalah when she made newtype love to amuro

>>15143346
That's just a rationalization. Saying something is a """true""" betrayal or not is arbitrary. Char still betrayed almost everybody in his life to various degrees.

>>15143413

Not that guy but. Ultimately count of monte cristo is a story about how one guy thought revenge would amend the wrongs people did unto him. The moral of the story towards the end is that revenge is just another demon that will consume you. The count is not happy after everything goes according to his horrible plan.

Char is about more than revenge. He might be dellusional as well but he isn't a completely tragic story all the way. Wheras the count goes into full monster rather quickly and learns his lesson after the fact, char is seen struggling with his conscience a lot more.

>>15143282
I've watched all of the UC series, movies and OVAs multiple times.

Char is 100% out of his mind m8, even though he was right about a lot of things.

>>15141380
>>15143346

It constantly amazes me the logical contortions Charfags go through to try and defend that line when Char is consistently shown in all his appearances to be a lying douchebag.

I'm still in the middle of Zeta, but who did he betray besides Garma Zabi?
And maybe his promise to his sister.

>>15143468
the real Char Aznable
that dude in the Academy
Garma
His sister
the Zabis if you include oaths of military loyalty
Amuro
Commodore Blex
the entire population of Earth still left on the planet during CCA

a few a debatable ofc

>>15143485
Don't forget the pilots of Neo Zeon when he gave Amuro the psychoframe tech. Nothing says 'great commander who cares for the lives of his men' more than giving the enemy ace tech that makes it easier for him to kill your soldiers.

>>15143463
If anyone has actually watched this episode why is it so difficult to you to understand the import of a rather simple conversation?

Char's kind of an asshole.

>>15143512
What? What are you even trying to say? The basic meaning of conversation isn't the discussion here. It's the level of gall it takes for someone to barefacedly say (even to an enemy) "I've never betrayed anyone" when that's literally all they do.

>>15143528
Because that's not what he is saying and if you bothered to pay attention to the story rather than just look for lines to pick on you'd know it.

>>15143539
Ok then, tell me. What is Char actually saying here? Because in the context of the story Char is absolutely a betrayer, regardless of rationalizations and events that one could say forced his hand.

>>15140219
>MSG 0079
Man, Char is cool
>Zeta
This guy Quatro Vagina is alright
>CCA
So Char is a pedo who is pissed he couldn't bang his mom as a brown child? Also were the events of Zeta meaningless
>Origin
Jesus, Char is an asshole

>>15143575
like dukat

>>15143575
let's be fair here
amuro wanted to fuck her too

>>15143605
Because Amuro was a kid too. And Amuro didn't want to fuck her because she could have been his mom.

Char was still going after kiddies unto is 30s.

>>15143556
Char and co. are introduced to Haman. Haman greets Char with a self-satisfied grin and a hair flip. She addresses him disrespectfully and orders him to step up to Mineva. Char and Mineva talk. Mineva gets confused, glances insecurely at Haman and starts delivering a rant about how Char was sent on recon mission and now that he has returned to them he will help them to restore the glory of the Zabi family and rule over all Spacenoids blah blah at which point Char flips his shit at Haman and he is like "How can you raise Mineva like that" etc.
Next we come to the scene in which he is trying to put Haman out of her misery and she is like "So you are betraying us (now)?" And here is the famous line: "I am not betraying you AT ALL, in the first place." to which Haman smugly replies "And I had such high expectations of you...".
See, he is sayng "I am not on your side and you have no reason to think I am ". There are no implications whatsoever about "anyone" or "ever". In fact the scene has absolutely nothing to do with whether Char has ever betrayed anyone or not. The scene has to do with the fact that Haman has the gall to say that Char still owes her something when he has already amply expressed his resentment of the Zabis and Neo Zeon's policies. Haman is deliberately trying to provoke him by pretending to be retarded. If he got so triggered at that it's not because she dared imply he is not an honest and loyal person as innocent as the Lamb of God but because he was disgusted with the implication that he would ever support her imperialistic ambitions. The very fact that she knew she could get to him in that way shows that he has made that clear before leaving, which of course is the reason she is so mad at him in the first place.

>>15140327
No, Char is the High Plains Drifter IN SPACE.

>>15143752
Why did they sub it like that then? It completely changes the tone of scene subbed like in the OP picture.

>>15143782
When I first watched it I didn't know Japanese put I still got the drift. It's not like it's an out of context scene. That's why I described what led up to it. I think it's pretty clear what the import of the whole situation is even if you don't pick it to the last letter.

>>15143615

She was 14 and he was 19.

>>15143795
Char was 19 during the OYW, but wasn't he in his 30s during CCA, and still eying lolis?

>>15143790
Yea, that's true. The entire scene is a set up trigger Char since Haman knew from the get-go how Char feels about the Zabi cult.

I suppose I just really wanted to poke fun fun at Char so I ignored the context.

>>15143805
char was sick in the head
time for everyone to stop embracing him as a legend

>>15143814
So then who is the greatest hero of Zeon?

>>15143817
Full Frontal

>>15143817
MS-06F

>>15143817
garma

File: 1006_08.jpg (251KB, 733x1024px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 733x1024px

>>15143817
Johnny Ridden and his Chimeras.

>>15143817
Shin Matsunaga and Anavel Gato.

>>15143413
>What's the problem with the comparison
>other that it is a gross overgeneralization and that the two stories are completely different in their intent?

You just answered your own question.

Char and Edmond are fundamentally very different characters. The only commonality that they share is the quest for revenge. The little girl from True Grit has about as much in common with the those other two.

>>15143842
Ridden is the good guy Char?

>>15144034
he's honorable and loyal to a fault, without being a huge tool like gato, or unquestioning "cog in the machine" like daguza

MSV-R manga basically tells us he's a bro who looks out for his buddies, even when you accidentally shoot him in the gut because you're a nervous kid in the chimera unit

the older less well drawn ridden manga characterized him as a knight in shining armor for kycilia who was a bit more of a tool but still a kind hearted person rather than a patriotic zealot like gato

>>15140219

In the astrological Scorpio sense, he's correct. If you gain someone's trust with the intent to betray it for a personal vendetta, you aren't actually betraying them because you were never on their side to begin with.

Char would have had to have been on their side in the first place to betray them.

I just finished watching the second movie. Who am I supposed to be be rooting for here? The only characters who aren't either stupid or explicitly evil are the main couple kids, and even they're pretty weird most of the time.

>>15144433
>movies
what an absolute retard

>>15140219
???

That's not Char, dum-dum, it's Quattro Bajeena.

No, the blonde guy on the Argama bridge isn't Bernie from 0080, either.

>>15143813

Don't stress it the subbers are definately to blame as well.

File: Gundam Katana - Volume 2 186.png (711KB, 846x1200px) Image search: [Google]

711KB, 846x1200px

is char right about amuro?

File: Gundam Katana - Volume 2 187.png (600KB, 846x1200px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 846x1200px

>>15144577
HE KNOWS

>>15143752
But Char was on the Axis side before coming back to the Earth Sphere, so he is betraying them.

>>15143817
Bernie

>>15140219
Will we ever get past making this same fucking thread over and over

>>15144650
Are you stupid?

>>15144683
Nothing I said was wrong.

>>15144815
It's not wrong. Just irrelevant.
If you bothered to read my post you would see that I explicitly stated that the point in question in that scene is not if Char has at any point betrayed anyone or not but if Haman has any reason to think he is on her side which she does not and she knows it.
The purpose of the scene is not to demonstrate that Char believes he is a pure blameless angel. In fact he professes opinions of the opposite import many times during the run of the show. The purpose of the scene is to establish the nature of Char and Haman's relationship.

>>15144848
Since Char had been on her side before, why wouldn't she believe he still is?

>>15144913
So you really are just stupid.
In any case what you are interested in is also addressed in my original post.

>>15144932
You are assuming a lot that's not actually stated in the show.

>>15143795
Lalah was 17

>>15143795
5 years isn't a huge difference later on in life, but at that age it's fucking huge man

>>15144946
2 years isn't that bad a difference, also if that's true it's interesting to note that she is 2 years younger than Char and 2 years older than Amuro

>>15143752
>making shit up and acting smug
he literally says the words "I have never betrayed anyone"

>>15145403
He can't "literally" say those word because he is not speaking English.
>やはり、裏切りかい?シャア。
>元々、私は裏切りは一切していないよ。ハマーン。
What have I made up?
The very context of the situation is clear enough.

>>15140219
It's not a betrayal if you were never on their side to begin with

>>15145492
Yes it is if you make them believe that you're on their side.

>>15143805

Honestly not really. He played it up to manipulate Quess to kill folk for him but that was all.

>>15143817
Ramba Ral

>>15143752
>元々、私は裏切りは一切していないよ。ハマーン。

Rather than "in the first place", the "元々" is probably meant to emphasize the length of time of the following part of the sentence, as in, "since the beginning [of our dealings until now]", right? It's meant to emphasize that since the beginning of his interaction with Haman, he was never really on her side, so it's not possible for him to betray her in the slightest.

And Haman wasn't really being retarded in that scene, even with Char's complaints that's no reason for her to assume that Char, a well-known hero of Zeon, would actually pull a gun on her. Her accusation that Char is betraying her is likely entirely honest, rather than a ploy to anger him. Char is just upset since his whole view is, like he sums up to Reccoa, "私は,いつも一人の男だった."

>>15143752
I really need to learn jap

>>15145857
Haman's attitude is hostile from the start. Throughout all of the episode she reeks of smug satisfaction.
In any case the point I was trying to make is that if Char reacted violently in this particular scene it's not because he was being called a traitor but because he found morally disgusting the idea that she would ever consider even in her wildest dreams that he could ever approve of her goals. The same with his reaction to Reccoa.

>>15145899
That smug satisfaction is part of why I don't think she's goading him, since she's so confident in herself that she's taken aback when someone has the audacity to speak against her, let alone pull a gun on her. She probably genuinely expected Char to fall in line like everyone else on Axis did.

I always interpreted Char's reaction differently as well. While Char doesn't agree with Haman's ambitions, the part that actually gets him upset is that he never considers himself on anyone's side, no matter what their goals are. It's why he seems so hesitant to actually commit to actually taking up leadership in AEUG, and why he's so quick to leave once he has the chance. He pretty much views everyone unworthy of his trust, hence why he also views Kamille's rants about the lying world of adults as profound wisdom rather than a teenage tantrum. In that light it makes his character between Zeta and CC consistent, where he's taken these issues and pushed them to an extreme.

Ultimately the difference there is between how we look at the character of Char. I agree that the standard, "I've never betrayed anyone in my life" translation is definitely off.

>>15143485
I disagree on Blex; he never betrayed him.

>>15143485
I don't think he betrayed Blex directly.

>>15146032
Haman's hatred of Char clearly didn't start with this episode.
From the start Char's internal monologue suggests he is apprehensive of meeting her. If directly after this we are introduced to her looking down on him smugly it would be natural to deduce that they are not in a very good relationship, not that she is glad to see him.
She is domineering, tries to order him around and diminish him. "Guy with the glasses, step forward." She makes him talk to Mineva and observes him. The tension between them in this scene is palpable.
Later she responds to his attempt on her life flatly "How disappointing". She is not surprised.

As for Char he patiently bears with her provocations until Mineva starts robotically reciting whatever Haman has instructed her to say. Here he ACTUALLY physically assaults her. Do you realize how absurd this is for someone like Char? And why is he so angry? "How dare you treat Mineva like that!" "How dare you involve innocent people in your schemes!" This is moral outrage. This is what drives his words and actions throughout the rest of the episode. "How dare you imply that I would side with someone like YOU? How dare you imply that I would side with someone like the Zabis?"
Do you think that he would be morally offended if someone associated his name with the AEUG?
Your analysis is simplistic. You are looking for the easy way out. UC is much more thematically complex than that.

>>15146155
Char is upset at how Haman is manipulating Mineva, yes. But that's only the superficial reason for his behavior. There's a scene in the same episode with Kamille, Reccoa, and Char that addresses this. Kamille finds Haman's behavior reprehensible, but tells Char isn't the time or place to start fights. This is the first hint that Char's reaction isn't based simply on moral outrage, but also a personal issue related to Char specifically that led him to lose control.

What touches Char's nerve is the type of thinking that Haman is instilling in her and how it will transform Mineva in the future. This is a representation of the inner struggle within Char, between the part of him which is afraid that no man can escape his past, and the part of him that has begun to believe in human potential and the future. It angers him when he sees the new generation, represented by Mineva, being ingrained and instilled into the old style of thinking that Char is so desperately trying to rescue himself from, represented by Haman and Neo Zeon. He gets upset at Mineva's treatment because it is personal for him.

This also leads to another important bit of dialogue between Reccoa and Char that is important to his character. She askes him if his goal was never to revive the Zabi family, to which he responds that he has nothing to do with the Zabis, he has always been alone. This is one of the key quotes that gives an aspect into his personality (to the point where Reccoa repeats his statement to emphasize its importance to the audience). Yes, Char is outraged at Haman's treatment of Mineva. Beneath that, he feels Mineva's subversion by the ideologies of the past at a personal level. And beneath that, Char has always viewed himself as a man that stands apart from the world, and this is the underlying thread that ties together most of his behavior in Zeta and UC. Simply interpreting his behavior as stemming out of moral outrage overlooks much of the inner conflict within him.

I'm currently watching Zeta, just finished 0079 and Origin, and so far I've gathered that Char is the most interesting character whose execution in writing is more flawed than not. I went in with zero expectations and just the background knowledge from having browsed /m/ all these years, and here's what I think.

I liked his arc in 0079. You got the impression that Char was this kind of chessmaster strategist who's always had things go his way. He's this legend that everyone looked up to, until the White Base showed up and started pushing his shit in. Then you watched as he started to lose his nerve, unravel, and get pissed off as his chessmaster persona slowly crumbled apart due to his constant losses against Gundam.

I also liked how he was such a chill commander to his men. If they fucked up, he'd guilt-trip them and make them work harder instead of punishing them. He was all about give and take. You couldn't help but root for Char in every fight because of it. I wanted him to win against Gundam, I really did, and I almost felt like the show intended for you to feel that way.

In the end, you couldn't help but feel sorry for the guy. He's been fighting this one-sided battle against White Base and he's been pushed to his limits by the end of it all. His revelation where he gives up revenge on the Zabis in pursuit of uplifting newtypes was a cool development that the show didn't capitalize on hard enough, IMO. Like, he goes to kill Kycilia immediately after he says that shit. I get that he had to do it for his own safety, but it felt so out of place. Wish things would've been written differently. Also should've introduced Lalah waaaay fuckin earlier to help make Char's development more consistent. His final conversation with Amuro was just all over the place.

In Zeta, he has zero personality, at least to the point where I am in the story (ep 16). All the old cast members are way too fucking chill with him just hanging around, it feels weird.

File: gundamnoveltrilogy 219.jpg (681KB, 2464x1716px) Image search: [Google]

681KB, 2464x1716px

>>15146985
>All the old cast members are way too fucking chill with him just hanging around, it feels weird.
The way Tomino wrote the series, he intended for the characters to have the realization that the soldier on the other side that they face in battle isn't necessarily their real enemy, but that to bring a real end to the war, they need to take down the enemy commander and what they stand for.

In the original 52 episode outline, Char is torn between fulfilling his original plan of revenge and wanting to settle his rivalry with Amuro, while Amuro comes to the understanding that the Zabis need to die for the war to stop. They go far enough that the White Base attacks A Baoa Qu and Amuro has a personal showdown with Gihren.

http://gundam.aeug.org/archives/2001/04/0341.html

In the MSG novels, Amuro has a newtype moment and when he got killed, his mind has a psychic explosion that sent his thoughts through the heads of the White Base crew and Char's newtype corps, where they all understand they need to get the hell off the battlefield before the solar ray fries them all and agree that Gihren needs to die to end the war so they team up to infiltrate Zum City and assassinate Gihren.

It seems to me that Tomino continued with this line of thought through to Zeta. Everyone's chill with Char being in the AEUG and even the old White Base crew and Amuro don't mind because they know Char's not someone to be bitter about, but they have the greater goal of toppling the Titans and reforming the Federation.

>>15143575

>were the events of Zeta meaningless

No. The entire point of Zeta was Char acting in Neo Zeon's favour. He was getting rid of the Titans because they were insanely effective at fucking with remnants while doing their dick shit.

ZZ was originally meant to be Char instead of Glemmy and directly lead into Char's Counterattack. It's just that they couldn't work out a decent way to transition the ending to Char getting away without making Judau seeming incompetent or denying the fans some closure.

File: stan.jpg (53KB, 792x612px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 792x612px

>>15146985
>not watching in release order.

>>15147020
It's interesting that you bring up the novels, Char seems a lot more dickish in them. Especially at the end, where after they finish of Gihren he then murders Kycilia for his own personal reasons, leaving Kai to have an epiphany on how much he hates Char. The ending is probably best for Sayla since she leaves all of the madness behind and just chills on a beach. Just interesting to compare to the original script you link and see the evolution of his character as Char seems to get increasingly less heroic through rewrites.

>>15146985
>His revelation where he gives up revenge on the Zabis in pursuit of uplifting newtypes was a cool development that the show didn't capitalize on hard enough, IMO. Like, he goes to kill Kycilia immediately after he says that shit.

Char was just bullshitting Kycilia to lower her guard, he had always intended on murdering her out of revenge the second he got the chance. He even has a laugh at how trusting she was.

>In Zeta, he has zero personality, at least to the point where I am in the story (ep 16). All the old cast members are way too fucking chill with him just hanging around, it feels weird.
Don't think of AEUG as just the old federation guys. Several other AEUG members are former Zeon soldiers, and things have gotten to the point where people are trying to forget the past and move forward with a clean slate to go against the Titans. Char, as Quattro, is trying too, so he's at his most noble in Zeta, but his less noble traits shine through on occasion. While he's obviously the same person as a while, it's still kind of helpful to see his various personas as different aspect of his personality. Char Aznable has a lot of baggage that Quattro Bajeena is trying to escape.

>>15146495
I don't see how the expression "moral outrage" does not imply a high level of personal involvement. Ethics stems from internal values and ethical percepts are sharpened by personal experience.
>between the part of him which is afraid that no man can escape his past, and the part of him that has begun to believe in human potential and the future.
But depending on what you mean I don't think this is the main conflict.
>to the point where Reccoa repeats his statement to emphasize its importance to the audience
Not only this, but I feel that it is also one of the turning points in their relationship.
I still disagree with the earlier post if that was you. In particular:
>He pretty much views everyone unworthy of his trust, hence why he also views Kamille's rants about the lying world of adults as profound wisdom rather than a teenage tantrum.
This statement is offensive.

>>15147163
One can be morally outraged at a crime without necessarily feeling it at a personal level. Think of someone reacting to reading about a rape on the news compared to actually having a family member raped. It's at a different level. Everyone seems upset upon seeing how Haman is manipulating a child as a puppet, but Char feels it at a more personal level. It's not just about his sense of morality, but about how he feels about his relationship to the past that gives him baggage that his other crewmates don't have.

>This statement is offensive.
It wasn't meant to be, I'm not exactly sure what part of it seems to be so upsetting. If you can point it out I can clarify what exactly I was aiming for.

>>15147057

> ZZ was originally meant to be Char instead of Glemmy

I wish people would stop parroting this like it's gospel. We have no idea of how true it is, so acting like Glemy was a 1:1 replacement of Char is stupid. The one hint we have of what ZZ was originally meant to be, Zeta Part II (http://pastebin.com/0SkxGTUt), has Char in a far different role to Glemy and not even a real antagonist.

> It's just that they couldn't work out a decent way to transition the ending to Char getting away without making Judau seeming incompetent or denying the fans some closure.

Putting aside that there is almost certainly nothing that even remotely verifies this Glemy isn't the real villain of ZZ and we have nothing to say he was ever intended to be. Nor does Judau kill Glemy regardless, that's Roux. Nor does he even kill Haman. She kills herself. Judau already seems kind of incompetent as is since he didn't kill either major villain if that's going to be your measure of competence.

>>15147272
That was a really interesting read. It brings an interesting contrast between Zeta II Char and Char's Counterattack Char. Both of them want to impose their vision of the future on Earth, but Zeta II Char only assassinates Federation officials to force them into that policy, whereas CC Char attempts to kill many more people on a much larger scale by dropping Axis. I wonder why Tomino chose to take the character to a more extreme direction for the film.

>>15147217
>It's not just about his sense of morality, but about how he feels about his relationship to the past that gives him baggage that his other crew mates don't have.
The more we can relate to a person's situation the stronger our emotional reaction to this situation would be. The other crew members can recognize that treating a child like that is morally wrong but they can't imagine as vividly what it's like to be this child.

>He pretty much views everyone unworthy of his trust
Do you think trust is a gift you can freely bestow on other people at your will?
>He won't deign to trust anyone because he thinks he is too good for them.
Can you even begin to imagine how scary it is to have no one you can trust?

>hence why he also views Kamille's rants about the lying world of adults as profound wisdom rather than a teenage tantrum.
Your mistakes are two:
1. Easily dismissing Kamille's words as a "teenage tantrum" of no consequence rather than recognizing them for what they are - the harsh truth.
Kamille is regarded as immature not because the things he says are wrong but because he fails to recognize that there are different versions of every story and fails to consider other people's feelings. Truth hurts.
2.Believing that Char sees Kamille's "tantrums" as a "profound wisdom" rather than as what they are - the harsh truth.
Considering that a lot of Kamille's abuse is often aimed at Char himself Char's humble agreement is simply recognition of his own faults. Char is probably the most introspective and self-critical character in the show. Char is a person who values truth more than anything but also has painful consideration of other people's feelings. This is THE central conflict of the character. This is the quality that Tomino saw as purity. This is also why ultimately he finds close contact with other people excruciating and strives to avoid it.

>>15147328
It's not the statement that "Adults lie", that is an immature tantrum. The act of ranting about it followed by either physically attacking the person that offended him or crying into his bedsheets screaming that is. Kamille, from the inability to understand the perspectives of others that you mentioned, is unable to accept anyhthing that doesn't agree with his perspective and reacts to it violently. Kamille allows the fact that other people have hurt him to justify his contstant lashing out at the world. As a result, Kamille spends the first half of Zeta with a chip on his shoulder and seems to take every remark personally.

The other adults, such as Bright and Emma, react with contempt to this antisocial behavior. Char, on the other hand, agrees with this worldview since it mirrors his own. He has been decieved and lied to by so many others that Kamille's suspicious outlook seems like maturity. Char's acceptance when Kamille reacts violently to his lies are not humility, but a reinforcement of his antisocial perception of the world. Char is at odds when trying to understand and empathize with people who do not share his worldview, leading him to be aloof to so many of the Argamma crew as well as completely misunderstading Reccoa. Char does understand human behavior at an intellectual level as an observer, however. See how he is able to manipulate Gyunei and Quess skillfully, yet completely fails to understand them at an emotional level. Char's perspective is fueled not by purity, but cynicism, and, unlike Kamille, who comes to accept and understand the perspectives of others as he matures, Char becomes increasingly convinced that violence is the only proper response to this world that has hurt him, leading him to his evolution in Char's Counterattack.

>>15147443
Let's say that I completely disagree.

>>15147450
I can already imagine that both of us will not see eye-to-eye at all since our interpretations of the actions are so removed from one another, but this is honestly the first time I have ever heard someone characterize Char as morally pure from mature self-introspection. If you look at most of the threads that appear on him, Char is generally seen as a very immature and selfish character. Even the hardcore Zeekfags like "Zeon-Is-Always-Right" Black Knight tend to view Char fighting for a moral cause but hampered by huge personal flaws rather than being the most virtuous person in UC. I am actually interested in your interpretation of the events of Char's Counterattack.

>>15147452
Zeta is much more straightforward than MSG and CCA. It mostly deals with is themes in terms of philosophical concepts that are often verbally addressed by the characters themselves.
I already told you what Char's central conflict is. It is not something I am making up but something that is constantly discussed in Zeta. Relationships between people, how you define yourself in relation to other people, how do you define your boundaries, where you end and other people begin. Char is a very conceptually thinking person and strives to find a logical and emotional consistency within the world and within himself. His desire to have concrete answers, to resolve his moral dilemma is what drives him forward. Yet Tomino refuses to provide resolution this moral dilemma. There is no right or wrong answer. There is no right or wrong. Tomino rejects this view of the human being as a conceptual, intellectual, logical kind of being and looks beneath that and depicts the human being as a physical, biological, visceral entity that is driven by natural instinct. To understand other people means to understand ourselves first, what we really want, and what we really want from other people. Still this part of us is hidden in our subconsciousness and is what we know least of, what we are most afraid of and what we have been taught since birth to be ashamed of. To find closure Char wants to confront his own shame and fear. This of course is a difficult and painful process so it's understandable if it doesn't make for a pretty picture.

>>15147592
I agree that those themes are the central ones of Zeta, but have a fairly different perspective on the interpretation of them. While Tomino is indeed examining the self and others, he is placing emphasis on positive relationships with others as means to better understand the self in contrast to intellectualism or self-introspection. Admittedly I find some of your interpretation to place too strong a focus on individual psychology while overlooking Tomino's message on the importance of man as a social being. Still though I find your ideas interesting, thank you for taking the time to type them out.

>>15147443
To address this post too.
>Bright and Emma react with contempt to this antisocial behavior.
In the first place I want to disagree with the literal content of this statement in particular with the terms "contempt" and "antisocial". I do agree though that while meaning the best for Kamille they haven't been as patient with him as they could have been, and also that they were aware of that and regretted it. I don't think dismissing someone's perfectly valid points just because they are behaving improperly is something that can be considered very mature and it's not a good way to raise a child. If you simply dismiss or punish then without making them understand what they've done wrong you are not very likely to correct their behavior. People don't resort to violence unless they feel that they haven't been given credit for a valid point they make. If you acknowledge people's feelings and explain your point of view to it is more likely that they will also treat you like that. You can't "spoil" a child by treating them fairly.
>Kamille's suspicious outlook seems like maturity
Char criticizes Kamille's immature outlook just as much as anyone if not more. He is just more sympathetic and patient with him. Char is always the one who negotiates with him and tries to get him to act more reasonably. I don't remember any such occasion where Char embraced Kamille's points of view as the Holy word of God.
I completely disagree with everything else. Char is not cynical in the least. He is placed in a situation in which he feels he is not being given credit for a valid point he makes. While this doesn't justify his behavior it doesn't demonstrate a lack of understanding of other people's feelings either. The reasoning that the the complainer is always in the wrong is counterproductive and a straight-up logical fallacy.

>>15147708
>he is placing emphasis on positive relationships with others as means to better understand the self in contrast to intellectualism or self-introspection. Admittedly I find some of your interpretation to place too strong a focus on individual psychology while overlooking Tomino's message on the importance of man as a social being.
No. I also agree with that. The social instinct is one of the main instincts that drive humans. After all if I had to sum up the main theme of the whole series with one word it would be "love". This is the emotion that is most interesting to Tomino.
I said it myself that he rejects the state of being as something purely conceptual. You can only change through interaction with other people. That is why I say : Char who is unable to change only through introspection tries to confront his own shame and fear. Shame and fear are emotions arise to regulate our relationships with other people so to do so means he has to confront other people.
Excessive shame and fear can be as obstructive to our existence as no shame and fear. In the post Renaissance world people have been trying to move away from their roots and glorify the human being as something that surpasses the purely physical. In such a culture as ours people are encouraged to look down on their natural needs and desires as something atavistic and humiliating to the dignity of man. Freud's psychoanalytic movement is the culmination of this worldview. Tomino is trying to challenge this worldview and present natural human instincts as something beautiful and, well, natural.

>>15140219
He's a schizo so yeah

>>15147314

I don't think he chose it personally. The standard view of events online is that Char's Counterattack was Tomino's idea, and that it was only part way through Zeta or ZZ that he got permission from Sunrise to go ahead with it, causing production problems because he had to drop Char from ZZ and was working on two entries at about the same time. There's no proof of this that I've ever seen and I don't think it's actually the likely timeline of events. Tomino is a "for hire" director. He's worked exclusively for Sunrise from what I recall, but outside of G-Reco he doesn't approach them with ideas and wait for their agreement/permission - they hire him to work on something, and he does the best he can with what he's given. I think it's more likely that Tomino was part way through production of Zeta or ZZ when Sunrise ordered Char's Counterattack, and he had to make changes to accommodate it.

Tomino's plan for Char going by the summary of the original scripts posted up-thread was for him to realize the folly of revenge all too late, try to help Amuro and the White Base in atonement and then possibly die. The novels have him take Amuro's place if I recall. Zeta sets him up for a possible arc of redemption, including working with old foes just like he did in the finale of the original plan for 0079. In both the apparent original plans for 0079 and Zeta Char is originally set up have an arc where he moves beyond revenge, even if only too late in 0079, but both times changes in production caused changes in Char from what I can see.

I think it's more likely that Sunrise saw that the Amuro/Char/Lalah relationship was one of the most popular parts of 0079, which was more popular than Zeta, then ordered Tomino to make a movie about that. I don't think he'd have chosen to make Char a villain at all if he'd have the chance. He didn't in the original plan for 0079, and was apparently not going to in Zeta either.

>>15147328

> Can you even begin to imagine how scary it is to have no one you can trust?

Very. That's the life most infiltrators live though, and part of what makes it such an awful life. It was also something Char had to deal with when working within Zeon. I fail to see what being scary has to do with whether he would do it or not.

>>15147592

> To find closure Char wants to confront his own shame and fear.

When did Char ever try to confront his own shame and fear?

>>15148580
>That's the life most infiltrators live though.
I don't know about that. I meant trust in an existential sort of way.

>When did Char ever try to confront his own shame and fear?
In CCA.

>>15140219
This is the plane scene of Gundam.

>>15148627

I have no idea what you mean by "trust in an existential way". Also, Char wasn't confronting his shame and fear in Char's Counterattack on anything but the most superficial level. I'd say it was just the opposite really. He'd felt shame because Amuro had beaten him in the past, but he sought to deal with it solely by beating Amuro and rectifying his wounded ego/pride, rather than by questioning why he'd felt any shame at it happening in the first place and trying to address the deeper issue.

>>15148649
And what is the deeper issue according to you?

>>15148671

I have no idea offhand since I haven't really considered it, but "he beat me so I'm ashamed" is a sign of a deeper issue of some kind. That deeper issue in some cases is a fear of failure because you saw what failure did to people in your life, or a need to assert yourself physically because you feel powerless. I'm not saying those apply to Char, just that those are some of the reasons people sometimes feel shame in defeat. Harboring shame at being defeated for over a decade will always have a deeper reason though.

>>15148683
Very convincing.
And have you considered that the reason for the confrontation might be completely different from what you believe it to be if you have no evidence that it is actually significant for the characters involved?
Have you heard of this little thing called thematic consistency?
It's OK. I don' t expect much from a person that doesn't know what trust in the existential sense means.

>>15148708

I never spoke to what I believed it to be - I spoke to what you were saying you believed it to be. And you said you believed that it was because he was trying to confront his shame and fear. Which beating someone in a fight isn't doing. All it's doing is trying to salve your wounded ego, not actually confronting the source of your shame or fear. No-one, anywhere, ever has nursed a grudge for a decade simply because they found it annoying to lose and nothing more. There will always be a deeper reason if someone holds on to something for that long.

If you want to jump straight to elitism and contempt though go right ahead. It's easier than trying to explain your argument or discuss it properly I suppose.

>>15148728
>I never spoke to what I believed it to be
You did not say
>he beat me so I'm ashamed
Let me put it as simply as I can: that is NOT the reason he is ashamed.That is NOT the reason they are fighting.
Maybe talking to someone other than your dog will teach you something about human emotions?

>>15148741

Okay, then enlighten me oh sage one: what is the source of his shame or fear in Char's Counterattack, and what is he doing to confront it?

>>15147813
Reccoa's natural human instincts lead to the death of 3 million+ Spacenoids though

>>15148746
Trust in the world and in people around you is a basic psychological need. It's not something you can consciously choose to do or not to do. If nothing in your experience has led you to believe that the world is a safe and secure place and that people around you are here to help you then you will constantly live in fear and anger and shame no matter where you go or what you do.
Anger is our own will to survive.
Shame is the voice of other people within us. The child that has been left without protection feels the cold rejection of other people as a reproach to his own self. He ,that doesn't understand what crimes he has done to deserve being put through so much fear, feels like it is some sort of divine punishment for being vile and unworthy.

>>15146495
>Kamille finds Haman's behavior reprehensible, but tells Char isn't the time or place to start fights.
When fucking Kamille is telling you to calm your tits, you know you have problems.

>>15149030
War is always caused by natural human instinct. Humanity's will to survive has cause the death of much more than 3 million. Still to condemn this survival instinct would be to deny your own reason for existence.

>>15149774

Oh, so by "trust in an existential sense", you just mean "trust". With the proviso that it also applies to existence/reality. Something that doesn't actually change the meaning or sense of the word, and that no-one had implied he didn't trust in the first place. Trust is something people have a basic desire for, but it's also something people definitively can consciously forego the need for if they feel the goal is great enough. History is littered with spies of all kinds who have done it. It often leaves the person damaged and with a hard time re-adjusting to a reality where they can trust, but it is something people can do.

And you think the shame and fear he is confronting in Char's Counterattack is the the entirety of his life, which he is confronting by, I don't know, leading Neo Zeon? Making life better for Spacenoids? Ensuring his father's ideals become a reality?

>>15149877
I don't know anything at all about spies but you seem to be an expert. In any case if you are willing to relinquish your own safety for something like that then
a) you probably didn't place much value in your own existence in the first place (like Char and Reccoa). Alternatively if you say
>if the goal is great enough
for example sacrificing your personal safety for your country then
b) you are placing your trust and hopes for the future with your country. If subsequently the feeling of living a lie makes you lose that trust and hope it's not because you willingly chose to do so.

Our feeling of shame is what makes us want to submit to other people's desires. If you had such low self-worth in the first place you would feel that your very existence is offensive to other people. Then your shame would make you hide your true feelings to avoid other people and avoid other people to hide your true feelings in an endless downward spiral. For Char to submit to this shame and continue living the way he did in Zeta would be to live a lie that could only further distance him form himself and from other people.

>>15140219
I'm honestly surprised he didn't spontaneously erupted into laughter halfway through that sentence.

>>15149786
Of course, but I take issue with universally claiming something is x or y. One can say natural human instincts can be beautiful and also condemn them at the same time. I don't even think Tomino is advocating an absolute.

>>15141654
Well, technically other people killed them, Char was just complicit in them.

>>15150858
>instincts can be beautiful
I used this word simply as a verbal flourish. It's not a matter of aesthetics or morals or any such abstract concepts so there is no need to talk about absolutes.
If you condemn, say, survival instinct are you saying "Struggling to survive is wrong"? It's not right or wrong. It simply is. Even if you try to deny it you can't change the biological fact that this is what motivates your existence. Trying to denounce something like that is a pure nonsense.
The only thing that can be condemned is using this as a justification to do something morally wrong. Still the very definition of right and wrong is subjective and depends on our understanding of what is good and bad for our personal survival. So we are back to point A.
If people can't agree on what is good and what is bad for their personal survival they can't really agree on anything. It's as simple as that.

>>15143752
>have to change the line entirely to make sense of the scene
The official translation disagrees with your assertions.

>>15150915
Ok, thanks for the clarification. No real disagreement here.

>>15150944
I haven't changed anything. I gave you the facts. I don't care about any translations, official or not.

>>15150952
Why should I take your translation to be truth when the officially sanctioned one contradicts it? Do you know better than Sunrise?

Actually Sunrise doesn't really know dick about anything so you probably do, nvm anon, sorry

>>15150956
I don't personally know Sunrise and I don't know what they are thinking. I only have my eyes and ears. Do you not have eyes or ears to see the episode for yourself and understand the context of the scene?

>>15150968
So do you speak moon?
Are you inferring this from the original japanese dialogue?

>>15150973
I think I've explained sufficiently how I'm inferring it in my previous posts. If you have difficulty with understanding something let me know.

>>15143782
They subbed it like that because that's what he's fucking saying and you're a retard for believing that shitposter, retard.

File: AHpQMhu.jpg (291KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1280x720px

>>15151031
Pretty sure your the shit poster here

>>15150976
So you don't know the original dialogue, but you're claiming to not need the translation to arrive at your headcanon about what the line actually meant, regardless of the fact that your headcanon requires changing the line completely.

Basically, you're talking out of your ass.
Thanks for clearing that up.

>>15151807
>So you don't know the original dialogue
I don't know how you came to such a conclusion.

File: Screenshot (1029).png (171KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1366x768px

10/10 TRANSLATION

>>15143752
Just because Haman is deliberately trolling Char does not mean Char didn't betray them.

>>15151994
I think it's time to prune your tabs dawg

>>15152010
I didn't say that and neither did he. If you insist he might still have betrayed them at some point of time but it is not the current point of time.

>>15151994
Haman:
>やはり、裏切りかい
>やはり
"So/I see/As I thought"
A pretty common expression. It's a rather dry remark: "Honestly, I don't know what I expected". Her later dialogue also suggests such attitude.
>裏切りかい
"Is it betrayal?"
Implied time frame: now
Implied object: me/us
"So, you are betraying us?" i.e.
"I see you are pointing a gun at my face. Does this mean we are not best friends anymore?"

Char:
>元々、私は裏切りは一切していない
>私は裏切りはしていない
A quite straightforward present continuous tense sentence. It lacks object but since the object implied in the previous sentence is "me" it would be natural to conclude that the object referred to here is "you".
"I am not betraying (you)."
>一切
An adverb used simply to express absolute negation. It has no temporal implications.
"I am not betraying (you) at all." or if you insist on the "even one" format "I am not betraying (you) even one bit."
>元々
A temporal statement meaning "from the start". In itself it does not specify a particular point in time. This can be deduced relative to context. As I pointed out earlier the implied time frame is "now"/"the current situation"/"our current relationship".
So we have:
"From the start of (our) current (relationship) now including, I am not and I have not been betraying (you) even one bit." i.e.
"We were not best friends to begin with."
I still can't see by what stretch any of this can be interpreted as "Never ever in my life, even once, anyone"

As another anon suggested earlier there is a place for argument on what exactly the phrase "our current relationship" entails. If we assume that there has been no breach of trust between them from the beginning of his stay on Axis until now then their "current relationship" would be their entire relationship. Still Haman's demonstrative behavior and their ill-concealed hostility suggest otherwise. Her pure maiden's heart was broken long before that day.

File: laughing_space_hitleress.gif (1MB, 346x261px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 346x261px

>>15151994
>Herman

>>15149964

You don't need to be an expert on spies to know that spies forgo trusting people with their real identities, just need common sense. If you go in to a situation where you are faking your identity to find out information someone doesn't want you to have or take action someone doesn't want you to take then your identity becomes a secret. The more people you trust with your identity the greater you chance of failure, the less people you trust the higher your chance of success. And the least number of people you can share information with will always be zero.

That aside if you actually read up on infiltrators of various kinds they sometimes have a handler, who is both a point of contact to help insure their immunity should something happen while they're undercover and someone to help keep them sane. That contact is usually the only person who knows their identity, but is also someone they meet as little as possible, once every couple of weeks for a few minutes perhaps to update their progress, but is also their greatest weakness since it's someone who knows their identity. And not all infiltrators have such a point of contact.

While you may be placing your trust in something greater, you are still consciously forgoing trust in people. Nations and organizations are not people. And people were all the point was about, not reality as you seem to keep wanting to make it.

Also, while shame is one reason people submit to others, it is hardly the only reason. Or do you think everyone in every organization bar the leader is shamed in to submission every day? Tell me anon, why do you think Char hid his identity in 0079? Who do you think he shared it with during the show? Not who knew it, who did Char choose to share it with. And how was he dealing with this apparent shame in Char's Counterattack, considering he spends the entire movie going by the name Char Aznable rather than Casval Deikun, even if the duality is widely known by that point.

>>15152510
>spies forgo trusting people with their real identities
That sounds just like practical considerations. If they know you're spy you'll get in trouble. Duh.
>And people were all the point was about, not reality as you seem to keep wanting to make it.
I explicitly stated I mean something different than you and you denied it and now you claim that I am wrong because I am not talking about the same thing as you are?
1.Trusting someone and trusting someone "with" something are different things.
2.I keep telling you that I am talking about trust not as an aspect of a particular relationship but as an existential mindset that people in general CAN be trusted:
"No matter what happens, if I get in trouble I can find at least someone to turn to." ,"Somehow in the end things will turn out all right." No normal person would put themselves in a dangerous situation if they couldn't believe that.
That's why when someone repeats the same self-defeating behavioral patterns without ever learning from their failure you know that their perception of reality must be distorted in some way. Like for example through thinking "There is no way out, there is no way back."

>Or do you think everyone in every organization bar the leader is shamed in to submission every day?
Of course not. The leader, if he has any decency, is also shamed.

>it is hardly the only reason
Of course not. There is also fear.

>Tell me anon, why do you think Char hid his identity in 0079?
Well.
1.practical considerations
2.he didn't trust anyone and I never said he did
What exactly is your point?
>And how was he dealing with this apparent shame, considering he spends the entire movie going by the name Char Aznable rather than Casval Deikun
Your point is made moot by the fact that he always identified as Char Aznable.
In this line of thought more interesting question would be why he denied this in Zeta when everybody and their dog knew everything about him anyway and it wouldn't have him in any danger.

This thread is such a joy to read.

>>15152846
>1.practical considerations
Couldn't you argue that identifying yourself as the son of Daikun would be really practical to rally people in doing crazy shit? More than some old soldiers from Zeon?

On the other hand, maybe he is avoiding messing up even more his family name after the whole OYW ordeal, what potentially could explain the Quattro persona... Ah, that's an interesting question indeed.

>>15148642
>"The flight plan includes me, you, the Princess, and all hands on the Argama, but only none of the Titans!"

>>15153005
I meant practical considerations strictly in terms of spy shenanigans. Like in "If they find out about it I'm fucked"

>identifying yourself as the son of Daikun would be really practical to rally people
I'm a little bit confused about what you mean.
In CCA? But he sort of did.
Before that? That's just another of his personality quirks. It's sort of discussed early on in Zeta.

File: haman.jpg (46KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 960x720px

The other poster you were discussing the "元々" with here. After speaking on this with some native speakers, I'm actually inclined to say that the "I haven't betrayed anyone in my entire life." translation might be closer to being correct than I had thought. To break the sentence down again for anyone interested:

元々、私は裏切りは一切していないよ。ハマーン。
>元々、
"From the beginning", this part is actually much more complicated that it seems. Let's just ignore it for now.
>私
"I", the subject.
>は
Particle indicating that the preceding noun is the topic of the sentence.
>裏切り
"to betray" (lit. backstab)
は
>Particle indicating that the preceding verb is actually being used as a noun.
>一切
"Completely", an adverb modifying the following verb.
>していない
"to not be doing", or to break down further, the "to do" verb conjugated into present progressive "to be doing" in the negative form, "to not be doing". This is the actual action in the sentence.
>よ。
Ending particle expressing emphasis.
>ハマーン。
Haman.

Assuming that Haman is the target of the sentence, he is saying, "I am completely not betraying [you, Haman.]", or, more naturally, "I am not betraying [you] in the slightest." Since Char directly addresses Haman at the end of the sentence, it would seem that this assumption is correct. However, the "元々、" is what makes this unclear.

"元々" basically means "from the beginning" or "originally", but it has connotations of whatever follows being in the nature of the topic. For example,
元々かれは頭がよかった。
From the beginning, he has been smart. (It is in his nature to be smart.)
元々その会社は赤字だった。
From the beginning, that company has been in the red. (It is the the company's nature to be in the red.)

It might be noted that these example sentences conjugate their verbs in the past tense when employing 元々, however, Char's statement is conjugated in the negative present progressive rather than negative past progressive. This seems to just be an instance of natural conversation not necessarily adhering to proper grammar.

File: char.jpg (54KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 960x720px

>>15153227
I had originally assumed that the context of the sentence referred to the relationship between Char and Haman, in which case he would mean that from the beginning of their relationship (that is, ever since they had met), he had never betrayed her in the slightest. The "元々" would connote that it is something at the nature of that relationship, rather than a change in it. However, it seems more likely that Char is not referring to the nature of the relationship between him and Haman, but on his own personal nature.

If a politician were caught in some scandal, and made the statement, "元々私は嘘をついていない。"/"From the beginning, I have never told a lie", it would be not be interpreted as "From the beginning of this investigation" or "From the beginning of my career as a politician", but instead "From the beginning of who I am". That is, it is assumed that he is speaking about his nature, rather than a specific degree of time. I have never told a lie, because I have always been that way by nature.

Ergo, the "元々、" in Char's statement most likely indicates "From the beginning, I do not betray in the slightest", or, more naturally, "By nature, I don't ever betray.", and the addition of Haman at the end of the sentence indicates that he is directing his response at Haman, rather than meaing that the statement refers to his and Haman's relationship specifically.

So the infamous "I have never betrayed anyone in my entire life." quote is actually fairly accurate, though the Japanese makes it clear that he is not emphasizing the temporal nature of his not betraying (his entire life) and instead making a comment that it simply has never been in his nature to betray others.

Thus, a translation of the exchange between Char and Haman could be rendered as follows:
"So you ARE betraying us, Char?"
"I have never betrayed anyone, Haman."

>>15140219
He's right though. Because betrayal implies that he was ever on a side that wasn't his own. At least thats how I took it.

>>15154032
This anon got it.

>>15140327
>tfw everybody loves The Count of Monte Cristo but nobody cares about The Vicomte de Bragelonne
Raoul a cute.

>>15154032

Like said above that's semantics, and scummy ones at that.

It doesn't matter if you always joined with the intention of stabbing them in the back, it's still betraying them.

What Char does is not morally ok under any circumstances.

File: [EG]Zeta_Gundam_50_BD[CB92CFE0].mkv_snapshot_09.50_[2017.01.28_20.39.42].jpg (322KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 960x720px

what the fuck is with the perspective on handguns?

File: 6802B383.jpg (35KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 960x720px

>>15154477
What's with all of the handgun scenes in Zeta in the first place? It swear every named character in this show has been held at gunpoint at least once. Do these people not have any security procedures?

>>15143817
The more you learn about Char you realize he was just a selfish faggot who got so many people killed for muh revenge, and didn't deserve to be Zeon's admiration.

Ramba Ral and Anavel Gato were the best Zeon had to offer.

>>15153231
Well, that will require much more research than I can do on a short notice so it would be useless to argue this point any longer.
In any case whatever he is saying is an angry response to Haman's deliberate provocations and has absolutely nothing to do with whether he has or thinks he has literally betrayed anyone.
I don't understand why people are making so much fuss over something like this.

File: tumblr_n6d0ragDV01su3dgpo1_500.gif (2MB, 433x312px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 433x312px

>>15156261
>>15154477
It's a time tested, reliable negotiation tactic. How else would you get someone to really, and I mean, reeaaally consider your argument?

>>15156471

Gato was worse than Char. He we had little character outside "muh honor" and was completely okay with restarting a new war by killing millions just to make a statement about not liking the way the old war ended. The only thing he achieved despite it all was making life worse for Spacenoids too.

>>15140219
I think it's a translation mistake.

In New Translation he says something like "I never took sides to betray anyone", which makes slighlty more sense

>>15151994
Tell me, Lawrence, how you function with so many tabs open

>>15141654
one of those things that The Origin does that's a clear improvement on the original show is making it much clearer how much of an insane psychopath Char is

also kinda interesting that they make the OYW in many respects directly Char's fault, since if he hadn't egged Garma into leading the assault on the Federation base, open hostilities between Zeon and the Federation could have potentially been staved off for years or even decades

>>15140219
>anime suki subs
Kek

File: armormagnum6.png (859KB, 1009x715px) Image search: [Google]

859KB, 1009x715px

>>15154477
That's not perspective, Kamille just carries a huge fucking gun.

>>15157861
What's up with almost every handgun in japanese media being a <whatever> Magnum?

File: mpv-shot0013.jpg (71KB, 995x720px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 995x720px

>>15154477
Everyone knows that the AEUG gave Kamille a fuckhueg deagle knowing he could bunnyhop to points and one shot all of their enemies.

>>15157878
<whatever> <sounds cool>

>>15157854
I wouldn't call either of those "improvements." Char's character didn't need to have its significance inflated, and his egocentrism is readily apparent anyway.

>>15140219
>>15156815
Does the EG release use the official subs?

>>15160048
Yes, sourced from the US DVDs.

>>15158091

Have you got the edit for that screen shot? The one where he's eating specfically.

File: daily life of kamille.jpg (173KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 640x480px

>>15160491
4u

>>15152846

It does sound like a practical consideration. Which is distinct from an emotional one founded on fear or shame. Char hid his identity because it'd be impossible to do what he wanted without doing so, not because he was afraid of or ashamed of his identity.

I denied the point about existential trust for the simple reason that it's irrelevant. The original post that raised the point about Char's trust (>>15146032) was very obviously referring to whether he trusted people, not reality. Whether or not he trusts reality is irrelevant to whether or not he trusts people, whether he views them of worthy of his trust or how scary not trusting people would be.

Char is also not really a normal person. A normal person wouldn't plan and execute revenge over years for their parents murder as a teenager. So trying to justify his actions using what you think of as the psychology of a normal person is pretty pointless.

> The leader, if he has any decency, is also shamed

There are plenty of indecent corporate, military and governmental leaders in the world. There are also plenty of indecent corporate, military and governmental followers who follow organizational structures because of reasons other than shame or fear - reasons like self-interest, since it's easier to move up and acquire if you're seen to be obeying than if you just do whatever you wish. And plenty of decent ones who just do it because it's right, not out of any sense of shame or fear.

> What exactly is your point

That Char wasn't hiding his identity in 0070 out of shame or fear. The only time he hid his identity out of fear is in Zeta, and that's fear of responsibility, not fear of his past.

> He always identified as Char Aznable

Even putting aside that he clearly didn't identify as Char as a kid or in Zeta, so what? If he's actually confronting the shame and fear of his past, then he'd be doing it as himself, not as a persona he used to hide his identity.

>>15156478
I thought the Japanese was pretty clear.

>>15161715
>The original post that raised the point about Char's trust (>>15146032) was very obviously referring to whether he trusted people, not reality.
I defined existential trust as the belief that people "in general" CAN be trusted.
>views everyone unworthy of his trust
is one way of describe the belief that people "in general" CANNOT be trusted.

In your spy example the minimum requirements are that a spy shouldn't trust people that can put his mission in danger "with" information that can reveal his secret agenda, not that he can't trust people "in general" with anything "in general".

>Char is also not really a normal person.
And never did I suggest that he was:
>>15152846
>That's why when someone repeats the same self-defeating behavioral patterns without ever learning from their failure you know that their perception of reality must be distorted in some way.
Or did you mean that the laws of nature somehow don't apply to him?

>if you're seen to be obeying than if you just do whatever you wish.
That is fear.
>and plenty of decent ones who just do it because it's right
That is shame.

>That Char wasn't hiding his identity in 0079 out of shame or fear.
Neither did I suggest he was.
>and that's fear of responsibility, not fear of his past.
Probably neither, depending on what exactly you mean.

>even putting aside that he clearly didn't identify as Char as a kid
He didn't identify as anything. He was a kid.
>or in Zeta
He did. He just wasn't letting on.
A name is just a name. People identify with the one that means most to them. Char has been a Char ever since he chose to stand on his on in the world. A Char is a free man who makes his own choices out of his free will. A Casval is just a son of his father.

>if he's actually confronting the shame and fear of his past
This again. I can't quite put my finger on it but for some reason I don't like this phrase "shame of his past" at all. What do you mean by it?

>>15160491
>>15160760
I swear I've seen an edit of this where he's jamming on a keyboard. Are there any others?

>>15160760

Cheers!

File: 1485642828307.jpg (32KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x360px

>>15143346
>You can't betray someone if you were never actually loyal to them in the first place.

Completely fucking wrong.

>>15163482
if you get mugged you don't yell "I can't believe you'd betray me like this!"

>>15163500
Well, no. You wouldn't. Not sure why you're telling me this.

>>15163500
On the other hand, if you get mugged by a close friend who you've known and trusted for years, "I can't believe you'd betray me like this" is an entirely justifiable reaction.

Maybe the other person never actually wanted to be your friend, and was just using that as an excuse to gain your trust so they could then mug you. But even if that's the case, it certainly doesn't change the fact that they betrayed you. To the contrary, it makes the betrayal all the more blatant.

>>15163525
on the other other hand, if you know your friend is that asshole who hid his true identity to kill a bunch of people and you still trust him you're a big dummy

>>15163527
2meta4me

>>15143817
Athrun Zala

>>15143346
>>15163482
This disagreement is pretty much the whole point of the scene, Haman is calling Char out on betraying them and Char basically responds that he was never really loyal to anyone in the first place. I'm not sure we're supposed to see one or the other as "right" in the first place, just that Char's perception of himself is completely different than how others might see him.

>>15164070
>just that Char's perception of himself is completely different than how others might see him.
Everyone else sees him as a lunatic, so obviously.

>>15162509
>He didn't identify as anything. He was a kid.

I'm pretty sure he identified as Casval Deikun. You don't have to be an adult to have a persona you identify as.

>>15165398
Yes, of course to the extent you can differentiate between yourself and other people. But form cognitive perspective we don't really fully develop the higher functions of thinking of ourselves in relation to other people and of our role in society until well into adolescence.
People identify themselves with where they stand in relation to the outside world.

File: latest.gif (22KB, 385x550px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 385x550px

>>15140219
>just watched the episode where Ryu dies
>see this image
>think "what the fuck, that bitch lived but my man Ryu didn't?"
>turns out pic related is Hamon, not Haman

>>15162509

> views everyone unworthy of his trust
> is one way of describe the belief that people "in general" CANNOT be trusted.

Not really, just because you view people as possible of trust doesn't mean you can or will trust them.

> Never did I suggest he was

The words " No normal person would put themselves in a dangerous situation if they couldn't believe that." in >>15152846 would certainly suggest that you see Char as a normal person and/or that he couldn't be lacking trust simply because to not do so would not be normal.

> Or did you mean that the laws of nature somehow don't apply to him?

How is the conclusion "if someone keeps repeating the same pattern of behavior without learning from it they must be distorted in some way" a law of nature?

> That is fear
> That is shame

No, they aren't. Children are often taught to behave using fear and shame, but a desire to avoid that shame and fear isn't shame or fear in and of itself, just an aversion to experience shame or fear. Emotions like fear also warp over time, just like emotions like love and hate can change over time. Just because you experience something as shameful or fearful as a child when learning doesn't mean they stay that way your whole life.

> Neither did I suggest he was

Then when do you think he was acting out of shame and fear to confront that shame and fear in Char's Counterattack?

> A name is just a name.

It is, but a persona isn't. And Quattro was more than just a name. He looked, acted and thought different as Quattro than he did as Char. He had different goals, different friends, he treated people differently and so on. That's an identity.

>>15166014

> I don't like this phrase "shame of his past" at all. What do you mean by it?

I have no idea, I just adopted it from your posts since that's what you expressed the idea that Char was confronting his shame and/or fear in Char's Counterattack and that his past was the cause of those.

>>15165409

Children can and do define themselves by their relation to the outside world. Even kids of 2 or 3 years old are capable of that. Your identity becomes more firm as you become an adult, and you become capable of greater and more complex reasoning and so on, but toddlers can and do both have an identity and are capable of self-identification. Suggesting you don't have an identity until adolescence is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen someone say.

>>15166014
I am tired of this autistic conversation. Everything about this post is just so wrong.

>>15166035

If you're tired of it, more power to you. Your propensity to result to insults is fairly childish though.

>>15166016
>>15166014
Oh, well, I'm back.
>and that his past was the cause of those
1.shame "of" the past =/= shame "caused by" past experiences
All shame is caused by past experiences, but it doesn't make it shame of the past.
2.I said:
>The child that has been left without protection feels the cold rejection of other people as a reproach to his own self. He, that doesn't understand what crimes he has done to deserve being put through so much fear, feels like it is some sort of divine punishment for being vile and unworthy.
>If you had such low self-worth in the first place you would feel that your very existence is offensive to other people.
This is not shame of the past, but shame of your identity.
Here again I want to make a distinction between "legal" identity - the stuff that is written on your credentials and "psychological" identity - your innermost self.
So back to talking about spies - they are not allowed to trust other people with their "legal" identity - factual information about themselves, not with their "psychological" identity.
When you say "Why was Char hiding his identity in 0079?" and you mean his "legal" identity? Then yes, he didn't share his name not because he distrusted people, but because he didn't want to get caught.
But did he hide his "psychological" identity? Also yes. He had no friends.He didn't share his "innermost self" because he distrusted people.
So if you ask "what does the fact he was hiding his "legal" identity in 0079
with the fact that he wanted to express his "psychological" identity in CCA" I will have to answer "Well, mostly nothing."

I didn't say children don't have (psychological) identity. I said:
>of course [they have] to the extent [they] can differentiate between [themselves] and other people.
Still that identity will evolve and become more sophisticated as you grow. Adolescence is when we our identity as adults solidifies and it's (unfortunately) very difficult to change this percept about ourselves later in life.

>>15166062
Resort? Because I called the conversation "autistic". Well, since I am also participating in it, if it is insult to you, it is also insult to me. In any case it IS autistic at least in the vernacular sense of the word.

The different aliases that Char employs are pretty significant, and are a sort of representation of the various aspects of him. Casval Deikun is the heir to his father. We don't see much of his life as the noncombatant Edward Mass, but its interesting that Sayla keeps her identity as Sayla Mass rather than returning to Artesia Deikun, which says something about her preference for a life that has nothing to do with Zeon. The alias he is most associated with, Char, is the name he uses as a military leader and tends to represent the most vengeful and selfish parts of his personality, but also one that is unburdened by dealing with upholding all of his father's legacy in favor of doing what he wants. Quattro Bajeena is also an aspect of him trying to be unburdened by his part, but this time a man escaping the bitter behavior that his Char persona held toward humanity in favor of trying to trust others.

That's not to say that each persona is completely distinct. The OP image is Quattro at his most Char-like (basically being a hotheaded dick who doesn't consider the repercussions of his actions) and Kamille and Emma ask why he's acting so out of character in that episode. In the ending of the MSG novel, Sayla makes a comment on how she's content not seeing Char after the war because there's nothing left of her brother Casval in him. It kind of puts those comments she makes about him in ZZ in a different light. It's actually pretty telling to Char's personality that the Char persona is the one he seems to gravitate towards in the end.

>>15166014
Back to this.
>just because you view people as possible of trust doesn't mean you can or will trust them.
Also if you say "everyone" is unworthy of trust I take this to mean "everyone without exception" which I think is synonymous with "people in general".
I claim that Char distrusts "everyone in general".
Do you think that there can be made any logical distinction between "everyone in general" and "everyone in particular". x times nothing is still nothing.

>" No normal person would put themselves in a dangerous situation if they couldn't believe that." in would certainly suggest that you see Char as a normal person
By "normal person" I mean an average emotionally healthy person. I assume that an average emotionally healthy person is capable of trusting other people and of emotionally adjusted behavior. I assume this to be a law of nature. By this definition I suggest that by law of nature Char is not a normal person.

>but a desire to avoid that shame and fear isn't shame or fear in and of itself
The desire to avoid situations that would invoke shame is shame, the desire avoid situations that would invoke fear is fear.
You don't walk outside in your underwear. Is that not because of shame?
You don't jump out of the window. Is that not fear?

>Just because you experience something as shameful or fearful as a child when learning doesn't mean they stay that way your whole life.
Of course. People change. Or not.

>And Quattro is more than just a name, it's a persona.
Someone save me from this meme.
>He looked
You leave his fashion sense alone. It was the 80's.
>acted and thought differently as Quattro
He was a bit older and just a little bit less stupid. Other than that, nah.
>He had different goals,
Nah.
>different friends,
He never had friend in the first place.
>he treated people differently
Nah. Depends on the people.

Reading >>15166183 is just wanted to remark that if I protested against he word "persona" in >>15166214 it's because many fans of the he-was-merely-pretending meme like to use it. I'm not even sure this is relevant to our discussion.
Still all people adjust their behavior depending on the situation they are in but they don't change their identity at the flick of a switch.
To address the former issue it is possible to adopt a "persona" that is entirely false but most people most of the just choose to reframe the truth in a more socially acceptable manner. That's what Char was doing too. It's mere politeness or at least this is the sort of excuse adults make.

In this sense rather than saying that the Char "persona" represented
>the most vengeful and selfish parts of his personality
I'd like to reframe this as pride and arrogance and then
>escaping the bitter behavior that his Char persona held toward humanity in favor of trying to trust others
would become trying to take into consideration the feelings of other people.

>>15166133

> He, that doesn't understand what crimes he has done to deserve being through so much fear

Let's approach it from this angle instead: Char never acts like someone who doesn't understand why his parents were murdered or like he suffered fear because of of a lack of understanding. He knew exactly why they were murdered and set out to get revenge for them. He never acts like someone who thinks he is vile and unworthy. Even when being showered with attention and love by the masses in Char's Counterattack he doesn't care, which, if he felt unworthy prior to that point he is likely to seek out and bask in.

> But did he hide his "psychological" identity? Also yes. He had no friends.He didn't share his "innermost self" because he distrusted people.

You do realize that people who go undercover in any way don't just act exactly the same as normal beyond changing their name? If you want to succeed within an organization you have to change to be someone who has a chance of success within that organization, not just act exactly the same as you normally would. So he didn't just hide his legal identity for practical reasons or psychological identity because of distrust - he hid his psychological identity for practical reasons too; because acting from or revealing his inner self would damage his chances of success.

> Adolescence is when our identity as adults solidifies

So what? Casval had an identity and the ability to self-identify. Just because an adults is more fixed doesn't mean a childs doesn't count.

> Do you think that there can be made any logical distinction between "everyone in general" and "everyone in particular". x times nothing is still nothing.

Yes, because the difference is "I've never met anyone I thought worthy of my trust" and "I don't think there is anyone out there worthy of my trust".

>>15167279


> I assume this to be a law of nature

I'd say you're jumping the gun and not accounting for something as simple as stupidity. Lack of intelligence can lead to someone repeating the same behavior multiple times without learning from it, not just psychological dysfunction.

> I suggest that Char is not a normal person

I don't disagree, even if I disagree with the above assessment as a law.

> The desire to avoid situations that would invoke shame is shame, the desire to avoid situations that would invoke fear is fear

No, it isn't. It's anxiety, not shame.

> You don't walk outside in your underwear. Is that not because of shame

When I was 5, yes. I'm not 5 anymore. I don't walk outside in my underwear because it'd be cold or wet, because it'd annoy other people and because it doesn't actually do anything for me.

> You don't jump out of the window. Is that not fear?

Not really no. If you're standing on the window ledge and looking down, then yea: fear. If you're laying in bed and considering it, then all you feel when considering it is anxiety at best. Which is why so many people can contemplate the idea, but not follow through on it when they get to the point of no return. They can dismiss anxiety and go up to the window, but not fear when looking down.

> Someone save me from this meme

Maybe you should try saving yourself from considering anything you don't agree with a meme?

> It was the 80s

I didn't disparage his fashion.

>>15167281

> He was a bit older and just a little less stupid. Other than that, nah

Char in 0079: hates Amuro, wants desperately to beat him
Quattro in Zeta: has no apparent issue with Amuro, not even minor signs of anger when no-one's looking and tries to get Amuro to pilot again
Char in CCA: hates Amuro, blames him for Lalah, desperately wants to beat him

Char in 0079: kept his colleagues (besides Lalah) at arm's length, manipulating them and circumstances because he wanted to succeed so as to increase his chances of killing the Zabis
Quattro in Zeta: was more personable with all his comrades, even if he still private, wasn't manipulative and tried to push off responsibility at every turn
Char in CCA: embraced responsibility while manipulating everyone around him to increase his chances at fighting Amuro and dropping Axis

Yup, totally the same guy.

> Nah (different goals)

Yeah.

> He never had friends in the first place

Not in 0079 or CCA; in those he just had subordinates. In Zeta, he has comrades and friends.

>>15166282

I wouldn't say he was pretending; I'd say he was effectively a different person. Or at least, trying to be, despite everyone around him trying to make him be Char again. He was successful for much of the series, but couldn't pull it off in the end due to all the people wanting him to be Char again.

>>15167279
0079: has nothing personal against Amuro, wants to kill him because of Lalah
Zeta: likes Amuro, still hung up about Lalah but keeps to himself
CCA: likes Amuro, still hung up about Lalah

0079: polite and presentable, keeps people (including Lalah) at an arm's length, kind of a smug asshole, only cares about his personal agenda
Zeta: polite and presentable, keeps people at an arm's length, less of a smug asshole, only cares about his personal agenda
CCA: polite and presentable, keeps people at an arm's length, kind of a smug asshole, only cares about his personal agenda

0079: hates politicians, wants humanity to progress
Zeta: hates politicians, wants humanity to progress
CCA: hates politicians, wants humanity to progress

Guys, it's completely different!

>In 0079 or CCA he just had subordinates. In Zeta, he has comrades and friends.
Notice how he is more willing to divulge personal information to people that show actual interest in him as a person. Weird, huh?
In Zeta he was a respected member of the AEUG. In MSG he was regarded as an upstart brat that only made it because he was Garma or Kycilia's pet.

>He was effectively a different person. Or at least, trying to be, despite everyone around him trying to make him be Char again. He was successful for much of the series, but couldn't pull it off in the end due to all the people wanting him to be Char again.
The whole point if the identity thing is that you only have one during the entirety of your lifetime unless you have some sort of multiple personalities disorder. What name you use to label this identity is mostly irrelevant.
If people wanted him to be "Char again" they didn't want him to be the Char that HE wanted to be. People wanted him to be "The Red Comet, the hero of the people, the son of Zeon". He never considered himself any of those things. All he ever wanted to be from the start is a free man that does things out of his own free will.

>>15167281
> It's anxiety
Just the word I needed. Thanks for bringing it up.
Yep, in fact much of the fear I've been talking about up until now is actually anxiety.

Anxiety, originally termed "irrational" fear is usually defined as a fear of the unknown. Basically it is an "abstract" fear or if I choose to stick to my own terminology "existential" fear. In fact existentialist philosophy is pretty much the philosophy of anxiety. What is the difference between "abstract" fear and "concrete" fear?
For example if you consider killing yourself by jumping out of the window but then you imagine yourself flying down and almost can hear the sickening crunchy noise of broken bones as you hit the asphalt at great speed that would be fear.
If you get scared away because you imagine the eternal emptiness of the nothingness after death that would be anxiety.
The strength of the emotional reaction is determined by the strength of the stimuli, not by it's abstractness. Leaning
out you can imagine more vividly the result of flying out than you could lying in your bed. It's a quantitative difference, not qualitative. Even if in most cases impending physical danger will cause a more visceral reaction than some sort of abstract danger, the opposite is also possible.
The law of nature is that no one could consciously choose to harm themselves unless the reward(abstract or not) exceeds the punishment(abstract or not).
A stupid person might fail to understand the implications of his actions and do something harmful. A stupid person might fail to understand how their behavior caused them that harm and repeat this behavior. But even a stupid person would never consciously choose to do something that they are certain can only end in failure and not benefit them in any way. If someone is perfectly conscious of the fact that their behavior can only hurt them and people around them and still chooses to repeat that behavior it shows that their motivational system is disordered in some way.

>>15167281
>I'm not 5 anymore.
Huh, you would proudly walk in the middle of a crowded big city business district street in your underpants without feeling any embarrassment? Pretty brave. I'm impressed. Maybe I'm too conservative but I can't help but feel that most people wouldn't agree with you. I also think that many young children wouldn't be as ashamed of something like this as an average adult would be.

>he never acts like he doesn't understand why his parents were murdered
Death is an imminent danger but the loss of a loved one does not mean imminent death - it causes abstract fear. The reason for this fear is not understood.
Our existential fear reflects our image of how adapted we are to survive.
Our existential shame reflects our image of how socially acceptable our identity is.
Since humans are social animals that depend on other people for their survival both concepts are closely related.

>or like he suffered fear because of a lack of understanding.
>even when being showered with attention by the masses he doesn't care
If you feel unworthy of praise then receiving undeserved praise would only make you feel frustrated.
>People wanted him to be "The Red Comet, the hero of the people, the son of Zeon".
He would rather people acknowledged him for what he is, not for what they want him to be.

So after this detour about anxiety if we go back to our discussion about trust.
The lack of trust as I define it is "anxiety".
The lack of trust as you define it is "fear".
So we can reframe the original question as a matter of whether he feels "anxiety" or "fear".
Now, I said and you did not disagree that in Zeta there is no reason for him to think that revealing his identity will directly endanger his physical existence i.e "anxiety". Also we can assume that this anxiety wouldn't magically disappear by the time of CCA, which addresses your second question. As to whether he felt that way in MSG(he did) that would be the object of a different discussion.

>>15167283
>Char in CCA: embraced responsibility
Is this the same responsible Char who consistently ignored a teenage girl who needed some sort of father figure and excused his attempt as mass murder with Freudian psychobabble?

>>15168185

> 0079: has nothing personal against Amuro, wants to kill him because of Lalah

How is that not personal?

> CCA: likes Amuro

He doesn't hate Amuro, but there's nothing there to say he likes him either.

> including Lalah

He actually changed his behavior for Lalah (putting on a normal suit), and she was able to see him for who he was thanks to being a newtype. Not really indications of distance.

> Zeta: only cares about his personal agenda

He doesn't have a personal agenda in Zeta. His only agenda is defeating the Titans. Which isn't personal, since he he no personal reason for wanting them gone. He's also part of a group with the same agenda.

> 0079: hates politicians

No, he hates the Zabis. Some of whom are politicians, but he never acts like he hates all politicians.

> wants humanity to progress

Not really. He barely mentions it during the show.

> Notice how he is more willing to divulge personal information to people that show actual interest in him as a person

He's also more willing to divulge information when he isn't undercover. And isn't in a strict hierarchical system like a formal military that discourages people to mix with their subordinates.

> What name you use to label this identity is mostly irrelevant.

What isn't irrelevant is if you make sudden sweeping changes in your life and change almost everything about yourself. Taking on a new legal identity could be part of that, but Quattro wasn't just a change of name.

> All he ever wanted to be from the start is a free man

He certainly didn't want to be a free man during 0079, given that he willing dedicated himself to a lack of freedom. He may have wanted it as a distant goal for later in life, but if he did he didn't indicate that.

>>15168350


>>15168190

> Anxiety, originally termed "irrational" fear is usually defined as a fear of the unknown

Fear can be a component of anxiety, but is not an intrinsic and inseparable part of it, and is held to be distinct psychologically.

> What is the difference between "abstract" fear and "concrete" fear?

Concrete fear is something that you feel in the immediate when facing a tangible danger that is in front of you. Abstract is worry over something that is distant or intangible. When you feel actual fear on a continuous basis it's normally characterized as a disorder.

> If someone is perfectly conscious of the fact that their behavior can only hurt them and people around them

Whether you know that or not has nothing to do with intellect (high or low) really, or mental dysfunction.

>>15168192

> you would proudly walk in the middle of a crowded big city business district

Not what I said. If I actually did it I would be ashamed then. I wouldn't be ashamed if the idea floated across my mind or if I gave the idea consideration though, only anxious. And then dismiss it for the reasons above.

> The reason for this fear is not understood

Someone close to you dying causing you to think about death more closely yourself, whether you are in actual danger or not isn't a surprising behavioral pattern.

> If you feel unworthy of praise then receiving undeserved praise would only make you feel frustrated

Char didn't act frustrated at the attention either.

> He would rather people acknowledged him for what he is, not for what they want him to be

In Zeta, yea. He doesn't seem to care about it in 0079 or Char's Counterattack.

>>15168352

> The lack of trust as you define it is "fear"

I wouldn't define it that way, especially not for Char. Char didn't seem anxious or afraid, superficially or subconsciously of his general lack of trust. It seemed to be something he was comfortable with, and not concerned by.

> Also we can assume that this anxiety wouldn't magically disappear by the time of CCA

It might not disappear magically, but it could disappear if you became comfortable with whatever was causing it and it ceased to be a worry. Char didn't want to embrace his real identity (Casval or Char) in Zeta, and only did so briefly at Dakar. He didn't become Casval at all in Char's Counterattack, and became a completely different Char than Blex and others were pushing him to be in Zeta, taking on burdens no-one was trying to make him accept. If he was concerned about either identity anymore it didn't show.

>>15168195

Nah, it's the Char who tried to excuse his attempt at mass murder by moralizing about how shitty the people of Earth were, became leader of Neo Zeon, became a beloved public figure despite not caring about that at all and tried to enact a plan that he had devised. Just because you are responsible in some areas of your life doesn't mean you are responsible in every single definable way.

>>15168352
>How is that not personal?
I agree. Let me rephrase that. He has nothing against Amuro as a person. Better?
>He doesn't hate Amuro, but there's nothing there to say he likes him either.
>Not really indications of distance.
Disagree on both but too lazy to argue.
>He doesn't have a personal agenda in Zeta.
Look at OP.
>but he never acts like he hates all politicians.
Despises the Federation. Hates the Zabis all of whom have political power. Almost seems like a pattern.
>Not really. He barely mentions it during the show.
Dude, what?
>What isn't irrelevant is if you make sudden sweeping changes in your life and change almost everything about yourself.
Seven years is not sudden. And I already disagreed with the "sweeping" part.
>He certainly didn't want to be a free man during 0079, given that he willing dedicated himself to a lack of freedom.
But you did not disagree that he was only interested in his personal agenda in MSG.

>>15168352
>Abstract is worry over something that is distant or intangible.
How is that not anxiety? Give me your definition of anxiety?
>Whether you know that or not has nothing to do with intellect (high or low) really
Which is exactly what I said.
>or mental dysfunction
I lost you. Are you disagreeing that "The law of nature is that no one could consciously choose to harm themselves unless the reward(abstract or not) exceeds the punishment(abstract or not)."?
>I wouldn't be ashamed if the idea floated across my mind or if I gave the idea consideration though
I already explained that when I gave an example about fear. It's still shame even if you are only imagining it.
>Someone close to you dying causing you to think about death more closely yourself, whether you are in actual danger or not isn't a surprising behavioral pattern.
If somebody you knows dies in a car crash you might also start believing you will die in a car crash. The incident is what triggered your anxiety but it is not the reason for your anxiety. There is no logical reason to believe that if your friend died in a car crash you will also die in a car crash. It's completely irrational. Still telling yourself that won't change how you feel. You are not afraid because your friend died, you are afraid because of the vague and undefined possibility you might die in the same way. You don't know how or why something like this would happen. So you start overthinking "Is my seatbelt fastened properly?","Am I driving too fast?","Is that strange noise coming from the engine?".
Exempt in my example I was not talking about the fear of death. It's not "My parents died" triggering the anxiety "I might also die". It's "I've been left on my own" triggering the anxiety "I can't survive on my own".

>>15168352
>Char didn't act frustrated at the attention either.
Mentioned something about clowns.
>In Zeta, yea. He doesn't seem to care about it in 0079 or Char's Counterattack.
Look above. As for MSG he wasn't really a figure of that much public interest there.
>Char didn't seem anxious or afraid, superficially or subconsciously of his general lack of trust.
You are not anxious "of" your lack of trust. I am saying anxiety "is" lack of trust. And vice versa. Like, they are opposites, you know.
Also he was emoing around a lot in Zeta and occasionally in CCA.
>Char didn't want to embrace his real identity (Casval or Char) in Zeta, and only did so briefly at Dakar. He didn't become Casval at all in Char's Counterattack, and became a completely different Char than Blex and others were pushing him to be in Zeta, taking on burdens no-one was trying to make him accept. If he was concerned about either identity anymore it didn't show.
Wha-.I became confused with all these identities. How many Chars are there running around? And how does any of this have to do with his anxiety.

>Char didn't want to embrace his real identity
Define "real".
>and only did so briefly at Dakar.
He only did what other people wanted him to do.
>and became a completely different Char than Blex and others were pushing him to be in Zeta
The one he wanted to be?
>taking on burdens no-one was trying to make him accept.
Except for himself because that is what he wanted to do?
How did any of this make him forget his anxiety?

Let me sum up the story for you:
After MSG Char realizes he has been an arrogant jerk for unconsciously rejecting other people. In Zeta he tries to be less rude by simply avoiding other people but he is not very good at it. Eventually he realizes you can't really avoid other people so he turns back to rejecting other people, this time deliberately.

Also let's try to limit the green texting or at least structure your posts in a little bit more compact and readable way.

>>15168475

> He has nothing against Amuro as a person

He hates what Amuro has done (both for beating him and for killing Lalah). Whether he has any personal distaste for Amuro as a person is irrelevant because he never makes any attempt in 0079 to distinguish between Amuro's person and actions.

> Disagree

If you change your behavior to mollify someone who has expressed concerns for your safety due to said behavior then you are compromising to account for their feelings and it's about as textbook an example of trying to close the distance between those people as you can find.

> Look at OP

You mean Haman? He has no agenda toward Haman. He didn't seem to care what she did and left her and everything to do with her on Axis to pursue his own interests. He only dealt with her as and when she came up. That's not an agenda, because an agenda requires a plan. Like joining a faction and trying to work your way up it's ranks to become closer to someone so you can kill them when the chance presents itself. Or starting a faction that gains control of an asteroid so you can attach engines and hurl it at Earth.

> Despises the Federation

No, he doesn't.

> Hates the Zabis, all of whom have political power.

Dozle and Garma might theoretically have been able to assert political power, but they were more concerned with martial power and left the politics to Degwin, Gihren and to a lesser extent Kycilia. They were not politicians in any real sense.

> Dude, what?

He only expresses an interest in humanity for a short while toward the end of the show and never actually does anything about it. In fact, his obsession with Amuro over-rides even his hate of the Zabis. Both of which he was taking actual steps to pursue. He might have expressed interest in the future of humanity, but interest alone means nothing because he never did anything about it. I could express an interest in parachuting. If I never do anything but express that interest it doesn't mean anything.

>>15168635


> Seven years is not sudden.

He spent a large chunk of that seven years as Char, out in Axis or what not. The change to Quattro is specifically to be part of A.E.U.G and takes place in the year or so before the show, in a rather sudden way by the way it's laid out.

> I disagreed with the "sweeping" part.

Noted, but not convinced.

> you did not disagree that he was only interested in his personal agenda in MSG

The agenda with the Zabis, yes. Because they were dead after 0079. He has no personal agenda in Zeta, but has another in Char's Counterattack.

>>15168477

> How is that not anxiety?

It is. I included the word fear specifically because you used it, but would personally not include it at all and would make the distinction between fear and anxiety based on the tangibility of the consequence. If you have to trick your mind in to seeing something clearly to induce fear then it's still fear, and not anxiety. Fear and anxiety are related, and one can lead to the other but they're not the same. The same is true of many emotions and feelings. Love and like for instance. You can like someone without loving them, or love them without liking them. By the same token you can be afraid of something but not be anxious about it, or be anxious about something without fearing it. And that's also why you can be anxious and afraid at the same time, because they're seperate.

> Are you disagreeing that "The law of nature is that no one could consciously choose to harm themselves unless the reward(abstract or not) exceeds the punishment(abstract or not)."?

I'm both disagreeing that it's a law of nature, and that if you don't recognize the harm you are or could cause that it's a conscious decision to proceed despite that harm.

>>15168637

> It's still shame even if you are only imagining it

Substitute fear with shame and see above. You explained it, but your explanation didn't convince me.

> If somebody you know dies in a car crash you might also start believing you will die in a car crash

You also might not, and instead just think about death in a more general sense. If you worry about dying in the same manner then it is not standard operating procedure and you have a dysfunction of some kind. It may only be a minor dysfunction, but it's still irregular.

> It's "I've been left on my own" triggering the anxiety "I can't survive on my own".

An anxiety Char never expressed.

>>15168574

> Mentioned something about clowns

Which was specifically because he didn't like dressing up, not because he didn't like the attention.

> As for MSG he wasn't really a figure of that much public interest

Which is telling in and of itself. He wasn't concerned with attention, good or bad.

> I am saying anxiety "is" lack of trust.

And I'm saying I disagree then I guess, since I don't believe trust in reality, people etc. is the cause of anxiety.

> he was emoing around a lot in Zeta

I disagree.

> how does any of this have to do with his anxiety

He is anxious in Zeta about becoming the man others expect him to be, and tries to abdicate on that, but becomes someone else entirely in Char's Counterattack.

> Define "real"

The name he was born with, the identity he was growing in to before his parent's murder and to a degree what people expect of that person after the fact.

> He only did what other people wnated him to do

I don't disagree, but he quickly left that behind because it didn't mean much to him despite the anxiety.

>>15168640

> The one he wanted to be?

The one he thought served the agenda he had by the looks of things.

> How did any of this make him forget his anxiety

How did any of it come from anxiety? I don't know that any of it is the result of him forgetting or moving on from anxiety, but I also don't think any of it is born from anxiety either. He doesn't seem to be acting from or expressing any anxiety in Char's Counterattack.

> Let me sum up

I disagree. I don't think the changes are driven by anxiety over his distance from or relation to other people I guess, but that Zeta was him floundering for purpose and trying to move on because the thing he'd dedicated years to was now done but hadn't actually made him any happier, while in Char's Counterattack he's seeking to fix that by giving himself purpose. His distance towards people has nothing to do with driving it, but is just a by product of his personality, agenda and actions, not the cause.

Greentexting appears to be the most efficient way to discuss things. Not pretty, but efficient and there's not really any better way to do it without forgoing large parts of the discussion.

Char is just a petty manchild that couldn't get over Lalah. Everything in CCA was set up for him to fight and kill Amuro.

Ignore everything he says to anyone but Amuro only during their final battle in CCA. It's all lies so Neo Zeon will get him his final battle.

>He hates what Amuro has done
Which DOES mean he has nothing against him as a person.
>and it's about as textbook an example of trying to close the distance between those people as you can find
Since our original discussion was about trust, you can love and care about someone without trusting them.
>You mean Haman?
No. I don't mean Haman. I mean, as another anon stated earlier, that as later in the same episode with Reccoa he is stating he is not on anyone's side. If he is not on anyone's side what is he doing then?
> I could express an interest in parachuting.
If Char expressed interest in parachuting in MSG and then practiced parachuting in Zeta I'd assume it's probably because he wanted to do it from the start.
>He spent a large chunk of that seven years as Char
>The change to Quattro takes place in a rather sudden way by the way it's laid out.
How is it laid out? It's not laid out in any way. We know next to nothing about what happened. Changing your name doesn't mean you change your personality. What do you know about he did on Axis. If anything he was a chummy guy that hanged out with Haman and Mineva.
>Fear and anxiety are related, and one can lead to the other but they're not the same.
Which is why I took pains to distinguish them. It has nothing to do with imagining. "Imagining" a concrete situation doesn't mean you feel anxiety. Being afraid of a "hypothetical" situation means you feel anxiety. The thought "If I get bitten by a dog it will hurt" is not hypotetical. It's concrete. It's fear. The thought "If I go to the park I might get bitten by a dog" is hypothetical. It's anxiety.
When you think of jumping out of the window you don't think "I might unintentionally jump out of the window". Jumping implies intention. Or you don't think "If you jump from the fifth floor it might hurt". You "know" it "will" hurt.
Why are we arguing about this any of this shit in the first place?

>>15168635
>And I'm saying I disagree then I guess, since I don't believe trust in reality, people etc. is the cause of anxiety.
This is the literal definition of angst.
>If you worry about dying in the same manner then it is not standard operating procedure and you have a dysfunction of some kind.
Ah, so you can arbitrarily state what is dysfunction but I can't? In any case I was simply giving an example of how anxiety might work.
>I'm both disagreeing that it's a law of nature, and that if you don't recognize the harm you are or could cause that it's a conscious decision to proceed despite that harm.
I don't understand the sentence. You don't agree that it's a conscious decision to take a certain action that might cause harm if you are not aware that it might cause harm? If you criticized somebody's new haircut without realizing it would hurt their feelings then it wasn't your conscious decision to criticize their haircut?
You don't agree that it would be against human nature to consciously cause yourself pain if you didn't expect to gain anything from it. You would choose to hurt yourself without any reason for that? Or are are you arguing that it is against human nature to cause yourself pain regardless of the reward or punishment you might receive as a result? You would never hurt yourself no matter what the cost?
>An anxiety Char never expressed.
Muh mum etc.
>Which was specifically because he didn't like dressing up, not because he didn't like the attention.
He disliked Neo Zeon fashion choices? I agree. He rocked that 80's look.

>>15168891

> Which DOES mean he has nothing against him as a person.

It also means he still hates his actions, which he makes no attempt to distinguish from Amuro as a person rendering the distinction unimportant.

> Since our original discussion was about trust, you can love and care about someone without trusting them.

Theoretically I suppose you can. It's unlikely though, since positive feelings makes you more inclined towards trust, and love is about as positive a feeling as you can get.

> If he is not on anyone's side what is he doing then

Nothing that constitutes an agenda.

> If Char expressed interest in parachuting in MSG and then practiced parachuting in Zeta I'd assume it's probably because he wanted to do it from the start.

Except he neither expressed an interest in freedom during MSG or acted particularly interested in his freedom during Zeta.

> How is it laid out

He talks about spending time on Axis before coming back to the Earthsphere. Combine that with how recent AEUG are as an organisation, only having formed as a reaction to an incident two years before the show and it gives the impression he only returned within the last two years. Add in how Haman views him as Char and not Quattro and it becomes likely he was Char on Axis and only Quattro after he left.

> Changing your name doesn't mean you change your personality

No, but changing your goals and attitudes does.

>>15169090

> The thought "If I get bitten by a dog it will hurt" is not hypothetical.

Sounds hypothetical to me actually, since unless you know you're about to be bitten by a dog because one is in front of you then it's a situation you are making up. Even if you know a dog is at a place you are going, you are only assuming it'll bite you. And even if you know it's a vicious dog that bites everyone and you have to go there you are still only considering the situation, not actually there to experience it. Unless you are imagining it so vividly that your brain can no longer tell the difference then it won't be a concrete situation, only hypothetical.

>>15168896

> This is the literal definition of angst

Strange then that I can't find the word trust as part of the dictionary definition despite searching several sites. Nor is it listed in the few medical dictionaries I looked at. Or even on the Wikipedia article on angst or anxiety.

> I was simply giving an example of how anxiety might work

Anxiety isn't a simple thing and doesn't always work the same way or have the same causes. It might work that way on occasion, I wouldn't put it outside the bounds of possibility. It doesn't always, or even usually work that way.

> You don't agree that it's a conscious decision to take a certain action that might cause harm if you are not aware that it might cause harm?

Correct. If you took the action without full awareness of the harm it could cause then you are not making an informed decision. It is conscious in the sense that you knew you were making it, but not conscious in the sense that you took it despite knowing that it would cause harm (i.e. the law of nature that you refer to). You can't make an informed decision to take action despite knowing the benefits will not outweigh the costs if you aren't aware of the costs in the first place.

>>15169092


> Muh mum etc.

I'm most interested in the etc. here, since it implies more, but people usually list more than one example if they can think of more than one. I also don't see how a statement that he wished Lalah had lived to care for him, even in a maternal manner in some sense is an expression of anxiety over an inability to survive on his own. Char wanting her to survive isn't the same as him feeling he can't survive without her. Unless you take the line very literally and view him as missing his mother and wanting Lalah to be his new mother, rather than viewing it as an expression of some kind it doesn't seem to hint at him showing anxiety over his missing mother.

>>15169090
>Add in how Haman views him as Char and not Quattro
OK. I don't expect much from you at this point, but, assuming that his personality did indeed undergo a drastic change at some point, how did you deduce that Haman views his as "Char" and not as "Quattro"? What in her words and behavior made you think she was addressing a different person than the on that was currently standing before her? How do you treat a Char and how do you treat a Quattro?

>Sounds hypothetical to me actually
Hypothetical is the danger, not the premise.
Example:
Passing over an old rickety bridge you think "I might fall."
Premise: You are on a bridge. It can be hypothetical or not.
Danger : You might fall. Hypothetical. You might or might not fall.
It's anxiety.
Example 2:
You are about to falling from an old rickety bridge and you think "If I fall I'll die."
Premise: You fall from a bridge. It can be hypothetical or not.
Danger: You will die. Not hypothetical.
It's fear.
Of course, if you wish you might say that lying in your bed and fidgeting about how some day for some unknown reason you might be walking over some rickety bridge and fall off is anxiety. This has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make.

>>15169092
>It is conscious in the sense that you knew you were making it, but not conscious in the sense that you took it despite knowing that it would cause harm
Yes.
>(i.e. the law of nature that you refer to)
No.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
A law of nature: No one would do something they know would harm them for no apparent reason.
Example:
You touch a hot stove without being aware that it is hot and burn yourself.
The action is intended. The result not. Nothing abnormal to the casual viewer.
It would be abnormal if you chose to repeat the action for no apparent reason a few seconds later.
It is possible to engage in behavior that for a casual onlooker has no apparent reason and would be considered abnormal.
Example:
A woman is abused by her husband. After a signal by neighbors she vehemently defends him in front of the police officers.
This behavior does not in fact break the law of nature though most people would find it anti-intuitive. In this case the abstract danger of being left on your own outweighs the concrete danger of physical pain.
Of course it's possible to really break the rules of nature if you have actual brain damage.


I don't think there is anything particularly complicated about any of this. Do you need it in machine language?

>lack trust in reality, people etc. is the cause of anxiety
is the definition of angst. I don't think you need to read Kierkegaard to intuitively understand how faith can be associated with the concept of anxiety.

>>15171140

> how did you deduce that Haman views his as "Char" and not as "Quattro"?

It helps that she addresses him as Char and not Quattro. And so does Mineva.

> That has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make

Your point was that anxiety and fear are one and the same, and that anxiety over fear is the same as fear. Which you're apparently proving by pointing out how they're separate and distinct. Which they're held to be by definition anyways, making it rather a moot point.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/anxiety

> Although anxiety is related to fear, it is not the same thing. Fear is a direct, focused response to a specific event or object, and the person is consciously aware of it. [...] Anxiety, on the other hand, is often unfocused, vague, and hard to pin down to a specific cause.

>>15171183

> lack trust in reality, people etc. is the cause of anxiety
> is the definition of angst

No, it isn't.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/angst

> A feeling of anxiety or apprehension often accompanied by depression.

That's the medical definition. How about a dictionary one.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/angst

> a feeling of anxiety, apprehension, or insecurity <teenage angst>

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/angst

> strong worry and unhappiness, especially about personal problems

Maybe wikipedia though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angst

Nope, Wikipedia doesn't mention the word trust either. Just because some philosophers link trust to anxiety doesn't mean it's the accepted definition or even the real one, because there are many schools of philosophy and all of them are equally valid.

>>15171209
>It helps that she addresses him as Char and not Quattro.
You did agree that changing your name is not the same as changing your personality?Of course he wasn't named Quattro when he was on Axis. Duh.

>Your point was that anxiety and fear are one and the same
That was not my point ever. I distinguished the two from the start. If I gave a definition for anxiety as "irrational" fear that is because that is now it has been defined in many psychological works. If the term displeases you simply replace it with anxiety.

>>15171221
The sources of your all scientific knowledge are online dictionaries and Wikipedia?
None of your dictionaries gives any explanation of anxiety as a psychological phenomenon. Does it have no explanation then?
Here is you Merriam Webster:
>a feeling of anxiety about your life or situation
Here is your Wikipedia:
Anxiety:
>Poor coping skills are associated with anxiety. Anxiety is also linked and perpetuated by the person's own pessimistic outcome expectancy and how they cope with feedback negativity
>An evolutionary psychology explanation is that increased anxiety serves the purpose of increased vigilance regarding potential threats in the environment as well as increased tendency to take proactive actions regarding such possible threats. This may cause false positive reactions
>Social risk factors for anxiety include a history of trauma, early life experiences and parenting factors, cultural factors, and socioeconomics.
Angst:
>In German, the technical terminology of psychology and philosophy distinguishes between Angst and Furcht in that Furcht is a negative anticipation regarding a concrete threat, while Angst is a non-directional and unmotivated emotion
>While Kierkegaard's angst referred mainly to ambiguous feelings about moral freedom within a religious personal belief system, later existentialists discussed conflicts of personal principles, cultural norms, and existential despair.

File: shaashnabur.png (404KB, 953x531px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 953x531px

>>15140219
This might be a more accurate translation of what he said.

File: 1486094897941.jpg (3MB, 2610x4640px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2610x4640px

I'm starting to get into Gundam through building gunpla, and I really wanna start from the beginning.

Problem is I can't find ANY active torrents of the original anime. I watched the first episode streamed and dubbed, but it's a pain in the ass to get up and click around just to marathon. I actually kinda like the quirky animation, so I want to see the original anime. Dubbed or Subbed. Either works.

Anyone wanna help a fresh newbie out?

>>15172371
https://www.nyaa.se/?page=view&tid=531318

>>15172378
Thanks!
You've made my weekend.

>>15172158
It isn't. Char's line is slightly different in A New Translation than it is in the original Zeta though.

Zeta: もともと私は裏切りは一切していないよ、ハマーン。
ANT: もともと私は裏切ってはいない。

>>15171226

> Of course he wasn't named Quattro when he was on Axis. Duh.

Why couldn't he be? Putting aside that he adopted the persona of Char specifically to infiltrate Zeon and kills the Zabis, which is now done so he has no reason to continue to use that name anymore, he's in a Zeon stronghold with the remaining Zabi heir after publicly murdering a Zabi family member. Forgoing the Char name makes more sense than continuing to use it in a place that is run by people still loyal to the Zabis.

He continued to use the Char name and Haman always knew him as Char, which is the point I was trying to make. It suggest that the Quattro name was adopted only in the last year or two when he joined A.E.U.G.

> If I gave a definition for anxiety as "irrational" fear that is because that is now it has been defined in many psychological works.

It's been defined as distinct from fear for a good long while now, irrational or not.

>>15171259

I would have thought it fairly self explanatory but the reason I posted several links to dictionaries and Wikipedia is because you insisted "lack of trust in something" is the definition of angst. You even used the word "literally" at one point. It's not the definition of it though. Not the dictionary definition, nor the medical definition. The links were meant only to illustrate that point, not comment on the nature of angst or anxiety. Even most of the greentext you posted has nothing to do with lack of trust. Trust issues are of course responsible for some angst and anxiety, but they are not responsible for all of it and the definition of anxiety is not "lack of trust".

>>15165739
That always confused me too. Why do two characters have almost the same name. That's not even mentioning Jamitov Hymen.

>>15174875
>He continued to use the Char name and Haman always knew him as Char, which is the point I was trying to make.
I thought the point you were trying to make was that his personality underwent a sudden and deliberate change.

>most of the greentext you posted has nothing to do with lack of trust
Huh? Some of it does?

Most of the greentext I posted has to do with description of the state of lack of what I choose to term "existential trust" which I explicitly stated might be different form your understanding of trust and then went through the pains of defining it as the "belief that the world is a safe and secure place" and giving you examples of why and how it might emerge.
Do you need a detailed explanation of why the belief that the world is NOT a safe and secure place would lead to fear and anxiety?

>>15174875
So I did not say "lack of trust in [something]". I said lack of trust in "reality, people etc."(as you yourself put it. When did "reality and people" become "something" anyway?) as suggested by "anxiety about your life or situation" and "conflicts of personal principles, cultural norms, and existential despair".

>>15175908

> I thought the point you were trying to make was that his personality underwent a sudden and deliberate change.

The overall point I was trying to make is that the with the way the show lays things out it makes it more likely that the Quattro identity only comes in to play relatively recently. I made the point that Haman "viewed" him as Char as a point to help illustrate this. Viewed in this case meaning "knew". Which she did. She always called him Char, as did Mineva. He was Char on Axis, even though he had no need to be. So it makes it more likely Quattro is recent thing. Whether that's Quattro as you see it, just a name, or as I see, it, a complete identity, it's less than 7 years. Probably by a good bit.

>>15176143

Something is a catch-all term. It can mean "reality, people" or anything else you want it to mean. No matter what way you choose to define trust though, "lack of trust" or "lack of trust in X" will not be the definition of either angst or anxiety. It's an explanation for why some people feel those things, but is not the only explanation or the definition.

>>15178017
>So it makes it more likely Quattro is recent thing.
Yes, and?

>It can mean "reality, people" or anything else you want it to mean.
But I want it to mean reality and people. Not anything.
Anxiety can be the feeling that you might have left the stove on.
Angst is associated with an existential crisis - "existential despair".
despair<->hope
belief<->disbelief
trust<->distrust
Geddit?

how would the story change is char was a woman

>>15180590
it would actually make more sense
I hope she'd be qt

>>15140246
>>15140254
It runs in the family.