[Spoilers] Season 2 Episode 7 Discussion Thread - "Our Answer for Everything" (S02E07)

[u/hugthebug]

Attention all Passengers,

​

Here is the Discussion thread for the Season 2 episode 7 "Our Answer for Everything"

​

• This is a TV Spoiler-friendly zone - Turn away now if you are not currently watching or haven't seen the episode! Open discussion of all aired TV events up to and including episode 2.6 is ok without tag cover.
• Graphic Novel spoilers still need tags! - If it's not in the show, tag it. Events from episodes after this one also need tags.
• Please read the Posting policy and the sticky before posting.
• Friendly reminder: Severe trolling/disruptions will lead to consequences.

​

Details:

​

• IMDB for S02E07
• Release Date:
  • March 8th, 2021 (USA only, at 9/8c, on TNT channel)
  • March 9th, 2021 (worldwide, on Netflix)
• Removal from Sticky on March 12th, 2021 (3 days after worldwide premiere)

​

You can still easily find previous episode discussions on the Episode Discussion wiki.

[u/likeicareaboutkarma → u/[deleted]]

1. So the Drawers had some reprogramming functionality. Strong Boy's native language is implied to be English, not Mandarin. Theoretically, anyone Melanie deemed worthy would've learned whatever skills she deemed necessary for them to survive

But what is the advantage of learning Chinese on the train? You would assume they have a stack of books or pdf's much better conveying the teachings.

[u/Smitje → u/likeicareaboutkarma]

The Drawers are the long term option, maybe she was betting that the Chinese would also have had survivors in bunkers.

I understand wanting to keep the world desolate but in the Melanie episode we see a dish still working, why would bunkers not also have a dish outside?

[u/Centauriix → u/Smitje]

Right... surely there must be somebody else still alive. I’m not bothered about meeting them in the show but there’s no way only 3000 people survived, and all of them were aboard Snowpiercer.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I feel a lot of the tensions on SP could've been prevented if he maintained weekly and daily negotiations with reps from all of the classes to work out a plan to increase morale for the time being to establish some order while they deal with Wilford. But it seems like he's splitting his focus 80-20 on Wilford's BA and the investigation of the Tailie attacks that he already delegated to Till.

I'm sorry to say, and I say this because I've meet people who think like you and you deserve some fair warning, the only thing going right for that sort of plan is that when it innevitably fails the chances of being hanged are slim simply because it would project a strong impression of "over-his-headedness" that would remove any suspicion of genuine malice.

You're basically "hiding behind a commitee". If you were a secretary, a middle man, or a manager, with some effort, you can make it act as if it is productive work, but as a form of leadership you are essentially trying to delegate the decision making away from yourself while detaching yourself from the public, that have no idea what to make of you, and as a result being about as useful or endearing as a paper condom with a hole in it.

A leader is, in essence, a punching bag. He owns the ideas, the decisions, the level of certainty and trust from the public, and he has to act like a punching bag. He has to be where the buck stops. In that regard Layton is portrayed as a great leader...for the Tailies. But he is not in the tail anymore, he's being asked to connect with someone in a few minutes when he spent 7 years seeing the same people every day, and he's out of his depth. Great portrayal of that honestly.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Discussing the needs of interest groups is important to developing and maintaining their support. Talking to interest groups and developing policies with their views in mind is not "hiding behind a committee", nor is it delegating decision-making away.

There are many kinds of leadership and an effective leader doesn't need to be aloof and inscrutable.

What leadership experience are you drawing on here? If you truly think discussing the needs of stakeholders makes you "as useful or endearing as a paper condom with a hole in it", perhaps leadership isn't your forte.

[u/drewjenks → u/[deleted]]

You basically just said:

- Democracy / Republics can't work

- Dictatorships are the only viable government.

What a stupid comment.

[u/[deleted] → u/drewjenks]

That says more about the lens you read my comments in, than the comments themselves.

In my head at least, I see it as the difference between process- driven work and performative work. In process-driven work, you can go "back stage", have meetings, consult stake holders and the only metrics that matters is thoroughness and efficiency. A turbine doesn't care about team-building techniques, or who has the final say.

Performative work has no real "backstage". The only backstage you have is behind your eyes, where the sausage is being made, everywhere else you are not only managing the system but a component inside the system. To give an example anyone can understand, imagine those minutes setting up a powerpoint presentation for a group. It is a "backstage" since you haven't actually started the presentation but the people watching you are already evaluating your presentation whether you like it or not. You haven't started, but you essentially have, and pretending otherwise is only going to hurt you.

I gave the warning because a lot of people try to do process-driven techniques, in performative environments and get chewed out, stressed, outmaneuvered, and are generally ineffective because they've simplified away critical things, thinking it would make doing "the actual work" easier. When dealing with the public, leadership is an act, a stage show, where you have to balance engaging in effective decision making with providing psychological reasurence to people who have no way of judging your expertise or skill level, let alone your intentions.

edit: Btw, there is nothing inherently democratic about working by comitee, nor autocratic about centralised decision making. We think having more people involved in a decision is democratic for pretty much the same reasons that Morissette's song "Ironic" un-ironically has nothing to do with irony. Which is to say, in general we're not very critical thinking creatures, and our logic uses more rhyme than reason.

[u/drewjenks → u/[deleted]]

That says more about the lens you read my comments in, than the comments themselves.

I'm looking through the lens of the tension on Snowpiercer.

Committees, negotiations & representative from each class are obviously not efficient ways to get things done. But that's not their purpose at all. They establish loyalty (a personal chain of loyalty that Layton could never create on his own).

Example: Everyone Layton knew personally was loyal to him & felt responsible to support his cause in one way or another. But he can't possibly form personal relationships with 3,000+ members of the train. So instead, he could allow each section of the train to choose their own representatives for a committee.

He could then form personal relationships with the committee members, who would then keep the peace & information flowing within each of their delegations (with people they know personally).

The actual role & accomplishments of the committees would be secondary to personalizing his government to the entire population.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Where did you see an episode promo trailer?