[None of the information he offers her (or utilizes to condescend to her) is anything she hasn't considered. Lexa had intended to hold this over the head of others, to show that there are results that come when someone complains that this mission doesn't please them, or they haven't done enough to gain the favor of their title-less leaders. There is more, too: they have gained so many new people that it is hard to see how they can really comprehend the full breadth of the situation, and in her opinion, they have done little to consider that.]
(I'm aware of it tactically, General. I'm not naive enough to believe that this unit will work the way it could if we had trained warriors, and there are those among us who offer more risk than reward because of their presence. Any leader has to be able to comprehend necessary losses, and excluding those individuals.
And if they take offense to that, then I'd recommend that they reconsider their prior words and actions. Whenever I have considered using one of them, I have been met with a wall and caution, and someone demanding that I don't. So when I say it openly, I am now assaulted because I don't wish to provide them with intel so that they might act in the very way I've been warned against countless times.
I have been nothing but transparent here. I'm merely meeting condemnation for doing what everyone else has already done, and considering it. Speaking it out loud is a show of strength, rather than cowardice; if someone takes offense to it, then they should know better.)
[Lexa had wanted the unit to communicate better, but she's revised her thinking. Even in her approach to everyone, her "obvious manipulation" has, by her measure of the situation, been a success. She sees her actions in relation to much of everything as a success, and she doesn't see a reason for hiding who she is. Since they are in a hivemind, the opposite argument is this: why hide what can be deemed as a strength, and a willingness to act on it?
no subject
( I'm aware of it tactically, General. I'm not naive enough to believe that this unit will work the way it could if we had trained warriors, and there are those among us who offer more risk than reward because of their presence. Any leader has to be able to comprehend necessary losses, and excluding those individuals.
And if they take offense to that, then I'd recommend that they reconsider their prior words and actions. Whenever I have considered using one of them, I have been met with a wall and caution, and someone demanding that I don't. So when I say it openly, I am now assaulted because I don't wish to provide them with intel so that they might act in the very way I've been warned against countless times.
I have been nothing but transparent here. I'm merely meeting condemnation for doing what everyone else has already done, and considering it. Speaking it out loud is a show of strength, rather than cowardice; if someone takes offense to it, then they should know better. )
[Lexa had wanted the unit to communicate better, but she's revised her thinking. Even in her approach to everyone, her "obvious manipulation" has, by her measure of the situation, been a success. She sees her actions in relation to much of everything as a success, and she doesn't see a reason for hiding who she is. Since they are in a hivemind, the opposite argument is this: why hide what can be deemed as a strength, and a willingness to act on it?
That is how she sees things, at any rate.]