No, you "do", or rather, you can, parody something by producing something that is almost visually indistinguishable, if the words you are singing provide a counterpoint to those images. Parody is imitation with inversion. As long as the inversion is apparent — which it is in this case — it is a parody.

Miley was mentioned in the article, which I think is sufficient — the video isn't just a parody of Miley, it's a parody of all this cookie-cutter pop bullshit. And yes, I think it is "okay that she's using the black women as props" because I think they're in on the joke, that is to say, not really being "used" so much…

How about thinking for yourself?

I don't like things! Nobody else should like the things I don't like!

I don't think she's claiming to speak for them, but she's not excluding them either. I think she's acknowledging that the "black backing dancers" trope is a part of the whole sexualization-objectification pop mess.

No, you're not wrong at all. If she had used white backing dancers, it wouldn't have made any sense, because it's a thing to use black backing dancers. If you're making a parody you have to include recognizable elements of the thing that you're parodying.

Doesn't matter how scared you are of the (hyperbolic, nonsensical, fictional) "wasteland" outside your door, you don't get to shoot someone in the face over it.

If anything he's better-looking than Gosling.

What are you talking about? Haeckel's nonsense was refuted back in the 1890s; it certainly didn't inform Roe v Wade. Nobody is claiming that a human fetus is not biologically human.

They suggest it by placing the word "privileged", which is easily understood by most people to mean"affluent", in context with allegations that "people... enabled and made excuses for the boys", that the police lied about one of the accused being the son of an officer and that they don't have enough evidence to charge…

That's a trifle disingenuous. The author is suggesting that their privilege is part of the reason why these particular criminals haven't been arrested and charged with their crimes, why the community ignored them, and why the police are trying to cover them up.

Then you clearly don't get very drunk, do you? France says the victim "was ìntoxicated to the point where she could not walk"; what makes you think she could have landed a punch?

The thing about alcohol is that it inhibits motor functions. Let's get you falling-down drunk and see how many attackers you can fend off.

You know she was drunk, right? But carry on blaming the victim.

Depends on how drunk she was when you fucked her. Was she conscious? Could she control her motor functions? Did she know what was happening to her? If the answer to any of those questions is "no", then congratulations, you're a rapist.

Actually, "affluent" would be perfectly correct if inserted in place of "privileged".

I've been here a long time. It seems that you haven't, though, if you're painting all commenters and writers as some kind of monolithic feminazi entity.

I'm sorry, but I doubt the existence, or at least the prevalence, of these mythical feminists who argue that any amount of alcohol inhibits consent. There is a reasonably well-defined legal meaning for incapacitation, which most feminists, in my experience, are perfectly happy to abide by. The legal definition…

In the absence of any context pointing to another definition, it means "affluent; advantaged". In the context of this case, the men involved were the sons of a police officer and a reasonably well-known Hollywood actor, so I assume the default definition stands.

One kind of rape is having sex with someone who is too drunk to consent to sex.