Isn't the difference between randomness and destiny a matter of perspective, not a matter of fact?

Actually, I see this episode more as the real Road Not Taken, rather than everyone's misinterpretation of it.  In Frost's poem, the point is clearly made that the narrator could not distinguish the two paths and chose one of them at random.  Yet, when he's old, he knows that he's going to construct a narrative in…

But I think that was the point of the episode: even if they were connected in the past by a web of random events it actually has little bearing on their present and the real reasons that led them to Greendale, which weren't a set of events, but deep character flaws that would have been exposed regardless of whether or…

The activism was always a pose.  The reason she knew from the beginning that Jeff was a dissembling bullshitter is because she herself was a dissembling bullshitter and you cannot bullshit a bullshitter.

Right, wasn't there some joke about Abed's critiques being old hash by 2008?

I thought it did critique the concept of destiny.  The concept of destiny allows us to claim that the events in our lives were inevitable and preordained.  Therefore, we are not to blame for our circumstances, the sequence of events beyond our control that caused them are to blame.  Destiny seeks causes for the events…

Well of course they were meant to be together.  A creator (Dan Harmon) put them together, and he meant for them to be together.  It's a TV show, not real life.  It's a constructed narrative, so the idea that random circumstances brought them together must be an illusion.

It was!

Who's they?  And were we supposed to?  I thought it was pretty clear that the show ultimately rejected the logic that we should blame some chance event for problems that were obviously deeply rooted, festering, and bound to be unleashed at some point anyway. Once the characters themselves rejected that logic they were…

I dunno.  What's so revolutionary about reaffirming deeply problematic concepts like auteur theory and the high/low distinction? 

Also NASA would never have allowed a man like Homer Simpson go into space.

Because the suits mandated that the show be more user-friendly.  So now the program is expected to have characters announce to us what this show means, rather than respect us enough to allow us to figure it out ourselves.   To me this has been the worst flaw of the post-Harmon era.  It has resulted in increasingly…

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you make here.  Can't they be both damaged individuals forced together by circumstances who learn to love each other despite having little in common and be a bunch of (chocolate chip?) cooky misfits magically brought together by a bipolar man who wanted FroYo?  After all, was…

I have a feeling that we're headed towards a Pillows and Blankets, Brother against brother type situation in these here comments.  I'm definitely on your side.  I really liked this.  I actually think the episode is also more challenging than people are giving it credit for.  It had a surface simplicity.

As I read your comment I thought "he" referred to Soderbergh and "Beck" referred to Beck Hanson.  Needless to say, I was very confused.  But I've figured it out now. 

I was under the impression it was created with a six season and a movie lifespan. 

Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius. 
Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius.
Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius.
Oooh Dr. Zaius.

I'm pretty sure the plan is to have Walter sitting in a diner while Semi-Charmed Life plays.  "Goooodbyyyyyeeeee Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo" Smash cut to black.  Silence.  Roll credits.

Asuka Rangure Soryu.  Yes.  I am glad someone finally is pointing out that things really started going wrong in the second half of season two when the show started cranking out episodes like Critical Film Studies, Paradigms of Human Memory, and Remedial Chaos Theory, as opposed to the non-stop gems of Season One like…

Mrs Gods Instant Pancakes, I think your posts are quite elegantly worded, but quite wrong-headed.