If I remember correctly, the specific gist of that episode is not that alcoholism isn't a disease, but rather that the notion that people are powerless with respect to alcohol (something pushed primarily by, amongst others, AA) is a silly and damaging idea.

The original had an incredibly high quality of deleted scenes, as well.  Off the top of my head they're probably the two best shows in that regard, which is really quite remarkable. The sheer amount of extra material for the American version is awesome and kind of baffling.

I wouldn't say the obviously made mistakes.  There are people who will get riled up about anything or everything, and the internet gives them the means to group together and get their voice heard regardless of merit.

Do we know it's a shortened order, rather than just one that's been extended over two years?

I generally dislike the use of the word "problematic" in these sorts of context, because it typically means "I want to disagree with something but can't adequately back up my point."

Every time I see people talking about Breaking Bad spoilers for "S05E09" or whatever I think that the penultimate episode or something has been leaked.  Then I remember what's going on.

I've been saying a lot of this stuff for years.  No one listens!

Yay!  Strike Back is back!  And it's striking!

Low Winter Sun is getting shellacked pretty hard by reviewers.  Wonder if this is the tipping point for this kind of over-serious, "gritty" drama.

Before I start to watch Broadchurch, I feel obligated to note that Olivia Colman might be the most underrated actor ever.  She is so wonderful.

It's absolutely "much in common."  I don't think there's any doubt.

People always say David Brent is a dick, but he wasn't anywhere as selfish or inconsiderate as Michael Scott can be.  David Brent would never do something like sulk because someone else is getting attention over maybe having cancer.

I think there are lots of ways to point out that Moffat's writing has its issues, but deliberately stripping things he's said from their proper context (in this case, the joke about casting the Queen as a man) in order to prove some point is fucking low and just a really shitty thing to do.

I think Dowd absolutely has his flaws.  The problem I have is instead of the discussion centering on the legitimate problems within his reviews, the backlash seems to consist mostly of "A C+ for a movie I don't like? What a hack."  Or that his reviews don't reflect his actual opinions, and are purposefully negative.

I find the Dowd backlash pretty unimpressive.  The userbase here is better than most places, but it tends to bristle and strike out as soon as something they like (or think they should like) gets criticized.

Geez.  I don't know how you could just stop cold after the Red Wedding.

The idea of the site is fine, and I like a lot of the smaller subreddits, but people in general suck and Reddit is good at showing that.

I'd speculate it has to do more with the demographics of the internet fanbase specifically.  This show (kind of unintentionally) appeals hugely to the Reddit demographic, and all the mouth-breathers that includes.

This divide is exemplified by "Fly" being voted as the show's second-worst episode on IMDB and lots of people complaining that it sucks because it is "the boringest."

Wynn Duffy was supposed to die twice on Justified but escaped the hangman's noose both times.