Don't be ridiculous, it's only those hyper-sensitive SJWs who get all worked up about something on second-hand knowledge….

Is he running for president or something?

To be fair, no one ever really made the case for liberalisation; they simply made the case against prohibition. Saying that pot is no more dangerous than alcohol is fine in terms of lifting the ban (which I agree with), but it's really more an argument for banning pot and alcohol.

I dare say that a "B+" is more than promising; it's only two degrees of separation from the highest grade.

But surely "chastising the movie for not being what you wanted it to be" is criticism? When you lament the direction or the acting, you're saying you would've enjoyed a film which had better direction or acting; when you criticise the writing, you're implicitly arguing arguing on behalf of a hypothetical film with bett…

Or hell, just like democracy was somehow permanently discredited by George Bush?

Just like Beyoncé single-handedly killed the concept of being black?

I guess the idea would be to not force women into the position in the first place. It's not so hard. If you don't know whether a woman want's to be wolf-whistled on the street by a random stranger, don't do it. I really don't see how this could possibly be nuanced or elaborated. It's a shitty thing to do and it makes…

I get what you're saying, but pointing out that subconscious racism is a factor isn't going to make people dislike her any less.

I'm not sure I understand that opening paragraph. Is it implying that Wolf Hall is trashy but executed with style, or that it's right out of the Lifetime movie playbook? Or is it simply that Wolf Hall was great and so is this novel, in which case you may as well say, "It's no wonder that this book was adapted by…

I'm not talking about what's funny; I'm talking about satire, which is what the OP claimed it was. And yes, you can satirise anything and everything, but good satire is supposed to challenge conventional narratives, not reinforce them.

Again, I never sought to demarcate what can or can't be mocked. But political satire is supposed to take on the powerful and the entrenched, not the powerless. Here you have a celebrity comedian with the full backing of Hulu and Funny or Die taking on a bunch of clueless college kids; it's hardly the David-and-Goliath…

They certainly are on a political level. And really, weren't these the pretty much the same points that the god-awful Modern Educayshun video was making a couple of months back? Way to stick it to those uppity college kids - it was about time someone took them down a peg or two! Y'know, aside from the entirety of the…

That's clearly not what I said. What I did say was that essentially powerless college students aren't exactly a dominant political force. I don't see how they can be put in the same bracket as the politicians-cum-presidents that this special otherwise targets.

But the OP specifically singled it out as "the best broad political satire of the '10s". You're free to disagree, obviously, but it's certainly his opinion.

LGBT rights, natch. Those vocally in favour of "religious freedom" don't want to be left alone; that would lessen their persecution complex.

I mean, I don't think that was the reason, but unlike Iraq, the US invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent NATO mission were sanctioned by the UNSC, and actually targeted a country that was harbouring the alleged mastermind of al-Qaeda rather than a country that was flimsily accused of supporting it. Also, the US…

Isn't the point of political satire to kick upwards?

But don't you see? It's the people who simply want to be respected and left alone by society who are the real villains, here.

One could just as easily say that a lot of the political capital of the left is misdirected at attacking the "politically correct", an act of self-cannibalism far more damaging than "political correctness" itself.