That's very different (specific names of actors) than saying, they need to replace Jarvis with a POC. Not a person…not a specific actor or variety of actor. Just someone who has the right color skin.
Very…very different discussion.

This.

I don't know that typical a/v club banter involves the discussion of replacing main characters and reworking plots to this extent. Maybe I'm wrong.
And it's only an 8 episode season. It's a little early to start making demands.

Yeah and if norm on cheers was replaced by a minority perspective it would have…..idk…no way for us to know I guess.
This line of thinking is just pointless, and I can't think of any other examples from the a/v club where shows are discussed in this manner despite what another comment a bit up the board claimed.

I don't remember ever saying that the author was being too negative? I disagree with almost every use of the word problematic these days.

When you start talking about replacing main characters I would argue that that fails to engage the show on it's own terms.

I agree that it is. I love the show.
The author is claiming that the show could be better if it would just focus more on social justice themes and replace large pieces of the main cast. I disagree with that line of thinking.

I absolutely watch the show. My use of presumably in that sentence was used to highlight the change in characters and plot lines that were being suggested by the person I replied to. But please tell me more about myself based on my use of the word presumably.

Yeah if they just change major elements of the show and cast so that it has something to say about social justice in the 40's instead of the superhero it's presumably about i'm sure it'll still be awesome!

Sorry I forgot to use approved words. The author finds it "problematic". Which is a lazy way to complain about something without ever actually SAYING anything concrete about it.
I can't stand the tone all these pieces take. And I don't even necessarily disagree with most of the content.
It's such an intellectually…

Because you're a normal person who doesn't judge media content solely on how many minorities and women are in the cast as opposed to an ideologue who is incapable of such things?

Yeah it's almost like she is the main character in a show about a superhero as opposed to the show being about discussion of minority perspectives in the 40's

Please calm down.

I guess if a show isn't preoccupied with social justice themes it's problematic these days.
I just don't understand what the point of these kinds of analysis are. The show is good. It doesn't need to exemplify any made up ridiculous "but is it forward thinking enough??" standard that you're trying to impose.

I doubt it was actual historians who were unhappy with this. I think you mean internet blog writers who subsist on making beside the point observations like this.

It makes you a worse human being to listen to garbage like that. You will be much happier if you ignore shitheads like that on both sides of the aisle. They're just doing it so they can get attention.

Meh, that's more or less fair. I also agree that it is a stupid scene.

I would venture to say that people have just as much of a right to give their opinions on global warming despite have no scientific training at all, as they do to offer their completely unsolicited and insanely biased ( since these are the kinds of people that find literally everything offensive ) opinions on what is…

What are you even referring to?

Much more than 20% of people in America think global warming is a hoax. 20% of people will almost always do or think anything. That doesn't mean there is any merit there.