I think people are still allowed to have valid criticisms of it.

taking place 10 years ago doesn’t mean the show should be conceptually outdated by 10 years.

There have been lesbian jokes and speculation about Velma for decades, both from fans and from the show writers themselves, so making the subtext explicit is barely really a change at this point.

That sounds awful in every way.

It doesn’t look like its set in the past though. And even if it is, it is not the setting that is set to be outdated, but the writing. And that writing was written in 2022 for a 2022 audience. So it is perfectly valid to call it out as not fresh. 

Every Gen-X helmed project for the past decade: “Remember that thing you loved? Well here’s how it’s actually really lame! All your favorite characters were actually (or ended up becoming) miserable failures! It will also feature, for the first time, a diverse cast of characters on television. Not because we care, but…

Yeeeeeah. I also remember in the first trailer for this they also insulted their audience. Hard pass

Every “Historically beloved series, but cynical or inverted” has already been done - and been done better - by The Venture Brothers.

You’re definitely being pedantic and when you realize that about what you’re saying, it’s a good sign to drop it or reconsider the point you’re trying to make. You’re projecting meaning onto “many” that doesn’t exist. “Many” just means a lot, it doesn’t mean that it was specifically popular with LGBTQ people. Hundreds…

Hundreds of millions of people read Harry Potter. It’s a statistical certainty that many of those people were LGBTQ 

How are you missing the point so hard? You’re still a woman, you’re not a person who menstruates. “Person who menstruates” isn’t synonymous with “woman” because not every woman menstruates and not everyone who menstruates is a woman.

Here's the thing about John Dies at the End ...

The article in question used “people who menstruate” to *include* both menstruating women and those who menstruate but don’t identify as women. It quite deliberately avoids equating menstruating with being a woman, so I’m not sure what your problem is. 

No, it means the article JK Rowling was determined to misunderstand about menstruating does not apply to you, since you no longer menstruate. And just because you don’t menstruate does not mean you’re not a woman, just like menstruating does not automatically mean you’re a woman, which is exactly why choosing “people…

She’s not even a compelling world-builder.

People using the “it’s biology” line to pretend biological sex is some single switch set to either male or female are the same fucking idiots who half a century ago would’ve been the ones telling you how “black people are stupider than whites, it’s biology”.

Jesus Christ, since this stupid, illogical, brainless, witless, wrongheaded, pointless, bad faith argument is rearing its ugly head once again: THE PHRASE “PEOPLE WHO MENSTRUATE” IS DOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF “REDUCING WOMEN DOWN TO THEIR BODILY FUNCTIONS.” TERFS ARE THE ONES TRYING TO MAKE POSSESSION OF A UTERUS A…

Well, just finished reading the last account. If anyone needs me, I'll be under my desk in a fetal position for the rest of the day.

Oh. My. God. That last one just broke my heart.

I'd love to send these articles to everyone that says, "Oh what a dream job!"