halfbreedjew
HalfBreedJew
halfbreedjew

There are plenty of cases where stories get run when it’s just one accuser. See Richard Dreyfuss or Michael Douglass or Aziz Ansari. Again, I have no problem believing these stories personally, but to say they’re really based on a lot of hard evidence is a major major stretch. And again, besides that, these stories go

I mean, it’s a term that comedians themselves use, as a way of describing what they themselves try to avoid. In a lot of cases it’s a self-critique, and acknowledgement that making an actual funny joke is hard while simply “making a good point” is easy and very tempting. (It can also sometimes be a way of describing

I’m well to the left of most of these shows’ writing staffs. I actually watched Stewart and Colbert religiously for years (though Colbert got lazy post-Report) and I still keep up with Oliver when I can though I’m finding his show a little more tired these days. Also, as a slight caveat to my original post, The

She has been calling him on Twitter with her real name for years. It might be her “business” name, I’m not really sure, but she even has a photo of herself as her Twitter avatar. Saying it’s anonymous is a stretch.

And the Schneider stuff was based partly on how it “appeared,” yeah, but there were also rumors and blind

That may be, but I mean, how many of these stories are actually based on hard evidence per se? An awful lot of them are “so and so alleges this celebrity did this to them” (note: I don’t have a problem with these articles and tend to believe them; why would someone speaking publicly make it up, after all). Even

This one at least looks kind of interesting, but is anyone else just tired of these Daily Show knockoff shows (I include current Daily Show in this), full-stop? They’ve all just become clapter machines.

I find it consistently weird that there are rape allegations (NOTE: I have no idea if they are true, however the woman who has made them has maintained for years now on her blog and Twitter that it happened, and has posted photos suggested they knew each other when they were young) against Tyson and no one ever talks

“I absolutely get what you’re saying...You Nazi! (Kidding kidding, 100% kidding) - but! I would say, when part of the ‘complication’ is ‘racist caricature’ - and That’s the part that will appeal to the stupider part of the audience (as it did to the people that created him)...then yeah - Not good enough. End that

I don’t necessarily disagree, I think their response was tone-deaf and I think there’s a case to be made that even with the developments they made to the character there are still problems with him in the show and especially his place in the larger pop culture landscape. I’m just referring to the specific claim that

I’m aware that they’ve spoken about it - I’m enough of a dork to have listened to all the audio commentaries (up to a certain season) and devoured every interview I could find, back when I still paid close attention to The Simpsons. Maybe I phrased my post badly but I don’t think I was in any way saying that Apu isn’t

In general I like this piece a lot. Acknowledges the arguable problems with the character while also delving into the nuances that at least used to make him great, and how the debate over Apu might be a little more complicated than a lot of people on either side of it are making it out to be.

I will say, I’m not sure I

Have you watched the show recently? The current crop of writers literally misunderstands the appeal of EVERY character. There’s not a rule that says that TV writers are incapable of writing a long-running character in a way that betrays who that character used to be; that’s a pretty widely understood problem with tons

“That people don’t find him funny because he slyly commenting on American bigotry, they find him funny because he has a funny accent”

See, I’ve actually always wondered about the wisdom of this criticism. I was just a dumb white kid growing up in a pretty white state but I always felt like the best moments of the

I watched the doc and felt that the was at least the subtext of a lot of the complaints - that Apu was feeding the bullying all these people experienced as kids and sometimes as adults. Maybe I’m missing something but it didn’t seem like most of the interviewees were making the distinction that Apu was merely the

I definitely get that many douches (including Hank here, presumably) bring up Cletus in a “what about the white people!!!1" way....but he actually is an incredibly classist stereotype, one that isn’t really counteracted by a lot of other TV characters and certainly wasn’t at the time (there was Roseanne......but other

Simpsons continuity being what it is, there’s are episodes both before and since that one that outright suggest he owns it (sometimes with Sanjay).

It’s hardly out of the question that she felt she needed to preserve it for some other reason (e.g. if there was ever a sexual harassment case related to the affair). Regardless, we can really only judge her by what actually happened, and has happened since. She never blackmailed him and the full weight of a

I’ve never seen any evidence that she intended to do that. Frankly, I’m not sure she was really that sophisticated, as a 22 (or however old) intern at the time. In any case, she never did, and certainly did not gain anything from the whole thing.

Even if I truly felt she had an intent to blackmail, that wouldn’t strike me as being as problematic as the most powerful man on earth taking advantage of an extremely young intern (and that is putting aside the fairly credible accusations of sexual harassment and assault that have followed Clinton around for many

I couldn’t have imagined saying this twenty years ago (granted I was kid then, but I was old enough to be fairly cognizant of the scandal FWIW) but Lewinsky has become almost a hero to me at this point. I suppose part of that is really coming to terms with Bill Clinton’s behavior and that she really was a victim of