holydoubleidentity--disqus
holydoubleidentity
holydoubleidentity--disqus

That whole "sequence" bit KILLED me

It definitely felt like both Roxxxy and Detox were using Alaska in this epsiode as an excuse to have a love-fest. I mean, by all means have a love fest but Detox shouldn't pretend that they're all super best friends.

That's precisely it

" The rapper has always been torn between his passions for hip-hop and for commerce. " not sure if that's such an even dichotomy. I mean it's a popular narrative about rap artists, but I've always wondered why- from the perspective outside of the rap community- it's such a seemlingy pressing one.

Okay, I'm just going to say this simply: you're wrong. People are allowed to dislike things for a multitude of reasons: and if the fandom proves to be alienating than so be it. But to suggest that someone doesn't have critical thinking skills or are at fault in some way because a fandom is obnoxious are unwilling to

I remember she described her look as "editorial" and I got flashbacks to America's Next Top Model and Project Runway- both shows threw that word around constantly as value of critique.

Yeah, okay. The "joke" targeted at her name. When African-Americans are systematically disadvantaged, discriminated in the work place, refused jobs because of the targeting of names, this seemingly harmless joking has very real, very toxic implications. And yeah, any joke made at the expense of a certain race, that

"Lawrence has a nice Quvenzhané Wallis burn—“The alphabet called, they want their letters back" really, Sims? Why would an insult like that even be necessary? What exactly about the actress is so, according to you, deserving of mockery? She's a nine year old with a name that doesn't ascribe to your particular

Scenes with Haley and the candy were GOLD. putting her candy out like a cigarette after Francine puts out her actual cigarette, and then the scene where she accidentally spits out a gob of chocolate and m&m shells when Francine agreed to go through with getting her finger cut off. I mean because that's how everyone

Sure- I edited it, actually, because "intersectionality," applies to many things besides feminism. It is the recognition that gender, race, class, religion, all intersect and interact with eachother in various ways. For example, a white woman cannot claim that she has less privilege than an African-American man

They made him a republican? I mean that's kind of gross. I can just see the plots where Glover teaches Lena Dunham about privilege and race, but Dunham will have to teach him about her white liberal feminism. I just don't think Dunham knows what intersectionality is, or cares.

You are definitely a white person.

You are definitely a white person.

And I thought Lwarence was going to be criticized for her actual problematic statements about weight (I don't need to look like this, I'm a "real woman," spiel) but yet her choice of movies and taste is "appalling?" Okay.

And I thought Lwarence was going to be criticized for her actual problematic statements about weight (I don't need to look like this, I'm a "real woman," spiel) but yet her choice of movies and taste is "appalling?" Okay.

I mean I don't really think you as a reviewer have the right to decide that the depiction of a mentally challenged woman was not problematic and give it sanction. I dunno, I just don't think it's your call to make.

I mean I don't really think you as a reviewer have the right to decide that the depiction of a mentally challenged woman was not problematic and give it sanction. I dunno, I just don't think it's your call to make.

In concurrence with everybody down there, there's no way Lolita would have been read in the same way- especially if the author's acts and the subject of the book mirror each other. Anyway, I understand the New Critics impulse to read the text as is, but there's a line of moral depravity that would be too hard to

In concurrence with everybody down there, there's no way Lolita would have been read in the same way- especially if the author's acts and the subject of the book mirror each other. Anyway, I understand the New Critics impulse to read the text as is, but there's a line of moral depravity that would be too hard to

What happened then and what is happening now isn't exactly unrelated.