There are so many problems with that letter. It’s like, the right idea is there, it’s just communicated poorly with many contradictions they sheepishly try to sidestep.

Downtown Boys: the band for people who don’t know what’s happening in underground music but want to throw around words like important and radical.

And if they were people they deserved it or something (I believe his rational was something like that; he’s the customer that goes places with a scheme to complain about services or products so he doesn’t have to pay).

Shouldn’t running a business also include some heart because, you know, business decisions have the same sort of consequences?

Taken from the perspective of pop political/social movements that reinforce dysfunction. Much like the politics on this blog. Or any Judd Apatow film.

And I think you’re mistaken in thinking much of that is intentional (look at the body of work of those involved). Again, Girls never offered a counter-narrative and often stays on the line of normalizing. It’s weak, elbow nudging and not effective. If you think Girls provides a counter-narrative, is that…

No. They don’t have to change and grow (and in the case of Girls, it doesn’t matter because it’s not satire). Something needs to be said about the condition that is being critiqued. “Look at what these brats are doing” is not critique. Again, what is Girls saying about the world? People are selfish? Whoopey-doo. If…

It didn’t go against the “overall tone of the show.” It was consistent. Even the previous episode did nothing to address the false-critique you keep citing. What happens to all the characters? Do any of them change? No. They simply recognize the dysfunctional dynamic of their relationships to each other and find other…

Yeah, duh.

No, I get the argument people project onto the show. It’s just not a good argument and the evidence to support it is very weak. And after last night’s episode, it’s pretty clear.

Here’s what Girls does: it offers the same kind of narrative as most comedians who point out how ridiculous aspects of American culture and daily life can be but does so not as a critique but as a normalizing shrug. It’s like the person who argues “despite the exploitation, disfunction, and inequality rampant in…

That’s not the full definition of satire. That’s the watered down version.

Girls never functions as satire.

The biggest mistake is thinking it is satire and then not really understanding what satire is.

It was absolutely not satire or parody.

They aren’t a real threat to the US.

Is it weird that I can’t stand seeing or hearing Mar-a-Lago? The title just strikes me as the ultimate in tackiness.

Totally. No nuance at all. Sometimes I’m conflicted by the click-baity maximalist positions in some of the writing because I get that an all-out stance is sometimes required (with room to wiggle out when certain conditions are met). But I don’t see that kind of strategy in the writing here and following comments.

It’s because he has no end game strategy and he’s doing it because he’s understands he can capitalize on the dumb American fear of Muslims. Islamic State isn’t a real threat to the US. The best way to combat them in the Middle East and Central Asia is to address corruption and poor governance. Sure, there are always…

Finally? It’s been happening for years.