LOL. And answering rhetorical questions with such detail? Is that free too? Keep "puttering" bro. Quite the life.

You're not making a valid point. Bad writing is bad writing, and nobody should get a free pass based on sexual orientation.

Hmm, so your time is free? Watching 10 minutes of commercials is free? Electricity is free? Your TV was free? You must be in China. :)

Exactly. The reviewer had to be more diplomatic. But he and you are on point. This show used short-hand for gay people like a summer camp play in Yosemite. And yet the fanboys/girls of this show are trying to say it had a great message. Every freaking show has a great message! LOL. Please.

"National treasure"??? LOL. You sound really objective.

Gosh you're so wrong on multiple points. Such a long essay that it makes one wonder why you put this much effort into defending it. First of all: Jessica did not feel safe at a gay bar because it was a gay bar. Is that what you really thought? She had no clue it was a gay bar. That is actually the "fact."

LOL - are you one of the writers of the show or something? Because that was simply the worst handling of a gay character I've seen on TV. Yes, you "don't know." Re-read this article. It's spot-on.

You don't understand the deal we make with television. A TV studio spends millions to produce a show. We assume it will enlist the best talent money can buy. We give up 30 minutes of our valuable time. We watch the clock for 8pm. We expect quality. We're not looking for "cheap, easy, broad comedy." But you do.…

LMFAO! Nice.

Well that was a nice comment. Thank you. I think this show is just a bowl of mixed noodles, pasta, pretzels, and soy sauce. White people directed and wrote this episode. The show runner is Persian. Park is Korean. Wu? Does she even speak Chinese? Here's an example: When the Louis character says to Jessica that she has…

Oh Jesus, are you really offended by the names of Hitler and Charles Manson? Look, you didn't write clearly. You made it sound as if you don't take this sitcom clearly specifically because it's based on Huang. So, I made the point that taking a sitcom seriously or not should not be based on who it's about. That is,…

Right. Even this writer wrote that some of the gay topic punchlines are recycled or over-used. I actually like Constance Wu as an actor. I think she has great energy and she's attractive. But she didn't have much choice about using that funky accent or performing all of the mediocre scripts she was handed.

We "manufacture outrage and other things, like praise, jealously, adoration, hoopla, fear, love, and anger. Take your pick. Manufacture away.

I didn't laugh once. I usually get at least one or two chuckles. But as soon as i heard the first scripted lines dealing with homosexuality, I knew I wouldn't be laughing. All you have to do is watch a couple of episodes of Modern Family to understand how you can create funny dialogue on topics that are uncomfortable…

I don't think it really matters who it's based on, unless it's Hitler or Charles Manson. But the reason sitcoms on broadcast TV ARE taken seriously is because they have so much influence and they have the power to change the psychology and biases of millions of people every day. That's why TV critics take them…

I also thought the handling of the topic of gay people was done extremely clumsily, as if a couple of recent USC film school grads, hetero ones, got the assignment and ended up scripting the most obvious stereotypes they could think of. Then handed it off to showrunner N. Khan who forgot to give it a proper re-write.…

Please re-read this article as you clearly didn't understand the seriousness of its critique. Unless you enjoy dumb jokes about gays.

Did you not even read this critique? How many more negative observations do you need before you realize that at best this episode was naive and clumsy, and at worst ignorant and insulting to the gay community?