Slovenly Muse

I am trying to think of a series finale that did not end with the firm responding to takeover threats by hiring/firing partners and restructuring/rebranding the firm. I guess there was the one where the firm was under threat and Mike saved it by going to prison, which I respected at the time, but really, it was fundamentally the same thing. Even though the firm-in-danger stuff was same old, same old, the Jessica stuff was interesting enough that I might check out that spinoff, just to see what they do. For this show, however, I think this will serve as a series finale for me. This SO MUCH! I didn't mind that they were sidelined a bit, but we all know the reason they are leaving the show is that Markle is becoming actual royalty, and Adams used her departure as an excuse to sneak out himself. SHE was the reason they left the show. So why was the storyline all about MIKE getting some job offer and Rachel being thrown in to that like an afterthought? All the goodbyes were about Mike, all the talk was about what Mike wanted to do, and the resolution was about Mike moving on and moving up, when in real life it's Markle who is doing that. Rachel didn't even warrant an acknowledgement that she was offered the job at the Seattle firm on her own merits. The guy made it clear the job offer was for Mike, and then included Rachel because he knew Mike wouldn't go without her. It was WEIRD. The whole thing felt like a goodbye party thrown for the wrong person. I get that Mike was a lead character from the start, but when the real-life situation is so widely known, it was very odd for the show not to actually say a proper goodbye to Markle, when we all know she's the one leaving for good. (Does Adams have another project lined up? If not, it would not surprise me at all if we saw him pop back up once or twice for a guest appearance.) Did the producers have some sort of unresolved issues about Markle's departure? Because the subtext of this goodbye should have been, "We're happy for you, Megan!" And instead it was "We're pissed we had to write Mike out because of you!"

My understanding is that the existence of the deal will prevent the not-fairies from attempting to do so, magically, so intent/accident is irrelevant. They simply won't be able to do it. Which, as the queen told McAllister directly, I'm sure she'll regret eventually. She did indeed promise-away the ability for self-defense. That's an interesting take on it! I checked again, and the Fairy Queen's exact words were: "No fairy will be hunted by a non-fairy anywhere ever. And this deal cannot be broken for any reason by any being ever." (The use of the word "hunt" seems to create a loophole. Fairies can still be hurt or killed by non-fairies, just not deliberately as the result of hunting.) Later, she seems extremely certain that she got the better end of the deal. My read on it was that the McAllisters had made an impossible bargain, and the Fairy Queen knew it. Presumably, after making this bargain, it would be the McAllister's responsibility to communicate the bargain to "every being ever." Because as soon as any non-fairy (including, I assume, large predator animals, monster/god creatures, and inconsequential pests like mosquitoes) DOES hunt a fairy, the McAllisters will have broken their part of the deal, and the consequences could be applied very broadly. Do we know what the consequences are for humans and other beings who break a fairy deal? I remember Margot trying to back out of the deal she made... did she just get strongarmed into keeping it, or was there discussion of what would happen if she didn't hold up her end? I can't remember... In any case, this could be a way for the fairies to gain power over other beings, or as you say, it could make it impossible for fairies to be hunted (I hadn't considered that - I love the idea!) In any case, there's no way this was even remotely a smart decision for the McAllisters. I loved this episode and thought it was a fabulous way to end the season. I can't wait for the next one!

Yes! And not only that, but the dialogue all sounds like it was written by the same person. Like, whenever anyone is dressing down anyone else for being an idiot, or apologizing for BEING an idiot, or whatever, they use the exact same general phrasing (including awkward cuss words) that any OTHER character would use and has used in the same situation. There is no individuality to these conversations, apart from what the actors give it, and the small details specific to the situation. Gretchen's whole speech dressing down Louis could have been put word-for-word into the mouths of Harvey, Donna, Jessica, Rachel, Mike... basically anyone! And it would not have sounded out of character. It's the same damn conversation over and over again, and it seems to get assigned to characters based on whose turn it is to make a speech. Yeah, this show is taking quite a leap to assume that they have a large crossover audience with complex HBO dramas. Keep living the dream, I guess!

As Cthulhudrew has been hilariously pointing out in episode threads, the new trend (or at least the increased trend) this season seems to be characters ambushing each other in the PSL office building's lobby. So! Anytime a main character walks into the building's lobby to find another character waiting there to talk to them, DRINK! Also, drink whenever a character enters the opposite gender's washroom to have an intense conversation that, apparently, can't wait for the other person to finish washing their hands and get to an actually private place to talk.

Ugh. Catching up on this show again AGAINST my better judgment (it's nice to have something on in the background I don't care about when I'm doing some Spring cleaning), and although this season has been a typical mess so far, this episode really hit a new low. Did I miss something, or did Harvey and Zane basically set Gallo up to get murdered to protect Alex? I mean... they knew the inmates were being used to kill people inside prisons, that the two CEO's were behind it, and that they'd already tried to kill Gallo once before for refusing to follow orders. Then Zane interviews Gallo, confirms that the CEO's will murder people who threaten them, then goes to the office and tells that CEO that he has an inmate willing to testify ("You know who"). Then the CEO tells Harvey "Make sure Gallo never takes the stand" or whatever. At this point, Harvey and Zane, working together (?), know that the CEO knows who is testifying against him, and wants to shut Gallo up. They also know he specializes in killing people inside prisons. They also know that, through whatever fantastical rules of legal proceedings exist in this dumb universe, Gallo getting murdered is the only way they both get what they want: Gallo's testimony admitted in a way that does not incriminate Alex. So if they truly did NOT see the hit on Gallo coming, then they are both idiots who are not remotely qualified to handle high-stakes (or even low-stakes) cases. And if they DID see it coming and did not attempt to protect Gallo, then they just sacrificed a man's life (a "decent" man, according to Mike) to protect a colleague's reputation. I mean, I thought they were going to pull out a last-minute reveal that it had all been some dumb elaborate ruse, where they baited that CEO into trying to have Gallo killed, tricked him into thinking it was successful, and then used the attempted murder of Gallo to prove their case. But no! They were just moronic and heartless enough to sell out Gallo for real. Like I said, I kind of only half-watched the episode, so maybe I missed something important. For example, I'm not entirely sure when Harvey and Zane were actually really working together, instead of against each other, but in any case, they each individually had ample reason to suspect that Gallo's life was in danger because of his participation in the case, and neither did anything (individually or together) to prevent his death. That's pretty fucked up! In light of that nutso story, it feels dumb to complain about the romantic storylines in this episode, but sure. If Donna thinks she can make herself feel appreciated by sneaking around with a man who only wants to be with her when HE doesn't feel threatened by her work with Harvey, then JFC, is she never qualified to give anyone relationship advice ever again. And if Sheila wants to sleep with her ex before getting married, no person with a brain could ever think that marriage has a chance in hell of getting off the ground. And of course Louis and Donna are both going to torture themselves over this, and use Harvey's personal issues with infidelity as an excuse to make themselves feel worse, proving once and for all that this show is just an endless cycle of characters who purport to be friends making each other miserable. Why do I do these things to myself?

I'm sure it will win all the awards, but I was very disappointed in this movie. As others have pointed out upthread, it seems deliberately obtuse to try to dramatize the decision to publish... of the SECOND paper to get hold of work done by someone else, rather than dramatize the process of the Times reporters collecting that information at incredible personal risk and attempting to print it themselves before getting silenced by the government, which is where the REAL story is. The filmmakers obviously wanted to cover this part of the story because it could involve Streep and take on sexism in the boardroom, which it does in the broadest strokes possible to avoid having to tackle any truly challenging or nuanced situations. I kind of knew going in that I was going to find this movie "meh," but I am trying to see all the Oscar best picture hopefuls, and it at least had a great cast, so I figured there would be something to enjoy. I was not prepared for how bland and unoriginal it was in nearly every respect. It felt like Spielberg had seen "Spotlight" and thought "Hey, I could do that! Only make it way whiter, way more conservative, and tackling subject matter with no moral complexity!" He seems to want to tell the story of Katharine Graham and her decision to publish, and to highlight her struggle with sexism, which she must overcome in order to make the tough call for which the movie celebrates her. The problem is, newspaper offices in the 60's and 70's were hotbeds of all kinds of sexism and racism, from harassment to pay disparity, to unequal opportunities, and yet in this film, everyone in the office seems to get along fine and be happy with their roles, regardless of race or gender, and the only one facing "sexism" is Katharine herself. And what that "sexism" looks like is men talking over and ignoring her at board meetings, and "accidentally" telling her to her face that they don't respect her and don't think she deserves her job. This is the only kind of "sexism" the movie feels comfortable portraying (the kind where there is no way to shrug off "boys being boys" or introduce the uncertainty of "she was asking for it"), and just in case you didn't KNOW it was "sexism" that was taking place, Sarah Paulson is on hand to explain it to us directly. Nevermind the fact that in her (Paulson's character's) marriage, her husband's role is exposing government corruption and her role is making sandwiches for all his work friends, which is its own kind of sexism, there is no attempt made to talk about opportunities that are or are not afforded to different kinds of people, or the context of inequality in which Katherine worked. It feels like cowardice - a reluctance to dip a toe into anything that might be morally grey, or not play clearly as black or white (Or, more specifically, white. Seriously, Spielberg, would it have killed you to give a Black person even one line of dialogue? You had a few on set as secretaries appearing out of focus in the backgrounds of shots at the newspaper, or appearing sporadically in crowds of predominantly-white hippies protesting the war... you could't have given ANY of them something to do or say, given that they were the ones being disproportionately affected by the war?) Then, by finding the courage to stand up for herself and say to the men "This is MY company!" Katharine is able to overcome that obstacle, solve sexism in the workplace, protect free speech at the Supreme Court, and more or less end the Vietnam war. This is the kind of movie that talks about history so safely, so afraid to offend, that it ends up having nothing meaningful to say. By taking out all the context and just looking at a certain character in a certain situation and whitewashing away all the rest, it actually AVOIDS talking about real history, in favour of telling a personal story that is divorced from all the societal and morally complex context, making that story empty and historically meaningless. I was hoping for great performances, and there were some, but so few actors were really given anything to do, there were far fewer than I was expecting. Overall, not one aspect of this film really worked for me. (Except Meryl Streep, but that pretty much goes without saying.)

Yes! And to say that you don't have to win the "oppression olympics" to be worthy of sympathy. A "bad date" or "bad sex," even if it's not all-out rape, is still emblematic of the dismissive or disrespectful way many men treat women in a sexual context. Her point, I believe, was that even if you're not a full-on rapist, if you're not willing to check in with your partner during sex, and make sure you are sharing a pleasurable experience, then maybe you're not up to the responsibility of fucking a person. Couldn't agree more.

YES! Sam's take is EXACTLY what I needed! From suggesting "alternatives" for those unwilling or unable to take on the responsibility of fucking a real person, to "no doy"-ing past the question of IF Trump's a racist, and being the first person I've heard actually explain HOW his obvious racism is actively hurting people! The Forgotten Forgotten Man segment was so much yes. I usually appreciate Sam's take, but this episode was on FIRE!

You're so right! My partner and I saw this movie together, and when we came out, we basically both launched into simultaneous rants (interspersed with "I really loved it, but" about every other sentence). My rant was about Poe, but his was about the nonsensical physics. He was INCENSED that in space, the bombers were portrayed as having to fly directly above their target to drop the payload. There's no gravity! The bombs wouldn't "fall" downward toward the Dreadnought, because there is no such thing as "down" in space! They would have to be propelled by another force towards their target, and the pilots should have theoretically been able to do something like turn the bombers sideways, so the opening points toward the target, then accelerate towards the target from a safe distance, free the bombs, and stop, causing the bombs to continue travelling in perpetuity through frictionless space in the direction the bomber was moving, or until encountering their target. There was really no need for the ships to get directly above the Dreadnought, that was just weird! (Also, he was very put out that the space lasers appeared to arc, which is, I am thoroughly assured, not how light travels in a gravity-free environment). Though perhaps it speaks to the dire straits of the Resistance that the only weapons available to them are the ones LEAST useful for combat in space!

This is what I was wondering in the theatre as well, because the details were really fuzzy (much like how the FO was magically able to impossibly track them through hyperspace). Perhaps someone who saw the film more than once can weigh in, but I recall that Poe took out the surface weapons, then reported to Leia that he'd done it, and she congratulated him and told him to come back (her attitude was, "Good, we did it," rather than "Nevermind, this is too dangerous."). He said that while they were there he wanted to destroy the Dreadnought, and she seemed surprised, like this was not their original plan, and told him not to do it. Then he hung up on her and called in the bombers. I did not understand why the bombers were there in the first place or why EVERYONE was disobeying Leia, but I assumed that Poe was charge of the operation, so everyone followed his orders and didn't know that Leia had ordered them not to proceed. But because we didn't get much information on the original plan, or what everyone else (the bombers, etc) thought they were there to do, I admit I am filling in some gaps myself. If someone has a clearer timeline for what happened, or got some details on second viewing that I missed, please jump in!

True. But, again, that was not knowledge Poe had at the time. And it assumes that the FO would still have followed them if he had stuck to Leia's plan. And saying Leia wanted to "cut their losses" implies that she originally wanted the Dreadnought destroyed, but tried to call off her own plan when she saw the casualties. This is not the case. Her plan was successfully completed. Poe didn't want to persist with a failing mission against orders - he completed the mission he was assigned, then spontaneously changed the goal of the mission, effectively launching a new mission without any understanding of what his superiors actually wanted. (As I pointed out upthread, there may have been a strategic reason that Leia didn't want the Dreadnought destroyed. He didn't ask, and wouldn't let her explain.)

Was he right in the beginning, though? I want him to be, because I like Poe, but he destroyed the Dreadnought BEFORE they tracked him through hyperspace (and before he knew they could, meaning it had nothing to do with protecting the cruiser, it was all ego). In fact, it was in all likelihood the REASON the FO tracked them through hyperspace. I think Leia had sent Poe alone, just one small fighter, to take out the Dreadnought's weapons and render it less of a threat (which he did). What are the chances they would have mobilized their flagship/Dreadnought/etc to pursue a lone fighter (if they even could - the question of HOW the FO was tracking them through hyperspace was never really explained)? By destroying the Dreadnought (one FO ship out of many), and bringing in the rest of his team against orders, Poe cost the Resistance what looked like ALL of their bombers, and put Hux in the situation of being truly humiliated in front of Snoke, giving them no choice but to follow the Resistance through hyperspace to take revenge and save face. Would they have done this if Poe had stuck to the plan? I honestly don't know, because the details of the original plan were fuzzy. Was it a "success?" That depends on your perspective. He did destroy the Dreadnought. But Poe was not in command. For all he knew, General Organa had plans for those bombers and the ships that were lost that could have dealt the FO a truly significant blow, or was working on a way to use the Dreadnought to their advantage. He didn't know WHY she didn't want it destroyed because he HUNG UP ON HER when she was trying to talk to him! He just assumed he knew better, and that she didn't want to do his plan because she wasn't as smart/brave/whatever as him. He got off LUCKY with demotion. He made the decision to poke the bear much harder than planned, and provoked a far bigger reaction than he had expected, that led to heavy losses on his side. She was a bit condescending, yes. But she was also very clear that she had a plan and he would have to trust her. If you think yelling at him like a military commander would have worked, I point you to the previous scene, when Leia yelled at him like a military commander to abort his plan, and he HUNG UP ON HER and did it anyway. And if being "irked" is enough to prompt him to risk every life in the Resistance on an insane gambit without the knowledge or support of the superior strategists above him in the command structure... then he has even less business calling the shots than he thinks he does. And like I said, I would be okay if he had really confronted his mistakes and made amends, but he never really did. It's not a good look on someone who is supposed to be our "hero." I suspect you're right. And I'll be interested to see how Abrams handles things. I hope they can give this character the real redemption that he deserves.

Finally got around to seeing this. I have to say, I liked it a LOT better than TFA. There was a lot to love in this movie. However, I was extremely bothered by Poe's storyline. He seemed to be the absolute embodiment of male entitlement throughout the entire film. The movie really lost me, and I mean INFURIATED me, the moment Poe, in the opening scene, F-ING HUNG UP on Leia! It was so disrespectful to a character who is really the true hero of the Star Wars franchise. She gave him a direct order as his commanding officer, and he not only disobeyed it, he actually HUNG UP as if to say, " Whatever, I know better than you." And decided he was better suited than a venerated General to decide how to allocate their (apparently) scarce resources, and surprise! He was wrong, and barely pulled off a plan that got loads of people killed and cost the Resistance valuable ships. Which then prompted the FO to follow them and blast even more of their ships, and the entire upper level of the command structure. Leia demoted him, but he still seemed to think he had a shot at leadership (like he was going to be rewarded for his insane plan), and when Holdo was promoted instead, he demanded (unreasonably) to know what her plan was. She was completely right to shut him out. Immediately after this, Finn and Rose figure out how the FO is tracking and following them, and Poe decides WITHOUT CONSULTING HOLDO, that she would never agree to it and they would have to do it on their own. Which I take major issue with, because if they had a shot at preventing the FO from following them, that would save EVERYONE and be a huge win! And if they failed, the Resistance would be down a small strike team, but still be basically in the same situation. So why wouldn't Holdo want them to do this?! And if they had gone to her, she could have allocated some resources to help them improve their odds of success, or at least made decisions for the fleet with the knowledge that a team was working on the FO's ability to track them. Poe sabotaged his own plan by not letting Holdo in on it, and it ended up failing and costing a lot of lives, including Holdo's. But not before he throws a full-on temper tantrum at her, including smashing equipment and screaming that she's a "coward" and "traitor" based on nothing but knowing she has a plan she's not telling him about (even though HE has a plan he's not telling HER about, when knowing about it could make HER planning more successful). Like, way to prove your worth, Buddy! After that infantile display, she'll DEFINITELY let you in to the inner circle! He didn't respect her or trust her (when he really had no reason not to), and he kept secrets from her that were far more egregious than the "secrets" she was keeping from him. (Again, she was right not to let him in on all the details, seeing as how he had just been demoted for blatantly disrespecting his CO and working directly counter to the established plan.) Then he staged an actual MUTINY, knowing that he didn't have all the info about what was going on! I found that shocking, and honestly, if he had learned all the details of the plan, and it had been a bad plan, and she was going to get people killed through incompetence or malice, I could have understood a mutiny. But all Poe knew was that she had a plan and wasn't talking to him about it, because he'd proven himself untrustworthy! He saw a tiny scrap of information, and immediately assumed he knew EVERYTHING and was smarter than she was because he saw the obvious flaws in what he blindly assumed was her plan. A mutiny was a HUGE overreaction, and not a good look on a "hero" who seemed increasingly, throughout the film, to have a problem with female authority figures. And what really gets me is that HER plan would have worked, if not for HIS secret plan that was stupid and failed, and got SO MANY MORE people killed! And yes, he did have a moment of understanding that she did have a good plan after all, but the film really did not underscore just how badly he had screwed up, how irresponsible his behaviour was, and how basically EVERY loss the Resistance suffered was Poe's fault. I don't think he really took responsibility for that, and it made it really hard to root for him going forward. To be honest, the only thing that would have redeemed him in my eyes would be if he REALLY took responsibility for his mistakes and had volunteered to be the one to stay on the cruiser and face a hero's death defending the transport pods that HE had endangered. Instead, Holdo was the one to have to sacrifice her life to pay for his mistakes. Poe experienced some personal growth, but he never had a moment of redemption that was on anywhere near the same scale as his mistakes. I loved so much about this movie. I loved Rey and Luke's storyline, Rey and Kylo Ren's push-and-pull, and the notion that the Force is so much more than a "light side/dark side" good or evil thing. Just because Kylo doesn't want Rey to die, and takes her side against Snoke, that doesn't make him "good." But he DOESN'T want Rey to die, and he is unable to kill his mother... there are layers to his experience that are more complex than "is he good or evil." I loved Rey accepting that her parentage doesn't matter (doesn't every orphan dream that their parents were some sort of famous heroes, and that they're heirs to greatness? Making Rey's parents "nobodies" freed her to embrace her own identity, and make her own choices based on who she was and who she wanted to be, not who she (or we) dreamed her parents might be.) I loved the introduction of war profiteering, and the idea that wars are not as simple as "good versus evil," and that there is a greater machine at work. I loved SO MANY THINGS about this movie, but I think Poe's storyline was a huge misstep. I came out of this movie despising him, and I'm certain that wasn't Johnson's intention. I'll be interested to see where things go from here in Episode IX.

I agree that there are differences between the code-people of this episode, and the code-people of the USS Callister. In The USS Callister, the code-people are definitely people, with full memories, capable of thoughts and feelings and spontaneous actions, whether or not the simulation is running. Here, the code-people have more limited memories, and seem to exist in very limited spaces (we never saw them at their own individual homes, or at work, or doing anything besides swimming in the same empty pool, skipping stones in the same pond, or playing on the same deserted squash court), and if they are genuinely sentient, it is in a more limited capacity, since they seem designed to only have one aspect to their lives and not notice what is missing. I think the point of this episode is less about the suffering of the code-people in the simulations (though it is certainly about that), and more about the increasing desire of real people to offload anything that is unpleasant or painful onto technology. The app Frank and Amy were using found them a match, but it did so by going through the entire years-long dating process FOR them, until it found them someone for whom they would "hang the DJ" (refuse to dance to someone else's music) and risk their lives to be with. But while real Frank and Amy freed themselves of the inconvenient and painful dating process, they also rejected everything that made their relationship meaningful. Everything their simulations learned by being with the wrong person, or being with many people, the way they dealt with rejection or rough patches, the things they learned about themselves and how they relate to others... all that was nullified with the simulations. Sure, Frank and Amy are compatible, but would they really risk their lives to be together if they didn't have the history that their simulations did? What kind of people will they be now that they have "skipped to the end" of the dating process without really experiencing anything? What kind of world will we live in when the absolute most important decisions in our lives can be made by a computer in moments? How much meaningful human experience will we be willing to sacrifice for convenience? I agree with some that the episode wasn't exactly a thrillride, but I do think Black Mirror is at its best when it poses these sorts of questions and makes you think about the impact that developing technology will have on our world.

Oh, I am so, SO in agreement with those who can see why GA wants out. Over on American Gods, she is the actual goddess of Media. Here, she is so incredibly underused and disrespected that I actually find it shocking. What did Scully get to do in this episode? Has a seizure, and gets carried into hospital and fawned over by concerned men. Tries to warn Mulder about the real and true things actually happening, only for him to spend the ENTIRE episode (basically every time they spoke) dismissing her, or telling her she's sick and delusional, or telling her to go back to bed, or getting mad at her for taking action without him, even though he's not willing to listen to her or help her take action WITH him. Spends the majority of the episode in bed while others do all the interesting stuff. Gets violently attacked, strangled, fights for her life, only for Mulder to show up in the nick of time and heroically save her from certain death. Practically begs at least two men (not going back to recount!) for help finding her son. Gets assaulted in her car and injured the ONLY time she dares to leave the hospital. Is talked about in an extraordinarily creepy way by CSM, who is willing to kill his own son, but not to hurt Scully... for emotional reasons? I was completely and totally over how awfully Scully was treated this episode LONG before the appalling reveal of William's parentage. CC doesn't deserve her. I completely agree with the poster upthread who said that when The X-Files is over, GA will still be on top, and CC will be done for good. This show seems to have nothing going for it now, apart from GA. CC needs her, and he still treats her this way. And this is all on top of the news from back before S10 that GA was originally offered HALF the money Duchovny was offered to come back for the reboot, AND the news that S11 had an all-male writers room (GA basically went on Twitter and shamed CC into hiring some female writers and directors this season). As I see it, The X-Files could have a future if CC could hand the reins over to someone who actually respects women and can helm a show suitable for 2018, but since that will never happen, CC cannot fall off of our cultural radar soon enough for me.

Re: The notice of divorce proceedings in the paper. I didn't think Keith actually KNEW that Veronica had found Lianne and got her into rehab (he'd certainly not be on board with Veronica spending her college fund on her mother's rehab), and as far as he knew, Lianne left ages ago and was just still out there in the world and was probably never coming back. Veronica has been watching Keith and Alicia's courtship "knowing" that it will only be temporary, because her mother will be back home as soon as her rehab is done. That's why reading about the divorce proceeding made her so upset... Her father is giving up on Lianne and moving on with someone else (and rightly so!), and has no idea that (in Veronica's mind) Lianne is maybe just weeeks away from coming back so they can be a family again, and Alicia will be dropped like a hot potato.

Ugh! I just caught that INFURIATING interview with Affleck! I'm glad Stephen didn't let him get away without bringing up sexual harassment allegations, but then letting Affleck shrug it off with some lame "Well, there is an allegation against me, and I don't remember it, but she said I touched her chest, it was during a hug or something" as if maybe Hilarie Burton was just some dumb lady who didn't know the difference between hugging and groping... as if this is just coming up now because of Weinstien and bandwagoning, and AS IF it was a recent surprise to him and not something noticed and commented on BACK WHEN IT HAPPENED, and as if it was the only allegation! It is completely maddening that he gets to shrug this off AGAIN, and pretend to distance himself from Weinstein, whose abusive behaviour he has defended until now (when the tide of public opinion is against him), and make vague comments about how much he's been hurt learning about the experiences of women close to him, without ever actually taking responsibility for his own actions! He came across like a complete dirtbag. And I'm all for people learning from their mistakes and making better choices in the future... but he's so obviously trying to sweep this under the rug FAST, and fake like he's on the right side of the issue and always has been (and let's definitely not bring up supporting his brother though sexual assault allegations).... I can't remember the last time I watched an interview while boiling with such unbridled RAGE. I get that it's Stephen's job to make celebrities look good and help sell their projects, but this was a hard one to watch.

Wow, this was a powerful one. I did some good crying afterward. While Naomi was wrong to give Rebecca medication without her consent, I actually think she was justified, and that not doing it would have been even worse. She may have saved Rebecca's life. David Foster Wallace wrote that suicide is like trying to jump out the top floor window of a skyscraper: Every instinct you possess will fight and rebel and keep you from doing it... but what happens when that skyscraper is on fire? The same animal instincts that would otherwise save your life will propel you right out that window. Rational thinking is impossible, and promises you made that you'd never jump become meaningless... Naomi saw that Rebecca's skyscraper was on fire, and she used every tool at her disposal to try and put that fire out. She gave Rebecca what she needed: Medication and a loving, supportive environment, to demonstrate that regardless of their differences, she'd always be there when Rebecca was in dire need, and to help bolster Rebecca until she was able to make rational choices about what she needed. And come on, NOBODY would play Twister for someone they didn't really love. As for the couch, I had no issue with it. I'm glad it makes sense in continuity, though! Even if there were a room available, I agree that it makes sense for Rebecca to make it as far as the couch, and then give up. And from Naomi's point of view (this is not rational, but emotional), once she found that website I can understand her not encouraging Rebecca to move to a bedroom. There's something inherently unsettling about putting a possibly-suicidal person behind a door they can close and lock. If she wasn't sure what Rebecca might do, then at least in the living room, Naomi could keep an eye on her, check on her at any time. It kind of fits her helicopter-parent style.

Were murdered IN A CHURCH. AT PRAYER. The nerve of anyone with the power to prevent this to suggest that PRAYER is what is needed in response to this slaughter is appalling.

The name of their organization is "Life After Hate." What they do is reach out to current Nazis and rehabilitate those that can be reached with compassion. There is no tolerance of Nazi ideology involved. They know it works, because it worked on them. These are also not the same German Nazis the US was at war with in the 1940's. There were many cultural and economic differences between the two groups, and they had different causes/roots, so suggesting the same solution to one that "worked" on the other ("war" as you said upthread) is also problematic in my opinion. Historically, yes. Now, those people are leaders of the movement, recruiting economically disadvantaged people, or even economically advantaged people, many of whom are ready to blame immigrants or anyone who is "other" for their lack of success, or for not receiving from life what they believe they are entitled to. That is my understanding from the piece, which was based on the firsthand accounts of former active members of the white supremacist movement, who I trust have a pretty accurate idea of what the membership looks like on the ground. Despite varying interpretations, I think the piece actually spoke pretty well for itself, so I think this is about as far as I can take this discussion without repeating myself. Good night, everyone.

Wow. I feel like I watched a totally different piece than you did! But isn't the "punch a Nazi" strategy still putting the onus on non-Nazis to "do the work" of combating the Nazi ideology? I haven't heard any suggestion that the solution is to "do nothing" and "let the Nazis do whatever they want" or "stop protesting Nazis" or "welcome Nazis into your home." This piece was targeted towards people who want to be active and DO something about the Nazi threat, who already feel the onus is on them to act. Sam is just suggesting a method of accomplishing the goal we all want to accomplish (fewer Nazis with less influence) through a method that actually WORKS, rather than just punching. Punching Nazis might feel good, but it also validates them and makes them stronger... it teaches them that they are important and powerful enough to be worth punching, and ultimately makes the problem worse. No one is suggesting that you, personally, should literally hug a Nazi, or do the work yourself of counselling and rehabilitating them. Only to act as an advocate for those who are actually defeating Nazis through rehabilitation. The purpose of the piece, as I saw it, was to educate us about the one and only group working to productively combat the Nazi threat, and how difficult their work is because the Trump administration is actively working against them. And to help those calling for violence to understand that punching a Nazi is just shooting ourselves in the foot. Yes... and the tactics that Life After Hate uses on white supremacists are the same tactics we are using to deradicalize people with whom we are actually currently at war. So I'm not sure I take your point. I think the problem here is the term "Hug a Nazi." It's not a literal call to literally hug a literal Nazi and take no other action, just a soundbyte that some have taken a bit TOO much to heart (perhaps Sam included). They are not suggesting that all Nazis need is "love and understanding." As the LAH founder said, what they need are jobs, education, counselling... they need to understand how to feel worthy without treading on others. Many join the movement because they feel powerless and are looking for someone to blame, and a way to feel validated. There is a way out of that, but not through punching. Violence doesn't defeat the CAUSE of Nazism, just plays whack-a-mole with the symptom. But just because violence is counterproductive, doesn't mean the only alternative is tolerance. Of course a zero-tolerance policy is the best policy. Of course we should not tolerate their actions or ideology. The piece never suggested we should. Disrupting their ability to recruit others and spread their message is absolutely crucial for combating this threat, and that is the kind of work Life After Hate does (or did, before their funding was cut). The leaders of the white supremacist movement organized that Charlottesville rally to be held without hoods, because they WANTED their members to be identified and shamed, so that they would be ostracized and recognized as a Nazi for life, and would feel like they had no way out of the movement. It was their way of forcing a lifetime commitment. To me, that shows the leaders' greatest fear is exactly the kind of work Life After Hate is doing, and that's good enough for me.

How so? I am curious. The group is made up of former racists working to de-recruit and de-radicalize current racists. This looks EXACTLY like an example of people cleaning up their own messes. The only thing they're asking the general public for is some funding (which they already had, but the Trump government revoked) and a bit of understanding. And the best part is, what they do WORKS, even if you don't like the idea of it. As I think was pointed out in the piece itself, if they were having this exact converstion about ISIS or Al-Quaieda or any other radical Muslim terrorist group, we would call this common sense. Keep them from getting recruited in the first place, use education and outreach to help them understand how their ideology is wrong, and give them access to better opportunities so that they no longer need to be radicalized to feel relevant. In fact, if you imagine that everyday Muslims feel about ISIS the same way everyday white folks feel about Nazis, you can really begin to understand and close some of the racial and cultural divides in America. I get that punching Nazis is cathartic, but I would rather live in a world where there are fewer Nazis to punch, and I'm willing to pitch in to make that happen. Unfortunately, we can't have it both ways.

Man, I thought Sam was on FIRE last night! That Homeland-credits right-wing-terrorism spoof? AMAZING! And while I agree, the idea of hugging a Nazi is difficult to stomach, I like that Sam and others are exploring solutions that actually WORK to reduce violence and prejudice, rather than ineffective, counterproductive acts (like punching) that might make us feel better but ultimately make the problem worse. People may not like hard solutions, but I will always side with those saying "things are bad, let's make them better" over people who say "an eye for an eye, sucker." It's the same reason I kind of got where she was coming from with her piece on the anti-Trump demonstrations, which I know others didn't like. It's difficult to understand how counterproductive demonstrations can be when the big message is "Impeach Trump"... but the small message is "because I don't like him and I have no facts or specific examples of impeachable offences to back up my message, I just don't like him." That's the kind of thing Republicans were saying about Obama for years, and without respect for the legalities surrounding impeachment this sounds a lot like the same baseless temper tantrum (and you better believe it looks that way to Republicans). There ARE legitimate reasons to impeach Trump, so if the people demonstrating "because they don't like him" would educate themselves on specifics and change their messaging to "Impeach Trump for legally-defensible reasons I can tell you about", and/or do things like personally demanding to know what their elected representatives are doing about specific offences and why, they'd stand a better chance of putting real pressure on the people who could make impeachment happen. Rallies are a great way of getting people fired up and drumming up support, but they need to be rooted in, and paired with, real, justifiable, reason-based concerns and strategies, or they won't be effective at changing the minds of the people in power. I like that Sam took the unconventional route of calling out anti-Trump protesters for having all feelings and no facts, thereby undercutting their own message, and showing us how to really be part of the solution. I am so glad this show is back from hiatus. I really, really needed it!

I actually found myself surprised by how much I liked Desiree too! I thought for sure they were just setting her up for heartbreak, and that Remy's "performance issues" meant that he wasn't attracted to her physically, and that he didn't really LOVE her, he just loved the idea of having a family - I was waiting for one of them to realize it and trying not to get attached in the meantime. But by the end, their relationship actually comes into focus... his distance from her isn't because he doesn't find her physically attractive, it's because the sexual interference he suffered as a child has affected his ability to be intimate with women in general! His "not in front of the baby" line isn't an excuse, it's an anxiety born from what was done in the room with him when he was young.... And she kind of gets it, and he kind of gets it, and gosh darn it, I think these two crazy kids might just make it work! And I know, Desiree is A LOT! She's pushy, and loudmouthed and direct... but she's very goodhearted, and even when others found her intrusive (like Bill and his thermostat), she wasn't actually BEING inconsiderate, they all just hadn't adjusted to each other yet. And for all her kooky views, I really liked that she didn't seem to have a problem with Tig being gay. She may have had some inaccurate assumptions, based on her conversation with Kate, but didn't seem to harbour any hostility or judgment. I have no problem with people who believe things I don't, like dinosaurs weren't real, or dinosaurs were real during Christ's lifetime, or whatever (I know someone who disbelieves in the moon landing), but once they start disrespecting other people's basic human dignity, that crosses a line for me. I like that Desiree is zealous, but without a hint of cruelty. She and Remy might really be good for each other!

So true! But after portraying Bill for two seasons as seriously over-the-top anal retentive, I am SO GLAD they actually addressed the way his father's crimes against the family may have deeply affected him. Bill's massive over-reactions to small offenses (excluding the dishwasher thing, of course), while they can be endearing, make a lot of sense from a man who's entire foundation of family, security, trust, and control was violently upended. What we dismiss as just "Bill being Bill" could very well be part of a deeply ingrained coping strategy for unexamined control issues. After all, while it's certainly a natural aspect of his personality, if he had been THIS uptight before learning about his father's betrayal, he likely wouldn't have been able to marry Tig and Remy's free-spirited mom. I absolutely LOVED this season for the way it tackled sexual assault issues head-on. While last season, Tig's molestation was acknowledged and explained, but not really explored... it was more like something that happened in the past that no one denied, but didn't really want to talk about. Seeing the way those assaults affected not only Tig, but also Bill and Remy, and their abilities to form healthy relationships with other people, was so powerful, and very poignant against the backdrop of gender-related assaults in general. Because like Kate and her history of predatory encounters, so many of us have similar stories of inappropriate intimacy that we have shrugged off, or been told was "boys being boys", or tried to ignore and get on with our lives... but these things mean something, and they inform who we are as individuals and as a culture. And they are extremely difficult to talk about, so I applaud Tig and the whole team for taking this on and hitting it out of the park. And, because it can't be said enough... "I tricked them! They let me in! I'm gay! I'm gay!"