"Oh HELL No!": TV Moments That Make You Irate

[Shannon L.]

In Better Call Saul, when Saul blindsided Kim by insisting that the law firm she worked for pay his client $4 million and threatened to sue them for copy right infringement on top of it. She handled the situation really well and it worked out ok, but given his antics in the years leading up to that (she's not stupid-she knows he'll flirt with illegality when it comes to getting what he wants), I can't believe that wasn't the last straw for her.

[Blergh]

10 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

I don't know if I know that particular storyline in Girl Meets World (it wasn't on my viewing list much), but, true story, in sixth grade I did have a cute girl who apparently liked me but only expressed it through bullying. She especially liked taking her pencil and poking me on the butt, just to watch my reaction. I remember complaining about it- I forget to whom- only to get told, "she likes you". Being 12, I felt pretty confident in the moment...but I never summed up the courage to ask her out and she never asked me out either.

Which is one reason why I can never tolerate bullying on screen, no matter how "sympathetic" it may be portrayed. Not just because Hollywood glosses over the effects bullying can have on the one who is bullied, but also because you hardly ever get an honest examination about why bullies do what they do in the first place, especially when they're that young. Teens and tweens are in that funny phase where, in the process of becoming an adult, their maturity processes get all out of whack which can make their behaviour very volatile. Bullying, since it's still very much a "childish" process, is very much a manifestation of that, and often the targets of the bullies are those who may have 'matured" more than they have. There was another girl in my later elementary school days who did pick on me a lot (not the same one who poked me with a pencil). I see her years later as an adult and she's an apologetic mess to me. She explains to me that she picked on me a lot because she truly was jealous that I did a lot better in school than she did and she didn't know how to rectify that in her mind. I accepted her apology simply because I understood youth is a funny time.

Which is something I wish Hollywood would better understand.

While I FULLY agree with @Mabinogia's assertion that if one truly likes another person, one does NOT belittle or demean them- especially after being called on it by the other person, I have to admit that tweens and teens (which I was one way back when) often DO have trouble learning what's acceptable behavior in dealing with other folks which is WHY it's important that those who have become bullies towards others (even if not especially those who claim to do so because they like/are crushing on them) get these actions called out by the peers and adults ASAP!  I give the latter girl in your account credit that she DID recognize that she had been wrong to have treated you that way earlier in her life and I hope someone told her that ,yes, she had been wrong and it's good that she recognized that and has grown as a person- and NOT excused it as having been a youthful folly!

To bring this back to Girl Meets World, it would have been great had a peer and/or adult called out Maya for having bullied Lucas and  and have NO character have  let her off the ole hookeroo via her claiming to have liked him as her MO- and it would have been marvelous and cathartic if she'd recognized it on her own then sincerely and spontaneously apologized and asked him if he'd be willing to give her a chance for their platonic bond to start over (while stressing that SHE would have been accepted his call on this even if it wasn't in her favor)! Maybe they might have had her consider that she was belittling his accent and manners because she had unresolved issues with her own US Southern-bred parents.  Just because someone has put up with bullying for X amount of time doesn't obligate them to forever keep putting up with it without making objections forever and it would have been great for Lucas to have recognized that,too! IOW, this show that(as per all the writers' own kudos)  was supposed to be about tweens and teens learning life lessons COULD have used this as an opportunity to have depicted genuine growth and overcoming earlier mistakes and even toxic behaviors but, instead they BLEW it by keeping Maya an unapologetic bully even after Lucas FINALLY called her on it! 

Edited May 1, 2022 by Blergh

[Mabinogia]

27 minutes ago, Blergh said:

IOW, this show that(as per all the writers' own kudos)  was supposed to be about tweens and teens learning life lessons COULD have used this as an opportunity to have depicted genuine growth and overcoming earlier mistakes and even toxic behaviors but, instead they BLEW it by keeping Maya an unapologetic bully even after Lucas FINALLY called her on it! 

That's what is so infuriating. This could have been a great teaching moment. Maya isn't evil for teasing Lucas the way she did, she's a kid. If someone sat her down and explained the things you mentioned, it could have been insecurity about her own southern roots (since sadly there is still some prejudice in this world against accents) and I could see them have Maya resent Lucas for not being ashamed of his southern roots the way she is. Or if it was truly "I like him" someone could teach her that there are better ways to get a love interests attention. Of course in her case it's more complicated since Lucas was clearly Riley's property so Maya never stood a chance. 

I would have loved for Corey or Topanga to have sat her down and shared their own experience with awkward young love (complete with flashbacks to appeal to the Boy Meets World crowd the show seemed to be pandering to half the time). 

Until, I'd say late high school, I don't blame the child for bullying/teasing because, as you say, they are still learning who they are and how they fit into this world. It's up to the adults around them to help them understand the right and wrong ways to treat others and all the adults in Maya's and Riley's world repeatedly failed them by treating them like they are special little snowflakes whose feelings matter more than anyone else's. 

I admit, I watched all of Girl Meets World, mainly because I found the cast very endearing (even if I didn't really like their characters or storylines that much.)

[Spartan Girl]

I’ve got some more moments from The Simpsons to add to my “I hate Marge Simpson” series:

”Go Big Or Go Homer”: Homer invites the new employee he’s mentoring over for dinner, who idolizes him to a ridiculous degree. Bart of course ruthlessly mocks Homer during dinner, and the employee tells Bart off rather ruthlessly. Everyone is shocked (except Lisa, who justifiably laughs her ass off), Bart cries like a little bitch, and Marge tells the guy to leave, but then of course blames Homer for everything as if he’s in control for everything his coworker ever says. But she was suspiciously mute when Bart was insulting Homer. Hey Marge, Homer has feelings too, so maybe it would be good to keep your son from acting like a brat when GUESTS are over!

”Woo-Hoo Dunnit”: Marge steals from Lisa’s college fund and gets away with it. I am not even joking.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[Wiendish Fitch]

I'm sorry to be "that person", but my feelings towards The Simpsons these many, many years have been reduced to...

[Spartan Girl]

36 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I'm sorry to be "that person", but my feelings towards The Simpsons these many, many years have been reduced to...

[Danielg342]

On 8/9/2020 at 8:09 PM, Zella said:

One of my big pet peeves in cop shows--and I say this as someone who watches a ton of crime shows and mysteries--is when they treat people who ask for a lawyer as automatically suspicious. You're not automatically guilty if you ask for a lawyer. You're just being smart and protecting your rights. 

I realize the post is two years old (or thereabouts) but there's something I want to add to it. There's a very good reason to ask for a lawyer and not to talk to the police in interrogation even if you are 100% innocent and that's because literally anything you tell an officer can be used against you. You could be brought in to be asked about a murder the police are investigating, but if you let slip that you merely discovered the body after you got high with your buddies...well, the cops can book you for that, especially because you "admitted to it freely".

The other part is that police are trained in manipulation and psychological tactics designed to get you to confess. Add that to the base stress of the situation and it's easy to see how false confessions can arise out of this scenario. We can also seem to forget that the police are humans too- you'll have the types that just want to pin the crime on "someone", you'll get types that forget (or even disregard) the rules, you'll get types who will get a little too overzealous at the job, etc. Even the best investigators are not above making mistakes and you don't want one of those mistakes to lead the police to investigate you further or, worse, charge you with a crime you didn't commit.

Which is why a lawyer is helpful. A lawyer will keep the police honest and help you from accidentally incriminating yourself. A lawyer will also allow you to assert yourself when you need to, because the lawyer will remind the police that you can leave the interrogation whenever you like.

This brings me to another pet peeve I have about crime shows in general, and that's the fact perps never seem to understand they have the power in an interrogation. The police, ultimately, are conducting interrogations to get answers they need to investigate a crime and one surefire way to derail that investigation is to withhold the answers they're after. The right to silence isn't just something that the innocent can (and should) use more often to get themselves out of a tricky situation, it's something the baddies the police are chasing should use to their advantage too.

Now, I grant that people freely talking during interrogations is actually quite common- 80% of people brought in for questioning waive their right to counsel- but I think TV takes things too far. It's not just about how too many TV criminals talk openly to the police in interrogation- they, more often than not, also provide the police with picture perfect intel that helps move the investigation along. Criminals are humans too, and, even if they're honest, they can't always be reliable. Yeah, I get that too many curves might make solving cases take too long on TV, but- on top of that being realistic- it would be nice if the criminals threw curveballs of their own every now and then for a change.

[BlackberryJam]

10 minutes ago, Danielg342 said:

I realize the post is two years old (or thereabouts) but there's something I want to add to it. There's a very good reason to ask for a lawyer and not to talk to the police in interrogation even if you are 100% innocent and that's because literally anything you tell an officer can be used against you. You could be brought in to be asked about a murder the police are investigating, but if you let slip that you merely discovered the body after you got high with your buddies...well, the cops can book you for that, especially because you "admitted to it freely".

The other part is that police are trained in manipulation and psychological tactics designed to get you to confess. Add that to the base stress of the situation and it's easy to see how false confessions can arise out of this scenario. We can also seem to forget that the police are humans too- you'll have the types that just want to pin the crime on "someone", you'll get types that forget (or even disregard) the rules, you'll get types who will get a little too overzealous at the job, etc. Even the best investigators are not above making mistakes and you don't want one of those mistakes to lead the police to investigate you further or, worse, charge you with a crime you didn't commit.

Which is why a lawyer is helpful. A lawyer will keep the police honest and help you from accidentally incriminating yourself. A lawyer will also allow you to assert yourself when you need to, because the lawyer will remind the police that you can leave the interrogation whenever you like.

This brings me to another pet peeve I have about crime shows in general, and that's the fact perps never seem to understand they have the power in an interrogation. The police, ultimately, are conducting interrogations to get answers they need to investigate a crime and one surefire way to derail that investigation is to withhold the answers they're after. The right to silence isn't just something that the innocent can (and should) use more often to get themselves out of a tricky situation, it's something the baddies the police are chasing should use to their advantage too.

Now, I grant that people freely talking during interrogations is actually quite common- 80% of people brought in for questioning waive their right to counsel- but I think TV takes things too far. It's not just about how too many TV criminals talk openly to the police in interrogation- they, more often than not, also provide the police with picture perfect intel that helps move the investigation along. Criminals are humans too, and, even if they're honest, they can't always be reliable. Yeah, I get that too many curves might make solving cases take too long on TV, but- on top of that being realistic- it would be nice if the criminals threw curveballs of their own every now and then for a change.

One thing I love about Vera and a few other British shows is that they always have an attorney in the interview. 

 

[Bastet]

Kathleen Madigan has a great bit, thanks to growing up with an attorney father, about how 90% of people in jail are there because they can't keep their goddamn mouth shut; don't ever say anything to the police other than "I do not recall" and "I need an attorney".

[Ceindreadh]

5 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

This brings me to another pet peeve I have about crime shows in general, and that's the fact perps never seem to understand they have the power in an interrogation. The police, ultimately, are conducting interrogations to get answers they need to investigate a crime and one surefire way to derail that investigation is to withhold the answers they're after. The right to silence isn't just something that the innocent can (and should) use more often to get themselves out of a tricky situation, it's something the baddies the police are chasing should use to their advantage too.

 

Beware of the 'right to silence' in the UK.  Their miranda equivalent warning states that while you do have the right to silence, "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, something which you later rely on at trial".

So basically, if you keep your mouth shut when questioned, but then say provide an alibi when the case goes to trial the prosecution could likely imply that you didn't mention it then because you hadn't thought up the lie. 

Again, a good reason to have a lawyer present. 

[Mittengirl]

10 hours ago, Ceindreadh said:

"it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, something which you later rely on at trial".

Having recently started watching “cozy mysteries” BritBox, I keep hearing that statement when the accused is getting shoved in the back of a police car.  Thank you for clearing up what it means.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Mittengirl

[Zella]

12 minutes ago, Mittengirl said:

Having recently started watching “cozy mysteries” BritBox, I keep hearing that statement when the accused is getting shoved in the back of a police car.  Thank you for clearing up what it means.

I still instinctively read it in my head with a Belfast accent courtesy of The Fall, which was the first UK TV show this American noticed it in. 😂

Edited May 3, 2022 by Zella

[proserpina65]

9 hours ago, Zella said:

I still instinctively read it in my head with a Belfast accent courtesy of The Fall, which was the first UK TV show this American noticed it in. 😂

I hear it in Brenda Blethyn's voice, although Vera wasn't the first show I noticed it in.

[Danielg342]

On 5/2/2022 at 3:19 PM, Ceindreadh said:

Beware of the 'right to silence' in the UK.  Their miranda equivalent warning states that while you do have the right to silence, "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, something which you later rely on at trial".

What I want to know is if in Britain if one having proof for their alibi (such as a witness who can corroborate the alibi) is sufficient to satisfy the "alibi defence" even if one is silent about the alibi in interrogation. In Canada and the U,S., when one makes an alibi defence, they actually have to provide proof so the police can investigate the alibi and determine its credibility. This is also something the defendant has to do before you go to trial- the defendant can't (as what happens far too often, incorrectly, on TV) surprise the court with a witness who reveals that the defendant was with them the entire time and thus couldn't commit the crime.

[Ceindreadh]

9 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

What I want to know is if in Britain if one having proof for their alibi (such as a witness who can corroborate the alibi) is sufficient to satisfy the "alibi defence" even if one is silent about the alibi in interrogation. In Canada and the U,S., when one makes an alibi defence, they actually have to provide proof so the police can investigate the alibi and determine its credibility. This is also something the defendant has to do before you go to trial- the defendant can't (as what happens far too often, incorrectly, on TV) surprise the court with a witness who reveals that the defendant was with them the entire time and thus couldn't commit the crime.

That I don't know.  (to be fair, most of my UK legal knowledge comes from Line of Duty!).

 

[magicdog]

Here's one from a repeat of Chicago Fire I caught last night: "Then Nick Porter Happened" (2015)

There's a series of false alarms going off in the area - all linked to a local private school.  The guys at 51 try to figure out who's doing it and try to advise students that they're dangerous since they're being kept away from  a real emergency.

One day they are slowed to an emergency situation in which a man is trapped under a boiler and when he's rescued, they're not sure if he'll live or be permanently disabled or worse.  All the while they wish they could have been there sooner if it weren't for the false alarm.

Eventually, they find the culprit  -  a boy of about 7 years of age who claims he was setting off the alarms because he was being bullied by the other kids (they're rich and snobby don't ya know?) and he wanted the false alarms to lead to the school to close down so he could be in public school with his friends!!   

Later we see him visit the man he could have killed by his stupid behavior in the hospital with a homemade get well card made with a crayon.  Everyone smiles.  The End.  

Never once does this boy get a dressing down from anybody for what he did or the stupid reason he did it!  Not his dad, not the firefighters, no one!  Not once did anyone ask why didn't he go to the principal or to his father about the bullying?  Or why his dad put him in a private school in the first place?  Or that dad is working to keep him educated?  Or that the false alarms could have killed someone by preventing the firefighters from getting to a scene?  It's as if, everything was OK, cause he was just a bullied kid who didn't mean to hurt anyone and no consequences for that!  ARRRGH!! 

[magicdog]

Got another golden oldie Hell No! from Emergency:

In "Daisy's Pick Blind Date" (1974), there's a new nurse at Rampart named Daisy.  Several firefighters are interested in her including Johnny.  When Johnny goes to ask her out, she hands him a card with an address and says she'll bring lunch for a picnic. 

Later we see Johnny and several other firefighters all sore from some activity.  When Roy asks what happened, it comes out Daisy had invited all of them to these "dates" in which she would have them go to an orphanage (the address on the card) and have them help with repairs on the building!!  Daisy apparently worked there also and tricked/charmed the guys to come by and do the repairs for free!!!  Of course, towards episode's end, Marco is the latest firefighter to be invited on a date with Daisy but it's left nebulous if he's also being lured into a sucker's deal since he pledged to "never tell" regardless of what happens.  The End.

This pisses me off no end!  Men are interested in dating you but you use them for free labor without being decent enough to ask them to help like a normal person!  I don't care if the building was an orphanage or not, not cool Daisy! 

[Llywela]

23 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

What I want to know is if in Britain if one having proof for their alibi (such as a witness who can corroborate the alibi) is sufficient to satisfy the "alibi defence" even if one is silent about the alibi in interrogation. In Canada and the U,S., when one makes an alibi defence, they actually have to provide proof so the police can investigate the alibi and determine its credibility. This is also something the defendant has to do before you go to trial- the defendant can't (as what happens far too often, incorrectly, on TV) surprise the court with a witness who reveals that the defendant was with them the entire time and thus couldn't commit the crime.

Yes, British police investigate alibis. Of course they do. A suspect can't just say 'I have an alibi' and leave it at that, obviously the alibi is then checked out, we don't just take their word for it.

[Danielg342]

2 hours ago, Llywela said:

Yes, British police investigate alibis. Of course they do. A suspect can't just say 'I have an alibi' and leave it at that, obviously the alibi is then checked out, we don't just take their word for it.

I figured as much. The British version of the Miranda Warning is a little confusing. Given the stress of an interrogation, it's feasible that one could forget about the fact they actually have an alibi, so it didn't make sense to me that there wasn't a "workaround" so to speak.

I guess the British warning might allow someone to offer a "witness-less" alibi defence, but only if this is mentioned in interrogation. I still don't know how comfortable I would be with that (again, interrogations are stressful, so it's easy to forget details) but that's the only way I can make sense of the warning.

[Llywela]

27 minutes ago, Danielg342 said:

I figured as much. The British version of the Miranda Warning is a little confusing. Given the stress of an interrogation, it's feasible that one could forget about the fact they actually have an alibi, so it didn't make sense to me that there wasn't a "workaround" so to speak.

I guess the British warning might allow someone to offer a "witness-less" alibi defence, but only if this is mentioned in interrogation. I still don't know how comfortable I would be with that (again, interrogations are stressful, so it's easy to forget details) but that's the only way I can make sense of the warning.

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”  The UK Gov website says that what this means is that while you don't have to answer any questions, there may well be consequences if you don't.

Basically, if you are questioned and stay silent, but then later try to introduce certain information as your defence, information that could have been volunteered to begin with, you run the risk of that defence looking really dodgy to a jury. Silence in some circumstances might hinder rather than help your case, which is something that should be taken into careful consideration, in effect.

[proserpina65]

13 hours ago, magicdog said:

Got another golden oldie Hell No! from Emergency:

In "Daisy's Pick Blind Date" (1974), there's a new nurse at Rampart named Daisy.  Several firefighters are interested in her including Johnny.  When Johnny goes to ask her out, she hands him a card with an address and says she'll bring lunch for a picnic. 

Later we see Johnny and several other firefighters all sore from some activity.  When Roy asks what happened, it comes out Daisy had invited all of them to these "dates" in which she would have them go to an orphanage (the address on the card) and have them help with repairs on the building!!  Daisy apparently worked there also and tricked/charmed the guys to come by and do the repairs for free!!!  Of course, towards episode's end, Marco is the latest firefighter to be invited on a date with Daisy but it's left nebulous if he's also being lured into a sucker's deal since he pledged to "never tell" regardless of what happens.  The End.

This pisses me off no end!  Men are interested in dating you but you use them for free labor without being decent enough to ask them to help like a normal person!  I don't care if the building was an orphanage or not, not cool Daisy! 

On one hand, I agree with you in that she should have told them, but on the other, it was kind of genius on her part.

[Danielg342]

23 hours ago, Llywela said:

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”  The UK Gov website says that what this means is that while you don't have to answer any questions, there may well be consequences if you don't.

Basically, if you are questioned and stay silent, but then later try to introduce certain information as your defence, information that could have been volunteered to begin with, you run the risk of that defence looking really dodgy to a jury. Silence in some circumstances might hinder rather than help your case, which is something that should be taken into careful consideration, in effect.

At the risk of going off-topic and/or going around in circles, I'm still a little lost. Like I said, lots of reasons why one would stay silent in interrogation other than "they're lying" and a prosecutor would look foolish saying someone is lying if they've brought a witness who can testify to the veracity of their alibi. I still can't envision more than maybe a handful of scenarios (each with workarounds of their own) where staying silent in interrogation wouldn't actually be beneficial.

[Bruinsfan]

20 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

On one hand, I agree with you in that she should have told them, but on the other, it was kind of genius on her part.

If Daisy had bunches of paramedics constantly hitting on her at her job (where they, too, are supposed to be concentrating on the welfare of the patients they bring in!), I have no problem with her redirecting their energy to something productive rather than having to devote hers to rebuffing the ones she wasn't interested in dating.

[Ambrosefolly]

22 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

On one hand, I agree with you in that she should have told them, but on the other, it was kind of genius on her part.

I fucking hate those women. To me, it isn't a whole lot different from a guy that keeps a rotation of love sick women to have sex with them with promises of a deeper relationship. Then these people are shocked, SHOCKED, that these people go off the deep end and retaliate when they figure out they have been used.  (I am including men and women with the revenge)

Edited May 6, 2022 by Ambrosefolly

[magicdog]

3 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

If Daisy had bunches of paramedics constantly hitting on her at her job (where they, too, are supposed to be concentrating on the welfare of the patients they bring in!), I have no problem with her redirecting their energy to something productive rather than having to devote hers to rebuffing the ones she wasn't interested in dating.

Except the guys hitting on her (and I don't have a problem with eligible guys flirting with and approaching women for a potential date) thought they were going out with her on a legit date, not doing maintenance work.  If she didn't want to date them, all she had to do was say no.   Paramedics were already done with their patients once they get them to the hospital, so it makes sense for a guy to chat up a girl before heading back to the station or another call. 

[Cinnabon]

3 hours ago, magicdog said:

Except the guys hitting on her (and I don't have a problem with eligible guys flirting with and approaching women for a potential date) thought they were going out with her on a legit date, not doing maintenance work.  If she didn't want to date them, all she had to do was say no.   Paramedics were already done with their patients once they get them to the hospital, so it makes sense for a guy to chat up a girl before heading back to the station or another call. 

But she is still on the job in her place of employment. No one should have to be endlessly hit on daily while at work.

[Ceindreadh]

11 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

At the risk of going off-topic and/or going around in circles, I'm still a little lost. Like I said, lots of reasons why one would stay silent in interrogation other than "they're lying" and a prosecutor would look foolish saying someone is lying if they've brought a witness who can testify to the veracity of their alibi. I still can't envision more than maybe a handful of scenarios (each with workarounds of their own) where staying silent in interrogation wouldn't actually be beneficial.

If somebody is questioned by the police and say nothing and then some time later they show up with a convenient alibi witness, there is the possibility that they could have concocted the alibi with the witness at some point after they were questioned. 

If on the other hand, they gave the alibi when they were questioned, and the police check it out before the suspect has a chance to speak to their alibi witness, then it'll be a lot more believable.

[Bruinsfan]

2 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

But she is still on the job in her place of employment. No one should have to be endlessly hit on daily while at work.

And my best friend is a paramedic, so I have a fairly clear picture of how likely they are to give up at a simple "no thanks." The firehouse guys in the early 70s were probably even more persistent.

[Danielg342]

1 hour ago, Ceindreadh said:

If somebody is questioned by the police and say nothing and then some time later they show up with a convenient alibi witness, there is the possibility that they could have concocted the alibi with the witness at some point after they were questioned. 

If on the other hand, they gave the alibi when they were questioned, and the police check it out before the suspect has a chance to speak to their alibi witness, then it'll be a lot more believable.

This is why, in Canada and the U.S., an alibi defence has to be made before the case goes to trial, just so the prosecution can investigate it. This ensures that the defence is legit and not "cooked up".

[Zella]

3 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

But she is still on the job in her place of employment. No one should have to be endlessly hit on daily while at work.

Yes we are dealing with this at my job right now. Those guys can just fuck right off. Just because you are in their presence at work doesn't mean that is welcome attention, but they act like you're supposed to be a flattered captive audience. 

[Dr.OO7]

I caught the series finale of "The Fugitive" a few weeks ago and the realization that the Kimble's neighbor knew all along that he was innocent but didn't say anything because (a) He didn't want to admit to what a coward he was to stand there and do nothing while Helen Kimble was murdered, and (b) He wanted to avoid gossip about being over at their house, is infuriating.

You let an innocent man be tried, convicted, sentenced to death, and then go on the run for 4 years because protecting your reputation was more important? You PRICK. And then having the nerve to claim that it's his wife he was trying to shield. I'm glad she called him out on his bullshit.

[andromeda331]

15 hours ago, Dr.OO7 said:

I caught the series finale of "The Fugitive" a few weeks ago and the realization that the Kimble's neighbor knew all along that he was innocent but didn't say anything because (a) He didn't want to admit to what a coward he was to stand there and do nothing while Helen Kimble was murdered, and (b) He wanted to avoid gossip about being over at their house, is infuriating.

You let an innocent man be tried, convicted, sentenced to death, and then go on the run for 4 years because protecting your reputation was more important? You PRICK. And then having the nerve to claim that it's his wife he was trying to shield. I'm glad she called him out on his bullshit.

What? What a horrible asshole!

[Spartan Girl]

There was an episode of The Simpsons where Bart bullied Lisa to the point where she got a restraining order against him, and he was forced to live in the backyard. I really hated how the narrative was skewed against Lisa instead of anyone—by which I mean Marge—telling Bart flat-out that maybe he should apologize and stop being an asshole to Lisa. No, it was all “Lisa should just focus on the few times Bart did something nice for her, and just ignore how he spends 90% of the time making her life hell.”

Edited June 13, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[Blergh]

6 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

There was an episode of The Simpsons where Bart bullied Lisa to the point where she got a restraining order against him, and he was forced to live in the backyard. I really hated how the narrative was skewed against Lisa instead of anyone—by which I mean Marge—telling Bart flat-out that maybe he should apologize and stop being an asshole to Lisa. No, it was all “Lisa should just focus on the few times Bart did something nice for her, and just ignore how he spends 90% of the time making her life hell.”

Sounds like virtually the ENTIRE arc of Family Matters re how Laura (as per the studio audience) 'deserved' to be guilt tripped into getting 'worn down' by Urkel since he did a few tiny  niceties over the course of nine years instead of considering that he'd been a vandalizing stalker creep who projected his whims on Laura and her entire family and reveled in their discomfort over his actions!

[Spartan Girl]

51 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Sounds like virtually the ENTIRE arc of Family Matters re how Laura (as per the studio audience) 'deserved' to be guilt tripped into getting 'worn down' by Urkel since he did a few tiny  niceties over the course of nine years instead of considering that he'd been a vandalizing stalker creep who projected his whims on Laura and her entire family and reveled in their discomfort over his actions!

What irks me is that even some reviews thought Lisa was in the wrong that episode. Sure, maybe she went a tad too far, but everyone has a breaking point. And Bart honestly had no one to blame but himself; he made it worse by mouthing off to Judge Harmm, causing her to extend the restraining order further.

[Dr.OO7]

17 hours ago, Blergh said:

Sounds like virtually the ENTIRE arc of Family Matters re how Laura (as per the studio audience) 'deserved' to be guilt tripped into getting 'worn down' by Urkel since he did a few tiny  niceties over the course of nine years instead of considering that he'd been a vandalizing stalker creep who projected his whims on Laura and her entire family and reveled in their discomfort over his actions!

When you consider that many real life women have had to deal with being stalked for an extended period of time (as I've stated several times, my first #MeToo story is of being stalked for a year by an ex-boyfriend who wouldn't accept that I'd broken up with him), the idea that TV would portray a young woman dealing with this for nearly a DECADE as romantic instead of terrifying is sickening.

The "Elvin Pays For Dinner" episode of "The Cosby Show" is utterly enraging. An ex-girlfriend of Elvin's comes to town and the plan is for him and Sondra to have dinner with her. Sondra changes her mind because she's decided to work on her law school application. Elvin IMMEDIATELY declares that he'll cancel and stay home as well. Sondra proceeds to REPEATEDLY insist that Elvin go ahead and go out, over his own repeated insistence that he stay home with her until he finally agrees to go out. Sondra immediately looks upset and when Elvin comes home, screams her head off at him, locks him out of their bedroom and won't talk to him the next day. 

Why? Because Elvin wasn't psychic enough to realize that being REPEATEDLY told "Yes, it's okay if you go out" actually meant "No, I don't want you to go out".

It gets even worse the next day when she goes raging about it to her mother, who actually puts her in her place for not being honest with Elvin and expecting him to read her mind. Sondra realizes that she was wrong and actually gets up to go and apologize and Clair promptly negates everything she just said by telling her to sit down--"he was late, the women were attractive, and he paid for their dinner."

So at the end of the episode, Elvin is fawning all over Sondra to make up for the grievous offense of not being able to read her mind, and Sondra is just lapping it up with nary an apology for what SHE did wrong in not being honest and clear with him.

So the only lesson learned is that Elvin has to know that if Sondra says "Yes", she really means "No". Sondra doesn't have to learn to be honest and not play mind games with him. 

INFURIATING.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Dr.OO7

[Spartan Girl]

Wow. I haven't even watched The Cosby Show for obvious reasons, but that is infuriating. I fucking hate those sexist tropes that portray woman that way.

[Dr.OO7]

2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Wow. I haven't even watched The Cosby Show for obvious reasons, but that is infuriating. I fucking hate those sexist tropes that portray woman that way.

I hate sexist (against either gender) tropes period and the Double Standard TV Tropes page is stunning when you realize how many examples there are. The one I cited is an example of The Unfair Sex--if Elvin had acted like that, he'd be denounced as emotionally and potentially physically abusive, but Sondra doing it is humorous and acceptable.

[merylinkid]

Well Claire was still made at Cliff for once upon dating Eunice Chantilly.   To the point she would only say her name with gritted teeth.    You know, about her HUSBAND.   Like lady, he MARRIED you.   So clearly whatever he felt for Eunice doesn't really matter.   Why you are bringing it up 30 years and 5 kids later I have no clue.

[magicdog]

Another thing that Sondra did that annoyed me was not appreciating getting a break after the twins came along.

Remember the episode when Sondra was sick with a virus and Claire and Elvin's mother offered to take the twins off her hands.  There may have been some selfish reasons for that on the part of the grandmothers (wanting to play with them, etc.) but considering one parent is down with an illness and needs rest first and foremost, you'd think Sondra would be happy about it.  Instead somehow she gets it in her head that her mom and mother in law are undermining her parenting and she goes in to reclaim the babies - while still horribly ill!!! 

As for another classic, "Hell No!" moment from an ungrateful child, I give you the Quincy episode, "Last Day, First Day" (1980).  When an attorney dies in what is originally thought to be a car accident, some drug dealing thugs decide to rig his autopsy and decide to use one of their addicted clients (the son of a forensic pathologist and co-worker of Quincy's) to falsify the autopsy report.  The dead man was a small time dealer and the thugs wanted to get rid of him by injecting him  with enough cocaine  to kill and elephant and have his car go off the road.  Unfortunately for them the passenger is ejected and an autopsy is certain. If the son named Tony refuses they'll expose his forging his father's signatures on his prescription pad to get drugs.  Tony, agrees. 

He goes to his dad who reluctantly does what his son asks by getting a blood sample from a different body so they won't notice the amount of cocaine in it (which is too high in concentration for someone to have injected themselves with it without passing out mid injection).  Father is pissed that his son's drug abuse lead to this, but Tony assures him he won't do this again.  After a series of investigations, Quincy, et al figure out what the doctor did.  His reputation in tatters and jail a certainty,  Before the discovery, father sees Tony's drug stash in his room.  He asks why he's doing this when he promised he wouldn't do it again.  Tony snidely says,    "I told you I wouldn't get CAUGHT again."  Father appeals  to Tony's humanity and morality.  Tony doesn't care and thinks he's just fine. 

I was so pissed that Tony was so vile for such a young man.  His father literally sacrificed everything thinking he'd changed and maybe they'd be able to move forward.  I hope that little brat OD'd somewhere!

[Dr.OO7]

17 hours ago, magicdog said:

Another thing that Sondra did that annoyed me was not appreciating getting a break after the twins came along.

Remember the episode when Sondra was sick with a virus and Claire and Elvin's mother offered to take the twins off her hands.  There may have been some selfish reasons for that on the part of the grandmothers (wanting to play with them, etc.) but considering one parent is down with an illness and needs rest first and foremost, you'd think Sondra would be happy about it.  Instead somehow she gets it in her head that her mom and mother in law are undermining her parenting and she goes in to reclaim the babies - while still horribly ill!!! 

I hate that episode too. Sondra AGREED to let her mother and mother-in-law take the babies so that she could rest and not risk getting them sick. For her to let Elvin get her riled up to the point of outright acting as though they'd literally kidnapped them was completely out of line and ridiculously overdone. Not mention screaming her head off at her father and brother, who had nothing to do with it.

Another "Cosby Show" moment:

Rudy comes to her parents with what is actually a very mature and well spoken argument about why she feels that some of their rules are unfair, like her her early bedtime. So Cliff and Clair tell her she can stay up as late as she wants. Of course, she does, and the next day, Cliff is all smug and satisfied when her teacher reports that she was cranky and tired in class. He later plans that they're going to stay up late again to watch TV and is even more pleased when she falls asleep. The overall message is a very patronizing "Your parents are always right and you should never question or challenge them.", not "Don't deliberately set your kid (or anyone, for that matter) up to fail." There's no reason they couldn't have simply extended her bedtime by a half hour with a warning that it was going back to the original time if she couldn't handle it.

[legaleagle53]

14 hours ago, Dr.OO7 said:

I hate that episode too. Sondra AGREED to let her mother and mother-in-law take the babies so that she could rest and not risk getting them sick. For her to let Elvin get her riled up to the point of outright acting as though they'd literally kidnapped them was completely out of line and ridiculously overdone. Not mention screaming her head off at her father and brother, who had nothing to do with it.

Another "Cosby Show" moment:

Rudy comes to her parents with what is actually a very mature and well spoken argument about why she feels that some of their rules are unfair, like her her early bedtime. So Cliff and Clair tell her she can stay up as late as she wants. Of course, she does, and the next day, Cliff is all smug and satisfied when her teacher reports that she was cranky and tired in class. He later plans that they're going to stay up late again to watch TV and is even more pleased when she falls asleep. The overall message is a very patronizing "Your parents are always right and you should never question or challenge them.", not "Don't deliberately set your kid (or anyone, for that matter) up to fail." There's no reason they couldn't have simply extended her bedtime by a half hour with a warning that it was going back to the original time if she couldn't handle it.

I'd say that it was more a matter of teaching Rudy that "actions have consequences." Or, as Benjamin Franklin once put it, "Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other."

[Spartan Girl]

On 6/15/2022 at 7:46 AM, merylinkid said:

Well Claire was still made at Cliff for once upon dating Eunice Chantilly.   To the point she would only say her name with gritted teeth.    You know, about her HUSBAND.   Like lady, he MARRIED you.   So clearly whatever he felt for Eunice doesn't really matter.   Why you are bringing it up 30 years and 5 kids later I have no clue.

Starting to have flashback of the Boy Meets World Lauren debacle. And fine, Cory should have told Topanga about the kids and the letter, blah blah blah…but when Lauren came to visit, Topanga ENCOURAGED him to go on a date with her to see how he felt, but afterward had the nerve to get all upset that the experience made it clearer to him that whatever attraction he felt didn’t compare to he felt about Topanga. And she took that as an unforgivable blow to her ego because she moved back to be with him, and dumped him anyway.

You know what, Pangers?! NOBODY IS PERFECT. Even the strongest relationships have moments of doubt. And moving away from your parents was YOUR choice, so don’t use that to play the victim.

And it was even more hypocritical when she went through THE EXACT SAME EXPERIENCE kissing that art guy she went on a date with and using that to test the fact that she still loved Cory. Granted, she owned up to as much, which was why she was finally able to forgive him, but the fact that the whole thing was STILL a sore spot in Girl Meets World  was infuriating.

[Ambrosefolly]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Starting to have flashback of the Boy Meets World Lauren debacle. And fine, Cory should have told Topanga about the kids and the letter, blah blah blah…but when Lauren came to visit, Topanga ENCOURAGED him to go on a date with her to see how he felt, but afterward had the nerve to get all upset that the experience made it clearer to him that whatever attraction he felt didn’t compare to he felt about Topanga. And she took that as an unforgivable blow to her ego because she moved back to be with him, and dumped him anyway.

You know what, Pangers?! NOBODY IS PERFECT. Even the strongest relationships have moments of doubt. And moving away from your parents was YOUR choice, so don’t use that to play the victim.

And it was even more hypocritical when she went through THE EXACT SAME EXPERIENCE kissing that art guy she went on a date with and using that to test the fact that she still loved Cory. Granted, she owned up to as much, which was why she was finally able to forgive him, but the fact that the whole thing was STILL a sore spot in Girl Meets World  was infuriating.

The crazy part even if the show didn't recon their relationship to them dating since they were 5, those two had been dating the since they started puberty, with maybe a couple of dates with other people before they made the relationship official at 14. So maybe being  hormonal teenagers, they would doubt their relationship if they came across someone else they are compatible with, even if they were in love. It became really frustrating when they projected their issues onto Shawn's love life. 

[Blergh]

On 6/17/2022 at 7:28 AM, Spartan Girl said:

Starting to have flashback of the Boy Meets World Lauren debacle. And fine, Cory should have told Topanga about the kids and the letter, blah blah blah…but when Lauren came to visit, Topanga ENCOURAGED him to go on a date with her to see how he felt, but afterward had the nerve to get all upset that the experience made it clearer to him that whatever attraction he felt didn’t compare to he felt about Topanga. And she took that as an unforgivable blow to her ego because she moved back to be with him, and dumped him anyway.

You know what, Pangers?! NOBODY IS PERFECT. Even the strongest relationships have moments of doubt. And moving away from your parents was YOUR choice, so don’t use that to play the victim.

And it was even more hypocritical when she went through THE EXACT SAME EXPERIENCE kissing that art guy she went on a date with and using that to test the fact that she still loved Cory. Granted, she owned up to as much, which was why she was finally able to forgive him, but the fact that the whole thing was STILL a sore spot in Girl Meets World  was infuriating.

Oh, I agree! Not just  ' a sore spot' but a constant excuse for Topanga to throw a tantrum  in front of everyone and berate Cory for that teen flirtation despite Cory (for all his faults) having been a faithful husband and dedicated father for their entire marriage in(and he somehow keeps his mouth shut about her 'art guy') . Yes, since Topanga had supposedly forgiven Cory and  afterwards decided to reconsile then steadily date, then get engaged then marry him despite what had happen, Girl Meets World COULD have used the Lauren/art guy flirtations to emphasize how, despite those missteps, they ultimately were able to use the lessons learned to build a stronger bond despite having made said missteps! But, NO! Instead they just used it for cheep laffs and to show how spiteful and petty Topanga had become- while  continually touting Cory and Topanga as the supposed ideal couple! 

BTW, one of those Lauren tantrums happened in that infuriating 'Girl Meets Pluto' episode in which they wound up trespassing and vandalizing Mr. Feeny's garden before the so-called adults stood by and let the teens snottily bully Mr. Feeny via  them doing their lame version of The Feeny Call including meowing and waving their hands in his face (!?!) to this old man in who literally had done NOTHING to the teens but had been their victim. OK, the WHOLE episode Topanaga epitomized someone who seemed to value hearing themselves complain over everything else. How so? Well, when Cory first proposed for the group instantly taking a road trip from NYC to their hometown of Philly just to dig up Mr. Feeny's garden to seek out the high school time capsule, Topanga whines about not liking digging. However, not only does she not flatly refuse to participate in Cory's whim but she also doesn't forbid their daughter Riley from joining in which, as a parent she could (and SHOULD) have)! And despite being a supposedly brilliant lawyer fails to mention much less consider attempting notifying Mr. Feeny of the intended dig (or ask permission) before the deed's done due to  tresspassing and vandalizing being actual crimes. ALL she does is whine about how she herself hates digging then blames that for getting blisters due to not wearing proper footwear. Well, Topanga, if you disliked digging, you could have stayed home or even just stayed in the car during the dig instead of participating in  the deed AND you had roughly an hour's notice from the time Cory first told you of his   notion back in your apartment until the roadtrip started. Thus,   to run back to your bedroom and change out those professional  pumps for hiking boots   would have taken no more than five minutes from the living room or even your own cafe downstairs. . And, despite Mr. Feeny having been a personal mentor and advocate for you for seven years  and, in your own words in the final BMW episode, 'more of a father to [you] then [your]own father', you do nothing to attempt to stop your husband, friend, daughter, daughter's friend and yourself from desecrating years of his hard work and actually SMILE instead of attempting to stop or even apologize at your the teens' rudeness to this old person whom you supposedly esteem after the vandalism- or for that matter attempt even the slightest apology for the any of the above EVER. I'm not one to wish injury or physical mishaps to others but it virtually seems as though she deliberately wore shoes she knew would blister her feet just to be able to complain about them AND it somewhat seems as though the blisters somewhat served her right for her by no means helpless  role in all this which she refused to  apologize for or even acknowledge while trying to play victim! ARGHH!!

Edited June 18, 2022 by Blergh

[Cloud9Shopper]

The way Abby’s alcoholic relapse was handled in S14 of ER never sits well with me. Luka is away dealing with a sick family member and when her son gets a head injury, her rationale is to go home and get drunk and totally not watch her crying kid or get any help with him. And Luka even calls her out later on endangering their son but he still takes her back and agrees to run away with her to a new city and give some corny speech about a rowboat and how they’ll be OK? If someone endangers your child you should be getting out of there with the kid as fast as you can! Filing for temporary custody while Abby gets her life together. Something. The kid should have been taken out of her care, and shame on Luka. 

That’s not to mention she shows up for work drunk at least once and when she comes back to work, everyone just falls at her feet and hugs her. She loses no trust with her coworkers and no friendships, and even her AA sponsor who’s also a doctor blows it off as a whoops, well we all tell lies, and Abby you’re just so honest with yourself! No one is concerned she was drunk while working with patients? And the one staff member who did speak up is widely shamed. I’m no addiction expert but it seems like burned bridges and shaky trust are a part of an addict’s life, even when they do get sober.

I guess my gripe is I would have found the arc more realistic if there were actual consequences for Abby like Carter had several years earlier. Have a patient sue her for malpractice and make her deal with the fallout of committing malpractice while drunk. Maybe in her job search she could mention how a hospital turned her down because of her recent relapse and not wanting to take a chance on that. Have her lose a friend or two and make her deal with a burned bridge, or have Luka file for divorce or take the kid completely away from her. Don’t just make it so everyone completely takes her back no questions asked and she lived happily ever after. It makes me doubt she stayed sober and will do this again because everyone in her life and her employer condones it. If she had suffered a little and then gotten her life on track after some burned bridges and failed job opportunities I’d have so much more respect for her. 

[Spartan Girl]

The Crown: David’s justification for his Nazi sympathizing was nothing short of nauseating. Especially this little gem: “People forget, there was no indication of who Hitler would become. You could argue that we were the ones that made a monster of him, by refusing to be his allies.”

[Zella]

57 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

The Crown: David’s justification for his Nazi sympathizing was nothing short of nauseating. Especially this little gem: “People forget, there was no indication of who Hitler would become. You could argue that we were the ones that made a monster of him, by refusing to be his allies.”

I rewatched that episode the other day (it is my favorite standalone episode of the show) and nearly rolled my eyes back into my head when he started that shit. That wham moment at the end when the show cuts to the pictures of him and Wallis hanging out with Hitler (demonstrating that the show was not exaggerating for dramatic effect) still gives gives me the creeps. I can't even imagine what WWII would have looked like with him on the throne instead of his brother. 

[merylinkid]

21 hours ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

is I would have found the arc more realistic if there were actual consequences for Abby like Carter had several years earlier.

Yeah Carter had to go to rehab or lose his job.   When he relapsed, it was a big deal.   Plus it was mentioned periodically how he was dealing with it.

But you know, Abby became the center of the show.   If she faced consequences, well there goes the show, right?    Except what really frosted lots of viewers was how EVERYTHING became about her.   Making her the center of the show was a big mistake.  

[Cloud9Shopper]

39 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Yeah Carter had to go to rehab or lose his job.   When he relapsed, it was a big deal.   Plus it was mentioned periodically how he was dealing with it.

But you know, Abby became the center of the show.   If she faced consequences, well there goes the show, right?    Except what really frosted lots of viewers was how EVERYTHING became about her.   Making her the center of the show was a big mistake.  

Hi, are you me under an alternate identity? 😂I’ve written the exact thing more than once. Maybe I should make sure I didn’t change my username or sign up under a different email overnight. OK, I kid.

I discuss ER in some other spaces too and the worship most fans have for Abby is almost cult-like and weird. She’s smarter than all the attendings and department heads. She’s mother of the year even though she was willing to further endanger to demand the birth plan she wanted and abandoned him to go on a bender. Hell she couldn’t even keep her wacky family antics out of Carter’s Gamma’s funeral. Sorry Carter, you have no right to even peacefully bury Gamma cause here comes Abby’s crazy brother! And the way her problems are always Carter’s, Luka‘s, Sam’s or her family’s fault…never her own. She is never held responsible for anything. 

I understand that by S14 the show was on the way out and the quality of the original cast era was long gone and barely anyone was watching, but you’re right. I watched some episodes recently even before her crazy family arrived and even then they made it clear how she was always right and knew everything even when she walked away from a patient in OB who needed her (and of course Janet was portrayed such a bitch OMG for coming down on her and expecting her to stay on her unit) and went over Kerry’s head to do something even though she was so convinced she was right.